Picking up Pathfinder

[danzibr]

Yes, I think it's finally going to happen.

I've played 3.0/3.5 since ~2003. Just yesterday I was looking at the PF SRD and saw some really nice looking stuff, like Aegis and their version of ToB.

Now, I don't plan on switching to PF, only picking it up, and by that I mean using both 3.5 and PF. So as a total novice to PF, here's my question to the playground. Which of the following do you suggest?

Using 3.5 as a base with 3.5 or PF content (whichever is more beneficial to the player, barring broken stuff).
Using PF as a base with 3.5 of PF content (whichever is more beneficial to the player, barring broken stuff).

Essentially I want to (and want to let my players) use 3.5 or PF at their discretion; hey, the more content the merrier. Because I know 3.5 better I'm tempted to say the former, but from what I've read (like the 3.5/PF handbook), it seems PF is a better base.

I guess option 3 would be to not mix the two, silly me.

[Elricaltovilla]

I would recommend using PF as a base, the consolidated skill system and extra feats are nice to have for building characters, especially with the huge number of feats available from using both sources. Plus most of the classes got a bit of a buff in the transition from 3.5 to PF, and its nice to have class features to look forward to.

I'm not familiar with Aegis, the only Tome of Battle port I know of is the Path of War (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war) by Dreamscarred Press, which you should definitely check out if you like Tome of Battle. They also have a really nice Psionics (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed) port, and are going to release an Incarnum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?349964-Dreamscarred-Press-Introduces-Akashic-Mysteries) port soon too.

[Vhaidara]

I recommend using PF as the base. The skill system doesn't mix back very nicely, and I personally prefer the PF one.

Path of War brought much more interesting initiators to the table (having features beyond the maneuvers.

For more stuff (currently in playtest), we have Truenaming (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?380602-Dreamscarred-Press-Tzocatl-The-First-Language-Open-Playtest), Incarnum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?349964-Dreamscarred-Press-Introduces-Akashic-Mysteries), more ToB (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373269-Dreamscarred-Press-Announces-Path-of-War-Expanded), and Vampires (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?388553-Dreamscarred-Press-Announces-Lords-of-the-Night-Playtest). Also, Binder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/radiance-house/occultist).

EDIT: Elric, I think he meant the Aegis class and the PF ToB port (which is PoW). I think he was on the d20PFSRD

[Elricaltovilla]

EDIT: Elric, I think he meant the Aegis class and the PF ToB port (which is PoW). I think he was on the d20PFSRD

That is some wonky grammar then... Oh well, my bad.

[Greenish]

I'd say use 3.5 as the base (better feats, more useful combat maneuvers, less stupid magic item restrictions), and just nick PF's skill system. The favoured class thing is okay, though some of the racial options are just silly.

[Vhaidara]

That is some wonky grammar then... Oh well, my bad.

Mostly just leaving out "the" before "Aegis". "Their" was referencing PF.

But yeah, danz, DSP makes PF worth considering a complete transition. Ssalarn (the guy doing the Incarnum port) has confirmed that he is working on a port for Shadow Magic as well, so in about a year or two at tops (depending on how much other stuff he gets caught up with) every 3.5 subsystem will have been ported to PF.

[Elricaltovilla]

I'd say use 3.5 as the base (better feats, more useful combat maneuvers, less stupid magic item restrictions), and just nick PF's skill system. The favoured class thing is okay, though some of the racial options are just silly.

PF is less restrictive in magic items. For one thing, crafting doesn't cost XP, and there are feats (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final) that allow you to craft without being a caster.

Pathfinder also gives more feats total over the course of your career, and actual class features for classes that would otherwise have entire columns of blank spaces.

PF's skill system I guess we agree on, but even if you ignore PF's racial options for favored classes, it's miles ahead of whatever 3.5 thought they were doing.

I also like the way PF did races a lot more, since they actually have useable stats (Half-Orcs!) and worthwhile racial traits without slapping unnecessary LA on them.

[Almarck]

It would probably be easier to use Pathfinder as the base as Pathfinder adds so many fixes and changes that it's not always the same game.

For instance, I keep hearing archery in 3.5 was hard to pull of, whereas archery in Pathfinder is really strong.

Compare Manyshot in both versions:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Manyshot

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/manyshot-combat---final

The difference is subtle, but it's there.

Power Attack has been reworked entirely, your mileage varies on whether you think the PF version is better or worse. I think the PF version is better because it's more consistent since it's a choice of "do you choose to power attack or not" rather than "subtract X to add X to damage where X cannot exceed BAB". It's certainly more efficient, but again, your mileage varies.

There's also power attack options for Dexbuilds and Ranged combat.

Edit: also, races are considerably better. You can customize your races legally and the core races feature alternate racials which can be swapped out with instructions in the listing. That's real minmax potential there.

[Psyren]

I prefer PF as the base for a lot of reasons - consolidated skills, better races, more feats, rebalanced core spells, mundanes can craft magic items, single-classing encouraged, better affliction and condition rules, I could go on. Just be wary that CMB/CMD requires optimization in order to work, and that if you really want to help mundanes out, you should probably consolidate the Improved and Greater versions of every maneuver feat.

[Greenish]

PF is less restrictive in magic items. For one thing, crafting doesn't cost XP, and there are feats (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final) that allow you to craft without being a caster.Maybe less restrictive on creation, but more restrictive on body slots. 3.5 has the wonderful affinity rules and allows adding the basic "keep up with RNG" options to actually interesting items without a markup in price.


[Edit]: Not having multiclassing penalties counts in PF's favour. The favoured class bonuses are all over the place, though, from granting the fighter +1/3 to Disarm per level to granting the sorcerer +1 spell known per level. That's just… bad.

[Almarck]

Yeah, I was just about to say. Magic item slots are probably a downside.

Magic Item slots for Belt and Headband items is slightly more restrictive than before. They consolidate the Str, Dex, and Con boosting items into Belts and Int, Wis, and Cha for the headbands. This has two main drawbacks: in order to boost two or three attributes of the same type you have to pay an increased price to get Headbands or Belts of Superiority which is a net increase of cost. It's a downside particularly to straight martial characters or casters that need more than one mental attribute to use their powers to their fullest.

I believe the intention was to allow players more flexibility in their item slots later on as the increased price isn't really an issue once you can afford things, but it can be crippling at the early to mid levels.

On the otherhand, this means Cha based casters don't need to ask for their DMs for a way to not have to make a custom item to replace "Cloak of Resistence" when they have a maxed out "Cloak of Charisma" already, so it's not totally bad.

Also, it avoids the confusion of how getting boots increases your ability to increase your archery skills.

So, PF's item system is a mixed blessing on what it can do compared to 3.5. Stat boosting items are arguably more streamlined meaning more net flexibility on using slots that otherwise would have been taken up by other mandatory items.

[Vhaidara]

I houserule magic items slots almost into oblivion anyways, so I don't even consider that an issue in either system.


[Edit]: Not having multiclassing penalties counts in PF's favour. The favoured class bonuses are all over the place, though, from granting the fighter +1/3 to Disarm per level to granting the sorcerer +1 spell known per level. That's just… bad.

Well, remember that everyone has the option of +1 HP or +1 Skill Point.

[danzibr]

Thanks for the responses! That's enlightening.

Also, as for my wonky grammar, the only way I could see confusion is if Aegis were plural. Still, I see where there could be confusion.

And I do remember taking a pretty thorough look at their redo of Incarnum. I'm not a huge fan of the names, but mechanically it's really exciting. Totemist is my favorite class, after all.

Perhaps more exciting, it's all on the PF SRD (or well, I think it is... dunno much about PF).

[Greenish]

On the otherhand, this means Cha based casters don't need to ask for their DMs for a way to not have to make a custom item to replace "Cloak of Resistence" when they have a maxed out "Cloak of Charisma" already, so it's not totally bad.On the grabbing hand, you can add charisma bonus and saves bonus to your awesome cloak of paragliding without paying extra in 3.5.


Also, it avoids the confusion of how getting boots increases your ability to increase your archery skills.Because belt makes so much more sense? :smallconfused:


Stat boosting items are arguably more streamlined meaning more net flexibility on using slots that otherwise would have been taken up by other mandatory items.I'd say it's the exact opposite, where in 3.5 you can get your stat boosts without paying a premium to also get interesting options.


[Edit]:
Well, remember that everyone has the option of +1 HP or +1 Skill Point.Doesn't really affect the fact that the racial bonuses are all over the place.

[Almarck]

It's a mixed blessing I said. Personally, I like the Homebrew system Crossroads uses to remove important statups and just having all of the slots be used for items outside of that.

Personally, I think the magic item system is less conflict inducing for pathfinder. For example, invisibility cloak versus cha boosting cloak on a sneaky spellcasting roguish character. Or swordsmanship boosting gloves over the ogre gauntlets on a swordsman.

The belt thing actually does make more sense in my opinion. It's relative the center of the body, allowing it distribute its power evenly. If it was the feet, how it affects the hands is a little befuddling.

I will concede that the favored class bonuses are all over the place, but that's probably intentional.


Thanks for the responses! That's enlightening.

Also, as for my wonky grammar, the only way I could see confusion is if Aegis were plural. Still, I see where there could be confusion.

And I do remember taking a pretty thorough look at their redo of Incarnum. I'm not a huge fan of the names, but mechanically it's really exciting. Totemist is my favorite class, after all.

Perhaps more exciting, it's all on the PF SRD (or well, I think it is... dunno much about PF).

The Plural for Aegis is Aegii I believe.

PFSRD has pretty much everything except for all of the setting specific materials and anything currently in development.

It also possesses a load of 3rd party materials, which is what PoW, Psionics, and Akshic Mysteries are, very good third party materials that many people just auto-include.

[Greenish]

Personally, I think the magic item system is less conflict inducing for pathfinder. For example, invisibility cloak versus cha boosting cloak on a sneaky spellcasting roguish character. Or swordsmanship boosting gloves over the ogre gauntlets on a swordsman.I don't understand what you're trying to say. PF just moves the conflict to a different slot, while 3.5 allows you to have both.


The belt thing actually does make more sense in my opinion. It's relative the center of the body, allowing it distribute its power evenly. If it was the feet, how it affects the hands is a little befuddling.Ah well, I don't see the difference personally. Magic boots that make you more agile don't seem any different from magic belt that makes you more agile.

[Thatwarforged]

If the issue is magic items that 1.5 for a different slot is easy enough to homebrew into the game (Btw I was just reading the Pathfinder Conversion and it specifically has this rule in it not for conversion but its already in the game maybe hidden somewhere in the Core rulebook). As overall I personally agree with everyone else pathfinder makes a better base and just port over the feats and things you liked in 3.5 and pathfinder has a conversion guide to do it to, not sure how good it is though (It talks about what pathfinder wanted to do and the way to make sure they don't creep into your game).

[Fishyninja]

Well a lot of my friends have been tabletopping for ages. I however have only just dipped my toe into the water.

I have just created my character and am awaiting my first game.
Now from what I have seen of PF and the expansions it does seem to be a really well rounded game and I can't wait to get started.

[BWR]

I am a fan of PF so I'd suggest using it as the base and port over whatever 3.x you want. About the only change in PF from 3.5 I dislike is how they reduced a lot of SoD effects to mere damage (and rather piddling damage in some cases).

[Greenish]

If the issue is magic items that 1.5 for a different slot is easy enough to homebrew into the game (Btw I was just reading the Pathfinder Conversion and it specifically has this rule in it not for conversion but its already in the game maybe hidden somewhere in the Core rulebook).The issue is I'm a cheapskate who doesn't want to pay the +0.5 extra. :smalltongue:

[Thatwarforged]

The issue is I'm a cheapskate who doesn't want to pay the +0.5 extra. :smalltongue:
Umm are you sure about that the affinities are a little small to.


Wondrous Items that don't match the affinity for a particular body slot should cost 50% more than wondrous items that match the affinity

[Snowbluff]

Use 3.5 as the base. The PF commodities are pretty much terrible. Playing with flaws got us the same number of feats anyway. The skills system is a wash. THe only really good, system wide thing that's an improvement is the favored class bonus (a rule that never mattered in 3.5). EDIT: I mean the class ones, +1 skill point or HP can go die in a hole.

I do suggest using the DPS PoW. It's pretty sweet.

[Greenish]

Well, that's not a problem since most stat boosters etc. have affinity with 2-3 slots and can be combined with other items in those slots without a markup in the price.

[Psyren]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. PF just moves the conflict to a different slot, while 3.5 allows you to have both.

But there are only two stat-boosting slots as opposed to 6. Ergo there is still conflict, yes, but less of it.

In addition to that, PF added two new slots that 3.5 didn't have.

[Greenish]

But there are only two stat-boosting slots as opposed to 6. Ergo there is still conflict, yes, but less of it.Except there's no conflict in 3.5, which is what I've been trying to explain for too long, but apparently I'm not getting through so never mind.

[Psyren]

Except there's no conflict in 3.5, which is what I've been trying to explain for too long, but apparently I'm not getting through so never mind.

There is, and you were even given specific and common examples (e.g. Cloak of Charisma vs. Cloak of Resistance.) You can get around this by combining the items, but that solution applies to PF as well.

[Greenish]

There is, and you were even given specific and common examples (e.g. Cloak of Charisma vs. Cloak of Resistance.) You can get around this by combining the items, but that solution applies to PF as well.Except combining the two items costs more money in PF. In 3.5, having a Cloak of +2 Charisma and Resistance +2 costs the same as having a Cloak of Charisma +2 and a Cloak of Resistance +2. Or you could have a Diadem of +2 Charisma (head slot) and Vest of Resistance +2 (torso slot).

[Vhaidara]

Except combining the two items costs more money in PF.

Easiest. Houserule. Ever.


In 3.5, having a Cloak of +2 Charisma and Resistance +2 costs the same as having a Cloak of Charisma +2 and a Cloak of Resistance +2. Or you could have a Diadem of +2 Charisma (head slot) and Vest of Resistance +2 (torso slot).

And why can't you have those in PF?

[Greenish]

Of course you can houserule things however you want.

[Seerow]

Of course you can houserule things however you want.

Yeah basically this. Personally I use 3.5 as the base because I already know 3.5 well. It's easier to pull in PF material on a case by case basis, and backwards translate anything like class skills not matching up or CMD/CMB references, than it is to be worried every time I want to resolve a basic action I might be doing it wrong because Pathfinder changed some minor wording that I just glaze over without noticing that completely reverses how it works. I'd rather stick with what I know.

[Psyren]

Except combining the two items costs more money in PF. In 3.5, having a Cloak of +2 Charisma and Resistance +2 costs the same as having a Cloak of Charisma +2 and a Cloak of Resistance +2. Or you could have a Diadem of +2 Charisma (head slot) and Vest of Resistance +2 (torso slot).

"If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#addingNewAbilities) Both the items you listed take up a specific slot so you would get hit with the markup.

And aren't those last two (dismissively) "houserules" as well?

[Seerow]

"If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#addingNewAbilities) Both the items you listed take up a specific slot so you would get hit with the markup.


Magic Item Compendium provided an update that makes it so any common items (which covers basically everything that is +X to a stat, AC, or saves) do not cost 50% extra to add on to an item, which is what is being referred to.

[Greenish]

"If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#addingNewAbilities) Both the items you listed take up a specific slot so you would get hit with the markup.Except not, thanks to MIC's Adding Common Effects rules, which allow you to combine the basic stuff you need to keep up with RNG with other magic items without the markup.

I don't mean to be dismissive towards houserules, I'm just saying that "you can houserule it" is not an argument.

[Edit]: It also lists the body slot affinities of said "common item effects". Charisma can be put to shoulder or head slot, and resistance bonus to saves can be on shoulder or torso slot.

[Coidzor]

PF as the base is superior, except for where it's a clear downgrade from 3.5. So don't downgrade from 3.5 where PF would indicate for you to do so.

The approach to racial ability score bonuses and penalties, for instance, is much preferable to how 3.5 did it, and one of the areas where they clearly took the lessons of 3.5 to heart.

The approach to the Improved X line of combat feats, on the other hand, is clearly one where they did not learn the lesson of the Fighter class and decided they had to counteract the expanded number of feats they gave.

[Psyren]

Except not, thanks to MIC's Adding Common Effects rules, which allow you to combine the basic stuff you need to keep up with RNG with other magic items without the markup.

That isn't core though - if I don't have MiC I'm out of luck. But even if you allow MiC as fair game, then it's fair game for me to add Ultimate Campaign and say that crafting characters can exceed WBL by 25%-50%, removing the markup entirely. And body slot affinities are a thing in PF too.

So either way, it's a wash.

[Seerow]

That isn't core though - if I don't have MiC I'm out of luck. But even if you allow MiC as fair game, then it's fair game for me to add Ultimate Campaign and say that crafting characters can exceed WBL by 25%-50%, removing the markup entirely. And body slot affinities are a thing in PF too.

So either way, it's a wash.

Wow look at those goal posts fly!

Seriously, who said anything about core only? Since when is using a rule in a splat book the same as a houserule?

[Coidzor]

It's a mixed blessing I said. Personally, I like the Homebrew system Crossroads uses to remove important statups and just having all of the slots be used for items outside of that.

What's this Crossroads homebrew system, now?


There is, and you were even given specific and common examples (e.g. Cloak of Charisma vs. Cloak of Resistance.) You can get around this by combining the items, but that solution applies to PF as well.

Why does everyone forget about the Magic Item Compendium? :smallconfused: It's only one of the 3 most beloved splatbooks of 3.5 if not 3.5 books period.

Clearly take PF's base and apply the MIC on top of it, resolving in favor of whatever's better (generally MIC from what I've seen) if there's a conflict.


That isn't core though - if I don't have MiC I'm out of luck. But even if you allow MiC as fair game, then it's fair game for me to add Ultimate Campaign and say that crafting characters can exceed WBL by 25%-50%, removing the markup entirely. And body slot affinities are a thing in PF too.

So either way, it's a wash.

Of course the MIC is fair game if Danzibr has reasonable access to it. :smalltongue: Otherwise you're saying that he can't use something easily compatible with PF.

The fun comes in combining both systems and having more body slot affinities and being able to freely stack fundamental item properties on other items while also being 25-50% above WBL by RAW. :smallamused:

[Greenish]

Having all the rules in the SRD is a point in PF's favour, granted, but hardly relevant to the discussion on items. I also don't think allowing crafters to multiply their WBL is an advantage the same way allowing people to have their stat boosters easier is.

By the way, where are PF's body slot affinities listed? I tried to look them up to compare but my casual search failed.

[Psyren]

Wow look at those goal posts fly!

Seriously, who said anything about core only? Since when is using a rule in a splat book the same as a houserule?

So he can use splats to say 3.5 does X better while throwing out the splats in PF? Disingenuous much? :smallconfused:

[Greenish]

What PF splats am I throwing out now?

[Coidzor]

Having all the rules in the SRD is a point in PF's favour, granted, but hardly relevant to the discussion on items. I also don't think allowing crafters to multiply their WBL is an advantage the same way allowing people to have their stat boosters easier is.

By the way, where are PF's body slot affinities listed? I tried to look them up to compare but my casual search failed.

I, too, would like to know, as poking around the PFSRD and PRD has yet to reveal this to me, but I see this repeated a fair bit, so I'd like to know what these two extra slots and their affinities are.

[Almarck]

Crossroads is in the homebrew section, specifically worldbuilding. It's an alternate setting than the norm, specifically lower magic items than normal. As a result the settings rules has a system to replace "required" magic items with "inherent" bonuses in order to preserve the important bonuses and reducing required magic items. It's an interesting system because using it ditches the magic items that everyone needs and frees up those slots, but again, it only works because the setting is required to do that. (To give you an idea, Comprehend Languages and Tongues are listed as banned spells as well as any method of easy travel, including Overland Flight.)


I wonder if there's a similar rule for Pathfinder to removing markup costs for magic items lacking the right "affinity" slots.


And I still haven't heard of a counter to the "cloak" or "glove" dilemma I posted about without having to resort to custom items. Part of the problem with custom items is that we end up with a situation where different classes would just put in the effects of an item that they want into a slot that they otherwise would have a conflict in into a slot that the wouldn't care about in all otherwise. While great for one person, not every class values the same slots the same way.

It's not a perfect system, but having headbands and belts being universal does reduce the need to have to make custom items for many. If we restrict custom items, it's painful, but not going to break someone in half.

Edit: I just realized, does Pathfinder have a markup cost?

[Greenish]

Part of the problem with custom items is that we end up with a situation where different classes would just put in the effects of an item that they want into a slot that they otherwise would have a conflict in into a slot that the wouldn't care about in all otherwise.Please elaborate. How is this a problem?

Also, gotta check out that Crossroads, if I could just get rid of plain stat boosters that'd be great.

[Coidzor]

Crossroads is in the homebrew section, specifically worldbuilding. It's an alternate setting than the norm, specifically lower magic items than normal. As a result the settings rules has a system to replace "required" magic items with "inherent" bonuses in order to preserve the important bonuses and reducing required magic items. It's an interesting system because using it ditches the magic items that everyone needs and frees up those slots, but again, it only works because the setting is required to do that. (To give you an idea, Comprehend Languages and Tongues are listed as banned spells as well as any method of easy travel, including Overland Flight.)

Ah, thank you.


I wonder if there's a similar rule for Pathfinder to removing markup costs for magic items lacking the right "affinity" slots.

Not sure what you're asking here, exactly, since this seems in reponse to what you said about Crossroads removing magic items wholesale. :smallconfused: It'd be relatively easy to make such a houserule, though, just as it'd be relatively simple to get rid of bodyslot affinities for the vast majority of items and say they just need to be in some body slot or another, otherwise they have to pay the extra cost of being slotless.


And I still haven't heard of a counter to the "cloak" or "glove" dilemma I posted about without having to resort to custom items. Part of the problem with custom items is that we end up with a situation where different classes would just put in the effects of an item that they want into a slot that they otherwise would have a conflict in into a slot that the wouldn't care about in all otherwise. While great for one person, not every class values the same slots the same way.

It's not a perfect system, but having headbands and belts being universal does reduce the need to have to make custom items for many. If we restrict custom items, it's painful, but not going to break someone in half.

Once you're thinking about that though, you also have to address the question of whether moving a property from one body slot to another is really enough to consider something a custom item or if it should instead just be part of the base magic item system, because you're standing on top of the rabbit hole of houseruling and homebrewery if not already having one foot inside.

[Almarck]

Not to derail the topic too much, but I think the Crossroads setting is probably worth looking at as a good reason to play pathfinder. It uses Pathfinder as a base, and the magic item replacement system is something that could resolve the dispute we have over which magic item system is superior.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?345327-Crossroads-II-I-m-on-a-Mammoth

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?351238-Character-Points-Crossroads-Gear-Reduction-System

[Coidzor]

Not to derail the topic too much, but I think the Crossroads setting is probably worth looking at as a good reason to play pathfinder. It uses Pathfinder as a base, and the magic item replacement system is something that could resolve the dispute we have over which magic item system is superior.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?345327-Crossroads-II-I-m-on-a-Mammoth

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?351238-Character-Points-Crossroads-Gear-Reduction-System

Is that over playing 3.P? If so, why?


Please elaborate. How is this a problem?

I'm a bit lost there myself. The fact that proper casters only have 2-3 ability scores they care about (Con, Dex, Casting Stat) seems like throwing MAD characters a bone wouldn't really affect the most powerful classes anyway. Maybe I missed the competition between raising Constitution and Dexterity or one's casting stat? :smallconfused:


Also, gotta check out that Crossroads, if I could just get rid of plain stat boosters that'd be great.

Grod has some ideas (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?357810-Chopping-Down-the-Christmas-Tree-Low-Magic-Item-Rules) about getting rid of vanilla stat boosters as well, but you might've seen 'em already. I'm more of a fan of the base chassis than of the special feats, though, as I like magic items that do things, but am not much of a fan of the magic items that just make numbers more numeric.

[Almarck]

Is that over playing 3.P? If so, why?


... The fact we're having a debate over the nature and slotting of magic items? And I brought it up as a way to "cut the knot" since we all clearly have different ideas of what magic item systems are better? But to avoid having losing track, I'll refrain from bringing it up again unless the OP wishes.

Edit: Compare it to playing 3.5, 4e, or 5e for Eberron or Forgotten Realms.



Anyways, I don't think any of us will convince the other side the other is wrong. We both have our preferences and honestly, that's kind of the reason so many different tabletop games exist (including different editions), they're not perfect. So, perhaps to make ourselves more useful to the OP's purposes, we should ask what he's looking for.

[Psyren]

What PF splats am I throwing out now?

Ultimate Campaign, like I said. If you can point to MiC as solving your perceived problem, I can point to UCamp as solving mine.

(It also helps that a table who wants to give these rules a try doesn't have to buy or pirate them, but that's more of a personal observation.)


I, too, would like to know, as poking around the PFSRD and PRD has yet to reveal this to me, but I see this repeated a fair bit, so I'd like to know what these two extra slots and their affinities are.

PF split the 3.5 "Head" slot ("One headband, hat, helmet, or phylactery on the head") into Head and Headband. It also split Body ("One robe or suit of armor on the body (over a vest, vestment, or shirt))" into Body and Armor, letting you wear a robe or vestments along with your armor. They also came up with more clearly defined slots on animals.

The slot affinities in PF are also in Ultimate Campaign, and are more like guidelines - essentially they say "if your player wants to move an ability to a slot that it doesn't have on a printed item, be wary."

And as an aside, PF also has rules for recharging staves and wands.

[Greenish]

... The fact we're having a debate over the nature and slotting of magic items?Coidzor asked whether you consider the Crossroads setting as a reason to play Pathfinder instead of mixing Pathfinder and 3.5. You seem to be responding to something else entirely.


The Crossroads system seems… very direct. I'm not sure it goes far enough for my taste, though.

[Greenish]

Ultimate Campaign, like I said. If you can point to MiC as solving your perceived problem, I can point to UCamp as solving mine.How does "crafters can break WBL" solve anything?

[Psyren]

How does "crafters can break WBL" solve anything?

A 25% increase is not breaking anything - and if your table is that low-op, you probably shouldn't be allowing undiscounted combined items either, or crafting at all for that matter.

[Seerow]

Ultimate Campaign, like I said. If you can point to MiC as solving your perceived problem, I can point to UCamp as solving mine.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I said you were putting MIC on the level of houseruling because you called the MIC rules a wash compared to what was being discussed prior (which was houseruling).


Of course you can account for UCamp rules, but now you have characters investing feats into crafting to be able to gain their extra wealth. And of course instead of investing that extra 25-50% into the surcharge for combining items, they could be spending that on more powerful items in general. And of course it brings 3.5 supporters to point out they can double wealth by crafting and still get the slot combining benefits. Which then brings you to pointing out that crafting in 3.5 requires experience, and 3.5 characters have fewer feats to invest. Which then brings 3.5 supporters to pointing out the various ways to get free feats and mitigate crafting exp. At which point you bring up how you have to optimize several layers deep to get the same effect as what PF grants baseline. All in all it's just a rabbit hole nobody really wants to go down.



PF split the 3.5 "Head" slot ("One headband, hat, helmet, or phylactery on the head") into Head and Headband. It also split Body ("One robe or suit of armor on the body (over a vest, vestment, or shirt))" into Body and Armor, letting you wear a robe or vestments along with your armor. They also came up with more clearly defined slots on animals.

3.5 has the Head and Face slots, which seem to fill a similar role to what you are describing. 3.5 also has the Torso slot, which includes vests and shirts, and is distinct from the Body slot where Armor/Robes are listed.

[Doctor Awkward]

Yes, I think it's finally going to happen.

I've played 3.0/3.5 since ~2003. Just yesterday I was looking at the PF SRD and saw some really nice looking stuff, like Aegis and their version of ToB.

Now, I don't plan on switching to PF, only picking it up, and by that I mean using both 3.5 and PF. So as a total novice to PF, here's my question to the playground. Which of the following do you suggest?

Using 3.5 as a base with 3.5 or PF content (whichever is more beneficial to the player, barring broken stuff).
Using PF as a base with 3.5 of PF content (whichever is more beneficial to the player, barring broken stuff).

Essentially I want to (and want to let my players) use 3.5 or PF at their discretion; hey, the more content the merrier. Because I know 3.5 better I'm tempted to say the former, but from what I've read (like the 3.5/PF handbook), it seems PF is a better base.

I guess option 3 would be to not mix the two, silly me.

I can't really recommend Option 2. Pathfinder makes a ton of minor rules modifications that really add up to being quite confusing. It even calculates defenses and hit points slightly differently so that monsters out of the 3.5 Monster Manual are not usable as-is. With almost inconsequential changes to virtually every spell as well as the basic monster combat routines, you'll be running into something you have to look up almost every combat round. On the whole, I'd wager that Pathfinder is actually less compatible with 3.5 rules than 3rd edition sourcebooks or d20 modern sourcebooks are.

A lot of people really like the skill system. I give it a meh. They condensed a lot of things. Some of it goes too far, and some of it doesn't go far enough. Gather Information and Diplomacy are condensed, but Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) are still separate. Sure, why not. The biggest change is the way class/non-class skills are treated now. Instead of the difference in maximum ranks, you just get a flat +3 bonus to class skills. This means you can drop that x4 bonus at first level, but now there's no difference between having a skill as a permanent class skill (like with Able Learner) or having it be a class skill for a single level of a build. Also they got rid of synergy bonuses. It's still probably a net gain over the 3.5 skill system.

It also doesn't help that the gap between casters and mundanes is even widerin Pathfinder than it is in 3.5. They gave lots of little bonuses to every class, like stat point increases (which translates to higher spell save DC's) that scale with level to encourage casters to not prestige into something else (protip: you still prestige into something else, you just now also get nifty bonuses in addition to it). I think the worst of all is the fact that specialist wizards no longer lose access to prohibited schools. It just costs you two spell slots to prepare it instead of one, and you can use wands and scrolls just fine.

I do like paladins though. Pathfinder paladins are quite an improvement in a 3.5 game.


So I guess my recommendation is option one. A very carefully monitored integration, with a fire extinguisher on standby.

[Psyren]

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I said you were putting MIC on the level of houseruling because you called the MIC rules a wash compared to what was being discussed prior (which was houseruling).

Then you were misunderstanding my post - I called it a wash because both editions have a splat that lets you modify the item creation rules. 3.5 lets you lower the crafter's costs while PF lets you boost their wealth, but the net result is the same, the perceived problem of combining items being overly expensive goes away.



Of course you can account for UCamp rules, but now you have characters investing feats into crafting to be able to gain their extra wealth.

I'm not seeing the problem here. By sinking their feats into crafting, those feats are not available for other, more directly powerful options (e.g. metamagic). Thus a wealth bump here is a good thing. It even accounts for the fact that the other members of the party can get their loot from the crafter by having their excess effective wealth be deducted from that of the crafter (Assuming he makes gear for them.)



3.5 has the Head and Face slots, which seem to fill a similar role to what you are describing. 3.5 also has the Torso slot, which includes vests and shirts, and is distinct from the Body slot where Armor/Robes are listed.

I'm not seeing "Face" on the SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#magicItemsOnTheBody) Did you mean Eyes? PF has that one too. Vests and shirts in PF map to the "Chest" slot, which is separate from Armor and Body.

3.5 has 12 slots, while PF has 14.

[Almarck]

Coidzor asked whether you consider the Crossroads setting as a reason to play Pathfinder instead of mixing Pathfinder and 3.5. You seem to be responding to something else entirely.

The Crossroads system seems… very direct. I'm not sure it goes far enough for my taste, though.

Ah, then I misunderstood. I thought she asked why I brought up crossroads in the first place. You may or may not want to talk to Admiral Squish, the project's director. Maybe he can sell you on the setting itself.



Mostly, I am for mixing in 3.5 materials into PF, adding materials that didn't quite make the cut in the transition. PF as a base for me comes down heavily to how much things have been mostly streamlined and generally most things have been buffed up (only Druid got nerfed unambigiously because the polymorph rules have been completely revamped)


Also, Tony, what makes you say that the disparity is wider in pathfinder? I seem to recall most other people saying otherwise before, but that might just be me not seeing posts that say otherwise.

[Greenish]

3.5 has 12 body slots, PF has 14.

Anyway, enough of magic item costs. I don't like the combination surcharge on plain stat boosts, but Psyren loves it because it's PF. Well enough.

[Psyren]

3.5 has 12 body slots, PF has 14.

Anyway, enough of magic item costs. I don't like the combination surcharge on plain stat boosts, but Psyren loves it because it's PF. Well enough.

I don't like it either - which is why I'm happy, because the designers gave me a way to deal with it. Not "because it's PF." Try not to speak for my motivations please.

[Almarck]

I like it, solely because it's more fair than the previous system where a Sorcerer had to wait for the GM to approve of a houseruled item to get both better saves and have boosts to charisma due to a slot conflict. It's not perfect, but I find it better. It's big weakness, is again if you need multiple physical or mental attribute boosts instead of just one and this problem is mostly resolved through progression so it's not a totally insurmountable problem.

The cloak dilemma requires the GM make an item for you for your specific circumstance. That's my problem with it.


Edit: but fine, I'll refrain from bringing up this topic, as again, we'll never convince the other side at this rate.

[Greenish]

Now I'm wondering why PF added the body slot instead of finally allowing magic pants.

[Psyren]

They wanted to separate robe and armor, presumably because it's kind of silly that you can't wear a robe over your armor. (Or a bodywrap/bandages under it.)

[deuxhero]

PF greatly improved Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian, which they needed, and made Fighter and Monk playable with archetype use (Lore Warden, Mutagen Warrior and Manuver Master for fighter. Zen Archer, Qingong/Hungry Ghost/Sensei combonations, and maybe Tetori for monk). I don't really think the full casters needed the improvements they got (Though letting Sorcerers trade the familiar for the bloodline arcana and or first level power and giving them echew materials is fine).

Bard is in a unique position in 3.P games: In both editions it's not great in core-only, but has fantastic support through splat in both version and will likely have a lot of overlap from it. It is also one of the harder classes to convert stuff for due to the change on uses.

One problem

[Coidzor]

Now I'm wondering why PF added the body slot instead of finally allowing magic pants.

Pants are oppression, naturally.


Bard is in a unique position in 3.P games: In both editions it's not great in core-only, but has fantastic support through splat in both version and will likely have a lot of overlap from it. It is also one of the harder classes to convert stuff for due to the change on uses.

Also inspire competence is broken to the point of uselessness(rather than its virtual uselessness in 3.5) by the conversion of Bardic Performance to being measured in rounds and they've yet to admit to that or do anything to change it last I checked.

[deuxhero]

How? Competence is barely above Aid Another.

[Psyren]

I agree that it's sad it can't be used out of combat the same way it used to, but you can still use it to help your allies tumble, or escape a grapple, or feint, or demoralize, or spot a hidden foe, or identify/counter spells being cast, or maneuver while flying/riding etc. A number of good archetypes drop it too, like Sound Striker.

[Coidzor]

How? Competence is barely above Aid Another.

I'm not quite following the source of your confusion here, sorry, could you please specify what you're asking, exactly?

If you're talking about how the rounds on bardic performance nerfs inspire competence(which, as you point out, is so weak it hardly needed nerfing), it should be fairly clear that it means that only higher level bards have enough rounds of bardic performance to make the choice to nerf their combat abilities to help with a single skill check that takes longer than a round or two.

So it's no longer a utility performance and, as Psyren points out, only usable in combat encounters, basically, which further highlights how useless it is, since it is not competitive with the bard's baseline combat options.

[Doctor Awkward]

Also, Tony, what makes you say that the disparity is wider in pathfinder? I seem to recall most other people saying otherwise before, but that might just be me not seeing posts that say otherwise.

Well, firstly a lot of people will point out that a ton of spells were nerfed when converted to Pathfinder. The problem here is that nerfing "a spell" doesn't really do anything to affect a spellcaster's overall power if there is still at least one spell that also let's him win at the same level. I mean, it makes spellcasters less interesting as they have fewer options they want to use, but they certainly aren't any less powerful because they have to cast ghoulish hunger instead of finger of death. On the subject, even though most save-or-dies got reduced to inconsequential damage-dealers there are still a multitude of spells that remove enemies from combat at every level. Paizo was even nice enough to add some. In addition to using wands and scrolls from their banned school, specialist wizards can also craft those items without penalty. Basically, a specialist wizard doesn't even have spell selection limits any more, but they still have the bonuses. It's good to be king.

Secondly, while I mentioned that everyone gets more feats now, a ton of the melee combat feats got split up, but none of the caster ones were. Casters even have a whole pile of new metamagic feats to play with like Dazing Spell, Bouncing Spell, Spell Perfection, etc. Apparently someone at Paizo really doesn't like tripping builds, grapplers, or dungeoncrashers. I'm not sure why, since for the most part uberchargers seem to still be around, and at least the other options were differently viable. The core of the problem is that all combat maneuvers are now rolled against the Combat Maneuver Bonus of your target, a static number which, in most cases, is equal to what the enemy would have gotten had he rolled a 15 in 3.5. Then there's things like Improved Trip and Improved Disarm, which each require two separate feats in Pathfinder to do the same thing it did in 3.5. Even the basic ubercharger builds suffer big time because they need more sunk feats to do more damage just to keep up with their old damage. More sunk feats than they get extra feats. And it really hoses multiclass characters more than anyone else.

Meanwhile, since everyone gets these new feats casters can get things like Spell Focus (which leads to higher spell save DC's), and they get bonuses to mental stats (which means ever higher spell save DC's). Concentration was eliminated, and defensive casting is now based off of a bonus that scales with your hit dice, which, curiously enough, is not rolled against the CMB like Tumbling is.

Also, they nerfed Power Attack.

Yeah...
And Cleave was apparently too powerful.

At the end of the day there are just too many changes that amount to making melee characters less powerful, and spellcaster's more powerful. Thus, it's more unbalanced.


Though letting Sorcerers trade the familiar for the bloodline arcana and or first level power and giving them echew materials is fine.

See now I had exactly the opposite reaction to seeing this when I saw the majority of bloodline abilities were something ridiculous like demon claws.
So while the necromancer specialist wizard gets a double control pool on his skeleton horde, the sorcerer gets to choose from a wide variety of flavors of melee combat shticks that he's never going to use because he's still a goddamn arcane spellcaster.


Bard is in a unique position in 3.P games: In both editions it's not great in core-only, but has fantastic support through splat in both version and will likely have a lot of overlap from it. It is also one of the harder classes to convert stuff for due to the change on uses.

Oh yes.
Provided you enjoy keeping track of rounds per day of song remaining. Or tracking a 3 round buff. Or a seven minute buff.
And these splat options must be recent because the last time I looked in Pathfinder there was nothing like Snowflake Wardance or Sublime Chord that could help a bard stay relevant, instead of fading to obscurity in all fields as they increased in levels, never being able to justify their existence in the party again.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah, I never thought about it because I'm a Inspire Courage Spammer, but that kind of sucks. I live and die by Bards 3.5 support. Would Optimistic Gambler help?

... Nope. :smallfrown:

EDIT: As for disparity, the casters got Sacred Geometry, which is free MM that is much easier to use than most 3.5 tricks. It's a damn good feat, and melee didn't really get something that spectacularly amazing.

[Psyren]

Well, firstly a lot of people will point out that a ton of spells were nerfed when converted to Pathfinder. The problem here is that nerfing "a spell" doesn't really do anything to affect a spellcaster's overall power if there is still at least one spell that also let's him win at the same level. I mean, it makes spellcasters less interesting as they have fewer options they want to use, but they certainly aren't any less powerful because they have to cast ghoulish hunger instead of finger of death.

But not being able to polymorph into a war troll and turn your 8 Strength into 31 (with regen!) is somewhat of a meaningful nerf I'd say. Just slightly? No?



See now I had exactly the opposite reaction to seeing this when I saw the majority of bloodline abilities were something ridiculous like demon claws.
So while the necromancer specialist wizard gets a double control pool on his skeleton horde, the sorcerer gets to choose from a wide variety of flavors of melee combat shticks that he's never going to use because he's still a goddamn arcane spellcaster.

You could try picking one of the many bloodlines that doesn't give you a gish ability instead.



Oh yes.
Provided you enjoy keeping track of rounds per day of song remaining. Or tracking a 3 round buff. Or a seven minute buff.
And these splat options must be recent because the last time I looked in Pathfinder there was nothing like Snowflake Wardance or Sublime Chord that could help a bard stay relevant, instead of fading to obscurity in all fields as they increased in levels, never being able to justify their existence in the party again.

Dawnflower Dervish, Sound Striker, Arcane Duelist and Magician have all been around for quite awhile at this point, among others.

As for tracking performance - you generally just take the total at the start of the day and subtract the rounds you're in combat, it's not hard. Unless your combats are lasting more than 5 rounds each, but then you've got a bigger problem.

[Doctor Awkward]

Dawnflower Dervish, Sound Striker, Arcane Duelist and Magician have all been around for quite awhile at this point, among others.

Well they sound interesting.

But it also sounds like what is happening is the core of Pathfinder has the biggest problems, and it's the support from splat books that helps even things out and make other classes viable.

Just like in 3.5.


...Huh, weird.

[Snowbluff]

Just like in 3.5.


Having played 3.5, PF, 4e, and 5e, that's how things normally go. However, I think bard was kind of alright in both PF and 3.5 Core.

I'm waiting on more splat to decide how much I like 5e. PF hasn't caught up to 3.5, IMO, but DSP really helps. 4e's character creation is pretty solid now, with the addition of hybrids, more MC feats, themes/backgrounds, and a whole slew of other stuff.

[Coidzor]

Meanwhile, since everyone gets these new feats casters can get things like Spell Focus (which leads to higher spell save DC's), and they get bonuses to mental stats (which means ever higher spell save DC's). Concentration was eliminated, and defensive casting is now based off of a bonus that scales with your hit dice, which, curiously enough, is not rolled against the CMB like Tumbling is.

It's a bit of a double-edged sword, since one's concentration is 3 lower, so it takes longer for a lower level caster's concentration to be up to snuff to cast defensively.

Although now that you mention it, it *is* kind of weird that they made Tumbling basically not work against any real serious foe but didn't make casting defensively subject to that same vulnerability to CMB.


Also, they nerfed Power Attack.

Power Attack is definitely worse, though taking some of their ideas and adjusting them so they're compatible with 3.5's power attack gives you something that's more fair to all melee characters.

They did seem to forget that the thing which makes Power Attack reach broken levels of hp damage is comboing it with other feats that they didn't recreate (and haven't recreated any of them IIRC), though, which is a little bit strange.


Yeah...
And Cleave was apparently too powerful.

Well, having the ability to attack two different opponents before iterative attacks is nice, so the PF cleave feat isn't a total wash as long as feat retraining is on the table.


Oh yes.
Provided you enjoy keeping track of rounds per day of song remaining. Or tracking a 3 round buff. Or a seven minute buff.
And these splat options must be recent because the last time I looked in Pathfinder there was nothing like Snowflake Wardance or Sublime Chord that could help a bard stay relevant, instead of fading to obscurity in all fields as they increased in levels, never being able to justify their existence in the party again.

Well, to be fair, some Bard archetypes basically replace the Rogue by having spellcasting and other abilities while taking care of the skill monkey role and trapfinding, so it's not all doom and gloom, though, yeah, they're not going to be as relevant as a Summoner at levels 15+ from what I recall of their different spell lists.

[Almarck]

Oh, right sacred geometry. I'd hazard a guess and say it's probably overpowered if the person taking his turn is allowed more than one minute to get his act together.



Also, Psyren is right. You're not exactly comparing one of the better bloodlines if you're getting the demon claws ability. Instead, what you should be considering at the various bloodlines that are real good.

Sylvan gives you an animal companion at -3 your level, but with a feat levels up with you. That's real strong.

Undead lets you do something that's otherwise impossible, mind control an undead as if it were a living creature. Basically, any undead with a weakwill score is now your thrall.

Voidtouch allows you to cast a fireball or any other evocation spell and auto-silence an enemy caster if they fail their reflex saves.

Deep Earth is great considering you'll almost always be underground and thus having that free +1 CL boost on top of some really good abilities.

In short, the melee bloodlines tend to be subpar compared to the ones that emphasize casting


Power attack is more efficient. Granted, I see why they did it. I think they wanted people to avoid "trading" or adjusting their power attack number every level. It gives more bonuses per point of reduction, so it's arguably more consistent. -

[Doctor Awkward]

Although now that you mention it, it *is* kind of weird that they made Tumbling basically not work against any real serious foe but didn't make casting defensively subject to that same vulnerability to CMB.

Oh that's far from the only caster > mundane hiccup you'll come across.
Ever notice that you can no longer use Intimidate to stack fear effects, but you still can using different spells that cause fear?
Or how Intimidate used to last for as long as you were around, plus 1d6x10 minutes after you left? But in Pathfinder it's just 1d6x10 minutes?

So many exceptions that seem predicated on the notion that mundanes can't have nice things.

[Greenish]

Then again, all the neat medium casters have made cutting full casters totally out of the game basically painless.

[Snowbluff]

Oh, right sacred geometry. I'd hazard a guess and say it's probably overpowered if the person taking his turn is allowed more than one minute to get his act together. Well, I've gotten good at it. Also, if you plan your turn ahead of time, it's really easy to roll while you're waiting.


Power attack is more efficient. Granted, I see why they did it. I think they wanted people to avoid "trading" or adjusting their power attack number every level. It gives more bonuses per point of reduction, so it's arguably more consistent. -
Generally, you're working to avoid the penalty entirely in 3.5. For example, gishes using Wraith Strike and Shock Trooper Barbarians. So getting the +40 damage isn't unlikely.

Then again, all the neat medium casters have made cutting full casters totally out of the game basically painless.
Yeah, so you can have T2 Summoners and Alchemists, instead. :smallbiggrin:

[Almarck]

One thing I think the OP will probably want for the sake of game balance is to follow PF's Polymorph break up rules.

Polymorph and friends in 3.5 is just absurdly broken and was prone to changing numerous times in edition if I recall correctly.

PF changes this by breaking it into a number of different spells each for a different situation. It's still powerful but it no longer allows for an 8 Strength to get super powerful and way more powerful than the fighter. It's less material to look up because it's just a buff now and you don't need to dig through the manuals to find the right form for except maybe strong natural weapon options.

It's particularly noticeable with druids who no longer can do that, since wildshape is their bread and butter.

I think the Giant himself stated he liked that change somewhere in the Homebrew thread.



Animal companion is way different too. Very nerfed, for better or worse. Not everything can be taken as an animal companion, but on the other hand the alternative is letting your player have a really high CR monster as a pet.

Edit: I just did some digging, and apparently PF's WBL system is apparently 10-20% above what 3.5's curve was...

[Snowbluff]

PF changes this by breaking it into a number of different spells each for a different situation. It's still powerful but it no longer allows for an 8 Strength to get super powerful and way more powerful than the fighter. It's less material to look up because it's just a buff now and you don't need to dig through the manuals to find the right form for except maybe strong natural weapon options.

This is actually nonsense. The dump stat Str doesn't have an amazing effect. Druids just put a few points into Str, where they were just SAD before. Int and Cha are usually the stats that are dumped.

The big nerf is the limitation on abilities available. For druid, it wasn't a big deal because they had a much more limited pool of abilities compared to regular polymorph.

Right now, druids actually grab Vital Strike, Wildshape into a Stegosaurus, and cast Strongjaw. They can hit for huge amounts of damage.

[deuxhero]

I forgot to add it thanks to newness, but Eldritch Guardian is also a good fighter archetype (get a familiar that shares your combat feats. Can be improved further with the Mauler familiar archetype) that can be combined with nearly any other fighter archetype.

One problem with using 3.5 as a base is that it makes PF ACFs/archetypes really wonky.


the rounds on bardic performance nerfs inspire competence

Sorry, misread "broken" as the other kind of broken.

[Thatwarforged]

This is actually nonsense. The dump stat Str doesn't have an amazing effect. Druids just put a few points into Str, where they were just SAD before. Int and Cha are usually the stats that are dumped.

The big nerf is the limitation on abilities available. For druid, it wasn't a big deal because they had a much more limited pool of abilities compared to regular polymorph.

Right now, druids actually grab Vital Strike, Wildshape into a Stegosaurus, and cast Strongjaw. They can hit for huge amounts of damage.

Taking that form gives them as a Huge animal: If the form you take is that of a Huge animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Strength, a -4 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +6 natural armor bonus plus since it has scent. This also is a 5th level spell or requires a 8th level druid character. 8th level druid will have a 20 str after this power if he is not going wild shaper if he is he might have 24 str if he going for wild shaping meleer. I really don't see this being nearly as bad as a 14 str druid becoming 27 str, 14 dex and 17 con.
-Edit- More info
With strong jaw your tail slap now does 4D6 + 10 (Then double it).
With vital strike add an extra 4d6 which is not doubled and is not crit cabable.

So that explains my Goliath twf fighter he used two collosal stegosaurs tails. (Not useable in any normal pathfinder game)

[Psyren]

This is actually nonsense. The dump stat Str doesn't have an amazing effect. Druids just put a few points into Str, where they were just SAD before. Int and Cha are usually the stats that are dumped.

It takes more than "a few points into Str." Even starting with a 12 makes you nearly as weak as starting with an 8 if you plan to melee seriously. It diverts your build enough that there is a real trade-off now. Pity they let Synthesist slip through the cracks, but the Unchained Summoner will probably become the standard at most tables anyway.

And nobody wants to dump Int and Cha unless they are playing "Me Krunk, Druid!"



Right now, druids actually grab Vital Strike, Wildshape into a Stegosaurus, and cast Strongjaw. They can hit for huge amounts of damage.

Whereas in 3.5 they could pretty much equal that with a Powerful Charge form and no other investment.


Taking that form gives them as a Huge animal: If the form you take is that of a Huge animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Strength, a -4 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +6 natural armor bonus plus since it has scent. This also is a 5th level spell or requires a 8th level druid character. 8th level druid will have a 20 str after this power if he is not going wild shaper if he is he might have 24 str if he going for wild shaping meleer. I really don't see this being nearly as bad as a 14 str druid becoming 27 str, 14 dex and 17 con.

Yeah, that.

[Snowbluff]

Taking that form gives them as a Huge animal: If the form you take is that of a Huge animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Strength, a -4 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +6 natural armor bonus plus since it has scent. This also is a 5th level spell or requires a 8th level druid character. 8th level druid will have a 20 str after this power if he is not going wild shaper if he is he might have 24 str if he going for wild shaping meleer. I really don't see this being nearly as bad as a 14 str druid becoming 27 str, 14 dex and 17 con.

I'll be quick. It's more important that you look at their wis and how much their casting stat is impacting them.

[Coidzor]

I forgot to add it thanks to newness, but Eldritch Guardian is also a good fighter archetype (get a familiar that shares your combat feats. Can be improved further with the Mauler familiar archetype) that can be combined with nearly any other fighter archetype.

Yeah, that's a pretty neat new development. :smallsmile:


One problem with using 3.5 as a base is that it makes PF ACFs/archetypes really wonky.

Yeah, I'd go with PF races and PF base classes (with tweaks to taste), maybe PF combat mechanics with a mixture of 3.5 and PF for the overlapping feats in core, especially the combat feats.

I like the standardization of CMB/CMD, though I'm not sure about the target numbers, especially when dealing with big monsters and how it affected tumbling, since while I appreciate trying to make tumbling something other than the binary it is in 3.5, I also don't like how it's basically an auto-fail against many opponents in PF due to the way CMB/CMD scales.


Sorry, misread "broken" as the other kind of broken.

Ahh, ok. Sorry about that. :/ Yay for ambiguous terminology!

[Almarck]

I'll be quick. It's more important that you look at their wis and how much their casting stat is impacting them.

How exactly is that different from other casters? As far as I am aware, it's the same as it was previously.



But I think I failed to convey things different. The big change is not limited to druids though. No one can rely on Polymorph to let them pick and choose which ever form they want except for Any Object and Shapechange. They have to go and learn and then prepare every different instance of polymorph for a given creature type to remain relevant instead of using a single spell.

It means a wizard cannot pick on the fly on whether he wants to turn into a giant, undead, or dragon just by casting a single spell until he gets higher than before and even then his options are still limited. He has to prepare the right spell for the right task. Sure animal shaping and Wildshaping is still super flexibile, by then Wizards get access to normal Polymorph (which is still nerfed compared to the old version)



Polymorph in 3.5 was too good.

[Snowbluff]

How exactly is that different from other casters? As far as I am aware, it's the same as it was previously. I'm talking specifically about the stat replacement nonsense.This applies to all casters, but it's important to druids since it a class feature for them. People think "oh you got low Str and that's what matters," when the real issue would be "having low Str gives you more Wis." The only time it matters to replace a stat is when you're working with limited stat resources, such as a point buys. However, Str and Wis both give diminishing returns. A buffer or summoner build has little need for a large wis score.

You can start with 16s in Con, Wis, and Str with 25 points, and you'd be in pretty good shape. This is because they have other possible dump stats. You're missing out on +1 to your DCs compared to 18 starting wis, and that's only if you care about them at all. Now, the math may turn out differently depending on playstyle and how you level, but you're only missing out on a little bit of Wis or Str.

Another frequent witch hunt is with the Synthesist Summoner, who pretty much needs 16 Cha in his teens an not much else. They could start with 18 str and not perform any differently. :smalltongue:

Now, as for actual polymorph and a wider trait variety, that's a different story.

[Psyren]

The only time it matters to replace a stat is when you're working with limited stat resources, such as a point buys.

But you always are. Or at least the game assumes you are and is balanced around that. Even when you're rolling 4d6 drop lowest for each stat, the assumption is that you will end up with some below average and some above, and have to deal with trade-offs. By making it so that you can be a melee powerhouse without needing to make that trade, they skew the game further from that balance point.



Another frequent witch hunt is with the Synthesist Summoner, who pretty much needs 16 Cha in his teens an not much else. They could start with 18 str and not perform any differently. :smalltongue:


You call it a "witch hunt," implying that there is no real cause for concern, and yet you yourself point out Synthesist's very real problem in the same breath - that all they need is 16 Cha. Once they have it, they can gleefully take over the roles of both the fighter and rogue on a whim.

[Snowbluff]

But you always are. Or at least the game assumes you are and is balanced around that. Even when you're rolling 4d6 drop lowest for each stat, the assumption is that you will end up with some below average and some above, and have to deal with trade-offs. By making it so that you can be a melee powerhouse without needing to make that trade, they skew the game further from that balance point.
Well, I've already pointed out that under such restriction you can still cover your Con, a melee stat, and your casting stat. In the example, Cha is irrelevant on a druid and Int is suboptimal, which easily frees up 8 points or 2 rolls.



You call it a "witch hunt," implying that there is no real cause for concern, and yet you yourself point out Synthesist's very real problem in the same breath - that all they need is 16 Cha. Once they have it, they can gleefully take over the roles of both the fighter and rogue on a whim.

The problem isn't with the synthesist, it's with the summoner casters in general. Consider that a 6/9 progression and level discounts on spells is also a nerf to DCs and that summoners don't make great offensive casters in the first place. Either way, the caster has nothing to spend his ability points on. By saying the Synthesist is the reason the character doesn't need stats is really misleading.

Then we move onto whether or not anyone should care. Well, looking at the evidence, stat replacement doesn't seem to mean jack in the first place. You can build a 18-10-14-10-10-12 summoner, and it wouldn't be much different than a fighter's PB. They've spent their PB as a resource, just like the fighter would. The summoner hasn't benefited either way. The fighter wouldn't get much out of excessive mental stats, either.

Jees, trying to describe how pointless something is can be very hard.

[Psyren]

Well, I've already pointed out that under such restriction you can still cover your Con, a melee stat, and your casting stat. In the example, Cha is irrelevant on a druid and Int is suboptimal, which easily frees up 8 points or 2 rolls.

There's still a trade-off there. Any DM worth his salt is going to expect you to roleplay being so mentally stunted (albeit wise.)



The problem isn't with the synthesist, it's with the summoner casters in general. Consider that a 6/9 progression and level discounts on spells is also a nerf to DCs and that summoners don't make great offensive casters in the first place. Either way, the caster has nothing to spend his ability points on. By saying the Synthesist is the reason the character doesn't need stats is really misleading.

But at least when he is separate from his eidolon, he needs to spend resources protecting both of them. He can't afford to let it get too far from him, or loccked down, or for enemies to get between them and him potentially unable to recall it. And sacrificing his own hit points to keep the eidolon alive is a much dicier prospect when they are both taking damage simultaneously from different sources. And though they share slots while separated too, they don't benefit from the same items that way.

The key here is the word I keep harping on - trade-offs. It's okay to have strengths, but there need to be drawbacks to compensate. Synthesist does not have enough of the latter. The only "drawback" they have is relative to a regular summoner, i.e. only having one set of actions - but that makes them no different from the majority of other casters in the game, particularly in combat where even the casters with familiars functionally only have one set of actions and keep the familiar out of harm's way.



Then we move onto whether or not anyone should care. Well, looking at the evidence, stat replacement doesn't seem to mean jack in the first place. You can build a 18-10-14-10-10-12 summoner, and it wouldn't be much different than a fighter's PB. They've spent their PB as a resource, just like the fighter would. The summoner hasn't benefited either way. The fighter wouldn't get much out of excessive mental stats, either.

Jees, trying to describe how pointless something is can be very hard.

You find it difficult because it's not pointless. If it truly were, so many other people would not have the problem with this archetype specifically that they do. And the cognitive dissonance is baffling to me - in one thread you talk about how the synthesist's stat replacement is meaningless, and in another you are trying to figure out how they can get 16 attacks in one round or whatever and seemingly not seeing any correlation between these two. (Hint: all those attacks wouldn't matter if they were too weak to hit - but they can, because they can afford to dump strength and still end up on par with dedicated melee classes.)

[Thatwarforged]

My suggestion to the original topic and to the OP is if you have time read some of the rules for Pathfinder (The D20pfsrd is free so you can read um there but you have to dig somewhat, or if you can get your hands on a copy of The Pathfinder core rulebook its a bit easier(Ask your group to see if anyone has one you can read)). Then decide which one you like better. For me I am lazy and find the back compatibility of Pathfinder to 3.5 to be harder then making 3.5 stuff to pathfinder. Plus the classes get a amp to their power and as such monsters follow suit, meaning adding pathfinder classes to a 3.5 game without removing things from said class causes monsters to be less powerful then they should be. When I first started using PF I did not like the way its poison worked with the frequency so I just used 3.5 poisons. I also did this to one campaigns with using 3.5 way of doing trip and bull rush and ect into my pathfinder game.
Don't forget when (if) you start reading it that Asmodeus is in the details.

[Snowbluff]

There's still a trade-off there. Any DM worth his salt is going to expect you to roleplay being so mentally stunted (albeit wise.) That's really beside the point. Besides, a druid can't normally speak while wildshaped. :smalltongue:




But at least when he is separate from his eidolon, he needs to spend resources protecting both of them. He can't afford to let it get too far from him, or loccked down, or for enemies to get between them and him potentially unable to recall it. And sacrificing his own hit points to keep the eidolon alive is a much dicier prospect when they are both taking damage simultaneously from different sources. And though they share slots while separated too, they don't benefit from the same items that way.
HP damage is pretty easy for an eidolon to avoid. They have pretty good armor class. An eidolon and a summoner would rarely share the same type of item between them. For example, an eidolon would be carrying a magic weapon and an item of strength, which is something a regular summoner would rarely use. So you've spent 50kgp on a weapon and 36kgp on an item of strength for either a synthesist or a regular eidolon and summoner duo.

I think the real issue would be running into redundant items, like cloaks of resistance. Those are pretty cheap, and the eidolon is pretty disposable.


You find it difficult because it's not pointless. If it truly were, so many other people would not have the problem with this archetype specifically that they do. And the cognitive dissonance is baffling to me - in one thread you talk about how the synthesist's stat replacement is meaningless, and in another you are trying to figure out how they can get 16 attacks in one round or whatever and seemingly not seeing any correlation between these two. (Hint: all those attacks wouldn't matter if they were too weak to hit - but they can, because they can afford to dump strength and still end up on par with dedicated melee classes.)Those are 2 very different things. There's no cognitive dissonance at all.

As for the strength, he can dump it, but he doesn't benefit much from doing so. There's no trade off, since there's no strength. The best he can do is a few skill points, extra uses for a summoning ability he'll rarely use, and maybe some points in will. This has nothing at all to do with his other abilities. Synthesists would happily use their Str instead of the Str of the base forms, and it wouldn't have a major effect on wielding 6 rifles or slamming for huge die rolls. I mean, look at the druid if you want proof of the latter.

Keep in mind that if people have a problem with it, that may not indicate something is wrong with the class. The synthesist got banned from PFS, but it's still strictly weaker than the base Summoner. It's more likely that there's something wrong with the way people are thinking about it.

If anything, the real way to solve this issue is to also abolish 6/9 casters and just start making 9th level casters with weaker lists. That way a casting stat investment wouldn't hit such harsh diminishing returns, and they would need to spend a few more points to meet the minimum requirement. That would make it an actual trade off.

[danzibr]

So, perhaps to make ourselves more useful to the OP's purposes, we should ask what he's looking for.
I'm looking for the optimal blend of balance, simplicity, and options.

I know allowing all PF and 3.5 material won't provide balance, but at least PF fixed things like Soulknife (but but, I don't know what flaws it has balance-wise). Simplicity... PF seems simpler with consolidated skills and CMD and such, but I'm unsure as I've never played PF. Options, that's covered by allowing PF and 3.5.

[Psyren]

That's really beside the point. Besides, a druid can't normally speak while wildshaped. :smalltongue:

It matters to far more people than you think. In addition to the inherent desire not to roleplay as someone who can barely tie their shoes, there is also social pressure against that kind of min-maxing. Dumping one mental stat you could maybe get away with, but dumping two has "munchkin" written all over it.


HP damage is pretty easy for an eidolon to avoid. They have pretty good armor class. An eidolon and a summoner would rarely share the same type of item between them. For example, an eidolon would be carrying a magic weapon and an item of strength, which is something a regular summoner would rarely use. So you've spent 50kgp on a weapon and 36kgp on an item of strength for either a synthesist or a regular eidolon and summoner duo.

I think the real issue would be running into redundant items, like cloaks of resistance. Those are pretty cheap, and the eidolon is pretty disposable.

Of course they can take a lot of HP damage - that's the entire point of their existence - but all that is needed is for them to have different strengths and weaknesses than the summoner does.

The redundant items point is a fairly big deal. It means that, while separated, you can use that cloak to boost your saves or those of your eidolon, but not both. The Synthesist does not face this conundrum.


Those are 2 very different things. There's no cognitive dissonance at all.

As for the strength, he can dump it, but he doesn't benefit much from doing so. There's no trade off, since there's no strength. The best he can do is a few skill points, extra uses for a summoning ability he'll rarely use, and maybe some points in will. This has nothing at all to do with his other abilities. Synthesists would happily use their Str instead of the Str of the base forms, and it wouldn't have a major effect on wielding 6 rifles or slamming for huge die rolls. I mean, look at the druid if you want proof of the latter.

Keep in mind that if people have a problem with it, that may not indicate something is wrong with the class. The synthesist got banned from PFS, but it's still strictly weaker than the base Summoner. It's more likely that there's something wrong with the way people are thinking about it.

The druid is penalized for dumping strength because of the improvements PF made to shapeshifting. The synthesist is not, because they were asleep at the wheel when it was developed.



If anything, the real way to solve this issue is to also abolish 6/9 casters and just start making 9th level casters with weaker lists. That way a casting stat investment wouldn't hit such harsh diminishing returns, and they would need to spend a few more points to meet the minimum requirement. That would make it an actual trade off.

But plenty of 6/9 casters are perfectly fine. Bards, Skalds, Hunters, Inquisitors, Investigators, Warpriests, and Alchemists, plus the upcoming Mesmerist and Occultist; really the only problem children so far have been Magi (and that one I don't even think is really a problem, it's just DMs freaking out at the "sticker shock" of rolling so many dice due to spellstrike) and the Summoner. Nerf the last one - which they're doing - and we're in pretty good shape as far as the 6/9 casters go.

[Snowbluff]

It matters to far more people than you think. In addition to the inherent desire not to roleplay as someone who can barely tie their shoes, there is also social pressure against that kind of min-maxing. Dumping one mental stat you could maybe get away with, but dumping two has "munchkin" written all over it. My druid probably wouldn't wear shoes, either. They would fall off when I wildshape, right?

Munchkin != Min-maxing. I think that kind of thinking is what lead to the stat changing issue with polymorphing.


The redundant items point is a fairly big deal. It means that, while separated, you can use that cloak to boost your saves or those of your eidolon, but not both. The Synthesist does not face this conundrum.

This is really where the class runs into Grod's Law. I agree it's insipid, but I don't think something like this serves an argument that blames the synthesist.


The druid is penalized for dumping strength because of the improvements PF made to shapeshifting. The synthesist is not, because they were asleep at the wheel when it was developed.
Or maybe they realized how much it didn't matter. Druid is kind of penalized (see above) because they actually benefit from a different stat.



But plenty of 6/9 casters are perfectly fine. Bards, Skalds, Hunters, Inquisitors, Investigators, Warpriests, and Alchemists, plus the upcoming Mesmerist and Occultist; really the only problem children so far have been Magi (and that one I don't even think is really a problem, it's just DMs freaking out at the "sticker shock" of rolling so many dice due to spellstrike) and the Summoner. Nerf the last one - which they're doing - and we're in pretty good shape as far as the 6/9 casters go.
My complaints about DCs, spell slot scaling, and level discounts apply here, as well. They have diminishing returns on their casting stat, making it a no brainer to avoid investing heavily in it. The problem is that people think of these classes as full casters when they should be applying their stat points in a very different manner. The only real exception would be the Bard, who use Charisma as the superior skill user stat as opposed to a casting stat.

Alchemists are incredibly similiar to summoner, actually. As much as I dislike it, the power level on that class is severely underrated. Magi are pretty good at hitting really hard with Sacred Geo MM and good critical ranges, regardless of their other class features.

[Thatwarforged]

I'm looking for the optimal blend of balance, simplicity, and options.

I know allowing all PF and 3.5 material won't provide balance, but at least PF fixed things like Soulknife (but but, I don't know what flaws it has balance-wise). Simplicity... PF seems simpler with consolidated skills and CMD and such, but I'm unsure as I've never played PF. Options, that's covered by allowing PF and 3.5.

This is tough the main issue balance wise followed 3.5 into pathfinder (I.E the Spellcasters quadratic evolution). Though arguably less so since you get class features every level if your not a Mage but with Path of War (Tome of battle for pathfinder, I am personally adding ToB discipline into it as well as the ones PoW give) you have access to some really awesome maneuvers and stance for Martials weakening the bad blood between them. I've never really had CMD come up personally since I've GMed but an old buddy of mine liked it because it streamlined it a bit. The skills are a lot more simple and intuitive plus it makes more since to me. Multiclassing is just purely better in pathfinder (Well RAW anyways), it gives capstone abilities if you don't want to multiclass. Everyone gets a little more wealth per level and some major hitting spells got hit with a Nerf bat (I.E Polymorph), Which works like a buff which is cool because it actually awards spellcasters who put things into Strength if they want to melee. The whole favored class thing is cool and some of them a little wonky. Then you have Archetypes which allow you to do things different similar to ACF.

... BTW if you guys want to continue argue since it is mainly you two at this point, I would suggest starting a new thread specifically for the argument or start PMing. At first it was on track with the subject but its kinda broken down to who can yell the loudest. Also I just read Sacred Geometry and I don't think any GM in his right mind would allow it not because its strong but because the already time consuming Wizard turn it going to take longer as they figure out a math equation to get the number they want. That just seem like a cry to make an average combat with 5 players take 2 and a half hours to complete. You also using it likes its a core thing when in fact its more equivalent to say Tome of Battle in 3.5 were you had DMs that said yeah sure play a crusader and the others that went OMG that is so BROKEN don't play that (I.E I completely disagree with ToB being broken just an example since I've only had one GM out of 5 allow me to play a ToB character). It is a major what the GM is feeling with the game.

[Almarck]

Okay, uh, yeah I think it's probably time to drop the topic of specific nitpicks. Honestly, we'll be here all day.



Well, thinking about it, your best bet might be to look at the various optimization guides and see what they have to say about "class X". That'll help you get a rough idea of what your players are doing in probably the most direct way possible, since they'll obviously read said guides or consult individuals who.

On, Soulknife, it does has a few flaws, but they're shared by other melee or fighting classes such as fighter and barbarians. It's also relatively feat starved compared to many other big melee classes, so there's that. In general, I think your biggest problem is going to be War Soul Soulknives, but it's made up for with a limited action economy and if you know what you're doing it's not really bad.

As a general rule, you might just be fine with your players running nearly anything excluding very specific things that are "if-maybe" or "let's not try that" and obviously, some classes have shorted restricted lists.

For instance you'll probably feel that auto-including all fighter archetypes is fine.

You may need some help trying to reign in gunslinger (advice, throw lots of weaker, smaller mobs instead of bigger stronger ones. Preferably ranged attackers and spellcasters and have them hide behind cover all the time)

You will hesitate and probably want to double check things involving Synthesist Summoner.

And you'll probably tell your players not to take Sacred Geometry because it's either going to be too time consuming or too exploitable.

In either case, experimentation is likely the best thing that can be done. I recommend trying to see PF from a player's perspective as a primer on learning to DM it.

[Psyren]

@ Snowbluff:

My druid probably wouldn't wear shoes, either. They would fall off when I wildshape, right?

Absorbed into you actually (but if they provide constant benefits other than an Armor or Shield bonus, those would remain.)



Munchkin != Min-maxing. I think that kind of thinking is what lead to the stat changing issue with polymorphing.

If you truly intend to roleplay a character with stunted intelligence and charisma, then yes, it is merely min-maxing. But if your character is statistically a dullard yet continues to play intelligently/strategically and get along with everyone in the party, then yes, that is indeed munchkinry.



This is really where the class runs into Grod's Law. I agree it's insipid, but I don't think something like this serves an argument that blames the synthesist.

Grod's Law doesn't really apply here. "An eidolon doesn't have extra slots" is a reasonable and effective limitation, and not complicated at all. It is the fact that the Synthesist in particular renders this limitation irrelevant that is a problem.



Or maybe they realized how much it didn't matter. Druid is kind of penalized (see above) because they actually benefit from a different stat.

I'm confused - why is Wis focus any different from Cha focus in this context? Either way, penalizing you for dumping your physical stats and still wading into melee is what they should have done. They did this with the Druid but not the Synthesist.



My complaints about DCs, spell slot scaling, and level discounts apply here, as well. They have diminishing returns on their casting stat, making it a no brainer to avoid investing heavily in it. The problem is that people think of these classes as full casters when they should be applying their stat points in a very different manner. The only real exception would be the Bard, who use Charisma as the superior skill user stat as opposed to a casting stat.

Alchemists are incredibly similiar to summoner, actually. As much as I dislike it, the power level on that class is severely underrated. Magi are pretty good at hitting really hard with Sacred Geo MM and good critical ranges, regardless of their other class features.

You're actually agreeing with me here - in truth, 6/9 casters should not be investing as heavily in their casting stat, yet Synthesists have no reason to invest in anything else since they can ignore their physical stats entirely.

I agree Sacred Geometry is a problem, but very few tables or PFS allow it anyway so I feel comfortable ignoring its existence.



... BTW if you guys want to continue argue since it is mainly you two at this point, I would suggest starting a new thread specifically for the argument or start PMing. At first it was on track with the subject but its kinda broken down to who can yell the loudest. Also I just read Sacred Geometry and I don't think any GM in his right mind would allow it not because its strong but because the already time consuming Wizard turn it going to take longer as they figure out a math equation to get the number they want. That just seem like a cry to make an average combat with 5 players take 2 and a half hours to complete. You also using it likes its a core thing when in fact its more equivalent to say Tome of Battle in 3.5 were you had DMs that said yeah sure play a crusader and the others that went OMG that is so BROKEN don't play that (I.E I completely disagree with ToB being broken just an example since I've only had one GM out of 5 allow me to play a ToB character). It is a major what the GM is feeling with the game.

Indeed, even if Sacred Geometry is first party it's about as likely to come up at actual tables as Dark Chaos Shuffle.

[Snowbluff]

Grod's Law doesn't really apply here. "An eidolon doesn't have extra slots" is a reasonable and effective limitation, and not complicated at all. It is the fact that the Synthesist in particular renders this limitation irrelevant that is a problem.
It's annoying for "balancing purposes."

Not to mention the horrible balance implications of limiting item slots and lowering a character's save because someone thought it would make for a good limitation, even though it already has a GP cost attached. "Reasonable limitation" is the last phrase I would associate with that, after "new plague" and "impromptu lobotomy."


I'm confused - why is Wis focus any different from Cha focus in this context? Either way, penalizing you for dumping your physical stats and still wading into melee is what they should have done. They did this with the Druid but not the Synthesist.

You're actually agreeing with me here - in truth, 6/9 casters should not be investing as heavily in their casting stat, yet Synthesists have no reason to invest in anything else since they can ignore their physical stats entirely.
The problem is that for dumping to matter, your other stats have to matter. I think making Druids invest in Str has little effect, and it would have absolutely no effect on summoners, who hardly benefit from that charisma in the first place. Making it a choice about investing these stats is actually just a waste of time. It doesn't contribute to making involved character decisions, and it doesn't affect gameplay, so what's the point of the change? You're investing a resource that you got for free and have nothing else to do with in the first place. It's not like 4e, where each class has different stats based on what powers they take. "Welcome to the help desk. You're a druid, get str/wis and get out."

Whenever I hear stat dumping complaints, it's like someone gave people $15 each to spend on rocks, glitter, or colored tissue paper, and everyone complains because rocks are hard.



I agree Sacred Geometry is a problem, but very few tables or PFS allow it anyway so I feel comfortable ignoring its existence.

Indeed, even if Sacred Geometry is first party it's about as likely to come up at actual tables as Dark Chaos Shuffle.

I totally use it all the time. Magi can work some MM without it, of course. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

It's annoying for "balancing purposes."

Not to mention the horrible balance implications of limiting item slots and lowering a character's save because someone thought it would make for a good limitation, even though it already has a GP cost attached. "Reasonable limitation" is the last phrase I would associate with that, after "new plague" and "impromptu lobotomy."

You don't have to lower your save at all; indeed, Protection from Spells (which does not stack with the cloak anyway) is on the Summoner list, and until then you have to choose between protecting your eidolon more or protecting yourself more, which is a good tradeoff.

It is good design to require you to spend resources if you want impregnable or nigh-impregnable defenses.



The problem is that for dumping to matter, your other stats have to matter. I think making Druids invest in Str has little effect, and it would have absolutely no effect on summoners, who hardly benefit from that charisma in the first place. Making it a choice about investing these stats is actually just a waste of time. It doesn't contribute to making involved character decisions, and it doesn't affect gameplay, so what's the point of the change? You're investing a resource that you got for free and have nothing else to do with in the first place. It's not like 4e, where each class has different stats based on what powers they take. "Welcome to the help desk. You're a druid, get str/wis and get out."

Whenever I hear stat dumping complaints, it's like someone gave people $15 each to spend on rocks, glitter, or colored tissue paper, and everyone complains because rocks are hard.

It seems we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think stat dumping matters as a balancing tool and you don't. It's telling though that if I went to the Paizo boards right now, I would find far more threads complaining about (or DMs claiming that they ban) Synthesists, than I would Druids.

EDIT: I did a cursory search on this topic: "Ban Synthesist" returned 10 pages of results, while "Ban Druid" returned only 1.

EDIT 2: Ban Sacred Geometry also returned 10 pages of results.


I totally use it all the time. Magi can work some MM without it, of course. :smalltongue:

I'm sure you do, just as I'm sure some people (e.g. Tippy) use Dark Chaos Shuffle all the time. But one person or even one forum does not a RL trend make.

[Ssalarn]

Well, I've already pointed out that under such restriction you can still cover your Con, a melee stat, and your casting stat. In the example, Cha is irrelevant on a druid and Int is suboptimal, which easily frees up 8 points or 2 rolls.


Actually, depending on what level you're starting at, a druid dumping CHA could be a big deal. You still have to be able to use Handle Animal to command your companion, and if you've dumped INT you could have a 15-20% chance to fail a check to have your animal companion do something as simple as performing a task it's already been trained for (even after adding in Link and your class skill bonus). Your AnC not participating in 1 out of every 5 combat rounds is a fairly big deal. Heaven forfend you should need to Push your AnC for any reason, since that'd be just shy of impossible.

Removing stat replacement spells and abilities to make the Druid more MAD was definitely an improvement between 3.5 and PF, forcing the class to make some real choices about whatit wants to be in any given build.

[Seerow]

It seems we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think stat dumping matters as a balancing tool and you don't. It's telling though that if I went to the Paizo boards right now, I would find far more threads complaining about (or DMs claiming that they ban) Synthesists, than I would Druids.

EDIT: I did a cursory search on this topic: "Ban Synthesist" returned 10 pages of results, while "Ban Druid" returned only 1.

EDIT 2: Ban Sacred Geometry also returned 10 pages of results.

That's an interesting take on how we should judge balance.

Doing a quick google search restricted to Giant in the Playground, "Ban Fighters" returns 6,020 results.

"Ban Warblades" returns 90,400 results.

"Ban Psion" returns 6,980 results.

"Ban Sorcerer" returns 9,060 results


So judging by this, I would expect Warblades to be 10x more broken than the Sorcerer, and the Fighter to be nearly as powerful as the Psion.


Or we can just accept that people calling for things to be banned are going to be based much more on personal biases than any real judgement of the power involved. Synthesist gets a rough rap because many Pathfinder fans find it offensive, just like Warblade gets a bad rap because people find the idea of Tome of Battle offensive. Not because it is necessarily any more powerful. Frankly what the Synthesist loses in terms of action economy probably makes it weaker than a standard summoner.

[Psyren]

Doing a quick google search restricted to Giant in the Playground, "Ban Fighters" returns 6,020 results.

"Ban Warblades" returns 90,400 results.

"Ban Psion" returns 6,980 results.

"Ban Sorcerer" returns 9,060 results


So judging by this, I would expect Warblades to be 10x more broken than the Sorcerer, and the Fighter to be nearly as powerful as the Psion.

Except I'm not judging "balance" necessarily. I'm judging which one causes more problems at a table. And Warblades undeniably do so more often than Sorcerers, despite our optimization skill telling us it should be otherwise.

Also, I specifically didn't search the Playground, because this is a higher-Op forum than most.



Or we can just accept that people calling for things to be banned are going to be based much more on personal biases than any real judgement of the power involved.

Their motivations are irrelevant to me - it's their perceptions I care about. Druid is T1 and Synthesist is T2, I obviously know which one has the higher potential power. That doesn't change the fact that fewer tables are equipped to deal with a Synthesist than a Druid.

[Seerow]

Except I'm not judging "balance" necessarily. I'm judging which one causes more problems at a table.


It seems we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think stat dumping matters as a balancing tool and you don't.


If you want to argue about perceptions, then whatever. But that isn't what you said. You explicitly called it out stat dumping as a balancing factor, and then used your web searches to back up the claim about balance. Heck what is even the point of your whole argument if you are acknowledging that the Summoner is still weaker than the Druid, despite Wildshape working differently from Synthesist? If the entire point is that the majority of people are bad at determining what is and isn't balanced, and perception is dramatically different from reality, you have a really weird roundabout way of making your point.

[Snowbluff]

It is good design to require you to spend resources if you want impregnable or nigh-impregnable defenses.

It's not "nigh-impregnable." A cloak of resistance is a fairly basic and standard item that fulfills a necessary role. You would already be paying twice the cost to have 2 cloaks, so it's not like there was not a cost already associated with it. The only way I can think of this making any sense would be if the designer thought people would try and say the cloak counted as giving a bonus to both the eidolon and the summoner since they were the same dude, but he fell down the stairs while he was typing it.

You run into the same problem with Two Weapon Fighting.


It seems we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think stat dumping matters as a balancing tool and you don't. It's telling though that if I went to the Paizo boards right now, I would find far more threads complaining about (or DMs claiming that they ban) Synthesists, than I would Druids. Agreed, I think it's kind of like the Magi for you. A lot of people complain about things that don't have an impact on the game. Someone gets a good pounce in and the everyone goes crazy.


I'm sure you do, just as I'm sure some people (e.g. Tippy) use Dark Chaos Shuffle all the time. But one person or even one forum does not a RL trend make.
Well, it's not really similiar to the Dark Chaos Shuffle. The Chaos Shuffle is a sequence of 2 high level spells, where as sacred geometry is a single, low level feat that anyone can qualify because of the way the skill system works. Excessive use of DCS is a monetary issue rather than a build issue.

On the other hand, 6/9 casters are generally boned on MM use in the first place, Sacred Geo can't progress past 9th level, MM feats are generally useless otherwise, so I think it's just a strong feat that lets people actually use a mechanic that's otherwise ignored. So it should be showing up more frequently than DCS by a huge margin.

[Psyren]

If you want to argue about perceptions, then whatever. But that isn't what you said. You explicitly called it out stat dumping as a balancing factor, and then used your web searches to back up the claim about balance. Heck what is even the point of your whole argument if you are acknowledging that the Summoner is still weaker than the Druid, despite Wildshape working differently from Synthesist? If the entire point is that the majority of people are bad at determining what is and isn't balanced, and perception is dramatically different from reality, you have a really weird roundabout way of making your point.

The stat dumping is the balancing factor. The threads about banning X class are about perception of that balance. Make sense yet?

It's not that people are "bad" at determining balance. If a wizard or druid cut loose at an average table, optimizing both their offense and defense to the hilt, that GM would quickly recognize it and either make some changes or begin an arms-race. But reaching the level of mastery required to do that is not easy for most players, so it only rarely comes up - expect in theoryland forums like this one. For a synthesist meanwhile, it's as easy as breathing - you can modify your pet (and therefore yourself) to meet any challenge on the fly, and toss your physical stats to the four winds and yet still manage to take the Fighter and Rogue's job. Worse, you do it in the exact way they would do it - rolling skills or swinging your weapon, rather than some of the more roundabout routes a wizard or druid would have to take. Thus it causes more problems, as evidenced by my findings.

Your own search of the Warblade is disingenuous too. Druids and Summoners are not backed by problematic wuxia fluff that can be just as much of a turnoff for many DMs as the mechanics are, nor do they require knowledge of an unintuitive and unfamiliar subsystem to work at the table. It's apples and toyotas.


It's not "nigh-impregnable." A cloak of resistance is a fairly basic and standard item that fulfills a necessary role. You would already be paying twice the cost to have 2 cloaks, so it's not like there was not a cost already associated with it. The only way I can think of this making any sense would be if the designer thought people would try and say the cloak counted as giving a bonus to both the eidolon and the summoner since they were the same dude, but he fell down the stairs while he was typing it.

"You'd have to buy it twice so it's balanced" does not work so well for Eidolons - they are already by far the strongest pet in the game as a baseline, capable of being molded to almost any challenge, and have literally no consequences for being placed in harm's way and dying beyond a cooldown as it is; giving you free rein to equip both them and yourself is too much.



Well, it's not really similiar to the Dark Chaos Shuffle. The Chaos Shuffle is a sequence of 2 high level spells, where as sacred geometry is a single, low level feat that anyone can qualify because of the way the skill system works. Excessive use of DCS is a monetary issue rather than a build issue.

On the other hand, 6/9 casters are generally boned on MM use in the first place, Sacred Geo can't progress past 9th level, MM feats are generally useless otherwise, so I think it's just a strong feat that lets people actually use a mechanic that's otherwise ignored. So it should be showing up more frequently than DCS by a huge margin.

You don't need Sacred Geometry and all its horrible design to make metamagic useful. Reducers for specific spells, useful +1 metamagics like Extend, and rods are all things that see common employment.

[Coidzor]

I'm looking for the optimal blend of balance, simplicity, and options.

I know allowing all PF and 3.5 material won't provide balance, but at least PF fixed things like Soulknife (but but, I don't know what flaws it has balance-wise). Simplicity... PF seems simpler with consolidated skills and CMD and such, but I'm unsure as I've never played PF. Options, that's covered by allowing PF and 3.5.

Simplicity after going through it and in play or the simplest way to blend it with the least amount of places where you need to look under the hood and decide how X interacts with Y?

[Snowbluff]

"You'd have to buy it twice so it's balanced" does not work so well for Eidolons - they are already by far the strongest pet in the game as a baseline, capable of being molded to almost any challenge, and have literally no consequences for being placed in harm's way and dying beyond a cooldown as it is; giving you free rein to equip both them and yourself is too much.
So we have to do something absurd instead. Let's just do some poor number game and everything will work out. :l



You don't need Sacred Geometry and all its horrible design to make metamagic useful. Reducers for specific spells, useful +1 metamagics like Extend, and rods are all things that see common employment.
Specific spells: bad design for restricting to a specific spell. We like variety. As good as snowball might be, we should really cast other spells every once in a while.
Extend Spell: The game is dominated by min/level and round/level spells rather than hour/level ones. It's not an interesting use of a feat most of the time.
Rods: Boo! That's a cash decision, not a build decision. It doesn't help the argument that the feats are a good investment.

[Psyren]

So we have to do something absurd instead. Let's just do some poor number game and everything will work out. :l

The whole system is a "number game."

I still don't see what's absurd about sharing slots.



Specific spells: bad design for restricting to a specific spell. We like variety. As good as snowball might be, we should really cast other spells every once in a while.
Extend Spell: The game is dominated by min/level and round/level spells rather than hour/level ones. It's not an interesting use of a feat most of the time.
Rods: Boo! That's a cash decision, not a build decision. It doesn't help the argument that the feats are a good investment.

- Nobody's forcing you to use snowball, Snowbluff :smalltongue:
- There are plenty of 10 min./level spells, and Extend shines there, helping them last most of the adventuring day. (As well as at lower levels with the hours/lvl ones.)
- The rods are for the "variety" you wanted. The feats are for specializing.

[Snowbluff]

B-but, it's Snowball! It's an Orb that shoots Snow! I don't know what I would do without it! :smallfrown:
http://media.giphy.com/media/5ZMxm0USj3aiA/giphy.gif

[danzibr]

Simplicity after going through it and in play or the simplest way to blend it with the least amount of places where you need to look under the hood and decide how X interacts with Y?
On the spot. I play with pretty casual people (I myself am rather casual), and it's good to not have to interrupt gameplay by spending several minutes on grappling rules.

And the people I play with would probably be happiest with no multiclassing or PrC'ing.

[Vhaidara]

On the spot. I play with pretty casual people (I myself am rather casual), and it's good to not have to interrupt gameplay by spending several minutes on grappling rules.

Here's my first rule of grappling: Don't. It's equally bad in both systems.


And the people I play with would probably be happiest with no multiclassing or PrC'ing.

Then you want to use the PF base. Dipping is generally a bad idea (a few exceptions, like Master of Many Styles Monk) in PF, as opposed to 3.5, where a 20th level build should have, at minimum, 3 classes (Wizard 5/Incantatrix 10/PrC 5) for casters and absurd for mundanes (Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Wolf Totem Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Warblade 1/PrC 15 [like 7 of them])

[Doctor Awkward]

...as opposed to 3.5, where a 20th level build should have, at minimum, 3 classes (Wizard 5/Incantatrix 10/PrC 5) for casters and absurd for mundanes (Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Wolf Totem Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Warblade 1/PrC 15 [like 7 of them])


That's a pretty obnoxious statement to make.

There are many, many classes in 3.5 that are just as effective playing to 20 as they are with multiclassing.

Archivist, Binder, Factotum, Warblade, Crusader, Psion...
All multiclassing will do is make them differently viable. They are still just as capable without it.

In fact, for Druid and Artificer, multiclassing will often hurt them more than help them.



On the spot. I play with pretty casual people (I myself am rather casual), and it's good to not have to interrupt gameplay by spending several minutes on grappling rules.

And the people I play with would probably be happiest with no multiclassing or PrC'ing.

Then my advice is still to play 3.5, with PF sprinkled in.
If they don't like multiclassing, they won't do it anyway. And you won't have to stop to double check the rules every time you enter combat.

[Vhaidara]

Archivist, Binder, Factotum, Warblade, Crusader, Psion...
All multiclassing will do is make them differently viable. They are still just as capable without it.

I wouldn't necessarily say just as viable. Also, I was exaggerating somewhat. The point was more that most 3.5 classes were honestly not built to be taken to 20, while the PF base classes were. Notice that most of the class you named are the ones that got next to no support outside of the book they were introduced in.

[Almarck]

That's a pretty obnoxious statement to make.

There are many, many classes in 3.5 that are just as effective playing to 20 as they are with multiclassing.

Archivist, Binder, Factotum, Warblade, Crusader, Psion...
All multiclassing will do is make them differently viable. They are still just as capable without it.

In fact, for Druid and Artificer, multiclassing will often hurt them more than help them.


Except sometimes people don't want to run any of those classes and just want to stick to a single classed fighter. In PF, you can do that and reasonably not feel guilty for doing so because the chassis was heavily improved.

Same for sorcerer, which in 3.5 was one of the classes you wanted to build for PrCing ASAP because it lacked class features entirely outside of Eschew materials.

Now most every class is viable right up into the endgame whereas before they list was smaller.

Edit: Specifically, I mean viability has all around increased. Optimal is another matter.

[Doctor Awkward]

Notice that most of the class you named are the ones that got next to no support outside of the book they were introduced in.

I noticed that the classes that were built the most solidly built in the first place (or were the most OP) needed the least amount of supplemental help, if that's what you mean.



Edit: Specifically, I mean viability has all around increased. Optimal is another matter.

Which is exactly why I suggest taking what the OP thinks does work from Pathfinder (paladin, ranger, etc.) and using it in the chassis he already knows.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I'd probably recommend P.5 over 3.P, but I'm a bit more comfortable with Pathfinder. It takes some steps to try and clean up the finicky bits of 3.5. If anything, my biggest criticism is that it probably doesn't go far enough (feats, christmas tree), or that there were some unintended effects of streamlining to game balance (CMB/CMD and the God-Skill Perception).

I don't find 3.5 and PF so dissimilar from each other. They're both overly complicated messes or lots of fun in generally the same ways as each other.

[Coidzor]

I'd probably recommend P.5 over 3.P, but I'm a bit more comfortable with Pathfinder. It takes some steps to try and clean up the finicky bits of 3.5. If anything, my biggest criticism is that it probably doesn't go far enough (feats, christmas tree), or that there were some unintended effects of streamlining to game balance (CMB/CMD and the God-Skill Perception).

Huh, I missed where Perception became a god skill. What's that in reference to in particular?


Except sometimes people don't want to run any of those classes and just want to stick to a single classed fighter. In PF, you can do that and reasonably not feel guilty for doing so because the chassis was heavily improved.

Well, Fighter is still a mess in PF unless you know enough about what archetypes to pick and archetype combos that you'd be roughly equivalent to knowing about Dungeoncrasher, Zhentarim Fighter, and what to multiclass/PrC out into, so that's a false sense of security to those new players who don't need it and should just be learning to play Barbarians and not a sense of security to those with system mastery. :smallconfused:


On the spot. I play with pretty casual people (I myself am rather casual), and it's good to not have to interrupt gameplay by spending several minutes on grappling rules.

Then obviously you want them to have as many target numbers to roll against as possible and fewer opposed rolls, ever.


And the people I play with would probably be happiest with no multiclassing or PrC'ing.

Well, PF punishes multiclassing better than 3.5 did, especially if you go by the stated RAI that any synergy is unintentional and should be changed to no longer give synergy if you find anything that combines well. So there's that, I suppose, and there's barely any Prestige Classes, and certainly none worth mentioning. Though the main disadvantage of converting 3.5 PrCs into PF is just that you'd give them worse saves for the PrCs.

And saves aren't why one takes PrCs. Other than survivor. So I suppose converting it into the PF format would basically just utterly destroy Survivor as a PrC, but it's not all that great anyway, so no big loss. *shrug*

[Squirrel_Dude]

Huh, I missed where Perception became a god skill. What's that in reference to in particular?Search, spot and listen got condensed into Perception. It's the one skill that is used for: finding traps, opposing stealth, checking for surprise, opposing slight of hand, searching a room or body for loot, tasting if your food is spoiled, smelling smoke in the air, and tracking an enemy through the woods.

Basically, they created a single skill for allowing an adventurer to see or notice anything, and to counter anyone trying to hide anything. Unsurprisingly one of the most common pieces of build advice is that every character should try to maximize their ranks in perception because it is the most commonly used skill in the entire game, and one of the few (only?) skills that every character will find useful.

[Psyren]

@ Perception: 4e and 5e did the same thing and it's a good idea; it just plain speeds up play. Especially since now it doesn't take a full-round action to search a 5-foot square (seriously, what were they thinking?)



Well, Fighter is still a mess in PF unless you know enough about what archetypes to pick and archetype combos that you'd be roughly equivalent to knowing about Dungeoncrasher, Zhentarim Fighter, and what to multiclass/PrC out into, so that's a false sense of security to those new players who don't need it and should just be learning to play Barbarians and not a sense of security to those with system mastery. :smallconfused:

I don't think it's equivalent at all. Dungeoncrasher improves Fighter in one very specific way, and if you don't want that particular playstyle for your character you get to suck eggs. And Zhentarim Fighter is setting-specific in addition to being obtuse (the name gives you zero indication as to what it does the way Dungeoncrasher, Lore Warden, or Mutation Fighter do.)



Well, PF punishes multiclassing better than 3.5 did, especially if you go by the stated RAI that any synergy is unintentional and should be changed to no longer give synergy if you find anything that combines well. So there's that, I suppose, and there's barely any Prestige Classes, and certainly none worth mentioning. Though the main disadvantage of converting 3.5 PrCs into PF is just that you'd give them worse saves for the PrCs.

And saves aren't why one takes PrCs. Other than survivor. So I suppose converting it into the PF format would basically just utterly destroy Survivor as a PrC, but it's not all that great anyway, so no big loss. *shrug*

Multiclassing isn't supposed to be encouraged. Even without the system incentivizing it, the experienced players who are versed with it will do it anyway if it helps their build, and the newer ones won't be intimidated by showing up to the table and seeing everyone else with some 12-word-long alphabet-soup Abjurant Champion or Unseen Seer or Arcane Heirophant build sitting across from them.

[Squirrel_Dude]

@ Perception: 4e and 5e did the same thing and it's a good idea; it just plain speeds up play. Especially since now it doesn't take a full-round action to search a 5-foot square (seriously, what were they thinking?)Oh, certainly. Most games do something similar to it because it simplifies the game and condenses skills. It's still a very large change to 3.5, and I think it covers a bit too much, and more characters are going to be able to afford maxing it out with the condensed spell list.. Other games might shift determining surprise to attribute checks, have more skills, or have fewer skill points, making heavy investment in Perception a bit more costly.

Requiring a full round action to search a five-foot square is probably one of those things put into the game for the sake of combat that is really stupid out of combat or any prolonged searching.

To use an example:
- GM: You've killed the captain of the guard, but more guards are coming to reinforce the ones already fighting you, and the door behind you is still locked.
- Player: I search the captain for a key.
- GM: That will be a full round action because you'll need to search around him in case it fell out of his pocket and scattered a short distance. Roll search.

In that type of scenario, it almost kind of works out.

Also, I was wrong on one count. Survival lets you track someone, not Perception.

[Almarck]

That's a very interesting point with perception. Yes, it's pretty much the superskill of PF, but the alternative was the 2-3 seperate searching skills. Other games I know tend to have confusion pertaining to search skills. But then again, I only know like...4 Tabletop games.

By the way, what do you mean by "P.5 over 3.P"? I have never seen anyone use terminology like that before.

[Seerow]

Requiring a full round action to search a five-foot square is probably one of those things put into the game for the sake of combat that is really stupid out of combat or any prolonged searching.


Are you saying the full round action per 5ft square is too much or too little?

It sounds like you're saying it's too much time, but some quick calculations say at that rate it takes about 5 minutes to search a small house that's 1300 square ft. I imagine anyone looking for their lost keys can spend at least that long, and sometimes much longer. And imagine how much more cautiously you might go if instead of trying to find your lost keys, you were making sure there wasn't a death trap waiting to kill you if you stepped in the wrong spot.


That's a very interesting point with perception. Yes, it's pretty much the superskill of PF, but the alternative was the 2-3 seperate searching skills. Other games I know tend to have confusion pertaining to search skills. But then again, I only know like...4 Tabletop games.

I dunno, having Search and Perception being separate makes sense to me. Combining Spot/Listen? Yeah, definitely. That's just a waste of skill points, just like having Hide and Move Silently separate is a tax on anyone wanting to be sneaky. But Perception IMO is all about what you passively notice while looking about, while Search is about what you find when you actively look for something. It's the difference between a Ranger noticing animals hiding in the brush vs an Investigator finding a clue at a crime scene.

[Coidzor]

@ Perception: 4e and 5e did the same thing and it's a good idea; it just plain speeds up play. Especially since now it doesn't take a full-round action to search a 5-foot square (seriously, what were they thinking?)

More powerful, but thank the 12 gods because streamlining that stuff.


I don't think it's equivalent at all. Dungeoncrasher improves Fighter in one very specific way, and if you don't want that particular playstyle for your character you get to suck eggs. And Zhentarim Fighter is setting-specific in addition to being obtuse (the name gives you zero indication as to what it does the way Dungeoncrasher, Lore Warden, or Mutation Fighter do.)

Then I'm very sorry to have disappointed you, though you seem to be hung up on minutia rather than on the expansion of what the Fighter is able to do with those options, for some reason. :smallconfused:

We all know that the centralization of the PRD and PFSRD is an advantage, this has already been established and wasn't terribly relevant to the quip about system mastery.


Multiclassing isn't supposed to be encouraged. Even without the system incentivizing it, the experienced players who are versed with it will do it anyway if it helps their build, and the newer ones won't be intimidated by showing up to the table and seeing everyone else with some 12-word-long alphabet-soup Abjurant Champion or Unseen Seer or Arcane Heirophant build sitting across from them.

Should it be discouraged, though? I say no, if you're going to have it. PF devs said yes, you agree with them, sure, whatever, and danzibr's players do too, so that's all peachy. :smalltongue: The point stands, if they hate multiclassing, then they're going to be pleased with Jason Buhlman's offered solution.

[Ssalarn]

By the way, what do you mean by "P.5 over 3.P"? I have never seen anyone use terminology like that before.

P.5 would be using Pathfinder as the core system and updating 3.5 materials to run in that system as needed (like if you wanted to play a Dragonfire Adept, which doesn't have a PF counterpart).

3.P is using 3.5 as the core system and converting Pathfinder materials over as needed (like if you wanted to play an Alchemist or Summoner, who don't really have a straight 3.5 equivalent).

I, personally, do P.5, though with Dreamscarred Press around, there's less and less material I actually need to convert, so we're almost pure PF now (counting 3pp materials). Jeremy and Andreas have their flagship Ultimate Psionics, ErrantX and the gang ported over the Tome of Battle subsystem, I did an Incarnum equivalent called Akashic Mysteries that's doing very well, Fax_Celestis is doing a Truenamer port that's shaping up very nicely, and Alexander Agunas and Radiant House (Radiance House? Can't recall at the moment) did an awesome port of the Binder. With shadow magic on the horizon for DSP, I'm pretty settled in Pathfinder.

[Psyren]

Are you saying the full round action per 5ft square is too much or too little?

It sounds like you're saying it's too much time, but some quick calculations say at that rate it takes about 5 minutes to search a small house that's 1300 square ft. I imagine anyone looking for their lost keys can spend at least that long, and sometimes much longer. And imagine how much more cautiously you might go if instead of trying to find your lost keys, you were making sure there wasn't a death trap waiting to kill you if you stepped in the wrong spot.

The caution is already represented by making it take a move action. So no sprinting through the dungeon while you look for things, and if you truly must double-check every square you can move at the same speed as in 3.5 (5ft. step) - but getting two rolls every 5 feet instead of one, i.e. being exceptionally thorough.

But when traps are easy to spot, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0855.html) you shouldn't need to move that slowly for ease of play.



I dunno, having Search and Perception being separate makes sense to me. Combining Spot/Listen? Yeah, definitely. That's just a waste of skill points, just like having Hide and Move Silently separate is a tax on anyone wanting to be sneaky. But Perception IMO is all about what you passively notice while looking about, while Search is about what you find when you actively look for something. It's the difference between a Ranger noticing animals hiding in the brush vs an Investigator finding a clue at a crime scene.

"Passive vs. Active searching" is already accounted for too, by the Take 10 rules. You don't need a separate skill to model that.

[Vhaidara]

Ssalarn basically covered why I've made the full transition to PF instead of 3.5. Throw Spheres of Power on top of DSP and Radiance House's Occultist, then toss in Paizo's Alchemist and my Mutant class (because playing an Eidolon) and you have a system that is entirely T3 classes. The floors might drop to mid T4, but everyone should be able to contribute both in and out of combat.

[Psyren]

Then I'm very sorry to have disappointed you, though you seem to be hung up on minutia rather than on the expansion of what the Fighter is able to do with those options, for some reason. :smallconfused:

We all know that the centralization of the PRD and PFSRD is an advantage, this has already been established and wasn't terribly relevant to the quip about system mastery.

You didn't disappoint me - and I'm not sure what the centralization of the PFSRD has to do with what I said :smallconfused: "Zhentarim Fighter" would be both setting-specific and obtuse even if a DM had a legal tool to look it up with on the fly.


Should it be discouraged, though? I say no, if you're going to have it. PF devs said yes, you agree with them, sure, whatever, and danzibr's players do too, so that's all peachy. :smalltongue: The point stands, if they hate multiclassing, then they're going to be pleased with Jason Buhlman's offered solution.

I don't see it as being discouraged. The only thing you lose for multiclassing in PF is favored class bonuses, which are nowhere near the XP penalty 3.5 saddled you with. And if you're willing to houserule away 3.5's XP penalty (as so many groups do) you can just as easily houserule in contining your FCB progression while multiclassing in PF.

[Almarck]

You can also add Warlock ports to the list if you want to reduce the number of classes you're dependent on having to port over. Interjection games has a pretty interesting take on the Warlock's mechanics in Ultimate Ethermagic, making them way more interesting if you ask me. Sadly, it's not on PFSRD, which is a shame as they have some really neat base class concepts (only Tinkerer's primary materials were added to PFSRD)

[Vhaidara]

You can also add Warlock ports to the list if you want to reduce the number of classes you're dependent on having to port over. Interjection games has a pretty interesting take on the Warlock's mechanics in Ultimate Ethermagic, making them way more interesting if you ask me. Sadly, it's not on PFSRD, which is a shame as they have some really neat base class concepts (only Tinkerer's primary materials were added to PFSRD)

Actually, Spheres is a solid system for warlocks.

[Ssalarn]

You can also add Warlock ports to the list if you want to reduce the number of classes you're dependent on having to port over. Interjection games has a pretty interesting take on the Warlock's mechanics in Ultimate Ethermagic, making them way more interesting if you ask me. Sadly, it's not on PFSRD, which is a shame as they have some really neat base class concepts (only Tinkerer's primary materials were added to PFSRD)

The Kineticist from the Occult Adventures playtest also is very warlock-y, what with the all day blasting a few abilities that are literally direct ports of Warlock invocations. As I understand it, the final version will have a bump to 4+Int skill points and composite blasts baked into the chassis as well, so it should be pretty decent, if themed a little differently then the 3.5 Warlock.

Spheres of Power can also offer a couple different classes that can cover the Warlock niche. The Fey Adept, Hedge Witch, and Symbiat can all grab the Destruction Sphere for an all day scaling blast they can build on, and offer different paths into the concepts the 3.5 Warlock can cover.

**EDIT**

I see Keledrath was heading in the same direction I was.

[Almarck]

Actually, Spheres is a solid system for warlocks.

I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, sadly. I will not doubt it though, but the Ethermancer is very much in the spirit of the Warlock with some tweaks. It's very mechanically Warlock in how it organizes blasts and shapes them. It does the whole "Essense" and "Shape" thing that Warlocks did for blasts, but applies it to everything it can cast.

Then it does so using a gunslinger and magus version...




On topic, we're also getting 6 more base classes which are Paizo's takes on the invocation, binding, and I believe their Occultist is basically a thematic take on the Artificer.

We're getting to the point that there's more PF material than there was 3.5 material in just classes alone.

At the rate we're going, all we're going to be missing are Aura using classes, and even then alot of that is folded over into other concepts.

[Greenish]

Spheres of Power wouldn't happen to be OGC, would it?

[Ssalarn]

On topic, we're also getting 6 more base classes which are Paizo's takes on the invocation, binding, and I believe their Occultist is basically a thematic take on the Artificer.

At the rate we're going, all we're going to be missing are Aura using classes, and even then alot of that is folded over into other concepts.

Occultist is actually their take on Incarnum (or at least that's what it started as). Hopefully it gets a lot of love before that book goes to print. It was great as a skill-monkey with some cool sensory abilities, but the offensive options available through its relics scale really poorly.

Battlelord from Amora Games' "Liber Influxus" is an aura based class that shares thematic territory with the Marshal but amped up and reinforced with a "Specialty" system inspired by military MOS'.


Spheres of Power wouldn't happen to be OGC, would it?

I believe they're already working on adding it to d20pfsrd (assuming it isn't already up by now).


I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, sadly. I will not doubt it though, but the Ethermancer is very much in the spirit of the Warlock with some tweaks. It's very mechanically Warlock in how it organizes blasts and shapes them. It does the whole "Essense" and "Shape" thing that Warlocks did for blasts, but applies it to everything it can cast.


My favorite thing about Spheres of Power over the Ethermancer is that the all-day blast and the various options for shaping and/or augmenting it are all contained in just one of the 20 spheres available; you can add any combination of the other 19 to really specialize your casting style, and that's before you even count in what base class chassis you're using, so it's hugely versatile in scope and concept while still being incredibly well-balanced.

[Almarck]

It isn't.

At least, if going by the menu.

I imagine that despite how popular Spheres is, it's probably a huge data dump and will take forever to get everything put together.

Not to mention that it doesn't have a really existing mass player base that DSP has that zealously wants to write about it.

[Greenish]

I believe they're already working on adding it to d20pfsrd (assuming it isn't already up by now).If it is, I couldn't find it. Still, something to look forward to.

[Ssalarn]

If it is, I couldn't find it. Still, something to look forward to.

I know that one of the guys who regularly helps with that site told me they were working on it a couple weeks ago. My guess is that, as Almarck stated, it's just a huge project that's going to take them some time to get put together.

[danzibr]

That's a very interesting point with perception. Yes, it's pretty much the superskill of PF, but the alternative was the 2-3 seperate searching skills. Other games I know tend to have confusion pertaining to search skills. But then again, I only know like...4 Tabletop games.

By the way, what do you mean by "P.5 over 3.P"? I have never seen anyone use terminology like that before.
I believe P.5 is PF as a base with 3.5 stuff, and 3.P is 3.5 as a base with PF stuff.

EDIT: Oh snap, I didn't see there was another page where this was answered.

[Vhaidara]

Not to mention that it doesn't have a really existing mass player base that DSP has that zealously wants to write about it.

Well, remember, it only started coming out about 6-7 weeks ago. And it isn't fully out yet.

[Coidzor]

You didn't disappoint me - and I'm not sure what the centralization of the PFSRD has to do with what I said :smallconfused:

Oh the joys of tone, sorry. Then I guess I just don't see what your point could have been, since you seemed to be going on about more than just that the names are slightly less opaque. Especially given a line like
"Zhentarim Fighter" would be both setting-specific and obtuse even if a DM had a legal tool to look it up with on the fly. in reply to my pointing out that you'd already beaten us over the head with the convenience and ease of use of the PFSRD and PRD.


I don't see it as being discouraged. The only thing you lose for multiclassing in PF is favored class bonuses, which are nowhere near the XP penalty 3.5 saddled you with. And if you're willing to houserule away 3.5's XP penalty (as so many groups do) you can just as easily houserule in contining your FCB progression while multiclassing in PF.

It's a lot harder to justify giving everyone more spells known and all of the other nifty favored class bonuses that actually are worth something than it is to get rid of an experience point penalty that's just annoying for everyone to work with, both conceptually and in terms of how to practicably do so, so it is not easily equivalent, no.

[Ssalarn]

Well, remember, it only started coming out about 6-7 weeks ago. And it isn't fully out yet.

It did shoot to the top of the sales charts at Paizo last week as well, and I know that I recommend it to pretty much everyone, so I expect it to be a pretty big deal. Quality of art, mechanics, and organization are all really top notch, second only to top of the line goodies like Ultimate Psionics or Cerulean Seas, and Drop Dead is now into like, stretch goal #5 of their second successful Kickstarter, so they're a real up and coming powerhouse.

[Vhaidara]

wait, there's another kickstarter?

*goes to check kickstarter*

[Ssalarn]

wait, there's another kickstarter?

*goes to check kickstarter*

Skybourne. I think it actually closes today, and it's a super cool Campaign Setting that's got airships, planeswalking, and all kinds of cool and unique features. Part of the stretch goals are enhanced support for the Spheres of Power materials.

[Psyren]

Oh the joys of tone, sorry. Then I guess I just don't see what your point could have been, since you seemed to be going on about more than just that the names are slightly less opaque. Especially given a line like in reply to my pointing out that you'd already beaten us over the head with the convenience and ease of use of the PFSRD and PRD.

Despite my use of the term "legal tool," my primary point was indeed around the name opacity and setting ties of ZF specifically, and further noting that other ACFs are similar.

Also, I'm sorry you consider pointing out a legitimate selling-point/differentiating factor to be "beating you over the head" - but that's still what it is :smalltongue:



It's a lot harder to justify giving everyone more spells known and all of the other nifty favored class bonuses that actually are worth something than it is to get rid of an experience point penalty that's just annoying for everyone to work with, both conceptually and in terms of how to practicably do so, so it is not easily equivalent, no.

Not leveling up gives you fewer spells known too, so I still say it's not that different. And even if you can't get them approved, it's not like a sorcerer without the human sorcerer FCB drops a tier either; it's still a sorcerer. (Not to mention - the ones for your race may not even be worth sticking around for in the first place.)

[Squirrel_Dude]

Not leveling up gives you fewer spells known too, so I still say it's not that different. And even if you can't get them approved, it's not like a sorcerer without the human sorcerer FCB drops a tier either; it's still a sorcerer. (Not to mention - the ones for your race may not even be worth sticking around for in the first place.)This is very true. It's probably one of the reasons that I've started to see some posters on paizo's character advice forum encouraging multiclassing for some characters because the penalty for doing so is so negligible.

[Coidzor]

Despite my use of the term "legal tool," my primary point was indeed around the name opacity and setting ties of ZF specifically, and further noting that other ACFs are similar.

Also, I'm sorry you consider pointing out a legitimate selling-point/differentiating factor to be "beating you over the head" - but that's still what it is :smalltongue:

Ok, then.

It's that you continue to go on about after everyone's acknowledged it. :smalltongue:


Not leveling up gives you fewer spells known too, so I still say it's not that different. And even if you can't get them approved, it's not like a sorcerer without the human sorcerer FCB drops a tier either; it's still a sorcerer. (Not to mention - the ones for your race may not even be worth sticking around for in the first place.)

Why, yes, not gaining experience points and not leveling up at all gives one fewer spells known. :smalltongue:

It's a clear point of superiority, nonetheless. Aside from with Paragon Surging Half-elves, anyway.

[Psyren]

Ok, then.

It's that you continue to go on about after everyone's acknowledged it. :smalltongue:

Did I mention the PRD is free?
Did I mention the PRD is free?
Did I mention the PRD is free?

I feel like I haven't mentioned it in the last 5 minutes. :smallwink:



Why, yes, not gaining experience points and not leveling up at all gives one fewer spells known. :smalltongue:

It's a clear point of superiority, nonetheless. Aside from with Paragon Surging Half-elves, anyway.

Paragon Surge got nerf-batted. Now it only gives you a single extra spell known each day and only from your list. Still useful in a pinch but not nearly as powerful as it once was.