Pathfinder. What is it exactly? Opinions.

[DungeonMaster11]

Hey guys, I've been playing DND 3.5 for years and have enjoyed every time I've played. I also started a club for DND at my highschool this past year and had a group of pathfinder players join the club. I was wondering how different it is from DND and how powerful a player is at first level in comparison with DND 3.5. I had heard that you do start off a bit more powerful, but I was wondering if you guys could give me any opinions on the game (Pros/Cons).

[ComaVision]

It's really not very different.. Some things are simplified but for the most part it has the same problems (caster supremacy). It's very easy to port things back and forth between the two.

[GloatingSwine]

Colloquially, D&D 3.75

[BWR]

It's pretty much the same game with a few tweaks. I find the tweaks to be better than 3.5 in almost every case but opinions differ. Some things have been toned down (polymorph, wildshaping etc.) some things have been vastly improved (the paladin), and there are a few changes in design philosophy: classes are designed to be attractive 1-20 and not just as necessary starting points before a mad rush of dipping in half a dozen PrCs and other classes. To help with this they have archetypes, which are basically just 2e kits for PF classes. Generally, I find they do it well. It's certainly still possible to dip all over the place and you can get some impressive results but Fighter 20 is a far more attractive option than it ever was in 3.5 (though how attractive does still depend on what level of optimization your group plays with). And it's a lot harder to get the really ridiculous stuff that you could in 3.5.

[Uncle Pine]

In Pathfinder, a 7th level Commoner can use Craft (basketweaving) to create wondrous items like candles of invocation and start a wish farm. Don't ask how it's possible to build things like crystal balls with basketweaving.

All Pathfinder truly does is changing some details here and there, but everything ultimately adds up and in the end you end with a system that has a distinctively different mood from 3.5. If you're used to fit at least 3 different classes in your PCs to build a character that better suits your mental image, you'll find out that Pathfinder instead provides base classes with several built-in tracks (called "archetypes") that are used to differentiate characters from one another. Many loopholes from 3.5 have been "fixed" in Pathfinder, others... not so much. Some of the rules introduced in Pathfinder lead to unfortunate consequences (see above), but overall the system looks more balanced.
But this is just my experience with Pathfinder, as an outsider heavily biased toward 3.5.

[AvatarVecna]

In Pathfinder, a 7th level Commoner can use Craft (basketweaving) to create wondrous items like candles of invocation and start a wish farm. Don't ask how it's possible to build things like crystal balls with basketweaving.

You use blue-text as if this isn't totally RAW legal.

[Psyren]

Didn't you make this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?425281-3-5-or-4-0-pathfinder-(5-0)) already?

The candle is really not that big an issue - the commoner has no CL and therefore can't control anything that comes out, even if he makes the DC 32 to avoid accidentally ending up with a cursed item. It's a great way to end up Abis Mal'ed.

[Uncle Pine]

You use blue-text as if this isn't totally RAW legal.

I was actually using blue-text to emphasize how ridiculous it is that it can be done, but in a light tone. I think that not using blue-text would've made the observation sound harsher than it is. Since threads like this one have a tendency to attract hotheads and turn into edition wars more easily than others, I wanted to keep the chances to light a heated debate as low as possible for everyone's sanity's sake. :)

EDIT:

The candle is really not that big an issue - the commoner has no CL and therefore can't control anything that comes out, even if he makes the DC 32 to avoid accidentally ending up with a cursed item. It's a great way to end up Abis Mal'ed.
I thought the Gate effect was based on the candle's CL, as it is for every other magic item. Or did Pathfinder changed this?

[AvatarVecna]

I was actually using blue-text to emphasize how ridiculous it is that it can be done, but in a light tone. I think that not using blue-text would've made the observation sound harsher than it is. Since threads like this one have a tendency to attract hotheads and turn into edition wars more easily than others, I wanted to keep the chances to light a heated debate as low as possible for everyone's sanity sake. :)

Fair enough, I can appreciate that. It's certainly a very silly thing; I appreciate mundane crafting, but it's such a weird way to do it...

[Snowbluff]

Higher floor on character power, but it's generally got less good options than 3.5 does. Like most d20 it really comes down to if you're good with the system or not.

It's not a very good system. I'd pay less attention to it, but they've been releasing pretty bad major releases lately. Honestly, I feel really bad for whoever wrote the Vigilante. There's only so much you can snark. :smallfrown:

[Eldaran]

Higher floor on character power, but it's generally got less good options than 3.5 does.

Thankfully you can use pretty much all those options in Pathfinder, and the Core Rulebook even says as much.

I think unless you're already heavily invested in 3.5 there's no reason not to use Pathfinder, since it's backwards compatible and has all the material available online for free.

[Zanos]

It solves some minor issues with 3.5, streamlines some stuff, and introduces its own problems.

Feat every other level and their skill system that doesn't make calculating skill progression a huge pain in the ass are greatly appreciated, but other than that I don't consider pathfinder a better system. Its different, though.

[Snowbluff]

Thankfully you can use pretty much all those options in Pathfinder, and the Core Rulebook even says as much.

I think unless you're already heavily invested in 3.5 there's no reason not to use Pathfinder, since it's backwards compatible and has all the material available online for free.

Well, except for all of the nonsensical mechanical changes like the skill ranks and CMB, nerfed feat chains, and the fact that if you'd waste your time converting to PF, you'd probably end up using very little PF material by the time your character is finished. Once you wrap around those hurdles, you really might as well be playing one or the other.

Different is a good way to describe. It's fun to mess with something new every once in a while, but I wouldn't consider PF an improvement overall.

[Milo v3]

It's a tweaked 3.5e, but with better third party content and a bigger SRD.

As for the master craftsman feat, it says "You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item." so I don't think you can make candles with Basket weaving..... Though, I do have a player that is using it to grow items that have been reflavoured as vegetables with profession (farmer).

[Extra Anchovies]

Well, except for all of the nonsensical mechanical changes like the skill ranks and CMB, nerfed feat chains, and the fact that if you'd waste your time converting to PF, you'd probably end up using very little PF material by the time your character is finished. Once you wrap around those hurdles, you really might as well be playing one or the other.

Eh. PF's skill system (1 rank/level, with a bonus for class skills) is simpler than 3.5's (4x ranks at first level, plus ranks in non-class skills count for half). And conversions are as easy as subtracting 3 from every skill rank requirement.


Different is a good way to describe. It's fun to mess with something new every once in a while, but I wouldn't consider PF an improvement overall.

I think it is an improvement, not so much because of the system but because of the company behind it. Paizo's a lot better at listening to player feedback and issuing errata than WotC ever was (*cough* Tome of Battle errata *cough*).

Also there's more good third-party stuff for Pathfinder. Dreamscarred Press has been taking the various subsystems from 3.5 (psionics, incarnum, blade magic) and improving/updating them for PF, and there's a number of good publishers of wholly original concepts as well (notably Ascension Games and Radiance House).

[MukkTB]

I like pathfinder more. I like the company providing support for the product and being engaged with the community. Sometimes Paizo are a bunch of idiots, but they're always trying.

[Psyren]

I thought the Gate effect was based on the candle's CL, as it is for every other magic item. Or did Pathfinder changed this?

The candle says you are the caster of the gate, therefore the gate would use your caster level by RAW. Plus it is neither a spell-trigger nor spell-completion item.
The candle is designed for spellcasters to use so I see no issue with having it be nonfunctional for/detrimental to a non-caster.


Eh. PF's skill system (1 rank/level, with a bonus for class skills) is simpler than 3.5's (4x ranks at first level, plus ranks in non-class skills count for half). And conversions are as easy as subtracting 3 from every skill rank requirement.



I think it is an improvement, not so much because of the system but because of the company behind it. Paizo's a lot better at listening to player feedback and issuing errata than WotC ever was (*cough* Tome of Battle errata *cough*).

Also there's more good third-party stuff for Pathfinder. Dreamscarred Press has been taking the various subsystems from 3.5 (psionics, incarnum, blade magic) and improving/updating them for PF, and there's a number of good publishers of wholly original concepts as well (notably Ascension Games and Radiance House).

Agreed with this.

[Snowbluff]

Eh. PF's skill system (1 rank/level, with a bonus for class skills) is simpler than 3.5's (4x ranks at first level, plus ranks in non-class skills count for half). And conversions are as easy as subtracting 3 from every skill rank requirement. It's more important that untrained skills are harder to level than anything else, for the sake of the already ailing skill class. It's basic arithmetic after that.


I think it is an improvement, not so much because of the system but because of the company behind it. Paizo's a lot better at listening to player feedback and issuing errata than WotC ever was (*cough* Tome of Battle errata *cough*).
I'm not sure if "listening" is the right word. I don't think they've actually errataed anything yet, either.

In fact, I'd say this is bad. Most of the Paizo boards are full on low-Op whining. Did you know you can't play a synthesist in PFS? Nonsense. No siree, you are better off ignoring all of the Paizo FAQs. The worst part is that unlike the DnD FAQ for 3.5, the Paizo one is RAW, so you can't ignore and still be playing the same game as everyone else.


Also there's more good third-party stuff for Pathfinder. Dreamscarred Press has been taking the various subsystems from 3.5 (psionics, incarnum, blade magic) and improving/updating them for PF, and there's a number of good publishers of wholly original concepts as well (notably Ascension Games and Radiance House).

Yes, Dreamscarred Press' Pathfinder is a good system. Doesn't mean PF is worth playing out side that. If you're changing the rules to put in 3rd party, you can just as easily change the rules to play that material in 3.5.

[Pex]

It is an upgrade to 3E that has current business support from the creator. Warriors get nice things, spellcasters can do interesting stuff that's not casting a spell, skill use is easy to manage for everyone, and feats are buffs or tactical choices. Updating 3E core classes to Pathfinder core classes, everyone except Druid are increased in power and/or flexibility with Paladin being the winner in getting the most love. Druid is slightly nerfed due to nerfing of wildshape but is otherwise the same. Multiclassing and Prestige Classes are less emphasized though not forbidden. Archetypes are used to encourage staying single class but offer alternative class features that simulate multiclassing variety and Prestige Class specialization. The core classes are also good to use up to level 20 themselves. As the books came out there are several more base 1-20 classes.

Those who hate 3E with a passion will not be satisfied with Pathfinder. It fixes nothing those who hate 3E want fixed. Their fix is to use another game system entirely, something not D&D, 4E, or even 5E. There are those who like 3E but don't like the changes Pathfinder made to the system. They'll dismiss Pathfinder as 3E with someone else's house rules. They're going to stay with 3E proper, happy trails, just as others have done before them sticking with 2E or 1E. As for me, I like the changes Pathfinder has made. Even personal gripes I had when it first came out are no longer there. Pathfinder is my first choice for any RPG.

[Milo v3]

I don't think they've actually errataed anything yet, either.


The worst part is that unlike the DnD FAQ for 3.5, the Paizo one is RAW, so you can't ignore and still be playing the same game as everyone else.

Umm... you do realize the FAQ is how they announce errata right... That's why it's RAW.


But, either way. I don't really see any reason to play 3.5e or even go back and convert 3.5e stuff to PF... Most of it was crap anyway, and the parts that weren't have generally been better done by paizo or third party sources.

[nedz]

I pinched some ideas for my current 3.5 games house-rules. The skill system and the racial mods mainly. One of my players did complain about the skill system since he wanted to invest in lots of 1 rank cross class skills which you can no longer do — at least at first level.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure if "listening" is the right word. I don't think they've actually errataed anything yet, either.

They have actually, it's just that "errata" means something slightly different in Pathfinder. "Errata" means "rules change in book X that made it to a new print run." FAQ is "rules change that hasn't done that yet." In both cases the rule is changed (or clarified, or what have you) but for the latter there's an online resource you may need to keep abreast of.

And honestly, that is the best way to run a rules-heavy game - you have to have a direct and official channel between the devs and the players to plug the holes in the boat when the players find them. You laud Dreamscarred Press, yet they're doing the exact same thing right here on these boards, issuing FAQs and clarifications and even outright changing rules in some places. It might be just me, but I think it's a bit hypocritical to praise one company and lambast the other when they're doing the same thing.



In fact, I'd say this is bad. Most of the Paizo boards are full on low-Op whining. Did you know you can't play a synthesist in PFS? Nonsense. No siree, you are better off ignoring all of the Paizo FAQs. The worst part is that unlike the DnD FAQ for 3.5, the Paizo one is RAW, so you can't ignore and still be playing the same game as everyone else.

And that's a feature, not a bug :smallsmile: common ground for all, and if that common ground is a bit low-op, it's better to punch up than down.

[Milo v3]

Also, paizo boards aren't low-op. Many people on those boards complain about the whole board only caring about DPR-Olympics and tiers, etc. etc. It's a mix, just like it is over on this board... though, I will say that this board is "generally" more friendly. People can get ridiculously rude over on the paizo boards without provocation, and it is quite frustrating to deal with.

[Extra Anchovies]

I like Pathfinder because it's got a lot more stuff balanced around T3, where everyone is relevant most of the time. Inquisitor/Magus/Bard/Investigator is a much better party than Cleric/Fighter/Wizard/Rogue.


It's more important that untrained skills are harder to level than anything else, for the sake of the already ailing skill class. It's basic arithmetic after that.

"Guy with skill points" isn't a valid party role. Skills should be divided among the party members, not ignored by some and focused intensely on by others.

[Snowbluff]

I like Pathfinder because it's got a lot more stuff balanced around T3, where everyone is relevant most of the time. Inquisitor/Magus/Bard/Investigator is a much better party than Cleric/Fighter/Wizard/Rogue.
But on the other hand, Cleric/Cleric/Cleric/Cleric is a much better party. You had to put fighter and rogue in the second party to make to make investigator look better.

Alchemist/Summoner/Cleric/Wizard is where it's at.



"Guy with skill points" isn't a valid party role. Skills should be divided among the party members, not ignored by some and focused intensely on by others.

You have an investigator in your above party.

They have actually, it's just that "errata" means something slightly different in Pathfinder. "Errata" means "rules change in book X that made it to a new print run." FAQ is "rules change that hasn't done that yet." In both cases the rule is changed (or clarified, or what have you) but for the latter there's an online resource you may need to keep abreast of.
So have they actually errataed anything or not?


And honestly, that is the best way to run a rules-heavy game - you have to have a direct and official channel between the devs and the players to plug the holes in the boat when the players find them. You laud Dreamscarred Press, yet they're doing the exact same thing right here on these boards, issuing FAQs and clarifications and even outright changing rules in some places. It might be just me, but I think it's a bit hypocritical to praise one company and lambast the other when they're doing the same thing. It's not a double standard. I really hate some of the changes DSP makes. HOWEVER, there is a huge difference between what DSP does and what Paizo does. DSP's material that is generally being altered is in beta. They are supposed to be changed, even if I don't agree.

For released material, it's largely unacceptable to change the rules so frequently and on a small scale. People shouldn't have to ever check a second source if they have a print book.

Plus, DSP releases substantially more interesting and complex material with a much smaller staff. Even if I agreed with minute post release updates, they really should be given more leeway. Comparing the two companies is an actual example of comparing apples and oranges.


And that's a feature, not a bug :smallsmile: common ground for all, and if that common ground is a bit low-op, it's better to punch up than down.
Common ground, good. Powerful options low Op players wouldn't use anyway being used nerfed despite their being more powerful options, bad. As in "I don't like that they're having fun" bad. It's detrimental to the community and the game. :smallfrown:

[Milo v3]

But on the other hand, Cleric/Cleric/Cleric/Cleric is a much better party.
No... that's a boring as hell party. :smallsigh:

I'd prefer adept/fighter/monk/rogue to that party.


So have they actually errataed anything or not?
They have. They state issues and how they should be fixed in the FAQ, then in the next print run, have those issues editted and changed if viable. The changes are small so they are hard to notice, but I'm going to assume the next print run of ACG is going to have a lot of changes that are much easier to see.

[Snowbluff]

No... that's a boring as hell party. :smallsigh:
Milo, do you know the first thing about clerics? :smalltongue:

Who needs a barbarian? Cleric with Rage Domain and Anger Inquisition. THere, you have your screaming idiot, but he's also useful!

Who needs a ranger? Cleric with Animal and Elf domains. There, you have your useless nature guy, but he's also useful!

Who needs a bard? Cleric with the Heroism domain. There, you have some morale bonuses except now you suck at singing. :smallwink:

Clerics have always been versatile. You're just a little bit too content to put them in a box for being an older class.

[Milo v3]

Milo, do you know the first thing about clerics? :smalltongue:

Who needs a barbarian? Cleric with Rage Domain and Anger Inquisition. THere, you have your screaming idiot, but he's also useful!

Who needs a ranger? Cleric with Animal and Elf domains. There, you have your useless nature guy, but he's also useful!

Who needs a bard? Cleric with the Heroism domain. There, you have some morale bonuses except now you suck at singing. :smallwink:
Except all of those are boring cause they got no class features. I mean, at the very least Oracle has class features.

[Extra Anchovies]

But on the other hand, Cleric/Cleric/Cleric/Cleric is a much better party. You had to put fighter and rogue in the second party to make to make investigator look better.

Stronger =/= better. Also, I've heard you go on about how Cleric is the best class for any roles enough times that you don't need to rehash it again for me. Sometimes someone wants to play something that isn't a Cleric on the mechanical side of things, and they should be able to do so.


Alchemist/Summoner/Cleric/Wizard is where it's at.

For you, maybe. Note that I didn't say that Pathfinder is good because there's lots of stuff balanced around T3, I said I liked Pathfinder because of that. I happen to ban three out of those four classes in my games.


You have an investigator in your above party.

If you think the only thing the Investigator has is skill points, you clearly don't know what the Investigator even is, or are willfully ignoring the fact that they have Alchemy, Studied Combat, Inspiration, and Investigator Talents. Sure, an Investigator can be built for high skill modifiers, but they don't have to be, and the fact that they can be skill-optimized doesn't make their role "guy with skill points". I've got a skill-optimized Investigator in one of my games right now, but their role isn't "guy with skill points". He's the face. Everyone (or at least almost everyone) else in the party has skill points devoted to something else, e.g. Knowledge or infiltration stuff.


So have they actually errataed anything or not?

Let's not get into semantics. Regardless of what you want to call it, they've been altering rules after those rules are initially published. To me, that's errata, even if it's delivered piecemeal.


I'd prefer adept/fighter/monk/rogue to that party.

I kinda want to try that, except maybe with Magewright instead of Monk.

[Milo v3]

I kinda want to try that, except maybe with Magewright instead of Monk.

Oh, I always forget about magewright since it's from Eberron. Yeah, Magewright over monk so it fits the point better.

[Snowbluff]

Except all of those are boring cause they got no class features. I mean, at the very least Oracle has class features.


Stronger =/= better. Also, I've heard you go on about how Cleric is the best class for any roles enough times that you don't need to rehash it again for me. Sometimes someone wants to play something that isn't a Cleric on the mechanical side of things, and they should be able to do so.
It's too late, Anchovies. Milo said it was boring. We now have to go over it again and again, ad nauseam.

That means until we're all ill.
http://www.thegamingvault.com/uploads/2010/09/tommy-wiseau-the-room-banner.jpg
You see, it's a false comparison. Milo seems to think that that don't have any class features. They have hundreds of per day features, each swappable on a daily basis. And that's before you involve Domains, which include more "class features." Milo needs an education, and it's up to us, as educated people of serious business, to provide that. Saying that you have to fit Paizo's constraint definitions of what a class's build should look like is not very creative. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C_HReR_McQ)

In short, this thread is now small potatoes, Chovies. The OP probably has more than enough that I can call this gross negligence on my part. I'll have a more important thread for Milo's reeducation up later.

EDIT: Here it is. When I have more time, I'll finish the builds. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?425657-The-Cleric-Now-it-s-every-class)

[Psyren]

So have they actually errataed anything or not?

As I already told you, yes they have (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/resources) :smalltongue:

Note how they are organized by printing (e.g. First to Sixth.) Paizo errata functions basically like a changelog between print runs, while the FAQ is stuff for which they haven't needed or wanted to do a new print run, at least not yet.


It's not a double standard. I really hate some of the changes DSP makes. HOWEVER, there is a huge difference between what DSP does and what Paizo does. DSP's material that is generally being altered is in beta. They are supposed to be changed, even if I don't agree.

For released material, it's largely unacceptable to change the rules so frequently and on a small scale. People shouldn't have to ever check a second source if they have a print book.

Bold is quite simply an unreasonable stance for a rules-heavy game. Print is an immutable medium. Until we are all playing tabletop games completely digitally, it's unfeasible to expect that changes should never be communicated by any means post-release.

(And no, DSP very much clarifies released books, not just "beta.")



Common ground, good. Powerful options low Op players wouldn't use anyway being used nerfed despite their being more powerful options, bad. As in "I don't like that they're having fun" bad. It's detrimental to the community and the game. :smallfrown:

Detrimental to your personal enjoyment, maybe. To the community, not even remotely. The Kids Are All Right. :smalltongue:

[Snowbluff]

Bold is quite simply an unreasonable stance for a rules-heavy game. Print is an immutable medium. Until we are all playing tabletop games completely digitally, it's unfeasible to expect that changes should never be communicated by any means post-release.
You shouldn't have to; your game should be complete when it's shipped.


(And no, DSP very much clarifies released books, not just "beta.")
For the record, clarifications are not rules changes. And if they have, it's irrelevant.


Detrimental to your personal enjoyment, maybe. To the community, not even remotely. The Kids Are All Right. :smalltongue:A thought experiment:

Low Op player complains about a high Op rule. Should you change it? No.

He will not use the rule, ergo changing the rule will not alter his enjoyment of his games. They will be fine either way, but if you change the rule, you are letting a vocal minority, nay, a non-participant alter the rules of another person's game. A game you're trying to include as wide as a variety of players in.

[Extra Anchovies]

you are letting a vocal minority, nay, a non-participant

As much as we hate to admit, players who avoid intentional character optimization are also playing Pathfinder (or 3.5). So let's not pretend they're "non-participants" in the game.

Also, your argument works both ways. Players who don't like default rules can ignore those rules. The FAQ is a part of the default rules. Thus, players who don't like the FAQ can ignore the FAQ just as easily as those who don't like something in a printed book can ignore that thing. Either way, someone's houseruling something.

I do agree with you that the FAQ has a bunch of icky rulings. But sometimes-questionable errata is better than no errata, which is in turn better than just getting the Complete Mage errata again :smallfurious::smalltongue:

[Pluto!]

For 90% of players, PF is D&D 3.5 with some sweet new things to play with. There are only a handful of consequential changes to the game itself.

For players who memorize the rulebooks, there are minor tweaks throughout that add a save to a spell here, or that tweak the mechanics behind an Improved Trip attack there, which can be slightly annoying, but not actually a big deal.

Either way, nearly all classes and materials from 3.5 are directly usable in PF, and vis-versa (though the base classes in PF get a bunch more toys), so whichever system you use, there's no reason you or your PF-familiar players shouldn't have access to the content you know and enjoy.

There are a few people who will ham up balance discrepancies between 3.5 and PF, but the difference is hardly noticeable. In both, casters kick ass and noncasters lag behind, but player skill overshadows the systemic imbalances in almost all cases (unless we're talking the extremes, like a level 15+ Wizard plays beside a 3.5 Samurai or PF Cavalier, in which case, you're probably going to see some pretty extreme overshadowing).

[Psyren]

For the record, clarifications are not rules changes. And if they have, it's irrelevant.

There have been actual rules changes too, and even promises of an upcoming errata file for a published book (PoW.) Again, there is nothing wrong with this, it's just one of the things you have to deal with in a rules-heavy game where the players can't simply download a patch and have all the corrections made behind the scenes.



A thought experiment:

Low Op player complains about a high Op rule. Should you change it? No.

He will not use the rule, ergo changing the rule will not alter his enjoyment of his games. They will be fine either way, but if you change the rule, you are letting a vocal minority, nay, a non-participant alter the rules of another person's game. A game you're trying to include as wide as a variety of players in.

As Anchovies mentioned, this works both ways - and in fact, your way is worse, because it punches down. The less-experienced/op-tolerant player is the one who has to make the adjustments to his table, but he is the one more likely to just throw up his hands and ban that book entirely because he feels it's too strong. Better to "punch up," and have the more op-heavy table - which is already comfortable altering the game to suit them - be the ones to disregard faqrrata on an individual basis.

[Snowbluff]

As much as we hate to admit, players who avoid intentional character optimization are also playing Pathfinder (or 3.5). So let's not pretend they're "non-participants" in the game. Non-participants in the Op game.


Also, your argument works both ways. Players who don't like default rules can ignore those rules. The FAQ is a part of the default rules. Thus, players who don't like the FAQ can ignore the FAQ just as easily as those who don't like something in a printed book can ignore that thing. Either way, someone's houseruling something. That's... I think you missed my point.

If you leave a rule alone (as in, SLAs count as spells)
For the low Op player: don't build a character with this obscure option. If it's a low Op environment, you likely won't need it.

For the high Op player: play with the rule if you want. It makes certain options easier for you.


Nothing has to be houseruled. The system works.

If the rule was changed (it was, but we're in magical example land), nothing would be houseruled on the high Op player's game; that's admitting defeat. Changing the rules to suit you is pretty much doesn't present any of the challenge playing by the rules does. There's no sport in that.

It's like a player saying no one should play clerics because he doesn't like cleric, but he's never played a cleric, so removing clerics wouldn't affect him in any way.


I do agree with you that the FAQ has a bunch of icky rulings. But sometimes-questionable errata is better than no errata, which is in turn better than just getting the Complete Mage errata again :smallfurious::smalltongue:
It's a double edged sword. Complete Psi nerfed Astral Construct. I think frakked text is better than double frakked text. At least with single frakked text, I don't have to check for extra frakking. :smalltongue:

[Extra Anchovies]

If you leave a rule alone (as in, SLAs count as spells)
For the low Op player: don't build a character with this obscure option. If it's a low Op environment, you likely won't need it.
For a Low Op DM: If you think it's a problem after talking it over with your players, ask your player not to do it. It's not a houserule, just a gentleman's agreement. If it's a low Op environment, your players likely won't bring it up in the first place.
For the high Op player: play with the rule if you want. It makes certain options easier for you.
For the High Op DM: shrug.

Nothing has to be houseruled. The system works.

...not really. The low-op DM would still have to rule that SLAs don't count as spells were a player to bring it up to him.

Regardless, the only difference between leaving the rule in place and changing the rule via errata is that in the former case, the low-op games ignore the rule, and in the latter case, the high-op games ignore the errata. Since the errata is a set of rules, someone is ignoring a rule in either case. That is what I meant by "someone's houseruling something".

[atemu1234]

Eh. PF's skill system (1 rank/level, with a bonus for class skills) is simpler than 3.5's (4x ranks at first level, plus ranks in non-class skills count for half). And conversions are as easy as subtracting 3 from every skill rank requirement.



I think it is an improvement, not so much because of the system but because of the company behind it. Paizo's a lot better at listening to player feedback and issuing errata than WotC ever was (*cough* Tome of Battle errata *cough*).

Also there's more good third-party stuff for Pathfinder. Dreamscarred Press has been taking the various subsystems from 3.5 (psionics, incarnum, blade magic) and improving/updating them for PF, and there's a number of good publishers of wholly original concepts as well (notably Ascension Games and Radiance House).

I'm a DSP fan and I'm not even a Pathfinder player!

[Psyren]

...not really. The low-op DM would still have to rule that SLAs don't count as spells were a player to bring it up to him.

Regardless, the only difference between leaving the rule in place and changing the rule via errata is that in the former case, the low-op games ignore the rule, and in the latter case, the high-op games ignore the errata. Since the errata is a set of rules, someone is ignoring a rule in either case. That is what I meant by "someone's houseruling something".

Precisely.

And "finding in favor of the plaintiff," i.e. the low-op player who is complaining, is just better business. Not to mention the designers themselves often don't realize many of the powerful and unintended loopholes until the high-op players suss them out.

[Snowbluff]

Ah yes, the good ol' "I like being exploited!" argument. :smallsmile:

...not really. The low-op DM would still have to rule that SLAs don't count as spells were a player to bring it up to him.

Regardless, the only difference between leaving the rule in place and changing the rule via errata is that in the former case, the low-op games ignore the rule, and in the latter case, the high-op games ignore the errata. Since the errata is a set of rules, someone is ignoring a rule in either case. That is what I meant by "someone's houseruling something".
He doesn't have to. Adding something is changing the rules. Not playing with an option, is just not taking an option.

A high Op can't have my aasimar enter Eldritch Knight with daylight if it's illegal. That's a strict 1 or 0.

A low Op player doesn't play with the option because it's outside of his purview. That switch is never being touched.

Personally, I can go over the basics all day if I have to. It's a very simple idea that everyone should know. Read: The Snowbluff Axiom. Strong options should be available for the players who like strong options. Lower Op players are in no way harmed by these options existing. Read: The Crab Bucket. Low Op players who make these complaints in order to alter this are content with dragging others down.

[Extra Anchovies]

He doesn't have to. Adding something is changing the rules. Not playing with an option, is just not taking an option.

But if a low-op DM wants to prevent their players (who may not be as low-op as the DM is) from taking an option, that involves changing the rules to remove that option. If a DM doesn't want to deal with X in their game, they aren't just going to give in and say "oh, alright, nothing I can do to stop you" when one of their players says "I want my character to take X". Or if they are, they need some more assertive role models. What they will do is say "no, I don't let players take X in my games", at which point the rule has been changed.

A rule change that never comes up in a particular instance of the game is still a rule change. Removing the ability of mounted charges to multiply lance damage is still a change to the rules of the game even if none of the players or NPCs were planned as mounted chargers.

[Snowbluff]

But if a low-op DM wants to prevent their players (who may not be as low-op as the DM is) from taking an option, that involves changing the rules to remove that option. If a DM doesn't want to deal with X in their game, they aren't just going to give in and say "oh, alright, nothing I can do to stop you" when one of their players says "I want my character to take X". Or if they are, they need some more assertive role models. What they will do is say "no, I don't let players take X in my games", at which point the rule has been changed.


Yes and no. The DM is allowed to ban things. It's a rule. He'd be wrong for the same reasons the writers would be. If you want a low Op game, and you invited the player on those conditions, and he doesn't follow those conditions, it's sounds like someone messed up and there was a communications breakdown.

You should probably stop mobbing me over a good point. It only affirms my point more than anything, and if we can't agree on what I consider the basic fact of gaming, that adding something is much harder than ignoring an option, it's not worth our time.


A rule change that never comes up in a particular instance of the game is still a rule change. Removing the ability of mounted charges to multiply lance damage is still a change to the rules of the game even if none of the players or NPCs were planned as mounted chargers.Non sequitur.

[Psyren]

A low Op player doesn't play with the option because it's outside of his purview. That switch is never being touched.

And the low-Op DM who is complaining about it in the first place, or is happy when they fix it? Does that individual not matter?

Your "axiom" doesn't warrant getting invoked here, there is still a wide spectrum of power levels avaiable in PF even with all the FAQs taking care of a few of them. We're a long ways away from 4e.

[Extra Anchovies]

If you want a low Op game, and you invited the player on those conditions, and he doesn't follow those conditions, it's sounds like someone messed up and there was a communications breakdown.

So what do you do when a player doesn't follow the conditions you expect them to, which will inevitably happen because "low-op players" do not all think alike? There are three options:
-let the player ignore the conditions you expect players to follow (bad idea)
-kick them out of the game (bad idea)
-enumerate the conditions you expect players to follow as a set of houserules (good idea)


Non sequitur.

I have no idea how you could not see the relevance of what I said. Your accusation is... rude. Or uninformed. I hope it's the latter.

The mounted combat example was exactly that - an example.

My point is this:

If a low-op DM would not allow a player to take option X if a player wanted to take option X, then the DM has banned option X even if none of his players want to take option X. Even if an option which a DM doesn't want in their low-op game doesn't ever come up, that option is still not allowed in the game. Bans are changes to the rules even if the ban doesn't affect any of the players' intended character builds.

It's unrealistic to assume that if a DM ignores an option, their players will too. Thus, a DM who wants to ignore a certain option needs to ban that option.

[Uncle Pine]

As for the master craftsman feat, it says "You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item." so I don't think you can make candles with Basket weaving..... Though, I do have a player that is using it to grow items that have been reflavoured as vegetables with profession (farmer).
The chosen skill is the one you use to satisfy the prerequisite of the feat... You could use Profession (midwife) to create candles of invocation if you wanted. :smalleek:


The candle says you are the caster of the gate, therefore the gate would use your caster level by RAW. Plus it is neither a spell-trigger nor spell-completion item.
The candle is designed for spellcasters to use so I see no issue with having it be nonfunctional for/detrimental to a non-caster.
The text of candle of invocation is identical in 3.5 and Pathfinder, so I don't see why it should work differently unless the basic rules for magic items changed with the edition.

In addition, burning a candle also allows the owner to cast a gate spell, the respondent being of the same alignment as the candle, but the taper is immediately consumed in the process.

In addition, burning a candle also allows the owner to cast a gate spell, the respondent being of the same alignment as the candle, but the taper is immediately consumed in the process.
Commoners can chain gate in 3.5, so Commoners can chain gate in Pathfinder. Except it's easier to do so for them. The same goes for architects, bakers, barristers, brewers, butchers, clerks, cooks, courtesans, drivers, engineers, fishermen, gamblers, gardeners, herbalists, innkeepers, librarians, merchants, midwifes, millers, miners, porters, sailors, scribes, shepherds, stable masters, soldiers, tanners, trappers, and woodcutters.

[Psyren]

I'm not saying you can't gate something. I'm saying you have no control over what comes out, because that control is dependent on a CL you don't possess. The spell specifically references your CL.

"A creature with more HD than your caster level can't be controlled."

[Snowbluff]

So what do you do when a player doesn't follow the conditions you expect them to, which will inevitably happen because "low-op players" do not all think alike? There are three options:
-let the player ignore the conditions you expect players to follow (bad idea)
-kick them out of the game (bad idea)
-enumerate the conditions you expect players to follow as a set of houserules (good idea)
Kick them. 3 doesn't work because 3 is just doing what he ignored, 1 means you failed, so 2 is the only option. Simple logic puzzle, from the perspective of a low Op player.

Know what I know, the answer is 1. If I'm a low Op DM, DMing a humble game, it's too much of a fuss unless the rule is actually hurting something.



I have no idea how you could not see the relevance of that. The mounted combat example was exactly that - an example. My point is this:

If a low-op DM would not allow a player to take option X if a player wanted to take option X, then the DM has banned option X even if none of his players want to take option X. Even if an option which a DM doesn't want in their low-op game doesn't ever come up, that option is still not allowed in the game. Bans are changes to the rules even if the ban doesn't affect any of the players' intended character builds.Yeah, it's dumb. I said it was dumb not 10 inches ago on this very board. "He's wrong for the same reasons the writers are." Then you regurgitated my point back to me, replacing the writer with the Low Op DM. Low Op spent pointless calories thinking up a ban. Low Op DM is a **** to calories.



You should probably stop mobbing me over a good point. It only affirms my point more than anything, and if we can't agree on what I consider the basic fact of gaming, that adding something is much harder than ignoring an option, it's not worth our time.

[Milo v3]

The chosen skill is the one you use to satisfy the prerequisite of the feat... You could use Profession (midwife) to create candles of invocation if you wanted. :smalleek:

You can't. Since you have to use the chosen skill, and you can only use skills related to an item to craft with it. The feat doesn't circumvent that. You can use Craft (Weapons) to make magical weapons with it, but you can't use Craft (Weapons) to make magic armour with it.

[Extra Anchovies]

I'm not of the opinion that anyone can be "wrong" about their own intellectual property. Saying the Paizo devs are "wrong" for changing the rules is like saying J. K. Rowling was "wrong" when George died or when she mentioned that Dumbledore was homosexual. They are the creator. We can modify their creations for our own specific use, but we cannot change the original version of their creations, nor can we declare our personal versions of their creations as the true version.


Kick them. 3 doesn't work because 3 is where you started, 1 means you failed, so 2 is the only option. Simple logic puzzle.

Not sure if you entirely got what I meant with kick them from the game. Here's the three options represented as exchanges between a DM and a player. The hypothetical DM does not want to allow SLAs to count as spells for prerequisites and stuff.

Option 1:
Player: "Can I use my racial spell-like ability to qualify for Eldritch Knight?"
DM: "I guess so. Even though I don't want players doing that in my game, I'll let you do that because you want to."
Player is satisfied, DM is unhappy because he's letting Player walk all over him.

Option 2:
Player: "Can I use my racial spell-like ability to qualify for Eldritch Knight?"
DM: "Get out of my basement and never come back."
Player is unhappy, DM is also probably unhappy because Player was likely a friend of theirs.

Option 3:
Player: "Can I use my racial spell-like ability to qualify for Eldritch Knight?"
DM: "Actually, I don't allow characters to count their spell-like abilities as spells in games I run."
DM is satisfied, Player is inconvenienced. If Player refuses to accept the DM's rule, that is when it is proper to kick them from the game. But then, a player who refuses to accept a particular DM's houserules doesn't have a place in that DM's games, so their departure is probably good for both of them.

[Psyren]

Option 2:
Player: "Can I use my racial spell-like ability to qualify for Eldritch Knight?"
DM: "Get out of my basement and never come back."

I lol'ed :smallbiggrin:

And yes, agreed with all three.


I'm not of the opinion that anyone can be "wrong" about their own intellectual property. Saying the Paizo devs are "wrong" for changing the rules is like saying J. K. Rowling was "wrong" when George died or when she mentioned that Dumbledore was homosexual. They are the creator. We can modify their creations for our own specific use, but we cannot change the original version of their creations.

Also this. Hear, hear!

[Snowbluff]

I got what you meant. Throw that munchkin out. I'm a low Op DM with a tenuous grasp of the rules, and I shouldn't learn to pick my battles or think about the game as an exercise between friends and peers. :smalltongue:

No one wins either way, Chovies. Thanks for proving my point. The DM shouldn't have ruled against it.

Psyren, that argument breaks down every time you say you like PF better than 3.5. The original was 3.5, and any alteration is actually not the "true" or "original" version of the d20 system.

[Extra Anchovies]

I lol'ed :smallbiggrin:

Gotta be tough on those #$@&ing rudisplorkers.


I got what you meant. Throw that munchkin out. I'm a low Op DM with a tenuous grasp of the rules, and I shouldn't learn to pick my battles or think about the game as an exercise between friends and peers. :smalltongue:

The difference between 2 and 3 is the reason for which a player may be kicked from the game. In 2, they're kicked for wanting to do a thing that the DM doesn't want in their game. In 3, they're kicked for refusing to follow the houserules set by the DM. Either way they're out of the game because they aren't playing the game that the DM wants to run, but in 3 they at least are made aware of the sort of game the DM wants to run and are given a chance to take back their request for a particular option.

In both cases there are houserules. Only in 3 are the houserules made known to the players.

[Psyren]

Ah, but Snowbluff, you're forgetting the 4th scenario.

Player: "Can I use my racial spell-like ability to qualify for Eldritch Knight?"
DM: "Paizo ruled that is no longer possible. I'll let you do it, but it'll cost you an extra feat/roleplay requirement/I'm weakening a class feature of EK in exchange."

Player is satisfied, DM is also satisfied because he appears magnanimous while also getting to tweak the power level of the option he felt was too strong.


And of course there is the 5th scenario.

Player: "Can I use my racial spell-like ability to qualify for Eldritch Knight?"
DM: "Paizo ruled that is no longer possible. I might let you do it in a future campaign, but for this one I want to stick as close to RAW as possible."

Player is mollified, DM is satisfied.

[Snowbluff]

#4 is bad. Paizo changed a rule and now it's now allowed. Jerks. Player got ripped off because EK somehow gets worse and costs even more.

#5 is bad for a high Op player in the next game, depending. It honestly feels like cheating sometimes. The only times I allow this if the game started so we don't have to change the sheets every time Paizo changes a rule. I'm playing a dirty oracle, something that will be dropped like a sack of rocks once this campaign it's grandfathered into is over.




The difference between 2 and 3 is the reason for which a player may be kicked from the game. In 2, they're kicked for wanting to do a thing that the DM doesn't want in their game. In 3, they're kicked for refusing to follow the houserules set by the DM. Either way they're out of the game because they aren't playing the game that the DM wants to run, but in 3 they at least are made aware of the sort of game the DM wants to run and are given a chance to take back their request for a particular option.

In both cases there are houserules. Only in 3 are the houserules made known to the players.

I really meant it. If he hadn't tried to change a rule, none of it would have happened. There shouldn't have been a houserule.

Excuse me. That's it. I need a sturdy brick wall. I'm done.

[Uncle Pine]

I'm not saying you can't gate something. I'm saying you have no control over what comes out, because that control is dependent on a CL you don't possess. The spell specifically references your CL.

"A creature with more HD than your caster level can't be controlled."
And I'm saying that isn't how magic items work:

Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item's saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.

For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
Candle of invocation base CL is 17, so you use that to determine how the Gate effect works.



You can't. Since you have to use the chosen skill, and you can only use skills related to an item to craft with it. The feat doesn't circumvent that. You can use Craft (Weapons) to make magical weapons with it, but you can't use Craft (Weapons) to make magic armour with it.
That's not what the rules say. This is what rules say:
1. Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks. [Basketweaving or midwife in our examples]
2. Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats. [Chosen skill = Craft (basketweaving)]
3. You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level. [Chosen skill = Craft (basketweaving)]
4. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. [Chosen skill = Craft (basketweaving)]
Note that nowhere it says that you need a specific chosen skill to make a specific magic item.

[Extra Anchovies]

Psyren, that argument breaks down every time you say you like PF better than 3.5. The original was 3.5, and any alteration is actually not the "true" or "original" version of the d20 system.

Nope. Dungeons and Dragons is © Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Pathfinder is © Paizo Publishing. Although they may be similar in content, they are wholly separate intellectual properties. It's like how two different companies can publish geometry textbooks and each be the owner of what is within their books despite the similarities between them.


I really meant it. If he hadn't tried to change a rule, none of it would have happened. There shouldn't have been a houserule.

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. You seem to be arguing that houserules are inherently bad things, but at the same time you like ignoring the FAQ. Ignoring a rule is altering the rules, and altering the rules is applying a houserule. So houserules == good when you write them but houserules == bad when others do?

Either that or you think the FAQ shouldn't exist, which (in my opinion) is wrong in the same way that saying WotC handled their errata system perfectly is wrong.

Regardless, I think all that's needed to be said here has already been said. Let's step off from this one before there's any bad blood. Got any room on that brick wall for a friend?

[Snowbluff]

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. You seem to be arguing that houserules are inherently bad things, but at the same time you like ignoring the FAQ. Ignoring a rule is altering the rules, and altering the rules is applying a houserule. So houserules == good when you write them but houserules == bad when others do? They're bad, because having universal rules means everyone knows what to expect at the table.


Either that or you think the FAQ shouldn't exist, which is wrong in the same way that saying WotC handled their errata system perfectly is wrong. I said this. FAQ sucks. The errata sucks ("double frakked" and astral construct, remember?). Hence why I'm frustrated.



Regardless, I think all that's needed to be said here has already been said. Let's step off from this one before there's any bad blood. Got any room on that brick wall for a friend?No, my head is huge

[Milo v3]

Note that nowhere it says that you need a specific chosen skill to make a specific magic item.

The magic item creation rules say that the skill is Spellcraft, but sometimes other skills can do it. So it's spellcraft (which isn't applicable in the current situation) or DM permission on whether x skill works.

[Psyren]

#4 is bad. Paizo changed a rule and now it's now allowed. Jerks. Player got ripped off because EK somehow gets worse and costs even more.

"Costs a little more to get" beats "is banned," and the GM now has authoritative cover from the designers, as intended. Again, it's good business - if no GMs want to run your game (or even if only the High-Op GMs do, of which there are few), there will be no PCs, and thus the Avatar of PC-dom will be out of a job :smalltongue:

And really, a T1 class can afford a tiny feat tax.


#5 is bad for a high Op player. It honestly feels like cheating sometimes. The only times I allow this if the game started so we don't have to change the sheets every time Paizo changes a rule.

I'm glad you brought that up because it invokes another scenario. So the game is in progress and the GM feels the player is too strong, and suspects their early-entry trick (or whatever else Paizo has yet to FAQ) is the cause. Yet he feels that pulling the player aside and making him redo an approved character isn't exactly fair either. So he complains on the forums about {powerful trick.}

Paizo reads the post and agrees, this was unintended. Paizo then issues the FAQ. The GM has two options:

1) To redo the player's character as he originally wanted to, only now he has something concrete to point to and say "this wasn't what the creators intended." The player sees the impartial judgment (since Paizo has no personal stake in their individual game) and is more likely to acquiesce.

2) Let things continue but use the knowledge that the GM could have altered the sheet as leverage to extract concessions and bring the player's power down going forward. Something like "According to this FAQ, your character shouldn't have been built the way it is. I'm going to let you keep it as-is for the most part, but in exchange we're going to tweak your character slightly - we'll say you don't have {problematic feat} until later, or tweak your spell selection to postpone {powerful spell}, or say your qualification is actually due to {less optimal item} which you must wear in order for the character to be legal, at least until you hit {level} and I let you retrain into the class normally. You get to pick."


And I'm saying that isn't how magic items work:

Candle of invocation base CL is 17, so you use that to determine how the Gate effect works.

That's the general rule that refers to the Gate spell within the item itself. The spell then specifically references your CL. This is why you're able to cast the gate in the first place by lighting the candle, but not to control whatever comes out.

Yes, this makes that use of the candle pointless for anyone who is not a powerful spellcaster - i.e. the folks who should be controlling outsiders in the first place. This is intentional.

[Extra Anchovies]

They're bad, because having universal rules means everyone knows what to expect at the table.

I said this. FAQ sucks. The errata sucks ("double frakked" and astral construct, remember?). Hence why I'm frustrated.

Hm. Then I suppose we are at an impasse, since I like having errata and houserules. It's better than swordsages getting 6x skill points at 1st level.

I'll likely be taking my leave of this particular discussion now, interesting though it might have been.

[Psyren]

Hm. Then I suppose we are at an impasse, since I like having errata and houserules. It's better than swordsages getting 6x skill points at 1st level.

I'll likely be taking my leave of this particular discussion now, interesting though it might have been.

And that's one of the lighter problems that never got fixed. At the other end of the spectrum we have things like Iron Heart Surging the sun away.

But I've agreed with you pretty much throughout and continue to do so, including taking a bow. Hopefully the OP got something out of all this.

[atemu1234]

And that's one of the lighter problems that never got fixed. At the other end of the spectrum we have things like Iron Heart Surging the sun away.

But I've agreed with you pretty much throughout and continue to do so, including taking a bow. Hopefully the OP got something out of all this.

I prefer d2 Crusadering the planet.

[Uncle Pine]

The magic item creation rules say that the skill is Spellcraft, but sometimes other skills can do it. So it's spellcraft (which isn't applicable in the current situation) or DM permission on whether x skill works.
You missed the part in Master Craftsman in which it says that you use your chosen skill to create the item instead of Spellcraft. That's kinda the point of the feat: not having to use Spellcraft and CL to create magic items.


That's the general rule that refers to the Gate spell within the item itself. The spell then specifically references your CL. This is why you're able to cast the gate in the first place by lighting the candle, but not to control whatever comes out.

Yes, this makes that use of the candle pointless for anyone who is not a powerful spellcaster - i.e. the folks who should be controlling outsiders in the first place. This is intentional.
It also makes the use of every magic items that make use of a spell that mentions "your" caster level pointless. Call Animal, for example. This probably isn't intentional, as in "it shouldn't happen, because that's not how it works". It's clearly stated that you use the item's CL whenever you have to determine the effects and the limits of a spell cast through the item.

[Snowbluff]

Hm. Then I suppose we are at an impasse, since I like having errata and houserules. It's better than swordsages getting 6x skill points at 1st level.It's more important to take a step back, and say "does it matter." x6 skills at level 1 is dumb, but it really doesn't matter, especially since they can't go over the level cap anyway.

So, Chovies, these writers are incompetent. Seriously, neither WtC nor Paizo is batting 100 by any stretch of the imagination. Do you seriously trust them to be able to actually fix anything most of the time?

If anything, the thing about me being the only person about making houserules is right (except it really isn't). Apples and oranges. A low Op is one who is generally unconcerned with the Op aspect of the game. A game writer is incompetent. So, who does that actually leave to make good changes? Someone who is capable of understanding the rules and making effective changes for the benefit of the players.

So a high Op DM, right? But he wouldn't have to. He's a high Op DM, self trained to be the most thorough and thoughtful of the men at the table. A Low Op party? A walk in the park. They'll make it through, since the DM can just write less challenging material. If player wants to play hardball, the High Op DM can seriously play hardball. And he'll make sure the players know it. "Eye for an eye, boys. I learned that from watching algorithms eat each other in Fortran. Now let's have some fun!" Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee, Mr. High Op DM.

And that's why High Op DM is best. :smalltongue:


I'll likely be taking my leave of this particular discussion now, interesting though it might have been.

It's too late for me. I have all 18 cylinders firing. Not to mention I have work tomorrow on the fourth of July of all days. Hence the off topic discussion up above. Thanks for the sleepless night.

[Psyren]

It also makes the use of every magic items that make use of a spell that mentions "your" caster level pointless.

It's not pointless at all. Characters with a CL - such as, say, the actual casters who can normally use those spells - can use such items just fine.

Basketweaving commoners kinda get the shaft, but eh.



So, Chovies, these writers are incompetent. Seriously, neither WtC nor Paizo is batting 100 by any stretch of the imagination. Do you seriously trust them to be able to actually fix anything most of the time?

Well, certainly they'll never be able to do that if they rule their own updated rulings to be mere suggestions. Kinda like WotC actually did. :smalltongue:


Regarding their not batting 100: I am of the opinion that they at least bat more than .500, so over time the passage of the rules through the implementation -> feedback -> errata cycle will generally be a positive one.

That too. (Was a post deleted?)

[Extra Anchovies]

I'm of the opinion that the passage of a set of rules through the implementation -> feedback -> errata cycle is generally a good thing, as long as the cycle is continually renewed. It's part of why I prefer Pathfinder to 3.5; Paizo is keeping their rules alive well after they have been published, whereas WotC issued one or fewer errata documents per book and never updated them. Sure, there was also the DragMag Q&A, but you could probably have gotten rulings that were just as accurate as those of the DragMag Q&A by getting a blindfolded monkey to toss darts at pieces of paper labeled "yes" and "no". Might even get more accurate results, if it's a good monkey.


That too. (Was a post deleted?)

Yes, but the relevant bit is back from the grave.

[Psyren]

Was the DragMag Q&A online somewhere? I'd like to read it if possible.

[Extra Anchovies]

Was the DragMag Q&A online somewhere? I'd like to read it if possible.

It's not all in one place that I know of, but quite a few 3.5-era dragmag issues are on various pdf-hosting sites (notably scribd). I'm somewhat exaggerating its inaccuracy but it has more than its fair share of questionable rulings. It's generally no more reliable or informative than just using common sense.

ETA: found a link to the 3.5 Q&A (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20070731a), which is pretty much the same thing and is all in one spot.

[Milo v3]

You missed the part in Master Craftsman in which it says that you use your chosen skill to create the item instead of Spellcraft. That's kinda the point of the feat: not having to use Spellcraft and CL to create magic items.

Actually it simply says: "You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item." It doesn't let you ignore the fact you have to use a viable skill, and the use of this feat is restricted so that you cannot take 5 ranks in craft (Boats) then use your 20 ranks in spellcraft to craft anything.

[Uncle Pine]

Actually it simply says: "You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item." It doesn't let you ignore the fact you have to use a viable skill, and the use of this feat is restricted so that you cannot take 5 ranks in craft (Boats) then use your 20 ranks in spellcraft to craft anything.
You don't take Master Craftsman so that you can use your 20 ranks in Spellcraft to craft something, you take it because you're not a caster and/or Spellcraft isn't a class skill for you. So you take Profession (baker) instead.

We already agreed that "chosen skill" refers to the Craft or Profession skill you selected when taking the feat. I don't see where you get the idea that you have to use a "viable" skill for the check, as this is what's written under the magic item creation rules:

To create magic items, spellcasters use special feats which allow them to invest time and money in an item's creation. At the end of this process, the spellcaster must make a single skill check (usually Spellcraft, but sometimes another skill) to finish the item. If an item type has multiple possible skills, you choose which skill to make the check with.
1. Master Craftsman allows you to create magic items even if you aren't a spellcaster.
2. It lets you use your chosen skill for the check to create the item.
3. Even if it doesn't mention that you don't have to use Spellcraft for the check, since your chosen skill is now a possible skill, you can use it for the check.

[Milo v3]

2. It lets you use your chosen skill for the check to create the item..

It doesn't let you use your chosen skill for the check. It doesn't say that anywhere. You're making it that up. This feat lets you take certain item crafting feats, treat your ranks in a specific skill as CL, and it's use is restricted so that you can only use it with the specific skill. It does not say that you can use your chosen skill for the check. The rule of which skill is used for an item is: "At the end of this process, the spellcaster must make a single skill check (usually Spellcraft, but sometimes another skill) to finish the item. If an item type has multiple possible skills, you choose which skill to make the check with." So, if you want to use mastercraftsman, you better hope it is one of the "somtimes another skill" skills for that item, which is determined by the GM.

You take mastercraftsman so if your a baker, you can make magic bread, or so a blacksmith can make magic armour, or so a farmer can grow magic crops. Not so a baker crafts a candle, swords, and horse shoes.

[Uncle Pine]

It doesn't let you use your chosen skill for the check. It doesn't say that anywhere. You're making it that up.


You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item.

Excuse me, but at this point I think you didn't even read the feat I cited word for word multiple times in the thread, as the feat is pretty darn explicit. You can find it here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final), by the way.

[Eox]

You're kind of torturing the wording there. It follows pretty easily that if you must use your chosen skill to make something and you *can't* use that skill to craft a certain item, you can't craft that item.

[Uncle Pine]

You're kind of torturing the wording there. It follows pretty easily that if you must use your chosen skill to make something and you *can't* use that skill to craft a certain item, you can't craft that item.

I can't find such restriction. Anyway, it's magic, so if the feat says that I can craft weapons with basketweaved hilts I'll assume that it's possible. By your interpretation, please provide examples of magic weapons and armor that can be crafted with half the various Craft and Profession skills. I'm especially interested in weapons made with Profession (midwife). :smallamused:

[Milo v3]

I can't find such restriction.
The restriction is in the magic item creation rules, and you still haven't shown a single exemption from this restriction. Saying you must use the specific skill doesn't means you "Can" use the skill for all purposes.


By your interpretation, please provide examples of magic weapons and armor that can be crafted with half the various Craft and Profession skills. I'm especially interested in weapons made with Profession (midwife). :smallamused:
You... can't. If you want to make magic weapons you should do it with Craft (Weapons) or Craft (Bows), maybe profession (blacksmith). Deal with it. :smallsigh:

[Renen]

I agree with snowbluff. Aside from the DSP stuff PF is lacking.
Or rather... PF is like a Mac to 3.5's PC.
PF is more user friendly, and got a higher op floor. But I actually like dipping all the 3.5 PrC's. Where as in 3.5 you could custom build your PC, Macs come pre-built and discourage you from borrowing parts from other Macs. Sure, there are alot of different Mac models, but there are waaaaay more things that can be made combining PC parts.

The ongoing support is kinda nice though. Sometimes....

I also pretend PFS doesn't exist. Because as snowbluff said... They ban synthesist. Like come on... Its LESS broken than base summoner...

Also, on topic of Paizo-inc changing stuff like SLAs counting as spells. There are a ton of DMs (atleast that I know) that would allow most anything raw (that's not like suuuuuuper broken) but refuse to budge on anything that's not raw. So I might be playing super high OP game, but they won't let daylight SLA count as anything useful ONLY because the RAW says so. Some DMs treat RAW like a Bible, and refuse to budge, so when Paizo changes stuff, you have DMs not letting you have nice things only because it's RAW and must not be changed ever.

[Eox]

I can't find such restriction. Anyway, it's magic, so if the feat says that I can craft weapons with basketweaved hilts I'll assume that it's possible. By your interpretation, please provide examples of magic weapons and armor that can be crafted with half the various Craft and Profession skills. I'm especially interested in weapons made with Profession (midwife). :smallamused:

Well for starters, you can make all of those with Craft: Weapons and Craft: Armour. Master Craftsman is a decent feat, but it's not very well regarded due to flat-out being worse than a regular item creation feat on a spellcaster. Most profession skills would only really let you make a handful wondrous items (Lawyer for a Pact Parchment, or arguably Midwife for a Sovereign Shabti) unless you've maxed your ranks in Bluff, Profession: Rules Lawyer and Profession: Book Dodger.

It's a neat feat, not a great feat.

[Psyren]

Honestly, I don't see why Profession (engineer) - a legitimate choice, by the way - couldn't be used to justify every wondrous item, magic armor and magic weapon in the book. Really, this bickering is silly - either your GM considers one skill being able to make everything reasonable or they don't, and trading barbs online over it is not going to affect the price of baguettes in Paris one bit. There is no right or wrong answer to this one, because this is one of those open areas of the rules where the GM has to decide what is applicable.

[Eox]

Oh, I have no problem with outlandish justifications for things or breaking verisimilitude over your knee for the sake of actually having fun. The problem is that while you could certainly weave a bunch of reeds together and say it's a +5 keen earthbreaker, most if not all discussions on this forum tend to focus on the only common ground between different groups of players (I.E. rules as written or whatever shreds of real world physics you can cling to in the face of the peasant rail gun and drown healing.) Saying you can break the game by making one of the most notorious items ever printed with a totally unrelated skill without that mythic path ability that allows you to pull stuff like that tends to rub people the wrong way.

As an aside, that ability would let you craft an item with Perception. I assume you just spend a bunch of money looking for it until you realize you've always had one, which is appropriately mythic.

[ericgrau]

Hey guys, I've been playing DND 3.5 for years and have enjoyed every time I've played. I also started a club for DND at my highschool this past year and had a group of pathfinder players join the club. I was wondering how different it is from DND and how powerful a player is at first level in comparison with DND 3.5. I had heard that you do start off a bit more powerful, but I was wondering if you guys could give me any opinions on the game (Pros/Cons).

My opinion on PF is that it is not that different from 3.5. Whether you play 3.5 or you play PF is mostly arbitrary. That's its strength and its weakness. Originally they were going to change a lot and it was a flood of bad game destroying ideas so they toned it back and now the changes are so small that they didn't really make a major change to D&D. So... goal failed but that could perhaps be a good thing.

The huge plus with PF is that it still has ongoing support unlike 3.5. There are new classes, feats, campaign modules and so on to try. And it's all interchangeable with 3.5 so your gaming group can choose to include or not include 3.5 splatbooks in your PF game, or vis versa to include PF material in a 3.5 game. Besides new material coming out you can join a Pathfinder Society game with random strangers and then bring your character to other PFS games.

In the core rules you do start out a little bit stronger and using other books to customize and put together minor combos is almost encouraged as the baseline. But PF doesn't yet have the sheer mass of splatbooks that 3.5 has yet, so it is harder to shatter balance over its knees with super high power tricks. Harder but not impossible though, and the amount of PF splatbook material and silly broken tricks is steadily growing. So that's a small disadvantage there to casual players who weren't really powergaming 3.5, as the power has creeped up a bit, but for enthusiastic players who like to dig through books it actually reigned in the power a little and that's a small plus.

All in all play it if you feel like it, don't play it if you don't feel like it. I'd play either 3.5 or PF depending on what the group wants and it doesn't make much difference to me either way.

[bekeleven]

It's not pointless at all. Characters with a CL - such as, say, the actual casters who can normally use those spells - can use such items just fine.

Basketweaving commoners kinda get the shaft, but eh.Boy does the magic item compendium confuse me now.

I had no idea that when my fighter upgraded his Dispelling dagger to a Greater Dispelling dagger I went from making dispel checks at 1D20+0 to 1D20+0.

The fact that Illusion Bane (+1 Bonus, CL10) lets you make a dispel check at 1D20+10 must be a case of specific trumping general. And if you activate the command-word function, it must drop back to +0.

It's especially puzzling that the Rod of Freedom (CL9) says "You can activate it as a swift (command) action to make a special caster level level check (1D20+9) and attempt to dispel" charms and compulsions. Either specific overrides general or the rod implicitly only functions for people with CL9.

The Ring of Greater Counterspells has an interesting clause: " This counterspell attempt functions like greater dispel magic used to counter a spell, except that you add your caster level to the counterspell check (maximum +20). Thus, a 12th-level wizard wearing a ring of greater counterspells would roll 1d20+12 when activating this ability." (Emphasis mine). The word "Except" must have been placed by accident, since that's what happens any time a magic item dispels something.

The Magic Siphon (CL20)'s used of Greater Dispel Magic must have just been to edge around globe of invulnerability interactions.

You how what I will say, though? This makes one character death make perfect sense in hindsight. My Cloistered Cleric 1/Wizard 19 gated in a solar to ask for a favor. Imagine my surprise when it attacked and killed me! Turns out I took my ClClr level first, so anything that didn't specify "Wizard Caster Level" was using CL1 my entire career! Explains why my GM had me roll 1 white D6 and 9 black D6 every time I fireballed, at least.

[Psyren]

The Ring of Greater Counterspells has an interesting clause: " This counterspell attempt functions like greater dispel magic used to counter a spell, except that you add your caster level to the counterspell check (maximum +20). Thus, a 12th-level wizard wearing a ring of greater counterspells would roll 1d20+12 when activating this ability." (Emphasis mine). The word "Except" must have been placed by accident, since that's what happens any time a magic item dispels something.


Thanks for backing me up, your quote supports my case. A Wizard 12 has a CL of 12. A commoner 12 does not. The ring would thus be zero on a commoner. Thanks again!

[Alent]

Psyren, I'm lost. Did someone at Paizo make an FAQ ruling that changed the way magic item caster level works? Or is this a new RAW interpretation that happened in recent months? What you're saying makes no sense.

At the very least what you're advocating seems to violate one of the base requirements of 3.x magic and magic items, that being the spell must the cast at the minimum caster level for the spell. It's been at least half a year since I last looked into 3.x seriously, but I'm pretty sure that's still CL 17 for a level 9 spell.

Note that I am not supporting Master Craftsman wording abuse, just trying to grok where you're coming from with the magic item CL ruling.

[Psyren]

I'm not changing how magic items work at all (nor could I.) I'm pointing out that if an item says that you cast a spell, and then the spell being cast references your caster level specifically as part of its effect, those two qualities combined mean that part of the spell is looking to your CL rather than that of the item, because specific trumps general.

In short, evaluating your CL to determine control is part of how Gate works. It doesn't matter how you opened the Gate, the Gate is still looking at you to determine control once the spell actually goes off.

[Alent]

Then if you aren't asserting a house rule or quoting an FAQ, your interpretation doesn't work, because it gets the sequencing of specific vs general mixed up. Let's step through this.

First specific:

In addition, burning a candle also allows the owner to cast a gate spell, the respondent being of the same alignment as the candle, but the taper is immediately consumed in the process.

This says you gain the ability to cast Gate while the candle is burning. Okay. We're still on track with your interpretation so far.

Failure to override General:

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

The text of Gate makes no provisions for casting it at less than CL 17, nor does the candle. The logical interpretation to take here is that Gate must be cast at CL 17 because by failing to contradict the general, we must assume that the rule still stands.

However, this isn't your interpretation. If you take your interpretation of specific trumping general at face value, either no mundane can even use a magic item to cast a spell with the keywords "your caster level" in their description because they lack the caster level to even cast a cantrip, or as you assert that he can cast the spell at caster level 0. (Which would have quite a few nasty ramifications like having items that cast spells lasting for 0 rounds.)

Which is when we get to the magic item rules, which although general rules, act as specific rules when speaking about item granted powers.

Failure to override specific:

Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item's saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.

For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.

Because the text here is specifically overriding the general spellcasting rules, the commoner can use the candle of invocation to cast gate at CL17 as indicated by the bolded sections. Casting Gate is a power of the item, caster level is a variable determined by the item, and the caster level of the candle of invocation is 17, the minimum level required to cast Gate.

It isn't pretty, but at least it's internally consistent. If you don't want people using the candle, ban it or prohibit it's acquisition below level 17.

[bekeleven]

Thanks for backing me up, your quote supports my case. A Wizard 12 has a CL of 12. A commoner 12 does not. The ring would thus be zero on a commoner. Thanks again!

Yes, the word "Except" is used to quaify statements that are already true, which is why when the PHB states "Any character except a barbarian can read and write all the languages he or she speaks" what it's trying to communicate is that all characters are illiterate. That's how english works, right?

When my Rougue realized his Boots of Levitation (CL3) allow him to hover for 0 minutes per use, he swapped to his boots of Teleportation (CL9), so that he could teleport zero hundred miles 3 times per day (6 times when combined with his Helm of Teleportation!). Luckily his Cloak of Arachnida (CL6) casts an instantaneous web, which I interpret to mean permanent.

The really annoying part, though? "The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect." No matter how many cat's graces I drink, they don't seem to last until my next action! Meanwhile, my wizard buddy's wand of fireball is suspiciously more effective than I'd like...

So either hundreds of magical items don't work including all potions or maybe that's not how spells are cast through magic items.

Why do I feel like my presence in these forums has boiled down to commenting "But that nerfs mundanes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19462035&postcount=23)" on rules interpretations?

[Lord_Gareth]

{scrubbed}

[Extra Anchovies]

The candle is a CL 17 item. I see no way that the Gate spell cast by it could be at less than CL 17. It would only use the caster level of the character using the item if it specified that it did (such as with staves), because the default rule is that the crafter's caster level is used to determine an item's effects.

Also, I don't see how the ring of greater counterspells is relevant. Its effect that keys off of the wearer's CL is only usable by spellcasters to begin with.


I'm not changing how magic items work at all (nor could I.) I'm pointing out that if an item says that you cast a spell, and then the spell being cast references your caster level specifically as part of its effect, those two qualities combined mean that part of the spell is looking to your CL rather than that of the item, because specific trumps general.

That's very wrong.

The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation. This information is given in the form “CL x,” where “CL” is an abbreviation for caster level and “x” is an ordinal number representing the caster level itself.
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator.
The caster level of the creator determines the caster level of an item. The caster level of an item determines the caster level of any spell effects it emulates. Thus, the caster level of the creator determines the caster level of any spell effects emulated by the item they are creating.


In short, evaluating your CL to determine control is part of how Gate works. It doesn't matter how you opened the Gate, the Gate is still looking at you to determine control once the spell actually goes off.

...no. The candle doesn't open a Gate. It lets you cast Gate. Without any clause saying you use your own CL, you instead use the item's CL.

Regarding potions in particular, bekeleven forgot to include a very important passage:

The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect, such as with levitate).
The drinker of the potion is treated as both the caster and the target, but the caster level of the effect is determined by the item, and thus by the item's creator. A level 1 character can drink a CL 5 potion of haste, and they are treated as if they had cast haste at CL 5 and targeted themselves with it.

[Khosan]

I feel like an important aspect of Pathfinder that gets glossed over a lot is that all the material players need is available for free online on their SRD.

That's just really convenient. No fear of a database getting taken down, no piracy needed, just d20pfsrd.com and everything's right there.

[Ssalarn]

I feel like an important aspect of Pathfinder that gets glossed over a lot is that all the material players need is available for free online on their SRD.

That's just really convenient. No fear of a database getting taken down, no piracy needed, just d20pfsrd.com and everything's right there.

There's also Archives of Nethys and Paizo's own PRD, which each have their own organizational strengths, so you really can play Pathfinder in its entirety without resorting to piracy or spending a dollar, nd even cooler is the fact that d20pfsrd has the added benefit of featuring a fair chunk of the most popular 3pp materials as well.

[Psyren]

The drinker of the potion is treated as both the caster and the target, but the caster level of the effect is determined by the item, and thus by the item's creator. A level 1 character can drink a CL 5 potion of haste, and they are treated as if they had cast haste at CL 5 and targeted themselves with it.

Which part of Haste - or any other potion for that matter - refers to "your caster level" to set any part of the spell effect? Can you not cast haste on someone who is not a caster at all?

Basically the phenomenon I'm pointing out is caused more by Gate's unique wording than by the properties of magic items in general.


{scrubbed}

My reading could apply just as easily to the 3.5 candle as well, so this has nothing to do with Paizo specifically. There's no need for personal attacks in lieu of addressing the matter at hand.

[Extra Anchovies]

Which part of Haste - or any other potion for that matter - refers to "your caster level" to set any part of the spell effect? Can you not cast haste on someone who is not a caster at all?

It references your (or rather, the caster's) caster level three times.

Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration: 1 round/level
If those "levels" aren't the levels of the caster, then I don't know whose they are.


Basically the phenomenon I'm pointing out is caused more by Gate's unique wording than by the properties of magic items in general.

If you think that the "your caster level" referenced in the text of Gate and the "level" used to determine the range and duration of the spell are not the same caster level, I'm not sure what to say to you. There's nothing at all to suggest that they are determined from different sources for effects that replicate the spell in some way or another, and since we're dealing with an exception-based rules system, they are thus one and the same.

Also, the relevant part of Candle of Invocation makes no mention of using any caster level other than that of the item's creator.

In addition, burning a candle also allows the owner to cast a gate spell, the respondent being of the same alignment as the candle, but the taper is immediately consumed in the process. It is possible to extinguish the candle simply by blowing it out, so users often place it in a lantern to protect it from drafts and the like. Doing this doesn’t interfere with its magical properties.

[Psyren]

If you think that the "your caster level" referenced in the text of Gate and the "level" used to determine the range of the spell are not the same caster level, I'm not sure what to say to you. There's nothing at all to suggest that they are determined from different sources for effects that replicate the spell in some way or another, and since we're dealing with an exception-based rules system, they are thus one and the same.

But there is something to suggest that. One says "your," and does so quite specifically. Not "the candle's." "Your."

The effect of this of course is to cause candles to be dangerous for folks who don't use magic, unless they stick to the transportation use. Which I would describe as "working as intended."

[Extra Anchovies]

But there is something to suggest that. One says "your," and does so quite specifically. Not "the candle's." "Your."

I'm sorry, what? Of course Gate makes no mention of candles. Expecting it to do so is preposterous. The caster level of a spell effect emulated by an item is the same as the caster level of the item. Thus, a CL 17 spell-effect item of Gate casts Gate at CL 17. All level-dependent effects are calculated as if the Gate were cast by a 17th level caster. Anything that references "your caster level" uses the spell effect's caster level of 17. I see nothing that suggests otherwise.


The effect of this of course is to cause candles to be dangerous for folks who don't use magic, unless they stick to the transportation use. Which I would describe as "working as intended."


You may hold the gate open only for a brief time (no more than 1 round per caster level), and you must concentrate on doing so, or else the interplanar connection is severed.
1 round/level * 0 levels = 0. So your interpretation prevents any noncaster from using a candle of invocation.

[Psyren]

I'm sorry, what? Of course Gate makes no mention of candles. Expecting it to do so is preposterous. The caster level of a spell effect emulated by an item is the same as the caster level of the item. Thus, a CL 17 spell-effect item of Gate casts Gate at CL 17. All level-dependent effects are calculated as if the Gate were cast by a 17th level caster. Anything that references "your caster level" uses the spell effect's caster level of 17. I see nothing that suggests otherwise.

Except, again, the spell saying it references yours.



1 round/level * 0 levels = 0. So your interpretation prevents any noncaster from using a candle of invocation.

"Per caster level" allows it to inherit from the candle, scroll, or whatever else, because of the general rule. It does not specifically say "per your caster level," "per caster level you possess" or anything similar to these.

Thus a noncaster can use a candle to travel, or even use it to call something. But only someone with a caster level of their own can hope to exercise control, because that part of the spell specifically looks for your caster level.

[Alent]

"Per caster level" allows it to inherit from the candle, scroll, or whatever else, because of the general rule. It does not specifically say "per your caster level," "per caster level you possess" or anything similar to these.

Thus a noncaster can use a candle to travel, or even use it to call something. But only someone with a caster level of their own can hope to exercise control, because that part of the spell specifically looks for your caster level.

Let's ignore magic item rules for a second here. Are you arguing that using the keyword "your" before "caster level" in any spell's description causes the described effect to bypass your caster level and resolve based on your caster level?

To example: Level 20 wizard casts gate at CL 17 using the ability to reduce his caster level, but the spell effect resolves at caster level 20 because it uses the "your" keyword?

If this is what you're arguing, you're going to have to quote a primary source that contradicts the earlier cited SRD and DMG quotes.

[aspekt]

I'd really love to be able to go over a list of comparison changes made between 3.5 and 3.pf. I keep hearing about refinements and glosses and things that are possibly not optimal design decisions.

Has anyone done something like this yet?

[Aditus]

I'd really love to be able to go over a list of comparison changes made between 3.5 and 3.pf. I keep hearing about refinements and glosses and things that are possibly not optimal design decisions.

Has anyone done something like this yet?

Yes. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?136890-The-3-5-Pathfinder-Handbook)

Also, more specifically for psionics. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?182797-Pathfinder-Psionics-vs-XPH-Psionics-A-Handbook)

[Andreaz]

Hey guys, I've been playing DND 3.5 for years and have enjoyed every time I've played. I also started a club for DND at my highschool this past year and had a group of pathfinder players join the club. I was wondering how different it is from DND and how powerful a player is at first level in comparison with DND 3.5. I had heard that you do start off a bit more powerful, but I was wondering if you guys could give me any opinions on the game (Pros/Cons).It is fundamentally the same game. A common shorthand for it is 3.75. Rules-wise almost nothing changes, but the class design is far different. Still the same beasts, but with all the fun toys to play. Just about every class is more interestingly built in pf than in 3.5, even the nerfed ones.

PF is a good thing on its own. For those with the patience to mix up with old tricks (largely 3.5 feats), it transitions to an even better thing.

[Psyren]

Let's ignore magic item rules for a second here. Are you arguing that using the keyword "your" before "caster level" in any spell's description causes the described effect to bypass your caster level and resolve based on your caster level?

To example: Level 20 wizard casts gate at CL 17 using the ability to reduce his caster level, but the spell effect resolves at caster level 20 because it uses the "your" keyword?

What? No, your caster level is your caster level. If you lower it or raise it, whether in general or specifically for the purposes of casting {spell X}, then {spell X} will still reference that variable as it currently stands. So if you lower to 17, obviously the spell will treat it as 17, and if you leave it at 20, the spell will treat it as 20.

It is possible for a character to have more than one caster level - for example, a cleric with the Creation domain has one caster level for his conjuration (creation) spells, and another for everything else. But in those cases, the character still only has one for any given spell that they cast. For that cleric, any conjuration (creation) spells he casts that say "your caster level" will reference the former, and his other spells will reference the latter. In the same way, if that cleric lowers his caster level when casting spell X, his caster level will be the new, lower value for that spell, and then go back to normal for anything else unless he chooses to lower it again. No matter how many caster levels you have, any given spell will only have one, and only check what that value is once - when you cast it.

[Alent]

What? No, your caster level is your caster level. If you lower it or raise it, whether in general or specifically for the purposes of casting {spell X}, then {spell X} will still reference that variable as it currently stands. So if you lower to 17, obviously the spell will treat it as 17, and if you leave it at 20, the spell will treat it as 20.

Okay, so we're on the same page there.


It is possible for a character to have more than one caster level - for example, a cleric with the Creation domain has one caster level for his conjuration (creation) spells, and another for everything else.

Could you cite a pathfinder source the creation domain? Because as far as I can tell there isn't one.

[Psyren]

Could you cite a pathfinder source the creation domain? Because as far as I can tell there isn't one.

As I responded to the fine individual who labelled me a "Paizo apologist," I was actually discussing both versions of the candle simultaneously :smalltongue:

But PF has plenty of situational CL modifiers too, such as the Gnome Pyromaniac racial from ARG that gives you +1 CL with [fire] spells, or the Aasimar Sorcerer's favored class bonus that lets them cast [good] spells at a higher CL than their level.

[Alent]

As I responded to the fine individual who labelled me a "Paizo apologist," I was actually discussing both versions of the candle simultaneously :smalltongue:

Yeah, that kind of low blow gets too close to the forum rules for my taste. You've made your preferences no secret and I see no reason to argue 3.5 vs PF with you as a consequence, but I can't see this extremely odd rules interpretation as a Paizo apologetic. In fact, If you're right, you've made pathfinder look worse, which is the opposite of apologetics. :smallwink:

Honestly, it reminds me of the way DMs were told to twist wishes to screw over players in 2e, which is why I wanted to find out if it was an official PFS ruling or FAQrata.


But PF has plenty of situational CL modifiers too, such as the Gnome Pyromaniac racial from ARG that gives you +1 CL with [fire] spells, or the Aasimar Sorcerer's favored class bonus that lets them cast [good] spells at a higher CL than their level.

Yeah, except at no point do these situational modifier ever fail to apply evenly to a spell that qualifies for them. They're modifiers and arguably nonstacking bonuses, not a secondary caster level. You only get another caster level if you dip another caster class. I've never seen a spell in PF that is written for theurges with multiple caster levels, it would be counter to the very design sense of pathfinder itself if it existed.

[Psyren]

Yeah, except at no point do these situational modifier ever fail to apply evenly to a spell that qualifies for them. They're modifiers and arguably bonuses, not a secondary caster level. You only get another caster level if you dip another caster class. I've never seen a spell in PF that is written for theurges with multiple caster levels, it would be counter to the very design sense of pathfinder itself if it existed.

But whether you say it's due to a modifier or bonus or undercasting or whatever, the fact remains that when {regular spell} asks what that gnome's caster level is, and {fire spell} asks what it is, there are two different answers. But it's the same gnome, is it not?

Also, I don't think this interpretation makes either system worse. Personally I'm okay with the concept that any merchant with 4k lying around can't simply light a candle and gain absolute control over a Planetar. Anyone can call it, sure, but to bend it to your will requires powerful facility with magic at your disposal.

[Ssalarn]

While I'm not super invested in the CL vs. CL argument (though personally I think the candle uses the CL of its crafter), I did want to answer the OP beyond my earlier agreement with the statement "it's free to play in its entirety without resorting to piracy":

Pathfinder as "3.75" is a pretty good assessment. I think it largely improved the game, making characters on the whole more fun to play; no more 1st level "crossbow mages" since you have at-will cantrips, no more dead levels for martial characters (spellcasters ever really had them to begin with) and generally higher power floors.

Classes that used to be terribly MAD and not particularly great, like the Paladin, got some much needed buffs, and the Alchemist and Gunslinger add a fun bit of steampunk to the resources (even if the firearm rules are atrocious).

The CMB/CMD system, despite its scaling issues, is in my opinion a vast improvement over the mish-mash of separate rules for every type of combat maneuver, and also provides a handy framework for resolving those weird little tricks players sometimes come up with that aren't neatly covered by the rules. While I personally dislike the way CMB doesn't scale very well against Bestiary monsters, I do understand that it works very well against humanoid opponents and that the designers consider its current functionality a feature, not a bug.

The 3pp materials are also a whole level of quality better than most of the non-Paizo 3.5 eras materials, largely thanks to Paizo actively promoting their 3pp community and providing in-house tools to rate and review their quality. Websites like endzeitgeist.com also help see to it that 3pp companies are praised for their successes and held accountable for their failures, ultimately leading to Pathfinder having one of the strongest and highest quality portfolios of 3pp materials I've ever seen in a TTRPG.

Pathfinder's use of archetypes is pretty great too, making it easier to play the character concept you want right out the gate, without having to multiclass or dip multiple splat books. Even WotC recognized what a good idea that was, and basically baked it into their classes for 5E.

Overall, I personally greatly prefer Pathfinder to 3.5, and generally if there was something from 3.5 I miss, it's easy to find a 3pp company who has done a faithful and mechanically sound update, or simply download the conversion guide and do it myself.

[bekeleven]

But whether you say it's due to a modifier or bonus or undercasting or whatever, the fact remains that when {regular spell} asks what that gnome's caster level is, and {fire spell} asks what it is, there are two different answers. But it's the same gnome, is it not?As I said last page, if you have two caster levels, how does it decide which? DO you choose? Can a Cleric 3/Wizard 15/Mystic Theurge 2 cast Dispel Magic as a cleric spell and use his wizard caster level? It's his caster level.


Also, I don't think this interpretation makes either system worse. Personally I'm okay with the concept that any merchant with 4k lying around can't simply light a candle and gain absolute control over a Planetar. Anyone can call it, sure, but to bend it to your will requires powerful facility with magic at your disposal.Like I said last page... it still nerfs mundanes (http://www.d20srd.org/search.htm?q=%22your%20caster%20level%22).

And when I pointed out that every use of Dispel Magic on an items that specifics the roll uses the caster level of the item except for the one that specifically states it's an exception to the rule you said, "Thanks for backing me up, your quote supports my case."

Was Dispel Magic not enough? Nondetection, Masking Armor: CL10. DC is 25 (15+CL).

Telekinesis, Beholder Crown: CL13. Weight moved is 325 (25 lbs/CL).

The only case where this rule was not followed (Gate, Telekinesis, Binding, Dispel Magic, Holy Word, Dictum, Blasphemy, Word of Chaos, etc.) was when it was a stated exception. We all know specific beats general*, but can't "always" beat "never"?

*Despite this never being stated in core or any errata document

My Opinion of Pathfinder
(I lied... Terazul's opinion of Pathfinder.)


I'm gonna jump in on this thread because I recently started playing in a Pathfinder game under a friend of mine and ran into the same thing. There are lots of improvements, but many of them are just thinly draped over giant holes in the ground.

Well as a big supporter of Pathfinder I'd like to mention a few things I think are way better than in 3.5:

-skills are easier to access for everybody. For somebody who loves to give his characters an edge by selecting certain skills this is amazing. Between putting favoured class boni into skills to traits to pick up the extra skills you want and overall more points (due to the +3 always applying for classskills) it is much easier to customize your characters with skills. Useless skills have been ruled out or ruled together (looking at you concentration and tumble, balance and cohorts).
I thought this was really cool until I started to build a skillmonkey... and realized I could just play any class and do the same thing. It's great that anyone can be good at anything now, but class skills themselves are also far less important beyond level 1, and it's really easy to add skills to the list. The +3 is certainly useful, but feels like it fades into obscurity pretty quickly.

-Many, many classes have a much smoother progression than in 3.5. Now what do I mean by that? The powercurve is much smoother. If you want to play a character I can actually recommend a class to you + an archetype and say "take xy-feat and you'll be good to go". In 3.5 a lot of builds needed dips, certain feat combinations and prestige classes to work and more often than not had a breaking point where they became good .... before they were kinda meh.
This is true, they made staying in a single class much more favorable, between favored class bonuses and abilities that scale off class level. The dearth of decent prestige classes add to that.

-Faster Feat Progression ... I don't have to explain why this is good.
This I feel is one of the most misleading things about Pathfinder though. I went in going "oh man, I can make some more versatile melee builds now since I'll have more feats to spread around!", only to find many tricks got their feats split, spread around, and having extra prerequisites taxed on, and then on top of that generally nerfed. I thought about making a tripper. Before, you needed Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip. From those two feats you got +4 on your trip attempt, didn't provoke an attack, and you got a free attack when you succeeded on the attempt. Nice! Now, to get the same result, you need Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, and Greater Trip. Why all that? Well, Improved Trip only gives you a +2 on the check, and no provoke. Greater Trip (requiring BAB +6, so you can't even pull this off at level 1 anymore) gives you that other +2, and lets you make an extra attack... as your Attack of Opportunity for the round. Meaning you don't get the one for them standing up from prone anymore, so if you want the same results, you need Combat Reflexes for more than one AoO a round. Also Dex of at least 12. The same is true for many other tricks; Bull Rush requires two feats just to have the movement provoke Attacks of Opportunity, something it did with 0 feats in 3.5. You certainly do get more feats in Pathfinder, but for replicating many things from 3.5 you often need to expend several more.

Plus, I see a lot of that same "Sacrifice power for flavor" stuff but dumped into feats. Like, there's the feat that lets you use Tarot Cards as throwing darts for damage. Neat! ...Except that it costs you more to make the deck usable than to just buy the same number of darts, and it requires you to have to use Arcane Strike every round (using up your swift action) if you want to benefit from the feat. So much of Pathfinder for me so far has been Start reading a Feat/Ability -> Think "Hey, that could be really cool!" -> Keep reading, and become thoroughly underwhelmed. There's just a ton of traps.

-Many classes are better and especially work much better with the ones being nerfed usually being the more powerful ones (exception is monk but monk is easily workable with using hungry ghost qinggong or zen archer qinggong without adding any other dips/prcs). I agree that bard has much less rounds BUT they also got new interesting mechanics and archetypes which actively use their rounds per day (for example soundstriker) opening a whole lot of different possibilities for playing bard. It also makes it more flexible and specified.
This is true, in that many classes got things to fill dead levels, and several classes (Paladin, Sorcerer) got substantial buffs. Others... not so much.

I'm doing my best to enjoy the system, but I'm definitely getting the "constrained" vibe. At least at trying to play a more martial character.

Yeah. You someone else who made houserules to nerf mundanes? Paizo.

[Alent]

But whether you say it's due to a modifier or bonus or undercasting or whatever, the fact remains that when {regular spell} asks what that gnome's caster level is, and {fire spell} asks what it is, there are two different answers. But it's the same gnome, is it not?

It being the same gnome using a bonus does not give the gnome a second caster level, even if it causes a different result for one subtype of magic.

Even if you choose to represent that as possessing two caster levels, there's no change in how it works. If the gnome gets a bonus on {fire spell}, none of the properties of {Fire spell} resolve at the unmodified caster level. For such a thing to happen it would require specific verbiage such as "your unmodified caster level" or "ignore bonuses and modifiers which modify your caster level for the purposes of..."


Also, I don't think this interpretation makes either system worse. Personally I'm okay with the concept that any merchant with 4k lying around can't simply light a candle and gain absolute control over a Planetar. Anyone can call it, sure, but to bend it to your will requires powerful magic at your disposal.

Yeah, this is where we disagree on one point and agree on another. There is nothing to support this interpretation and it causes a nasty trickle down of glitches in "on use" magic items that you are selectively ignoring.

As to where we agree, we both dislike the idea of the candle being commonly available. As I recall, the candle is also underpriced due to a 3.0 -> 3.5 conversion mistake that got grandfathered in to PF. You can fix that using the formula, reprice it to an arbitrary amount, reprice it to an alternate currency like "soul coins taken from baby seals", ban the candle, or prohibit it's acquisition prior to an arbitrary level.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Pathfinder and 3.5 are the same game. The differences that exist are too small for anyone but expert players (ie, a large portion of these boards) to notice, and all creep in at the metagame level. Playing Pathfinder and playing 3.5 feel exactly the same. And given that Pathfinder is all online, in neatly-compiled and easily-searchable format, there's no reason NOT to use it unless you've already invested hundreds of hours of your life into mastering 3.5 (ie, a large portion of these boards). And all the material is compatible with essentially no effort, so the difference is largely moot.

So yeah. Pathfinder is better if you're just starting, because of the super-SRD. If you're already used to one system, stick with whatever you know and port anything interesting from the other system.