Which Pathfinder classes are better than their 3.5 counterparts?

[frogglesmash]

I've never played pathfinder, but I am aware that they redid a lot/all of the base classes from 3.5, and was wondering which of the classes that pathfinder revised people consider 100% superior to their 3.5 counterparts. I don't necessarily mean better in terms of optimization though that is something that could be taken into account.

On a side note: Are there many other options like the Alchemist that offer character archetypes that are unavailable/difficult to achieve effectively in 3.5?

[digiman619]

Soulknife. Full Stop. DSP makes the class, y'know, actually be able to be viable at its role.

[frogglesmash]

Soulknife. Full Stop. DSP makes the class, y'know, actually be able to be viable at its role.

What's DSP?

[digiman619]

Dreamscarred Press. One of. if not the best 3rd party publishers Pathfinder has. They also remade Tome of Battle initiators in Path of War, Magic of Incarnum's in Akashic Mysteries, and they're working on fixing truenamers, if you can believe it.

[DarkSonic1337]

Some classes are better than their 3.5 counterparts in a vacuum, but are actually weaker due to systematic changes in Pathfinder. For example, Sorcerers now have...class features (and I think that they're better than the ACFs they had in 3.5), but they have less powerful feats and prestige classes to take, and less powerful spells (though some outliers like blood money and Paragon Surge exist).

3.5 had some cool things for fighters in terms of alternative class features, but the base P.F fighter is a strict upgrade from the base 3.5 fighter. However, PF has fewer high quality fighter feats, making the class comparatively weaker.

So I guess I'm just saying remember that classes don't exist in a vacuum.

[Krazzman]

Speaking in terms of pure more in numbers (not including changing feats and spells)
Cleric, Wizard and Sorcerer now have classfeatures as well as spells.
If you consider with spell changes, then Cleric, Wizard and Sorcerer are a bit worse off since many old tricks no longer work. It's still pretty broken if needs be though.

Fighter also has some extra's in class features. But many feats that were potent are now not that good anymore. Maneuvers are splitten up and some new Feat-Lines are good... if they weren't so long and sadly this goes on and on.

Barbarian. I have to say I hands down love the PF Barbarian. Rage powers are such a wonderful addition to the game the Barbarian brings to the table.

Paladin... I believe it is a quite good streamline of the class. Vanilla speaking at least. 3.5 has a stronger Archetype/Alternative Class Feature for the Paladin though.

Ranger has also gotten stronger since he has more than 2 possible fighting styles to choose from, as well as Favoured Terrain and Enemy changes. The Archetypes might not be as powerful as some alternatives in 3.5 but it has a bit more.

[frogglesmash]

Some classes are better than their 3.5 counterparts in a vacuum, but are actually weaker due to systematic changes in Pathfinder. For example, Sorcerers now have...class features (and I think that they're better than the ACFs they had in 3.5), but they have less powerful feats and prestige classes to take, and less powerful spells (though some outliers like blood money and Paragon Surge exist).

3.5 had some cool things for fighters in terms of alternative class features, but the base P.F fighter is a strict upgrade from the base 3.5 fighter. However, PF has fewer high quality fighter feats, making the class comparatively weaker.

So I guess I'm just saying remember that classes don't exist in a vacuum.

I should have mentioned that I'm asking because I've been considering using some of the pathfinder versions of some classes in my 3.5 games so it's more or less just the classes that would be changing.

[Tuvarkz]

I'd say that about every single Pathfinder class in terms of features is stronger than its 3.5 counterpart. In the case of fullcasters, yes some blatantly overpowered spells got nerfs here and there, but the sheer amount of overpoweredness a wizard can do is still the same, while class features provide some buffering grounds for them.
In the case of the Fighter, while some combat feats have gotten readjustments that aren't exactly beneficial, archetypes and things like the Weapon Master's Handbook make the class significantly better.

[Gnaeus]

Some classes are better than their 3.5 counterparts in a vacuum, but are actually weaker due to systematic changes in Pathfinder. For example, Sorcerers now have...class features (and I think that they're better than the ACFs they had in 3.5), but they have less powerful feats and prestige classes to take, and less powerful spells (though some outliers like blood money and Paragon Surge exist).

3.5 had some cool things for fighters in terms of alternative class features, but the base P.F fighter is a strict upgrade from the base 3.5 fighter. However, PF has fewer high quality fighter feats, making the class comparatively weaker.

So I guess I'm just saying remember that classes don't exist in a vacuum.

Strongly disagree that sorcerer got anything but stronger. A PF human sorcerer gets almost twice as many spells known (1 from bloodline, 2 from FCB.) That's outrageous. The difference between knowing the 4 most useful spells every level and the 6 best +1 is a major leap towards functioning as a T1. Feats? Unlike in 3.5, sorcerers can meaningfully function as crafters (since spell prerequisites are now usually only needed for rapid crafting) and feats that double your WBL are amazing in either system. And most Sorcs get at least one and a metamagic feat for free from bloodline. Oh, and now they can use quicken without feat taxes. On the lower level end, d6s and bloodline abilities and at will cantrips make sorcs much stronger before the infinite cosmic power stage.

The iconic sorc PRC of dragon disciple also got a huge upgrade. It isn't incredible, but it isn't a character destroying trap anymore (mostly because it gives caster levels instead of bonus spells).

Rogue got upgraded for low op, downgraded for high op. Talents and d8s and the ability to sneak attack most things is a huge + for the casual gamer. The nerfing of common methods for full round sneak attacks makes it hard for rogues in groups whose optimization levels require those for rogues to bring competitive damage. Unchained rogue is even stronger.

Monk is still weak at its base (although unchained monk is a bit stronger) but some archetypes arguably push it up 2 whole tiers.

Druid is still T1, but much, much weaker. Many groups will consider that an improvement, but I don't think that is what you meant when you asked which classes were improved. Building a Druid who melees better than a fighter while still being a full caster is no longer an easy thing.

[Coidzor]

Bard and Barbarian are a mixed bag, they get some nifty things they couldn't do, but the adjustments to rage and performance duration aren't always good, though the things a barbarian can do while raging without feat investment are much niftier.

Cleric is debateable where it ended up due to the shrunk spell list of PF in total vs. 3.5 in total(the focus seems to be largely on summoning using sacred summons for clerics these days, while back in the day they could focus on summoning, divine power themselves into melee badassitude, or cast with nearly the versatility of a Wizard). Making Domains into the pseudo class features of Clerics was a bad move in my view, because it means they basically get jack but are still expected to stay in their class, unless they specifically pick a domain where the progression on their cleric level matters, like the Animal Domain's Animal Companion.

Druid is objectively worse off, though some of the new to PF spells make up for it a little.

Fighters are straight up better off, except in the feat department where it's a bit more mixed, because while they have more feats, feat chains are also more expensive as a result, and they don't get as many toys like Leap Attack or Shock Trooper, and Power Attack is a more gradual, set progression.

Monks are about the same, though Qinggong Monks can be pretty nifty. I can't remember how an optimized PF monk compares with an optimized 3.5 one with ACFs out the wazoo, but it's at least favorable if not superior.

PF Paladins are better than 3.5 Paladins, having eliminated some MAD.

Rangers are a bit better, though the optimization ceiling is lower without Wildshaping Rangers (plus the nerfs to wildshape) and no Mystic Rangers or Sword of the Arcane Order. The spell list is a little weaker on the whole as well, IIRC, but has some nice additions.

Rogues... got some stuff but lost more stuff and didn't really get a real niche except for the PF Unchained skill unlocks, so there's something that does each individual thing they do better than the PF rogue does in PF. I think they're... roughly comparable to 3.5 ones though.

Sorcerers are worlds away better than 3.5 Sorcerers, even with the shrunk list of spells for them to choose from.

Wizards suffer a little bit with the spell list reduction, but the benefits of specialization are much better than they were and the drawbacks of specialization have largely been obviated.


I should have mentioned that I'm asking because I've been considering using some of the pathfinder versions of some classes in my 3.5 games so it's more or less just the classes that would be changing.

Then the main ones where you'd have to make adjudications would be Bards and Barbarians due to the way rage durations and bardic performance durations were altered.

For instance, PF made the performance where you give a bonus to your ally's skills basically worthless due the change in how durations work.


I've never played pathfinder, but I am aware that they redid a lot/all of the base classes from 3.5, and was wondering which of the classes that pathfinder revised people consider 100% superior to their 3.5 counterparts. I don't necessarily mean better in terms of optimization though that is something that could be taken into account.

If you're talking just the base chassis, then they're all stronger than the 3.5 chassis. If you're axing 3.5 ACFs and such that are readily compatible with PF classes, then it gets a bit more complicated to say what's completely superior at what level of Op.


On a side note: Are there many other options like the Alchemist that offer character archetypes that are unavailable/difficult to achieve effectively in 3.5?

Well, Oracle is an actually decent stab at making a Divine Sorcerer, unlike Favored Soul. Witches can be interesting, too.

Other than that... Cavalier isn't the best, but it does allow a mounted martial character from level 1 with a mount that advances with him that doesn't have to jump through hoops with feats or multiclassing.

Gunslingers add in guns and can do some things with grit, I suppose. The 3.5 equivalent would be adding in the DMG firearms rules, I think, which are a bit klunky.

Inquisitors can be a nice divine bard analogue. Hunters can make for a nasty whirlwind of death with multiple animal companions better than 3.5 allows for, up until around level 10-13 IIRC.

[Ellowryn]

Eh, its kinda hard to quantify.

In terms of relative power nothing really changed much from 3.5 to PF. Wizards, druids, and clerics are still full casters while fighters and monks still just hit stuff (although monks are now actually proficient with their unarmed attacks!).

As for which got stronger or weaker from the transition its a bit more unclear. The changes to (or removal of) many spells weakened many casters but overall didn't move them much, and the changes (and removal) of many feats hurt many of the Martial's also. But as pointed out the addition of actual class features is seen as a great boon but may not equal some of the ACF's offered in 3.5.

Overall i would say the PF versions are better if you just look at the classes and ACF's themselves, but in actual game play you probably won't notice any difference.

[Sayt]

Paladin's Smite got much more useful and usable (Works on full attacks, with with charging, works with ranged attacks), and Paladin itself got less MAD. They can also poach a few spells from the Bard/Inquisitor/Cleric list with a feat which requires Int 13.

Ranger's got more and better combat styles, an upgrade to d10 HD, medium armour, Favored enemy grants it's bonus to hit AND damage as well as skills (Not precision damage), they can poach spells from Witch/Druid/Something with a feat that requires Cha 13, can take a spell which grants our Full FE (Up to +10) against a given creature.

Magus is just a fantastic single class Gish in a Can.

CRB Fighter is still MEH, but becomes vastly more interesting with the Weapon Master's Handbook and Ultimate Intrigue.

Everyone with a d4 hit die goes up to a d6. Everyone with 3/4 BAB goes up to d8



Generally speaking, I think that in Pathfinder all of the chassis of the Core base classes got buffed in a core/PHB environment, but that 3.5 has higher optimization ceilings.

[Psyren]

3.5 still has the higher ceiling but that's nothing surprising. At the levels most groups play at, PF got a nice boost.

For PF in particular, they made my favorite spell-less paladin variant ever i.e. the Temple Champion, which trades its spellcasting for domain powers and warpriest blessings that scale with level and key off Charisma.

[Akal Saris]

I'd say the ceiling for spellcasters and super-chargers is lower than the 3.5 heights, but the floor for both casters and non-casters is significantly higher.

To take sorcerers as an example, they might not have access to the metamagic-combination feat+PrC nightmare builds and perfect Orb spells from 3.5, but they also get many more spells/day and other class abilities from bloodlines and favored class. So a highly proficient optimizer would perhaps feel that the class is "worse", but a "normal/new" player who just goes Sorcerer 20 would find that she has many more spells and class abilities than a Sorcerer 20 in 3.5.

Some classes that do things which 3.5 classes don't do (or don't do very well) are alchemist, inquisitor, swashbuckler, gunslinger, and bloodrager.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Stronger: Cleric, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard

About the same: Barbarian (if rage cycling is allowed), Fighter, Ranger

Up for debate: Bard (better casting and more perform abilities, but inspire courage optimization is much less and songs requiring lengthy use are now worthless since it's all measured in rounds)

Slightly Weaker: Barbarian (if DM bans rage cycling)

Weaker: Druid, Monk, Rogue

Note that this isn't all due to in-class features. The rogue straight up has more class features than the 3.5 version, but the entire rules system around him nerfed him into the damned ground. So you could take the PF Rogue and add it to a 3E game and it'd be (by a tiny amount) stronger, even though I'm classifying it as weaker (MUCH weaker, really) in PF itself.

[Psyren]

Stronger: Druid, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard
...
Weaker: Druid, Monk, Rogue

You listed druid twice. (I think it's meant to be the latter?)

[Sayt]

Well, Wildshape almost certainly got weaker with polymorph effects being neutered (Which I applaud), but I don't know enough about the 3.5 druid to comment on any other changes, but it could be that the answer is both? (IE, better at some things, worse at other)

[Pex]

All of them, no insult intended for 3E.

Even Fighter. It is true what was one feat in 3E became many feats in Pathfinder for maneuvers (trip, disarm, etc.), so in that sense Pathfinder dropped the ball. However, there are other feats a fighter can make good use out of. Plus they get bonuses for weapon and armor use. Some people might think that boring, but I disagree. I like static bonuses. Archetypes help for specific specializations.

Monk got a better flurry of blows and more versatility of class feature choices. They improved monk further in "Pathfinder Unchained" to full BAB, d10 HD, flurry of blows becoming extra attacks that stack with haste, and complete versatility in choosing monk-like class features.

Clerics can heal at a range and multiple people at once with Channel Energy. Turn Undead is a feat. Sounds like a nerf, but with Channel Energy instead which can damage undead, the cleric doesn't lose a class feature when undead aren't in an adventure or are low in number in the campaign as a whole. The feat is there for when the campaign justifies having it.

Sorcerers get class features.

If anything I suppose you could say druid got nerfed due to how wildshape was changed. A druid's normal physical ability scores now matter. However the druid isn't really crying about it.

[Anlashok]

One important question is whether or not you're giving them the same options. If we're talking a 3.5 fighter with 3.5 feats vs a PF fighter with PF options the 3.5 fighter wins, because there are more broken optimization tricks in 3.5, but if you take the PF fighter and drop it into 3.5 (or vice versa) the PF fighter is better off.

[StreamOfTheSky]

You listed druid twice. (I think it's meant to be the latter?)

Yeah. Stronger was supposed to be Cleric, don't know why I said Druid there. Fixed.


Well, Wildshape almost certainly got weaker with polymorph effects being neutered (Which I applaud), but I don't know enough about the 3.5 druid to comment on any other changes, but it could be that the answer is both? (IE, better at some things, worse at other)

The SNA line also is weaker...comparatively. The summon spells in general seem to have gotten buffed (higher CR creatures than in 3E at levels 5-9), but SNA is now literally "Summon Monster, but without free templates applied and almost no SLA access." In 3.5, druids got elementals and most animals a level earlier than SM, while SM in turn got fiendish/celestial templates and all those juicy outsiders. In PF, SNA has no early-access but retains the lack of the templates and outsiders. It's also worth noting that Smite Good/Evil is a LOOOOOT better in PF, so those templates really do make a difference (celestial tigers pouncing w/ smite are SCARY!).

The animal companion is nerfed nearly as much as wild shape is compared to what it used to be, and the feature itself is available in some form or another to nearly every class now, which makes it less special, IMO.

The spell list is probably not much different from 3E compared to other casters (druids were the weakest 9-level casters of the 3E base classes, too, so not much room to fall), but every other major component of the class got nerfed pretty hard. Unlike the Monk and Rogue, though, nerfed Druid is still a good class. It's just imbalanced that they buffed all the other primary casters. I will also say the Menhir Savant archetype is pretty much a pure upgrade to vanilla Druid. Not enough to make a huge difference, but...still quite fun.

[Forrestfire]

From the point of view of strictly looking at the classes in a vacuum, I'd say that overall, most (perhaps all, except the Ranger) classes were buffed in the change from 3.5 to Pathfinder.

In the context of the game, though, I'd say that many of them got nerfed; some in a good way (lower ceilings are nice), and some in very painful ways.


Barbarian: Gained rage powers, lost easy access to pounce and some other tricks. Rage changed to a much fiddlier tracking method. Gained the ability to read. Lost the variety of different rages that could be slotted into any Barbarian build. Overall, a significantly worse class, because beforehand, Barbarian worked as a great building block for characters (Barbarians or otherwise), and provided one of the most useful/necessary tools for a martial before you need it, rather than four levels late.


Bard: Lost a huge amount. Their only real gain was masterpieces; spell list nerfed, gishing ability nerfed, feat options and party buffing nerfed, self-buffing nerfed, high-level reach nerfed (thanks to loss of prestige classes). Masterpieces are neat but aren't a substitute for the massive amount of tools the Bard had in 3.5.


Cleric: Buffed in some ways, nerfed in others. Spell list worse if only because of less variety in splatbooks. Healing utility nerfed because lesser vigor was made [evil]. Cleric went from playing the dual role of "caster class" and "one of the best building-blocks of a martial character in the game," which is a shame. Domains are much less front-loaded and overall don't have very good abilities to make up for it; Channel Energy is not a substitute for Turn Undead and the myriad ways of feat support it had. Divine Metamagic can be taken or left—I'm of the opinion that it was good for the game in 3.5, because I think a gishing or party-buffing Cleric is far more interesting than a summoner or planar ally Cleric. Loss of Cloistered Cleric means that skillful clerics don't really exist like they did before. QoL is up for people going Cleric 20, though.


Druid: Nerfed pretty hard. Wild shape cut to pieces, SNA is less good, animal companion nerfed. I agree with most of the nerfs, but it's always felt off that Druid was the only caster to get hit with a nerf bat instead of given superficial buffs.


Fighter: Buffed, actually. Not buffed enough for my tastes, but nonetheless a much better class. The Weapon Master's Handbook especially had a lot of good tools for them. I do miss Dungeoncrasher though.


Monk: "It's complicated." In 3.5, Monk was a really great building block for creating Monk and other unarmed characters. You generally went either 2 or 6 levels into it, and it did its job phenomenally-well to enable you to fight unarmed (or unarmored, if you went that way). Pathfinder chained Monk doesn't do that, and the overall lack of multiclassing and good PrC support in Pathfinder means that you can't pull off the same result. Unchained Monk is decent, though the change to their Will save is questionable. Overall: Pathfinder Monk is a mess from 1 to 20, and so was 3.5 Monk. However, 3.5 Monk was a great class for several levels and worked as a LEGO piece to make an effective puncher, much like Barbarian did for making an effective martial in general.
Addendum: Wild Monk exists, and was actually quite strong and fun. Being a Kung Fu bear was awesome; Pathfinder doesn't have that at all.


Paladin: Straight-up buffed. Magic horse slightly nerfed thanks to the DMG's rules for getting nonstandard mounts not being a thing, but Pathfinder Paladin is pretty great.


Ranger: Superficially buffed. Stronger than a core-only Ranger. Compared to a 3.5 Ranger with all their sources open, nerfed hard. Ranger could trade their weak animal companion for Favored Enemy bonuses to-hit, they had access to a good spell list of 1-5 spells, starting at 1st level, they had amazing feat support (Nemesis and Favored Power Attack especially), a plethora of ACFs, and a couple amazingly useful items. Their combat styles were just as varied as Pathfinder, I'd argue, and the wild shape option was also very good. 3.5 Ranger was a hidden gem, and Pathfinder Ranger doesn't compare.


Rogue: Buffed in a couple places (sneak attack affecting more enemies, namely), nerfed in others (loss of feat support like Craven, grease being less effective, Flanking Foil existing). Lost the ability to use flasks to sneak attack for accuracy increases and DR-bypassing, lost the large amount of item support (that would allow them to sneak attack everything, even if PF has a larger baseline). Overall worse-off, even with Rogue talents. Unchained Rogue, on the other hand, is a lot better than base rogue. Probably still in a worse place than 3.5 one, though.


Sorcerer: Buffed. Actually has class features. Losing wings of cover, wings of flurry, the orb spells, potentially the genetic engineering feats, and the Planar Sorcerer substitution level at 5th (converting half of your elemental damage to force is quite nice), but they're much better off now.


Wizard: Massively buffed. Being able to specialize and not actually lose access to spells is huge. Having some actual class features (mainly from archetypes) is pretty great too, but the big one is that specializing is no longer an actual downside, just a soft limitation. Spell list changes are painful though.

[Coidzor]

Well, Wildshape almost certainly got weaker with polymorph effects being neutered (Which I applaud), but I don't know enough about the 3.5 druid to comment on any other changes, but it could be that the answer is both? (IE, better at some things, worse at other)

Animal companions are much weaker at the high end due to the standardization of animal companions and limitations on how big of a companion one can get. They were also buffed to some extent with more support for being able to choose their feats, though this is gated behind boosting their Int score, but boosting their Int score, while clarified to be legal without making a schrodinger's animal companion still limits them a lot more than an Int 3+ creature would be in 3.5.

IIRC, they raised the optimization floor on animal companions, but defanged some of the things you could do with it, lowering the ceiling.

[Sahleb]

Strongly disagree that sorcerer got anything but stronger. A PF human sorcerer gets almost twice as many spells known (1 from bloodline, 2 from FCB.) That's outrageous. The difference between knowing the 4 most useful spells every level and the 6 best +1 is a major leap towards functioning as a T1. Feats? Unlike in 3.5, sorcerers can meaningfully function as crafters (since spell prerequisites are now usually only needed for rapid crafting) and feats that double your WBL are amazing in either system. And most Sorcs get at least one and a metamagic feat for free from bloodline. Oh, and now they can use quicken without feat taxes. On the lower level end, d6s and bloodline abilities and at will cantrips make sorcs much stronger before the infinite cosmic power stage.

Ehh. Wings of cover, wings of flurry, orb of fire, solid fog, spell matrix, celerity, shivering touch, PW(pain) etc., practical metamagic and incantatrix disagrees. A 3.5e sorcerer using those and the metamagic specialit variant will wipe the floor with a pf human sorc any day of the week.

Core sorcerer got an upgrade, though.

[Florian]

I've never played pathfinder, but I am aware that they redid a lot/all of the base classes from 3.5, and was wondering which of the classes that pathfinder revised people consider 100% superior to their 3.5 counterparts. I don't necessarily mean better in terms of optimization though that is something that could be taken into account.

Going by the basic class framework: All of them are straight upgrades to their 3,5E predecessors.

Going by optimization: Generally speaking, most PF stuff ain´t that broken as a lot of 3,5E stuff turned out to be, and no bizarro-stuff like Dragon mag material around leads to a lower comparable ceiling in power, more concrete: abuse.


On a side note: Are there many other options like the Alchemist that offer character archetypes that are unavailable/difficult to achieve effectively in 3.5?

Yes. Especially Occult Adventures classes and how archetypes work sets most of the new or unavailable classes apart. Archetypes can change a class a lot.

[Gnaeus]

Ehh. Wings of cover, wings of flurry, orb of fire, solid fog, spell matrix, celerity, shivering touch, PW(pain) etc., practical metamagic and incantatrix disagrees. A 3.5e sorcerer using those and the metamagic specialit variant will wipe the floor with a pf human sorc any day of the week.

Core sorcerer got an upgrade, though.

Hahahahaha!

You take those. I'll take double my WBL and 3 extra spells per level any day. All you have is a some better combat abilities. Well, with double your WBL (because PF sorc can craft and 3.5 Sorc is awful at it, and I get a bunch of bonus feats so I don't even lose anything comparatively for my free money) I can probably match you. But regardless, at best, all you are is a better archer. You are higher on tier 4. Congratulations. I have the spells known to take divinations and non combat spells that I can use when I'm not fighting for my life. I'm closer to tier 1.

[Necroticplague]

All the classes. Bar none. The classes themselves have all been beefed up with more features. The only way a class could be said to have weakened is because options have been weakened (i.e, spells aren't as good, feat chains are longer and more arduous). However, simply taking a PF class and using it in a 3.5 environment is pretty much always a power boost.

[Grim Reader]

Hahahahaha!

You take those. I'll take double my WBL and 3 extra spells per level any day. All you have is a some better combat abilities. Well, with double your WBL (because PF sorc can craft and 3.5 Sorc is awful at it, and I get a bunch of bonus feats so I don't even lose anything comparatively for my free money) I can probably match you. But regardless, at best, all you are is a better archer. You are higher on tier 4. Congratulations. I have the spells known to take divinations and non combat spells that I can use when I'm not fighting for my life. I'm closer to tier 1.

Pretty sure Wings of Cover, Spell Matrix, and Celerity is stuff an Archer can't match...

[Prime32]

Rogue: Buffed in a couple places (sneak attack affecting more enemies, namely), nerfed in others (loss of feat support like Craven, grease being less effective, Flanking Foil existing). Overall worse-off, I'd say, even with Rogue talents. Unchained Rogue, on the other hand, is great.
A 3.5 rogue can sneak attack 100% of enemies with the right ACFs/equipment. A PF rogue can sneak attack 90% of enemies from the get-go, but can't further improve that. They also lost the ability to sneak attack with flasks, meaning they can't bypass DR or target elemental weaknesses.

[Seto]

Paladin, without hesitation. I'm a big fan of the PF Paladin. I have imported into my 3.5 game.
It gets a couple new cool features, Smite Evil got much better, and the different archetypes help customize it.

[Forrestfire]

A 3.5 rogue can sneak attack 100% of enemies with the right ACFs/equipment. A PF rogue can sneak attack 90% of enemies from the get-go, but can't further improve that. They also lost the ability to sneak attack with flasks, meaning they can't bypass DR or target elemental weaknesses.

Those are good points. Totally forgot about flask rogues; I went back and edited my post.

[Gnaeus]

Pretty sure Wings of Cover, Spell Matrix, and Celerity is stuff an Archer can't match...

Pretty sure none of them help you do anything but be marginally better in combat. That's great if you are arguing about whether you should be in tier 3, 4, or 5. (And honestly, not even really tier 3). We're talking about tier 2s, with the PF sorc blurring the edge into tier 1. That's about utility. Thats about versatility. That's about changing the game. That's about leveraging your downtime days into extra power for you and your team. Paragon Surge alone beats all the spells you and he named put together. I can still build a fantastic PF blaster. Arguably, a better one at many levels, by using bloodline abilities and WBL mancy. But the PF blaster will have 26 extra spells known. Heck, I can take arcane, get 7 awesome bloodline spells, + 3 extra spells of my choice, free improved initiative, scribe scroll, spell focus, use meta magic faster, and wind up with +4 DC on all meta magicked spells of chosen school. I'm not worried about losing blasty spells. I can blast like a boss. But I can do sooooo much more.

[Grim Reader]

Pretty sure none of them help you do anything but be marginally better in combat.

Not really seeing that. Wings of Cover maybe, but its a level of defense mundanes have diffiiculty pulling off.

Celerity lets you fire off a standard action spell as an immediate action. Time Stop for example. Or Wish. The Matrixes lets you play with the action economy. Even if they are only used in a combat situation its hard to see how they are marginal.

If its rocket tag, they let you fire off more rockets, and even interrupt the other guys action to fire rockets. If spells are an "I win" button, you get to interrupt the other fellow to press that button.

More spells known is better than less, no doubt. But the quality of spells matters too. And those spells are not tier 4 stuff.

[Psyren]

PF has Wings of Cover too actually. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/emergency-force-sphere)

[stack]

The sorcerer argument is flawed in the context anyhow. In a discussion regarding porting stronger classes back, then the feat and spell changes are irrelevant. A PF sorcerer with 3.5 spells and feats can do anything a 3.5 sorcerer could do and a fair bit more. So hold the game around them constant for the purpose of the discussion, if I understand the original intent.

[Triskavanski]

Rogues are also a bit weaker, because everything got more hp. That sneak attack accounts for less now.

[Gnaeus]

Not really seeing that. Wings of Cover maybe, but its a level of defense mundanes have diffiiculty pulling off.

Celerity lets you fire off a standard action spell as an immediate action. Time Stop for example. Or Wish. The Matrixes lets you play with the action economy. Even if they are only used in a combat situation its hard to see how they are marginal.

If its rocket tag, they let you fire off more rockets, and even interrupt the other guys action to fire rockets. If spells are an "I win" button, you get to interrupt the other fellow to press that button.

More spells known is better than less, no doubt. But the quality of spells matters too. And those spells are not tier 4 stuff.

They are marginal because you are comparing 2 characters which are already amazing at dominating combat, and making one of them a tiny bit better at it. But not even clearly better. My extra WBL, free feats, ability to quicken and bloodline abilities all contribute significantly at different levels. And you are burning spells known (at which you already have a significant disadvantage).

How much damage pushes an archer above tier 4? It's a trick question. No amount of damage does it. If I granted, which I do not, that those spells make you better if dropped into combat in a random field (better when compared with the suite of benefits PF sorcerer gets) across most levels, we are still comparing 2 characters who can crush action economy, and dominate the battlefield. Now, after all that is done, when we both have solid fog, and Dimension door, and attack spell of choice, and you have celerity, who still has spells known for scrying to scout the enemy, summon monster to abuse the spell likes from outsiders (and break action economy a different way), emergency force sphere to ignore all attacks and animate dead to turn the DMs giant monsters against him? I'm really not sure you even have an action economy advantage, once my skeletal minion charges the enemy and my summoned Bralani start opening up with spell likes. But what I am sure of is that I have more options to pick the right spell for a job, inside or outside combat.

[Mehangel]

Soulknife. Full Stop. DSP makes the class, y'know, actually be able to be viable at its role.

I second this. There really is no comparison about how much better Pathfinder's Soulknife is when put side by side to D&D's.

[Psyren]

Rogues are also a bit weaker, because everything got more hp. That sneak attack accounts for less now.

It's easier for them to get Dex to damage now though (Agile.) Also, Deadly Aim/Piranha Strike depending on the type of rogue you are. So you can usually compensate for the higher HP totals.

[ghanjrho]

Forrestfire, one of the recent Player's Companions introduced a [Good] variant of Infernal Healing called Celestial Healing.

[Forrestfire]

Forrestfire, one of the recent Player's Companions introduced a [Good] variant of Infernal Healing called Celestial Healing.

It also lasts 1 round per two caster levels. When you're CL 20, it's roughly equivalent to infernal healing. Even discounting that spell, celestial healing is nowhere near a useful spell compared to even cure light wounds.

[Coidzor]

It also lasts 1 round per two caster levels. When you're CL 20, it's roughly equivalent to infernal healing. Even discounting that spell, celestial healing is nowhere near a useful spell compared to even cure light wounds.

Huh. I wonder why they even bothered if they hate it that much. :smallconfused:

[ghanjrho]

It also lasts 1 round per two caster levels. When you're CL 20, it's roughly equivalent to infernal healing. Even discounting that spell, celestial healing is nowhere near a useful spell compared to even cure light wounds.

Oh wow, must have skipped over that part. That's... ugh.

[Jack_Simth]

I should have mentioned that I'm asking because I've been considering using some of the pathfinder versions of some classes in my 3.5 games so it's more or less just the classes that would be changing.In that scenario, then, the answer is pretty much "all of the ones that had a conversion". I'd suggest only swapping the classes that you want to be stronger.

[DarkSonic1337]

So uh...is ancestral relic "runestaff" on the table for 3.5 sorcerer?

Or Dweomerkeeper for supernatural spells (combine with limited wish for Psychic Reformation. Re-pick your entire build).

How about Mage of the Arcane Order?

Shadowcraft Mage?

Staves and Wand Surge+Unfettered Heroism?

Expanding spells known isn't as hard as you think


But back on topic. The classes that were updated in Pathfinder have better base class features across the board. So if porting any of them back into 3.5 they will be stronger.

[T.G. Oskar]

They are marginal because you are comparing 2 characters which are already amazing at dominating combat, and making one of them a tiny bit better at it. But not even clearly better. My extra WBL, free feats, ability to quicken and bloodline abilities all contribute significantly at different levels. And you are burning spells known (at which you already have a significant disadvantage).

How much damage pushes an archer above tier 4? It's a trick question. No amount of damage does it. If I granted, which I do not, that those spells make you better if dropped into combat in a random field (better when compared with the suite of benefits PF sorcerer gets) across most levels, we are still comparing 2 characters who can crush action economy, and dominate the battlefield. Now, after all that is done, when we both have solid fog, and Dimension door, and attack spell of choice, and you have celerity, who still has spells known for scrying to scout the enemy, summon monster to abuse the spell likes from outsiders (and break action economy a different way), emergency force sphere to ignore all attacks and animate dead to turn the DMs giant monsters against him? I'm really not sure you even have an action economy advantage, once my skeletal minion charges the enemy and my summoned Bralani start opening up with spell likes. But what I am sure of is that I have more options to pick the right spell for a job, inside or outside combat.

Touching a tangent here, but...isn't the whole point of a Sorcerer (and to be honest, pretty much all Tier 2s with chosen spontaneous spellcasting) to play with spells with maximum utility? You choose Alter Self and Polymorph because one spell has multiple uses; you choose Disintegrate because it's great out of combat rather than in-combat. You choose Summon Monster I-IX because the summons you get unlock even more actions. Unless you have access to ALL spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list, you'll never approach the flexibility and versatility of the Wizard; however, played carefully, the few spells you have access to can do wonders.

What you explain on the second paragraph is something the Sorcerer can, in a way, do. I say "in a way" because why would you ignore a spell with such flexibility as Summon Monster #? Perhaps you'd be hard-pressed to find more than one use for Dimension Door, but it's not that difficult; that said, I could choose Plane Shift, because I could use it as a poor-man's Etherealness, except it's not poor-man's Etherealness because it's actually superior (you literally travel into the Ethereal Plane; maybe the off-chance of landing away from where you are might be troubling, but out of combat? You'll be traversing the dungeon from the "safety" of the Ethereal Plane without a timer). Though, then again, there's always Astral Projection... Anyways, not to deviate, but in the very end, the PF Sorcerer still plays with a limited amount of spell slots; it's just that it has a larger amount, of which at least nine-ten of those are pre-selected; choose poorly, and you might get spells whose utility is so bad, they might as well be non-applicable (except on the circumstance they DO work). It's a fortune that, just choosing randomly, you can get a really good Bloodline with really good and flexible spells, or at least those that have good utility - hey, nothing as iconic as the Draconic Bloodline, and the Bloodline spells alone are pretty impressive; the feats, though? Only Quicken Spell surprises me...then again, it doesn't have the restriction that 3.5's Quicken Spell had in the first place. Same with Arcane - the only spell I find of "little" utility is Identify, but it's gotten for free and it actually can be useful a lot of times, and the feats are pretty nice.

That said, the 3.5 support for the Sorcerer is pretty solid as well, and there's some spells that are pretty strong. Count me as ignorant in that matter (I focus more on Paladins, not Sorcerers), but does PF has a better blasting spell than Wings of Flurry, whose set of traits (low-level, no damage cap, wide range, force damage making it pretty much irresistible) make it a solid Sorcerer combat spell, to an extent of ignoring most other blasting spells for it (save for, perhaps, Maw of Chaos)?

Also, how about non-human sorcerers? Pretty much the entire advantage you're claiming relies on the FCB, which locks you out of potentially fun build choices. Just at a glance, your choice for maximum spell potential is either Human or Gillman, and to a limited extent Drow and Goblin. Is there no fun playing with a Sorcerer that isn't from any of those classes?

But hey; that at least still says a lot about the PF Sorcerer being nominally better. I feel you drop the ball at WBL-mancy; doesn't 3.5 has Fabricate + Wall of Iron? Runestaves? The Eberron dragonshard helm that adds more spells to Sorcerers? Mix the two, and you have just as many spells as the PF Sorcerer, and still have enough to spare and surpass WBL by a lot (and do something outside of battle, and most likely ruin a large nation's economy)? I grant you the extra feats allowing the PF Sorcerer to actually craft, but the Thought Bottle and the Fabricate/Wall of Iron trick erode any benefit they may end up having in terms of WBL. That's why I wouldn't consider "WBL" a step up over the 3.5 Sorcerer; then again, I only consider their core tricks, of which the 3.5 Sorcerer has...well, zero over the PF one.

I believe, as stack mentions, that any discussion about the Sorcerer in both of the editions becomes academical when you dig in deeper. The PF Sorcerer is closer to Tier 1, but cannot ever approach it; I mean, if the Arcanist, which combines the preparation of the Wizard with the casting technique of the Sorcerer, still cannot beat the Wizard in terms of being a better Tier 1, what can the PF Sorcerer do to surpass the barrier of being Tier 1? In the end, it's still Tier 2, and because of its main tool (spellcasting), something the 3.5 Sorcerer has as well. It only inches ahead by a bit, that being the free feats and the extra spells (which can be a mixed bag, though for the most part the mixed bag ends up having a load of goodies) and the bloodline abilities (now THOSE can be a mixed bag!), but at its core, it still keeps it on Tier 2, and the Sorcerer has the potential of being a very powerful Tier 2 anyways.

In short: no debate whether the PF Sorcerer is better than the 3.5 Sorcerer, as it simply has more than the 3.5 Sorcerer has; the problem is on the perceived gulf between both classes. I mean, it's like hearing Cold War propaganda! ("My nukes are better than your nukes because we hold three extra warheads!" Who cares; the world is doomed as soon as you shoot one! Is there any difference?)

[Grim Reader]

They are marginal because you are comparing 2 characters which are already amazing at dominating combat, and making one of them a tiny bit better at it. But not even clearly better. t.

Well, I don't really agree here. While full arcane casters can clearly dominate combat, I don't really think thats come fully online by level 4, when Wings of Cover show up. Whats more, I think this is reasoning built on theorycrafting and comparing level 20 builds, rather than 1-20 play.

Also, I disagree that the ability to do things like fire off a standard action Wizard/sorcerer spell as an immediate action, getting full cover from an attack as an immediate action, and firing off two more 3rd level arcane spells in a round is not "clearly better"


My extra WBL, free feats, ability to quicken and bloodline abilities all contribute significantly at different levels. And you are burning spells known (at which you already have a significant disadvantage).

Maybe. I am not arguing about the general comparison of the Pathfinder Sorcerer versus 3.5, although as others have pointed out, the 3.5 sorcerer have a much longer suite in expanding spells known through items and PrCs. I think a full and fair comparison would be quite long and complex.

I am objecting to the hilariously wrong notion that being able to fire off a sorc/wiz spells as an immediate action etc is tier 4, or something in the Archer territory.

[StreamOfTheSky]

In that scenario, then, the answer is pretty much "all of the ones that had a conversion". I'd suggest only swapping the classes that you want to be stronger.

Monk is still weaker right in class, and it's the weakest core class already, so this would be a bad call for the poor monk. Maybe Unchained Monk is an improvement, PF "chained" monk certainly is not.
I suppose like all martials, the majority of the nerfs were in the system and not the class, but monk is the only martial (well...I guess Barbarian too...going unconscious can kill you now) that got in-class nerfs. Here, I don't want to type it all out again (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17383903&postcount=14).

Looking back, I forgot to note they lost Diplomacy as a class skill, one of the best skills in the game. In PF, class skills are a joke so I probably didn't even care to mention it, but if porting back to 3E, the loss of it is pretty significant.

[Jack_Simth]

Monk is still weaker right in class, and it's the weakest core class already, so this would be a bad call for the poor monk. Maybe Unchained Monk is an improvement, PF "chained" monk certainly is not.
I suppose like all martials, the majority of the nerfs were in the system and not the class, but monk is the only martial (well...I guess Barbarian too...going unconscious can kill you now) that got in-class nerfs. Here, I don't want to type it all out again (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17383903&postcount=14).

Looking back, I forgot to note they lost Diplomacy as a class skill, one of the best skills in the game. In PF, class skills are a joke so I probably didn't even care to mention it, but if porting back to 3E, the loss of it is pretty significant.

Hence "pretty much", yes. If you can only name one or two classes that got it right in the class features, out of... what, ten or twenty classes? That's "pretty much" all of them that are the same or stronger as far as the class definitions themselves go. Yes, systemic changes are more where things happened.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Hence "pretty much", yes. If you can only name one or two classes that got it right in the class features, out of... what, ten or twenty classes? That's "pretty much" all of them that are the same or stronger as far as the class definitions themselves go. Yes, systemic changes are more where things happened.

Two out of 11 core classes, Druid also took it rather hard. Druids were actually good already though, so whatever. None of the other PF base clases are explicit adaptations of non-core 3E ones for legal reasons, albeit some are pretty obvious, so can't really compare the "changes" of them. If you want to include psionics from DSP, they all either stayed about the same or got better in Soulknife's case (totally justified).

Out of the classes that "need help" (Monk, Soulknife, and Fighter; if "need help" means "not tier 3 or above" then also Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue) Monk comprises either 1/3 or 1/7 of them (1/2 and 1/6 if ignoring 3rd party -- which DSP is -- or psionics), which is a significant enough portion to bear noting when you say to just port the PF version of all the weaker classes. Aside from the fact that it's a rather disproportionate fix. Monk is just as bad (if you don't port) or worse (if you do) while on the opposite end Paladin is outright better in pretty much every way. Well....you have to multiclass 1 level to avoid the capstone nerf on smite evil, but other than that.

[Gnaeus]

Well, I don't really agree here. While full arcane casters can clearly dominate combat, I don't really think thats come fully online by level 4, when Wings of Cover show up.

Do they really? I mean yes, you can take WoC at 4, but it's kind of terrible at that level. Sure, at high level, when you have 2nd level slots to burn and everything and its brother has true seeing, WoC is a good spell (although so is its more impressive 4th level PF cousin Emergency Force Sphere). But at low level, it isn't really better than other common defense buffs.
(Mirror image is a standard, but blocks multiple attacks. Invisibility is a standard, but blocks 50%+ of attacks and can be used as a buff and has utility. Heck, if you take WoC at level 4, I'll take Vanish as my extra first level spell known, Summon Monster II or Summon Swarm as my second, and be better offensively, defensively, and for utility)


Whats more, I think this is reasoning built on theorycrafting and comparing level 20 builds, rather than 1-20 play.

On the contrary, I think the 2 sorcerers are closely matched at level 20. When we both have gate and wish, who cares about whether we use our immediate with a second level slot to block attacks or a fourth. We're both gods. 1-3, the PFS extra hp and bloodline abilities actually matter. 4-17, the extra spells are key. 18+ game breaks for everyone.


Anyways, not to deviate, but in the very end, the PF Sorcerer still plays with a limited amount of spell slots; it's just that it has a larger amount, of which at least nine-ten of those are pre-selected; choose poorly, and you might get spells whose utility is so bad, they might as well be non-applicable (except on the circumstance they DO work). It's a fortune that, just choosing randomly, you can get a really good Bloodline with really good and flexible spells, or at least those that have good utility - hey, nothing as iconic as the Draconic Bloodline, and the Bloodline spells alone are pretty impressive; the feats, though? Only Quicken Spell surprises me...then again, it doesn't have the restriction that 3.5's Quicken Spell had in the first place. Same with Arcane - the only spell I find of "little" utility is Identify, but it's gotten for free and it actually can be useful a lot of times, and the feats are pretty nice.

Just choosing randomly? If we are at the optimization level where "just choosing randomly" is a thing, you can take wings of cover and all those other spells off the table. No one just chooses random spells from an obscure splatbook. Sure, if we are just choosing randomly, we might both end up with terrible spells. But then, at the optimization level where we are throwing darts at the PHB to determine our choices, the fact that I have more HP suddenly matters again.


That said, the 3.5 support for the Sorcerer is pretty solid as well, and there's some spells that are pretty strong. Count me as ignorant in that matter (I focus more on Paladins, not Sorcerers), but does PF has a better blasting spell than Wings of Flurry, whose set of traits (low-level, no damage cap, wide range, force damage making it pretty much irresistible) make it a solid Sorcerer combat spell, to an extent of ignoring most other blasting spells for it (save for, perhaps, Maw of Chaos)?

It does not. Does 3.5 have a better utility spell than Paragon Surge, whose set of traits (Low level, long duration, lets you pick any feat in the game including potentially extra spell) make it a solid sorcerer spell for any occasion? For that matter, I think you are overselling WoF by a fair bit. If I am playing a blasty sorc, I would like some blasting spells with a range longer than 30 feet.


Also, how about non-human sorcerers? Pretty much the entire advantage you're claiming relies on the FCB, which locks you out of potentially fun build choices. Just at a glance, your choice for maximum spell potential is either Human or Gillman, and to a limited extent Drow and Goblin. Is there no fun playing with a Sorcerer that isn't from any of those classes

Well, some races in any game are better than others. 3.5 Kobold sorcerers are awesomesauce, even if you disallow some of the stronger cheese. As it happens, you want to take Human or Half Elf with Racial Heritage, so that you can get both the extra spells and Paragon Surge. Shadowcraft stuff was mentioned before. I'm pretty sure that requires Gnome.


But hey; that at least still says a lot about the PF Sorcerer being nominally better. I feel you drop the ball at WBL-mancy; doesn't 3.5 has Fabricate + Wall of Iron? Runestaves? The Eberron dragonshard helm that adds more spells to Sorcerers? Mix the two, and you have just as many spells as the PF Sorcerer, and still have enough to spare and surpass WBL by a lot (and do something outside of battle, and most likely ruin a large nation's economy)? I grant you the extra feats allowing the PF Sorcerer to actually craft, but the Thought Bottle and the Fabricate/Wall of Iron trick erode any benefit they may end up having in terms of WBL. That's why I wouldn't consider "WBL" a step up over the 3.5 Sorcerer; then again, I only consider their core tricks, of which the 3.5 Sorcerer has...well, zero over the PF one.

Well, first, I think there are a lot more games where Fabricate/Wall of Iron is disallowed than item crafting. Assuming it is allowed, the point at which the game breaks totally steps forward from level 18 to level 12, because we both have infinite money at that point, so we are both tier 0 supergods.

Second, I wasn't referring to exp as the barrier against 3.5 sorcerers crafting. I know exp is a river and you are unlikely to ever craft yourself a full level behind me. Your problem is spell prereqs. 3.5, if you don't have the right spell, you can't make the item. On a fixed list caster, that makes crafting very much more difficult. PF, it just raises the trivial spellcraft difficulty by 5. Thought bottle does not help that. It isn't just that I have more feats so Craft Wondrous is easier to take. It is that I can use Craft Wondrous to actually make all those items, but you can only make a very limited subset.

Third, I agree that we both have potential items that can expand casting. But how are you going to get those items? A rogue can UMD a wand of Wings of Cover, but we don't think of WoC as a rogue class feature. You are very unlikely to be able to make those runestaves. I can start making pages of spell knowledge very affordably at level 3, with a little spellcraft penalty for not knowing the spell in question.



I believe, as stack mentions, that any discussion about the Sorcerer in both of the editions becomes academical when you dig in deeper. The PF Sorcerer is closer to Tier 1, but cannot ever approach it; I mean, if the Arcanist, which combines the preparation of the Wizard with the casting technique of the Sorcerer, still cannot beat the Wizard in terms of being a better Tier 1, what can the PF Sorcerer do to surpass the barrier of being Tier 1? In the end, it's still Tier 2, and because of its main tool (spellcasting), something the 3.5 Sorcerer has as well. It only inches ahead by a bit, that being the free feats and the extra spells (which can be a mixed bag, though for the most part the mixed bag ends up having a load of goodies) and the bloodline abilities (now THOSE can be a mixed bag!), but at its core, it still keeps it on Tier 2, and the Sorcerer has the potential of being a very powerful Tier 2 anyways.


Maybe, maybe not. Paragon surge alone is a huge gamechanger in terms of always having access to the exact spell you want. Even without it, there is a point at which if you give the T2 enough spells known, the versatility of being spontaneous will outweigh the marginal utility of the last few spells on the list. Does a PF human or half-elf sorcerer get there? Probably not. But the difference between having the 4 most useful spells of each level, and the 6 most useful +1, is huge. It means that you can throw away spells that you only want in downtime, but not on adventuring day. Spells like Contingency, Permanency, Divinations, and the Planar Binding line are powerhouses of Tier 1 versatility. Trying to decide whether you are going to have Teleport, Permanency or Overland Flight is a much bigger hit than losing the weakest 10 spells of that level, and the PF sorc doesn't have to make that decision.

[T.G. Oskar]

Just choosing randomly? If we are at the optimization level where "just choosing randomly" is a thing, you can take wings of cover and all those other spells off the table. No one just chooses random spells from an obscure splatbook. Sure, if we are just choosing randomly, we might both end up with terrible spells. But then, at the optimization level where we are throwing darts at the PHB to determine our choices, the fact that I have more HP suddenly matters again.

Hmm...since when giving a compliment to the PF Sorcerer incites rage...?

What I mean is as follows - a) the amount of spell slots for both Sorcerers are limited (true; one has more slots than the other, but they're still limited; it still implies quality over quantity, except PF sorcerers can potentially choose more quality spells because of the larger quantity overall), b) of the larger amount, they get a sub-set of fixed spells they add to their list, c) that fixed list can be good or bad based on the bloodline, d) it just happens that, from a glance, all bloodlines are actually good. I'd say it takes digging deep to find a bloodline that doesn't help the Sorcerer at all, since a good deal of the bloodlines I chose randomly (and the Draconic Sorcerer wasn't even random; it was thematical, something a player that doesn't optimize might want to choose if it feels like playing a Dragon-related Sorcerer) had good spells (and some had also good feats). Even the Celestial bloodline had good things to it, because it adds a bunch of spells that don't belong to the Sorcerer spell list, so it actually expands its list. That goes beyond optimization; it goes to show that the bloodlines are, overall, a very solid boost, even if you were to choose blindly or thematically. In other words: of that "6+1", it happens that the "+1" is usually a spell you'd already like, so it's not sacrificing quality over quantity.

I'd consider that a compliment, if anything.


It does not. Does 3.5 have a better utility spell than Paragon Surge, whose set of traits (Low level, long duration, lets you pick any feat in the game including potentially extra spell) make it a solid sorcerer spell for any occasion?

There is Anyspell (though it's not a Sorcerer spell...unless you take Arcane Disciple) and Heroics.

Then again - isn't Paragon Surge race-restricted (or at least is thematic to a specific race), and isn't the trick to get any spell in the game convoluted enough that it was FAQ'ed away? I don't count Wish or Limited Wish because both are in both games, anyways.


For that matter, I think you are overselling WoF by a fair bit. If I am playing a blasty sorc, I would like some blasting spells with a range longer than 30 feet.

Not really. It's a low-level spell with no damage cap, with a good range (30 ft. is nothing to sneeze about; it's the range of a Fireball, after all) and hard to resist. But, if you want something else, how about Maw of Chaos?


Well, some races in any game are better than others. 3.5 Kobold sorcerers are awesomesauce, even if you disallow some of the stronger cheese. As it happens, you want to take Human or Half Elf with Racial Heritage, so that you can get both the extra spells and Paragon Surge. Shadowcraft stuff was mentioned before. I'm pretty sure that requires Gnome.

I'm of the belief that Shadowcraft Mage is as good with a Beguiler as with a Sorcerer, but for your Racial Heritage feat, there's the Stoneblessed PrC around. There are ways to bypass that - the difference is the cost to achieve it (one feat vs. 3 levels, of which IIRC don't grant levels in spellcasting which can hurt). Still, it can be done. Sand Shaper can be done as well; Pact-Bound Adept can be done as well. None of them have racial restrictions, IIRC.


Well, first, I think there are a lot more games where Fabricate/Wall of Iron is disallowed than item crafting. Assuming it is allowed, the point at which the game breaks totally steps forward from level 18 to level 12, because we both have infinite money at that point, so we are both tier 0 supergods.

Second, I wasn't referring to exp as the barrier against 3.5 sorcerers crafting. I know exp is a river and you are unlikely to ever craft yourself a full level behind me. Your problem is spell prereqs. 3.5, if you don't have the right spell, you can't make the item. On a fixed list caster, that makes crafting very much more difficult. PF, it just raises the trivial spellcraft difficulty by 5. Thought bottle does not help that. It isn't just that I have more feats so Craft Wondrous is easier to take. It is that I can use Craft Wondrous to actually make all those items, but you can only make a very limited subset.

What it mostly does is allow you to do it on your own. That I can give - it cuts down on intermediaries (either item-based or character-based). However, you do mention "my extra WBL" - that is what I focused when you spoke. With Fabricate + Wall of Iron + Thought Bottle, your WBL is effectively infinite, limited only by what you're physically capable of creating; that is when I say that you dropped the ball on WBL-mancy, because once you get an infinite money trick, it doesn't matter if you can't create it or not; you just purchase it, which is pretty much similar. A PF Sorcerer crafts Pages of Spell Knowledge; a 3.5 Sorcerer just buys a Dragonshard Helm or Runestaff. That the PF Sorcerer can craft the items it wants is what you should have exposed as the intrinsic advantage, as it touches upon one of the aspects why the Artificer is considered Tier 1.


Third, I agree that we both have potential items that can expand casting. But how are you going to get those items? A rogue can UMD a wand of Wings of Cover, but we don't think of WoC as a rogue class feature. You are very unlikely to be able to make those runestaves. I can start making pages of spell knowledge very affordably at level 3, with a little spellcraft penalty for not knowing the spell in question.

Much like this. Again - I say "Fabricate + Wall of Iron" because, in the case of buying items, what limits you is your WBL. Here you make a stronger point - it's not that I can't find them, it's that I can make them while you don't.


Maybe, maybe not. Paragon surge alone is a huge gamechanger in terms of always having access to the exact spell you want. Even without it, there is a point at which if you give the T2 enough spells known, the versatility of being spontaneous will outweigh the marginal utility of the last few spells on the list. Does a PF human or half-elf sorcerer get there? Probably not. But the difference between having the 4 most useful spells of each level, and the 6 most useful +1, is huge. It means that you can throw away spells that you only want in downtime, but not on adventuring day. Spells like Contingency, Permanency, Divinations, and the Planar Binding line are powerhouses of Tier 1 versatility. Trying to decide whether you are going to have Teleport, Permanency or Overland Flight is a much bigger hit than losing the weakest 10 spells of that level, and the PF sorc doesn't have to make that decision.

Permanency is a spell that I'd consider not spending a spell slot at; that's the kind of spell a Wizard might have, because it only needs to prepare it when necessary. A Sorcerer might want to find another way to do so in order to save the slot; in that regard, the decision is pretty simple. Contingency is another spell that enters that fine line. Planar Binding, on the other hand, IS a must-have spell, because it indirectly expands your spell list and thus your possibilities, and you have enough Charisma to make it viable.

But, at that point, it's mostly nit-picking. IMO, the Sorcerer is not versatile, or at least not as versatile as the Wizard; the Wizard, given enough preparation, can alter its spell list to deal with any situation. The perceived "versatility" of the Sorcerer is in its ability to choose freely from its small list of spells. In that regard, the Arcanist is far more powerful, because it can set its spells as it desires and then have flexibility in casting them. The Arcanist is the standard of versatility I use; the Sorcerer, on the other hand, is a master of utility, where the few spells it gets have a multitude of uses.

[Snowbluff]

Well, 0 of the casters. The spell lists aren't as good as they were in 3.5.

I would say paladin. They got some nice buffs out of the box, like Lay of Hands being a swift action to use on themselves, and being able to enhance weapons with Divine Bond, which replaces the anemic mount they god.


PF has Wings of Cover too actually. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/emergency-force-sphere)

Yeah, at 2 levels higher and it traps you in a bubble until you dismiss as a standard. :smalltongue:

It's good with arcane archer, though. "I trap you as an immediate action!" :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Well, 0 of the casters. The spell lists aren't as good as they were in 3.5.



Yeah, at 2 levels higher and it traps you in a bubble until you dismiss as a standard. :smalltongue:


The poor casters! :smalltongue:

[NightbringerGGZ]

It's easier for them to get Dex to damage now though (Agile.) Also, Deadly Aim/Piranha Strike depending on the type of rogue you are. So you can usually compensate for the higher HP totals.

If you throw Unchained or the Ninja alternate class/mega archetype into the mix they aren't doing too bad either. UnRogue gets weapon finesse and dex-to-damage as a class feature fairly early on and the new talents are much better.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, 0 of the casters. The spell lists aren't as good as they were in 3.5.

I would say paladin. They got some nice buffs out of the box, like Lay of Hands being a swift action to use on themselves, and being able to enhance weapons with Divine Bond, which replaces the anemic mount they god.



Yeah, at 2 levels higher and it traps you in a bubble until you dismiss as a standard. :smalltongue:

It's good with arcane archer, though. "I trap you as an immediate action!" :smallbiggrin:

I don't think the spell lists are much weaker at all, and there's new goodies that 3E didn't have. Paragon Surge, as mentioned. Really can't be mentioned enough, it turns Sorcerers and Oracles into Tier Zero. The Dazing Spell metamagic feat means you can target save-or-lose against any saving throw you want trivially easily at mid and high levels. Persistent and Bouncing Spell make save or lose spells much more likely to work. The Ring of Continuation brings 3E's persistent spell + DMM shenanigans to all casters. And yes, now many more casters have access to Wings of Cover, as Emergency Force Sphere. Wizards even still have Abrupt Jaunt, via Teleport Conjuror.

As for EFS....it's higher level, but also can protect the whole party if you want, and is much more widely available. The simple way around trapping yourself in it is to have means of flight or teleportation (you're a caster, you want that anyway and it's easy to get) and just hover at least 5 ft or so off the ground so that the 5 ft radius hemisphere (which must be centered on you) simply cannot reach the ground. Also, is there any guideline dictating that a hemisphere effect must form directly above you ("above the equator" so to speak)? Could you form a hemisphere in front of you ("cut along the prime meridian") instead?

It's definitely fun on Arcane Archer, though. It and AMF.

[Sayt]

A ring of continuation is 56k and does one spell. Dmm persist does as many spells as you care to buy night sticks for, abd iirc, night sticks are a whole lot cheaper than 56k.

Paragon surge only lets you add one spell per day to your list via eldritch heritage.

Wish looping is gone, solar chaining is gone, nerveskitter is gone, the celerity line is gone, divine powe no longer gives full bab, Save or dies are now damage spells, no more casting in Anti-magic areas, no more craft contingent spell.

I think casters did lose a goodly portion
Of some of the more egregious magical BS they had in 3.5. (which I kinda approve of, on the whole).

[Snowbluff]

I don't think the spell lists are much weaker at all, and there's new goodies that 3E didn't have. Paragon Surge, as mentioned. Really can't be mentioned enough, it turns Sorcerers and Oracles into Tier Zero. The Dazing Spell metamagic feat means you can target save-or-lose against any saving throw you want trivially easily at mid and high levels. Persistent and Bouncing Spell make save or lose spells much more likely to work. The Ring of Continuation brings 3E's persistent spell + DMM shenanigans to all casters. And yes, now many more casters have access to Wings of Cover, as Emergency Force Sphere. Wizards even still have Abrupt Jaunt, via Teleport Conjuror.

Paragon Surge is good, but it doesn't give you anything new. Simply put, with as many spells that are just worse or missing, there's no contest. 3.5 casters are both more fun, varied, and powerful.

Persistent is nice, but remember Twin Spell? Bouncing Spell is nice, but remember Chain Spell? Dazing Spell is nice, but remember Fell Drain, or Born of Three Thunders.

Ring of Continuation now only works on spells with a duration of 10 minutes/level or higher. Oh, and it's really expensive. :l

[StreamOfTheSky]

A ring of continuation is 56k and does one spell. Dmm persist does as many spells as you care to buy night sticks for, abd iirc, night sticks are a whole lot cheaper than 56k.

Paragon surge only lets you add one spell per day to your list via eldritch heritage.

Wish looping is gone, solar chaining is gone, nerveskitter is gone, the celerity line is gone, divine powe no longer gives full bab, Save or dies are now damage spells, no more casting in Anti-magic areas, no more craft contingent spell.

I think casters did lose a goodly portion
Of some of the more egregious magical BS they had in 3.5. (which I kinda approve of, on the whole).

The ring is effectively half that price because you can get an attuned item instead of a familiar and craft it for half the price. Anyone who wants a RoC will do this. And again, now any caster can have it.

Did they nerf Paragon Surge to only one spell per day? Even Eldritch Heritage itself eventually gives multiple even if you can't change it now w/ a new PS spell. And that was only on the Oracle side, Sorcerers used PS w/ the feat that gives you an extra spell known (or two if below the highest level you can cast, iirc). I am a bit behind on the latest Paragon Surge stuff. Last I recall, Paizo thought they had nerfed the tier 0 caster abuse, then someone immediately found some cheap magic item that undid said nerf. Maybe it's changed again since then.

Infinite loops being gone: TO doesn't concern me, no one ever allowed that crap anyway, so it being gone is meaningless to me in terms of reducing casters' powers. On the other hand, PF made all xp costs gp instead and then created the Blood Money spell....

I know for a fact PF has their own 1st level spells to boost initiative. They just might be +1 per CL now instead of a flat bonus at CL 1. Celerity...that might be gone, I'll let someone else who's kept up w/ the splats determine that.

I simply will not abide you claiming Divine Power was nerfed. It is stronger now than it was in 3E.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/divine-power
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm

3E Divine Power: full BAB (so +1 to +5 increase, and at certain levels a bonus attack that has no chance of hitting), +6 enhancement to strength (+3 to hit and between +3 and +5 to damage, depending... but it doesn't stack w/ strength boosting items), and some temp hp no one cares about.

PF Divine Power: +1 per 3 CL luck bonus (as in...will actually stack w/ anything else you have) to attack and damage, so that's between +2 and +6. It also adds to str-based checks and for them will easily surpass 3E's enhancement bonus. Instead of maybe getting another attack at lowest possible BAB, you get a bonus attack at highest BAB. And then the temp hp you don't care about.

Given the choice, I'd always take PF's divine power. It only sucks if you expect to get haste every combat (since then you don't get the bonus attack).

Casters received lots of love in PF, and they didn't even need any.


Ring of Continuation now only works on spells with a duration of 10 minutes/level or higher. Oh, and it's really expensive. :l

*checks* Ok, they finally did nerf it. The FAQ was created in early 2013 (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gg#v5748eaic9qf8) yet I distictly recall for at least a year after that FAQ, both d20pfsrd and the PRD left the wording unchanged. Actually, PRD wording is still unchanged now, but maybe they don't bother to edit it from the FAQ changes.

[Gallowglass]

I can't help but notice that all the 3.5 spells and metamagic feats that posters are bemoaning the loss of between 3.5 and pathfinder, are the same spells and feats that I constantly see in lists of "overpowered" and "broken" or "easily broken".

I wonder why they didn't get ported over? hmmm.

Certainly the spell lists differences made the caster less powerful than their 3.5 equivalents but maybe that's not a bad thing?

Granted it hasn't exactly closed the distance between high level casters and high level mundanes, but maybe its made them SLIGHTLY more equitable at the low to mid levels most people play at.

I mean, the question posed wasn't "which classes are more powerful" it was "which classes are better". Yeah, maybe better means "will win in a power contest" but maybe it means "more fun to play without relentlessly overshadowing the other characters?"

My opinion would be, with the addition of all the class features and ACFs and bloodlines and whatnot, that I -feel- that wizards and sorcerers are more FUN to play in pathfinder even with the loss of the broken and overpowered spells and feats.

But that's not quantifiable. That's just opinion.

And I've never been much of a theoretical optimizer.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It made TO casters less powerful. But that has no effect on actual games, so who cares? The T in TO is "theoretical" for a reason.

PF made PO (Practical Optimization) casters more powerful, though. Which is a catastrophe because they needed the exact opposite. Well, they did shaft Druid. So there's that.

[digiman619]

I can't help but notice that all the 3.5 spells and metamagic feats that posters are bemoaning the loss of between 3.5 and pathfinder, are the same spells and feats that I constantly see in lists of "overpowered" and "broken" or "easily broken". I wonder why they didn't get ported over? hmmm. Certainly the spell lists differences made the caster less powerful than their 3.5 equivalents but maybe that's not a bad thing? Granted it hasn't exactly closed the distance between high level casters and high level mundanes, but maybe its made them SLIGHTLY more equitable at the low to mid levels most people play at. I mean, the question posed wasn't "which classes are more powerful" it was "which classes are better". Yeah, maybe better means "will win in a power contest" but maybe it means "more fun to play without relentlessly overshadowing the other characters?" My opinion would be, with the addition of all the class features and ACFs and bloodlines and whatnot, that I -feel- that wizards and sorcerers are more FUN to play in pathfinder even with the loss of the broken and overpowered spells and feats. But that's not quantifiable. That's just opinion. And I've never been much of a theoretical optimizer. Which is why I'd rather play with someone like you over superoptimizers. If I want to play with munchkins, I'll play the card game.

[Snowbluff]

I can't help but notice that all the 3.5 spells and metamagic feats that posters are bemoaning the loss of between 3.5 and pathfinder, are the same spells and feats that I constantly see in lists of "overpowered" and "broken" or "easily broken".

I wonder why they didn't get ported over? hmmm.


Because they never had the legal license to do so. A lot f the things I am thinking of aren't broken, and a lot of the things they "fixed" are really just replaced by things that have been grandfathered in, or have marginally functional equivalents, as I showed earlier, that have similiar net effects? Meanwhile, you've had key dangled in front of you with these class feature, which are mostly just numbers or useless fluff outside of the stuff that is actually easily broken and/or overpowered.

Also, why does the game maker dictate the power levels of a population of gamers that outnumbers then by a huge factor, and are far more varied than that? you're going to answer that and it's a trap.

[Sayt]

The ring is effectively half that price because you can get an attuned item instead of a familiar and craft it for half the price. Anyone who wants a RoC will do this. And again, now any caster can have it.
True, but it's still only one spell per ring, of which I think you can have three at maximum (Left, right, 10-ring Broadsword), compared to DMM(Persist)'s "How many nightsticks you got?"



Did they nerf Paragon Surge to only one spell per day? Even Eldritch Heritage itself eventually gives multiple even if you can't change it now w/ a new PS spell. And that was only on the Oracle side, Sorcerers used PS w/ the feat that gives you an extra spell known (or two if below the highest level you can cast, iirc). I am a bit behind on the latest Paragon Surge stuff. Last I recall, Paizo thought they had nerfed the tier 0 caster abuse, then someone immediately found some cheap magic item that undid said nerf. Maybe it's changed again since then. I vaguely remember now such an item being discussed, but IIRC there was contention as to whether it worked. And personally, once a game designer/dev starts to walk something like Paragon Surge back, I give them the benefit of the doubt.



Infinite loops being gone: TO doesn't concern me, no one ever allowed that crap anyway, so it being gone is meaningless to me in terms of reducing casters' powers. On the other hand, PF made all xp costs gp instead and then created the Blood Money spell.... I'll give you this, and I don't think Blood Money should have been printed as is. and I also just like not having the PTO stuff in the game.


I know for a fact PF has their own 1st level spells to boost initiative. They just might be +1 per CL now instead of a flat bonus at CL 1. Celerity...that might be gone, I'll let someone else who's kept up w/ the splats determine that. Anticipate peril? Not an immediate action to cast, and caps at +5. You can also share it with another party member, which while more versatile/powerful, is... nicer?


I simply will not abide you claiming Divine Power was nerfed. It is stronger now than it was in 3E.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/divine-power
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm

3E Divine Power: full BAB (so +1 to +5 increase, and at certain levels a bonus attack that has no chance of hitting), +6 enhancement to strength (+3 to hit and between +3 and +5 to damage, depending... but it doesn't stack w/ strength boosting items), and some temp hp no one cares about.

PF Divine Power: +1 per 3 CL luck bonus (as in...will actually stack w/ anything else you have) to attack and damage, so that's between +2 and +6. It also adds to str-based checks and for them will easily surpass 3E's enhancement bonus. Instead of maybe getting another attack at lowest possible BAB, you get a bonus attack at highest BAB. And then the temp hp you don't care about.

Given the choice, I'd always take PF's divine power. It only sucks if you expect to get haste every combat (since then you don't get the bonus attack).

Casters received lots of love in PF, and they didn't even need any.

I'd expect haste to go down in any combat that Divine Power was expected to be popped, but that might just be my group. Getting better BAB means you get better Power Attack returns, and the strength bonus doesn't stack, but it's bigger than any belt you're getting by seventh level. I personally like PF Divine Power more, and I wouldn't on the whole say it's a worse spell, but it doesn't do everything the 3.5 version did.

Edit: an addendum: caster's didn't need to become any more practically powerful in PF, and I don't personally think they did, but I do think that some of them got more interesting than a chassis of "I get spells in [I]this [/I ]configuration, which I think was a good change.

[NeoPhoenix0]

So, from what I gather this thread'spurpose is to determine which classes got stronger. Some people pointed out how the 3.5 teir 1 and 2 casters are stronger and other people said it doesn't matter cause TO...

Anyway, I'll just say that I find 3.5's sorc/wiz list tons more fun even without the optimization, cause paizo is to concerned to give Spells unique tools or making things too similar so a lot of the oddly quirky and strangly useful yet similar Spells are gone as well as the very unique ones.

[Coidzor]

I can't help but notice that all the 3.5 spells and metamagic feats that posters are bemoaning the loss of between 3.5 and pathfinder, are the same spells and feats that I constantly see in lists of "overpowered" and "broken" or "easily broken".

Because they're the most famous, though Wings of Cover, for instance, isn't really famous for being broken so much as really good and useful.

You should also note that many of the most broken spells in core still work just fine.


I wonder why they didn't get ported over? hmmm.

You may want to review the rules. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)


but maybe that's not a bad thing?

That's not entirely relevant here, but having less options total, even the ones that weren't broken is going to be less potential fun as well as altering the balance and distribution of potentially disruptive content.


Granted it hasn't exactly closed the distance between high level casters and high level mundanes, but maybe its made them SLIGHTLY more equitable at the low to mid levels most people play at.

Not really, no. Some of the fun TO tricks were closed but the core ones are largely intact. Mostly what's gone is the broadening of the millieu and neat little abilities here and there.

Or feats like Searing Spell which make blasting less stressful.


I mean, the question posed wasn't "which classes are more powerful" it was "which classes are better". Yeah, maybe better means "will win in a power contest" but maybe it means "more fun to play without relentlessly overshadowing the other characters?"

Create Spring not being a thing in PF but a thing in 3.X is neither necessarily more powerful nor something that relentlessly overshadows the other characters.

[Psyren]

I can't help but notice that all the 3.5 spells and metamagic feats that posters are bemoaning the loss of between 3.5 and pathfinder, are the same spells and feats that I constantly see in lists of "overpowered" and "broken" or "easily broken".

I wonder why they didn't get ported over? hmmm.

Certainly the spell lists differences made the caster less powerful than their 3.5 equivalents but maybe that's not a bad thing?

Granted it hasn't exactly closed the distance between high level casters and high level mundanes, but maybe its made them SLIGHTLY more equitable at the low to mid levels most people play at.

I mean, the question posed wasn't "which classes are more powerful" it was "which classes are better". Yeah, maybe better means "will win in a power contest" but maybe it means "more fun to play without relentlessly overshadowing the other characters?"

My opinion would be, with the addition of all the class features and ACFs and bloodlines and whatnot, that I -feel- that wizards and sorcerers are more FUN to play in pathfinder even with the loss of the broken and overpowered spells and feats.

But that's not quantifiable. That's just opinion.

And I've never been much of a theoretical optimizer.

This.


It made TO casters less powerful. But that has no effect on actual games, so who cares? The T in TO is "theoretical" for a reason.

PF made PO (Practical Optimization) casters more powerful, though. Which is a catastrophe because they needed the exact opposite. Well, they did shaft Druid. So there's that.

Not all the nerfs were theoretical. Sure, nobody was REALLY breaking down their Walls of Iron and heading to the market for infinite wealth, I'll give you that. And maybe people weren't REALLY Su wishing for infinite-CL scrolls of Holy Word.

But one thing they were doing was taking enemies completely out of combat with one Glitterdust because of a bad saving throw. Or being able to ignore their physical chassis completely because of Polymorph/Divine Power. Or being able to defeat thieves completely with Arcane Lock. Or being able to defeat melee opponents completely with a Wall of Force or Solid Fog. Or ignoring a whole school of magic because of Mind Blank. Or ignoring half of another school with Death Ward. All of that is PO. On top of which, some spells got quality of life buffs, like Disjunction no longer destroying your loot, or X Person working on giants now, or Darkvision beating magical darkness, etc.

[StreamOfTheSky]

But one thing they were doing was taking enemies completely out of combat with one Glitterdust because of a bad saving throw.

Blindness/Deafness is unchanged. Pyrotechnics is unchanged. Color Spray is unchanged. Baleful Polymorph is unchanged. Dazing Spell now exists and lets you custom target any save you like with a wide variety of spells for the right save or lose for the occasion. New save or loses were added. I will freely admit PF nerfed blasters (aside from turning any blaster into a save or lose caster w/ Dazing Spell), but save or lose did NOT take a hit in PF. Some doors closed, some new ones were opened.


Or being able to ignore their physical chassis completely because of Polymorph/Divine Power.
Synthesist Summoner. Also <insert generic statement that a caster using his spells to buff his physical combat abilities is voluntarily nerfing himself>
(PF did do a great job of making polymorph effects higher level than before in order to use them on the party fighter instead of just self-only; and made armor more likely to meld and become nonfunctional which irks the fighter and doesn't much bother the mage)


Or being able to defeat thieves completely with Arcane Lock.
A good fix, but that was never a big problem in my experience...locks are also typically too easy to just bash in anyway. In any case, the fact that detect magic is at will, you can find any trap w/o needing trapfinding, and trapfinding is now worth half a feat obsoletes the rogue far more than arcane lock in 3E ever did.


Or being able to defeat melee opponents completely with a Wall of Force or Solid Fog. Or ignoring a whole school of magic because of Mind Blank. Or ignoring half of another school with Death Ward. All of that is PO.

I say casters got helped in PF, and your counter argument is that the spells that wrecked their s*&$ got nerfed? What....what even is this?
But sure, let's also point out how targeted dispelling got nerfed and can't potentially strip off nearly as many spell buffs as it used to. Who do you think is loving that change the most? But...I guess because dispel magic is itself a spell, it counts as a nerf to casters. :smallannoyed:


On top of which, some spells got quality of life buffs, like Disjunction no longer destroying your loot, or X Person working on giants now, or Darkvision beating magical darkness, etc.

Disjunction in a PO sense was better in 3E, because it was so ridiculous every group gentleman's agreement'd it out of the game. In PF, it loses its mutually assured destruction insanity and thus is left as the completely broken insta-win dispel magic that also doubles as a super-debuff that shuts down all a foes' magic items (will negates...martials love wills saves) that it is w/o it. Well, it still destroys items 5% of the time, so it's "tame" enough to justify NPCs using it now but still risky enough that PCs will be weary.

The lighting/darness changes were good, not going to argue about that.

Other quality of life stuff is pretty minor and often countered by harsh QoL nerfs on other spells. Grease is much less useful to rogues now (but for the caster himself it got an awesome 10x duration buff), blinking no longer provides sneak attack either, and so on... I have to give special mentioned to Mirror Image, an already good selfish mage defensive spell that needed no help, and got massively buffed in PF. Not only do the images no longer have cruddy AC, they also removed the note about them only being re-shuffle-able on your turn and being able once you find the real mage to hammer on him until he gets a turn again. Then they went 180 degrees on 3E's rulings on magic missiles and cleave interacting with the images, making it even stronger again.

[Psyren]

save or lose did NOT take a hit in PF. Some doors closed, some new ones were opened.

You may not like it but it did. That list you rattled off of things that were unchanged were exactly that, unchanged. And many of them are just solid without being actual problems. Take Color Spray - a 15ft. cone requires the caster to get dangerously close to the enemy, it's also a mind-affecting pattern, and finally it quickly becomes less useful as you go up in levels. Saying that needed to be nerfed the same way Glitterdust was is patently ludicrous.


Synthesist Summoner.

One bad archetype of one badly designed class is easy to ban. Just ask PFS.



A good fix, but that was never a big problem in my experience...locks are also typically too easy to just bash in anyway. In any case, the fact that detect magic is at will, you can find any trap w/o needing trapfinding, and trapfinding is now worth half a feat obsoletes the rogue far more than arcane lock in 3E ever did.

Needing rogues for traps was bad design, so good riddance. Also, bashing in locks tends to be loud.


I say casters got helped in PF, and your counter argument is that the spells that wrecked their s*&$ got nerfed? What....what even is this?
But sure, let's also point out how targeted dispelling got nerfed and can't potentially strip off nearly as many spell buffs as it used to. Who do you think is loving that change the most? But...I guess because dispel magic is itself a spell, it counts as a nerf to casters. :smallannoyed:

Characters relying on buffs: mundanes and casters.
Characters casting buffs: casters.

On balance I'd say nerfing dispel is a net positive for mundanes.



Disjunction in a PO sense was better in 3E, because it was so ridiculous every group gentleman's agreement'd it out of the game.

This reeks of senseless Oberoni. Besides, you can still GA it out in PF too if you continue to have problems with it, so that's a wash. At least now it's actually usable.

[Tuvarkz]

Wait, wasn't Synth the least broken archetype of Summoner due to the fact that it didn't get twice the action economy? (And taking into account Summoner could easily just forgo all stats but Con and Cha, it should be about resilient enough as a class).

[Gallowglass]

Because they're the most famous, though Wings of Cover, for instance, isn't really famous for being broken so much as really good and useful.

You should also note that many of the most broken spells in core still work just fine.

I don't know what your definition of "broken" is. To me, Wings of Cover is VERY overpowered for its level. Its a spell that every caster who CAN get it, will automatically get and use often. To me, that's overpowered, to you that's "good and useful". If you raised the spell to 4th level instead of 2nd level with no other changes, you know, I think it would STILL be an automatic take for every caster who can get them. That's broken.




You may want to review the rules. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)

I don't know what rule you are referring to. I found this one :

Vigilante Modding
If you're not a Moderator, don't act like one. ... Please refrain from chastising other posters over breaking the rules, especially concerning minor things. ... But whatever you do, do not tell other posters what to do, what rules they have broken, that they are spamming, etc.....

Is that the one you mean?


That's not entirely relevant here, but having less options total, even the ones that weren't broken is going to be less potential fun as well as altering the balance and distribution of potentially disruptive content...

Not really, no. Some of the fun TO tricks were closed but the core ones are largely intact. Mostly what's gone is the broadening of the millieu and neat little abilities here and there.

I don't see in any possible way it could be "not relevant" to this topic. As far as less options total. If you take a dozen spells away and replace them with a literal trove of class features, other spells, and other abilities, I don't see how you can classify it as "less options total"

As far as what's fun. I was very clear in stating that what I think is fun is MY OPINION and not some immutable objective fact. Its clear that what we find fun it different. You said "fun TO options". I don't think I've ever found a TO option fun. I don't find "looking for ways to break spells" to be a fun way to play the game. But that's for ME. You do you. As long as you and your friends are having fun playing your game, you are doing it right.





Create Spring not being a thing in PF but a thing in 3.X is neither necessarily more powerful nor something that relentlessly overshadows the other characters.

I can't really understand what this is referring to. This seems non-sequitor.

[Psyren]

Wait, wasn't Synth the least broken archetype of Summoner due to the fact that it didn't get twice the action economy? (And taking into account Summoner could easily just forgo all stats but Con and Cha, it should be about resilient enough as a class).

It's not clear-cut. Yes, two bodies means two sets of actions and that's undeniably good, but it also means you can't neglect your frail summoner chassis anymore either because you can now be targeted separately. There's no expecting to waltz into combat with all 7s in your physical stats and survive. The pet helps with that obviously, but being separate, it can't protect you from everything. It also cuts into your WBL because some gear pieces need to be duplicative (e.g. saving throw items) and you no longer have to worry about gearing up yourself or your pet first.

Being separate hurts in other ways too. Area attacks that hit both of you are now twice as bad; if a fireball goes off near a Synthesist, his eidolon will lose X hp, whereas if the same attack goes off between a normal Summoner and his eidolon, they both lose X hp.

[squiggit]

Wait, wasn't Synth the least broken archetype of Summoner due to the fact that it didn't get twice the action economy? (And taking into account Summoner could easily just forgo all stats but Con and Cha, it should be about resilient enough as a class).

Synth is undoubtably weaker than the basic summoner.

But it's got a very high optimization floor because of what it gives you and it tends to smell pretty bad to a lot of people because it breaks a bunch of PF's supposed rules.