3.5 Classes Vs. Pathfinder Classes

[Tainted_Scholar]

This is not a Battle. This is a comparison between the classes.

We will be comparing the classes from Pathfinder to their D&D equivalents and see which are better in their respective systems. As a result we will be looking at both their chassis, and the feats, skills, spells, prestige class, etc. available to them.

Also in addition to the original 11 classes let us also compare the classes that are unique to each system. This means all first party material for each system is available.

We will be using practical optimization.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm not terribly familiar with Pathfinder, but from what I've heard 3.5 has a lower optimization floor but a higher ceiling.

Many of the feats that the martial classes depended on have been nerfed and there's no Tome of Battle equivalent in Pathfinder.

[DarkSoul]

Paladin, Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Monk: PF Versions are just better, to the point that in my (almost-exclusively) 3.5 game those classes replace the PHB versions.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Paladin, Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Monk: PF Versions are just better, to the point that in my (almost-exclusively) 3.5 game those classes replace the PHB versions.

I believe the chassis is better, but didn't PF nerf alot of the feats they need? We're looking at the classes in their systems not in 3.P.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Paladin, Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Monk: PF Versions are just better, to the point that in my (almost-exclusively) 3.5 game those classes replace the PHB versions.

Didn't Pathfinder nerf the Rogue's access to Sneak Attack?

[digiman619]

I'm not terribly familiar with Pathfinder, but from what I've heard 3.5 has a lower optimization floor but a higher ceiling.

Many of the feats that the martial classes depended on have been nerfed and there's no Tome of Battle equivalent in Pathfinder.

That's only technically true, as Pathfinders martial initiation rules (Path of War) are 3rd party. Highly respected 3rd party that Paizo has offically reccomended, but 3rd party nonetheless.

[Kurald Galain]

I believe the chassis is better, but didn't PF nerf alot of the feats they need?
Nope. In fact, PF adds a number of easy martial-boosting feats such as Lunge.


Didn't Pathfinder nerf the Rogue's access to Sneak Attack?
No, the opposite. PF rogues can, by default, sneak attack undead, constructs, plants, and swarms. There are whole swaths of creatures that are de facto immune to sneak attack in 3E, but can be sneak attacked in PF.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Nope. In fact, PF adds a number of easy martial-boosting feats such as Lunge.


No, the opposite. PF rogues can, by default, sneak attack undead, constructs, plants, and swarms. There are whole swaths of creatures that are de facto immune to sneak attack in 3E, but can be sneak attacked in PF.

I know that Rogues can Sneak Attack more enemies in Pathfinder, I was talking about things like Blink no longer allowing Sneak Attack.

Also, does Pathfinder have any feats that compare to Leap Attack/Shock Trooper?

[Bucky]

Pathfinder mundanes tend to get real, fairly potent level 20 capstones, where their 3.5 equivalents typically don't.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Nope. In fact, PF adds a number of easy martial-boosting feats such as Lunge.

What does lunge do?

Also PF did nerf Power Attack.


Pathfinder mundanes tend to get real, fairly potent level 20 capstones, where their 3.5 equivalents typically don't.

Lvl 20 capstones really aren't that useful though.

[Crake]

Also PF did nerf Power Attack.

Nerf isn't quite right. Change is a better word. You can't go to the extremes as you could in 3.5, by subtracting your entire bab, however point for point, power attack gives more in pf

[Sayt]

What does lunge do?

Also PF did nerf Power Attack..

Pathfinder changed power attack, buti don't really percieve it as a nerf in any sense other than that you can't abuse shock trooper. You cant pour as much AB into it, but you get twice a much better ratio of hit to damage. Get this: get this, Power attack can be a useful and valuable feat, without cheesing it into an ubercharger!!!!11!one1

But anyway, generally speaking, the higher floor, lower ceiling in Pathfinder is correct.

[atemu1234]

Pathfinder changed power attack, buti don't really percieve it as a nerf in any sense other than that you can't abuse shock trooper. You cant pour as much AB into it, but you get twice a much better ratio of hit to damage. Get this: get this, Power attack can be a useful and valuable feat, without cheesing it into an ubercharger!!!!11!one1

But anyway, generally speaking, the higher floor, lower ceiling in Pathfinder is correct.

I mean, i don't even really consider uberchargers cheesing at this point. And the !!!11one! thing is super annoying.

[Sayt]

I mean, i don't even really consider uberchargers cheesing at this point. And the !!!11one! thing is super annoying.

It was meant to show sarcastic incredulity, verging on realisation, and I'm not pulling it out again in the foreseeable future.

[Florian]

We will be comparing the classes from Pathfinder to their D&D equivalents and see which are better in their respective systems. As a result we will be looking at both their chassis, and the feats, skills, spells, prestige class, etc. available to them.

Take a look at the main difference in class design between the two editions. PF classes are build around scaling class features, encouraging staying single class, no dipping, no PrC.
Conceptually, PrC are now a near useless relic, given that archetypes let you modify a class from early on, sometimes quite radically.

This makes trying to compare classes by looking at the performance of example builds a tricky thing. Not only are PF classes more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts, they provide more varied builds without having to mc/prc because of archetype options. On the other hand, the 3.5 characters gain by mc/prc and the weird synergies you can get there.

[Eldariel]

Far as design goes, PF is better pretty much straight-up. All the classes get something and single-classing is encouraged without making multiclassing useless, and the classes have a great degree of customizability making for a great variety of approximately similarly powerful builds. However, there's obviously nothing in Pathfinder that compares to 3.5 charge multipliers. Perhaps more problematically, PF still features full attacks as the only reasonable means to do damage as melee on higher levels, and it made getting full attacks even harder ****ing melee characters up even worse. They tried to fix this in part with Vital Strike but in practice, it's really weak on PCs as it doesn't multiply the bulk of your damage, and it is strong on monsters/natural attack users who are stuck to one big attack anyways.

The changes to Power Attack and company make them stronger but losing variability makes them less interesting to use, removing some of the few choices martials have (though of course, Shock Trooper is just a "PA for full"). However, PF martials get some more abilities straight out of the box. Sadly most of the combat maneuvers are a bit hard to use in PF due to the monster bonuses, but at least you can use either Dex or Str making for a greater variety of builds.


Overall, PF classes are better and more interesting but the rest of PF doesn't address some of the issues latter 3.5 material was created to fix, making for some issues mostly revolving around moving and still doing relevant damage. Generally archers outperform melee in PF. Had Unchained just thrown "full attack" concept into a trashbin or fixed single attack into something scaling/workable, it'd be a different matter, but as it stands... However, I don't consider lacking the whole charge line that much of a problem; it makes combat even more binary. Ideally martials could contribute without having to be able to one-shot everything in sight; more utility, less raw power.

[Kurald Galain]

it made getting full attacks even harder
In PF, a 5th level monk can pounce with his Flying Kick ability. A 4th level Magus can pounce with the Bladed Dash spell (without provoking, too). A 10th level barbarian can get pounce while raging, and around that level the monk and Magus get to pounce with Dimension Door. Overall it strikes me as easier to get full attacks in PF.


What does lunge do?
It gives you +5' reach. Another fun one is Step Up (meaning if an enemy 5' steps away, you get to follow immediately).


Also PF did nerf Power Attack.
For taking -X to hit with a twohander, 3E's power attack feat gives +2X to damage, whereas Pathfinder gives +3X to damage. That's clearly not a nerf.


Also, does Pathfinder have any feats that compare to Leap Attack/Shock Trooper?
PF's equivalent of the Ubercharger is the following combo: I charge you with a bull rush (which deals damage). The BR triggers a free overrun (which also deals damage). Because I overrun you, you fall prone. Because you fall prone, you provoke an OA. For the OA, I take a bull rush. Repeat until I run out of Combat Reflexes bonus attacks.

So yeah, if you want your martial classes to drop most monsters in one round (and from a distance), PF can do that just fine.

[Eldariel]

In PF, a 5th level monk can pounce with his Flying Kick ability. A 4th level Magus can pounce with the Bladed Dash spell (without provoking, too). A 10th level barbarian can get pounce while raging, and around that level the monk and Magus get to pounce with Dimension Door. Overall it strikes me as easier to get full attacks in PF.

Compared to 3.5 where any class can take a level in Barbarian or pick up Travel Devotion or any number of easily swift actionable low level teleport effects (Protective Interposition, Benign Transposition, Knight's Move, etc.), Hustle, Sudden Leap, Polymorph into Hydra, etc. I'd say it's definitely way more involved in PF. And some classes like the Fighter have a huge issue getting it in PF, to say nothing of the monsters (aside from the Hydra, obviously). And to start with, I don't think the whole issue should exist: honestly, the system should choose multiple attacks or single attack per turn and build around that. Choosing both in this kind of a manner just produces stupid, illogical problems.

[Sagetim]

Take a look at the main difference in class design between the two editions. PF classes are build around scaling class features, encouraging staying single class, no dipping, no PrC.
Conceptually, PrC are now a near useless relic, given that archetypes let you modify a class from early on, sometimes quite radically.

This makes trying to compare classes by looking at the performance of example builds a tricky thing. Not only are PF classes more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts, they provide more varied builds without having to mc/prc because of archetype options. On the other hand, the 3.5 characters gain by mc/prc and the weird synergies you can get there.

hehehe. I find it funny that you point to something that's basically a revival of 2nd edition's kits as the hot new thing putting the relics of the past (prestige classes) to rest.

That aside, we've got some clear benefactors to pathfinder's update to the 3.5 system. Paladins are finally not just a front loaded class full of really pathetic class features after level 4. Rangers also benefit from more class abilities as compared to 3.5, not to mention archetypes letting you really change how they play out (trap rangers for example, dropping spells entirely).

Fighters are better off baseline, but don't have quite as many broken BS feats. Of course, that's if you forget that pathfinder is supposed to be 3.5 compatible, and thus all those feats that haven't been updated to pathfinder are still technically on the table or existing. Hell, Fighters actually have class abilities instead of Just feats now. Buffing their anemic will saves against fear is just the start of it.

Rogues are entirely better off. They can sneak attack pretty much everything now, all the time, forever. At least if they're using team work, which is something you all should be doing anyway.

Monks are better off by far. This isn't hard when in 3.5 they got a wide range of basically pointless powers. I'm not saying they're top tier now compared to other classes, but compared to 3.5, Pathfinder monks are much better off. They have a bonus feat list of options that isn't just 3 things and some pity choices, and ki points give them a resource that they can utilize to do their thing instead of giving them a bunch of once per day abilities that they might wish they could have used more than once in a day.

Barbarians may not be able to be built as some kind of god of ubercharging, but if that was the only thing you ever saw them as good for in 3.5, then in pathfinder they have grown from not having that as an option. Not as good as the 5e barbarian with his con based ac of pants, but I'm pretty sure the pathfinder barbarian is still an upgrade over 3.5

Wizard is not necessarily an upgrade. And that's entirely to do with spell lists. 3.5 had a lot of shenanigans going on with spells, so if those are considered phased out if they weren't reprinted in something pathfinder, then you wind up missing a lot of stuff that these forums go ga ga over. So, if we put aside the 'they don't have all the broken spells from 3.5 anymore' thing, pathfinder wizards have actual class abilities now. And they don't have to just sit around sucking eggs at level 1 either, because those class abilities let them Do things With Magic, regularly. unlimited cantrips is actually really useful.

Sorcerer's got more of a buff than wizards. Putting aside the broken spells that no longer be thing, they got a tremendous leg up compared to 3.5's sorcerer with his...familiar and mildly more spells per day for entirely too few known. While the pathfinder sorcerer doesn't really get that many more known, at least they get some class abilities. And it's not as bad as 5e, where the sorcerer gets pidgeon holed into being some kind of master of mediocre level spells and doesn't get to know enough high level ones to excel.

Cleric finally has a solid class ability that doesn't just suck later in the form of channeling instead of turn undead. I know, there was a big hulabaloo in 3.5 about all these feats you could get to use turn undead for Useful things...but it makes more sense to just have it be useful baseline instead. Clerics also saw a redction in their spell list compared to 3.5, but you still have all the best things like cure , inflict, heal, harm, slay living, animate dead, bestow curse, quest, raise dead, rez, true rez, miracle, and so on. Might be nice to have greywhatever that shuts down regen or whatever it was from the spell compendium, but cleric was solid in 3.5 and remains solid in pathfinder (but now some of them can light you on fire in the name of their god astarting at level 1).

Druid seems like it got an upgrade to me, overall. They were admittedly good at shapechanging shenanigans in 3.5, and shape changing was more potent, or abusable or some such thing as compared to pathfinder, but it's not like the druids got particularly weaker just because one trick got a bit nerfed or less exploitable. Druids can also set you on fire in the name of nature starting at level 1, and this time without produce flame. So there's always that.

Oh right, bard...eh. It's not like bards lost anything (that I can think of). I don't know that they gained a ton either. I just don't really care about them. As far as I'm aware, bards are better off in pathfinder.

[Eldariel]

Wizard is not necessarily an upgrade. And that's entirely to do with spell lists. 3.5 had a lot of shenanigans going on with spells, so if those are considered phased out if they weren't reprinted in something pathfinder, then you wind up missing a lot of stuff that these forums go ga ga over. So, if we put aside the 'they don't have all the broken spells from 3.5 anymore' thing, pathfinder wizards have actual class abilities now. And they don't have to just sit around sucking eggs at level 1 either, because those class abilities let them Do things With Magic, regularly. unlimited cantrips is actually really useful.

There's a bit more to it. Most of the broken spells aside from the Polymorph-line are still broken. Polymorph got toned down to a reasonable point though. Some of the better battlefield control got nerfed too, but most of the good ones still work and there's a number of new very powerful feats. Broken metamagic isn't as much a thing but there's Sacred Geometry, traits to reduce metamagic costs at negligible cost, and some rather strong metamagic feats anyways. And stuff like Foresight Diviner actually gets huge bonuses over their 3.5 equivalents. Though Abrupt Jaunt helps more where it counts. On the flipside, the new skill system is tailormade for Wizards. Ironically, Wizards are now the best healers thanks to Wands of Infernal Healing

Ultimately, high end got lower: no more "persist every spell Incantatrices/Spelldancers/etc." going around and there's no circle magic sorta nonsense. The low end got a lot stronger though, and there's still Magic Jar, Planar Binding, Simulacrum, etc. Animate Dead got buffed if anything. And Wizards being competent trapfinders and sneaks, and having decent HP is a nice extra, particularly early on.


Sorcerer's got more of a buff than wizards. Putting aside the broken spells that no longer be thing, they got a tremendous leg up compared to 3.5's sorcerer with his...familiar and mildly more spells per day for entirely too few known. While the pathfinder sorcerer doesn't really get that many more known, at least they get some class abilities. And it's not as bad as 5e, where the sorcerer gets pidgeon holed into being some kind of master of mediocre level spells and doesn't get to know enough high level ones to excel.

Many races (Humans, most importantly - broken race is broken) can get bonus spells known as favoured class bonus. That's a rather massive buff, even if they can't be of the highest level. Add to that Bloodline and Bloodline Spells and PF Sorcs have to work far less for their spells known than 3.5 Sorcs who mostly rely on PRCs and magic items. On the flipside, 3.5 Sorc-only spells like Wings of Cover, Wings of Flurry, Arcane Fusion and Greater Arcane Fusion are incredible and lacking those is a huge nerf, on top of which Sorcs also lack all the awesome general 3.5 spells. Getting to use Quicken reasonably well is nice though.


Cleric finally has a solid class ability that doesn't just suck later in the form of channeling instead of turn undead. I know, there was a big hulabaloo in 3.5 about all these feats you could get to use turn undead for Useful things...but it makes more sense to just have it be useful baseline instead. Clerics also saw a redction in their spell list compared to 3.5, but you still have all the best things like cure , inflict, heal, harm, slay living, animate dead, bestow curse, quest, raise dead, rez, true rez, miracle, and so on. Might be nice to have greywhatever that shuts down regen or whatever it was from the spell compendium, but cleric was solid in 3.5 and remains solid in pathfinder (but now some of them can light you on fire in the name of their god astarting at level 1).

Well, Cure and Inflict were never useful aside from Wands of Cure Light Wounds - Inflict is generally not worth the slots and worse than just attacking. Harm is generally worse than save-or-dies since it doesn't actually kill your target even on a failed Fort-save, though getting 75 damage on a successful save is somewhat useful. Clerics lost Divine Metamagic and the more impressive combatant spells, but overall they're still fine and Animate Dead got indeed buffed.


Druid seems like it got an upgrade to me, overall. They were admittedly good at shapechanging shenanigans in 3.5, and shape changing was more potent, or abusable or some such thing as compared to pathfinder, but it's not like the druids got particularly weaker just because one trick got a bit nerfed or less exploitable. Druids can also set you on fire in the name of nature starting at level 1, and this time without produce flame. So there's always that.

Well, losing Wildshape takes one of the godlike Druid powers away. The new variant is nowhere near as strong. Wildshape was hours/level making it oppressive and making Druids completely replace warrior classes with animal companion + it around level 5-6. Furthermore, it was superpowerful if built for. They also got worse summoning: Summon Nature's Ally got heavily nerfed while Summon Monster got buffed. In 3.5 SNA was the choice for warrior/brawler types while SM got mostly utility. Now SNA mostly gets weakish brawlers while SM gets everything nerfing Druids compared to other casters further. And Giant Vermin got struck to ground - a bunch of Large things is nothing compared to the 3.5 Colossal Vermins. Check here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?439991-Being-Everything-Eggynack-s-Comprehensive-Druid-Handbook) for just how great Druids can be in 3.5: there's a reason we talk about CoDzilla. Right out of the gate Druid is Godzilla, simultaneously a superb caster and the greatest warrior, with a companion that also outfights the Fighter.


Oh right, bard...eh. It's not like bards lost anything (that I can think of). I don't know that they gained a ton either. I just don't really care about them. As far as I'm aware, bards are better off in pathfinder.

Bards lost almost everything. All the good 3.5 Bard stuff was in the splatbooks (Sublime Chord, feats like Words of Creation, Songs of the Heart, Dragonfire Inspiration, spells like Inspirational Boost/Improvisation/Harmonize/Sonorous Hum/Ruin Delver's Fortune/Nixie's/Sirine's Grace/etc., alternative songs, et cetera). Gone are the days of giving your whole party +12d6 Sonic damage with Inspire Courage, Move Action Control Winds as Stormsinger, getting 9th level spells by 20 as Sublime Chord, etc. 3.5 Bards with PRCs are a Tier 1 class; PF Bards are around Tier 3. Check this thread (http://dictummortuum.blogspot.fi/2011/08/bards-handbook.html) for the awe-inspiring power that is 3.5 Bard.

[Florian]

PF's equivalent of the Ubercharger is the following combo: I charge you with a bull rush (which deals damage). The BR triggers a free overrun (which also deals damage). Because I overrun you, you fall prone. Because you fall prone, you provoke an OA. For the OA, I take a bull rush. Repeat until I run out of Combat Reflexes bonus attacks.

It gets absurd when done with a plain old TWF Sword´n´Board Fighter. You have high Dex bonus by necessity and the shield-centric feats add a lot of free triggers. Only thing left to do is taking a dip in Vigilante and calling yourself Captain Golarion.


hehehe. I find it funny that you point to something that's basically a revival of 2nd edition's kits as the hot new thing putting the relics of the past (prestige classes) to rest.

Oh right, bard...eh. It's not like bards lost anything (that I can think of). I don't know that they gained a ton either. I just don't really care about them. As far as I'm aware, bards are better off in pathfinder.

I didn´t say it´s a new invention but a different approach at customizing a character and a step away from the approach of classes being building blocks with your actual build then being the final class. I think this and a few other things are the reason wie don´t really see Sorcadin or similar builds anymore.

Bards and similar 3/4-6/9 classes seem to be the new balance point other classes performance need to be measured against.

Bards got easier to handle and there´s more synergy between bardic music and spells.

@Eldariel: Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with the bard class itself.

[Karl Aegis]

As I recall, Pathfinder challenges are generally harder to overcome than they were in 3.5e, so most classes had to be stronger to overcome those challenges. Sure, you have a bunch of shiny new tools, but so does everything else. Everything is shinier in Pathfinder, but you're still expected to perform about the same with your new coat of paint.

[Firechanter]

The general trend of PF is certainly "Higher Floor, Lower Ceiling".
Pretty much all classes have been upgraded. You get a new feature on pretty much every single level with every single class.

My main gripe with that is that also classes that never ever needed an upgrade got boosted. Prime example being the Wizard. Like, just because you're a Specialist doesn't mean you have to ban any magic schools. You simply get both. :6

On the other hand, a lot of the dominant strategies of 3.5 have been removed or nerfed, _or_ converted from Feats to Class Features that only become available after level 11, so they have become mutually exclusive. Like, you obviously can't be a Fighter(11)/Barbarian(11).

Some classic feats have been nerfed and split into longer feat chains, which is extremely annoying considering that one of the most powerful feats in all of 3.5, Quicken Spell, has been _improved_ (because it now works for spontaneous casters, too). And no, "in PF you get more feats" does not balance this out. All the way up to level _12_, a PF character will have _one_ more feat than a 3.5 one, and only as long as the 3.5 one doesn't have Flaws.

Feats are, on the whole, weaker than in 3.5, some notable exceptions notwithstanding. There aren't any feats that reach the 3.5 gold standards like Travel Devotion, Shock Trooper, Divine Metamagic. Just look at all the Class Handbook for both editions out there. The exact same feat that gets a "red" or at best "black" rating (i,e, "poor" to "average") in 3.5 guides will score a "green" (good) rating in PF. Again, many of the feats that are actually worth taking have been converted to (Alternative) Class Features.

Speaking of which, 3.5. allows you to cherry-pick ACFs. Take what you like, leave the rest. PF forces you to take either a complete Archetype or nothing.

Front/Rearloading: my general impression has been that PF classes are generally more rearloaded. To the extreme tat some classes are absolutely useless for the first four levels or so. I'm looking at you, Gunslinger! On the other hand, I currently have a player in my PF group who seems to be a Frontloading expert. His characters typically have 3 classes by level 4 and they do well.

Skills: skill consolidation in general is a good thing that helps PF classes out, however some of these are weird or simply missing. Like the fact you now need Dex to jump, instead of having rolled Climb, Jump and Swim into an Athletics skill. Also, not convinced that introducing a new Skill Tax (Fly) is a good idea. But what I absolutely do not get and take as a personal insult to Mundanes is the application of ACP to Ride checks. It's simply ridiculous and something that should be immediately houseruled or simply ignored.

So much for now, gotta run.

[Gildedragon]

Bardic music got shorter (rounds per day)
Archetypes are a lot more rigid than ACFs or Sub Levels which I feel is a bit counterproductive. Cherry picking ACFs made class customization actually a thing.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I've noticed we have yet to discuss the non core classes very much yet. How do they compare?

[Firechanter]

I've noticed we have yet to discuss the non core classes very much yet. How do they compare?

The Noncore classes are almost all different, so how do you want to compare them?
First we'd have to assign the closest equivalents, like Magus ~ Duskblade, or Oracle ~ Favoured Soul. But then development and focus often are very different.

--

That reminds me, I forgot two items in my previous post:

- some PF classes are less MAD than their 3.5 counterparts. Especially Paladin (drops Wis), but also Oracle (FS had Wis-based Save DCs, which kinda restricted the spell selection to buffs and healing spells).
- niche protection: while indeed PF full caster classes were buffed, I have to hand it to Paizo that they still are now a bit more restrictive when it comes to replacing other classes. For instance, Clerics don't make better archers than Rangers anymore. Druids don't make martial classes redundant as easily as before. And so on.

[Tainted_Scholar]

The Noncore classes are almost all different, so how do you want to compare them?
First we'd have to assign the closest equivalents, like Magus ~ Duskblade, or Oracle ~ Favoured Soul. But then development and focus often are very different.

I was mostly thinking of comparing classes based on their party roles. Like, which has better non-core melee classes, or spell casters, or support classes.


- niche protection: while indeed PF full caster classes were buffed, I have to hand it to Paizo that they still are now a bit more restrictive when it comes to replacing other classes. For instance, Clerics don't make better archers than Rangers anymore. Druids don't make martial classes redundant as easily as before. And so on.

Yes, but this thread isn't really about balance, it's about which ones are better.

[ColorBlindNinja]

PF's equivalent of the Ubercharger is the following combo: I charge you with a bull rush (which deals damage). The BR triggers a free overrun (which also deals damage). Because I overrun you, you fall prone. Because you fall prone, you provoke an OA. For the OA, I take a bull rush. Repeat until I run out of Combat Reflexes bonus attacks.

So yeah, if you want your martial classes to drop most monsters in one round (and from a distance), PF can do that just fine.

Wouldn't you need a lot of space for that combo?

[Tainted_Scholar]

PF's equivalent of the Ubercharger is the following combo: I charge you with a bull rush (which deals damage). The BR triggers a free overrun (which also deals damage). Because I overrun you, you fall prone. Because you fall prone, you provoke an OA. For the OA, I take a bull rush. Repeat until I run out of Combat Reflexes bonus attacks.

So yeah, if you want your martial classes to drop most monsters in one round (and from a distance), PF can do that just fine.

How much damage does that do and how many build resources does that take?

[Quertus]

Yes, but this thread isn't really about balance, it's about which ones are better.

Which sounds like a vote for the 3.x version being better, because it can more easily fill an otherwise missing role in the party.

[Kurald Galain]

Wouldn't you need a lot of space for that combo?

How much damage does that do and how many build resources does that take?

If you want to discuss the specifics of a particular build, I suggest we start a new thread for that. For the purpose of this thread, the point is that (just like in 3E) PF melee classes can deal enough DPR to drop most enemies in one round.

[Tainted_Scholar]

If you want to discuss the specifics of a particular build, I suggest we start a new thread for that. For the purpose of this thread, the point is that (just like in 3E) PF melee classes can deal enough DPR to drop most enemies in one round.


All you need to do is just tell me the feats needed and the average damage, we don't need a new thread for that. And the reason I asked is because I wanted to compare it to a standard 3.5 charging build.

Power Attack, leap attack, and a valorous weapon deals 80 damage at lvl 20 without factoring in weapon damage or strength modifiers.

How does PF compare to that?

[Florian]

How much damage does that do and how many build resources does that take?

Basically, the trick here is setting up an infinity loop of AoO attacks. So the only thing you need to get it started is Combat Reflexes and a decent Dex score. The harder and more build resource intensive part is keeping it relevant as you level up, as CMD tends to scale faster than CMB.
The rest and exact details depend on the exact martial class you want to use it on.

The question on damage is a bit misleading. It´s an N-Loop, so enough, but the real beauty is that every other martial with enough AoOs can join in the fun.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Basically, the trick here is setting up an infinity loop of AoO attacks. So the only thing you need to get it started is Combat Reflexes and a decent Dex score. The harder and more build resource intensive part is keeping it relevant as you level up, as CMD tends to scale faster than CMB.
The rest and exact details depend on the exact martial class you want to use it on.

The question on damage is a bit misleading. It´s an N-Loop, so enough, but the real beauty is that every other martial with enough AoOs can join in the fun.

Aren't you limited to a number of AoOs based on your Dex mod? How are you getting infinite damage?

[Tainted_Scholar]

Basically, the trick here is setting up an infinity loop of AoO attacks. So the only thing you need to get it started is Combat Reflexes and a decent Dex score. The harder and more build resource intensive part is keeping it relevant as you level up, as CMD tends to scale faster than CMB.
The rest and exact details depend on the exact martial class you want to use it on.

The question on damage is a bit misleading. It´s an N-Loop, so enough, but the real beauty is that every other martial with enough AoOs can join in the fun.

Infinite damage is not PO.

[Florian]

Aren't you limited to a number of AoOs based on your Dex mod? How are you getting infinite damage?

There´re enough feats or class features that offer free trigger conditions that don´t cost you an AoO. "When you do X, you can do a free Y attempt". Combine two with matching X and Y and you´re golden. But as has already been suggested, we shouldn't´t discuss this here but in separate threads on the individual classes.

[Tainted_Scholar]

There´re enough feats or class features that offer free trigger conditions that don´t cost you an AoO. "When you do X, you can do a free Y attempt". Combine two with matching X and Y and you´re golden. But as has already been suggested, we shouldn't´t discuss this here but in separate threads on the individual classes.

While that is fascinating and I do loving learning new rule exploits, I will once again point out that this thread is using Practical Op. And infinite damage is most certainly TO.

[ColorBlindNinja]

There´re enough feats or class features that offer free trigger conditions that don´t cost you an AoO. "When you do X, you can do a free Y attempt". Combine two with matching X and Y and you´re golden. But as has already been suggested, we shouldn't´t discuss this here but in separate threads on the individual classes.

Interesting...

More on topic, I believe that the Witch and Summoner classes are low tier 1 - high tier 2. While the Gunslinger is around tier 4-5.

[Tainted_Scholar]

More on topic, I believe that the Witch and Summoner classes are low tier 1 - high tier 2.

I wonder how they compare to the Psion and Erudite.

[Florian]

Infinite damage is not PO.

PO/TO are relative terms when it comes to PF martial classes and raw damage output. It´s not that hard, even with restrictions on what source material to use, to build a martial that can simply one-shot anything without resorting to exotic rules or bending rulings.
Gerald recently broke the record with a mid-level Magus dealing short of 400 damage on a hit with a fairly regular build.
That´s not the problem here. It´s still the issue of what you can tribute outside dealing damage.

[Florian]

I wonder how they compare to the Psion and Erudite.

Very differently. Witch and Shaman (and, by extension, Hexcrafter Magus) are actually an at-will class that _also_ has spells, so the comparison point should be Warlock and Dragonfire Adept.

[Quertus]

PO/TO are relative terms when it comes to PF martial classes and raw damage output. It´s not that hard, even with restrictions on what source material to use, to build a martial that can simply one-shot anything without resorting to exotic rules or bending rulings.
Gerald recently broke the record with a mid-level Magus dealing short of 400 damage on a hit with a fairly regular build.
That´s not the problem here. It´s still the issue of what you can tribute outside dealing damage.

Hey, numbers! What's "mid-level"? How much damage can a 3.x ubercharger deal at that level? And, for completeness, are their respective "expected" foes of roughly equivalent toughness?

EDIT: my money is on, "yeah, both systems can easily build characters whose role is to easily one-shot opponents. Moving on".

[Almarck]

Okay, so this is gonna take a while.


Alchemist, Unique to Pathfinder.
Vs
Artificer, Unique to 3.5.

Both classes are kinds similar though in terms of flavor and go about it in different ways.
Artifice primarily goes by buffing items and adding abilities and effects, usually weapons and armor.
Alchemist focuses on buffing the people but it requires specific options to apply magical effects to other people. Alchemist lacks the same breadth and range of magic item crearion, all he has is creating potions. Alchemist so has the ability to make bombs which worm like an eldtirch blast but not infinite uses.
Without archetypes I'd say Artifice is better, but Alchemist can take Vivisectionist. Which trades bomb making for sneak attack like a rogue. Combine with upto 6 level spells.... well it's not hard to see where I am going.



Oracle vs Favored Soul. Let me put it this way, the essentially the exact same thing happens here with Sorcerers and Wizards, with Oracles getting the benefits Sorcerers get.


Kineticist vs Warlock, Warlock is better. Because the Kineticist has what is basically a scaling self damage effect to use its effects.

Magus vs Hexblade/Warnage. DEPENDS. Magus is inky limited to 6 level spells and has prepared casting but bard progression, but it's unique for its ability to channel spells into weapons and if the weapon lands a critical hit, the spell critical as well. One of the main advantages of Magus is that the basically has an action economy advantage in that it can strike with both weapons and spells at the same time. So it's up to you to decide if you like 9th level combat spells more than that.




Unique:

Gunslinger, no class in normal 3.5 has guns. They show up as an option though but no class almost outright requires it. It's an expensive and quite lethal long and short range combatant, hindered largely by how expensive and rare ammo is. It helps that pathfinder has a ranged attack version of power attack since Gunslinger resolve on touch ac in close range.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Very differently. Witch and Shaman (and, by extension, Hexcrafter Magus) are actually an at-will class that _also_ has spells, so the comparison point should be Warlock and Dragonfire Adept.

I wanted to compare them because they were of similar tiers, not because of the mechanics they use.

[Gildedragon]

Very differently. Witch and Shaman (and, by extension, Hexcrafter Magus) are actually an at-will class that _also_ has spells, so the comparison point should be Warlock and Dragonfire Adept.
...and the Binder; which is sorta cothematic with shaman

[Sayt]

IMO, any example of practical optimisation involves one-shotting appropriate enemies once you hit level 5/6+ has wandered away from the implications of it's name, but I'm with Quertus on both systems being able to give inappropriately large damage to martials.

[ryu]

IMO, any example of practical optimisation involves one-shotting appropriate enemies once you hit level 5/6+ has wandered away from the implications of it's name, but I'm with Quertus on both systems being able to give inappropriately large damage to martials.

Inappropriate? It's the one nice thing they have!

[Sayt]

Inappropriate? It's the one nice thing they have!

I think we may have irreconcilable playstyles and concepts of nice things & appropriate damage.

[ColorBlindNinja]

IMO, any example of practical optimisation involves one-shotting appropriate enemies once you hit level 5/6+ has wandered away from the implications of it's name, but I'm with Quertus on both systems being able to give inappropriately large damage to martials.

In all fairness Tainted Scholar was talking about a level 20 character.

Does Pathfinder have any characters on par with the Soulmelding classes? Sans Soulborn, of course.

[Gildedragon]

Inappropriate? It's the one nice thing they have!

On this note. PF does sorta do a good job at giving mundanes neat versatile feats... Especially Dirty Trick and styles
Buuuuut they made feat chains so very long that they kinda defeat the neat feats

[ryu]

I think we may have irreconcilable playstyles and concepts of nice things & appropriate damage.

Oh most certainly. Tier 1 group facing tier 1 challenges. Anything that would plausibly call itself mundane starts pretty redundant from level 1 and gets WORSE from there.

[Manyasone]

In all fairness Tainted Scholar was talking about a level 20 character.

Does Pathfinder have any characters on par with the Soulmelding classes? Sans Soulborn, of course.

Yes. But again, third party material from Dreamscarred Press. All psionics, incarnum and initiating has been converted by them. Binder has been tackled by radiance house. All this is better that paizo's material as of late. But some people here keep thinking that first party publishers sh*t gold and p*ss rainbows...
Pardon the language

[Gildedragon]

... sh*t gold and p*ss rainbows...
Pardon the language

I recently had a bad case of leprechaunitis and let me tell you: passing rainbows not fun at all... And heavy metals are even worse

[Tainted_Scholar]

Yes. But again, third party material from Dreamscarred Press. All psionics, incarnum and initiating has been converted by them. Binder has been tackled by radiance house. All this is better that paizo's material as of late. But some people here keep thinking that first party publishers sh*t gold and p*ss rainbows...

Well, the reason I limited to just 1st party material is because I want to look at the systems on their own without any help from fans or other companies.

[Almarck]

Well, the reason I limited to just 1st party material is because I want to look at the systems on their own without any help from fans or other companies.


Paizo has one weakness I will say. They don't do as much experimentation with their magic. They've got it into their heads that they need. To balance their magic around vancian casters which is why they don't cover any of the odder subsystems like Psion it's, soul melds, path of war, or what have you.

[Florian]

Paizo has one weakness I will say. They don't do as much experimentation with their magic. They've got it into their heads that they need. To balance their magic around vancian casters which is why they don't cover any of the odder subsystems like Psion it's, soul melds, path of war, or what have you.

Depends on how you look at it. What they do is design their classes in a way that let them recycle as much existing material as possible, thereby preventing the strange overlap we experienced with psionics or the lack of support we saw with the Tome of Magic classes. Yes, that makes the full caster classes a bit similar, but you´re not running out of things to equipment or customize them with, either.

[Kurald Galain]

EDIT: my money is on, "yeah, both systems can easily build characters whose role is to easily one-shot opponents. Moving on".
Indeed.


Magus vs Hexblade/Warnage.
I'm not sure why you would bring a warmage into this comparison, because the warmage is a blaster caster and the other two are a gish. Magus is hands-down a much better gish than hexy, though.

Of note: Pathfinder has several Gish classes which, from a very low level, have the ability to cast a spell and make a full attack in the same round. In other words, they're true hybrids that don't alternate between casting and stabbing, but do both at the same time. The primary example is the Magus; other gishes include the divine Warpriest, and the barbarian-based Bloodrager. This is an important distinction as 3E doesn't really have any gish-in-a-box classes, and 3E gish builds tend to require a high level to get going.



Paizo has one weakness I will say. They don't do as much experimentation with their magic.
They experiment in different directions. Primarily the psychic classes (e.g. occultist and mesmerist have experimental mechanics), and note that psychic casters actually work very differently in PF due to the thought/emotion components.

[Eldariel]

Of note: Pathfinder has several Gish classes which, from a very low level, have the ability to cast a spell and make a full attack in the same round. In other words, they're true hybrids that don't alternate between casting and stabbing, but do both at the same time. The primary example is the Magus; other gishes include the divine Warpriest, and the barbarian-based Bloodrager. This is an important distinction as 3E doesn't really have any gish-in-a-box classes, and 3E gish builds tend to require a high level to get going.

Well, that's true for arcane classes but Cleric and Druid do the blend reasonably well. There's Smiting Spell, various low level swift action spells, DMM: Quicken, etc. which enable this just fine (though it's probably stronger to lean towards DMM: Persist and all-day buffs of course, but you can certainly DMM: Quicken too). Duskblade works reasonably from the 1st level for the arcane side, though obviously it's not on the same planet as CoDzilla. Though you can play martial Wizard too and perform reasonably given adequate stats; Abrupt Jaunt is really good for a warrior class both offensively and defensively, and the various low level buffs allow you to keep yourself alive and give yourself some edges in combat. In 3.5 full casters have the means to cast and fight simultaneously from low levels, though it's not necessarily optimal to play them that way.

[Florian]

@Eldariel:

Nearly everything you cite as being powerful and necessary only works because of bad inter-rules interaction.

What Kurald rightly points out is that the gish functionality is an integral part of the respective base class framework, so you don´t have to customize your character towards having it, you customize it based on already having it.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, that's true for arcane classes but Cleric and Druid do the blend reasonably well.

The point is that there are numerous builds (such as a Gish) that in Pathfinder work straightforwardly out of the box, and that in 3E require a complex combination of multiple splatbooks, items, and/or dips, and a substantially higher level to boot.

Plus there's a big difference between a wizard who self-buffs first, then fights in melee after; and a Magus who self-buffs while making full attacks at the same time. Action economy is a big deal.

[Florian]

Action economy is a big deal.

Add resource economy to that.

[Agahnim]

I came here to confirm the "higher floor, lower ceiling" consensus. I also want to add two things :
- PF offers more diversity and customization. Of course 3.5 has more splatbooks, but PF gives you less useless trash to sift through. Moreover, PF makes customization immediately accessible, allowing you to think up your own combinations of feats + archetypes + class customizations (rage powers, bloodlines, domains, mysteries etc). In other words, I think it is a lot easier and more rewarding to create original, viable builds in PF.
- The higher ceiling in 3.5 is largely due to a relatively small number of very powerful options, such as devotion feats, DMM, shock trooper, sublime chord... They quickly became staples because they are plain better than the rest. Not to mention the straight-up broken stuff. The accumulation of books over many years is, in my opinion, the source of these wide balance gaps. Pathfinder, OTOH, had a better shot at making options more balanced one against another since they had the opportunity to build most of the system in a few crucial books (Core, UM, APG), and with the 3.5 precedent in mind. My point is that the "lower ceiling" effect is intentional and justified, because it encourages more diverse approaches.

[Almarck]

Well, that's true for arcane classes but Cleric and Druid do the blend reasonably well. There's Smiting Spell, various low level swift action spells, DMM: Quicken, etc. which enable this just fine (though it's probably stronger to lean towards DMM: Persist and all-day buffs of course, but you can certainly DMM: Quicken too). Duskblade works reasonably from the 1st level for the arcane side, though obviously it's not on the same planet as CoDzilla. Though you can play martial Wizard too and perform reasonably given adequate stats; Abrupt Jaunt is really good for a warrior class both offensively and defensively, and the various low level buffs allow you to keep yourself alive and give yourself some edges in combat. In 3.5 full casters have the means to cast and fight simultaneously from low levels, though it's not necessarily optimal to play them that way.



How many of those options are listed on the ability table for the classes they benefit? AS in, you literally have to invest in something to NOT receive that ability.

[ColorBlindNinja]

@Eldariel:

Nearly everything you cite as being powerful and necessary only works because of bad inter-rules interaction.


What bad rule interactions are you referring to?

[Tainted_Scholar]

@Eldariel:

Nearly everything you cite as being powerful and necessary only works because of bad inter-rules interaction.

What Kurald rightly points out is that the gish functionality is an integral part of the respective base class framework, so you don´t have to customize your character towards having it, you customize it based on already having it.

That really doesn't matter though, just because PF classes are easier don't make them better by default. Remember, we're aren't looking at PF/3.5's balance or ease of use, we're looking at which one has more powerful classes. And we're assuming a fairly high level of PO.

[Florian]

What bad rule interactions are you referring to?

Take Polymorph/Wild Shape as an example. Without access to the MM(s), the spell/class feature actually doesn´t do anything as you don´t have data to work with.
Now look at the MM(s) and see that the critters there are designed to be a challenge for a party of 3-5, because this is what the critter rules are made for.

This is bad rules interaction because things are not equal in a challenge-based system.

Edit: A hydra-shaped druid riding a hyrda SNA more hydras is powerful because the hydra has been designed to be a challenge for a whole party.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Take Polymorph/Wild Shape as an example. Without access to the MM(s), the spell/class feature actually doesn´t do anything as you don´t have data to work with.
Now look at the MM(s) and see that the critters there are designed to be a challenge for a party of 3-5, because this is what the critter rules are made for.

This is bad rules interaction because things are not equal in a challenge-based system.

Ah, I see...

What about the opposite end of the spectrum?

Does Pathfinder have any classes as amazingly awful as the Truenamer and the Samurai?

[Florian]

Does Pathfinder have any classes as amazingly awful as the Truenamer and the Samurai?

In the sense that they don´t function at all? No. but there´re archetypes for classes that either don´t work or lower overall performance drastically. Check any PF class guide for archetypes that´re flagged as "red".

[ColorBlindNinja]

In the sense that they don´t function at all? No. but there´re archetypes for classes that either don´t work or lower overall performance drastically. Check any PF class guide for archetypes that´re flagged as "red".

I think that's a little unfair. The Samurai may suck, but it still functions.

I have (unfortunately) had first hand experience with the Truenamer, and with heavy optimization it can achieve mediocrity.

[Florian]

I think that's a little unfair.

No, sadly it isn´t. The moment you have to resort to optimization to make a class perform on a respectable level at all, there´s something wrong.

[ColorBlindNinja]

No, sadly it isn´t. The moment you have to resort to optimization to make a class perform on a respectable level at all, there´s something wrong.

If you pick Power Attack for your Fighter instead of Spell Focus, you're optimizing. Everyone optimizes to one degree or another.

I do agree that the amount of optimization needed to make the Truenamer function is absurd, but function it does. That was mainly what I objected to.

Edit: Also by that logic the wizard is terrible, because it sucks without some optimization.

[Florian]

If you pick Power Attack for your Fighter instead of Spell Focus, you're optimizing. Everyone optimizes to one degree or another.

I do agree that the amount of optimization needed to make the Truenamer function is absurd, but function it does. That was mainly what I objected to.

Ok, let me rephrase my point so its clearer.

If you can access it, take a look in the PF Bestiary and Unchained creature/encounter section and at the appropriate tables and you´ll find a pretty good guideline on what performance is expected at each CR, concerning offensives as well as defensive abilities.

Now looking at the "butt naked" PF classes, the basic framework functions at approximately 50% the expected values across all levels, before feats, equipment or even optimizations comes into it.

When it comes to class design, this base level of functionality is what I expect. Everything below or above it is broken.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Ok, let me rephrase my point so its clearer.

If you can access it, take a look in the PF Bestiary and Unchained creature/encounter section and at the appropriate tables and you´ll find a pretty good guideline on what performance is expected at each CR, concerning offensives as well as defensive abilities.

Now looking at the "butt naked" PF classes, the basic framework functions at approximately 50% the expected values across all levels, before feats, equipment or even optimizations comes into it.

When it comes to class design, this base level of functionality is what I expect. Everything below or above it is broken.

Again though, this thread isn't about the design or balance of the systems. It's about which has better classes when built well. PF may have better classes out of the box, but that's not what we're discussing.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Ok, let me rephrase my point so its clearer.

If you can access it, take a look in the PF Bestiary and Unchained creature/encounter section and at the appropriate tables and you´ll find a pretty good guideline on what performance is expected at each CR, concerning offensives as well as defensive abilities.

Now looking at the "butt naked" PF classes, the basic framework functions at approximately 50% the expected values across all levels, before feats, equipment or even optimizations comes into it.

When it comes to class design, this base level of functionality is what I expect. Everything below or above it is broken.

I don't think that you can judge a class's capabilities solely from their chasis. A level 3 Fighter without a magic weapon would be slaughtered by an Allip, for example. That same Fighter would struggle without flight at higher levels.

Depending on how their built, two classes can vary wildly in effectiveness.

[Florian]

Again though, this thread isn't about the design or balance of the systems. It's about which has better classes when built well. PF may have better classes out of the box, but that's not what we're discussing.

"Build well" is devoid of meaning when you can´t define what the challenges are that a character should go up against.

We´ve already touched on the topic briefly, but PF has a lot more formalized subsystems substituting an encounter instead of straight combat or a simple skill check. Is your build "well" or "bad" when you can take down a Balor without breaking a sweat but fail at a simple haunt or infernal manifestation?

[Quertus]

"Build well" is devoid of meaning when you can´t define what the challenges are that a character should go up against.

We´ve already touched on the topic briefly, but PF has a lot more formalized subsystems substituting an encounter instead of straight combat or a simple skill check. Is your build "well" or "bad" when you can take down a Balor without breaking a sweat but fail at a simple haunt or infernal manifestation?

I guess that depends on what role your character was built to play...

[ColorBlindNinja]

So it seems that nothing in Pathfinder is as poorly designed as the Truenamer/Samurai.

What's the most powerful class in Pathfinder? Is there anything comparable to the Erudite Spell to Power or Psionic Artificer?

[Pex]

It is an unfortunate thing you can't do a full attack for moving more than 5 ft, but people overrate moving. You will be spending rounds not moving or just taking a 5 ft step. You will get your full attacks.

Power Attack was altered to still be good but no longer must have. That's a feature. You can also take Furious Focus feat if you still want the ability of not having any penalty to attack on your first attack when using Power Attack, a helpful feature to increase your damage even if you're only getting one attack anyway because you're lower than level 5 or move more than 5 ft.

It would have been nice for Vital Strike to be more versatile in its use than it is, but it's not useless. It's a way to add damage when you're only getting one attack anyway. Not as much as a full attack but you aren't full attacking.

[Starbuck_II]

Nope. In fact, PF adds a number of easy martial-boosting feats such as Lunge.


No, the opposite. PF rogues can, by default, sneak attack undead, constructs, plants, and swarms. There are whole swaths of creatures that are de facto immune to sneak attack in 3E, but can be sneak attacked in PF.

Sort of, 3.5 has multiple methods to sneak attack all those types and oozes that PF can't.
Then 3.4 has more methods to achieve sneak attack: Blind, Glitterdust, Grease (unless DM metagame 5 ranks in balance, how many monsters make sense have balance ranks, seriously?), phrethla of feats, etc.

Also varied ways of Sneak attacking: Alchemy weapons? 3.5 can do that.
PF can do that with 1 archetype poorly (1/rd)

In fact, TWFing/Rapid shot makes using touch attacks really good idea (since each gives -2 penalty for extra hit)



Magus vs Hexblade/Warnage. DEPENDS. Magus is inky limited to 6 level spells and has prepared casting but bard progression, but it's unique for its ability to channel spells into weapons and if the weapon lands a critical hit, the spell critical as well. One of the main advantages of Magus is that the basically has an action economy advantage in that it can strike with both weapons and spells at the same time. So it's up to you to decide if you like 9th level combat spells more than that.

You forgot Duskblade who gets up to 5th, full bab, and Spellstrike. Sadly no spell combat.
Duskblade may by one level lower, but spontaneous, extra per day spells, and most of good ones on list.

[Tainted_Scholar]

If we're talking about gish classes, there's also the Physic Warrior. It's better than either the Hex Blade or the Dusk Blade I believe (I'm not very familiar with gishes).

[Sayt]

"Most Powerful" is pretty subjective and is succeptible to varying definitions of power.

But probably Wizard or Sorcerer, and PF'S builds are not as broadly powerful (No celerity line, maxI mum of 2 contingencies, nowhere near as many MM reducers.)

I don't know about psionic artificer, but there isn't a full caster class in pathfinder which just gets access to a whole nother 9th level spell list because durrrgamedesign.

If there is one dysfunctional Pathfinder class it's probably the kineticist. It functions throughout the game in a way that the truenamer doesn't, but it's never really exceptional (barring the level of complexity for lack of return), and it struggles to keep up with out itersely damaging itself, so id put it as ineffectual, rather than dysfunctional.

[Thunder999]

So it seems that nothing in Pathfinder is as poorly designed as the Truenamer/Samurai.

What's the most powerful class in Pathfinder? Is there anything comparable to the Erudite Spell to Power or Psionic Artificer?

Not really, the most powerful class is probably a wizard, which isn't much different in power to the 3.5 version (but it's on the top of the heap, because while you lost some good spells/had some good spells nerfed, you got some new tricks and some of the old ones are still there, simulacrum is even better, gate is still amazing, wish can still break games, one of the new spells just makes antimagic fields not work on you etc. and the wizard got some nice class features (like always acting in the surprise round from level one). A good chunk of why the wizard is on top is just that druid and cleric got hit pretty hard, no more persistent spells, divine metamagic, you don't get full BAB from divine power, wildshape (along with all other polymorph effects) got massively nerfed, etc..

The other comments about a higher floor and lower ceiling certainly seem accurate, there's nothing as good as the strongest of 3.5, but nothing as bad as the worst.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Not really, the most powerful class is probably a wizard, which isn't much different in power to the 3.5 version (but it's on the top of the heap, because while you lost some good spells/had some good spells nerfed, you got some new tricks and some of the old ones are still there, simulacrum is even better, gate is still amazing, wish can still break games, one of the new spells just makes antimagic fields not work on you etc. and the wizard got some nice class features (like always acting in the surprise round from level one). A good chunk of why the wizard is on top is just that druid and cleric got hit pretty hard, no more persistent spells, divine metamagic, you don't get full BAB from divine power, wildshape (along with all other polymorph effects) got massively nerfed, etc..

The other comments about a higher floor and lower ceiling certainly seem accurate, there's nothing as good as the strongest of 3.5, but nothing as bad as the worst.


"Most Powerful" is pretty subjective and is succeptible to varying definitions of power.

But probably Wizard or Sorcerer, and PF'S builds are not as broadly powerful (No celerity line, maxI mum of 2 contingencies, nowhere near as many MM reducers.)

I don't know about psionic artificer, but there isn't a full caster class in pathfinder which just gets access to a whole nother 9th level spell list because durrrgamedesign.

If there is one dysfunctional Pathfinder class it's probably the kineticist. It functions throughout the game in a way that the truenamer doesn't, but it's never really exceptional (barring the level of complexity for lack of return), and it struggles to keep up with out itersely damaging itself, so id put it as ineffectual, rather than dysfunctional.

That's what I suspected. Don't ask me why they didn't nerf Simulacrum, though.

Do any of Pathfinder's melee classes compare to the ToB ones?

[Thunder999]

There's the popular 3rd party Path of War classes, which are pretty much ToB for pathfinder, but among first party material there's not really anything like that.

[ColorBlindNinja]

There's the popular 3rd party Path of War classes, which are pretty much ToB for pathfinder, but among first party material there's not really anything like that.

That's to bad. Thanks for sharing, though.

[Almarck]

That's what I suspected. Don't ask me why they didn't nerf Simulacrum, though.

Do any of Pathfinder's melee classes compare to the ToB ones?


According to the developers for PoW, the fighter will because of weapons focus average out slightly higher damage than an equivalent level Pow class if it has access to consistent full attacking. The same I believe happens to other classes.

In terms of style, nothing as complex but there are things suit a similar play style. Specifically the Pathfinder Gunslinger for ranged and the Swashbuckling for melee, plus archetypes related to it them for other classes.


Their play style works off of either expending or merely having their class's special resource called Gri . Or Panache. You spend it to activate some abilities and other abilities are used just by having Grit or Panache in their pool. Alternatively, if they have 0 grit, they may perform a dare if they have it, which grants them a,challenge that if performed restores grit.

They generate up to their cap in Grit or Panache at the start of each day and get more evefytime they kill an opponent or land a critical hit.

It's very similar to a simplified ToB system if you ask me. No where near as complex.

It's worth noting for a time, gunslinger were considered game breaking because of resolving at touch ac in point blank range tended to hard counter heavily armored foes real nasty

[Kurald Galain]

Sort of, 3.5 has multiple methods to sneak attack all those types and oozes that PF can't.
Yes, and again the point is that there are numerous builds (such as a Gish, or a rogue that fights undead) that in Pathfinder work straightforwardly out of the box, and that in 3E require a complex combination of multiple splatbooks, items, and/or dips, and often a substantially higher level to boot.


Don't ask me why they didn't nerf Simulacrum, though.
Because the simulacrum tricks that are considered standard operating procedure on the GITP forums are almost completely unheard of anywhere else :smallbiggrin:

[Florian]

What's the most powerful class in Pathfinder? Is there anything comparable to the Erudite Spell to Power or Psionic Artificer?

That´s a tough one to answer. With spells generally being toned done in power, fewer spells being printed, the list of "must have spells" is pretty small. That reduces the main advantage of "all access"/spell book casters. Right now I´d actually say that Sorcerer (arcane) and Oracle (shadow) are slightly ahead in the power curve.


If there is one dysfunctional Pathfinder class it's probably the kineticist. It functions throughout the game in a way that the truenamer doesn't, but it's never really exceptional (barring the level of complexity for lack of return), and it struggles to keep up with out itersely damaging itself, so id put it as ineffectual, rather than dysfunctional.

Take a look at the Kinetic Knight archetype. It fixes some of the problems.

[Eldariel]

That´s a tough one to answer. With spells generally being toned done in power, fewer spells being printed, the list of "must have spells" is pretty small. That reduces the main advantage of "all access"/spell book casters. Right now I´d actually say that Sorcerer (arcane) and Oracle (shadow) are slightly ahead in the power curve.

I disagree. Being ½ spell level ahead still puts prepared casters ahead by a lot IMHO, particularly on low levels. Not to mention the ease of getting high casting score (lots of bonus mental races), and a lot of the great spells are still great. On first level I'd still want to prepare Color Spray, Grease, Enlarge Person, Sleep, Charm Person and Mage Armor for instance from just core spells, to say nothing of all the new awesome released in PF. Overall though, as long as they get spells late, I don't think spontaneous casters can ever catch up to prepared casters - they're hopelessly behind almost 50% of the game and have basically no high spell tier versatility for the rest of it either.

[Sagetim]

Okay, so this is gonna take a while.
*snip*

Magus vs Hexblade/Warnage. DEPENDS. Magus is inky limited to 6 level spells and has prepared casting but bard progression, but it's unique for its ability to channel spells into weapons and if the weapon lands a critical hit, the spell critical as well. One of the main advantages of Magus is that the basically has an action economy advantage in that it can strike with both weapons and spells at the same time. So it's up to you to decide if you like 9th level combat spells more than that.
*snip*.

Wait a minute, What Mags vs Duskblade is the comparison. Magus is a toned down Duskblade with a fancy new class ability (arcana) that is apparently so amazing that it's worth demoting them to a 3/4th bab and cutting them down to something like less than half the spell slots they used to have. Duskblades got an enormous number of spell slots and a full bab, with a ring of wizardry it wasn't out of the question for a level 20 Duskblade to have 20 1st level spells per day. And that actually matters because they could blow one out for each attack in a round for a massive spike in damage output and an increase in accuracy against most opponents. An increase in accuracy they could then feed into power attack, and that's assuming they didn't also use something like swift true strike or whatever it's called for a +5 to hit all round. By comparison, the magus gets up to 10 first level spell slots with a ring of wizardry, so shocking grasping entire garrisons to death is not something they can do, and they Need the bonus to hit because they don't have as high a BAB, nor as many attacks per round.

But yeah, someone else pointed out that war mage is not a direct comparison for magus, I just wanted to reiterate that Duskblade is what Magus was based on.

As for the Samurai, the Oriental Adventures one was fine. It may have gotten fewer feats total than the fighter, but it worked for the setting it was made to be used in, and ultimately was one of the only ways for a fighter type character in that setting to reliably get their hands on a magic weapon. Furthermore, the Rokugan campaign setting introduced Void Use feats, which you could get with the Samurai bonus feats, and while they weren't necessarily the best feats ever, they were very fitting for the setting. And damnit, that counts for something, even if it doesn't help your theoretical optimization rankings or whatever.

And while I like the psychic warrior because it's psychic, if one had to fight a duskblade he'd probably get killed. The Psychic Warrior, to me, suffered from a lot of the same issues that the hexblade did: they lowballed the chassis on the assumption the abilities would somehow make up for it. So while a psychic warrior can buff, for example, and I've heard of people doing that to great effect here on the boards, the duskblade is firing on all pistons right out of the gate and slamming them with more accuracy and apr, and shocking grasps immediately. The psychic warrior, if they need to buff, isn't going to have time in a fight to just kip around the corner to buff with a duskblade chasing them down, because they have similar movement abilities. And the duskblade tends to have more resources per day, as I recall. That's not to say the dice might not fall in favor of the psychic warrior, or that he would be incapable of mounting an effective offense, I just expect the duskblade to nova out the damage far more effectively far more immediately and with greater ease. But that's comparing 3.5 classes, and we're here to compare 3.5 and it's pathfinder counterparts.

I would also have to agree that Kineticist seems to be the class with misfit abilities for Pathfinder. The way Burn works is insane for dungeons and dragons. There are systems where stamina, strain, or stun have ratings separate from hp. Those are the systems where Kineticist's Burn concept would work best, because in dnd, subdual damage just puts you closer to getting knocked out of the fight (and thus murdered). In Shadowrun, for example, you have stun boxes and health boxes, but getting hit for health damage doesn't eat your stun boxes, and getting stun doesn't eat your health. In Fantasy Flight Star Wars, you have Wounds and Strain, also tracked separately without overlap in taking damage. But in DND, subdual damage operates off your hp total. If your hp drops under your subdual amount then you are knocked out. And that means someone can coup de grace you, it means you can't keep fighting when you should otherwise still be up. It means you have just made yourself more likely to drop out of a fight for whatever you just spent Burn to accomplish. So it better be Damn impressive, because if it costs you damage that cannot be healed except a full 8 hour rest, then it immediately costs more than ANY ability of Any class. Truenamer's issue was making the skill checks required as levels went up, but Kineticist's mainline offensive abilities are Actually suicidal to use. Tack on that it only has a piddling d8 hit die for a class that is punching itself in the face to punch a little harder, and you have a recipie for disaster. It's depressing, because it could be rebalanced to have Burn Work, but I don't think they're going to bother errataing the class enough to do that.

[Kurald Galain]

Wait a minute, What Mags vs Duskblade is the comparison.
Well, yes. Duskblade is basically hexblade v2.0. The Magus is still hands-down better than the duskblade, too.

See, the highest level spell you can cast is much more important than that you can cast more 1st-level spells than you ever need. Quality over quantity. Aside from that, you appear to have missed the Magus's enchant weapon ability, which gives him a free +5 to hit and damage over his career; and the fact that the duskblade's class iconic ability comes at level thirteen whereas the Magus gets the same ability at level two.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Yes, and again the point is that there are numerous builds (such as a Gish, or a rogue that fights undead) that in Pathfinder work straightforwardly out of the box, and that in 3E require a complex combination of multiple splatbooks, items, and/or dips, and often a substantially higher level to boot.

Once again, That Doesn't Matter in this thread. We're just looking at the end result, not how much effort it takes to get there.

[Florian]

Once again, That Doesn't Matter in this thread. We're just looking at the end result, not how much effort it takes to get there.

What we try to explain here, is that this is not really important for PF players.
PFS is a popular thing and it has become customary to create builds that would be "PFS legit", or what would fit in with an AP. So a build must be complete at levels 10 (PFS) or 15 (AP).
In Addition, "High Power" means using the "Mythic" rules, which are very different from the previous "Epic" rules, as in you can even start with a Mythic level 1 character.

[Tainted_Scholar]

What we try to explain here, is that this is not really important for PF players.
PFS is a popular thing and it has become customary to create builds that would be "PFS legit", or what would fit in with an AP. So a build must be complete at levels 10 (PFS) or 15 (AP).
In Addition, "High Power" means using the "Mythic" rules, which are very different from the previous "Epic" rules, as in you can even start with a Mythic level 1 character.

IT DOESN'T BLEEPING MATTER! I have explained multiple times what this thread is about, so I would appreciate it if people would stop side tracking the thread to talk about PF's design. We are talking about how powerful well built lvl 20 characters are, not what people like about PF!

[ryu]

IT DOESN'T BLEEPING MATTER! I have explained multiple times what this thread is about so I would appreciate it if people would stop side tracking the thread to talk about PF's design. We are talking about how powerful well built lvl 20 characters are, not what people like about PF!

There comes a point at which it's intelligent to stop herding metaphorical cats and just start ignoring tangents.

[Kurald Galain]

In Addition, "High Power" means using the "Mythic" rules, which are very different from the previous "Epic" rules, as in you can even start with a Mythic level 1 character.
I'm curious what your experience with Mythic is, I haven't seen a lot of places that allow it so far.


Once again, That Doesn't Matter in this thread. We're just looking at the end result, not how much effort it takes to get there.
Dude, stop telling people what they can and cannot talk about.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Dude, stop telling people what they can and cannot talk about.

All I'm doing is trying to keep the thread on topic. It's not my fault that people keep bringing up the fact that PF classes are better out of the box, even though I have repeatedly stated that it's not important.

[Florian]

I'm curious what your experience with Mythic is, I haven't seen a lot of places that allow it so far.

Wrath of the Righteous. Once as a player, once as gm. It´s more or less mandatory to go Level20/MR10 there. Overall it´s interesting as it adds to what´s already there. Bit tricky with builds as you need to have a regular feat or spell as prerequisites for the mythic version.

Edit: The most curious thing was our sorceress developing immunity to Wish, of all spells.

[Kurald Galain]

Wrath of the Righteous. Once as a player, once as gm.

I meant not so much "what adventures did you use mythic in" but "what do you think about mythic, and what does it add to the game". At first glance, it appears to be mostly complications / slowdowns with no real benefit, but I haven't extensively used it myself.

[bekeleven]

Rogues are entirely better off. They can sneak attack pretty much everything now, all the time, forever. At least if they're using team work, which is something you all should be doing anyway.What about that time someone told a designer his rogue could deal more damage than a spellcaster so he threw a nerf into the FAQ, and then the next edition of the books?

That's what I suspected. Don't ask me why they didn't nerf Simulacrum, though.The very original pathfinder nerfed spellcasters much more heavily, but when asking for feedback, their forum full of cheating optimizers complained so much that they walked it back.

[Florian]

I meant not so much "what adventures did you use mythic in" but "what do you think about mythic, and what does it add to the game". At first glance, it appears to be mostly complications / slowdowns with no real benefit, but I haven't extensively used it myself.

The rules are not very self-explaining and they a appear to be a bit clunky at first glance, that´s true.
But they´re created around the concept that you have to already have a concrete regular build in mind, identify the most important/iconic parts of it and concentrate on only upgrading that block.
Now I´ve seen already solid builds getting a substantial boost in power and performance at the things they´re already great at, and unfocused or sub-par builds fall behind, but that was to be expected.
All in all: Fun.

Come to think of it, that might be the main reason we disagree on the value of some things all the time. You think: Why take Imp. Critical when you can get Keen using Arcane Pool? I think what options are there that you can build on when not using keen?

Edit: To explain it for 3.5 players not familiar with it. You will instantly get it when you know the 3.5 psi rules, tho: You may select a (small) number of spells, feats and class features and add an "Augmented" line to it while each character gains a psi pool.
Simple example would be Mythic Fireball. The spell gets Augment (2): Remove cap, ignore resistance and immunities.

[Florian]

All I'm doing is trying to keep the thread on topic. It's not my fault that people keep bringing up the fact that PF classes are better out of the box, even though I have repeatedly stated that it's not important.

Oh, come on, the "better out of the box" thing is not what everyone on the PF side is talking about.
You want to do a lvl 20 vs lvl 20 build comparison, I´d wager you´ll have a hard time finding any PF player that will provide you any data or submit any builds. This is not how the edition has evolved, therefore not what we trained our optimization skills to be good at.

You want to talk about playing a class from the ground up, performing good at every level? Optimal performance for a certain level range? We can all talk about that, tho.
This is the main difference in mentality when looking at a class. You don´t want to know what it is capable to perform at a theoretical point, you want to build upon your signature moves _now_ and keep improving on that.

Edit: I might give you a Superstition/Witch Killer Dimensional Step-Up/Dimensional Assault Barbarian built, but without knowing what the numbers and options mean, comparison between editions is a mood point.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Oh, come on, the "better out of the box" thing is not what everyone on the PF side is talking about.

People have mentioned it numerous times though.


You want to do a lvl 20 vs lvl 20 build comparison, I´d wager you´ll have a hard time finding any PF player that will provide you any data or submit any builds. This is not how the edition has evolved, therefore not what we trained our optimization skills to be good at.

You want to talk about playing a class from the ground up, performing good at every level? Optimal performance for a certain level range? We can all talk about that, tho.
This is the main difference in mentality when looking at a class. You don´t want to know what it is capable to perform at a theoretical point, you want to build upon your signature moves _now_ and keep improving on that.

All I want to know is how powerful lvl 20 characters are. It's not that hard.\
All you need figure out what the best Pathfinder spells, feats, and archetypes are for each class, and then we'll compare them to the D&D ones.

Also, the thread has been derailed multiple times.

[ColorBlindNinja]

A quick comparison between PF classes vs 3.5:

- Wizard: PF has actual class features, but most 3.5 wizards take prestige classes, so that's a wash. 3.5 also has better spells (Celerity, Chain Contingency, ect). 3.5 wins IMO.

- Cleric: Divine Metamagic means that 3.5 wins in a landslide. Unless someone can point out some perk PF Clerics have that's comparable.

- Druid: The PF nerfs means that the 3.5 Druid is instantly better. Also, Planar Shepard.

[Sayt]

We've already told you that Pathfinder cut off a lot of 3.5s upwards outliers, so 3.5 has more power at higher levels, unless the PO/TO demarcation is sufficient tky low that they are equally powerfull.

That being said, one of the more powerful PF builds I can think of would be Kitsune Sorcerer. Take crossblooded impossible/fey bloodline, pick up threnodic spell and coaxing spell as feats or rods. Take the kitune sorcerer favored class bonus for 1/4 level to enchantment DCs, throw on G/SF enchantment, and PF persistent spell and you can basically start collecting monsters/NPCS. DC10+SL+2 (GSF)+5 (FCB)+2(Fey Arcana)+9 (Ability(18+6belt+4levelup)) for DC28+SL . CR2 monsters in PF have good saving throws of about 22, so enemies with good will saves at CR 20 will fail 75% of the time, and you still have better than even shots st brain melting CR 25 monsters, and you can pierce the mine effecting immunities of constructs, vermin, oozes and undead.

Using ranged spellstrike on an eldritch archer you can use Named bullet to pretty easily get autocriting arrows carrying Disintegrates, the main problem is getting the disintegrate dc to stick.

[Almarck]

A quick comparison between PF classes vs 3.5:

- Wizard: PF has actual class features, but most 3.5 wizards take prestige classes, so that's a wash. 3.5 also has better spells (Celerity, Chain Contingency, ect). 3.5 wins IMO.

- Cleric: Divine Metamagic means that 3.5 wins in a landslide. Unless someone can point out some perk PF Clerics have that's comparable.

- Druid: The PF nerfs means that the 3.5 Druid is instantly better. Also, Planar Shepard.

Some might argue that the nerfs were for the best anyways.
This was deliberate since historically, the full casters were basically undisputed especially when taking very specific prestige classes.

Which ties in with the whole lower ceiling pathfinder has.

Compare all of the other classes, things flip around.



Also.... you do realize that all of those options were so oppressive that they basically denied you taking anythng else right ? I mean in Planar Shepherds case, it was a no Brainer for no real loss?
In contrast most prestige classes in pathfinder aren't say flat out better than taking more of your default class

[ColorBlindNinja]

Some might argue that the nerfs were for the best anyways.
This was deliberate since historically, the full casters were basically undisputed especially when taking very specific prestige classes.

Which ties in with the whole lower ceiling pathfinder has.

Compare all of the other classes, things flip around.



Also.... you do realize that all of those options were so oppressive that they basically denied you taking anythng else right ? I mean in Planar Shepherds case, it was a no Brainer for no real loss?
In contrast most prestige classes in pathfinder aren't say flat out better than taking more of your default class

I was under the impression that Rogues were worse in Pathfinder.

Planar Shepard is basically Druid 2.0. But Wizards and Clerics have a variety of amazing prestige classes.

Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, Shadowcraft Mage, Tainted Scholar, Dweomerkeeper, the list just goes on.

At the end of the day, all that matters is which classes are stronger, not which are more balanced. At least as far as this thread is concerned.

[Sayt]

Rogues still get the most flat skill ranks in the game, sneak attack can hit more targets and can carry effect riders, and despite losing blink (which made you miss 20% of the time) and flask (how exactly do you sneak attack with a splash wespon?), they also gained a few things like Hellcat stealth (stealth while observed and while in bright/normal light), Cornugon smash/shatter defenses (better on slayer, admittedly), and the CG among them got a pretty nice PRC. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/n-r/rose-warden/)

Oh, they also got a some really cool rogue talents: eerie disappearance, dampen presence, Minor and major magic, use spell activation/completion items without UMD or checks.

[Tainted_Scholar]

sneak attack can hit more targets and can carry effect riders,

You can use magic to hit most creatures that are immune to Sneak Attack normally.

Also quick question, what do you mean by "carry effect riders"?


and despite losing blink (which made you miss 20% of the time)

There are ways of overcoming blink's miss chance. Also I heard that due to the way they changed Grease, Rogues can't get sneak attacks from it anymore.


how exactly do you sneak attack with a splash wespon?

Tap on someone's shoulder, and when they turn around chuck the bottle at their face?


they also gained a few things like Hellcat stealth (stealth while observed and while in bright/normal light)

Greater Invisibility is even better.

[ryu]

You can use magic to hit most creatures that are immune to Sneak Attack normally.

Also quick question, what do you mean by "carry effect riders"?



There are ways of overcoming blink's miss chance. Also I heard that due to the way they changed Grease, Rogues can't get sneak attacks from it anymore.



Tap on someone's shoulder, and when they turn around chuck the bottle at their face?



Greater Invisibility is even better.

Or just point out that a person taking a flask of alchemist's fire that sees it coming and can protect all their softest bits is significantly better off than that same person possibly getting this liquid fire directly onto exposed skin, in the nose a little, perhaps has their hair set alight and so on?

[Sayt]

You can use magic to hit most creatures that are immune to Sneak Attack normally.

Also quick question, what do you mean by "carry effect riders"?

There are ways of overcoming blink's miss chance. Also I heard that due to the way they changed Grease, Rogues can't get sneak attacks from it anymore.

Tap on someone's shoulder, and when they turn around chuck the bottle at their face?

Greater Invisibility is even better.

1. Yes, but in Pathfinder you don't need to allocate resources to those things, you can just....do it.

2. Inflict Bleed equal to your SA dice, overcome good aligned DR, clear shsken/confused/sickened from themselves, extinguish nonmagical lights on the target and 2/day dispel magical light on SA, gain a saving throw bonus, inflict to hit penalties. That's just the stuff from Rogue talents I can remember off the top of my head.

3. Yes to both

4. Yay for including yourself in the collateral damage? Flask sneak attacks make as much sense to me as getting sneak attack with a flamethrower or hand grenade. You can't "target a vital spot", you're throwing a cup at them! , (If the fantasy you're trying to emulate is throwing flasks for for big damage, the alchemist is better suited.)

5. Greater invisibility is very good, but can be beaten by a see invisibility and true seeing, and shows up to detect magic, HCS doesn't. Pathfinder rogues get just as good access to Greater Invisibility as 3.5 Rogues.
Except is easier for them to use it (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo-rogue-talents/the-whole-time-su/)


Or just point out that a person taking a flask of alchemist's fire that sees it coming and can protect all their softest bits is significantly better off than that same person possibly getting this liquid fire directly onto exposed skin, in the nose a little, perhaps has their hair set alight and so on?

Alchemist's fire lights you up for a round regardless of where or how well it hits you, and what your describing sounds more like a crit than a sneak attack, but then the transparency and conceptual similarities between crits and SAs was always hinky.

[Snowbluff]

PF classes are higher floor, lower ceiling in general. Outside of summoner I don't find the design any better. Paladin has nice LoH, I guess.

For instance, Clerics don't make better archers than Rangers anymore.

UNless you're a samsaran and you're me and you're putting out literally a thousand damage per round like me. So, Clerics are better archers.

[Tainted_Scholar]

1. Yes, but in Pathfinder you don't need to allocate resources to those things, you can just....do it.

Yes, but I'm just looking at the end result, not the steps required to meet it.


2. Inflict Bleed equal to your SA dice, become good aligned DR, clear shsken/confused/sickened from themselves, extinguish nonmagical lights on the target and 2/day dispel magical light on SA, gain a saving throw bonus, inflict to hit penalties. That's just the stuff from Rogue talents I can remember off the top of my head.

3. Yes to both

K thanks.


Flask sneak attacks make as much sense to me as getting sneak attack with a flamethrower or hand grenade. You can't "target a vital spot", you're throwing a cup at them! , (If the fantasy you're trying to emulate is throwing flasks for for big damage, the alchemist is better suited.)

And this is why melee can't have nice things.

Seriously, D&D characters do the impossible all the time, why should it matter here? Also, you know what else makes no sense? Sneak Attacking creatures with no vital organs even though that's the point of Sneak Attack.


Pathfinder rogues get just as good access to Greater Invisibility as 3.5 Rogues.
Except is easier for them to use it (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo-rogue-talents/the-whole-time-su/)

Interesting.

[ColorBlindNinja]

UNless you're a samsaran and you're me and you're putting out literally a thousand damage per round like me. So, Clerics are better archers.

That sounds interesting. Color me intrigued.

[Almarck]

PF classes are higher floor, lower ceiling in general. Outside of summoner I don't find the design any better. Paladin has nice LoH, I guess.


UNless you're a samsaran and you're me and you're putting out literally a thousand damage per round like me. So, Clerics are better archers.


Yeah but you're you.
Most people aren't

[Starbuck_II]

There are ways of overcoming blink's miss chance. Also I heard that due to the way they changed Grease, Rogues can't get sneak attacks from it anymore.



Yeah, Grease only takes away dex on opponents turn. So only sneak attack on opportunities.

[Sayt]

Yes, but I'm just looking at the end result, not the steps required to meet it.

And this is why melee can't have nice things.

Seriously, D&D characters do the impossible all the time, why should it matter here? Also, you know what else makes no sense? Sneak Attacking creatures with no vital organs even though that's the point of Sneak Attack.


How you reach the end result is relevant because if you spend less money on vinestrike and those weapon crystal thingies, you can spend that money on other things, broadening your capacities.

And that is not why martials can't get nice things. Yes, RPG characters do impossibilities all the time, but usually with some internally consistent mechanical explanation: Spells, Incarnum, ki, etc, and those without them do impossible things of a kind to impossible things, like the 20th level fighter doing a 40 ft longjump, or a high level ranger tracking a cockroach from two days ago down a paved road, even if it snowed in the intervening time. There is a shallow plausibility there, even if physics gets in the way IRL.

And PF's sneak attacks can target vital points, not organs specifically, so the bindings keeping undead intact, the brains of intelligent plant creatures, the joints of constructs that kind of thing.

[Almarck]

Yes, but I'm just looking at the end result, not the steps required to meet it.



K thanks.



And this is why melee can't have nice things.

Seriously, D&D characters do the impossible all the time, why should it matter here? Also, you know what else makes no sense? Sneak Attacking creatures with no vital organs even though that's the point of Sneak Attack.



Interesting.


Think of it this way, the more resources you don't need to spend on covering your deficiencies the more you can spend on doing loads of other things, which results in a net efficiency bonus.



Think about it, a rogue that say needs to burn a feat to sneak attack creatures normally immune to it is by definition going to less efficient than a rogue that has that at the base with no need for investment.



Pathfinder rogue has that, has essentially 10 choices of advanced class features he gets on top of the 3.5 rogue chassis, 2 more feats because Pathfinder gives characters feats at every odd level consistently and lots of skills are consolidated so he can get more bang for every Skill Point he spends and doesn't have crossroads skill penalties that make doing nonplussed skills painful.


Also for those of you guys who want elemental sneak attacks on of rogue, why not use lasers? Resolve on touch ac, can multi attack, possibly enchanted.... it is pretty expensive though. But they make a decent primary weapon.



Also while it hasn't been brought up yet.... magic items. There's more magic item slots in PF and you have more gold overall in wbl. Granted some of this is because of the whole belt and headband thing. I don't actually deal oath magic items much so....

[Florian]

Also quick question, what do you mean by "carry effect riders"?

The topic of "riders" comes up with nearly all PF weapon-based classes. "Hit and free combat maneuver", "Sneak attack and cause bleed", "Crit and stun". A lot of combat style feats trigger on conditions and aim to worsen them, then you´ll end up with something like "hit to cause shaken, hit shaken to cause negative levels".

A not unimportant thing when discussing "power" is that concentration checks have become harder und you´ve got fewer ways to optimize them. Martials can negate 5ft steps and casting defensively and the most extreme cases teleport/plane shift along with the caster.

So a high level Superstition/Spell Sunder Barbarian build might not look much by going by the numbers, but it can actually force any caster into a melee and keep them locked into it. (Ok, might not want to try it against a well-build Magus)

[ColorBlindNinja]

How you reach the end result is relevant because if you spend less money on vinestrike and those weapon crystal thingies, you can spend that money on other things, broadening your capacities.

And that is not why martials can't get nice things. Yes, RPG characters do impossibilities all the time, but usually with some internally consistent mechanical explanation: Spells, Incarnum, ki, etc, and those without them do impossible things of a kind to impossible things, like the 20th level fighter doing a 40 ft longjump, or a high level ranger tracking a cockroach from two days ago down a paved road, even if it snowed in the intervening time. There is a shallow plausibility there, even if physics gets in the way IRL.

And PF's sneak attacks can target vital points, not organs specifically, so the bindings keeping undead intact, the brains of intelligent plant creatures, the joints of constructs that kind of thing.
A couple of wand don't cost much at level 20.

Also, plants don't have brains.

What vital points do elementals and oozes have?




A not unimportant thing when discussing "power" is that concentration checks have become harder und you´ve got fewer ways to optimize them. Martials can negate 5ft steps and casting defensively and the most extreme cases teleport/plane shift along with the caster.

So a high level Superstition/Spell Sunder Barbarian build might not look much by going by the numbers, but it can actually force any caster into a melee and keep them locked into it. (Ok, might not want to try it against a well-build Magus)

Unless a spell has a duration of concentration, you shouldn't ever need to make a concentration check in combat.

Without the Mage Slayer feats, good luck hitting any spell caster with Mirror Image and Blink.

[Tainted_Scholar]

And that is not why martials can't get nice things. Yes, RPG characters do impossibilities all the time, but usually with some internally consistent mechanical explanation: Spells, Incarnum, ki, etc, and those without them do impossible things of a kind to impossible things, like the 20th level fighter doing a 40 ft longjump, or a high level ranger tracking a cockroach from two days ago down a paved road, even if it snowed in the intervening time. There is a shallow plausibility there, even if physics gets in the way IRL.

This is exactly why melee can't have nice things. If you refuse to let melee do certain things because it's illogical, you hurt their ability to contribute.

[Kurald Galain]

A couple of wand don't cost much at level 20.
Most campaigns don't ever get to level 20.


What vital points do elementals and oozes have?
None, and that's why you can't sneak attack them. Sneak attack is "attack its weak point", not "deal extra damage for no IC reason".

[ColorBlindNinja]

Most campaigns don't ever get to level 20.


None, and that's why you can't sneak attack them. Sneak attack is "attack its weak point", not "deal extra damage for no IC reason".
We're considering level 20 characters in this thread.

So PF rogues can't sneak attack oozes and elementals. That's not a problem?

I'm still curious what vital points a plant has.

[Florian]

Without the Mage Slayer feats, good luck hitting any spell caster with Mirror Image and Blink.

Less of a problem than you seem to think. You simply sunder the spells. Yes, you can do that and it hurts when you get stripped of contingency and permanency spells this way.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Less of a problem than you seem to think. You simply sunder the spells. Yes, you can do that and it hurts when you get stripped of contingency and permanency spells this way.

Couldn't the Caster just have a contingency for if someone tries to sunder their spells?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Less of a problem than you seem to think. You simply sunder the spells. Yes, you can do that and it hurts when you get stripped of contingency and permanency spells this way.

Spell Sunder is vs caster level. You have to beat CMD by 10. What sort of bonus will that Barbarian have?

You still have to close to melee before the Wizard acts. If that Wizard is a diviner, I'd say that's a tall order.

[Starbuck_II]

Spell Sunder is vs caster level. You have to beat CMD by 10. What sort of bonus will that Barbarian have?

You still have to close to melee before the Wizard acts. If that Wizard is a diviner, I'd say that's a tall order.

Well, 20 BAB, 40 Str [includes +8 Rage](15), and other bonuses (Bless, haste, etc all apply).

16 Str +5 Level + 5 inherent +6 magic item=32.

DC is DC 15 + spell lv. Beat by suppress for 1 rd. Beat by 5 suppress 2 rd. Beat by 10, dispel.

Strength surge is 1/rd (you can rage cycle for free tireless rage) add +20 to CMB or CMD.

So 1d20+35 +20=1d20+55 without buffs.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Are there easy ways to pump your caster level in PF?

[Kurald Galain]

So PF rogues can't sneak attack oozes and elementals. That's not a problem?
No. Why would it be? You're not entitled to be at maximum effectiveness all the time; every character has its weak spot on occasion. The key is that these are pretty rare.

[ColorBlindNinja]

No. Why would it be? You're not entitled to be at maximum effectiveness all the time; every character has its weak spot on occasion. The key is that these are pretty rare.

Oozes I can see being uncommon, but the elemental planes will be packed with enemies the Rogue can't effectively combat.

What weak spots do well optimized wizards have?

A class shouldn't ever be in a situation where they're nigh useless. That's just bad design.

[Florian]

Spell Sunder is vs caster level. You have to beat CMD by 10. What sort of bonus will that Barbarian have?

You still have to close to melee before the Wizard acts. If that Wizard is a diviner, I'd say that's a tall order.

At the level we talk about CMB is not an issue on a raging barbarian.

If you´ve read my posts carefully, you´ll notice that I mentioned Dimensional Step-Up. That should probably tell you that Dimensional Assault is possible and that I know how to get DimDoor on a regular Barbarian without dipping or PrC.

And when you´re hell-bent on being able to SA anything in the game, there´s the Anatomical Savant feat.

@Tainted Scholar: Mostly +1 CL boni on specific spells/schools/domain spells. Nothing you´d raise your eyebrows at, besides a witch coven (ye goode olde Circle Magic).

[Tainted_Scholar]

If you´ve read my posts carefully, you´ll notice that I mentioned Dimensional Step-Up. That should probably tell you that Dimensional Assault is possible and that I know how to get DimDoor on a regular Barbarian without dipping or PrC.

Couldn't the Wizard just murder you before you get a chance to act? Also the Wizard still has contingency.


@Tainted Scholar: Mostly +1 CL boni on specific spells/schools/domain spells. Nothing you´d raise your eyebrows at, besides a witch coven (ye goode olde Circle Magic).

Circle Magic is still a thing in PF!?:smalleek::smallsigh:

[Florian]

Couldn't the Wizard just murder you before you get a chance to act? Also the Wizard still has contingency.

The caster can try. Tough, with the ability to roll twice against spells and negate them.

Again, this is no pi**ing contest, I just wanted to show you that I measure efficiency differently than just by raw numbers.


Circle Magic is still a thing in PF!?:smalleek::smallsigh:

In a kinda-sorta way. It only works with the Witch class and needs a specific item and all participants using a specific spell. Not not close to the 3.5 version.

[Snowbluff]

That sounds interesting. Color me intrigued.
Greater named Bullet (40) + Saddle Surge (20, you can get a flying AnC mount as a cleric), 6 attack (3 BAB, Speed 1, 1 Rapid Shot, 1 Many Shot), x2 (Litany of Righteousness, which works for good clerics) = 720 damage before before feats.

Use Unguents of Timelessness, rods of extend and/or Abundant Ammunition to duplicate and stock pile various named bullets of various types and refire them (use otherwise mundane ammunition). You have a lot of spell lots so you can make a lot per day.

You need about 23.3 points of base damage to hit that last 280 damage for an easy thousand, so 4.5 (Bow damage) + 5 (Str) + 5 (Enhancement) + 8 (Deadly Aim) + 1 (bracer of Archer). There you go, 1000 DPR.

Named Bullet will give touch attacks if you're close, so hitting shouldn't be too much of an issue. Saddle surge will trigger when your bird moves, and if it only takes a move action, you can full attack with your bow IIRC.




Yeah but you're you.
Most people aren't

Here's the thing about cleric zilla/spells/ people complaining about spells: this is exactly what they mean. XD
If Most people aren't me then it's not going to be a problem, and isn't worth altering. :smalltongue:

[noob]

Dealing high damage at range is often much better than dealing high damage in contact.
Pathfinder made a lot more easy to access ranged options when compared to dnd 3.5.(like add dex to ranged damage just by taking a level in a class)

[ColorBlindNinja]

Greater named Bullet (40) + Saddle Surge (20, you can get a flying AnC mount as a cleric), 6 attack (3 BAB, Speed 1, 1 Rapid Shot, 1 Many Shot), x2 (Litany of Righteousness, which works for good clerics) = 720 damage before before feats.

Use Unguents of Timelessness, rods of extend and/or Abundant Ammunition to duplicate and stock pile various named bullets of various types and refire them (use otherwise mundane ammunition). You have a lot of spell lots so you can make a lot per day.

You need about 23.3 points of base damage to hit that last 280 damage for an easy thousand, so 4.5 (Bow damage) + 5 (Str) + 5 (Enhancement) + 8 (Deadly Aim) + 1 (bracer of Archer). There you go, 1000 DPR.

Named Bullet will give touch attacks if you're close, so hitting shouldn't be too much of an issue. Saddle surge will trigger when your bird moves, and if it only takes a move action, you can full attack with your bow IIRC.





Here's the thing about cleric zilla/spells/ people complaining about spells: this is exactly what they mean. XD
If Most people aren't me then it's not going to be a problem, and isn't worth altering. :smalltongue:

Neat. You're using firearms?

Yes, Clerics out damaging other classes was a point of contention for many.


The caster can try. Tough, with the ability to roll twice against spells and negate them.

What ability is that?

[Florian]

Neat. You're using firearms?

Yes, Clerics out damaging other classes was a point of contention for many.



What ability is that?

Nah, it´s just the name of the spell, nothing to do with firearms. http://www.archivesofnethys.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Named%20Bullet,%20Great er
What Snowbluff omit, is that most power of the build comes from using regular Paladin spells, transferred over to the Cleric Spelllist via Samsaran ART.

Eater of Magic. Reroll a save, when successful, negate spell and gain temp. hp.

[Snowbluff]

Neat. You're using firearms?

Yes, Clerics out damaging other classes was a point of contention for many.



What ability is that?

Despite the named, Named Bullet works with any ammunition or thrown weapon. The Compiste Longbow is ideal for a str scaling without class levels, free action reload, and being able to use it while mounted.

Oh and I forgot to count the free crit threat on named bullet. Uh... I guess double the damage?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Nah, it´s just the name of the spell, nothing to do with firearms. http://www.archivesofnethys.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Named%20Bullet,%20Great er
What Snowbluff omit, is that most power of the build comes from using regular Paladin spells, transferred over to the Cleric Spelllist via Samsaran ART.

Eater of Magic. Reroll a save, when successful, negate spell and gain temp. hp.

There are plenty of spells that don't require saves.


Despite the named, Named Bullet works with any ammunition or thrown weapon. The Compiste Longbow is ideal for a str scaling without class levels, free action reload, and being able to use it while mounted.

Oh and I forgot to count the free crit threat on named bullet. Uh... I guess double the damage?

Got it. Sounds interesting.

[Florian]

There are plenty of spells that don't require saves.

In this case, it´s actually the raw damage ranged touch attack spells that can hurt. The AC is so bad, it´s not worth mentioning. This leads us to the beginning of the topic, with displacement and getting the usual defensive buffs yourself.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In this case, it´s actually the raw damage ranged touch attack spells that can hurt. The AC is so bad, it´s not worth mentioning. This leads us to the beginning of the topic, with displacement and getting the usual defensive buffs yourself.

Mage's Disjunction only offers a save for items. Afterwards, all your buffs are gone.

Edit: What kind of will save will that Barbarian have?

[Snowbluff]

Nah, it´s just the name of the spell, nothing to do with firearms. http://www.archivesofnethys.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Named%20Bullet,%20Great er
What Snowbluff omit, is that most power of the build comes from using regular Paladin spells, transferred over to the Cleric Spelllist via Samsaran ART.
Yes, Samsaran is key. I think I stated it way abck in my first post on this thread.

It's my favorite race, because I like to play spellcasters (having more options in combat makes it more interesting to play, IMO).

[Florian]

Yes, Samsaran is key. I think I stated it way abck in my first post on this thread.

It's my favorite race, because I like to play spellcasters (having more options in combat makes it more interesting to play, IMO).

The emphasis here is on the Paladin spells. That spell list packs quite a nasty punch for a 1-4 spell levels class.

I play my casters a bit toned down, so Binding-focused Wizard, Illusions-focus Oracle and such things.

[Sayt]

A couple of wand don't cost much at level 20.

Also, plants don't have brains.

What vital points do elementals and oozes have?

Unless a spell has a duration of concentration, you shouldn't ever need to make a concentration check in combat.

Without the Mage Slayer feats, good luck hitting any spell caster with Mirror Image and Blink.

You could get other wands. I'm not super up on 3.5, but you could, for instance, get a wand of wraith strike instead of whichever. You also don't need to spend time in combat if you get caught unaware.

Constructs Elementals and oozes retain their immunity to sneak attacks and critical hits.

Most plants don't have brains, but there are plant creatures with intelligence scores, like Ents and Ghorans and Phantom Funguses and have significant motor functions, and if you can disrupt those systems, you can crit/SA them.

Blink can be overcome by see invisibility and Ghost Touch and see invisibility, and if you only have one, you're on an equal footing with them. Mirror Image is really annoying, you need true seeing to get around it, but itemd of this are affordable at 20th, and the spell decays as combat goes on.


This is exactly why melee can't have nice things. If you refuse to let melee do certain things because it's illogical, you hurt their ability to contribute.
I firmly believe that Matrials are allowed to have nice things. Like Smash from the air (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/weapon-mastery-feats/smash-from-the-air-weapon-mastery/), or item mastery feats (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/item-mastery-feats/). It can be impossibe, but I want there to be some mechanical and flavour explanations.


Couldn't the Caster just have a contingency for if someone tries to sunder their spells?
As I've mentoned, spellcasters in Pathfinder can have a maximum of two contingencies, compared to 3.5's 20. Honestly this might be my favourite change from 3.5 to PF.


Spell Sunder is vs caster level. You have to beat CMD by 10. What sort of bonus will that Barbarian have?

You still have to close to melee before the Wizard acts. If that Wizard is a diviner, I'd say that's a tall order.


Couldn't the Wizard just murder you before you get a chance to act? Also the Wizard still has contingency.

As I've mentoned, spellcasters in Pathfinder can have a maximum of two contingencies, compared to 3.5's 20. Honestly this might be my favourite change from 3.5 to PF. You can prepare for something, but not everything.

And yes, Diviners go first, but not every wizard is a diviner, and some Slayers are Vanguards, who get the same bonus to initiative.

And Starbuck is right about the CMB bonus, but you can also get gloves for +2 to a CM, an ioun stone for +2 to a CM, and you get your weapon's enhancement bonus to the check as well, for another +9.

Edits added to correct and add responses to things I'd missed.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Most plants don't have brains, but there are plant creatures with intelligence scores, like Ents and Ghorans and Phantom Funguses and have significant motor functions, and if you can disrupt those systems, you can crit/SA them.

I really don't think Treants have brains, I always assumed that they were forest spirits or something.


Blink can be overcome by see invisibility and Ghost Touch and see invisibility, and if you only have one, you're on an equal footing with them. Mirror Image is really annoying, you need true seeing to get around it, but itemd of this are affordable at 20th, and the spell decays as combat goes on.

How is Ghost Touch suppose to help? It only hits incorporeal creatures, Blink turns you Ethereal.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You could get other wands. I'm not super up on 3.5, but you could, for instance, get a wand of wraiths trike insteam of whichever. You also don't need to spend time in combat if you get caught unaware

Constructs and oozes retain their immunity to sneak attacks and critical hits.

-Does Pathfinder have an equivalent to Wraithstrike? A 3.5 Rogue could easily afford one.

-Golem strike and company are swift actions if the Rules Compendium is in play.

- Constructs are immune to Sneak Attack in Pathfinder? Those are a lot more common than elementals and oozes.

[Sayt]

I really don't think Treants have brains, I always assumed that they were forest spirits or something.

How is Ghost Touch suppose to help? It only hits incorporeal creatures, Blink turns you Ethereal.
Huh, I seem to have gotten incorporeal and Ethereal mixed up, coulda sworn they were connected.

And treants are living creatures that don't have any rules language which indicates that they're possessed trees. They're autonomous, mobile and intelligent, and it would make sense to me that they have some kind of neurological system that you can disrupt by sticking a knife into it.


-Does Pathfinder have an equivalent to Wraithstrike? A 3.5 Rogue could easily afford one.

-Golem strike and company are swift actions if the Rules Compendium is in play.

- Constructs are immune to Sneak Attack in Pathfinder? Those are a lot more common than elementals and oozes.
Constructs were s goof on my part. Golems are immune to SA/crit, but Constructs as a whole are not.

Pf doesn't as a spell, unfortunately. But my point was to illustrate that not needing the spell freed up WBL for other useful itemd.

[Tainted_Scholar]

And treants are living creatures that don't have any rules language which indicates that they're possessed trees. They're autonomous, mobile and intelligent, and it would make sense to me that they have some kind of neurological system that you can disrupt by sticking a knife into it.

I never said that they were possessed trees, I meant that I assumed that they were some type of mythical creature that guards forest rather than a normal life form. Nowhere in the rules does it say that Treants have brains or other animal life functions. In fact, Treants resembling the trees they typically resemble the trees most common in their area suggests that they are possessed trees, or forest spirits.

EDIT; Actually, the fact that they're immune to crits means that they don't have vital organs, like brains.

[Kurald Galain]

-Does Pathfinder have an equivalent to Wraithstrike?

Sure. Have your rogue cast something like Frostbite. There's various ways to get spellcasting on a rogue, including UMD.

[Florian]

-Does Pathfinder have an equivalent to Wraithstrike? A 3.5 Rogue could easily afford one.

-Golem strike and company are swift actions if the Rules Compendium is in play.

- Constructs are immune to Sneak Attack in Pathfinder? Those are a lot more common than elementals and oozes.

That´s not how you´d go about it. First, the few create types and subtypes that have immunity are rare enough so it´s not worth investing anything into it - unless you´re in a specific campaign you know will center around them, than you take the appropriate rogue archetype that deals with the immunity, like planar rogue, parklands stalker or saboteur. That´s a zero investment and you´re good to go.

Now the Fortification armor enhancements are a thing, but there´s a rogue talent that helps you negate it. I mentioned it earlier, but Anatomical Savant is a feat designed to beat Fortification, with the side effect of treating everything with blanket SA/crit immunity as heaving heavy fortification from now on. Aren´t we lucky that we picked up talents that help us negate exactly that?

[Snowbluff]

-Does Pathfinder have an equivalent to Wraithstrike? A 3.5 Rogue could easily afford one.

-Golem strike and company are swift actions if the Rules Compendium is in play.

- Constructs are immune to Sneak Attack in Pathfinder? Those are a lot more common than elementals and oozes.
There is a wraithstrike like spell, but IIRC it's 4th level. Not always a good value.

I don't think constructs are immune. Remember that you can get a weapon crystal in 3.5, but personally I don't like item optimization. :smalltongue:

The emphasis here is on the Paladin spells. That spell list packs quite a nasty punch for a 1-4 spell levels class.

I play my casters a bit toned down, so Binding-focused Wizard, Illusions-focus Oracle and such things.

Yeah it's a good list. Litanies are the really winner, IMO.

How I play my chasters depends onthe game. I usually go for interesting more than powerful.

[Florian]

I don't think constructs are immune.

No, they´re not. They´re immune to bleed and Death Attacks.

[Starbuck_II]

Now the Fortification armor enhancements are a thing, but there´s a rogue talent that helps you negate it. I mentioned it earlier, but Anatomical Savant is a feat designed to beat Fortification, with the side effect of treating everything with blanket SA/crit immunity as heaving heavy fortification from now on. Aren´t we lucky that we picked up talents that help us negate exactly that?

I google Anatomical Savant and find nothing. Are you sure that is spelled right, which book is this?

[Florian]

I google Anatomical Savant and find nothing. Are you sure that is spelled right, which book is this?

http://www.archivesofnethys.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Anatomical%20Savant

[Starbuck_II]

Yeah, I found it, BAB 12 means you are pretty high level before you can get it.

Wow, so Favored enemy is now a worth a feat due to Monster hunter handbook that has no prereqs.
Focused Construct expertise is amazing: ignore DR and hardness = to 1/2 bonus. Full for constructs.
Rangers can slice through walls with ease now.

[noob]

Can I get astronomical savant to sneak attack the universe?

Rangers can slice through walls with ease now.
Can they also take favored opponent: walls?

[Florian]

Can I get astronomical savant to sneak attack the universe?

Rather got for gastronomical savant and be a cook.

[Almarck]

Can I get astronomical savant to sneak attack the universe?

Can they also take favored opponent: walls?

What is the universe but the sum total of everything, and thus has an immunity to sneak attacks. You can bypass surgery immunity by treating as 75 percent fort

And what is able object but a construct?

[Starbuck_II]

Can I get astronomical savant to sneak attack the universe?

Can they also take favored opponent: walls?

Focused Construct expertise applies to walls and Constructs.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Sure. Have your rogue cast something like Frostbite. There's various ways to get spellcasting on a rogue, including UMD.
Wraithstrike is superior to Frostbite in terms of damage. It also works on cold immune creatures.


That´s not how you´d go about it. First, the few create types and subtypes that have immunity are rare enough so it´s not worth investing anything into it - unless you´re in a specific campaign you know will center around them, than you take the appropriate rogue archetype that deals with the immunity, like planar rogue, parklands stalker or saboteur. That´s a zero investment and you´re good to go.

Now the Fortification armor enhancements are a thing, but there´s a rogue talent that helps you negate it. I mentioned it earlier, but Anatomical Savant is a feat designed to beat Fortification, with the side effect of treating everything with blanket SA/crit immunity as heaving heavy fortification from now on. Aren´t we lucky that we picked up talents that help us negate exactly that?

- Not having an answer to certain creature types just because they're rare seems like a bad idea.

- Heavy Fortification is still a 75% chance you don't get Sneak Attack damage. Those aren't good odds.

Edit: You're also assuming that you can predict the course of the campaign. It's easy to be wrong.

[Florian]

Wow, so Favored enemy is now a worth a feat due to Monster hunter handbook that has no prereqs.

It´s the non-scaling version. You know, the fun thing with Rangers is the Instant Enemy spell. Target something that is not already an FE as a swift action and get your highest full bonus against it.

[Almarck]

It´s the non-scaling version. You know, the fun thing with Rangers is the Instant Enemy spell. Target something that is not already an FE as a swift action and get your highest full bonus against it.

I kinda like the Guide archetype more even if it'd not exactly min max. It's just mostly because the way favored enemy scales tended to drive me bonkers with old since yiu needed to work to make it even outt.

[Sayt]

It´s the non-scaling version. You know, the fun thing with Rangers is the Instant Enemy spell. Target something that is not already an FE as a swift action and get your highest full bonus against it.


Yeah, I found it, BAB 12 means you are pretty high level before you can get it.

Wow, so Favored enemy is now a worth a feat due to Monster hunter handbook that has no prereqs.
Focused Construct expertise is amazing: ignore DR and hardness = to 1/2 bonus. Full for constructs.
Rangers can slice through walls with ease now.

It's s
Also 3.5 FE, it lacks either the accuracy or damage bonus, can't remember which off the top of my head.