What's so great about PF?

[heavyfuel]

This thread is a rant/change-my-mind one.

I'd heard people talk wonders about PF and how it's so much better than 3.5 and after many years I decided to give it a try.

Turns out, it's still just as broken as 3.5, except much more boring. The designers were so preocupied with not breaking the game (and failing spectacluarly at it) that they made most options super weak.

None of the BIG problems with 3.5 were fixed. The weak classes are still weak to the point they had to re-release 3 of the core ones, which are OK now, but still outclassed by many others. And what about all the others?

Strong classes continue to be game-breakingly strong (lol at Diviners, wth were they thinking!?), except neat spells were nerfed to oblivion (Mind-blank, Forcecage) and really strong spells, spells so strong that you'd you'd get weird looks from the table if not picked at the first level they're available, weren't touched (Fly, Invisibility, Teleport, to name a few). And don't even get me started on how the Druid is STILL the most ridiculous class ever conceived.

Speaking of spells, what's with Mythic spells? They are litterally the stuff myths are created upon, and yet, I was looking through them to see if there was a spell that could be used to work large parts of a terrain, and I came across this one "Terraform" spell. If you don't know this spell, don't look it up just yet. What do you think a Lv 7, Mythic spell, called "TERRAFORM" does? Why if you guessed that it lets you waste 4% of your WBL every fortnight to live in a slightly damper climate bubble the size of a big house, then you're in luck! You should also reevaluate your concept of terraforming, but you're in luck!

I've already complained about this, but way too many niches were left untouched. 3.5 was far from perfect and had plenty of useless niche classes, but PF just doesn't care. There's no Healer class (great for NPCs and Cohorts), no maneuvers or psionics (except for 3rd party), no half-decent gish that can cast while hitting (looking at you, Magus), no class based on creating it's own equipment (like Incarnum users and Artificers to a lesser extent), no 9th level caster that isn't Tier 1 or 2, this list goes on.

I'm not saying 3.5 is the epitome of Table top RPGs cuz it's far from it, but I fail to see how PF is any better. It fixed basically nothing and removed a ton of options

[rel]

Pathfinder is and always was 3.5 with some house rules.

The major problems are still there and the lessons learnt throughout 3.5's run were not taken to heart.

The design philosophy is different but not better in any objective way.

The major advantages of pathfinder are:
-new material is released periodically
-errata of questionable quality is released for the rules
-the rules are directly compatible with the published pathfinder adventures and modules
-there is some sort of officially sanctioned organised play thing.

If that is of value to you, play pathfinder. If not stick with 3.5.
live and let live.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I am on my phone do I cannot give a more detailed response but a few things:
You seem to be laboring under a very DND mindset for 3rd party content. Paizo has, as far as I can tell, worked on having a good relationship with 3rd party developers and the quality of their content is generally very high. A bunch of the developers have members post on this very board if you want to learn more.
Pathfinder fixed a massive design issue with 3.5: many classes gave you little to no reason to stay past the minimum possible number of levels. This also meant that a lot of characters were spells slapped on a chassis, very little flavor to them. Pathfinder makes sure that every class has interesting features beyond just chassis and spells.
As a small thing you mention they nerfed a neat spell (Mindblank) and left some more powerful spells alone. Firstly Mindblank is a pretty insanely powerful spells that exists to just shut parts of the game off (including an entire school of magic). IMHO it is probably one of the most poorly designed spells in core. Secondly you then complain they did not nerfed some spells and list ones that have never really been big problems (invisibility can be defeated by a bag of flour for goodness sakes) and then fail to mention that they fixed particularly troublesome spells like the polymorph lines. I think you have some strong personal bias there...

[Zombimode]

Turns out, it's still just as broken as 3.5, except much more boring.

That's my impression as well.

More to the point the whole endeavor feels superflous. It is just needlessly reinventing the wheel, just subjectively worse (taken as a whole - there are changes that I really like).

3.5 is a wild place - but in my experience this is only a problem if people make it a problem.
PF feels like it tries to tame the wild place and thus tries to fix something that was not a problem in the first place, but in the process making things more bland (to me).

[Arutema]

For players who don't already have a large collection of 3.5 books, PF has the major advantages that:
* It is still in print.
* PDFs of every book are available legally and at reasonable prices.
* All material is OGL, allowing multiple SRD sites to list and index it all.

One does not need to crawl through used book stores and black-market PDFs to find the necessary feat from book X that went out of print a decade ago for their characters if they are just joining a PF game or getting started with the system.

[peacenlove]

Still in production.
Good customer support (Unlike the oft reviled CustServ, who gave conflicting answers and promptly disappeared)
Free to play with a perfectly up to date srd, containing errata.
Roll20 support is stellar.
Fixes polymorph (I prefer to face +16 str/+8 con rather than wartroll / thoon elder brain forms at high levels).
Fixes "Xp is a river" problem
For me the problems that PF base introduces are a far lesser headache than the above 2, or any other exploit of 3.5 base.
Actual support to 3rd party (Many adventures for instance have references to Tome of Horrors monsters).
3rd Party PF is equal or superior quality to 3.5 edition or base Pathfinder.
Continued support to most of the material who get out (Go on tell me how much the shadowcaster/tome of battle was expanded in contrast to lets say psychic magic. Even words of power were outsourced to 3rd party.)

As a system it is as problematic as 3.5 edition, which is no surprise to anyone really.

[Crake]

For players who don't already have a large collection of 3.5 books, PF has the major advantages that:
* It is still in print.
* PDFs of every book are available legally and at reasonable prices.
* All material is OGL, allowing multiple SRD sites to list and index it all.

One does not need to crawl through used book stores and black-market PDFs to find the necessary feat from book X that went out of print a decade ago for their characters if they are just joining a PF game or getting started with the system.

Isn't drivethrurpg wizards of the coast affiliated? I bought a pdf of oriental adventures from them, did I contirbute with black market trading? (legitimate question there, by the way, I'm questioning my actions now) If they are affliated and legal, then I bought a 3.0 pdf from a perfectly legitimate source for a reasonable price, so I can't really agree that 3.5 pdfs are hard to legally come by. I certainly agree that the various paizo SRDs are amazing though. Personally I say just take the best of both worlds and run 3.pf like I do :smalltongue:

[Seto]

I must admit that I don't really see where you're coming from with those "super weak" options you are talking about. Now, I'm not used to high-OP, and I haven't really played PF casters, so maybe that's your point. But as someone who likes to play Tier 3-4, I must say that class design is PF's number 1 strong point for me.
Barbarians got stronger. Paladins got stronger and actually fun. Rogues were Unchained. Magus is a gish that works without having to multiclass.
Optimization options have not been limited: you can still go pick up a powerful feat in a lesser-known 3.5 book, because AFAIK the policy is "if it hasn't been updated in PF, the 3.5 version is good to go". But contrary to 3.5 (for some classes) you don't need to, because classes are decent as they are, and a lot of them offer customization options right out of the box (archetypes, ACFs, the "choose your lvl 3 power among a list" model).
Oh, and maneuvers. Grapple, disarm, etc. have been streamlined into a "combat maneuver" value, which I find is easier to memorize and use.

To summarize: it's somewhat less complex and you don't need to go digging through 5 PDFs to make a nice character. I rarely go further than the online SRD myself.

[Simba]

... run 3.pf like I do :smalltongue:

And how exactly does that work?

[Eox]

And how exactly does that work?

Run everything as normal with content from both available. If two rules would conflict, the Pathfinder version is the correct one. Requires converting monsters but that isn't too much effort.

Interestingly enough, Starfinder uses the same rule of thumb for its backwards-compatibility. 3.sf games are gonna get hairy.

[peacenlove]

Run everything as normal with content from both available. If two rules would conflict, the Pathfinder version is the correct one. Requires converting monsters but that isn't too much effort.

Interestingly enough, Starfinder uses the same rule of thumb for its backwards-compatibility. 3.sf games are gonna get hairy.

3.pf.sf games? sf.3.pf games? What would be the correct shortcut? How many rulesystems can be combined? :smalltongue:

Also for 3.pf you need to change/nerf some spells to give saves every round and convert death effects.
Non spell casting monsters however are convertible in 5 minutes, tops. Its the little changes to rules you need to hunt down that take all the energy however.

[EldritchWeaver]

I'd like to state that some issues have been addressed with 3PP material. Just to grab two examples: Path of War empowers martial characters to be Tier 3. Spheres of Power rebalances magic - some is at-will, some has to be paid with (limited) spell points, effects are divided into basic and advanced talents (latter are campaign changers), so the GM can say, he doesn't want it in his game. Teleport for example is part of the Warp sphere, which provides a short-range teleport as its basic effect. The advanced talents allow the long-range version upgrades, which the OP doesn't seem to like.

[Crake]

Run everything as normal with content from both available. If two rules would conflict, the Pathfinder version is the correct one. Requires converting monsters but that isn't too much effort.

Interestingly enough, Starfinder uses the same rule of thumb for its backwards-compatibility. 3.sf games are gonna get hairy.

I run it the other way around. 3.5 takes precedence, with some exceptions. I use 3.5 rules for grapples and combat maneuvers, for skills (though I do give retroactive skill points for permanent int increases), I use the 3.5 version of spells and feats if they conflict, but then there are exceptions, for example, I use pf point blank, and players can decide between running either 3.5 versions of some classes, or pf versions, depending on if they want 3.5 ACFs or if they want pf archetypes, no mixing and matching 3.5 ACFs and pathfinder archetypes.

It's a bit of a mess honestly, but it's consistent at least.

[Eldariel]

PF is mostly streamlining. It fixes some minor 3.5 issues:

Favored Class, though the new Favored Class options are just too good making e.g. Sorcerer practically need the bonus spells.
Divine Power making BAB cheap enough to be useless.
Polymorph negating physical stats entirely.
Grapple being overtly convoluted.
The overtly easy persistomancy and metamagic reduction (though this is "fixed" through omission rather than change - Persistent Spell and most metamagic reduction doesn't even exist, though some Arcane Thesis-like stuff exists and there's Sacred Geometry).
Classes have class features and are worth taking levels in, making PRCs (caster)/Multiclassing (martial) less automatic.
Needlessly bloated skill system.


Etc.

They didn't fix some big stuff like Planar Binding, Teleport, Gate, Simulacrum, Warriors getting no HP bonuses (HDs are frankly minor enough to be irrelevant higher up), Warriors getting no full attacks while still needing full attacks to function (this actually got significantly worse without Lion Totem Barb), etc. They also broke some new stuff like Summons; the new Summons are completely ridiculous for their level and as a consequence, Warriors are even less useful (SMVI gets you Telekinesis, Dominate Person, etc. at very high DCs for example; it's basically spontaneous Greater Anyspell that casts a new spell every turn). Thus, they fixed a bunch of minor stuff but failed to address some bigger ones and in ways, even made them worse. And specialization got way better. In general, PF Wizard baseline is even more ridiculously strong than 3.5.

I prefer PF since I like class features and archetypes but sadly they aren't willing to admit they ****ed up and that they should revise the whole core starting from the full attack mechanic, which really needs to go. The move + attack penalty shouldn't get worse with level and it shouldn't be 4/5ths of your attacks (or more for TWFers). Path of War is nice but even Dreamscarred Press was too afraid to pull the plug. Still, PF with Path of War is mostly enjoyable and I find it has many minor improvements over 3.5.

[CharonsHelper]

PF was created to be backwards compatible, so it still has many of the caster/martial issues of 3.x, but they're not as bad at low levels.

I'd say that class balance is actually pretty good for the first 8-10 levels (where I do 98% of my gaming anyway - even besides caster/martial, the core system starts to break down around then anyway) - while 3.5 really wasn't.

Single classes are actually viable rather than requiring martials to multi-class in 5 different dips.

The two core classes which were still blatantly bad (rogue & monk) have since been fixed with their Unchained versions. (some people don't like the vibe of the Umonk - but it's fine - and those people can play with the qinggong stealth buff and another archetype or two).

[Kurald Galain]

In forum discussions, we tend to assume that gameplay aims at level 15-20 with high optimization and pretty much all books in play. Turns out that outside of forums, almost nobody actually plays that way. Therefore, Pathfinder doesn't concern itself much with that.

Rather, Pathfinder deliberately gives characters more flavorful options at low levels (e.g. archetypes), tones down the need for prestige classes (and having to plan those several levels in advance), and fixes balance issues mostly for low-level abilities.

Because 1st and 2nd level spells are used in vastly more campaigns than 9th level spells.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

For people* who were used to cutting, pasting, and re-writing rules from all the d20-based games out there - Conan, MCWoD, Star Wars, d20 Modern, Future, etc, etc - PF is more systematic, and more hackable than D&D.

Aside from that, the main advantage is it's still in print, and it supports D&D 3.x with minimal fuss.

* I mean me. I don't know what anyone else thinks.

[venturer]

The biggest improvement with Pathfinder over D&D 3.5 is with the Monster rules, not the classes themselves. In 3.5 the amount of creatures which were immune to precision damage is massive were as in PF it is a lot more limited primarily plants. This immunity factor lead may a character’s abilities in combat to render moot in 3.5, while in PF the classes can do what they were designed to do.

[Venger]

Isn't drivethrurpg wizards of the coast affiliated? I bought a pdf of oriental adventures from them, did I contirbute with black market trading? (legitimate question there, by the way, I'm questioning my actions now) If they are affliated and legal, then I bought a 3.0 pdf from a perfectly legitimate source for a reasonable price, so I can't really agree that 3.5 pdfs are hard to legally come by. I certainly agree that the various paizo SRDs are amazing though. Personally I say just take the best of both worlds and run 3.pf like I do :smalltongue:

Yeah, drivethrurpg is legit

[Crake]

Yeah, drivethrurpg is legit

Sweet, good to know. That means, at the very least, the inability to access 3.0/3.5 material legally isn't an argument. Accessing it for free on the other hand, since pf has their SRDs, is a different story.

[Psyren]

This thread is a rant/change-my-mind one.

I'd heard people talk wonders about PF and how it's so much better than 3.5 and after many years I decided to give it a try.

Turns out, it's still just as broken as 3.5, except much more boring. The designers were so preocupied with not breaking the game (and failing spectacluarly at it) that they made most options super weak.

This is purely a matter of perspective. If you see 3.5's ceiling as "normal" then PF's is going to seem "weak." Most people who have made the jump to PF or 3.PF however, including myself, find 3.5 to be the outlier and PF's power level to be more in line with the way they play.

In the end, nobody should have to "convince you" - play what you want, let others play what they want, and leave edition wars in the midden where they belong.

[gkathellar]

Bear in mind the marketing side of things. PF was initially pitched parallel to 4e, which had painfully bad marketing, and took advantage of that to build a community on the premise of, "3.5, but better and more stylish." Brand consistency played a role as well: from the grimdumb setting to the tan pages, it was sold as "D&D For Grownups," (if only in the immature, Zack Snyder-movie sense where it looks mature until you think about it even a little).

More than 3.5 or 4e, PF established a distinctive aesthetic and community sensibility and stuck with it. They had Wayne Reynolds create visually striking iconic characters that people could connect to - and for all of Wayne's sins against anatomy and taste, his command of gesture (the sense of motion in a piec of art) is second to none. They advertised extensively on the FLGS and convention scenes. They offered significant digital support and distribution, without the PR faux pas of DDI (borderline-essential tools connected to a subscription).

Most importantly, Paizo's did a great job of telling all stripes of 3.5 players that their new game would change What You Dislike and keep What You Like, and failing to live up to that promise is less important than telling it in the first place. All of these things together created lots of anticipation, which matured into a player base despite some initial hype-backlash.

And why has it remained? Inertia and priorities. On the one hand, 3.5 players were and are a huge base to draw upon, and 4e's marketing failures mean that many were and are just waiting to be scooped up. On the other hand, this is how Paizo makes their money, and they know it. Unlike WotC, which is owned by Hasbro, Paizo has every reason not to reinvent the wheel, and so they will continue doing PF forever, while WotC is obligated to do so.

Mechanically, the reasons for a switch are slim. It's 3.5 with more ACFs, fewer prestige classes, and an essentially random shuffling of tiers for a few classes without really touching on the core imbalances. It's also the system DSP and other well-liked 3rd party developers have shackled themselves to, so that pulls in some people as well. Ultimately it's for people who want More 3.5, and aren't bothered by Paizo's incompetence.

[RoboEmperor]

All the fun stuff is in 3.5. Due to legal issues PF can't make their own versions of them, and due to PF DMs crying about how OP 3.5 don't expect many people to mix them.

A lot of people say giving the base class new stuff so they stay 20 base class is a good thing. That is one of the most weird reasons I see. Mixing PrCs is how you get unique creative characters, if everyone goes the standard 20 base class exclusively then you know how simple/conventional/uncreative a system is.

Compare a 20 wizard, with a 5 wizard mixed with 3-10 PrCs out of 100s. One is simply a wizard, while the other has virtually infinite variations meaning each character is unique and to the player's exact taste.

So simply put, Pathfinder is "easy mode" or "simple mode". You just go 20 in a base class and that's the ceiling for the game, no mix-matching PrCs, no synergizing/optimizing PrCs to play into their strengths/weaknesses, no using PrCs to specialize the thing you want to do like dipping wyrm wizard for specific cleric/druid spells that would vastly improve what you specialize in. Just go 20 in a base class and that's the end of the build. I have no idea why people keep praising this. I rather play with Fatespinners, shadowcraft mages, geometers with tattoo'd spellbooks, Nar Demonbinders, Effigy Masters, etc. or clerics specializing in water devotion, trickery devotion, etc. instead of a wizard.

So that's what great about pathfinder, it's more simpler than 3.5, and all that stuff about still in production, staff answering ruling questions (of questionable quality), etc. What other people said.

[Simba]

Is there a ready-to-use ruleset for 3.PF somewhere? One I can use in my games easily?
I know 3.5 quite well but PF is a passing acquaintance only.
It would be nice to see where the rules conflict and how one could solve the issues.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think xkcd summed it up best:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/googleplus.png

And, of course, in the end it doesn't matter: you can import material from one game to the other with approximately ten seconds of thought and not even notice.

[Guizonde]

I think xkcd summed it up best:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/googleplus.png

And, of course, in the end it doesn't matter: you can import material from one game to the other with approximately ten seconds of thought and not even notice.

speaking from experience, combining both can have unforeseen game-breaking consequences (and not in a good way, either). my dm only had the pf phb in print on hand when he made me roll up a cleric in greyhawk. i built him using pf phb and complete divine. pf clerics have a zone effect when they turn/rebuke undead. as written, that meant as a sphere. i accidentally scragged a very large number of undead by simply declaring "i turn that zack over there". we read the rules, and my dm thought i'd turn the single undead. nope. we bypassed a floor and a half by an accidental success. we went full-on 3.0-3.5 after that little mishap. i felt like crud and really proud of it simultaneously. at least we played by shared exp, so that accidental overkill managed to bring the monk's lost level back in terms of exp. the wizard was angry he didn't get time to cast his fireball, though.

i'd recommend using pf paladins in 3.5, though. those poor guys really needed the love. just read the fine print before thinking pf and 3.5 are interchangeable.

[Psyren]

Channel Energy is a burst - it shouldn't be able to go through floors because line of effect would be blocked.

[Kurald Galain]

It would be nice to see where the rules conflict and how one could solve the issues.

That depends entirely on what you personally see as "the issues".

That said, if you're coming from 3.5, the easiest step is to allow players (if they want) to take a Pathfinder class, or a Pathfinder archetype to their existing class. Especially at low level, when prestige classes aren't available yet, archetypes are a huge deal. Of note are the Oracle (spontaneous-casting cleric), Magus (gish power straight from level one), Alchemist (throw bombs for fun and profit), Brawler (swap your feats at-will in combat), and several others. Or, throw in some easy feats with extra abilities like Step Up (follow enemies when they 5' away) or Lunge (you have reach now) or Burning Amplification (all your fire spells set their target on fire). I'm sure if you show some examples and allow your players to take them, they will jump at it.

[legomaster00156]

All I can say is, if you didn't like 3.5, you won't like PF, because the similarities far outnumber the differences.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Is there a ready-to-use ruleset for 3.PF somewhere? One I can use in my games easily?
I know 3.5 quite well but PF is a passing acquaintance only.
It would be nice to see where the rules conflict and how one could solve the issues.
The PHB stuff will conflict, because Pathfinder rewrote that-- you'll have to decide which version you prefer. Otherwise, it's mostly an issue of their merged skill list and combat maneuver houserules.


speaking from experience, combining both can have unforeseen game-breaking consequences (and not in a good way, either). my dm only had the pf phb in print on hand when he made me roll up a cleric in greyhawk. i built him using pf phb and complete divine. pf clerics have a zone effect when they turn/rebuke undead. as written, that meant as a sphere. i accidentally scragged a very large number of undead by simply declaring "i turn that zack over there". we read the rules, and my dm thought i'd turn the single undead. nope. we bypassed a floor and a half by an accidental success. we went full-on 3.0-3.5 after that little mishap. i felt like crud and really proud of it simultaneously. at least we played by shared exp, so that accidental overkill managed to bring the monk's lost level back in terms of exp. the wizard was angry he didn't get time to cast his fireball, though.
That's not a "combining both games" error as a "misreading the rules" error, from what it sounds like. Turn Undead in 3.5 is an AoE limited by total hit die; Turn Undead in Pathfinder is either an AoE damage effect (the base Channel Energy) or an AoE fear-type effect (the feat Turn Undead). Neither version can go through walls, and both are centered on you.

[ATHATH]

Because 3.PF (note that I didn't just say "PF") is like 3.5, a highly versatile system, but with even more options.

The PFSRD is also a plus.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Some PF monsters are stupidly stronger than their 3.5 counterparts, tho, and generally, things have really good "passive" abilities - High scores, DR, SR, HP, AC, saves, resistances, immunities - if you compare them to 3.5.

Still, 3.P works perfectly fine, especially because you can easily calculate the few discrepancies due to how 3.5 works. Grapple, Trip, Bullrush, they are formulaic and easy to convert.

[Starshade]

It's not about what's great now, but what was great. When WOTC made 4th edition some loved the 4th. Some did not. Those who did not seemed to like the legacy of the engine above brand loyalty, until a new version appeared.
It's a subjective thing, from the point of view of some who simply enjoy playing it.

[Guizonde]

Channel Energy is a burst - it shouldn't be able to go through floors because line of effect would be blocked.


That's not a "combining both games" error as a "misreading the rules" error, from what it sounds like. Turn Undead in 3.5 is an AoE limited by total hit die; Turn Undead in Pathfinder is either an AoE damage effect (the base Channel Energy) or an AoE fear-type effect (the feat Turn Undead). Neither version can go through walls, and both are centered on you.

you made me look it up, and i see where the big deal is. i've got the pf phb in french, and the pfsrd in english open. it's a bloody translation error. in this specific case, it's lacking the negation (and limitation) regarding the line of effect. there are no specifics regarding what shape the aoe takes, and when we read it, the dm interpreted it as a sphere with me in the center. in order for us to fully grasp what the thing did, we'd've needed to look up the specifics of aoe's in another chapter of the phb, and we didn't bother, thinking it was all in there, seeing the rest of the (up to then) good and coherent translation.

live and learn, i guess. thanks for the heads up. there's a cleric in my pf game currently, and she's a newbie. don't think the dm ever played cleric either.

[Grod_The_Giant]

you made me look it up, and i see where the big deal is. i've got the pf phb in french, and the pfsrd in english open. it's a bloody translation error. in this specific case, it's lacking the negation (and limitation) regarding the line of effect. there are no specifics regarding what shape the aoe takes, and when we read it, the dm interpreted it as a sphere with me in the center. in order for us to fully grasp what the thing did, we'd've needed to look up the specifics of aoe's in another chapter of the phb, and we didn't bother, thinking it was all in there, seeing the rest of the (up to then) good and coherent translation.

live and learn, i guess. thanks for the heads up. there's a cleric in my pf game currently, and she's a newbie. don't think the dm ever played cleric either.
Ahh, that'll do it. I've heard that the translations sometimes goof stuff up.

[BassoonHero]

> Turns out, it's still just as broken as 3.5, except much more boring. The designers were so preocupied with not breaking the game (and failing spectacluarly at it) that they made most options super weak.

This is my impression as well, except that I'd say that Pathfinder actually worsened 3.5's balance issues by leaving caster power mostly intact while nerfing "broken" options that fighter-types relied on.

That said, I do feel that most of the changes it made were for the better:

- Consolidating similar skills.
- Fixing (IMO) cross-class skills.
- Aligning combat maneuvers.
- Patching many problematic spells.
- A better point-buy system.

But Paizo didn't want to rock the boat with more meaningful changes like- broadly nerfing save-or-lose spells, addressing fighter-types' lack of options, or lessening characters' dependence on magic. So Pathfinder was hamstrung from the get-go. You can preserve the good parts by mashing it up with 3.5, but that's a lot of effort for not much benefit. Alternatively, you can start with a pure-Pathfinder base and selectively add in 3.5 material, such as the Tome of Battle, and

I had hoped that 5e would be a "fixed" 3.5, but I was disappointed there as well. I feel that 5e throws the baby out with the bathwater by "dumbing down" the system. 3.5 has such wonderful mechanical diversity; 5e is far too conservative in my mind. Likewise, bounded accuracy isn't my cup of tea. In that regard, 5e seems like an updated E6, which is fine if you want to play E6 but otherwise unsatisfying.

[Remuko]

>

I had hoped that 5e would be a "fixed" 3.5, but I was disappointed there as well. I feel that 5e throws the baby out with the bathwater by "dumbing down" the system. 3.5 has such wonderful mechanical diversity; 5e is far too conservative in my mind. Likewise, bounded accuracy isn't my cup of tea. In that regard, 5e seems like an updated E6, which is fine if you want to play E6 but otherwise unsatisfying.

This. Same. Agree 100%. Was so disappointed.

[Krazzman]

Of note are the Oracle (spontaneous-casting cleric)

Manor nitpick. It's more of a divine spells using sorcerer. The things it has in common with clerics is divine magic list and 3/4 bab.

That said I vastly prefer PF to 3.5. We were even still playing 3.5 when ultimate combat came out and I will never miss switching. Even when my 3 most loved classes are not in pathfinder so far (Warlock, Warblade and Totemist) I have just so much great classes to work with... without the need to lug around up to 12 books just to have all references for my character available as I don't have a gish... I have a weird paladin sorcerer mix that just barely works thanks to 3 prestige classes that were printed in 4 different t books... hinging on feats and options that are in such obscure books that they didn't even bother to translate them.

In Pathfinder I know I can make a good magus just with Core and UM. A proper gish in 3.5? I think the barest minimum I saw so far was 3 books and it was basically a Duskblade with power attack.

In PF I still consider core classes while, of forced to play 3.5 again I would stay with ToB MoI and Dragon Magic.

That said we ignore most errata as the developers for paizo seem to have a loose grasp on the nerf hammer when doing it.

[EldritchWeaver]

Alternatively, you can start with a pure-Pathfinder base and selectively add in 3.5 material, such as the Tome of Battle, and


That said I vastly prefer PF to 3.5. We were even still playing 3.5 when ultimate combat came out and I will never miss switching. Even when my 3 most loved classes are not in pathfinder so far (Warlock, Warblade and Totemist) I have just so much great classes to work with...

While not official and not a direct port, Path of War is the spiritual successor of Tome of Battle.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Come on now, Duskblade, Bard, Unseen Seer, Eldritch Knight, Abjurant Champion, and many more are perfectly fine Gishes.

Hell, straight cleric is a great one.

What I like the most about PF is that professional game designers addressed things such as the Alchemist, which I suspect many wanted to play but there was no good support for.

[atemu1234]

Run everything as normal with content from both available. If two rules would conflict, the Pathfinder version is the correct one. Requires converting monsters but that isn't too much effort.

Interestingly enough, Starfinder uses the same rule of thumb for its backwards-compatibility. 3.sf games are gonna get hairy.


3.pf.sf games? sf.3.pf games? What would be the correct shortcut? How many rulesystems can be combined? :smalltongue:

Also for 3.pf you need to change/nerf some spells to give saves every round and convert death effects.
Non spell casting monsters however are convertible in 5 minutes, tops. Its the little changes to rules you need to hunt down that take all the energy however.


Just wait until we have to figure out how to port over D20 Future, Greyhawk 2000 and Pathfinder stuff over to starfinder. How about we save time and just call D20 crossover stuff The Gestalt or something?

[rel]

The biggest improvement with Pathfinder over D&D 3.5 is with the Monster rules, not the classes themselves. In 3.5 the amount of creatures which were immune to precision damage is massive were as in PF it is a lot more limited primarily plants. This immunity factor lead may a character’s abilities in combat to render moot in 3.5, while in PF the classes can do what they were designed to do.

Actually, I find precision damage esier to set up and apply in 3.5. There might be more blanket immunity but there are actual tools to deal with it. With pathfinder, when immunity does appear it is much more of a show stopper.

Also even without immunity you still have to qualify for the sneak attack, setting up a flank or blind, hitting the target, ensuring no sources of concealement, etc.
Again, 3.5 gives you a better set of tools to facilitate this.

[Psyren]

Qualifying for sneak in PF is easy, especially since Rogues in PF can craft their own wondrous items (e.g. Fogcutting Lenses, Goz Mask, Sniper Goggles, Assassin's Sight etc) and alchemical items like smokesticks.

[Florian]

PF "fixed" some of the things that are relevant for me:
- Better low level game due to all classes now having actual class features from the start and casters having options besides spells.
- Interesting classes, no need to multiclass, no need to PrC and VMC is quite good. That has the positive side effect that class performance stays stable, fewer leaps and bounds.
- Wild Shape/Polymorph/Divine Power
- Mythic potentially starting at level 1
- Well integrated subsystems, like Fleet Combat, Kingdom Building, Mass Battle
- Solved the "Healbot" problem. Being the party healer is not a burden anymore.

Interestingly, PF didn't fix things that are not relevant for me, as I rarely play above level 15, ban any form of PVP, don´t have to deal with abusing Planar Binding or Wish Loops, am old school enough to simply change the rules and power game better than my players if necessary (That´s why I hang out on this board).

Just for the record: For "High Magic" done right, I play a system that´s more suitable than d20: Ars Magicka.

On a related note, I´m quietly impressed with Starfinder. That´s the 5E I wished for.

[Kurald Galain]

Come on now, Duskblade, Bard, Unseen Seer, Eldritch Knight, Abjurant Champion, and many more are perfectly fine Gishes.

But what none of them can do until very high level, and the Magus can do right from level one, is cast a spell and full-attack in the same turn. The action economy advantage is what makes them a gish, and this is a huge difference. Warpriest and Bloodrager can also do that at low level.

[Chronikoce]

But what none of them can do until very high level, and the Magus can do right from level one, is cast a spell and full-attack in the same turn. The action economy advantage is what makes them a gish, and this is a huge difference. Warpriest and Bloodrager can also do that at low level.

I've personally always preferred duskblade over the magus. It's super easy and is a nice simple gish-in-a-can in my opinion.

[Kurald Galain]

I've personally always preferred duskblade over the magus. It's super easy and is a nice simple gish-in-a-can in my opinion.

Sure, it's super easy, but that's mainly because it doesn't have a lot of options. In terms of damage, versatility, customizability, and action economy the Magus blows it out of the water.

So in terms of "what's so great about PF', well it has several classes that, from a very low level, can cast and attack every round, instead of choosing between cast or attack. They've basically redefined "gish" from a theoretical benchmark for level-20 builds, to a practical and visible option that applies to every combat from the eaerliest levels.

[Chronikoce]

Sure, it's super easy, but that's mainly because it doesn't have a lot of options. In terms of damage, versatility, customizability, and action economy the Magus blows it out of the water.

So in terms of "what's so great about PF', well it has several classes that, from a very low level, can cast and attack every round, instead of choosing between cast or attack. They've basically redefined "gish" from a theoretical benchmark for level-20 builds, to a practical and visible option that applies to every combat from the eaerliest levels.

There is nothing theoretical about a duskblade. They can cast and attack at level 3.

I'll concede that stronger gish builds don't do much of anything until around level 5-7 usually (which is a bummer).

I've played extensively in both systems and DM'd a long running multi-year campaign using PF chassis with all 3.5 available. At the end of several years of gaming the only reason I'd recommend PF to a DM is the beastery and the pre-made npc available on the srd make putting together encounters super easy.

[Kurald Galain]

There is nothing theoretical about a duskblade. They can cast and attack at level 3.
There's an important difference here. If a spell already requires an attack roll, then dusky can make that attack with a weapon instead of his bare hands. That's entirely different from the Magus's Spell Combat ability, which lets them make a full attack and also cast any spell they know, in the same round. For instance, cast Shield and attack in the same round. Or attack then cast Invisibility in the same round. Or attack, cast Shocking Grasp, and then make the attack for Shocking Grasp (for a total of two attacks) all in the same round.

That's a clear example of something the Magus can do (and at level one, no less) that the duskblade never learns at all.


I'll concede that stronger gish builds don't do much of anything until around level 5-7
Except for Magus / Warpriest / Bloodrager, that is.

[Eldariel]

There is nothing theoretical about a duskblade. They can cast and attack at level 3.

I'll concede that stronger gish builds don't do much of anything until around level 5-7 usually (which is a bummer).

I've played extensively in both systems and DM'd a long running multi-year campaign using PF chassis with all 3.5 available. At the end of several years of gaming the only reason I'd recommend PF to a DM is the beastery and the pre-made npc available on the srd make putting together encounters super easy.

Eh, Conjurer 1 with decent strength, buff spells, decent weapon (reach), Abrupt Jaunt, and some combat spells is more than fine. Enlarge Person, Blades of Blood, Benign Transposition, Grease, etc. for instance.

[ShurikVch]

But what none of them can do until very high level, and the Magus can do right from level one, is cast a spell and full-attack in the same turn.Excuse me, but what's the point of full-attack at level one?
You don't have enough BAB for iteratives, most of creatures with natural attacks are above ECL 1, TWFing at 1st level is a good way to miss the broad side of a barn, and Whirling Frenzy wouldn't allow you to cast anyway

This aside - sure, Duskblade can do it: Blade of Blood and Swift Expeditious Retreat are swift actions, and Lesser Deflect - immediate

[Kurald Galain]

Excuse me, but what's the point of full-attack at level one?
The point is that you can, for instance, cast Shield and attack in the same round. Or attack then cast Invisibility in the same round (Vanish, if you want it at L1). Or attack, cast Shocking Grasp, and then make the attack for Shocking Grasp (for a total of two attacks) all in the same round.

You know, like I just wrote two points up. Magus does that at L1, dusky never learns it even at L20.

Ok, dusky gets his swift-action spells. Unfortunately he only has a handful of those on his list, and several of them suck :smallbiggrin: That's rather different from the ability to cast any spell you know combined with attacking.

[Nifft]

Excuse me, but what's the point of full-attack at level one?

Claw / Claw / Bite?

Rapid Shot?

TWF?

[ShurikVch]

Claw / Claw / Bite?At the 1st level? Kobold?


Rapid Shot?Sure, take penalties to your 1 (0?) BAB.
You will need a good roll to hit stuff.
Also, Rapid Shot required Point Blank Shot; you wouldn't even have it at 1st level (unless Fighter, Human, Strongheart Halfling, or flaws)


TWF?I missed broad side of a barn... On a full attack... Thrice... :smallamused:

[Wartex1]

The best thing about Pathfinder is that it's condensed, easier to learn, has less conflicting rules, and a greater sense of quality control. In Pathfinder, you can make many more concepts "out-of-the-box" with just the base classes. With 3.5, you need to sift through a thousand or so PrC's to find what you want, while in Pathfinder, if you want to play a "Rogue who doesn't actually stab things but instead is just super sneaky," then you can go to Rogue, then go to Rogue Archetypes, and then look at those (Phantom Thief). Plus, it's all OGL.

And amazing 3rd Party support, to the point that some of the best 3pps are better than anything Wizards or Paizo ever produced.

EDIT: Plus, in Pathfinder concepts tend to come online sooner because of the focus on archetypes.

Though I will concede that 3.5 has more focused classes and PrC's (I wish PF had 3.5's Urban Druid and Malconvoker).

[Kurald Galain]

I missed broad side of a barn... On a full attack... Thrice... :smallamused:

If you'd actually do the math on it, you'd see that TWF'ing can easily make your DPR go up depending on your build. Obviously a -10% chance to hit cannot be the difference between "fully competent" and "missing the broad side of a barn".

[EldritchWeaver]

PF "fixed" some of the things that are relevant for me:

So did PF fix them or not? With quotes you invert the meaning.

[Eldariel]

If you'd actually do the math on it, you'd see that TWF'ing can easily make your DPR go up depending on your build. Obviously a -10% chance to hit cannot be the difference between "fully competent" and "missing the broad side of a barn".

It's not 10%, it's 10 per cent points. Huge difference. The percentile depends on your original chance to hit; -10pp for when you need 15+ normally is a 33% reduction, while -10pp when you need 3+ is about 11% reduction. Thus the better your to hit relative to ACs you face, the lower impact the reduction.

[Psyren]

It's not 10%, it's 10 per cent points. Huge difference. The percentile depends on your original chance to hit; -10pp for when you need 15+ normally is a 33% reduction, while -10pp when you need 3+ is about 11% reduction. Thus the better your to hit relative to ACs you face, the lower impact the reduction.

If you need to roll 15+ to hit at low levels, you're either fighting a boss encounter or you have a supremely gimped character.

But here's the thing about Spell Combat - even if you miss, your turn still isn't wasted, because you're still casting spells while you swing. That's huge. At low levels, buffing outside of combat is nonexistent, even for the hours-long spells, and buffing in combat has all sorts of disadvantages. Not for the Magus. People tunnel vision on the 15-20 crit Intensified Shocking Grasp aspect of the class, and sure you can put out some pretty impressive DPR with that when you need it, but that's the nadir of what a Magus can actually do. You can pounce at level 4, turn invisible before or after attacking, cast True Strike before attempting a maneuver, debuff your target before attacking (which incidentally can easily offset the attack penalties of SC), and so much more - and all of that is before they straight up steal Wizard spells to put on their list, something else the Duskblade struggles to do. There's no contest.

[Pugwampy]

Why must there be a PF vs 3.5 ? You can easily play a hybrid game .

[Psyren]

Why must there be a PF vs 3.5 ? You can easily play a hybrid game .

Some folks around here hate Paizo with the fury of a thousand suns and consider any mechanics they designed to be tainted by association, regardless of applicability to their campaigns.

[Florian]

So did PF fix them or not? With quotes you invert the meaning.

Huh? When did happen with the english language?

And yes, it fixed that, this time without the quotes.


Some folks around here hate Paizo with the fury of a thousand suns and consider any mechanics they designed to be tainted by association, regardless of applicability to their campaigns.

Some folks apparently have a hard time admitting that the game they prefer is found in the gaps and abuses of the system.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The best thing about Pathfinder is that it's condensed, easier to learn, has less conflicting rules, and a greater sense of quality control.
I... don't know that any of that is really true. The class design is generally better and there are a few nice houserules, but it's got the exact same weight of rules and special abilities.


Why must there be a PF vs 3.5 ? You can easily play a hybrid game .
Because the more similar two things are, the more important the infinitesimal differences become! Plus human tribalism combined with internet nerd argumentativeness.


Huh? When did happen with the english language?
I dunno if there's a formal rule, but arbitrary quotes usually denote a degree of sarcasm. 'Sure, Bob, you "fixed" it. How long until it blows up this time, twenty minutes?'

[Draconi Redfir]

personally i'm just glad the combined "hide" and "move silently" into "stealth" and "Listen" "serch" and "spot" into "perception."

Because it's reeeaaally annoying to have multiple skills for "looking around" or "not being seen"

[zergling.exe]

personally i'm just glad the combined "hide" and "move silently" into "stealth" and "Listen" "serch" and "spot" into "perception."

Because it's reeeaaally annoying to have multiple skills for "looking around" or "not being seen"

I like the additional skills. You can be hard to see but easy to hear without having to ask the DM. You can have keen ears but not keen eyes, and searching is hands on. It's a subtlety that's lost when any character by default is equally skilled at both of them.

[Psyren]

I... don't know that any of that is really true. The class design is generally better and there are a few nice houserules, but it's got the exact same weight of rules and special abilities.

It was more true back when the system was originally released, but splatbook creep/bloat has all but caught up with 3.5 now.

Having said that, PF still has an advantage due to being open content, which makes organizing all those rules (legally anyway) much easier, as sites like PFSRD and Nethys prove. Having lots of rules isn't actually a problem; finding the ones you want are.



Because the more similar two things are, the more important the infinitesimal differences become!

I feel like this should be another one of those forum laws, like the one bearing your namesake.


I like the additional skills. You can be hard to see but easy to hear without having to ask the DM. You can have keen ears but not keen eyes, and searching is hands on. It's a subtlety that's lost when any character by default is equally skilled at both of them.

I'd rather apply penalties to those specific situations when they come up, than to have every character require twice as many points to be able to hide properly in most circumstances, and three times as many to be good at finding things.

[Nifft]

I like the additional skills. You can be hard to see but easy to hear without having to ask the DM. You can have keen ears but not keen eyes, and searching is hands on. It's a subtlety that's lost when any character by default is equally skilled at both of them.

What I do is combine the skills bought, but list out bonuses & penalties separately.

I do the same thing for Athletics (the skill) vs. Jump / Climb / Swim (the checks).

House rules add a few traits which give you a malus to one check type -- that's your tool for being bad at Listen but good at Spot (you have ranks in Perception, but also you are "Hard of Hearing", for example).

[Kurald Galain]

It's not 10%, it's 10 per cent points. Huge difference. The percentile depends on your original chance to hit; -10pp for when you need 15+ normally is a 33% reduction, while -10pp when you need 3+ is about 11% reduction. Thus the better your to hit relative to ACs you face, the lower impact the reduction.

Dude, you really need to run the numbers before you post something like that.

Suppose you do 10 damage per hit. One attack that hits on a 15+ (or a 30% chance) gives a DPR of 0.3 * 10 + 0.05 * 0.3 * 10 = 3.15
If instead you use flurry or TWF, you need a 17+ to hit (20% chance) but you get two attacks, so your DPR is (0.2 * 10 + 0.05 * 0.2 * 10) * 2 = 4.2.

So in your example, flurry wins.

[icefractal]

The fact that it has the d20pfsrd. And that, being in print and having an ongoing presence, it's a lot easier to find players for. But mainly the SRD.

Heck, I've been trying to get people to use PF for optimization challenges here. I think it'd be good for two reasons:
1) Link directly to the feat/item/whatever you're talking about, rather than making people search through books (which they may not have), or use websites that must not be named.
2) More new territory to explore. 3.5 discussions often end up with the same familiar tricks brought out each time.

Paizo's design philosophy - not my fave. But as with 3.5, there's some gold among the chaff, possibly by accident.

[Eldariel]

Dude, you really need to run the numbers before you post something like that.

Suppose you do 10 damage per hit. One attack that hits on a 15+ (or a 30% chance) gives a DPR of 0.3 * 10 + 0.05 * 0.3 * 10 = 3.15
If instead you use flurry or TWF, you need a 17+ to hit (20% chance) but you get two attacks, so your DPR is (0.2 * 10 + 0.05 * 0.2 * 10) * 2 = 4.2.

So in your example, flurry wins.

The ****? I just pointed out why the difference between percentages and percent points is important. I couldn't give a rat's ass about random average damage numbers at random accuracies; it's the principle I wished to highlight.

[Psyren]

The fact that it has the d20pfsrd. And that, being in print and having an ongoing presence, it's a lot easier to find players for. But mainly the SRD.

Heck, I've been trying to get people to use PF for optimization challenges here. I think it'd be good for two reasons:
1) Link directly to the feat/item/whatever you're talking about, rather than making people search through books (which they may not have), or use websites that must not be named.
2) More new territory to explore. 3.5 discussions often end up with the same familiar tricks brought out each time.

Paizo's design philosophy - not my fave. But as with 3.5, there's some gold among the chaff, possibly by accident.

I believe that PF optimization challenges are less popular because PF (a) has a lower ceiling and (b) is geared more to {class 20} builds and prepackaged themes via archetypes, than 3.5's buffet-style of 3 levels here, 4 levels there, and a template to accomplish an objective. Which I don't mind at all (and vastly prefer for actually playing) but recognize that it's not as conducive to theory and discussion

[Gnaeus]

System wise, there's not much difference. I probably prefer PF, but the changes are trivial to my gaming experience. There are things I can do easier in 3.5, and things I can do easier in PF. But it's probably +/- 5% in gameplay.

The PFSRD is the best innovation in gaming since I started playing in 1983. By far. Hands down. If I see someone dragging their box of 3.5 books around con, I will be forced to mock them unmercifully. The 3.5 equivalents aren't licensed, don't update, and suck. Of course you could buy 50 PDFs. But you are still stuck playing (which book is this feat in). Pfsrd is searchable. Legal. Contains complete rules text and generally errata. My 11 year old can pick up her pad and read all the options for her Druid, then read her spell list in one place.

Oh, did I mention my 11 year old? She had a great time in PFS and cheesegrinder play this year at con. She wants to play more PF. I asked her if she would prefer to play 5e, because it's easier. She said she likes the customizability of PF. And oh look, it looks like there's half a dozen PFS groups in my city eager for new players. I could find her 5e groups easily. But not 3.5 ones.

PF is a living gaming system. Publishing new content. Bringing new fans into hobby. 3.5 is a dead one, not even well supported by its own publishers.

So, if you want to build a fort out of books and play a game with no real preference about new material, flip a coin, there's no difference. But if you want to play a growing system with new players, PF wins by far.

[ericgrau]

The great thing is actually that they didn't change much and that it continues support for 3.5 with new content. Yes, they didn't really fix anything either.

[Gnaeus]

I believe that PF optimization challenges are less popular because PF (a) has a lower ceiling and (b) is geared more to {class 20} builds and prepackaged themes via archetypes, than 3.5's buffet-style of 3 levels here, 4 levels there, and a template to accomplish an objective. Which I don't mind at all (and vastly prefer for actually playing) but recognize that it's not as conducive to theory and discussion

The Cheesegrinder begs to differ. I think we are at about 8 years of tournament level PF optimization, and new tricks come up each year. You want a buffet? Instead of taking a 1 level fighter dip, I'm choosing between 2 dozen one level fighter dips. I find PF opti fu just as conducive to multiclass martials with levels in 4 classes with 6 templates and racial options.

[Psyren]

System wise, there's not much difference. I probably prefer PF, but the changes are trivial to my gaming experience. There are things I can do easier in 3.5, and things I can do easier in PF. But it's probably +/- 5% in gameplay.

The PFSRD is the best innovation in gaming since I started playing in 1983. By far. Hands down. If I see someone dragging their box of 3.5 books around con, I will be forced to mock them unmercifully. The 3.5 equivalents aren't licensed, don't update, and suck. Of course you could buy 50 PDFs. But you are still stuck playing (which book is this feat in). Pfsrd is searchable. Legal. Contains complete rules text and generally errata. My 11 year old can pick up her pad and read all the options for her Druid, then read her spell list in one place.

Oh, did I mention my 11 year old? She had a great time in PFS and cheesegrinder play this year at con. She wants to play more PF. I asked her if she would prefer to play 5e, because it's easier. She said she likes the customizability of PF. And oh look, it looks like there's half a dozen PFS groups in my city eager for new players. I could find her 5e groups easily. But not 3.5 ones.

PF is a living gaming system. Publishing new content. Bringing new fans into hobby. 3.5 is a dead one, not even well supported by its own publishers.

So, if you want to build a fort out of books and play a game with no real preference about new material, flip a coin, there's no difference. But if you want to play a growing system with new players, PF wins by far.

Your 11 year old sounds awesome.


The Cheesegrinder begs to differ.

The what?

[Chronikoce]

I tend to bounce back and forth in terms of actual game play. I've been the DM in a long running 3.P game, played and dm'd 3.5, and played/dm in PF.

On the DM side I prefer pathfinder. The srd is too good to make me want to go back to diving through monster manuals.

On the player side it depends. If spheres of power is allowed then I'm 100% on board with pathfinder. If it's not allowed then I can go either way but I usually prefer 3.5 because I'm more familiar with fun build paths.

In reality though, I'm playing the system I can get a group for.

[edathompson2]

This thread is a rant/change-my-mind one.

I'd heard people talk wonders about PF and how it's so much better than 3.5 and after many years I decided to give it a try.

Turns out, it's still just as broken as 3.5, except much more boring. The designers were so preocupied with not breaking the game (and failing spectacluarly at it) that they made most options super weak.

None of the BIG problems with 3.5 were fixed. The weak classes are still weak to the point they had to re-release 3 of the core ones, which are OK now, but still outclassed by many others. And what about all the others?

Strong classes continue to be game-breakingly strong (lol at Diviners, wth were they thinking!?), except neat spells were nerfed to oblivion (Mind-blank, Forcecage) and really strong spells, spells so strong that you'd you'd get weird looks from the table if not picked at the first level they're available, weren't touched (Fly, Invisibility, Teleport, to name a few). And don't even get me started on how the Druid is STILL the most ridiculous class ever conceived.

Speaking of spells, what's with Mythic spells? They are litterally the stuff myths are created upon, and yet, I was looking through them to see if there was a spell that could be used to work large parts of a terrain, and I came across this one "Terraform" spell. If you don't know this spell, don't look it up just yet. What do you think a Lv 7, Mythic spell, called "TERRAFORM" does? Why if you guessed that it lets you waste 4% of your WBL every fortnight to live in a slightly damper climate bubble the size of a big house, then you're in luck! You should also reevaluate your concept of terraforming, but you're in luck!

I've already complained about this, but way too many niches were left untouched. 3.5 was far from perfect and had plenty of useless niche classes, but PF just doesn't care. There's no Healer class (great for NPCs and Cohorts), no maneuvers or psionics (except for 3rd party), no half-decent gish that can cast while hitting (looking at you, Magus), no class based on creating it's own equipment (like Incarnum users and Artificers to a lesser extent), no 9th level caster that isn't Tier 1 or 2, this list goes on.

I'm not saying 3.5 is the epitome of Table top RPGs cuz it's far from it, but I fail to see how PF is any better. It fixed basically nothing and removed a ton of options

I've never had a problem with 3.5. I've run it 15 years. 4 separate campaigns. 3 from 1st level through epic levels. A system is only as good as the DM running it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Some folks around here hate Paizo with the fury of a thousand suns and consider any mechanics they designed to be tainted by association, regardless of applicability to their campaigns.

Best guess is because people in general follow the train of thought that "I don't like" means "it is bad." I do not like Pathfinder because they made some critical design decisions that I do not like. Are those decisions bad? For most, objectively no and the rest I cannot say. Is Pathfinder a bad system? No. It is quite functional and well tended by Paizo, I just do not like it.

I also do not like these threads that pitch a fit because someone does not like Pathfinder just as I do not like the ones that sit and trumpet how much better it is. Pathfinder is a system that is similar to 3.5 DND, about as well designed but dramatically better maintained. Use one, the other, both, or cherry pick as desired.

[Guizonde]

Best guess is because people in general follow the train of thought that "I don't like" means "it is bad." I do not like Pathfinder because they made some critical design decisions that I do not like. Are those decisions bad? For most, objectively no and the rest I cannot say. Is Pathfinder a bad system? No. It is quite functional and well tended by Paizo, I just do not like it.

I also do not like these threads that pitch a fit because someone does not like Pathfinder just as I do not like the ones that sit and trumpet how much better it is. Pathfinder is a system that is similar to 3.5 DND, about as well designed but dramatically better maintained. Use one, the other, both, or cherry pick as desired.

how to start a flame war in 7 words:

"i don't like the d20 system."

while true, i still play it because i don't play for the system, but the story. i prefer pathfinder's ergonomics as stated by a lot of people more knowledgeable, the srd is a boon. i quite like dnd fluff (i'm more familiar with it), but i still don't like playing the system. my d20's hate me, the feats and character builds take forever for me to do properly, i feel limited because it's hard to think outside the box in that system. is the d20 system bad? no, of course not. will i play a dnd or pf game if asked? depends on the people. a one-shot with random people? no. not worth the effort. a silly campaign with people i appreciate? "what role do you need filled and when?" is my standard answer.

we're living in a golden age of pen and paper. and yet we still focus on the negatives and spit venom. edition wars are as stupid as system wars (except for fatal, rahowa, and vtnl that are objectively badly designed, to say the least).

live and let live...

[CharonsHelper]

we're living in a golden age of pen and paper. and yet we still focus on the negatives and spit venom. edition wars are as stupid as system wars (except for fatal, rahowa, and vtnl that are objectively badly designed, to say the least).

I disagree! Because of that, I think that you are a bad person and that you should feel bad! :belkar:

[Guizonde]

I disagree! Because of that, I think that you are a bad person and that you should feel bad! :belkar:

that's the spirit!! :elan:

[Psyren]

I also do not like these threads that pitch a fit because someone does not like Pathfinder

I have literally never seen that thread. Plenty that complain, sure, but zero that open with "Like my favorite system immediately (or else)!"


just as I do not like the ones that sit and trumpet how much better it is. Pathfinder is a system that is similar to 3.5 DND, about as well designed but dramatically better maintained. Use one, the other, both, or cherry pick as desired.

I think it's better in some ways and worse in others. Speaking personally, I'm more likely to bring it up in the cases where it is better, because usually I'm helping someone with a problem.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Both have become fairly rare. Pathfinder and 3.5 advice in cross threads happens; that is normal.

[Nifft]

I disagree! Because of that, I think that you are a bad person and that you should feel bad! :belkar:

But what if he's correct AND ALSO a bad person who ought to feel bad?

== == ==

Anyway, I remember being really excited about Pathfinder. I remember reading the Trailblazer design doc and thinking how cool it was that they'd been re-designing from the bottom up.

The final product was disappointing in a lot of ways. I liked the ideas behind the new subsystems like CMB / CMD, but I feel like they didn't go far enough in most cases. The spellcasting system got some attention, but I feel like they didn't go far enough.

The would design a better balance mechanism (e.g. no XP cost, only wealth) and then throw in a way to circumvent that balance mechanism (e.g. the Blood Money spell). I mean, we knew paying ability damage for boosted spellcasting was broken thanks to Tainted Scholar. That ought to have been well-known, or at least available to researchers who were thinking about the new mechanics. Instead, it's one of the same mistakes 3.5e made, just with the serial numbers filed off.

If I want to DM a 3.5e game or a Pathfinder game, I still need to sit down and figure out what is allowed. Both games come with a mountain of garbage options that need to be sifted through. The main difference is that Pathfinder's mountain of garbage is larger, and it's growing every day. There are probably some new diamonds in there, too, amongst the new garbage -- but 3.5e comes pre-sorted, well-analyzed, and with the CharOp analysis in hand, I've got a really solid foundation upon which to write homebrew & house rules.

Basically: I can't trust Pathfinder any more than I could trust 3.5e. Any new option allowed implies analysis work on my part as a DM.

5e actually gave me a base system that I can trust (mostly). For all that I loved the complexity of 3.5e, it's a lot of work. Pathfinder is also a lot of work.

If you want me to learn your new system, please make it cost me less work.

[Pugwampy]

Some folks around here hate Paizo with the fury of a thousand suns and consider any mechanics they designed to be tainted by association, regardless of applicability to their campaigns.


Thats how i feel about 4th edition . I wont give 5th edition any time because i can detect THE TAINT . WOTC failed me . Paizo restored my faith in humanity


PF and 3.5 are so similar how did Paizo not get sued for copyright infringement ? Can you imagine the nerds having at it in court or trying to explain the game to a non gaming jury ? :smallbiggrin:

[EldritchWeaver]

PF and 3.5 are so similar how did Paizo not get sued for copyright infringement ? Can you imagine the nerds having at it in court or trying to explain the game to a non gaming jury ? :smallbiggrin:

3.5 was partially published under the Open Gaming License which allows derivatives like Pathfinder. The rest is basically that you can't protect mechanics, only the particular expressions. Meaning it is completely legal to design a game clone, where you write the texts yourselves, but otherwise includes the mechanics 1:1.

[Florian]

Thats how i feel about 4th edition . I wont give 5th edition any time because i can detect THE TAINT . WOTC failed me . Paizo restored my faith in humanity

This is a reaction I will never really understand. We now have 17 years of constant and permanent complaints about certain things that people think are wrong with the d20 system, things that apparently bother fewer people at their actual tables but now are somehow treated like holy cows.

It should be pretty obvious that WotC 3E could not progress in any meaningful way, not without a very hard reset. The OGL also prevented moving some of the more popular subsystems like Bo9S into core by being created in such a way as to preserve the PHB content for eternity.

A 4E had to come and be drastically different than 3E to kill the holy cows. While it turned out to be an interesting game system, it´s just not hitting my personal taste. Tried it, did some of the Encounter seasons, then sold of my books and stayed with PF.
What I don´t get is how and why people act like they´ve been "betrayed" by WotC or that the company somehow "killed" or "tainted" D&D.

We just had Starfinder come out and that went to town with a tomahawk on basic d20: No iterative attacks, no partial spell casters, no spells above level 6.... That didn't´t produce the same kind of reaction, quite the contrary.

[Seto]

Thats how i feel about 4th edition . I wont give 5th edition any time because i can detect THE TAINT . WOTC failed me . Paizo restored my faith in humanity


PF and 3.5 are so similar how did Paizo not get sued for copyright infringement ? Can you imagine the nerds having at it in court or trying to explain the game to a non gaming jury ? :smallbiggrin:

Just wanted to say your pseudonym gives me gaming PTSD ^^

[Krazzman]

This is a reaction I will never really understand. We now have 17 years of constant and permanent complaints about certain things that people think are wrong with the d20 system, things that apparently bother fewer people at their actual tables but now are somehow treated like holy cows.

It should be pretty obvious that WotC 3E could not progress in any meaningful way, not without a very hard reset. The OGL also prevented moving some of the more popular subsystems like Bo9S into core by being created in such a way as to preserve the PHB content for eternity.

A 4E had to come and be drastically different than 3E to kill the holy cows. While it turned out to be an interesting game system, it´s just not hitting my personal taste. Tried it, did some of the Encounter seasons, then sold of my books and stayed with PF.
What I don´t get is how and why people act like they´ve been "betrayed" by WotC or that the company somehow "killed" or "tainted" D&D.


My hate for 4e is basically the fault of the guy introducing it. It had a more WoW-gamey feel than what we were used to and thanks to not really having the chance to read the rules both games I was in were pretty bad and unfun, for me at least.

But yes. A hard reset was the economical best course of action. Finding all the flaws and thinking up different solutions to them and then seeing if that would even fix it.


We just had Starfinder come out and that went to town with a tomahawk on basic d20: No iterative attacks, no partial spell casters, no spells above level 6.... That didn't´t produce the same kind of reaction, quite the contrary.

Star Wars Saga Edition had no iteratives (at least not that I know off, there were some builds where you had multiple attacks per round but nothing like iteratives). As well as having only one "Magic" Class that had a limited amount of "spells" per combat.
Limiting Spells might just be acceptes as it is not "Pathfinder in space" but more a "Space Opera game similar in a few aspects as Pathfinder". As I have come to see it a lot of times: Psionics are far easier accepted in "Space Opera" Games than "Fantasy" whilst magic is widely accepted even in games set in futuristic settings.

[Gnaeus]

The what?

The Cheesegrinder is an annual event at Dragoncon based on building the strongest rules legal character you can and playing in non-stop random, over CRed rooms designed to kill characters until you die. When a PC dies a bell rings and a new player is seated. It was originally 3.5 but shifted to PF about 8 years ago. Things can get banned, but it's bragging rights for the player who found the banned item. I assure you competitive optimization is very much a living thing in PF. This year I taught them about the decoy ring.

[Psyren]

I think banning the individual snafus of PF, like Blood Money and Sacred Geometry, is rather easy. Doing the same in 3.5 is more difficult because the exploits are so much more pervasive.


The Cheesegrinder is an annual event at Dragoncon based on building the strongest rules legal character you can and playing in non-stop random, over CRed rooms designed to kill characters until you die. When a PC dies a bell rings and a new player is seated. It was originally 3.5 but shifted to PF about 8 years ago. Things can get banned, but it's bragging rights for the player who found the banned item. I assure you competitive optimization is very much a living thing in PF. This year I taught them about the decoy ring.

That's cool to hear about, but my overall point was that the ceiling is lower in PF. Which actually might make that competition even more fun since people wouldn't be trying to go in with Cindy or Emerald Legion or something.

[Florian]

The Cheesegrinder is an annual event at Dragoncon based on building the strongest rules legal character you can and playing in non-stop random, over CRed rooms designed to kill characters until you die. When a PC dies a bell rings and a new player is seated. It was originally 3.5 but shifted to PF about 8 years ago. Things can get banned, but it's bragging rights for the player who found the banned item. I assure you competitive optimization is very much a living thing in PF. This year I taught them about the decoy ring.

The original post that led to this tangent of the discussion was about how exactly the optimization culture has changed between 3,5E and PF and how fewer PF players are willing to participate in a 3E competition.

I think it´s become obvious that while optimization is a thing, it changed and happens more within the boundary of the system and with a certain respect for the fluff instead of the purely mechanical thing that 3E turned into.

I mean, how often do we discuss something like Snowbluffs Archer Cleric? When was the last time someone went looking to recreate Pun-Pun using PF? Does anyone still care for that level of system abuse? We can have some heated discussion about Fighters killing Pit Fiends, but we´re still talking about the damn Fighter class and not going over to the topic of Clerics being better at it. That changed.

[Eldariel]

The original post that led to this tangent of the discussion was about how exactly the optimization culture has changed between 3,5E and PF and how fewer PF players are willing to participate in a 3E competition.

I think it´s become obvious that while optimization is a thing, it changed and happens more within the boundary of the system and with a certain respect for the fluff instead of the purely mechanical thing that 3E turned into.

I mean, how often do we discuss something like Snowbluffs Archer Cleric? When was the last time someone went looking to recreate Pun-Pun using PF? Does anyone still care for that level of system abuse? We can have some heated discussion about Fighters killing Pit Fiends, but we´re still talking about the damn Fighter class and not going over to the topic of Clerics being better at it. That changed.

I think that's mostly just everyone knowing that stuff already. Little reason to talk about stuff that hasn't really meaningfully changed for about 12 years. That and the fact that high level play is less supported and common making the problems less visible to an untrained eye.

[Psyren]

The original post that led to this tangent of the discussion was about how exactly the optimization culture has changed between 3,5E and PF and how fewer PF players are willing to participate in a 3E competition.

I think it´s become obvious that while optimization is a thing, it changed and happens more within the boundary of the system and with a certain respect for the fluff instead of the purely mechanical thing that 3E turned into.

I mean, how often do we discuss something like Snowbluffs Archer Cleric? When was the last time someone went looking to recreate Pun-Pun using PF? Does anyone still care for that level of system abuse? We can have some heated discussion about Fighters killing Pit Fiends, but we´re still talking about the damn Fighter class and not going over to the topic of Clerics being better at it. That changed.

Exactly.


I think that's mostly just everyone knowing that stuff already. Little reason to talk about stuff that hasn't really meaningfully changed for about 12 years. That and the fact that high level play is less supported and common making the problems less visible to an untrained eye.

It has less to do with their visibility and more that they simply don't matter/far fewer people care. How trained the eyes are is irrelevant when only a small minority bothers to even look.

[Demonique]

Just to re-iterate what others have said.
PF is great because:
It's not 4e,
It's not 5e.
It's still being produced.
It's (mostly) open source material.

I'm more proud of my PF character builds than my 3.5 ones (even the Ponyfinder Monk / Paladin)

-Demi-

[Wartex1]

I think PF also has a strength in that it's easier to build what you want since you can just start from the base class archetypes instead of sifting through hundreds of PrC's with non-indicative names.

[Kurald Galain]

I think PF also has a strength in that it's easier to build what you want since you can just start from the base class archetypes instead of sifting through hundreds of PrC's with non-indicative names.

Yes. Plus, archetypes come online at level 1, whereas prestige classes tend to wait until level 6 to 9 (which may well be where your campaign ends).

[Florian]

I think that's mostly just everyone knowing that stuff already. Little reason to talk about stuff that hasn't really meaningfully changed for about 12 years. That and the fact that high level play is less supported and common making the problems less visible to an untrained eye.

I think the main point is that the player base is divided by either having or absolutely not having an interesting in high level, high power play using d20, with next to no overlap.

that has less to do with a "trained eye" but rather with a disinterest to cater to such a small minority.


non-indicative names.

Have you considered playing a small medium at large today? I heard they´re a huge thing.

[RoboEmperor]

I think PF also has a strength in that it's easier to build what you want since you can just start from the base class archetypes instead of sifting through hundreds of PrC's with non-indicative names.

This is incorrect. Often times the only way you can get what you want is through combinations of class features across multiple PrCs, so if what you want is not a pre-built 20 level class in PF, you're out of luck.

[Kurald Galain]

This is incorrect. Often times the only way you can get what you want is through combinations of class features across multiple PrCs, so if what you want is not a pre-built 20 level class in PF, you're out of luck.

"Often"? Really? How about showing us some examples.

[Wartex1]

The thing is with Pathfinder, you can Archetype and Multiclass.

And Archetypes tend to have better names. I can figure out what a Phantom Thief is, but what the hell is a Scorpion Heritor? I mean, obviously it has something to do with Scorpions, but is it a mage, a warrior, a thief?

I know it's for Rogues though. It was just an example.

[RoboEmperor]

"Often"? Really? How about showing us some examples.

I don't play the standard archetypes, so for me it is always, not often.

It's hard to give examples because everything I do is 3.5 exclusive. PF has no equivalents, so just by naming one PrC I can already say PF can't compare due to not having it.

Wizard in full armor wielding a semi-automatic heavy crossbow and casting spells while shooting arrows with 0% ASF and not lose any spellcasting level. Couldn't achieve 0% ASF without dipping in a LOT of classes. It's been a while but it included some dragon slaying PrC to get feat prerequisites for Spellsword on top of other stuff. Pretty sure you can't get a 0% ASF wizard who shoots arrows like a machine gun while wearing full plate in PF. Still spell does not count unless you can drop it to +0 for all spells. And metamagic rod of still spell also don't count since they don't exist and have to be homebrewed.

I also had this necrotic cyst master that used summon elemental reserve feat + necrotic eruption to spread tumors and chain spell necrotic eruption or necrotic tumor as follow up. Fatespinner was essential for boosting my save DC and rerolling those who made the save for encysting. I don't think I had incantatrix in this build, but I believe I had a cleric dip for DMM. This is before our table learned of the errata regarding DMM. Granted this build is more focused on mix-matching feats from several books rather than PrCs.

My Nar Demonbinder build in my sig is designed to obtain the earliest possible lesser planar binding and intentionally gimp my higher level spellcasting to completely pigeonhole myself to relying on planar binding exclusively. Afaik PF doesn't have accelerated independent casting classes so PF can't do that. I wanted Surge of Fortune on my Nar Demonbinder (cleric exclusive spell) so instead of going some kind of theurge build, I simply got 2 levels of wyrm wizard. Don't think PF has an equivalent for wyrm wizard's spell research class feature. I also wanted to enter cosmic descryer PrC a.s.a.p. and grab Epic Spellcasting as well, so I added Chameleon for a free floating bonus feat to help me with that in epic levels. I wanted to boost my planar binding save DC so I got fatespinner. Granted this build is sifting through PrCs for optimization/power, but my point is still valid. I wanted a charisma based caster (not INT or WIS) that got planar binding a.s.a.p. (Not sorcerer's atrocious 1 level delay), got that super awesome cleric spell that made planar binding 100% success chance, and grabbed the ultimate planar binding epic PrC a.s.a.p. instead of waiting all the way to level 25, and the only way I achieved this is by combining a ton of PrCs.

I remember trying to cram Shadowcraft Mage, Planar Binding, and Construct Crafting all in one. Excels at none of them but at least can do all of them. IIRC I was trying to bypass the charisma check in planar binding, so i went some kind of charm master sorcerer. I remember dipping in mind bender for telepathy to bypass planar bound creatures blocking their ears to stop language-dependent spells from being cast on them like Geas. There was a lot of dips to bypass creature's defenses, it's a really old build so I can't really remember, but there were at least 5 prcs in this build.

Another shadowcraft mage, I was trying to make some kind of shadow material construct master, so i dipped in Wyrm Wizard for True Creation to freely create permanent shadow materials for golems. I forgotten the other tricks I had to make this build awesome.

I'd list a lot more, but it gets redundant mainly because I play planar binders, summoners, construct masters, and shadow craft mages exclusively, but still my point is valid. I was not interested in playing the standard archetypes and the only way I was able to play the characters I wanted were 3.5's PrCs.

[Wartex1]

Quite a few of those you can't do in PF for balance reasons.

Especially DMM and armored full-casting Wizards.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's hard to give examples because everything I do is 3.5 exclusive. PF has no equivalents, so just by naming one PrC I can already say PF can't compare due to not having it.
Yeah, saying "Pathfinder fails because it doesn't have this specific class/feat/spell/whatever that was in 3.5" is kind of dumb. I can just as easily say that 3.5 fails because I can't play a goblin with bombs, potions (but not actual spells), and a mount. It's a different game. You have to go more general-- "heavily armored wizard with a crossbow," "near pure summoner," that sort of thing.

[RoboEmperor]

Quite a few of those you can't do in PF for balance reasons.

... armored full-casting Wizards.

You're kidding right? It takes so much resources to bring that ASF down to 0% it's never worth it. That and spending money on boosting AC is also not worth it.

[RoboEmperor]

Yeah, saying "Pathfinder fails because it doesn't have this specific class/feat/spell/whatever that was in 3.5" is kind of dumb. I can just as easily say that 3.5 fails because I can't play a goblin with bombs, potions (but not actual spells), and a mount. It's a different game. You have to go more general-- "heavily armored wizard with a crossbow," "near pure summoner," that sort of thing.

I was trying to illustrate that I needed to cross multiple PrCs to achieve the character I wanted and such a character is impossible in PF due to the lack of PrCs.

Wizard ASF to 0% could only be achieved through crossing multiple PrCs.

Planar Binding was more about specialization options, doing things better than a straight 20 wizard. I want my build to say my character is a planar binding specialist, not a wizard who also does planar binding on the side.

I understand I come off a bit aggressive on the internet, but you are absolutely correct. PF is simply a different game, lower skill cap and power ceiling. I was just saying the complexity of 100s of PrCs is better for people who want to be creative, original, and non-standard, and PF can't build these build "easier" or "more simply". In other words PF didn't make the game simpler/easier without taking out options, they made it simpler/easier by taking out options.

[Wartex1]

You're kidding right? It takes so much resources to bring that ASF down to 0% it's never worth it. That and spending money on boosting AC is also not worth it.

Your point being?

Wizards can already do enough as is. If you want a heavy armor Wizard, sacrifices need to be made.

Plus you can do it with Hell Knight classes, feats, and Mithril plus Ultimate Equipment in PF IIRC.

[Nifft]

In other words PF didn't make the game simpler/easier without taking out options, they made it simpler/easier by taking out options.

They also added some new categories of options, like Archetypes and Favored Class Bonus, many of which contain traps that you need a whit of system mastery to avoid.

If you suffer from analysis paralysis, Pathfinder can be as bad as 3.5e.

[Doctor Awkward]

...
Pathfinder fixed a massive design issue with 3.5: many classes gave you little to no reason to stay past the minimum possible number of levels. This also meant that a lot of characters were spells slapped on a chassis, very little flavor to them. Pathfinder makes sure that every class has interesting features beyond just chassis and spells....


That's not a bug. That's a feature.

3.0/3.5 is, and was always intended to be, a modular character design system where you build your character to meet a concept, unlike previous editions of D&D where you forced your character to conform to it's classes given abilities.

[Elkad]

Dude, you really need to run the numbers before you post something like that.

Suppose you do 10 damage per hit. One attack that hits on a 15+ (or a 30% chance) gives a DPR of 0.3 * 10 + 0.05 * 0.3 * 10 = 3.15
If instead you use flurry or TWF, you need a 17+ to hit (20% chance) but you get two attacks, so your DPR is (0.2 * 10 + 0.05 * 0.2 * 10) * 2 = 4.2.

So in your example, flurry wins.

You conveniently ignored the fact that Flurry or TWF means using smaller weapons and smaller str bonuses.
Basic 18str Greatsword is 11 damage (2d6+6). 2 Shortswords is 11 damage total. (1d6+4 and 1d6+2).
And that's assuming a feat for TWF, and no Power Attack for the greatsword.

There is a reason I've houseruled TWF to be -0/-0 with 2 light weapons. And they still have to pay a feat tax, pay double for enchanting their gear, plus get Pounce somehow.

[Krazzman]

I don't play the standard archetypes, so for me it is always, not often.

It's hard to give examples because everything I do is 3.5 exclusive. PF has no equivalents, so just by naming one PrC I can already say PF can't compare due to not having it.

Wizard in full armor wielding a semi-automatic heavy crossbow and casting spells while shooting arrows with 0% ASF and not lose any spellcasting level. Couldn't achieve 0% ASF without dipping in a LOT of classes. It's been a while but it included some dragon slaying PrC to get feat prerequisites for Spellsword on top of other stuff. Pretty sure you can't get a 0% ASF wizard who shoots arrows like a machine gun while wearing full plate in PF. Still spell does not count unless you can drop it to +0 for all spells. And metamagic rod of still spell also don't count since they don't exist and have to be homebrewed.

Fighter1/Psychic19 with the standard Crossbow feats, preferably Half-Elven to grab Martial/Exotic Weapon prof through racial traits for your crossbow.

Or look up the muscle wizardry guide.

If I want to make a Fullplate wearing caster, I would go with Psychic.

[Kurald Galain]

Basic 18str Greatsword is 11 damage (2d6+6). 2 Shortswords is 11 damage total. (1d6+4 and 1d6+2).
And that's assuming a feat for TWF, and no Power Attack for the greatsword.
Yeah, and so what?

The point wasn't that TWF is the best option ever. The point is that for certain builds, TWF or flurry is better than single attacks (to counter Shurick's and Eldariel's claim that TWF'ing is so inaccurate that you'll never be able to hit anything).

It helps if you read the context of a statement before responding :smallbiggrin:

[Swaoeaeieu]

That's cool to hear about, but my overall point was that the ceiling is lower in PF. Which actually might make that competition even more fun since people wouldn't be trying to go in with Cindy or Emerald Legion or something.

My apologies for the off topicness and perhaps misinterpertation of your post.
but i was under the impression the Emerald legion was a 3.5 build, does it have an equivalent in pathfinder?

[Knaight]

There's a few small changes around skills that people like that haven't been mentioned - the change in how cross class skills work that removed variable skill point to points in a skill pricing, retroactive skill points for intelligence boosts making it easier to make high level characters, etc. If you want a game that's a lot like D&D, and comes in just under 3.5 in desired complexity Pathfinder isn't a bad option.


Yeah, saying "Pathfinder fails because it doesn't have this specific class/feat/spell/whatever that was in 3.5" is kind of dumb. I can just as easily say that 3.5 fails because I can't play a goblin with bombs, potions (but not actual spells), and a mount. It's a different game. You have to go more general-- "heavily armored wizard with a crossbow," "near pure summoner," that sort of thing.
Digging back through the thread, that's not quite what's being said. It's more that Pathfinder has a small set of characters that can be built fairly intuitively and a much larger set of characters that can be built but that you have to do some weird stuff to pull off and that requires a fair amount of system mastery. That's undeniably true, although it's definitely not a difference from 3.5.

I'd also expect 5e to land in that category soon enough, as it's pretty much an inevitable quirk of any system that has classes (producing the small set of characters) has multiclassing (which can easily turn into an awkward pseudo-pointbuy system that produces a larger set of characters) and that has enough material (which is where the system mastery comes in).

[Eox]

The archetype system is an interesting system overall, there's a pretty even split between "Here's something totally new" and "Here's some features from another class" that's more or less removed any reason to write Prestige Classes or multiclass in general. It's always neat to find multiple paths to a similar build, for example a nature themed paladin. Ordinarily you'd have to multiclass to get some druid abilities and ideally try to track down a prestige class that complements both classes, but in Pathfinder you're likely to find options buried in archetypes like "Paladin with Wild Shape", "Druid with Smite Evil" or even archetypes for completely different classes that hit all the points you're looking for.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There's a few small changes around skills that people like that haven't been mentioned - the change in how cross class skills work that removed variable skill point to points in a skill pricing, retroactive skill points for intelligence boosts making it easier to make high level characters, etc. If you want a game that's a lot like D&D, and comes in just under 3.5 in desired complexity Pathfinder isn't a bad option.
Eh, it's a pretty insignificant change when weighed against the sheer weight of options in a 3e type game. I think having to pick an extra feat or two cancels out most of what's gained. By the time you start doing a lot of multiclassing, you've already got enough system mastery to deal with cross-class skills.


Digging back through the thread, that's not quite what's being said. It's more that Pathfinder has a small set of characters that can be built fairly intuitively and a much larger set of characters that can be built but that you have to do some weird stuff to pull off and that requires a fair amount of system mastery. That's undeniably true, although it's definitely not a difference from 3.5.
It was an observation aimed more directly at someonenoone11's post than anything, though I do agree with your observation on class-based games.

[Elkad]

Yeah, and so what?

The point wasn't that TWF is the best option ever. The point is that for certain builds, TWF or flurry is better than single attacks (to counter Shurick's and Eldariel's claim that TWF'ing is so inaccurate that you'll never be able to hit anything).

It helps if you read the context of a statement before responding :smallbiggrin:

Except your example ISN'T better, because you erroneously used the same damage for both options. Use half damage for the TWF like you should and it looks terrible.

The only time TWF comes out ahead is if you have riders (poison, precision, etc) on the attacks that outweigh the basic damage.

[Psyren]

My apologies for the off topicness and perhaps misinterpertation of your post.
but i was under the impression the Emerald legion was a 3.5 build, does it have an equivalent in pathfinder?

If you read the context, we were talking about optimization in PF vs. 3.5.



The only time TWF comes out ahead is if you have riders (poison, precision, etc) on the attacks that outweigh the basic damage.

Literally every class that should be TWFing does have these, so what's your point?

[Swaoeaeieu]

If you read the context, we were talking about optimization in PF vs. 3.5.


my mistake then. sorry about that

[RedMage125]

All the fun stuff is in 3.5. Due to legal issues PF can't make their own versions of them, and due to PF DMs crying about how OP 3.5 don't expect many people to mix them.

A lot of people say giving the base class new stuff so they stay 20 base class is a good thing. That is one of the most weird reasons I see. Mixing PrCs is how you get unique creative characters, if everyone goes the standard 20 base class exclusively then you know how simple/conventional/uncreative a system is.

Compare a 20 wizard, with a 5 wizard mixed with 3-10 PrCs out of 100s. One is simply a wizard, while the other has virtually infinite variations meaning each character is unique and to the player's exact taste.

So simply put, Pathfinder is "easy mode" or "simple mode". You just go 20 in a base class and that's the ceiling for the game, no mix-matching PrCs, no synergizing/optimizing PrCs to play into their strengths/weaknesses, no using PrCs to specialize the thing you want to do like dipping wyrm wizard for specific cleric/druid spells that would vastly improve what you specialize in. Just go 20 in a base class and that's the end of the build. I have no idea why people keep praising this. I rather play with Fatespinners, shadowcraft mages, geometers with tattoo'd spellbooks, Nar Demonbinders, Effigy Masters, etc. or clerics specializing in water devotion, trickery devotion, etc. instead of a wizard.

So that's what great about pathfinder, it's more simpler than 3.5, and all that stuff about still in production, staff answering ruling questions (of questionable quality), etc. What other people said.
You neglect how prevalent Archetypes are for Pathfinder classes. A character isn't just a Fighter, he's a Lore Warden (or insert whichever Clas/Archetype here). As opposed to slogging through 6-9 levels as a pedantic Fighter until you can take your Prestige Class and can now be the character you want.

From a game design perspective, if the most exciting thing about your class is when you get to stop taking levels of it in order to take something different, that speaks to a pretty major failing in the class design system, no?

personally i'm just glad the combined "hide" and "move silently" into "stealth" and "Listen" "serch" and "spot" into "perception."

Because it's reeeaaally annoying to have multiple skills for "looking around" or "not being seen"


I like the additional skills. You can be hard to see but easy to hear without having to ask the DM. You can have keen ears but not keen eyes, and searching is hands on. It's a subtlety that's lost when any character by default is equally skilled at both of them.
I quoted both of you here because this was one of my beefs with 3.5e. Even before I had ever actually been exposed to PF, one of my house rules for 3.5e (one of only like, 6) was to combine Hide and Move Silently into "Stealth". I likewise combined Listen and Spot into "Perception" (I leave Search a separate, INT-based skill, because to me, one is actively and intentionally looking for something, and the other is a chance to observe).
Zergling, you are correct that it is more REALISTIC to have separate skills. But at some point, you have to realize that this is a GAME. And sometimes realistic simulation needs to give up some ground in favor of what's more FUN. It's not very fun to max out 2 skills, and then suck at being sneaky because even though you had one good roll, a sucky 2nd roll botched it up. It's more fun to invest in one skill that's used for "sneakiness". My combination of Listen and Spot is actually just a practical response to the stealth rule. If a sneaking character is only making one skill check to be sneaky, then defenders do not get 2 rolls to perceive them.

I tend to bounce back and forth in terms of actual game play. I've been the DM in a long running 3.P game, played and dm'd 3.5, and played/dm in PF.

On the DM side I prefer pathfinder. The srd is too good to make me want to go back to diving through monster manuals.

On the player side it depends. If spheres of power is allowed then I'm 100% on board with pathfinder. If it's not allowed then I can go either way but I usually prefer 3.5 because I'm more familiar with fun build paths.

In reality though, I'm playing the system I can get a group for.

I bounce around a lot, too. I have extensive experience with 3.5e, 4e and some with 5e. I've only played Pathfinder a few times, but I liked it.

When 4e was announced, I didn't want it. But then I read the preview material (Races&Classes and Worlds&Monsters), and read the design tenants of 4e that they were working on. And I loved the ideas. When 4e came out, I can look back and admit that things seemed kind of bland at first. But by the time the PHB2 dropped the next year, the system was pretty solid. There were lots of options and customization. It felt great.

And here's the thing, having played and DMed all of them, I would STILL rather DM 4e. 4e was a DM's dream come true in terms of how fluid and simple it was to run. Just...just peachy. 2nd choice would be 5e, then 3.5e, then PF, only because I am less familiar with PF's options and which of the rules have changed between 3.5e and PF.

But in terms of my preference as a PLAYER, that's radically different. I'd rather play 5e or PF (pretty much tied for first choice), just because of the stuff I haven't gotten to try yet. Then 3.5e and THEN 4e.

It may seem hypocritical, but I never found 4e as enjoyable to play. My players always seemed to when I was DMing. Even if I asked if they preferred another system they wanted to stick with what we were doing. Or maybe my 4e DMs just weren't that good. Either way, 4e was mostly attractive to me as a DM.

[Knaight]

Eh, it's a pretty insignificant change when weighed against the sheer weight of options in a 3e type game. I think having to pick an extra feat or two cancels out most of what's gained. By the time you start doing a lot of multiclassing, you've already got enough system mastery to deal with cross-class skills.

It's not for people way into the system, but for the groups who tend to stick to core rules anyways it makes a difference.

[CharonsHelper]

The only time TWF comes out ahead is if you have riders (poison, precision, etc) on the attacks that outweigh the basic damage.

I don't know about in 3.5 (overall less static damage - but inferior two-handed Power Attack), but in Pathfinder nearly every class gets about 15-20% more DPR with TWF than going two-handed (not for the first couple levels - but increasing as you level and gain static damage), but at the cost of feats, and with greater reduction due to DR or not getting a full attack. For classes such as rogues (when getting SA) or samurai (with challenge up) the % is higher.

And that doesn't count riders such as the critical effect feats (which a TWF samurai especially should definitely be using since they get bonus to crit chance & qualify for Fighter only feats).

[rel]

"Often"? Really? How about showing us some examples.

looking over my last few 3.5 characters I see the following doods who seem to qualify:

1)
An alchemist who brews magic potions and throws them at people. Pathfinder alchemist seems like a perfect fit.

Except the pathfinder alchemist doesn't really make potions he gets wierd pseudo spells so fighting with potions exclusively isn't really tenable.

Also simple intuitive things like passing a potion off to a friend or breaking out the armoury in a tough fight and arming the whole party with your best weapons can't really happen.

In Pathfinder you don't feel like a dood who makes things you feel like just another magic user.

If you want to play the kind of alchemist who as a desperate last resort can upend his bag of goodies on an enemy and when the DM asks 'how much damage?' reply 'yes.' then you will not find it in pathfinder.

2)
Wand wizard. If you want to be jim darkmagic then you are out of luck, there simply isn't support for unsheathing a pair of tripple wand claws and having enemies respond with fear rather than mirth in pathfinder.

3)
The Doublecaster. This is a character I have made a few times over the years strives to master both arcane and divine magic and has the signiature move of casting arcane magic with one hand and divine with the other getting out 2 spells per round.

4)
The survivor. A gish that meshes a strong solo combat style with enough utility to meet most challenges. Mostly this bastard just never quits.

Throw him naked and unassisted into 20 back to back encounters with CR equal to his level and he'll probably win most of them and has enough tricks to escape the rest.

Sustain is the name of the game and the survivor plays to win.

5)
The lobster. So named because he has a lot of the mannerisms of dr Zoidberg and is also really annoying. This guy doesn't achieve very much but he is immune or at least highly resistant to pretty much everything.
usefull to have around for tripping traps and touching suspicious widgets. In combat he mostly just tries to trick the enemy into wasting their time attacking him.

[Kurald Galain]

looking over my last few 3.5 characters I see the following doods who seem to qualify:

Let's see what we can do with that in Pathfinder.

(1) I share your complaint that the alchemist's extracts don't act like potions; I've always found it poor design that they stop working in the hands of anyone else. That said, there's a discovery you can take at level 2 that fixes this (Infusion; I think that every alchemist I've seen has it).

(2) I'm really not sure what you want mechanically from this build, but anything with claw attacks that can get (e.g.) flaming on his claws seems like it should work. Add the Dazzling Display / Disheartening Display feats to literally frighten away your enemies.

(3) Empyreal sorcerer / warpriest going into mystic theurge. The warpriest's fervor ability allows you to swift-cast divine spells (starting at level 2), letting you cast arcane spells as normal. Both sides cast on wisdom, and at least one early entry trick still exists.

(4) The concept is easy, you play a Magus. Grab a random twig, use your arcane pool, and you have a +1 Flaming Shock twig; or fight unarmed if you want, that's also an option. Lots of utility spells on the Magus's list, you can get a few more from the wizard list if you want, and there's the hexcrafter archetype for added endurance.

(5) I've seen at least two builds in Pathfinder who do precisely that. One is a paladin/monk with ludicrous saving throws, the other is a fighter using defensive combat to boost AC into something unhittable. Neither deals much damage, they hinder enemies by e.g. geting in the way or tripping them.

...that was easier than I thought. Of course, for several of these you don't seem to just want a concept, but also want a top-tier build that can solo higher-level encounters with this concept. I don't see it as a drawback of the system that it is more balanced so that "I want X" is pretty easy but "I want X and it must be overpowered" is not.

[rel]

Alright, lets have a look



(1) I share your complaint that the alchemist's extracts don't act like potions; I've always found it poor design that they stop working in the hands of anyone else. That said, there's a discovery you can take at level 2 that fixes this (Infusion; I think that every alchemist I've seen has it).


the potions are still fundamentally a class feature usable x times per day. You can't stockpile a months worth of crafting to drop on someone, you don't get a boost to power whenever you score some extra loot and you don't suffer any inconvenience if you find yourself running short on money. It doesn't FEEL like crafting. Because it isn't.



(2) I'm really not sure what you want mechanically from this build, but anything with claw attacks that can get (e.g.) flaming on his claws seems like it should work. Add the Dazzling Display / Disheartening Display feats to literally frighten away your enemies.


No, you misunderstand, I want to shoot people with wands. Lots of wands. Like 3 wands. on each hand. and I want that to be effective. So effective that enemies flee in terror not because of a mechanical fear effect but because they know what is coming and don't want to face it.



(3) Empyreal sorcerer / warpriest going into mystic theurge. The warpriest's fervor ability allows you to swift-cast divine spells, letting you cast arcane spells as normal. Both sides cast on wisdom, and at least one early entry trick still exists.


sadly you can only use fervor to cast spells on yourself. cool idea though.



(4) The concept is easy, you play a Magus. Grab a random twig, use your arcane pool, and you have a +1 Flaming Shock twig. Take hexcrafter archetype for added endurance.


This does not work. Ignoring the magus' lack of good utility, the arcane pool is a very limited resource. The whole point of the survivor is sustain. The ability to keep fighting long after any other character would have succumbed.
Also, the magus does not have particularly good escape or defense options so you go down to mundane attrition even if you can deal damage reliably.
I've played a magus and in my experience they are glass cannons that burn brightly but do not burn long.



(5) I've seen at least two builds in Pathfinder who do precisely that. One is a paladin/monk with ludicrous saving throws, the other is a fighter using defensive combat to boost AC into something unhittable. Neither deals much damage, they hinder enemies by e.g. geting in the way or tripping them.


ludicrous saves / AC are nice but there are a lot of effects that bypass saves / AC so I don't think the lobster concept could survive without blanket immunities or similar esoteric defense tricks that I so far havent seen in pathfinder.


Thanks for the suggestions but I remain unconvinced of pathfinders ability to produce characters that don't conform to the predefined archetypes handed down by the games designers.

[Kurald Galain]

Alright, lets have a look
Regarding the alchemist, are you basically looking for the Brew Potion and Craft Wondrous Item feats? The alchemist class does get crafting bonuses.

For the wand wielder, the wizard discovery Staff-Like Wand seems to be what you're looking for. It won't let you hextuple-wield wands and shoot them simultaneously, but AFAIK you can't do that in 3E either.

For the survivor, you should look at the Magus's spell list again if you think it lacks utility, escape, or defense; because it has plenty of that (and in addition, it can easily add wizard spells to its list). Yes, if the only thing you do is spam Shocking Grasp then you're going to be a glass cannon; that's the most well-known Magus build but hardly the only one. There's the hexcrafter archetype for added endurance.
Here, have a guide (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?423754-Myrrh-Frankincense-and-Steel-Kurald-Galain-s-Guide-to-the-Magus).

Finally for the lobster, Pathfinder does not in fact have "a lot of effects that bypass saves / AC". But if you want, there's a barbarian/skald build that gets huge amounts of damage resistance.

[Mithril Leaf]

Alright, lets have a look

the potions are still fundamentally a class feature usable x times per day. You can't stockpile a months worth of crafting to drop on someone, you don't get a boost to power whenever you score some extra loot and you don't suffer any inconvenience if you find yourself running short on money. It doesn't FEEL like crafting. Because it isn't.

No, you misunderstand, I want to shoot people with wands. Lots of wands. Like 3 wands. on each hand. and I want that to be effective. So effective that enemies flee in terror not because of a mechanical fear effect but because they know what is coming and don't want to face it.

I feel like this is fundamentally you just exploiting the fact the artificer is a tier 0 class, and then being sad you don't have an equally OP option in Pathfinder. This is fine, because a fundamentally unbalanced game is inherently able to be more satisfying, but from a design perspective you shouldn't be able to use 6 wands or 50 potions a round.

Back on topic, I prefer Pathfinder because it has actual third party support and the writers for Third Party content are able to make all sorts of weird and fun things without the restricted first party rules. I think Paizo gets caught up in their standardized Vancian casters and refuse to rock the boat, but the fact that Dreamscarred Press, Drop Dead Studios, Radiance House, and the like produce high quality and unique mechanics is wonderful. Plus I've already seen the vast majority of 3.5 content, whereas PF is getting new stuff.

[rel]

Off topic is right. I will quickly address these last points but after this I'm going to stop responding to specific queries about my examples.


Regarding the alchemist, are you basically looking for the Brew Potion and Craft Wondrous Item feats? The alchemist class does get crafting bonuses.

Simply crafting potions or alchemicals is not enough. You have to be able to use them as effective weapons.

In pathfinder I have seen no way to do this. In 3.5 any source of bonus damage (sneak attack, skirmish, etc) allows you to make quite a respectable build.

You can also make special throwable potions in 3.5 via the Alchemist Savant PRC.

So you have a lot of cool options if you are trying to make a throws potions at people character.



For the wand wielder, the wizard discovery Staff-Like Wand seems to be what you're looking for. It won't let you hextuple-wield wands and shoot them simultaneously, but AFAIK you can't do that in 3E either.


Actually, there is a LOT of wand support in 3.5. Artificer, the Cannith Wand Adept PRC, numerous feats potential bonus damage from the extra damage source of your choice.

You can try and wield a wand as a weapon in pathfinder but from what I've seen the support and damage isn't there.



For the survivor, you should look at the Magus's spell list again if you think it lacks utility, escape, or defense; because it has plenty of that (and in addition, it can easily add wizard spells to its list). Yes, if the only thing you do is spam Shocking Grasp then you're going to be a glass cannon; that's the most well-known Magus build but hardly the only one. There's the hexcrafter archetype for added endurance.
Here, have a guide (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?423754-Myrrh-Frankincense-and-Steel-Kurald-Galain-s-Guide-to-the-Magus).

Finally for the lobster, Pathfinder does not in fact have "a lot of effects that bypass saves / AC". But if you want, there's a barbarian/skald build that gets huge amounts of damage resistance.

I've looked, I'm not convinced. The whole pathfinder design philosophy seems to be geared towards expendable resources. Pretty much everything is usable x times per day or some variation thereof.

Characters built around the idea of less overt but passive everpresent power are not catered to.


I feel like this is fundamentally you just exploiting the fact the artificer is a tier 0 class and then being sad you don't have an equally OP option in Pathfinder.

The artificer is not a tier zero class. That designation is reserved for things like cancer mage and spell to power erudite. The artificer is a tier 1 class roughly equivalent in power to the full casters.

However most of these builds (remember these are actual builds I made for actual games) are well below tier 1.

the potion thrower was in fact
rogue 1 > spellcaster (the generic class) 4 > unseen seer 2 > alchemist savant 5 unseen seer 8

Not only is there no Artificer but there is no tier 1. This build would struggle to hit tier 2 and would probably sit in the middle of tier 3 in actual play.


Back to the larger discussion, I have a question: what makes pathfinder 3rd party content better than the 3.5 3rd party content over in the homebrew forum and in other places accross the net?

[Kurald Galain]

Simply crafting potions or alchemicals is not enough. You have to be able to use them as effective weapons.
Alchemist gets a sizeable damage bonus with alchemical items. Also, underground chemist rogue can sneak attack with them.


You can try and wield a wand as a weapon in pathfinder but from what I've seen the support and damage isn't there.
I literally just pointed that out to you. Staff-Like Wand, a wizard discovery.


I've looked, I'm not convinced. The whole pathfinder design philosophy seems to be geared towards expendable resources. Pretty much everything is usable x times per day or some variation thereof.
Dude, seriously. Check out the Witch and the hexcrafter Magus, their entire point is having at-will powers. If you're saying that some option doesn't exist, you should at least LOOK if people tell you that it does.


Not only is there no Artificer but there is no tier 1. This build would struggle to hit tier 2
There we go. Your argument is not so much that options don't exist in PF (because as we've just shown, they do) but that they're overpowered in 3.5 and not in PF. You write "struggling to hit tier 2" as if that makes your character weak, when in fact it makes it stronger than 95% of the builds in the game. That an overpowered trick doesn't work any more is a feature, not a bug; most players want less tier 1 shenanigans, not more.


what makes pathfinder 3rd party content better than the 3.5 3rd party content over in the homebrew forum and in other places accross the net?
That it's in active development, and that GMs tend to allow third-party books more easily than forum homebrew.

[Psyren]

However most of these builds (remember these are actual builds I made for actual games) are well below tier 1.


The fact that you had an "actual game" where things like hextuple wielding wands and detonating 50+ alchemical items at once was okay, doesn't mean it should be an officially sanctioned system baseline. If you have the kind of playgroup that enjoys wacky stuff like that, that's what rule zero is for, go nuts and have fun.



Back to the larger discussion, I have a question: what makes pathfinder 3rd party content better than the 3.5 3rd party content over in the homebrew forum and in other places accross the net?

The developers of said content of course, like DSP and Radiance House. Not merely the quality of the content itself (though that is certainly a major factor) but that they identified a desirable niche to service and put in the legwork to actually get it playtested and published to a wide audience - rather than sticking it in some corner thread nobody will read or pouring it into a sewer like DanDwiki. If you want your homebrew to see wide adoption, you need all the above elements, not merely good design.

Where Pathfinder has the advantage is that, being still in print, it has more people actively buying books - and so, the kinds of designers capable of getting quality work in front of paying customers will direct their effort and talents there, rather than to 3.5. And whether you or anyone else thinks it's deserved or not, PF has successfully positioned itself in the eye of the gaming public as "3.75."

[EldritchWeaver]

The whole pathfinder design philosophy seems to be geared towards expendable resources. Pretty much everything is usable x times per day or some variation thereof.

Characters built around the idea of less overt but passive everpresent power are not catered to.

...

Back to the larger discussion, I have a question: what makes pathfinder 3rd party content better than the 3.5 3rd party content over in the homebrew forum and in other places accross the net?

Regarding staying power, there are 3PP systems which move towards at-will powers. Spheres of Power has a number of at-will options and in addition you can build to reduce the spell point costs to 0 for quite a few options, which otherwise would be be limited by your spell pool size. Path of War is semi-at will. It requires you to ready maneuvers, which allows them being used once per encounter. But you can spend an action to ready the expended maneuvers once more (or at least some of them). Spheres of Might streamlines this multiple expending, multiple readying into a single martial focus, which can be expended and gained once per round. Still lots of combat talents are only enhanced by expending the martial focus and can be used in a basic version at-will. In all systems, you will still find resources limited to a number of times between two rests.

What you won't find is T1 or T0 options (or at least only available with GM permission), because the developers consider T3 as the baseline the game should support out of the box. Many people enjoy games where all can be useful and don't destroy the GM's plot by accident.

[rel]

An update:

Everyone seems so adamant that pathfinder can make the characters I'm trying to make that I've decided to give making them another go.

I'm starting by trying to build a wand based striker in this thread.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536072-Making-a-wand-based-blaster-in-pathfinder

feel free to follow along / provide advice.

[exelsisxax]

An update:

Everyone seems so adamant that pathfinder can make the characters I'm trying to make that I've decided to give making them another go.

I'm starting by trying to build a wand based striker in this thread.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536072-Making-a-wand-based-blaster-in-pathfinder

feel free to follow along / provide advice.

Magus with wand-wielder, you can go delete that thread now.

Seriously, this isn't hard. As others have said many times, the character archetype is EASILY replicable with PF. The only thing that PF can't do are the inanely specific builds that have exacting mechanical requirements, because PF isn't 3.5.

[Powerdork]

Magus with wand-wielder


Wand Wielder (Su): The magus can activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when using spell combat.

Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. ... As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). ... A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

Not a blaster. Doesn't live up to thread title. Full attack + wand charge = high damage? Maybe.

[exelsisxax]

Not a blaster. Doesn't live up to thread title. Full attack + wand charge = high damage? Maybe.

His request was "wand based striker".

Base magus satisfies that. For a ranged blaster, an eldritch archer magus with wand-wielder would work, though it requires casting weaponwand or a specific interpretation of wand-wielder.

[icefractal]

For the "bag of potions" character, how are you making those and not running out of money?
If it's crafting with cost reducers, a PF character can craft for no XP, 50% cost, and 50% time right out the gate, and somewhat cheaper and 4x faster with resources in it.
If it's using free-Wishes or the like - stop, go to the corner, and think about what you've done. :P Those give you unlimited power, and claiming it's ok because you only use some of it is like claiming Pun-Pun is fine because you're just giving yourself a limited set of abilities at the moment.

For that matter though, PF does have a class that gives you unlimited potions for free. The Herbalism-Focus Druid (Healer's HB, I think) can make potions for free which last forever and can even be sold. It's pretty broken and I wouldn't be surprised if it was changed, but there it is.

[Hamste]

For the "bag of potions" character, how are you making those and not running out of money?
If it's crafting with cost reducers, a PF character can craft for no XP, 50% cost, and 50% time right out the gate, and somewhat cheaper and 4x faster with resources in it.
If it's using free-Wishes or the like - stop, go to the corner, and think about what you've done. :P Those give you unlimited power, and claiming it's ok because you only use some of it is like claiming Pun-Pun is fine because you're just giving yourself a limited set of abilities at the moment.

For that matter though, PF does have a class that gives you unlimited potions for free. The Herbalism-Focus Druid (Healer's HB, I think) can make potions for free which last forever and can even be sold. It's pretty broken and I wouldn't be surprised if it was changed, but there it is.

There is also a second level extract called alchemical allocation that lets you reuse potions. It is a bit slow though as you have to drink both the extract and potion

[Powerdork]

His request was "wand based striker".

Base magus satisfies that. For a ranged blaster, an eldritch archer magus with wand-wielder would work, though it requires casting weaponwand or a specific interpretation of wand-wielder.


This characters main role is delivering damage and it has to be good at it. What's more, every attack costs money so this character should be better at damage dealing than a build that deals damage for free.
Greatsword fighter should be doing less damage just swinging away than a potential build is dealing. Since you should be spending substantial money on every shot.

If you're reading this as a vanilla striker but with a spell each turn mixed in, I don't know what to tell you.

[Gnaeus]

If you're reading this as a vanilla striker but with a spell each turn mixed in, I don't know what to tell you.

I would say that while I'm not sure how to do it with wands, I can do it quite easily with potions. The winning cheesegrinder build this year involved an Alchemist/unchained monk weretiger with a tumor familiar whose job it was to stick a potion into his third hand which would be drunk as a swift action with potion glutton feat. A thing which I'm not sure how to attempt in 3.5. It was quite literally a melee monster. Of course, swift action buffing on a melee chassis isn't super hard in PF (bloodrager, magus, and warpriest are all good at it) but if his point was using expensive resources in combat for superior damage, Bjorn Stronginthearm's your uncle.

Which again shows that while I can't exactly duplicate every 3.5 character in PF and have it operate in the same manner, I can create concepts in PF I can't easily duplicate in 3.5.