3.5 players - what did PF 1 get right? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

AvatarVecna

2018-09-15, 12:20 PM

Things done right...

1) Between new advancing class features and archetypes, all classes are a lot more versatile in what they can be.

2) Between skill consolidations, making it so that cross-class skills have the usual skill cap and skill point cost, changing the universal skill cap to be equal to your level, additional skill uses that weren't just copypasta'd from 3.5, Background Skills, and the existence of Unchained Skills rules, it's much easier and simpler to navigate the skill system and fill skill roles (sometimes regardless of starting class, although some classes are still far better at it than others).

3) More frequent feats allows for more versatile characters.

4) So much easier to handle monsters as characters - basing things on CR is much more consistent than RHD/LA mess.

5) A number of spells that were more or less inherently unfair to play against got nerfed.

6) The simplification of the item-crafting rules, and opening up things for mundane characters, is much cooler. I wish they were less scared of letting anybody make a profit from it, but eh.

7) I like the Mythic system as a pseudo-epic system, even if there's places it goes too far, and others it doesn't go far enough.

Things that went too far...

1) Some skills being consolidated means that effects that logically affect one aspect of the skill either end up affecting both (so being Invisible makes you harder to hear, or being a Small creature makes you harder to hear, etc), or have to clarify that they only affect one (meaning the only advantage of splitting them up for either side of the screen is that it just costs one skill point instead of two each level). Heck, I don't think Jump even really fits with Acrobatics...and Escape Artist was left as its own thing? What? I'll go into more detail later in the next section.

3) Very generally speaking, the attitude PF takes towards new class features is "if we're worried it might be too powerful, air on the low side and don't bother ever redoing it if it turns out to be garbage". So while there's tons of Rogue Talents, and tons of Barbarian rage powers, and tons of new feats, and so on...so many of them are hot garbage irrespective of how interesting they are conceptually. This design philosophy also seeps into some of the newer classes - swashbuckler, kineticist, and shifter being the primary examples that come to mind, although there's a glut of archetypes that also suffer from this problem. Prestige Classes in particular suffer from the "interesting but un-useful" problem, in part because the system was designed to reward you for sticking with your class and punish you for leaving it, and particularly for leaving it just to dip into other things.

4) Some things that were simplified were better when there were more options, IMO. Power Attack being an on/off switch is kinda meh, to me - it makes it simpler, but it also removes some of the skill that came with using it. When you had to choose how much tradeoff to take, it involved more thinking than "I'm hitting this guy really often, I should go into Power Attack stance to do more damage with less accuracy".

5) Early firearms have a ridiculous level of penetrative power, some of which would perhaps have been better saved for advanced firearms.

Things that didn't go far enough...

1) I think if you were going to redo the PF skill system, you'd need to make even more changes from the 3.5 model. Skill consolidation is a good idea, but it was done based on a "what makes sense to go together" basis rather than approaching it from a balance perspective - essentially, Hide and Move Silently became Stealth because it's unfun to be good at one, bad at the other, and thus always get caught. There are two general changes I think could be made to the PF skill system to make it more balanced and fun, although it'd be a good bit of work.

Firstly, post-consolidation skills should be equal in value, generally speaking - the Background Skills rules are a testament to how some skills, while absolutely necessary to exist because of how the game needs to be able to simulate more mundane aspects of life, are just in lower demand for adventurers than others, and thus rarely get skill points spent on them...but even among the active skills there, there's a definite imbalance (would you rather full ranks in Heal, Survival, or Use Magic Device? Acrobatics, Sense Motive, or Diplomacy?). Making it so that all the active skills are more competitive with each other is necessary for balancing the system. One good way to approach this is to find skills with abundant flat DCs (Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Heal) and find good ways to either give them variable DCs, or at least a wider range of flat DCs, you'll be keeping them relevant for longer. If you change how certain existing OP skills scale (Diplomacy, UMD), you could probably get them more in line with the others.

Secondly, expand the Unchained Skills system. Very generally speaking, when you Unchain a skill, you should have options at each skill level of how you're improving your skill, and possibly get more upgrades the higher your Unchained skill is (for instance, one benefit when you reach 5 ranks, then two additional benefits when you reach 10 ranks, etc...this also makes it where Phantom Thief's "quicker Unchained Skills" benefit doesn't just mean quicker US, but more options chosen once you get to the higher levels). These options should be from the following potential upgrades: giving more skill benefit for the same DC, lowering existing penalties, giving new skill uses, and speeding up existing skill uses. The current US system has a set bonus at each checkpoint, and some Unchained skills are much better than others in ways that are unrelated to how good the skill is compared to other skills (Unchained Knowledge is neat combat bonuses for being smart, but they're all separate, while Unchained Disguise is pointless for a shapeshifting Master Of Disguise even though it's super-thematic).

2) I am of the opinion that feats should get better as you level up - more options, or more significance. Feats that give static unchanging bonuses are generally considered garbage (Weapon Focus, Skill Focus, 3.5 Toughness) while feats that give leveling benefits are better even when they're improving a bad option into a slightly less bad option (this is why Power Attack was considered such a good 3.5 feat even though it was just melee garbage - because the benefits continued leveling with you, and this is why PF Toughness is so much better than 3.5 Toughness, and this is one of many reasons why Leadership is so powerful). Similarly, about the only feats that gave static bonuses that were considered good were the ones that bumped stats that already didn't really get better with level - basically, just Improved Initiative (HP, skills, attack bonuses, damage, and basically everything else scales pretty quickly with your level, but initiative barely scales at all, so a +4 bonus to it is significant). If you expanded the design philosophy behind the Toughness change to other feats (gradually leveling benefits), you could solve the glut of feats and feat trees so many people complain about in regards to PF, and the additional feats could be spent gaining new abilities or speeding up existing ones, the same way I've suggested changing the Unchained skill system.

3) While I like the archetype system, and I like that they can theoretically be fit together...even if you made all the abilities more even with each other, the fact that you have to mix-and-match archetypes rather than abilities makes classes much more limited than they could be. The reason I keep harping on the versatility issue is that, at the end of the day, some classes are making potentially half a dozen choices every level, chosen from thousands of options, and other classes...just aren't. The archetype system could greatly expand the flexibility of non-casters if it was more versatile and less...rigid about what's allowed to go together. If this option or that option is acceptable as an alternative to Bravery, why not just make them alternate options for Bravery without making them have to come packaged with a bunch of other stuff that could cause conflicts? What if you like some things from an archetype but not others? Well you're just stuck. And I don't want players to be stuck with abilities they don't want, that don't fit, and that they won't use.

4) I think PF is extremely nervous about action economy for some things (attacking, feinting, etc), but very un-worried about others (casting spells, Unchained Diplomacy, etc), and I feel that while the latter should probably be nudged back a bit, making the action economy more fluid for non-casters/skillmonkeys can do wonders to bridge the gap.

Kurald Galain

2018-09-15, 12:44 PM

-No real dedicated Arcane Gish outside of the Magus (which I think is a poor example of the concept)
As opposed to the zero dedicated Arcane Gish classes in 3.5? :smallconfused:

In 3.5, you could substitute a combat maneuver for just about any of your standard attacks.
You're misreading that. In PF you can also substitute a maneuver for any of your standard, iterative, or opportunity attacks.

period.
I don't find "period" much of an argument :smallbiggrin:

Favored class bonuses: so if I've read these right,
You have not :smallamused: the most common favored class bonus is "+1 HP" which is available to any race. It makes race less important, not more.

Scots Dragon

2018-09-15, 12:49 PM

As opposed to the zero dedicated Arcane Gish classes in 3.5? :smallconfused:

There's the Hexblade, Duskblade, and Battle Sorcerer, to be fair.

Kurald Galain

2018-09-15, 01:01 PM

There's the Hexblade, Duskblade, and Battle Sorcerer, to be fair.
Ok, fair point. But if you're going to count alternative class features like the Battle Sorc, then Paizo has the Blade Adept, Phantom Blade, Archaeologist, White-Haired Witch, and Bloodrager. I find it baffling that anyone would find a gish harder to build in PF instead of much easier.

Scots Dragon

2018-09-15, 01:16 PM

Ok, fair point. But if you're going to count alternative class features like the Battle Sorc, then Paizo has the Blade Adept, Phantom Blade, Archaeologist, White-Haired Witch, and Bloodrager. I find it baffling that anyone would find a gish harder to build in PF instead of much easier.

Honestly, the improvements to Eldritch Knight alone make it an infinitely better option.

ngilop

2018-09-15, 01:24 PM

... and where did it go wrong, or too far?

What are elements of PF that you like, or even copy into your 3.5 game house-rules? I’m thinking things like the skill system, grappling, or class archetypes.

I’m asking because I’m revisiting my homebrew efforts in light of the PF 2 playtest.

Got Right:
Barbarians
Paladins
Archetypes-in the general sense only most of them are pointless and you end up giving waay more in power and versatility than you gain.

Got Wrong:
Crapping all over the fighter
Too much caster love (Knowing how unbalanced casters were to start)
Monster CR as Level, it is not better or worse than the RHD+ LA system and sometimes much, much worse: but that is only beucase they are caster fanboys so things that just take damage to the face is probably correct, while things with caster levels or a decent amount of spell-likes are waay undertuned.
Mythic casters
Just about everything else really. ONLY BECUASE they knew the issues that 3.5 had and just ignored them, made them worse or not touched them at all.
Mostly how how they crapped on fighters and to a lesser degree other mundane combat oriented classes ( I might have mentioned the fighter thing earlier it is that much of a 'no bad wrong why' to me.

PhantasyPen

2018-09-15, 07:33 PM

As opposed to the zero dedicated Arcane Gish classes in 3.5? :smallconfused:

Duskblade, Hexblade, Abjurant Champion, Spellblade, Green Star Adept, Jade Phoenix Mage. These are all Arcane gish classes. Yes most of them are prestige classes, but that's still a lot more than "We have the Magus... and that's pretty much it."

+ Fixed the Paladin (although Smite is a little too strong now, and is really lacking an option to deal w/ a huge horde of evil creatures rather than just messing up bosses; also they inadvertently made Summon Monster way stronger by not making their smite good/evil still work like 3E's; arguably a summon w/ pounce is a better evil boss killer than a paladin)

No. nO. NO! Pathfinder's Paladin does not have a "Smite." What they have is a Hunter's Mark that only targets evil creatures.

Mostly how how they crapped on fighters and to a lesser degree other mundane combat oriented classes ( I might have mentioned the fighter thing earlier it is that much of a 'no bad wrong why' to me.

+1

Faily

2018-09-15, 10:10 PM

I did forget to list in my post above my love for the Pathfinder Paladin. <3

Duskblade, Hexblade, Abjurant Champion, Spellblade, Green Star Adept, Jade Phoenix Mage. These are all Arcane gish classes. Yes most of them are prestige classes, but that's still a lot more than "We have the Magus... and that's pretty much it."

:smallconfused:

By that logic, the Archetypes for Magus, as well as that of the other gish-like classes like Skald, Warpriest, Inquisitor, the Synthesist Summoner, some variants of the Alchemist, an even the much improved Eldritch Knight prestige class are all Gish Classes. I'd say that while you can probably create more combinations of gish in 3.5 (because of the huge amount of PrCs you just take a dip or two in), Magus gives a much stronger and more solid gish out of the gates with minimal splatbook diving with "gish abilities" that come online fairly early. At least that's in my experience from gameplay of gish-characters in both systems.

PhantasyPen

2018-09-15, 10:24 PM

:smallconfused:

By that logic, the Archetypes for Magus, as well as that of the other gish-like classes like Skald, Warpriest, Inquisitor, the Synthesist Summoner, some variants of the Alchemist, an even the much improved Eldritch Knight prestige class are all Gish Classes. I'd say that while you can probably create more combinations of gish in 3.5 (because of the huge amount of PrCs you just take a dip or two in), Magus gives a much stronger and more solid gish out of the gates with minimal splatbook diving with "gish abilities" that come online fairly early. At least that's in my experience from gameplay of gish-characters in both systems.

Um, no. I'm not counting Archetypes at all, all the extra Magus archetypes do is prove that paizo needs to make an arcane gish that isn't the Magus, and I don't count the Synthesis Summoner or any Alchemists because I don't count the Summoner or base Alchemist at all. One is a nerfed spellcaster and the other is just... the Alchemist. Each example I gave was a completely separate class. While yes the Skald is technically a gish (by virtue of being a literal bard/barbarian hybrid) it's really more its own thing than what I'd expect from an arcane warrior. Also Warpriest and Inquisitor are DIVINE gish characters, which I have stated I think Pathfinder has too many of. I was specifically referring to the absence of ARCANE options outside the Magus.

AvatarVecna

2018-09-15, 11:02 PM

So, not that I think fanning the flames would help at all, but I will point out that 3.5 is a lot better at getting arcane gishes capable of both full BAB (or close enough for four iteratives) and 9th lvl spells - neither of which the magus gets. Again, both games have lots of gishes, and PF archetype system does a good job supporting them, but that's like saying that the archetype that makes Fighter a spellcaster means that Fighter is a gish, but that's a very different thing from saying that a Magus is a gish, or a Hexblade is a gish, or a cleric is a gish - where Fighter can become a gish, all those classes, and many others, are inherently gishy, and taking away their gish-iness would require ripping out the very heart of those classes.

PhantasyPen

2018-09-16, 12:44 AM

So, not that I think fanning the flames would help at all, but I will point out that 3.5 is a lot better at getting arcane gishes capable of both full BAB (or close enough for four iteratives) and 9th lvl spells - neither of which the magus gets. Again, both games have lots of gishes, and PF archetype system does a good job supporting them, but that's like saying that the archetype that makes Fighter a spellcaster means that Fighter is a gish, but that's a very different thing from saying that a Magus is a gish, or a Hexblade is a gish, or a cleric is a gish - where Fighter can become a gish, all those classes, and many others, are inherently gishy, and taking away their gish-iness would require ripping out the very heart of those classes.

+Infinity. Thank you for understanding.

martixy

2018-09-16, 01:01 AM

Skill system!

That's the big one.

And I don't mean skill consolidation, which everyone in this thread keeps repeating.
I could not care less about skill consolidation. That is a numbers problem and tunable for your purposes.

No, I'm talking about the underlying mechanical design. Making it flat out simpler. No weird synergy bonuses, no cross-class skills, retroactive int bonuses, etc. Full commutability. This means that Class A + Class B = Class B + Class A as far as skills are concerned. It means you only need to look at the current state of the character to deduce his skill points and do not need full progression history. This was untrue in 3.5, as it mattered which class you took at L1, when and what bonuses to INT you gained, when something was cross class and when it was not. Frankly, it's absurd.

Past that...
Archetypes are neat.
More class features for your base classes.
More love monster PCs [Though it wins on that particular point only because of more consistent handling vs RAW 3.5, where often the sheer amount of LA made something unplayable. But 3.5's problem wasn't in the underlying mechanic, which behaves fine, just the over-conservative values that got assigned. Values which are tunable. Heck, we have an LA assignment thread floating around. Just use that.]

Things it got wrong, or didn't fix:
Power attack, et al.
Feats. You get more, but there's also more pointless feat chains. The net result is worse than 3.5, especially if you consider flaws. [Most of the long feat chains should have been consolidated into one feat that scales.]

Things it kinda, sorta did right:
The maneuvers system. The unified handling of maneuvers is brilliant. Size also plays a much smaller role(in 3.5 one size category was +4 to grapple), which made it impossible to deal with large creatures, even for purpose built grapplers, even without taking into account freedom of movement. The bad part is that the numbers are off still. Specifically CMD. [In my game I did some further finagling based on this (http://michaeliantorno.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/). Deft maneuverse are based on Dex and powerful maneuvers on Str, for CMB and CMD. After some playtesting and tuning the numbers, it turned out pretty reasonable.]

I haven't actually played bona-fide PF outside a couple one-shots, so my exposure to the whole clockwerk mechanism that is the system is limited. But I've cherry-picked and imported tons of stuff for my 3.5 game. Notably the skill system and most of the base classes. But also most feats, the downtime system, some variants around crafting and other miscellaneous bits.

Goaty14

2018-09-16, 01:07 AM

I never really got into PF *too* hard, but one major thing that I have in mind is that PF 1 still kept (and probably will keep for PF 2) the idea that everything should be relatively doable IRL, with the exception of casters "bcuz magick", which leads to the blah blah blah disparity, etc.

I swear I've seen a screenshot of one of the developers on their boards saying that a high-level gunslinger shouldn't be able to reload multiple times in a round not because it'd imbalance things, but because it'd be impossible to do it IRL. At the same time, the wizard is creating his own demiplanes. I can't find the link to the picture, but I know it exists...

Scots Dragon

2018-09-16, 01:53 AM

Duskblade, Hexblade, Abjurant Champion, Spellblade, Green Star Adept, Jade Phoenix Mage. These are all Arcane gish classes. Yes most of them are prestige classes, but that's still a lot more than "We have the Magus... and that's pretty much it."

The Bloodrager, Eldritch Knight, and Arcane Archer also exist. Not to mention the Skald. This isn't counting archetypes which do also count as gish options, of which there are quite a few.

And THAT isn't counting the copious amount of directly supports third party stuff that Paizo themselves endorse.

Jorunkun

2018-09-16, 02:30 AM

Whew. As you may have noticed, I mostly lurk and don't post much here.

Just wanted to say that I'm honestly impressed by how this forum enables informed, civil discussion. Keep it coming.

Fizban

2018-09-16, 02:37 AM

Can't resist either. If Hiding and Moving Silently are so different that they shouldn't be Stealth together, then why is Spellcraft Spellcraft and not Knowledge (Mind-Affecting Spells) plus a myriad others for every descriptor that's there?
Because I haven't decided how many skills I want to split it into yet.

(The question is what did Pathfinder do right/wrong, not what 3.5 did wrong, see)

To be fair, I don’t think anyone has ever done firearms well.
Sorcery and Steam has them pretty much perfect. Their artillery is a bit too advanced though, appropriate for the time period they're taking the guns from, but too far to fit into standard medieval fantasy.

I don't find "period" much of an argument :smallbiggrin:
There's not much to argue: either you think they should be different, or you don't.

You have not :smallamused: the most common favored class bonus is "+1 HP" which is available to any race. It makes race less important, not more.
Most common maybe, but I remember seeing things that looked like scaling AC and attack bonuses in there. Wanna just throw me a link to wherever they're explained?

unseenmage

2018-09-16, 03:10 AM

Got right

Constructs priced by CR. Its optional but man is it nice that it's there.

CMB and CMD. Its simpler. I like that.

Kurald Galain

2018-09-16, 06:03 AM

So, not that I think fanning the flames would help at all, but I will point out that 3.5 is a lot better at getting arcane gishes capable of both full BAB (or close enough for four iteratives) and 9th lvl spells - neither of which the magus gets.
That's true.

And it underlines an important difference between 3.5 and PF. 3.5 is basically about creating a level-20 build that hits some particular benchmark right at the end. This is nice in theory, but in practice very few campaigns ever get anywhere near that level. PF is basically about starting a character at level 1 and getting your concept online as early as possible.

So if you want to meet a certain benchmark at (or after) the end of your campaign, 3.5 has better gishes. If you want your character to attack and cast in the same turn, right from the start, PF has better gishes.

Most common maybe, but I remember seeing things that looked like scaling AC and attack bonuses in there. Wanna just throw me a link to wherever they're explained?
Here you go (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/character-advancement#TOC-Favored-Class).

Most class/race combos get a specific alternative, but most of these just aren't a big deal. I certainly don't recall any scaling attack bonuses or anything. For instance, here's the cleric (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric#TOC-Favored-Class-Bonuses), which gives such things as extra uses per day of a domain power, bonuses to channel damage, or bonuses on SR checks against outsiders. I'm sure there's an odd combo somewhere if you look hard enough, but I almost always go for +1 HP per level (or, rarely, +1 skill).

dascarletm

2018-09-16, 08:43 AM

Um, no. I'm not counting Archetypes at all, all the extra Magus archetypes do is prove that paizo needs to make an arcane gish that isn't the Magus, and I don't count the Synthesis Summoner or any Alchemists because I don't count the Summoner or base Alchemist at all. One is a nerfed spellcaster and the other is just... the Alchemist. Each example I gave was a completely separate class. While yes the Skald is technically a gish (by virtue of being a literal bard/barbarian hybrid) it's really more its own thing than what I'd expect from an arcane warrior. Also Warpriest and Inquisitor are DIVINE gish characters, which I have stated I think Pathfinder has too many of. I was specifically referring to the absence of ARCANE options outside the Magus.

I think a better standard of measure is which system allows for more variation in what you want to do with your gish, not which system lets me put different class names on the class line of my sheet.

What number of gish concepts can you do, and how well are they implemented?

Grim Reader

2018-09-16, 08:55 AM

A lot of the new 2/3rds classes seem to have good balance and playability. Magus, Hunter, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Skald etc.

StreamOfTheSky

2018-09-16, 09:43 AM

No. nO. NO! Pathfinder's Paladin does not have a "Smite." What they have is a Hunter's Mark that only targets evil creatures.

Seriously, what? :smallconfused:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin

Smite Evil (Su)

Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.

In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.

The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table: Paladin, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.

It basically will turn any evil enemy into a finely ground paste in short order. But on the other hand, you can only use it on half a dozen people per day at most, and the Paladin's only other offensive tool against evil is a weakened Channel Energy. Really should have given Paladin the option to burn a Smite Evil use per day to have it apply to one attack only against every evil enemy for an encounter, to deal with hordes of evil creatures.
And giving the improved Smite Evil/Good to summons was just a really bad idea...

Falontani

2018-09-16, 10:17 AM

It basically will turn any evil enemy into a finely ground paste in short order. But on the other hand, you can only use it on half a dozen people per day at most, and the Paladin's only other offensive tool against evil is a weakened Channel Energy. Really should have given Paladin the option to burn a Smite Evil use per day to have it apply to one attack only against every evil enemy for an encounter, to deal with hordes of evil creatures.
And giving the improved Smite Evil/Good to summons was just a really bad idea...

just read that, and... that is not a smite. A smite is a single attack. What you have there is an ability akin to hunter's mark, where you mark your target and deal more damage against the target. I will not say that your Smite Evil is not thematic, however your smite evil is not a smite.

Manyasone

2018-09-16, 11:20 AM

...A smite is a single attack...
Based upon? What? Verbs, singular-plural? Stubbornness?
What exactly? Just curious.

PhantasyPen

2018-09-16, 01:24 PM

just read that, and... that is not a smite. A smite is a single attack. What you have there is an ability akin to hunter's mark, where you mark your target and deal more damage against the target. I will not say that your Smite Evil is not thematic, however your smite evil is not a smite.

+Infinity! Finally someone who understands!

Based upon? What? Verbs, singular-plural? Stubbornness?
What exactly? Just curious.

Verb 1. to strike with a firm blow.
Noun 1. A heavy blow or stroke with a weapon or hand

3.5's Smite evil is a "Smite." 5e's Divine Smite and smiting spells are all "smites." Pathfinder's is not a "Smite"and should not be called such. It is a Favored Enemy that's activated rather than a passive effect.

I think a better standard of measure is which system allows for more variation in what you want to do with your gish, not which system lets me put different class names on the class line of my sheet.

What number of gish concepts can you do, and how well are they implemented?

A big thing I've always said about 3.5 is "if you can imagine it, you can build it." The sheer number of first-party sources available means that there is virtually no concept you cannot create with some effort and ingenuity. While Pathfinder has some variety yes, the fact that so much of it comes from third-party publishers is a big negative mark in my gradebook.

Just using the examples I gave:

The Duskblade is a warrior clad in armor, channeling raw arcane power through both his arms and his body.
The Abjurant Champion is a mage with all the talent of a great warrior, able to use his magic to shield his body more effectively than any metal could while still expertly dueling with a weapon in hand.
The Spellblade wears her armor like a second skin, casting her spells flawlessly and transforming them into mighty melee attacks.
The Hexblade is a cursed warrior, accompanied by an entire host of magical creatures and able to hex her foes until the sheer weight of her malevolence has slain them.
The Jade Phoenix Mage is a skilled mage and martial artist who has traveled through time in the form of innumerable past lives, transferring a little bit of their skill with each lifetime into the next until their soul's accumulated experience makes them unmatched with spell and sword.

Whereas Pathfinder has....

We have the Magus... and we won't give you anything else.

Kurald Galain

2018-09-16, 01:58 PM

Just using the examples I gave:

All of that is easy enough in Pathfinder:

The Magus is a warrior clad in armor, channeling raw arcane power through both his arms and his body.
The Blade Adept is a mage with all the talent of a great warrior, able to use his magic to shield his body more effectively than any metal could while still expertly dueling with a weapon in hand.
The Bloodrager wears her armor like a second skin, casting her spells flawlessly and transforming them into mighty melee attacks.
The Shaman is a cursed warrior, accompanied by an entire host of magical creatures and able to hex her foes until the sheer weight of her malevolence has slain them.
The Phantom Blade is a skilled mage and martial artist who has traveled through time in the form of innumerable past lives, transferring a little bit of their skill with each lifetime into the next until their soul's accumulated experience makes them unmatched with spell and sword.

Fizban

2018-09-16, 02:18 PM

Here you go (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/character-advancement#TOC-Favored-Class).
Thanks, I'll get back to you with a retraction and/or a link with the stuff that bugged me.

Based upon? What? Verbs, singular-plural? Stubbornness?
What exactly? Just curious.

verb (used with object), smote or (Obsolete) smit; smit·ten or smit; smit·ing.

to strike or hit hard, with or as with the hand, a stick, or other weapon: She smote him on the back with her umbrella.
to deliver or deal (a blow, hit, etc.) by striking hard.
to strike down, injure, or slay: His sword had smitten thousands.
to afflict or attack with deadly or disastrous effect

The first three definitions are singular, and previous versions of the dnd ability were also singular (there are a few more after that which get broader as you go down).

MrSandman

2018-09-16, 02:24 PM

3.5's Smite evil is a "Smite." 5e's Divine Smite and smiting spells are all "smites." Pathfinder's is not a "Smite"and should not be called such. It is a Favored Enemy that's activated rather than a passive effect.

So, because the feature of the Pathfinder paladin allows her to do the action of smiting repeatedly with one activation of the feature it is not smiting?

Goaty14

2018-09-16, 02:52 PM

So, because the feature of the Pathfinder paladin allows her to do the action of smiting repeatedly with one activation of the feature it is not smiting?

...Except it's not multiple smiting. If PF wanted to make it multiple smiting then they'd grant the paladin more uses of smites/day, similar to 3.5's.

Let's put it this way: You, as a PF paladin, could use your "smite" ability against an evil creature without even doing as much as to attempting to hit it. Given that the definition explicitly calls out an attempt to hit, then the best you can argue is that it is *sometimes* a smite, but not all the time, no?

MrSandman

2018-09-16, 03:02 PM

Let's put it this way: You, as a PF paladin, could use your "smite" ability against an evil creature without even doing as much as to attempting to hit it.

Well, technically yes, but the obvious intent of the ability is to actually hit stuff.

I'm not going to say that smite evil is the best possible name for the ability. However, especially considering that its name comes for an ancient heritage, I don't understand why all that fuss about it.

Pex

2018-09-16, 03:09 PM

Got right:

Skill consolidation and no cross-class penalties.

All classes getting class features. I don't care how powerful spells are. I'm glad spellcasters got nice flavorful things aside from casting spells. Warrior classes get nice things too.

Channel Energy allows clerics to cast more spells that are not Cure Wounds yet still heal. Healing in combat is a viable tactic.

Point Buy allows for decent arrays along with racial modifiers. Lets players choose to take penalties instead of being forced upon them.

More feats for customization.

Archetypes allow you to multiclass without multiclassing by exchanging class features for those of another class.

The existence of traits and favored class bonus.

Got wrong:

Feat bloat. Too many feats that will never get used. Those involving skills aren't worth the slot for what they give. A bonus number is too low. If it's an ability it should have been part of the skill use already accepting it unlocks by having a minimum rank. Teamwork feats are a good idea, but it would have been nice if you still got some ability when you do something with a party member who doesn't have the feat.

Magic item economy is blown out of proportion. Magic items being worth 10,000 gp, 25,000 gp, 150,000 gp it strains credulity to have that kind of money, not necessarily to buy them but either just having it or needed to craft your own. As the levels progress PCs can have 25,000+ gp in coins and gems and 100,000+ gp in magic items. It's too high in price. A DM I played with lobbed off a zero on everything, dividing all prices by 10. An item worth 2,000 gp is thus 200 gp for example. Treasure hoards were cut down accordingly. Speaking in terms of 100 gp or 500 gp were more credible. A party having to split a treasure hoard of 1,000 gp meant something. Clarification: This is not about how frequent magic items appear. This is about their value, the raw numbers in cost and treasure hoards.

Goaty14

2018-09-16, 03:24 PM

Well, technically yes, but the obvious intent of the ability is to actually hit stuff.

...The obvious intent was that "smite evil" is a typo for "mark evil". Read the part of my post that you didn't quote, and that's all I have to say. Either it's incorrect or it's not, and "oh, but sometimes it's right!" isn't going to cut it.

for an ancient heritage,

That doesn't exist. Is this to imply that there was a PF 0 or a PF -1? D&D on the other hand...

Besides, if they called it smite evil as just a legacy thing, then they'd actually make it a smite, not the wildly different ability that it is.

Ninjaxenomorph

2018-09-16, 03:32 PM

Leaving aside the smite pedantry, I'll agree that the Jade Phoenix Mage doesn't have an equivalent in Pathfinder, but I'd put that to PF not having a first-party initiating system.

MrSandman

2018-09-16, 03:35 PM

...The obvious intent was that "smite evil" is a typo for "mark evil". Read the part of my post that you didn't quote, and that's all I have to say. Either it's incorrect or it's not, and "oh, but sometimes it's right!" isn't going to cut it.

I read the part of your post that I didn't quote, and my response is the same to the whole post. If you want to create a paladin, select a target for smite evil, and then go home and have a nice cup of tea, be my guest.

That doesn't exist. Is this to imply that there was a PF 0 or a PF -1? D&D on the other hand...

Besides, if they called it smite evil as just a legacy thing, then they'd actually make it a smite, not the wildly different ability that it is.

Sigh.
I thought this might happen right after posting. That should teach me to try and be funny on the internet. I meant that's its name is inherited from D&D.

It doesn't seem such a wildly different ability to me, by the way. The main difference is that you get to apply your smite bonus against its target multiple times instead of once.

exelsisxax

2018-09-16, 03:38 PM

Leaving aside the smite pedantry, I'll agree that the Jade Phoenix Mage doesn't have an equivalent in Pathfinder, but I'd put that to PF not having a first-party initiating system.

Path of war has two, with actual gish action economy but not fullcasting cheese.

Mage Hunter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/prestige-classes/mage-hunter/) and Bladecaster (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/prestige-classes/bladecaster/)

Kurald Galain

2018-09-16, 03:44 PM

Leaving aside the smite pedantry, I'll agree that the Jade Phoenix Mage doesn't have an equivalent in Pathfinder, but I'd put that to PF not having a first-party initiating system.
True. But Phantasypen appears to be looking not so much for "an initiator equivalent", but for "a gish that can be fluffed as a skilled mage and martial artist who has traveled through time in the form of innumerable past lives". And PF clearly has that one covered.

Palanan

2018-09-16, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Palanan
To be fair, I don’t think anyone has ever done firearms well.

Originally Posted by Fizban
Sorcery and Steam has them pretty much perfect.

What about their version is so good? I don’t have access to that book, so I don’t know how they’ve approached it.

qwertyu63

2018-09-16, 05:43 PM

Alright, I've the biggest place I have to support Pathfinder is in the skills department.

Both in cleaning up the system of skill points and in merging skills that didn't need to be seperate, it gets 4.5/5 stars. My only real complaint is that they didn't go far enough with merging skills; some skills that are separated could and (in my opinion, should) be merged.

As for other things they got right, I'm quite fond of the mundane equipment lists. They are far more extensive than 3.5e. As an exercise, what would the price be to buy a pet rat? Sounds useless, but with some Handle Animal rolls (side note: why did that not get merged with something!) you can use as a random little tool; alternatively, you can just use it for RP. My point is that no 3.5 source I can find answers this; in PF, it's 1 copper from Ultimate Equipment (which I did have to look up for this post; I just use d20pfsrd).

The biggest place I have to shake my head at is simple: Those fools KNEW how broken full casters are and then made them worse! How do you do that‽ I know they couldn't really weaken them much, as it would break a lot of compatibility, but come on; they didn't even try. Sure, they made everyone else better too, but they are still playing different games.

ComaVision

2018-09-16, 07:31 PM

VladtheLad

2018-09-17, 02:49 AM

Add me to the people that would like for smite to be a single attack, but honestly I don't really mind that much.

Other things I forgot about:

Good:
-Pathfinder has a more functional diplomacy skill. Or am I mistaken? Despite having played quite a bit of pathfinder I haven't seen anyone trying to over-max out diplomacy.

Bad:
-Pathifinder seems to have a pretty high bench mark for damage, especially for archers and even straight up fighters seems to get a +4 on top of everything they got in 3.5 and on top of ignoring most dr because of the weapon enhancement.

Does anybody else feels this? At high levels the damage benchmark for martials in pathfinder gets really high and most things have no dr. You have things like an unoptimized fighter getting +4 from weapon training and +2 from duelists gloves to attack and damage. Slayer get +5 to attack and damage can make someone his quarry for an exta +4 to hit. Now I think this is mitigated by the fact that they can't full attack on a standard action, but what do you think?

Ignimortis

2018-09-17, 03:39 AM

Bad:
-Pathifinder seems to have a pretty high bench mark for damage, especially for archers and even straight up fighters seems to get a +4 on top of everything they got in 3.5 and on top of ignoring most dr because of the weapon enhancement.

Does anybody else feels this? At high levels the damage benchmark for martials in pathfinder gets really high and most things have no dr. You have things like an unoptimized fighter getting +4 from weapon training and +2 from duelists gloves to attack and damage. Slayer get +5 to attack and damage can make someone his quarry for an exta +4 to hit. Now I think this is mitigated by the fact that they can't full attack on a standard action, but what do you think?

Eh, if a caster can end someone in one turn, why shouldn't martials?

Kelb_Panthera

2018-09-17, 03:49 AM

In my opinion, PF didn't do anything that was objectively better than 3.5. There are a few things that some people prefer but that's it.

I've never felt the desire to switch to PF from 3.5, and instead I've ported good 3PP content from PF back to 3.5. Every large problem that exists in 3.5 is still present in PF. I had hoped that PF2 would be a real clean up.

I'm with ComaVision on this one. Call me a grognard but I cant think of a single -change- that PF made that I liked. There've been some interesting additions but that's it.

Fizban

2018-09-17, 04:14 AM

Does anybody else feels this? At high levels the damage benchmark for martials in pathfinder gets really high and most things have no dr. You have things like an unoptimized fighter getting +4 from weapon training and +2 from duelists gloves to attack and damage. Slayer get +5 to attack and damage can make someone his quarry for an exta +4 to hit. Now I think this is mitigated by the fact that they can't full attack on a standard action, but what do you think?
3.5 char-op'ers tend to assume hit= yes and a minimum of around +1 damage per character level above your baseline, on as many hits as you can stuff in. I brought this up once when one complained of how weak favored enemy damage was, and they just said "yeah that's about right" without really acknowledging how big the difference is between the game's expectation and their own. I don't know how much larger PF's simple bonuses are (standard PHB2 fighter goes to +3/4 easy with Weapon Mastery), but they effectively capped Power Attack at +1/2 levels.

VladtheLad

2018-09-17, 07:18 AM

3.5 char-op'ers tend to assume hit= yes and a minimum of around +1 damage per character level above your baseline, on as many hits as you can stuff in. I brought this up once when one complained of how weak favored enemy damage was, and they just said "yeah that's about right" without really acknowledging how big the difference is between the game's expectation and their own. I don't know how much larger PF's simple bonuses are (standard PHB2 fighter goes to +3/4 easy with Weapon Mastery), but they effectively capped Power Attack at +1/2 levels.

Ah yes weapon mastery. Note I didn't include any weapon focus or specialization in my example and ended up with +6 bonus to attack and damage. Typically with greater weapon focus it becomes +8/+8 and with power attack +3 to hit/+18 to damage or +23 to damage when two handed and the cap in power attack doesn't matter that much because as i mentioned the only dr you need to worry about when you have a +5 weapon is bludgeoning/slashing/piercing and epic. So you do want those iteratives to have a chance at hitting (unless you standard action attack). Still no ubercharger if you compare to 3.5, but I am not sure the ubercharger should be a benchmark for anything.
In short if you are ok with the fighter killing CR appropriate challenges in one to two round of full attacking, or perhaps 1 round charge 2nd round full attack and death, then the math supports that as far as I remember, though I haven't recently checked it. If you aren't oj with that, you probably think its too much damage.

Peat

2018-09-17, 07:18 AM

The only areas in which 3.5 is better for Arcane Gishes than PF are in terms of PrC support and early entry (due to Paizo's deliberate nerf of this). There is just a huge amount more of useful non-divine flavoured PrCs compared to PF's three of Eldritch Knight, Arcane Archer and Hellknight Signifier (although that's kinda divine flavoured too tbh). Between Bloodrager, Magus, and several important Archetypes (Arcane Duelist, Arrowstrong Minstrel, Dervish of Dawn, Child of War/Acnava, several Skald archetypes), you can cover pretty much any Arcane Gish in a can concept as well as 3.5 (and most of them better). That only gets stronger if you include non-explicitly Gish flavoured but still still practical Gishes (including the Rogue archetype Eldritch Scoundrel).

And there's still some useful bits and pieces for the PrC Gish, particularly if you get your GM to accept the RAW on Inner Sea Magic guilds. But being able to buy back lost spellcasting levels from PrCs with feats and allowing anyone to avoid a Martial dip for a Gish through Oracle VMC are both useful. I think you can also get some limited access to the Magus' Action Economy through their VMC (there's also a slightly crap version available to anyone using a Quarterstaff and the Nethys Divine Obedience feat). And the list of useful PrCs gets a lot bigger if you don't mind them being divine flavoured (although there's still not much offering full BAB/any spellcasting).

Plus it is still possible to get BAB16/9th level spells by level 20. Not as well supported, but possible.

I wish they'd supported the PrC Arcane Gish better, but to say the Magus is PF's sole contribution to Arcane Gishes is simply wrong.

PhantasyPen

2018-09-17, 07:41 AM

Kurald Galain

2018-09-17, 07:46 AM

Scots Dragon

2018-09-17, 08:21 AM

Scots Dragon

2018-09-17, 08:22 AM

Plus it is still possible to get BAB16/9th level spells by level 20. Not as well supported, but possible.

Fighter 2/Wizard 8/Eldritch Knight 10.

+16 BAB, 9th level spells. There you go.

Peat

2018-09-17, 08:26 AM

You're just making me repeat myself now. So for the third time telling me that Pathfinder has a bunch of Arcane Gish support and then just listing off the Magus and it's archetypes only proves my point. I have also stated that the supposed Gish archetypes for non Gish classes do not count. Because I am talking about class support not archetypes.

I didn't list a single Magus archetype.

Even if you want to discount all non-Gish class archetypes that make the class a Gish, as well as classes that can be used as a Gish but aren't explicitly flavoured that way, you have two 1-20 Arcane Gishes in the Magus and Bloodrager (vs 3.5's Duskblade and Hexblade) and the ability to make a BAB16/CL19 character at level 20, as well as a BAB15 arcane caster that doesn't miss a single level, without using the most controversial bit of support the PF PrCs have.

And, lets be honest here, PF has 2 non-divine flavoured full BAB/most spellcasting levels PrCs and 3.5 has... 3? 4 with ToB, but anyone using ToB will use PoW with PF, which takes you to 3 for PF. I think there's a couple of more setting specific ones but, by and large, the support in PF isn't that far behind.

edit: Really, the big difference is the Abjurant Champion. Its by far the best piece of Arcane Gish PrC support out there and without it, the two editions are very close to equal.

Palanan

2018-09-17, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Peat
That only gets stronger if you include non-explicitly Gish flavoured but still still practical Gishes (including the Rogue archetype Eldritch Scoundrel).

I’m not sure if I’d call the Eldritch Scoundrel a “gish,” since the rogue isn’t really a martial class, and the spellcasting is an add-on rather than plugged directly into combat.

Don’t get me wrong, I like this archetype, but it’s not channeling spells, enhancing weapons or anything else that offers a magical boost to combat. It's pretty much a rogue with delayed SNA who also casts arcane spells on the side.

Originally Posted by Peat
I wish they'd supported the PrC Arcane Gish better, but to say the Magus is PF's sole contribution to Arcane Gishes is simply wrong.

As he’s noted above, PhantasyPen is talking about full classes, not archetypes, so he actually isn’t saying that the magus is the “sole contribution.”

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
So your point is basically that if you deliberately ignore most of Pathfinder's options for gishes, then Pathfinder doesn't have a lot of options for gishes.

And you seem to be deliberately misreading his statements in order to make fun of him.

Peat

2018-09-17, 08:56 AM

I’m not sure if I’d call the Eldritch Scoundrel a “gish,” since the rogue isn’t really a martial class, and the spellcasting is an add-on rather than plugged directly into combat.

Don’t get me wrong, I like this archetype, but it’s not channeling spells, enhancing weapons or anything else that offers a magical boost to combat. It's pretty much a rogue with delayed SNA who also casts arcane spells on the side.

Depending on just how rigourously you define Gish, you can use it as one. I didn't include it in the main list out of respect to the more rigourous definitions and PhantasyPen's desire to focus solely on classes that are definitely absolutely meant to be Gishes, but its definitely usable. Just like most people would regard a straight Bard as a usable arcane Gish by the looser definition in both editions.

As he’s noted above, PhantasyPen is talking about full classes, not archetypes, so he actually isn’t saying that the magus is the “sole contribution.”

Semantics. But let me rephrase this:

The Magus is not Pathfinder's only full class Gish. Which *is* something PhantasyPen has heavily implied if not outright and has ignored all corrections on.

It is clear at this point that this isn't a case of having particular beliefs as to what something is and being unwilling to compromise on them (i.e. full class gish flavour only, no archetypes or pseudo-gishes), its a case of ignorance of what Pathfinder offers and a refusal to engage with people pointing out what he has missed. PF's Magus, Bloodrager, Eldritch Knight and Arcane Archer do not compare all that unfavourably with 3.5's Duskblade, Hexblade, Eldritch Knight, Abjurant Champion and Swiftblade, adding Eternal Blade and Jade Phoenix Mage for people who use initiating respectively.

PhantasyPen

2018-09-17, 09:40 AM

Peat

2018-09-17, 09:56 AM

While I *was* ignoring Eldritch Knight and Arcane Archer, it's for the simple fact that they're stolen from 3.5, and not unique to Pathfinder, and while I realize I might not have explicitly stated it, I was trying to use examples that were specifically unique to each edition. As for Bloodrager, I wasn't ignoring it, I just keep forgetting it's not actually a Barbarian archetype and is a class of its own.

PF's Arcane Archer is a quite different beast to 3.5's - it advances spellcasting and is open to everyone, where as 3.5's doesn't and isn't. The PF Arcane Archer can be used in a gish build, the 3.5 one can't.

Kurald Galain

2018-09-17, 10:25 AM

As for Bloodrager, I wasn't ignoring it, I just keep forgetting it's not actually a Barbarian archetype and is a class of its own.

The same goes for Skald, Mage Hunter, and Bladecaster (none of which are archetypes), as well as Shaman (a base class which fits to a T your description of a "cursed warrior, accompanied by an entire host of magical creatures and able to hex her foes until the sheer weight of her malevolence has slain them").

Palanan

2018-09-17, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Peat
Depending on just how rigourously you define Gish, you can use it as one.

Maybe, but I wouldn’t think it’s very effective in the gish role. The rogue’s signature combat feature is delayed for the Eldritch Scoundrel, so you’re losing your best option in exchange for magic that can’t directly improve your combat role, not in the way that magus or arrowsong minstrel can.

And yes, it does depend on the definition of “gish,” and there’s certainly a spectrum of gishyness. For me, the magus and the arrowsong minstrel are at the high end of gish function, since they can channel spells directly through their respective attacks. Other forms of gish would fall out further down. The Eldritch Knight, for me, is not that elegant, since there’s no class feature that really combines casting and martial attacks until the capstone at tenth.

Originally Posted by Peat
The PF Arcane Archer can be used in a gish build, the 3.5 one can't.

Again, this turns heavily on the exact definition of what a gish is, and what it can or should be doing. Does the 3.5 AA compare with the Eldritch Scoundrel in terms of overall gish function? I’m not arguing, just wondering about the framework for defining and comparing different subspecies of gish.

Originally Posted by Peat
…a refusal to engage with people pointing out what he has missed.

To be fair, there were some ungenerous posts by other people in the thread which misconstrued what he was saying, and which didn’t help the discussion.

Originally Posted by PhantasyPen
While I *was* ignoring Eldritch Knight and Arcane Archer, it's for the simple fact that they're stolen from 3.5, and not unique to Pathfinder....

Speaking of the fine nuance of words, I don't think it's really fair to say they were "stolen" from 3.5, any more than the 3.5 base classes were. And as Peat noted, the 3.5 and PF versions of Arcane Archer are very different, which is worth taking into account.

Peat

2018-09-17, 10:48 AM

The same goes for Skald, Mage Hunter, and Bladecaster (none of which are archetypes), as well as Shaman (a base class which fits to a T your description of a "cursed warrior, accompanied by an entire host of magical creatures and able to hex her foes until the sheer weight of her malevolence has slain them").

In fairness, he did say Arcane.

Maybe, but I wouldn’t think it’s very effective in the gish role. The rogue’s signature combat feature is delayed for the Eldritch Scoundrel, so you’re losing your best option in exchange for magic that can’t directly improve your combat role, not in the way that magus or arrowsong minstrel can.

And yes, it does depend on the definition of “gish,” and there’s certainly a spectrum of gishyness. For me, the magus and the arrowsong minstrel are at the high end of gish function, since they can channel spells directly through their respective attacks. Other forms of gish would fall out further down. The Eldritch Knight, for me, is not that elegant, since there’s no class feature that really combines casting and martial attacks until the capstone at tenth.

Again, this turns heavily on the exact definition of what a gish is, and what it can or should be doing. Does the 3.5 AA compare with the Eldritch Scoundrel in terms of overall gish function? I’m not arguing, just wondering about the framework for defining and comparing different subspecies of gish.

I just go for "Can cast spells and can punch in people's faces" as a minimum. Keeps life simple. I know it 3.5 some specified as BAB16 and 9th level spells, I know some specify it in PF as can Attack and cast spells in one turn...

I'd add that "Can cast spells and can punch in people's faces" assumes spell progression most levels (so no 3.5 AA) and at least medium progression BAB and HD.

To be fair, there were some ungenerous posts by other people in the thread which misconstrued what he was saying, and which didn’t help the discussion.

Didn't help, no.

Palanan

2018-09-17, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Peat
I just go for "Can cast spells and can punch in people's faces" as a minimum. Keeps life simple. I know it 3.5 some specified as BAB16 and 9th level spells, I know some specify it in PF as can Attack and cast spells in one turn...

"Cast and punch" is certainly a catchy definition. :smalltongue:

Also, please note a new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?569301-Defining-Gishes-and-Their-Function) where discussion of the different flavors of gish is welcome.

AnonymousPepper

2018-09-17, 11:00 AM

As a player and a GM.

Done right:

* Skill consolidation. From a flavor perspective it makes sense, and it greatly benefits the classes that need it most - the 2+ and 4+ low-int beatsticks. While I might have preferred just giving them more skill points, this was still very much a step in the right direction.

* Archetypes. They open up so many different ways to play a character, and they're nearly all at the very least high on great flavor, though some of them are mechanically weak. They also disincentivize dipping all over the place.

* Spell rebalancing. While nothing will ever make the full casters truly balanced, for the most part the changes were a step in the right direction. Polymorphing into a Hydra at level 7 and soloing an encounter is a thing of the past.

* Speaking of, arcane schools. Opposition schools being completely unusable was dumb, and I'm glad it's gone. And the school bonuses are great.

* Arcanist. This concept has been needed for a very, very long time.

* Removal of XP costs. I always thought that charging XP to do things - especially crafting magic items - and putting you behind the party in terms of both wealth and class features was very, very poor design. With magic items, you were pretty much limited to playing an artificer if you wanted to craft things and not be completely gimped along the way. That is no longer a thing. Investing your feats into crafting is now strictly exchanging feats for consistency and money.

* Again speaking of, feats. One every other level is way, way better. This is however counterbalanced by a later downside.

* More good half- and two-thirds-casting gish-in-a-cans. Inquisitor in particular is an amazing design, and might be the best-made class I've ever seen. The hybrid classes in general are great.

* Unchained classes. This is the way all of the base classes should have been from the very beginning. Unchained Rogue is excellent.

Things I didn't like:

* Prestige classes. Archetypes seem to be made to replace prestige classes, when instead I think it would have been better for them to be alternatives. PrCs should be for further specializing at the exchange of losing out on your capstones and archetype features. Instead, most of them are absolutely god-awful, and there's relatively few of them. Not every PrC needs to be Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, but we need things that aren't terrible. There's a middle ground to be had here.

* Feat chains. Why oh why oh why does everything have to be a four-feat-long chain just to do simple things? I get that they wanted to hand out more options to fill in your added feats, but this is not the way to do it.

* Some very questionable and basic design mistakes, like the oft-cited ability for barbs to suddenly and instantly die from having lower total HP when they pop out of rage.

* I very much like Gunslinger, and play them a lot, but there had to have been a better way to handle it than making it not only the best DPS class in the game but also the most consistent by far. Most damage classes in general have way too much of it, like Barb for example, but Gunslinger might be the worst offender for how obscenely hard it is to counter.

* Every single freaking class almost has a 1/day save-or-die as its capstone by default. This is terrible and lazy and not even good or useful.

* Speaking of, I think Paizo greatly overvalued SoDs in general. They've been positively neutered and I'm not a fan. They were never THAT good in the first place.

* Gish support outside of the DESIGNATING GISHING CLASSES is significantly worse than in 3.5e. This is one of those areas where I think not developing the prestige class system to its potential hurts a lot. PrCs like Abjurant Champion and Swiftblade were what made arcane gishes so good in 3.5, and you can definitely tell they're missing here.

Andor13

2018-09-17, 12:25 PM

What are my favorite PF 1 things vs 3.5?

That's kind of a tricky question actually. Everything I like most about 3.5 is in PF, and everything I hate most in 3.5 is doubly so in PF. In particular the Paizo designers are really, really into a bunch of things I don't like, which is to say small fiddley numbers, situational bonuses, and limited use per day resources. It's telling that all of my favorite 3.5 systems are 3rd party material in PF. If you gave me a choice between base PF only or Dreamscarred Press material only, I'd pick DSP in a heartbeat.

Skill consolidation is a plus. Fiddly skills are fine, if you don't have some classes stuck with 2 skill points per level, I don't need my fighter to have to choose between being able to tie his shoes, and find them.
I like the Witch, an arcane caster who can serve as a fully functional healer is a plus in my book.
A lot of the hybrid classes are well designed, IMHO.
I like that the classes are, in general, more flexible in PF than in 3.5. In 3.5 you fine tune your character concept with multi/prestige classing, in PF you can do more within the class.
The CMD/CMB system does clean things up a bit, although I'm not sure it's the optimal solution, it is an improvement.

VladtheLad

2018-09-17, 01:07 PM

* Speaking of, I think Paizo greatly overvalued SoDs in general. They've been positively neutered and I'm not a fan. They were never THAT good in the first place.

That's treally true, but in 3.5 they are too good. What I am planning to do in my next campaign is make them deal caster squared damage not caster level times 10 damage. So the same at level 10, but at level 20 they will be dealing 400 damage. Enough to kill any CR 20 creature, but most CR 22 creatures wouldn't get one shot even if they were unlucky enough to fail the save.
As an aside I am also using exploding/imploding saves, so a save is never automatic failure or success, but if you roll a 1 or 20 it implodes/explodes.

upho

2018-09-17, 02:42 PM

It appears to me some posters haven't had a proper look at the PF rules and options in several years, if ever, much less actually played the game during the last five years or so. But since this is supposed to be from the POV of 3.5 players, I guess that's to be expected, so whatever.

Got right:

Skill consolidation. In 3.5, skills were simply far too numerous in comparison to how often they were actually useful. PF still suffers from this issue, and the implementation completely ignored compensating for the effects it had on the relative usefulness of classes such as the Rogue, but at least it's an improvement on the whole.
Removing cross-class skill punishments and replacing it with a minor class skill bonus. 3.5's awful skill rank cost system basically forced you into multiclassing simply in order not to suck at some of the most essential skills in the game, not to mention if your character concept deviated the slightest from whatever small box the devs had designated for you in terms of skills.
Combat maneuvers were a great addition, on a conceptual level. The implementation though... Well, the most positive thing I can say is that it got better. After like six years of publications or so. If you have sufficient system mastery... :smallsigh:
Archetypes. Increased build flexibility in a class-based system is typically great.
Barbarians, Magi and Bloodragers. Rage powers rock, greatly improving combat versatility. The same goes for Bloodragers, with the addition of them also having some arcane spell support and bloodine powers. Likely the easiest full-bab class to make T3 in PF, and unfortunately has no equivalent in 3.5. The magus does pretty much what every 3.5 wanna-be gish class cannot - seamlessly blend casting and full attacks right out of the gate, and deliver offensive spells through their weapons from 2nd level. This is what an actual true gish class is IMO.
Dirty trick. Related to the above. The golden standard of combat maneuvers, and should've been the design blueprint used for the other ones from the start (minus the original prerequisites of most related feats, of course.) How I wished for something, anything, similar with that degree of versatility and possible higher level effectiveness back when I still played 3.5. (Curiously, Paizo actually went overboard when it comes to said possible effectiveness of dirty trick by later releasing Dirty Trick Master (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dirty-trick-master-combat/), supporting it with stuff like Fox Trickery (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/fox-trickery-combat/), Kitsune Vengeance (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/kitsune-vengeance-combat-style/) and dueling (PSFG) (https://www.aonprd.com/MagicWeaponsDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Dueling%20(PSFG) ) and fortuitous (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/magic-weapon-special-abilities/fortuitous/) weapons. None of which they got around to nerf! A martial feat actually easily made OP in most games, hilarious!)
Most of the spell nerfs. For example splitting up polymorph into several level-dependent spells and locking the benefits to a set menu was a very good call.
Removing most dead levels from class progressions. Though the implementation was, again, rather shaky in many cases.
A somewhat improved class balance. Primarily because PF immediately or gradually moved a large majority of full bab and non-casters classes into T4 by lifting their optimization floors (and sometimes ceilings). Yes, the vanilla monk, rogue and fighter (without AAW/AWW and Combat Stamina) still suck, but many of their archetypes, Unchained versions or optional features certainly don't. And a more experienced player can make especially the Barbarian and Bloodrager kick ass in ways 3.5 full non-casters can only dream of. Heck, even a mid-op PF fighter can be an effective combatant without even having to deal damage! Blasphemy, I know!

Got wrong:

Almost every single errata nerfing martial options. I think two words will more than suffice to exemplify this: Crane Wing.
Introducing new OP caster options. Two words will suffice here as well: Sacred Geometry.
Not including a ToB system. One of the greatest strengths of 3.5 is the abundance of subsystems which play nicely together (at least theoretically). (On the other hand, the fact Paizo didn't do this thankfully happened to result in DSP doing it instead. Which resulted in options better designed and vastly more numerous than not only those found in its 3.5 predecessor, but most likely also anything Paizo would've made.)
Not including a proper psionics system. As above (including DSP doing a better version).
Not including a MoI system. As above. (And yes, see above regarding DSP coming to the rescue yet again. Akashic Mysteries (http://dreamscarred.com/product/akashic-mysteries/) also happens to be one of the most - if not the most - balanced, well-written, useful, versatile and fun player option (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/akashic-mysteries) focused books ever published for PF or 3.5. Yes, seriously.)
Combat maneuvers. Specifically the math being loosely based on the numbers of the equivalent 3.5 attacks, seemingly without anyone checking whether it's a good idea to duct-tape such numbers onto a system completely lacking any monster design target numbers. Again, it's better now, but making related investments worthwhile still requires quite a bit of system mastery, especially in higher levels. Less experienced players of classes supposedly great at combat maneuvers are unfortunately still practically guaranteed to be screwed over though.
Increasing limitations on certain combat maneuvers. For example all flying opponents being flat-out immune to trip. Yes, trip is one of the strongest combat maneuvers and has a greater number of good or great options tied to it than any other combat maneuver. That does NOT make it good design to make it useless against a large proportion of enemies a PC can be expected to face after 9th level or so.
Combat feat chains. I would love to hear an audio recording of the design meeting at Paizo after someone opened with: "Hey, I know! Lets make combat feat chains longer and put in additional useless taxes! I mean, we all know they were way too short in 3.5, right guys? Like tripping without risk of AoOs and also getting your own AoOs on successes for only two feats and an Int of 13? What were they thinking? Totally OP." (Thankfully, PF later got Dirty Fighting (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dirty-fighting-combat/), which 3.5 sorely lacks.)
Didn't do even remotely enough to mitigate C/MD issues, and in some specific perspectives arguably making them even worse.
Still including a huge number of trap options, including ones inherited from 3.5 as well as new ones. I mean, a system with as complex mechanics and such a ludicrously large number of mechanical options as PF is already anything but noob friendly, so why punish inexperienced players even more?

Got Wrong:
Crapping all over the fighter
/snip/
Just about everything else really. ONLY BECUASE they knew the issues that 3.5 had and just ignored them, made them worse or not touched them at all.
Mostly how how they crapped on fighters and to a lesser degree other mundane combat oriented classes ( I might have mentioned the fighter thing earlier it is that much of a 'no bad wrong why' to me.Well, if you mean crapping all over the fighter because Paizo knew the issues in 3.5, I can sorta agree (but although definitely I don't agree with them, I can also understand their reluctance to introduce greater changes at the time when they published the first CRB). But if you mean the PF fighter isn't a better class than the 3.5 fighter, then you seriously don't know what you're talking about. In short, outside perhaps the specific niches of producing overkill DPR numbers via Dungeon Crashing or chain-tripping, the PF fighter kicks the 3.5 version's butt so hard it's not even fun.

Duskblade, Hexblade, Abjurant Champion, Spellblade, Green Star Adept, Jade Phoenix Mage. These are all Arcane gish classes. Yes most of them are prestige classes, but that's still a lot more than "We have the Magus... and that's pretty much it."Your definitions of "class" and "gish" honestly seem quite odd to me. I mean, yes, if you're going to insist you can only build a gish by mixing vanilla base classes plus PrC levels, then of course 3.5 is going to include more options. But this is only because PrC's were the main tool in 3.5 for realizing concepts outside the base classes. In PF, that tool was largely replaced by archetypes. This doesn't necessarily mean that PF archetypes somehow cannot be as fitting for a specific gish concept, or bring as drastic gish-ish (heh!) changes to a base class, as 3.5 PrCs levels can.

And if this is purely about some "feeling" rather than actual fact or more commonly accepted definitions, then I'd personally say 3.5 has exactly zero gish classes, and it's actually impossible to realize a gish character concept in the game. Why? Because it's impossible to build a gish in 3.5 who focuses on the actual gish-ing, since none of them have a limitless ability to cast and deliver spells via their melee/ranged weapon used to full attack in the same turn from early level, if ever. A fact which did annoy me enough that I actually rewrote the Duskblade back when I played 3.5, having it sacrifice full bab for precisely that ability. So yeah, it was basically a somewhat late blooming PF magus.

No. nO. NO! Pathfinder's Paladin does not have a "Smite." What they have is a Hunter's Mark that only targets evil creatures.I feel your pain. Paizo made Smite Evil much better without consulting a dictionary! How dare they! :smallbiggrin:

(Seriously, if this really bothers you that much, I have a solution: take a black marker, black out every mention of "Smite Evil" in your PF books and write "Pally's Mark" above/below/beside, preferably with a smaller pen. Done!)

So, not that I think fanning the flames would help at all, but I will point out that 3.5 is a lot better at getting arcane gishes capable of both full BAB (or close enough for four iteratives) and 9th lvl spells - neither of which the magus gets. Again, both games have lots of gishes, and PF archetype system does a good job supporting them, but that's like saying that the archetype that makes Fighter a spellcaster means that Fighter is a gish, but that's a very different thing from saying that a Magus is a gish, or a Hexblade is a gish, or a cleric is a gish - where Fighter can become a gish, all those classes, and many others, are inherently gishy, and taking away their gish-iness would require ripping out the very heart of those classes.
+Infinity. Thank you for understanding.In that case, how can the fact that PF offers far less ways to do this particular specific kind of gish be a bad thing? Seems PF has actually made a move in the right direction in regards to mitigating C/MD issues here, notably because stomping out full bab plus full casting combos is also nerfing the arguably greatest problem of casters stepping on the toes of martials in their supposed area of expertise. What am I missing here?

CharonsHelper

2018-09-17, 02:54 PM

1. Caster/martial disparity doesn't come online much until later. (Not until at least 9ish)

2. Eventually Pathfinder got the monk right. (Either with unchained or with multiple archetypes).

3. Character concepts coming online earlier instead of needing to trudge through several levels of *meh* to get there.

4. Skill consolidation/simplification. (MOSTLY good - some weird edge cases are bad).

5. Nerfed polymorph - which was one of the worst caster/martial offenses. Not the most powerful - but it allowed a caster to straight-up do a martial's job only better, which feels worse. (Though Pathfinder did make the Summon Monster spells somewhat OP - which is nearly as bad.)

6. Somewhat fewer trap/OP character options. In 3.5 there are a lot of feat combos which became must-haves which are annoying. Pathfinder still has too many trap options, but not quite so many.

Gnaeus

2018-09-17, 03:22 PM

Got right:
At low/mid op, many class balance issues were improved

Even wider range of playable options.

PFSRD

Working with DSP for subsystem support

Got wrong:
Not really understanding high op game balance meant that many of their fixes broke something else

DSP not sufficiently first party to play many games, such as Pathfinder Society

Didn’t pay much attention to playtesters in original release or later. Unchained monk was fine, but should have been just Monk, and the additional classes have about the same range of Tiers (or crappy, solid, too strong if you don’t like tiers) as 3.5. I don’t think they ever really understood their own game.

Peat

2018-09-17, 06:51 PM

In that case, how can the fact that PF offers far less ways to do this particular specific kind of gish be a bad thing? Seems PF has actually made a move in the right direction in regards to mitigating C/MD issues here, notably because stomping out full bab plus full casting combos is also nerfing the arguably greatest problem of casters stepping on the toes of martials in their supposed area of expertise. What am I missing here?

Because they didn't actually stamp it out. They made it less interesting, but its still there. If its gonna be there, it should be fun.

And since they didn't remove the C/M D issues, at some tables, this sort of gish is the best way to play someone who beats face.

upho

2018-09-18, 09:01 AM

Because they didn't actually stamp it out.I didn't say they did.

They made it less interesting, but its still there. If its gonna be there, it should be fun.Let me rephrase: Why would PF be better designed if it specifically allowed for more "16 bab/9th Wizard spells" build combos (if any)?

Perhaps more importantly, what exactly does those specific requirements provide in PF which you won't gain from simply being a Wizard or a Magus?

I mean, you're still going to be a pretty darn pathetic gish in comparison to a Magus during most levels, even more so than most 3.5 build combos are. The only potential design benefit I see from the option existing in the first place is that it maybe allows you to play a Wizard a bit more suitable for a solo run, extreme old-school dungeon attrition-crawl or similar niche campaign type. Otherwise, it's not like there aren't tons of other class options allowing you to be a nerfed Wizard or to mix melee competence with arcane casting (or equivalent) in PF, most of which won't have you attempt to waltz all over the toes of martial classes while still having full arcane god powers. And if you're looking to actually combine both martial and arcane "mastery" with actual gish abilities as far as possible, gestalt would be a far better idea, not only in terms of the number of class combos possible, but also in terms of build function and balance (since you're then likely in a game with a much higher expected power level).

Besides, whatever Paizo seems to believe, in PF there's relatively speaking really not much actual power to be gained from bab if you're a caster, perhaps most notably since there's no polymorph cheese on the table which will make you anything more than a weak PF melee Druid (which is already quite a bit less than the 3.5 counterpart). Not to mention that if you have Wizard casting progression, in most games there won't be many combat turns in which it would be tactically sound for you to pretend to be a Magus, Bloodrager or Fighter instead of simply casting additional Wizard spells.

And since they didn't remove the C/M D issues, at some tables, this sort of gish is the best way to play someone who beats face.Well, I can certainly see this happening in 3.5, even though I don't think it's exactly a common thing. But in PF, much less so.

The reason I'm skeptical is that outside those very niche cases I mentioned above, I really don't see anything but the most minuscule categories of games in which a 3.5 "16 bab/9th Wizard spells" combo would actually provide a better and more balanced gish than a PF combo can. Especially since I'd wager that in reality, a very large majority of PF games with a power expectation high enough to make anything 1PP other than full casters insufficient also include PoW material. In which case the whole discussion is kinda moot, since PoW has both gish PrCs and easily more than three times as many options overall than ToB, several of which are also more "arcane gish" in nature than anything found in ToB.

But in short, a 3.5 full arcane caster can easily become a fantastic melee combatant just by having a decent bab. Much less so in PF. And on top of that, when it comes to being an actual gish, not just having some lame "buff 'n' bash" capacity everyone and their mother has, the competition is much stiffer in PF. Which makes for example the mentioned "16 bab/9th Wizard spells" combo actually possible in PF kinda "meh" in comparison. Sure, it's a good caster, all arcane full casters are. So what?

Segev

2018-09-18, 09:38 AM

I agree with most of what's been said was done right. ARchetypes and skill consolidation are high on my list. I also like how the skills were more integrated with other abilities, even if it makes for more cross-referencing needed. (Fly skill, I'm looking at you.) Having skills be needed even when you're using magic goes a long way towards making your skill-monkey perhaps a better choice to cast particular spells on than yourself.

I think the biggest area they didn't go far enough with was feats. Particularly "fighter feats." They just aren't awesome enough. Paizo has an off-and-on problem with the same thing that D&D 3.5 suffered wherein they make the mistake of thinking that, just because you filled out a line on a progression, it's as interesting and useful as any other line on a progression.

Peat

2018-09-18, 09:54 AM

Perhaps more importantly, what exactly does those specific requirements provide in PF which you won't gain from simply being a Wizard or a Magus?

I'd turn the question on its head - if you can do pretty much all of it already, why not give other fun ways to do it? Its not like Paizo didn't give a crapton of ways to do the same thing in slightly different ways in a bunch of other cases, so why not for this one as well?

Peat

2018-09-18, 11:10 AM

My own list would include a lot of Right & Wrong.

F'ex -

Skills. Condensing them was right, but walling off everyday skill uses behind Skill knacks was wrong.

Archetypes. Great idea, mostly well executed, but I wish there had been more wriggle room on combining archetypes.

Feats. More of them good, making them less powerful and making more fiddly feat chains bad.

I think the things I really like about PF are the new base classes - Inquisitor, Alchemist, Magus, Witch, they all bring good things to the table. Got spontaneous divine caster right with Oracle. Also the way most classes get fun things at each level.

What I don't like is the way they refused to address high level disparity and their meh PrCs - also, preferring to nerf options rather than make other options more interesting.

PairO'Dice Lost

2018-09-18, 04:47 PM

As far as I'm concerned, most things PF did right were counterbalanced by downsides making them too weak, fiddly, or otherwise undesirable to use. Hide + Move Silently became Stealth, saving skill points...but as mentioned they still split up situational bonuses in some cases (or just mentioned a difference in sight and vision without defining things). Feats were made more plentiful...but martial feats were split up and feat chains got longer. Combat maneuvers were simplified...but they got less reliable to pull off thanks to the monster numbers. Archetypes allow more low-level customization...but unlike ACFs you can't mix and match. And so on and so forth.

There's plenty of stuff to use for inspiration from PF, but I've never seen anything I wanted to steal as-is without at least a few tweaks. The only purely positive thing I can think of is the skill system changes (it's not entirely great, but few things are actively worse than the 3e version), and that's not unique to PF; pretty much every D&D forum was starting to talk about skill consolidation, retroactive skill points, etc. by 2004-2005 and offering homebrew tweaks, so it's not so much something to steal from PF as it is a thing people have been doing since before PF was even a glimmer in Paizo's eye.

Granted, I haven't given PF a thorough once-over in a few years, but from the core books to Unchained I didn't really see enough of a change in Paizo's philosophy to want to give it another close look. I feel like the design goals as stated for PF1 were good ones, but the actual outcomes didn't pan out that way, and I was hoping PF2 would involve revisiting their original design goals with the benefits of hindsight (and another decade of 3e-related internet homebrew to borrow from), but...not so much.

And to weigh in on the paladin discussion, I agree that the PF "Smite Evil" feels more like "Favored Enemy: That Evil Guy Over There" than a smite. Were I to make a PF-like 3e paladin fix, I'd be inclined to give it both some generic ongoing benefits against evil creatures and some expendable per-attack burst damage and debuff abilities, only the latter of which would be called Smite Evil.

TheFamilarRaven

2018-09-18, 05:36 PM

I vastly enjoyed the switch from 3.5 to Paizo. Especially since I wasn't as rules savvy back then as I am now.

-Consolidating skills, as others have pointed out, was really neat. And let's not forget that +3 instant bonus in a trained skill for the first rank placed, so you can place one rank in some nifty but niche skill and have a decent bonus even if you don't put anymore ranks into it. Meaning you can do this at level 3 and not neglect a large amount of your core skills.

-Sneak attack affects more creatures so the rogue is no longer useless against undead, constructs, oozes, plants... etc. It was mentioned before but I wanna mention it again.

-The boost in power across the board was nice. Even if some classes didn't really deserve/need it. Like I said before I wasn't too knowledgeable about the game at the time so feeling powerful from the get go was a nice bonus.

-Martials do get some nice things. They're of course not as powerful as a caster but they can perform admirably in their role. Like, deflecting, bullets, arrows, boulders, spells etc... with your sword is pretty neat.

-As for the arcane gishes. Not counting archetypes is a bit disingenuous to Pathfinder. If an archetype allows you to be a gish, then you're a gish. Archetypes are a prominent feature of PF so you can't really discount them. And if your argument is "well, PF doesn't have a lot of options for BaB 16 and 9th levels spells", then you're probably right. But you should ask yourself, (given that martial/caster disparity is often brought up when discussing 3.P), is that really such a bad thing?

-As for my two cooper on the paladin's Smite Evil ability. I've always read it as "Choose one target within line of sight. If the target is evil, then your attacks against that creature become smites." Because nothing, and I mean nothing, about the word 'smite' prevents someone from smiting multiple times. In the same way I could strike something multiple times. The name is appropriate, because it's descriptive of what you can do.

Nifft

2018-09-18, 06:27 PM

I haven't looked at Pathfinder much recently, so I'm probably missing a lot of good and a lot of bad.

Good Stuff:

- Skill consolidation. (Though I'd kinda already done the big four myself, creating Athletics / Acrobatics / Perception / Stealth as 3.5e house rules.)

- Archetypes (some of them).

- CMB / CMD (instead of having separate mechanics for grapple / disarm / trip / etc.).

- Races are purely additive, not penalizing below the core stat baseline. (I think this was PF; it's certainly also how 4e did races, and it carried forward from either PF or 4e into 5e, too.)

- Some spells were fixed (I think), particularly lower-level play seemed more balanced between spellcasters and muggles.

Bad Stuff:

- Too many twitchy little bonus sources. It felt like game balance was attempted by just gluing more stuff on until the whole thing felt balanced.

- Too many bad options -- maybe this is due to bad wiki curation, or bad editorial oversight, or bad spam control on the part of the publisher -- whatever the reason, it's just tiresome to wade through the PFSRD for decent options.

- Some spells didn't get fixed, and at the top levels spellcasters seem like they're still going to reign supreme.

upho

2018-09-18, 06:59 PM

I'd turn the question on its head - if you can do pretty much all of it already, why not give other fun ways to do it? Its not like Paizo didn't give a crapton of ways to do the same thing in slightly different ways in a bunch of other cases, so why not for this one as well?You misunderstand. You can be a great gish in PF all right, but you cannot be a great gish with +16/9th. But even though you won't be a great gish with +16/9th AND most likely less powerful than a straight Wizard, you'll most likely also be seen as more of a balance problem in many games/groups. Which is why the game isn't exactly craving for additional ways to combine full Wizard casting progression with the one very tiny area of expertise non-caster classes otherwise mostly get to have for themselves. It's very similar to the Synthesist vs. the vanilla Summoner and their respective "weaker but stomps all over other major category of classes' toes" vs. "stronger but doesn't poop specifically at most weaker classes' parties" statuses. I assume you're well aware which one get to be the far most common target of player/GM lynch-mobs and forum rants of the two (and for good reason, I might add)?

.............

Pssst! *whispers* Peat! Over here! If you promise to keep quiet about it, I'm going to show you a little secret about how to get tons of additional "+16/9th"-combos work in PF. Just be careful with this info, m'kay?

If you play in Golarion (or a setting using similar features/rules) you can become a member of a spellcasting guild, and by simply paying a (usually very modest) yearly fee and passing a few exams each year, you earn "Fame points" in you guild. According to the rules/guidelines, you should gain about 5 Fame per level if you pass the exams, so by 7th or 8th level or so you'll have both the following perks, at no additional costs (note the parenthesis in the first reward):

Guild Rewards:
Eclectic Training (5 Fame): Guilds often require members to master and train in different subjects. When your Fame score in a guild reaches 5, choose one spellcasting class you have at least 1 level in—you increase your effective caster level in that class (including the number of spells you know and can cast per day) by +1, to a maximum caster level equal to your total Hit Dice. Single-classed spellcasters should still pick a class to which this bonus applies, since this bonus is retroactive.

Esoteric Training (35 Fame): The bonus to caster level you gain from Eclectic Training increases to +3 (but is still limited by your total Hit Dice). You may select a second spellcasting class to gain a +1 bonus to effective caster level.

Yep, this is official PF RAW, from Inner Sea Magic, page 22.

Happy +20/9th gishing!

Ninjaxenomorph

2018-09-18, 11:20 PM

You misunderstand. You can be a great gish in PF all right, but you cannot be a great gish with +16/9th. But even though you won't be a great gish with +16/9th AND most likely less powerful than a straight Wizard, you'll most likely also be seen as more of a balance problem in many games/groups. Which is why the game isn't exactly craving for additional ways to combine full Wizard casting progression with the one very tiny area of expertise non-caster classes otherwise mostly get to have for themselves. It's very similar to the Synthesist vs. the vanilla Summoner and their respective "weaker but stomps all over other major category of classes' toes" vs. "stronger but doesn't poop specifically at most weaker classes' parties" statuses. I assume you're well aware which one get to be the far most common target of player/GM lynch-mobs and forum rants of the two (and for good reason, I might add)?

.............

Pssst! *whispers* Peat! Over here! If you promise to keep quiet about it, I'm going to show you a little secret about how to get tons of additional "+16/9th"-combos work in PF. Just be careful with this info, m'kay?

If you play in Golarion (or a setting using similar features/rules) you can become a member of a spellcasting guild, and by simply paying a (usually very modest) yearly fee and passing a few exams each year, you earn "Fame points" in you guild. According to the rules/guidelines, you should gain about 5 Fame per level if you pass the exams, so by 7th or 8th level or so you'll have both the following perks, at no additional costs (note the parenthesis in the first reward):

Guild Rewards:
Eclectic Training (5 Fame): Guilds often require members to master and train in different subjects. When your Fame score in a guild reaches 5, choose one spellcasting class you have at least 1 level in—you increase your effective caster level in that class (including the number of spells you know and can cast per day) by +1, to a maximum caster level equal to your total Hit Dice. Single-classed spellcasters should still pick a class to which this bonus applies, since this bonus is retroactive.

Esoteric Training (35 Fame): The bonus to caster level you gain from Eclectic Training increases to +3 (but is still limited by your total Hit Dice). You may select a second spellcasting class to gain a +1 bonus to effective caster level.

Yep, this is official PF RAW, from Inner Sea Magic, page 22.

Happy +20/9th gishing!

(There's also this feat (http://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Prestigious%20Spellcaste r))

Peat

2018-09-19, 06:11 AM

I've already mentioned both the feat and the Guild thing in this thread (which, even if used, may be ruled to work otherwise as a designer has issued a semi-official RAI errata on it). They're useful, but you're still using the same group of PrCs.

And while I can see upho's point about the perception of power and why Paizo decided to avoid it, understanding why they did it doesn't preclude criticising said decision.

edit: You can add "Trying to rebalance the game more by nerfing the strong and enforcing class niches than boosting the weak, but not doing the job properly and getting the worst of both worlds" to the list of things they did wrong.

upho

2018-09-19, 11:00 AM

I've already mentioned both the feat and the Guild thing in this thread (which, even if used, may be ruled to work otherwise as a designer has issued a semi-official RAI errata on it). They're useful, but you're still using the same group of PrCs.I noticed the feat being mentioned, but seems I failed my Perception check on the guild stuff. But yes, you'd still be using the same group of PrC's, the difference being that you have a lot more room to play around with as quite a few more combos can actually give you +16/9th, not to mention your general power progression will be a lot less bumpy during at least the first 10 levels or so.

(Regarding the "semi-official RAI", if you're referring to this post by James Jacobs (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=200?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#9960), I don't think it's even remotely close to even a semi-official errata, since a) he wasn't even aware of the existence of these rewards before being asked, b) he's not a rules developer, c) he ends his post saying: "but I'd be interested to see how it plays out as written.", and most importantly d) his posts are very explicitly not official rules statements unless otherwise mentioned, and certainly not official errata in any way. It may also be interesting to note that there are other guild boons on arguably the same power level.)

And while I can see upho's point about the perception of power and why Paizo decided to avoid it, understanding why they did it doesn't preclude criticising said decision.

edit: You can add "Trying to rebalance the game more by nerfing the strong and enforcing class niches than boosting the weak, but not doing the job properly and getting the worst of both worlds" to the list of things they did wrong.I totally agree here. But if you're going to give Paizo this well-deserved critique of not boosting the weak nearly enough, it does seem a bit odd - or at least "premature" - to me to also start criticizing them for not offering the strong more ways in which to rub their strength into the faces of the weak. It's sorta like complaining about a car not being available with a more powerful engine, when its chassis, suspension, downforce and traction control isn't even capable of handling the power it already comes with except on a flat straight drag-racing strip. IOW, if you're only drag racing your party consists of say only T1 and T2 classes/builds and synthesists, go ahead and add compressors and a NOX system import any 3.5 gish PrC's you like, on top of the caster guild fame rewards.

blackwindbears

2018-09-19, 01:06 PM

* Spell rebalancing. While nothing will ever make the full casters truly balanced, for the most part the changes were a step in the right direction. Polymorphing into a Hydra at level 7 and soloing an encounter is a thing of the past.

This was a great post, and most of this post made a lot of sense to me. Except this throwaway comment. It doesn't seem to be specific to you, but there seems to be some kind of minigame in the Playground called, "who can sell the most ridiculous exaggeration about full casters?"

Let's take a look at this. What EL 7 encounters is this Hydra soloing?

A typical level 7 hydra-wizard has 33 hp, an attack bonus of +7, and an AC of 17.

This won't beat a CR 7 Hydra (has one more head, much higher attack bonus, fast healing!) Frankly, you wouldn't beat the CR 5 6-headed hydra, which has double your hp, a better attack bonus and only has an ac one worse.

Using the D20SRD.org monster filter I don't see many cr 7 monsters that you have a prayer against.

Well, we have a backup, if the polymorph hydra can't beat cr 7 monsters. What's worse than anything? Clearly a fighter, right?

What's the worst fighter?

Ah that'd be sword and board fighter.

Suppose he takes,
Feats: weapon focus, weapon spec, power attack, cleave, combat expertise, weapon focus shortbow, improved trip, skill focus [climb]

With a +1 longsword, +1 full plate and a +1 heavy steel shield, you're looking at an AC of 23. Combat expertise boosts that to an AC of 27 at a -4 attack penalty. Congratulations, you only hit on a 20. It's gonna take an average of 17 **full attacks** to kill that fighter. He only needs to hit you 4 times before then, and he totes can.

Maybe that's unfair. Clearly I made one of the best optimized fighters as an example here. Skill focus[climb] was what they were missing this whole time.

Well, compare that to a greataxe barbarian. He takes two hits to kill you, and you need to *hit* him 9 times to make him die. Your attack bonus is +7, what are the chances that actually happens.

My apologies for the large post at essentially a throwaway comment, but bottom line?

CasterFact rates this one as Pants-On-Fire.

RoboEmperor

2018-09-19, 01:11 PM

I'd say the only thing PF got right was monster's cr = its LA or something like that, forgot the exact formula they use. Maybe their magic item crafting also, and maybe removing xp costs in the game. Maybe. But that's it. That's literally it. All else 3.5 is superior. I actually enjoy 3.5's feat shortage as it forces builds to be specialized and therefore promote uniqueness rather than making builds that can do everything.

All of the "broken" things in 3.5 like polymorph is actually normal and not broken after considering the power creep the supplemental books caused for both players and NPCs.

You have to look at the results of the changes. Base20 v.s. minimal base class and max PrC. Max PrC results in incredibly unique characters, Base20 does not so I think making the base classes stronger was actually a bad thing.

Psyren

2018-09-19, 01:29 PM

I have a rather massive list, but you specifically asked for 3.5 players, which I am no longer (as a direct result of said massive list). At best I am 3.P.

The number one thing I think it slipped up on was too many feat taxes, particularly for martial characters. A whole chain of feats for a single maneuver for even basic competence at it is too many. But that's an easy enough fix, and the link in my sig has plenty of easy ones.

BassoonHero

2018-09-19, 01:36 PM

A typical level 7 hydra-wizard has 33 hp
Huh? 4 + 6*2.5 + 7*5 (from 20 Con) = 54. A +2 Con amulet would raise that to 61.

an AC of 17
21 after Mage Armor.

The wizard's attack bonus is pretty dismal, especially if the fighter is using Combat Expertise. Of course, the fighter's touch AC is 14 (or 15 assuming a Dex bonus) and his grapple bonus is going to be a lot less than the wizard's +15.

Kurald Galain

2018-09-19, 01:37 PM

The number one thing I think it slipped up on was too many feat taxes, particularly for martial characters. A whole chain of feats for a single maneuver for even basic competence at it is too many.

Don't be ridiculous.

For basic competence at tripping, you only need zero feats and a reach weapon. For basic competence at every maneuver in the book, you need a single feat (Dirty Fighting) and that's it. Since this thread is rating statements as "Pants-On-Fire" now, yours certainly qualifies.

Ignimortis

2018-09-19, 01:57 PM

This was a great post, and most of this post made a lot of sense to me. Except this throwaway comment. It doesn't seem to be specific to you, but there seems to be some kind of minigame in the Playground called, "who can sell the most ridiculous exaggeration about full casters?"

Let's take a look at this. What EL 7 encounters is this Hydra soloing?

A typical level 7 hydra-wizard has 33 hp, an attack bonus of +7, and an AC of 17.
***
Well, we have a backup, if the polymorph hydra can't beat cr 7 monsters. What's worse than anything? Clearly a fighter, right?

What's the worst fighter?

Ah that'd be sword and board fighter.

Suppose he takes,
Feats: weapon focus, weapon spec, power attack, cleave, combat expertise, weapon focus shortbow, improved trip, skill focus [climb]

With a +1 longsword, +1 full plate and a +1 heavy steel shield, you're looking at an AC of 23. Combat expertise boosts that to an AC of 27 at a -4 attack penalty. Congratulations, you only hit on a 20. It's gonna take an average of 17 **full attacks** to kill that fighter. He only needs to hit you 4 times before then, and he totes can.

Except not really. Yes, your HP and to-hit are still worse than the 7-headed hydra (not the 6-headed, because you have CL7 and thus can actually turn into a 7HD 7-headed hydra.
Yes, you have +7 to-hit, and probably about 4+6d4+35hp, because your CON mod just changed and improved your HP maximum, so that gets us circa 54 health, not 33. Your AC is still kinda bad, and your to-hit is also kinda bad, but guess what? You have seven attacks per round which you can use while moving, fighter has 2. You also get nice reach from that size, and racial bonus feats like Combat Reflexes, so you can try and kite if you want to - 20 movespeed on both of you. Thank god you don't get Fast Healing, otherwise this would never actually end in Fighter's victory at all.

So basically, if you stand around like a doofus, you get 7 attacks at 1d10+4 damage every round, Fighter gets, with his defensive tactics, +7+1+3+2-4= +9 to-hit in the end and AC 27, HP around 10+6d10+14 (this is an average build, so it's probably got 14 CON), which is around 57 on average. Huh, about the same HP, right?

Here we go, then...Fighter hits you on 8+, you hit him on 20 only. He gets two attempts at 65% to-hit each, and he doesn't wanna power attack because that dips his hit chances lower. So that's 2 chances of 65% to hit for, say, 1d8+8. Neat. You hit him on 20 only and that's basically never a crit, so let's disregard a 1/400 chance. 7 chances of 5% for 1d10+4. So far statistics are on his side, hooray for Fighter!

But wait! You're comparing a single 4th level spell-slot with a full fighter build. It's a bad build and a good spell, but imagine a wizard who actually took the time that morning to slap himself with an Improved Mage Armor for +6 to AC? Whoops, his spell reservoir is now down 1 3rd level spell and 1 4th level spell, and he has the same AC as your fighter in all of his nifty gear with his nifty shield. If he really goes all out and drops any other good minute/level or higher defensive spell on himself, like, say, Shield...his AC is now 27, same as Fighter's, only he gets more attacks per round and the only thing Fighter can do is run awaaaay..wait no, heavy armor, 20 movespeed, unless he can withdraw and you can't charge or double-move. Bye, Fighter, we won't miss you.

Oh, and you can always just grapple the Fighter to death, because he can't really beat +19 grapple mod unless he builds for it. Neat, isn't it?

Edit: Dammit, while I was being a smarty-pants, people said the same things much more succinctly. Oh well, swordsaged! Hey, guess who can actually slap a Polymorphed Hydra around at level 7? That's right, a Swordsage can. Then again, a well-built Fighter also can do that.

PairO'Dice Lost

2018-09-19, 02:02 PM

I'd say the only thing PF got right was monster's cr = its LA or something like that, forgot the exact formula they use.

Whether it's "right" is debatable. ECL = CR is a vaguely workable way to address the LA issue, but (A) Races of War in the Tome series came up with that solution back in 2006, so it wasn't exactly new when PF used it, and (B) it's still an unnecessary hack.

To use the PFSRD example, a minotaur (CR 4, 6 HD) counts as an ECL 4 creature, so in a party of a cleric 6, rogue 6, and wizard 6 it would be a minotaur 6/fighter 2 or whatever. Then it "catches up" in hit dice every few levels, so when the rogue 6 becomes a rogue 10 the minotaur is a minotaur 6/fighter 8 rather than a minotaur 6/fighter 6. So you have a mismatch in HD among different PCs, more mismatches if multiple players have monster PCs of different starting CRs, and that mucks with numbers of feats gained, PrC entry (less of an issue in PF, but still an issue), and so forth.

But that doesn't have to be the case at all, because CR not equaling HD is a hack in the first place. 3.0 gave different monster types different BAB so "bruiser" monsters were given extra HD to compensate, Undead and Constructs have no Con so they're given a bunch of extra HD to bring their HP up to par, Dragons are intentionally under-CRed for their HD, and so forth.

So if you really want to fix monsters-as-PCs, you could just...not do that. The Tomes suggested doing the ECL = CR method because otherwise they'd have to rewrite all the monster stats, but if you're already rewriting all the monster stats, there's no reason not to do it right.

Use role-based or monster-class-based stat progressions instead of type-based progressions, so bruiser monsters have high BAB and low Will regardless of type and caster monsters have low BAB and high Will regardless of type; remove the nonabilities (and Int 1-2 restriction on animals, while you're at it) so you don't have to pile on the extra HD to prevent Constructs and Undead from dying to a single full attack; adjust monster abilities so they're level-appropriate for the monster's HD rather than making glass cannons with low HD but a party-killer ability; and so forth.

At that point, playing a monster PC collapses down to just being multiclassing. A minotaur is a Bruiser 4, is CR 4, and fits in a party with a Human Fighter 4 or a Half-Orc Barbarian 4--and neither should outshine the other by virtue of race, since they're both martial PCs who engage in melee combat. It also gets rid of things like nonassociated class levels for figuring out a classed monster's CR, since again, it's just normal multiclassing. That would be one way, though not the only way, of doing monsters-as-PCs right, and it would be something entirely new that PF did instead of merely adapting existing approaches.

Psyren

2018-09-19, 02:26 PM

RoboEmperor

2018-09-19, 02:31 PM

Whether it's "right" is debatable. ECL = CR is a vaguely workable way to address the LA issue, but (A) Races of War in the Tome series came up with that solution back in 2006, so it wasn't exactly new when PF used it, and (B) it's still an unnecessary hack.

When i google Races of War I get homebrew. Could you be a little more specific? Exactly which official 1st party 3.5 book must I look at to find that ECL = CR thing?

Willie the Duck

2018-09-19, 03:12 PM

Unequivocally (IMO), a skill system where a rogue1/fighter1 is not drastically different from a fighter1/rogue1 (in terms of being a functional skill-wielding class) is a decided improvement.

blackwindbears

2018-09-19, 03:50 PM

Huh? 4 + 6*2.5 + 7*5 (from 20 Con) = 54. A +2 Con amulet would raise that to 61.

Con change doesn't change HP in this case. Polymorph never changes the casters HP except for the token healing it gives. He's got an HP of 33 to 40 depending on the presence of that Con amulet.

21 after Mage Armor.

The wizard's attack bonus is pretty dismal, especially if the fighter is using Combat Expertise. Of course, the fighter's touch AC is 14 (or 15 assuming a Dex bonus) and his grapple bonus is going to be a lot less than the wizard's +15.

Clever!

Grappling provokes an AOO, and he only gets one attempt at it I think. Curse you for making me look up the monster grapple rules =-D. The fighter's grapple mod is +10, the grappling is probably better than hoping for natural 20's but I don't think you're going to win this one. Assuming of course that the grapple rule work like the rules compendium seems to indicate.

To be fair you might technically solo the encounter in this case because the DM handwaves it after realizing that he's going to have to research grapple rules for an hour and a half.

Except not really. Yes, your HP and to-hit are still worse than the 7-headed hydra (not the 6-headed, because you have CL7 and thus can actually turn into a 7HD 7-headed hydra.

I should have specified that you turn into the seven headed hydra. I do understand that.

Yes, you have +7 to-hit, and probably about 4+6d4+35hp, because your CON mod just changed and improved your HP maximum, so that gets us circa 54 health, not 33.

Nope, this is a common misconception, but Polymorph doesn't allow you to change your HP except for a little healing. You have 33 health.

Your AC is still kinda bad, and your to-hit is also kinda bad, but guess what?
You have seven attacks per round which you can use while moving, fighter has 2. You also get nice reach from that size, and racial bonus feats like Combat Reflexes, so you can try and kite if you want to - 20 movespeed on both of you. Thank god you don't get Fast Healing, otherwise this would never actually end in Fighter's victory at all.

How sure are you that you get combat reflexes because I can't find anything to substantiate that.

So basically, if you stand around like a doofus, you get 7 attacks at 1d10+4 damage every round, Fighter gets, with his defensive tactics, +7+1+3+2-4= +9 to-hit in the end and AC 27, HP around 10+6d10+14 (this is an average build, so it's probably got 14 CON), which is around 57 on average. Huh, about the same HP, right?

Nope, not right. =-P

Here we go, then...Fighter hits you on 8+, you hit him on 20 only. He gets two attempts at 65% to-hit each, and he doesn't wanna power attack because that dips his hit chances lower. So that's 2 chances of 65% to hit for, say, 1d8+8. Neat. You hit him on 20 only and that's basically never a crit, so let's disregard a 1/400 chance. 7 chances of 5% for 1d10+4. So far statistics are on his side, hooray for Fighter!

But wait! You're comparing a single 4th level spell-slot with a full fighter build. It's a bad build and a good spell, but imagine a wizard who actually took the time that morning to slap himself with an Improved Mage Armor for +6 to AC? Whoops, his spell reservoir is now down 1 3rd level spell and 1 4th level spell, and he has the same AC as your fighter in all of his nifty gear with his nifty shield. If he really goes all out and drops any other good minute/level or higher defensive spell on himself, like, say, Shield...his AC is now 27, same as Fighter's, only he gets more attacks per round and the only thing Fighter can do is run awaaaay..wait no, heavy armor, 20 movespeed, unless he can withdraw and you can't charge or double-move. Bye, Fighter, we won't miss you.

Oh, and you can always just grapple the Fighter to death, because he can't really beat +19 grapple mod unless he builds for it. Neat, isn't it?

Edit: Dammit, while I was being a smarty-pants, people said the same things much more succinctly. Oh well, swordsaged! Hey, guess who can actually slap a Polymorphed Hydra around at level 7? That's right, a Swordsage can. Then again, a well-built Fighter also can do that.

1) You don't have a +19 grapple mod, because you don't get the base attack bonus of the hydra.
2) See above for Grapple stuff.
3) The OP was about soloing the encounter with just polymorph. Maybe you get mage armor. If we're going out of core even an unoptimized fighter gets better. (I didn't take skill focus [climb] because I was digging through complete warrior). With an AC of 21 the hydra still loses, though by less.
4) Taking 1-3 together, our polymorphed wizard won't even beat the weakest CR 7 encounter I came up with. A sword and board fighter isn't exactly a common CR 7 encounter. Do you think the hydra can beat more than 50% of the stuff on the CR 7 monster list more than 50% of the time? I doubt it.

This is part of the problem with board discussions about full casters. Players of full casters have a particularly hefty incentives to cheat compared to martials (the worst they ever really try to conveniently forget is that you have to full round action to get use out of two weapon fighting). Understanding all of the rules about all of the casters stuff is hard, and the person who usually knows the most about them (the full caster) has every incentive to forget errata, interpret information in a way that benefits the character most.

I have no doubt that a bunch of tables have seen level 7 wizards wandering around with a bonus 18 hit points (despite the polymorph subschool), grapple modifiers of +19 (despite the fact they don't get BAB from the hit dice), celerity means they never go second (despite the fact that they're flat footed), con amulets provide them hit point bonuses (despite that they can no longer wear them). I wonder if it's this forum's "let's exaggerate casters abilities" mini-game that results in all of these forgotten penalties.

BassoonHero

2018-09-19, 04:13 PM

Con change doesn't change HP in this case. Polymorph never changes the casters HP except for the token healing it gives. He's got an HP of 33 to 40 depending on the presence of that Con amulet.
That's not the rules as intended (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a). The text in Polymorph that changes your Con is not meant to be bound by the restrictions of Alter Self (which doesn't change your hit points or your Con score). I don't think that your reading of the spells is unreasonable, but I also don't think it's the best reading, and it's definitely not what the author meant.

Grappling provokes an AOO, and he only gets one attempt at it I think.
Correct. If the fighter's AoO stops the first grab, it won't stop the other six.

The fighter's grapple mod is +10, the grappling is probably better than hoping for natural 20's but I don't think you're going to win this one.
Huh? The wizard is going to win most of the grapple checks and deal more damage per hit.

How sure are you that you get combat reflexes because I can't find anything to substantiate that.
Racial bonus feat. It's in the stat block.

I should note that, depending on how nitpicky you want to get, there are three interpretations of how that works for hydras (who have Dex 12). The stingy interpretation is that it does nothing, hydras don't benefit from the feat, and the extra rules text is meaningless. The generous interpretation is that the hydra gets to make seven attacks per AoO. The reasonable interpretation is that hydras use their number of heads in place of the Dex mod to determine how many AoOs they can make.

Maybe you get mage armor.
I mean, duh. Greater Mage Armor is also an option, but I don't mind being conservative.

con amulets provide them hit point bonuses (despite that they can no longer wear them)
There's no rule that would keep a hydra from wearing an amulet. Hydras have necks. Hydras actually have more necks than most humans do.

blackwindbears

2018-09-19, 05:05 PM

That's not the rules as intended (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a). The text in Polymorph that changes your Con is not meant to be bound by the restrictions of Alter Self (which doesn't change your hit points or your Con score). I don't think that your reading of the spells is unreasonable, but I also don't think it's the best reading, and it's definitely not what the author meant.

This was later errata'd with the release of the PHB2, the HP is not increased from con. The polymorphing revisited articles make this clear for the alternate form special quality, but its derived from the polymorph subschool for the same reasons: "Despite any change in its Constitution score, a change in form through the alternate form power does not change the creature's hit points." -- (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060509a), see also the example given at the end (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060523a).

Correct. If the fighter's AoO stops the first grab, it won't stop the other six.

As I noted to the other poster, as far as I've been able to determine you get one grapple attempt per turn. You're BAB limited here. Your extra natural attacks don't help you out.

Huh? The wizard is going to win most of the grapple checks and deal more damage per hit.

See above.

Racial bonus feat. It's in the stat block.

I should note that, depending on how nitpicky you want to get, there are three interpretations of how that works for hydras (who have Dex 12). The stingy interpretation is that it does nothing, hydras don't benefit from the feat, and the extra rules text is meaningless. The generous interpretation is that the hydra gets to make seven attacks per AoO. The reasonable interpretation is that hydras use their number of heads in place of the Dex mod to determine how many AoOs they can make.

There's no rule that would keep a hydra from wearing an amulet. Hydras have necks. Hydras actually have more necks than most humans do.

It's irrelevant at any rate because it improves the original forms hp, which is what actually gets used.

PairO'Dice Lost

2018-09-19, 05:33 PM

When i google Races of War I get homebrew. Could you be a little more specific? Exactly which official 1st party 3.5 book must I look at to find that ECL = CR thing?

Yep, that's the one. The Tomes are a fairly extensive homebrew project from the 2005-2007 period, and while opinions on their design goals were (and still are) quite mixed, they were still posted to and discussed on quite a few forums and wikis at the time and had quite high visibility for a homebrew project.

There's no WotC book making the ECL = CR suggestion. The point is that most of the "advances" and "innovations" that Pathfinder made were already things that had been floating around the community for several years when PF came out, plus obscure second-party stuff tucked away in Dragon and Dungeon Magazine (since Paizo published those, after all). PF has been derogatorily referred to as "some dude's 3e homebrew with a higher art budget," and while it's branched out considerably into more novel material since the first few books and deserves some credit for that, the fact remains that at the time it was no more revolutionary or novel than any random collection of feat revisions and class fixes on the intertubes--or, indeed, any of the many 3rd-party "alternate Player's Handbook plus custom setting" books out at the time, like Arcana Evolved, Trailblazer, True20, and so on.

Gnaeus

2018-09-19, 06:30 PM

There's no WotC book making the ECL = CR suggestion. The point is that most of the "advances" and "innovations" that Pathfinder made were already things that had been floating around the community for several years when PF came out, plus obscure second-party stuff tucked away in Dragon and Dungeon Magazine (since Paizo published those, after all). PF has been derogatorily referred to as "some dude's 3e homebrew with a higher art budget," and while it's branched out considerably into more novel material since the first few books and deserves some credit for that, the fact remains that at the time it was no more revolutionary or novel than any random collection of feat revisions and class fixes on the intertubes--or, indeed, any of the many 3rd-party "alternate Player's Handbook plus custom setting" books out at the time, like Arcana Evolved, Trailblazer, True20, and so on.

So? If I could go to an Arcana Evolved Society game, I’d call it a + for them too. It doesn’t really matter much to anyone who isn’t preparing a PhD thesis on the historical evolution of design elements in games who came up with it first. Does FATE suck because GURPS did universal gaming systems first? That’s how gaming should evolve. People building off other people’s good ideas. The problem with PF2 isn’t that it is borrowing stuff from other systems. It’s that it is borrowing rediculous stuff from bad systems.

Ignimortis

2018-09-19, 08:38 PM

2) See above for Grapple stuff.

If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses).
So a hydra gets 7 attacks at the same attack bonus. I'd say that entitles it to seven grapple attempts per round.

Nope, this is a common misconception, but Polymorph doesn't allow you to change your HP except for a little healing. You have 33 health.

How sure are you that you get combat reflexes because I can't find anything to substantiate that.

Nope, not right. =-P

The errata you linked specifically mentions the polymorph spell, both as itself and as part of the alter self spell family, being separate and distinct from the alternate form power. Therefore, I'm not sure that it actually follows the rules for HP totals not changing, since alter self/polymorph provide wider-reaching changes than alternate form, like actually getting racial bonus feats, which is where you get Combat Reflexes for Hydra's polymorph. You might read it like that, but it's not official.

Edit: Polymorph Subschool in PHB II does change that, and indeed says that you retain your own hitpoints. Which basically means that it's nerfed in a later supplement. Which is nice, and I'll be sure to remember that.

the druid's wild shape ability, which now works like the alternate form special quality instead of the polymorph spell

1) You don't have a +19 grapple mod, because you don't get the base attack bonus of the hydra.

I have no doubt that a bunch of tables have seen level 7 wizards wandering around with a bonus 18 hit points (despite the polymorph subschool), grapple modifiers of +19 (despite the fact they don't get BAB from the hit dice), celerity means they never go second (despite the fact that they're flat footed), con amulets provide them hit point bonuses (despite that they can no longer wear them). I wonder if it's this forum's "let's exaggerate casters abilities" mini-game that results in all of these forgotten penalties.

Alright, so you get a +15 mod. That's still better than the Fighter, and you've got tons of attempts - which hit through Touch AC - to pull it off. Yes, you might even get hit with an AoO once or twice. But the chances are still on the PolyHydra's side.

Also, if you really wanna mess up a Fighter's day with a Wizard, just cast Fly and laugh from 120 feet away as you take him down with Scorching Rays, Magic Missiles and maybe a Sound Lance if you're feeling wasteful. The best he can do is try and hit your AC 25 (or 27) with his 1d6 shortbow at +7 to-hit. Sure, he's got double the health, but you've got Touch AC attacks with three times the DPR.

For not going second, casters prefer Nerveskitter, which is better than Improved Initiative as long as you have slots to burn. Celerity is mostly for getting out of dodge during actual combat.

So, yes, the soloing Polymorph is an exaggeration in the end (not as much if you Polymorph the Cleric instead of a Wizard, and perhaps into a better form than the Hydra, since the only actual attraction would be many attacks and Fast Healing which you don't get). There's still Web and Glitterdust and even the humble Color Spray or Sleep. And those are basically encounter-enders. I've seen a fair share of low-level encounters just...disabled through Web, and plinked to death.

upho

2018-09-19, 09:42 PM

Don't be ridiculous.

For basic competence at tripping, you only need zero feats and a reach weapon. For basic competence at every maneuver in the book, you need a single feat (Dirty Fighting) and that's it. Since this thread is rating statements as "Pants-On-Fire" now, yours certainly qualifies.Kurald, you know most PF classes don't get to swift-cast true strike, not even at 20th level, right?

I'm going to assume that by "basic competence" we mean "reasonable success chance against average value of monsters of a CR = level". If we do, just beyond the very earliest levels, your assumptions will be a bit off here in most games. And in higher levels, they're not just a bit off, they're on the wrong continent.

To give you a simple example, lets say your reach weapon combatant is an enlarged fighter facing a balor at 20th level, a monster with combat values very close to the listed "average" monster design target numbers for CR 20. Assuming your fighter is at least decently built, his total attack bonus using Power Attack is likely going to be around +34 (20 bab, 12 Str, 4 weapon training, 5 weapon enhancement, -1 size, -6 Power Attack), meaning he'll hit the balor on a roll of 2. Impressive, as it should be for a fighter!

Now what happens if your fighter tries to trip the balor? Well, not only does he risk getting smacked by a flaming vorpal whip, since the balor's reach is just as great as that of your fighter (and the demon can make 8 AoOs/round), but his success chance is also going to be pathetic even if he's using his first attack in a full attack for the trip; CMB +36 vs. the balor's CMD of 54.

And suppose your fighter is attempting to trip an average monster with a CR of 21, just above the balor, the CMD to beat is 60, and the chance of success has dropped to the minimum 5%.

Much worse, even if your fighter actually has invested in CMB related stuff to at least have a reasonable 70% chance to successfully trip the balor, there's a significant risk he won't get anything out of those investments, since the balor simply has to be flying in order to be completely immune.

Sorry, but I don't buy for a second that you think "basic competence" equals "at best 15% success chance against average foe of CR = level and provoking an AoO for trying". Especially not for a Str based Fighter performing a pretty basic melee attack against an enemy the fighter will rarely miss should he decide to deal damage instead.

Now try compare this the investments required for "basic competence" and the resulting success chances for the equivalent fighter in 3.5.

You appear to be focused on low levels but the game goes well beyond that. For most monsters, CMD rapidly outpaces CMB even with these feats, and the increasing failure chance makes the action economy benefits they provide even more necessary, so that you're not wasting your whole turn when they fail.

This is not to say I dislike CMB/CMD; I think they're great. But several of the maneuver feats could in my view be combined, as could other martial chains like Vital Strike and TWF.

3.5 also baselined other benefits too; for example, in 3.5 you can attempt to trip fliers for free without needing any feats at all. (You can also hide your spellcasting without a feat, but that one is of course more beneficial for casters.)Exactly this.

Unfortunately, without house rules especially trip is far too much of a trap in higher level PF games. There are issues with for example the size caps of many other maneuvers as well, not to mention trap feats like Shield Slam or grapple being near useless unless you're a Tetori Monk or a polymorphed caster spamming constricting grab attacks. But at least those issues can be overcome using only 1PP options as written, and at least it's generally an improvement in comparison to 3.5 in this regard, even if the related bloated feat chains aren't.

And I have to say it again: dirty trick. I love dirty trick. Everybody should love dirty trick! :smalltongue:

upho

2018-09-19, 10:39 PM

Alright, so you get a +15 mod. That's still better than the Fighter, and you've got tons of attempts - which hit through Touch AC - to pull it off. Yes, you might even get hit with an AoO once or twice. But the chances are still on the PolyHydra's side.If the Wizard actually puts in his best effort here, the fighter won't stand much of a chance. Not to mention that a wizard polymorphing himself into a hydra could hardly be called the most efficient use of the spell, nor the best way for most wizards to battle a fighter at this level (as you touch upon later in your post). Instead, I'd say the most serious problems with 3.5 polymorph spells can be seen in things like the same Wizard a few levels later turning his whole party into war trolls.

So, yes, the soloing Polymorph is an exaggeration in the end (not as much if you Polymorph the Cleric instead of a Wizard, and perhaps into a better form than the Hydra, since the only actual attraction would be many attacks and Fast Healing which you don't get).Actually, one could also say soloing polymorph Wizards are totally fine, simply because PC balance likely isn't a concern in a party of one (and the Wizard is much better equipped for solo adventuring in general). The point here being that while the Wizard being a powerhouse all by himself can indeed be problematic, the typically far greater balance issue is an overwhelmingly large proportion of the entire party's overall adventuring effectiveness being the result of the Wizard's spells. Polymorph shenanigans allowing the Wizard to outfight the party Fighter is just one of the most obvious and egregious proverbial tops of that iceberg.

There's still Web and Glitterdust and even the humble Color Spray or Sleep. And those are basically encounter-enders. I've seen a fair share of low-level encounters just...disabled through Web, and plinked to death.Yeah. And stuff like this don't even require much in the way of build optimization or tactical consideration in most situations. They're just boring win-buttons.

PairO'Dice Lost

2018-09-20, 12:02 AM

So? If I could go to an Arcana Evolved Society game, I’d call it a + for them too. It doesn’t really matter much to anyone who isn’t preparing a PhD thesis on the historical evolution of design elements in games who came up with it first. Does FATE suck because GURPS did universal gaming systems first? That’s how gaming should evolve. People building off other people’s good ideas. The problem with PF2 isn’t that it is borrowing stuff from other systems. It’s that it is borrowing rediculous stuff from bad systems.

I'm not saying that PF is bad because it was largely derivative, I'm saying that most of the things counted as being "done right" by PF were at best "done not-quite-so-terribly" or "done differently-terribly than before," mere incremental improvements that still carry forward the same unthinking assumptions of practically every other homebrew hack or 3rd-party product of the time.

To use ECL = CR as an example again, the PF devs didn't sit down, math things out, and radically redesign the 3e monster system from scratch to fix its shortcomings, which would be "fixing the monster mechanics done right." They borrowed a common idea that was several years old at the time, didn't improve upon it in any siginificant way, and made it the official rule for their particular alternate PHB.

It's the lack of the sort of evolution you mention that I'm commenting on, basically, because the question I was responding to implied that if they weren't copying from an official 3e source that they were coming up with something new and innovative, which wasn't at all the case.

*snip*

(Psst, you've attributed Ignimortis's quotes to me, might wanna fix that.)

Pex

2018-09-20, 12:32 AM

I agree CMB/CMD is flawed. The idea of it is fine, but its application doesn't work. I've experienced it. I like the spell Pilfering Hand for its disarming effect. I've never succeeded with it. Similarly with the spell Chain of Perdition. That spell only worked when I used the Drag effect on a party member or myself for help getting out of a jam. Almost all attempts to use it offensively against an enemy failed. I vaguely remembering it had worked once. I probably rolled a 20. In one group a player brought in a fighter built for tripping. He never succeeded. The DM let him play a different character three sessions later. It's like the designers purposely didn't want combat maneuvers to work. They made it hard so that not every warrior would take the feats, but they made it so hard no one bothers to take the feats so every warrior attacks for damage.

upho

2018-09-20, 01:52 AM

(Psst, you've attributed Ignimortis's quotes to me, might wanna fix that.)Huh? Thanks. Fixed.

But just how... How can that possibly happen if you only reply to one person's post (no multi-quoting)? :smallconfused:

Are you guys pulling my leg and polymorphing my posts behind my back or something? :smallfrown:

Quertus

2018-09-20, 01:57 AM

Got wrong:
Not really understanding high op game balance meant that many of their fixes broke something else

I don’t think they ever really understood their own game.

edit: You can add "Trying to rebalance the game more by nerfing the strong and enforcing class niches than boosting the weak, but not doing the job properly and getting the worst of both worlds" to the list of things they did wrong.

This is pretty much what I've heard of pf.

As to what they did right? Combining skills - but not for the reasons that have been said.

3e had Spot and Listen. Great, but what do I roll to see if someone notices a scent? A temperature change? Subtle vibrations? An aftertaste?

Combining this into Perception, and having that encompasses all sensory input, is the decidedly superior option.

peacenlove

2018-09-20, 02:23 AM

Things that did right.
-) Decoupling of XP as a resource for crafting or spellcasting cost.
-) Magus, Blood rager, Fighter options, unchained rogue, killing off CoDzilla and polymorph ridiculousness and sneak attack rehaul
-) Inbuilt support for 3rd party with open SRD
-) CMB/CMD in regards of expanded maneuvers such as reposition, steal and dirty trick
-) Everybody can be proficient in a skill with minimal investment
-) Called shots
-) Adventures and modules

Things that it did horribly wrong
-) It imported only 3 books out of 3.5, missing on its varied subsystems. So we have useless feats / traits that could be very well be good skill tricks, Spells/powers that could fit in another subsystem, happily being grabbed by wizard/cleric and so on.
-) Wordcasting
-) Multiclassing in general.
-) Full casters are still ahead in both power, passive/active buffs and options

eraskller

2018-09-20, 02:27 AM

Skills. I port over the skill consolidation in my houserules.

Getting rid of racial favored class.

How did you do that ?This is the second time I've heard this in this forum .

Kelb_Panthera

2018-09-20, 02:45 AM

How did you do that ?This is the second time I've heard this in this forum .

The GM can simply declare it so.

EldritchWeaver

2018-09-20, 03:17 AM

Not including a proper psionics system. As above (including DSP doing a better version).

In defense of Paizo, they looked at the DSP version and then said, they couldn't create a better version and wouldn't create their own version because of this.

Manyasone

2018-09-20, 03:20 AM

In defense of Paizo, they looked at the DSP version and then said, they couldn't create a better version and wouldn't create their own version because of this.

I heard that as well. I remember thinking "Good on you, don't mess it up by crafting your own watered down version"
And then came occult mysteries...

Kurald Galain

2018-09-20, 03:38 AM

To give you a simple example, lets say your reach weapon combatant is an enlarged fighter facing a balor at 20th level,
Ok, stop right there.

Most campaigns never get anywhere near level 20. Most people never even play level 20, and if they do it's only for a tiny percentage of their overall playtime. So your example is not at all relevant. Pick something from actual gameplay, not from hypothetical theory-op.

Ignimortis

2018-09-20, 04:29 AM

Huh? Thanks. Fixed.

But just how... How can that possibly happen if you only reply to one person's post (no multi-quoting)? :smallconfused:

Are you guys pulling my leg and polymorphing my posts behind my back or something? :smallfrown:

Why waste a Polymorph when a Disguise Self works just fine? :P

To be honest, I didn't do anything.

upho

2018-09-20, 06:21 AM

Ok, stop right there.

Most campaigns never get anywhere near level 20. Most people never even play level 20, and if they do it's only for a tiny percentage of their overall playtime. So your example is not at all relevant. Pick something from actual gameplay, not from hypothetical theory-op.Well, while I agree with you about 20th level being basically just "hypothetical theory-op", the fact remains the game has 20 levels and is (supposedly) intended to function also at 20th level. But like I implied in my previous post, this issue isn't in any way limited to only the highest levels. Just to give you an idea, here are the relevant average monster numbers for a few CR ratings, showing the increasing gap between AC and CMD (AC numbers are the average values according to the monster creation target values table, CMD numbers are the actual averages of 1PP monsters found on d20pfsrd):

CR 5 AC 18, CMD 22 (CMD is 22.3% higher than AC)
CR 10 AC 24, CMD 32 (CMD is 33.3% higher than AC)
CR 15 AC 30, CMD 44 (CMD is 46.7% higher than AC)
CR 20 AC 36, CMD 55 (CMD is 52.8% higher than AC)

Note that these numbers are also the "best case scenario" for monsters, valid basically only for combat maneuvers without size caps. In reality the average monster CMD grows much quicker for most combat maneuvers, as the proportion of foes flat-out immune due to size, weird physiology and similar also increases with levels. This is especially true in the case of trip due to the abundance of flying enemies from a relatively early level (IIRC, already at 10th level more than half of the monsters included above have a continuous fly speed).

Again, there are design target values for numbers like monster attack bonuses, saves, AC and HP, but not for CMD values. This is most likely also the reason why monster CMD values are not only way too high on average in comparison to what "baseline competence" PC values suggests, but also have way too great standard deviation to even allow for a "baseline competence" without significant investments. It really is one of the most extreme examples of how the game math demands specialization and rewards system mastery, in this case most likely also unintentionally greatly exacerbated by sloppy base design ignorant of the above math (hence why Paizo has later also released many more ways for PCs to gain substantial bonuses to CMB). As examples of just how ignorant the design can be in this regard, just look at the Shield Slam trap feat or the many spells expecting a caster to be able to do anything just by having a CMB based on their caster level and stat as opposed to BAB and Str (as mentioned by Pex in his post above).

And speaking of Pex's post, take a look at the specific example of Chain of Perdition (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/chain-of-perdition/). Now ask yourself what average success chance you'd require this to have in order to be a worth the investments for a Magus to nab via say Spell Blending, and how far from that success chance a "typical" Magus would be at the level when they can first gain access to the spell.

Ignimortis

2018-09-20, 06:31 AM

*CMB snip*

The simple fact is that CMD is 10+BAB+STR mod+DEX mod+size+misc, while CMB is just BAB+STR mod+size+misc. We're basically missing a flat 10 (representative of a middle roll on a d20) and a DEX mod in here (either positive or irrelevant due to clumsy mobs' usual larger sizes), of course it's gonna scale poorly. I have no idea who considered this to be normal and how they actually thought it was gonna work.

AnonymousPepper

2018-09-20, 06:41 AM

upho

2018-09-20, 06:45 AM

Why waste a Polymorph when a Disguise Self works just fine? :PDang, you're right... I take it that means you have the slots to make me look like even more of a fool repeatedly today? :smalleek:

To be honest, I didn't do anything.And honestly, I think I did do something. I have absolutely no idea what, but that's probably 'cause my poor old brain ain't what it used to be... :smallredface:

upho

2018-09-20, 07:11 AM

So like for the record I mentioned the polymorphing hydra because that actually happened in one of my games. I was DMing a oneshot dungeon crawl for the rest of the party while the GM was away for a couple weeks and the party's wizard did precisely that and ended up outshining the other party members pretty hard. He did have other buffs going, but yeah.

I wasn't trying to cite it as the pinnacle of wizard BS or anything, just drawing on the first thing that came to mind.I have very similar experiences with polymorph in 3.5. And I think it's a great example, actually. Definitely "wizard BS" enough to be a balance problem in most games, which is why Paizo did the right thing by having the 3.5 polymorph spell family spend some quality time with the good ol' nerf-bat (and thankfully also breaking things up long before the any of the many PF polymorph kids had been beaten to useless pulp)...

upho

2018-09-20, 07:48 AM

The simple fact is that CMD is 10+BAB+STR mod+DEX mod+size+misc, while CMB is just BAB+STR mod+size+misc. We're basically missing a flat 10 (representative of a middle roll on a d20) and a DEX mod in here (either positive or irrelevant due to clumsy mobs' usual larger sizes), of course it's gonna scale poorly. I have no idea who considered this to be normal and how they actually thought it was gonna work.Yep. And it's actually even worse than that, since stuff like dodge and deflection bonuses also apply to CMD, and quite a few higher CR monsters can have some pretty insane such bonuses of various more or less exotic types. One of the worst such examples off the top of my head is a +11 insight bonus to AC on a Colossal monster, which together with the size bonus adds up to a whopping +19 to CMD in addition to the normal baseline values. Good luck maneuvering that beast without an insanely one-trick pony maxed CMB...

I suspect these bonuses were originally added mostly just for flavor and variation reasons, breaking up the usual pattern of simply piling on NA on larger monsters until their AC gets reasonably close to the target number. And since there are no target values for CMD, judging by the pretty extreme variation often seen for different monsters of the same CR, my guess is most designers simply did the calculations without really considering whether the result would be reasonable. Most of them probably assumed combat maneuvers would remain similar to their 3.5 predecessors and not much more than a bit of "window-dressing versatility" for melee PCs to spice up their usual full attack/charge damage turns with. Certainly not something intended to remain actually viable primary combat focuses beyond 10th level.

Kurald Galain

2018-09-20, 09:47 AM

CR 5 AC 18, CMD 22 (CMD is 22.3% higher than AC)
CR 10 AC 24, CMD 32 (CMD is 33.3% higher than AC)
CR 15 AC 30, CMD 44 (CMD is 46.7% higher than AC)
CR 20 AC 36, CMD 55 (CMD is 52.8% higher than AC)

Thank you, that's much better.

To me, this suggests three things,
Without investing in maneuvers, you should be able to CMB certain creatures well, and others poorly. Somebody in the party needs knowledge checks to tell you which is which.
WITH investment in maneuvers, you need at least as big a bonus as the difference between AC and CMD. So +4 at level 5, +8 by level 10, and +14 by level 15.
At level 20, you're basically screwed. That's definitely annoying, but campaigns rarely get that high.

So let's run some numbers on that.
Level 5: +5 BAB, +5 str/dex, +1 magic weapon gives you +11 CMB, for a 50% chance to hit.
Level 10: +10 BAB, +7 str/dex, +3 magic weapon, +2 from class features (e.g. weapon training, rage, divine bond) gives you +22 CMB, for a 50% chance to hit.

This means that with ZERO investment, a melee class can connect with maneuvers 50% of the time (not accounting for Haste, flanking, bard song, etc). I find that pretty good. It's fair to assume that at least one party member will have knowledges; if he tells you your enemies are easy to maneuver, you're going to connect 60-70% of the time. If he tells you they're hard to maneuver, you do something else, because this is the zero investment build. You deal with OAs by either using a reach weapon, or by targeting enemies that are flat-footed or surprised, or by pulling them on enemy casters or archers (who tend to lack a useful OA).

And the other question, how easily can you get a +8 to maneuvers by level 10? Turns out this is fairly easy. Dirty Fighting + Improved X + Greater X gives you a +6; Heirloom Weapon trait gives +2; Gauntlets of Skilled Maneuver and Thorny Ioun Stone each add +2 more. That's a +12 when all we wanted is +8; so if you think this is too expensive, just invest less. Numerous races and classes give further bonuses, so looks like a +14 bonus by level 15 is very much doable.

And an often overlooked part is that 3.5's Improved X feat gives an OA to you whereas PF's Greater X feat gives an OA to the entire party.

So overall, doesn't look nearly as bad as people think, as long as you're playing level 15 or below.

And speaking of Pex's post, take a look at the specific example of Chain of Perdition (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/chain-of-perdition/)
(edit) I agree that this particular spell is not very good, and particularly bad on a Magus. And that is because it doesn't benefit from most of the bonuses I mentioned above.

martixy

2018-09-20, 12:42 PM

Thank you, that's much better.

To me, this suggests three things,
Without investing in maneuvers, you should be able to CMB certain creatures well, and others poorly. Somebody in the party needs knowledge checks to tell you which is which.
WITH investment in maneuvers, you need at least as big a bonus as the difference between AC and CMD. So +4 at level 5, +8 by level 10, and +14 by level 15.
At level 20, you're basically screwed. That's definitely annoying, but campaigns rarely get that high.

So let's run some numbers on that.
Level 5: +5 BAB, +5 str/dex, +1 magic weapon gives you +11 CMB, for a 50% chance to hit.
Level 10: +10 BAB, +7 str/dex, +3 magic weapon, +2 from class features (e.g. weapon training, rage, divine bond) gives you +22 CMB, for a 50% chance to hit.

This means that with ZERO investment, a melee class can connect with maneuvers 50% of the time (not accounting for Haste, flanking, bard song, etc). I find that pretty good. It's fair to assume that at least one party member will have knowledges; if he tells you your enemies are easy to maneuver, you're going to connect 60-70% of the time. If he tells you they're hard to maneuver, you do something else, because this is the zero investment build. You deal with OAs by either using a reach weapon, or by targeting enemies that are flat-footed or surprised, or by pulling them on enemy casters or archers (who tend to lack a useful OA).

And the other question, how easily can you get a +8 to maneuvers by level 10? Turns out this is fairly easy. Dirty Fighting + Improved X + Greater X gives you a +6; Heirloom Weapon trait gives +2; Gauntlets of Skilled Maneuver and Thorny Ioun Stone each add +2 more. That's a +12 when all we wanted is +8; so if you think this is too expensive, just invest less. Numerous races and classes give further bonuses, so looks like a +14 bonus by level 15 is very much doable.

And an often overlooked part is that 3.5's Improved X feat gives an OA to you whereas PF's Greater X feat gives an OA to the entire party.

So overall, doesn't look nearly as bad as people think, as long as you're playing level 15 or below.

(edit) I agree that this particular spell is not very good, and particularly bad on a Magus. And that is because it doesn't benefit from most of the bonuses I mentioned above.

"That's definitely annoying, but campaigns rarely get that high."
This is a non-statement. It doesn't excuse or explain anything.

And can you run me through that math again?
CMB is BAB+Str+Size.
That's it.

Where do the weapon bonuses come from? And very few class features grant any bonuses to CMB (even rage got "nerfed" in that aspect when the unchained barb replaced the ability bonuses with bonuses to the derived statistics).

Furthermore, the maneuvers feats are just one example in the long list of what we have established is one of PFs weak points - tons of long feat chains just there as a tax.

Peat

2018-09-20, 01:29 PM

I totally agree here. But if you're going to give Paizo this well-deserved critique of not boosting the weak nearly enough, it does seem a bit odd - or at least "premature" - to me to also start criticizing them for not offering the strong more ways in which to rub their strength into the faces of the weak. It's sorta like complaining about a car not being available with a more powerful engine, when its chassis, suspension, downforce and traction control isn't even capable of handling the power it already comes with except on a flat straight drag-racing strip. IOW, if you're only drag racing your party consists of say only T1 and T2 classes/builds and synthesists, go ahead and add compressors and a NOX system import any 3.5 gish PrC's you like, on top of the caster guild fame rewards.

Last bit first here as its the most thread relevant -

My stance would be once you've made the decision to have Drag Racing Cars and Go Karts on the same race course, you might as well run with it rather than ruling out some of the Drag Racing Cars randomly. I get that not everyone will feel the same way and that there's flaws in doing so, but that's my preference. Besides, I really like magic knights :P

I noticed the feat being mentioned, but seems I failed my Perception check on the guild stuff. But yes, you'd still be using the same group of PrC's, the difference being that you have a lot more room to play around with as quite a few more combos can actually give you +16/9th, not to mention your general power progression will be a lot less bumpy during at least the first 10 levels or so.

Actually, on second thoughts, I'd change that, as you can use it to load up on Fighter (or whatever), letting you use the various 3/4 BAB part spell casting classes a lot more freely. Granted, you'll have to have a character with strong religious affiliations to use them (and I think there's a fair criticism about them the aesthetics they enforce there) but there's some cool fun stuff there. And I agree that it makes things smoother.

(Regarding the "semi-official RAI", if you're referring to this post by James Jacobs (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=200?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#9960), I don't think it's even remotely close to even a semi-official errata, since a) he wasn't even aware of the existence of these rewards before being asked, b) he's not a rules developer, c) he ends his post saying: "but I'd be interested to see how it plays out as written.", and most importantly d) his posts are very explicitly not official rules statements unless otherwise mentioned, and certainly not official errata in any way. It may also be interesting to note that there are other guild boons on arguably the same power level.)

Ah, thanks :)

Galacktic

2018-09-20, 01:39 PM

"That's definitely annoying, but campaigns rarely get that high."
This is a non-statement. It doesn't excuse or explain anything.

And can you run me through that math again?
CMB is BAB+Str+Size.
That's it.

Where do the weapon bonuses come from? And very few class features grant any bonuses to CMB (even rage got "nerfed" in that aspect when the unchained barb replaced the ability bonuses with bonuses to the derived statistics).

Furthermore, the maneuvers feats are just one example in the long list of what we have established is one of PFs weak points - tons of long feat chains just there as a tax.

I'm staying out of this (because I adore PF and hate 3.5 for the most part aside from the huge variety of classes/PRCs) but if you use a weapon for a combat maneuver in Pathfinder, you may apply that weapon's bonus to that combat maneuver.

From an FAQ:

Weapon Finesse: If I have this feat, can I apply my Dex bonus to my combat maneuver checks instead of my Strength bonus?

It depends on what combat maneuver you're attempting. Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses apply to the roll. Therefore, if you're attempting a disarm, sunder, or trip maneuver, you can apply your Dex bonus instead of your Str mod on the combat maneuver check (assuming you're using a finessable weapon, of course). For other combat maneuvers, you use the normal rule for determining CMB (Str instead of Dex).

The Agile Maneuvers feat applies to all combat maneuvers, not just disarm, sunder, and trip, so it is still a useful option for a Dex-based creature that uses combat maneuvers.

martixy

2018-09-20, 01:55 PM

~

Cool. Did not know that.

Be that as it may, I call BS on this whole FAQ bit. (Not that I question its validity, I just call design BS.)

Fizban

2018-09-20, 03:04 PM

Yep. And it's actually even worse than that, since stuff like dodge and deflection bonuses also apply to CMD, and quite a few higher CR monsters can have some pretty insane such bonuses of various more or less exotic types. One of the worst such examples off the top of my head is a +11 insight bonus to AC on a Colossal monster, which together with the size bonus adds up to a whopping +19 to CMD in addition to the normal baseline values. Good luck maneuvering that beast without an insanely one-trick pony maxed CMB...

I suspect these bonuses were originally added mostly just for flavor and variation reasons, breaking up the usual pattern of simply piling on NA on larger monsters until their AC gets reasonably close to the target number. And since there are no target values for CMD, judging by the pretty extreme variation often seen for different monsters of the same CR, my guess is most designers simply did the calculations without really considering whether the result would be reasonable. Most of them probably assumed combat maneuvers would remain similar to their 3.5 predecessors and not much more than a bit of "window-dressing versatility" for melee PCs to spice up their usual full attack/charge damage turns with. Certainly not something intended to remain actually viable primary combat focuses beyond 10th level.
I was not aware of this. In 3.5, esoteric dodginess is already accounted for by requiring a touch attack to start your trips and grapples, but apparently PF does away with this. Smashing the grab and the maneuver into the same roll actually screws with a lot, so I guess I'll have to retract my being fine with them.

(I've checked the main entry on favored class bonuses and I don't think my original interpretation was much off, but I haven't looked up the examples I didn't like yet. Very spotty posting with stuff going on at home).

blackwindbears

2018-09-20, 04:20 PM

So a hydra gets 7 attacks at the same attack bonus. I'd say that entitles it to seven grapple attempts per round.

Puzzling out the grapple rules for monsters is practically a research project in and of itself, but I'd love a citation for your claim.

Mine comes from the FAQ and a Rules of the Game article last modified in 2007 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050322a). The monster grappling is limited by its base attack bonus. The wizard hydra gets one grapple attempt and loses the combat.

The errata you linked specifically mentions the polymorph spell, both as itself and as part of the alter self spell family, being separate and distinct from the alternate form power. Therefore, I'm not sure that it actually follows the rules for HP totals not changing, since alter self/polymorph provide wider-reaching changes than alternate form, like actually getting racial bonus feats, which is where you get Combat Reflexes for Hydra's polymorph. You might read it like that, but it's not official.

Edit: Polymorph Subschool in PHB II does change that, and indeed says that you retain your own hitpoints. Which basically means that it's nerfed in a later supplement. Which is nice, and I'll be sure to remember that.

So the wizard dies.

Alright, so you get a +15 mod. That's still better than the Fighter, and you've got tons of attempts - which hit through Touch AC - to pull it off. Yes, you might even get hit with an AoO once or twice. But the chances are still on the PolyHydra's side.

As noted previously you don't get tons of attempts, so...

Also, if you really wanna mess up a Fighter's day with a Wizard, just cast Fly and laugh from 120 feet away as you take him down with Scorching Rays, Magic Missiles and maybe a Sound Lance if you're feeling wasteful. The best he can do is try and hit your AC 25 (or 27) with his 1d6 shortbow at +7 to-hit. Sure, he's got double the health, but you've got Touch AC attacks with three times the DPR.

That's almost certainly true.

For not going second, casters prefer Nerveskitter, which is better than Improved Initiative as long as you have slots to burn. Celerity is mostly for getting out of dodge during actual combat.

Nerveskitter is a great use of a second level slot at high levels. Not nearly as good as ignoring the rules on celerity, but, what can you do.

So, yes, the soloing Polymorph is an exaggeration in the end (not as much if you Polymorph the Cleric instead of a Wizard, and perhaps into a better form than the Hydra, since the only actual attraction would be many attacks and Fast Healing which you don't get). There's still Web and Glitterdust and even the humble Color Spray or Sleep. And those are basically encounter-enders. I've seen a fair share of low-level encounters just...disabled through Web, and plinked to death.

All true. I'd have to check the rules on sneak attack and natural weapon attack routines, but I'd be much more scared of the Wizard Hydra-ing the rogue. I also am somewhat less concerned when the wizard is ending encounters by buffing his allies, or depending on the debuff, debuffing his opponents.

If the Wizard actually puts in his best effort here, the fighter won't stand much of a chance. Not to mention that a wizard polymorphing himself into a hydra could hardly be called the most efficient use of the spell, nor the best way for most wizards to battle a fighter at this level (as you touch upon later in your post). Instead, I'd say the most serious problems with 3.5 polymorph spells can be seen in things like the same Wizard a few levels later turning his whole party into war trolls.

I don't know that I disagree, I am merely arguing that polymorphing into a hydra is not going to solo the vast majority of EL 7 encounters if you play by the rules.

Actually, one could also say soloing polymorph Wizards are totally fine, simply because PC balance likely isn't a concern in a party of one (and the Wizard is much better equipped for solo adventuring in general). The point here being that while the Wizard being a powerhouse all by himself can indeed be problematic, the typically far greater balance issue is an overwhelmingly large proportion of the entire party's overall adventuring effectiveness being the result of the Wizard's spells. Polymorph shenanigans allowing the Wizard to outfight the party Fighter is just one of the most obvious and egregious proverbial tops of that iceberg.

I've just never seen or heard of it happening in a game where people were using the polymorph rules correctly. I'm sure there is something dumb in monster manual 12 that wizards are polymorphing into. But most "polymorph broke my game" problems I see are just selectively ignoring polymorph rules.

So like for the record I mentioned the polymorphing hydra because that actually happened in one of my games. I was DMing a oneshot dungeon crawl for the rest of the party while the GM was away for a couple weeks and the party's wizard did precisely that and ended up outshining the other party members pretty hard. He did have other buffs going, but yeah.

I wasn't trying to cite it as the pinnacle of wizard BS or anything, just drawing on the first thing that came to mind.

I don't think you were trying to cite it as the pinnacle of wizard BS, I'm just super skeptical that using one fourth level slot to turn into a hydra solo'd any EL 7 encounter. I could be wrong, maybe you can come up with an example of such an encounter, but it certainly wasn't so general (among people playing by the rules) to be described as "the days of a wizard soloing encounters by polymorphing into a hydra." Not after 2006 anyway (which admittedly is the vast majority of my experience with 3.5).

I apologize for arguing this in such detail, and it's nothing personal against you. I just detest the full-caster exaggeration minigame played on this forum.

Ignimortis

2018-09-20, 04:53 PM

Puzzling out the grapple rules for monsters is practically a research project in and of itself, but I'd love a citation for your claim.

Mine comes from the FAQ and a Rules of the Game article last modified in 2007 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050322a). The monster grappling is limited by its base attack bonus. The wizard hydra gets one grapple attempt and loses the combat.

Nerveskitter is a great use of a second level slot at high levels. Not nearly as good as ignoring the rules on celerity, but, what can you do.

1) I provided a quote from D20SRD (www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple), which is an official source.

If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses).

2) The FAQ you linked explicitly says:

In general, monsters follow the same rules as PCs when conducting a grapple.

Which means that the hydra gets as many grapple attempts as it gets attacks. Since its' full attack is a 7-attack routine at the same bonus for each attack, that means all grapple attempts are resolved the same way.

3) The part about getting as many attacks "as the BAB would allow with a weapon" only applies to attacking in a grapple. It'll take a while to actually crush the Fighter, but hey, this stopped being about practicality a while ago when the Wizard decided that he wants to go toe-to-toe with a Fighter while using a single 4th-level spell.

4) Nerveskitter is a 1st-level spell, so it becomes pretty spammable rather quickly, somewhere around level 7 or 9 at the latest.

blackwindbears

2018-09-20, 05:50 PM

1) I provided a quote from D20SRD (www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple), which is an official source.

2) The FAQ you linked explicitly says:

Which means that the hydra gets as many grapple attempts as it gets attacks. Since its' full attack is a 7-attack routine at the same bonus for each attack, that means all grapple attempts are resolved the same way.

3) The part about getting as many attacks "as the BAB would allow with a weapon" only applies to attacking in a grapple. It'll take a while to actually crush the Fighter, but hey, this stopped being about practicality a while ago when the Wizard decided that he wants to go toe-to-toe with a Fighter while using a single 4th-level spell.

For clarification, you agree that once in the grapple the hydra only gets one attempt to deal damage per round? I'd be willing to believe that it can have 7 grab attempts. It probably gets hit in the first attempt, taking about 1/4-1/3 of it's hp. It probably initiates the grapple over the next 6 attempts dealing an average of 9.5 damage (One sixth of the fighters hp).

Also note:

Monsters in a grapple may use their natural weapons, but only by using the “Attack Your Opponent” option (which applies a –4 penalty on the attack roll).

So on turns where he's started grappling, he's only a little more than 50% likely to deal damage. Roughly 1/4 of turns this isn't true, as the fighter successfully escaped and has a decent chance (slightly more than 50%) of hitting you if he drops the Combat Expertise. This allows you to be quite likely to succesfully grapple him, but the bottom line is he's won a grapple check he's getting in something like 1 to 2 hits. He wins the grapple check to escape roughly once every three rounds. You damage him on half of the rounds that you keep the grapple. So he needs to win 1-2 grapple checks on his turn before you win 5 coin tosses on your turn. It's pretty close but I'd venture that the odds favor him, slightly (I attempted to run it once the hydra lost with the fighter at 19 (two average hits left). I don't present that as very conclusive, however he was lucky to hit on every attack of op, and did slightly higher than average damage). Good thing he took Skill Focus[Climb] rather than Improved Grapple, or worse, combat reflexes.

4) Nerveskitter is a 1st-level spell, so it becomes pretty spammable rather quickly, somewhere around level 7 or 9 at the latest.

That is a very nice spell then.

dascarletm

2018-09-20, 05:52 PM

blackwindbears

2018-09-20, 06:18 PM

Actually, it is only the attack you get in BaB, not natural attacks for grappling. (NAs are a separate thing) The rules compendium cleared all that up:

(Underline for emphasis)

Ugh, I should have just checked there first, would have saved us all lots of time.

upho

2018-09-20, 06:51 PM

Thank you, that's much better.If you're interested in more details for purposes outside this particular discussion, I've added the relevant target CMB numbers to this "baseline combat numbers" spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BQS6uZh7_bpp3RSwOVfuYd_Eg-4iXlHXTXeWVKksihY/edit?usp=sharing) (see the related article (https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/bench-pressing-character-creation-by-the-numbers/) for an explanation). It's a very nifty compilation for quickening the process of ensuring baseline combat viability fitting with your game's expectations and analyzing basic combat strengths/weaknesses when planning PC as well as NPC/monster builds, I think. Hopefully it can be of assistance to you as well.

To me, this suggests three things,
Without investing in maneuvers, you should be able to CMB certain creatures well, and others poorly. Somebody in the party needs knowledge checks to tell you which is which.
WITH investment in maneuvers, you need at least as big a bonus as the difference between AC and CMD. So +4 at level 5, +8 by level 10, and +14 by level 15.
At level 20, you're basically screwed. That's definitely annoying, but campaigns rarely get that high.

So let's run some numbers on that.
Level 5: +5 BAB, +5 str/dex, +1 magic weapon gives you +11 CMB, for a 50% chance to hit.
Level 10: +10 BAB, +7 str/dex, +3 magic weapon, +2 from class features (e.g. weapon training, rage, divine bond) gives you +22 CMB, for a 50% chance to hit.This is unfortunately pretty far from the "average" CMB check success chances in reality, nor is it a good indicator of how worthwhile most CMB checks are at baseline in reality, because your numbers don't take some very important factors into account, most notably:

By default, weapon related bonuses only apply to trip, disarm, sunder and dirty tricks you're able to perform using your weapon (up to GM fiat and player creativity), but not to bull rush, drag, grapple, overrun, reposition and steal. So 60% of baseline CMB checks wont't receive for example the weapon enhancement, divine bond or weapon training bonuses.
Full bab classes not focusing specifically on maneuvers are likely to use Power Attack, and the penalty applies to combat maneuvers even though you normally gain no benefit from the feat on a successful check.
Likewise, the above listed 6 of 10 maneuvers don't benefit from wielding a reach weapon, meaning you'll still provoke at the very least one AoO (and up to three AoOs from attempting a single overrun) from your target.
Without specific investments, most maneuvers have absolutely awful action expenditure vs benefit ratio in comparison to simply dealing damage, especially with a mere 50% success chance or less.

This means that with ZERO investment, a melee class can connect with maneuvers 50% of the time (not accounting for Haste, flanking, bard song, etc). I find that pretty good. It's fair to assume that at least one party member will have knowledges; if he tells you your enemies are easy to maneuver, you're going to connect 60-70% of the time. If he tells you they're hard to maneuver, you do something else, because this is the zero investment build. You deal with OAs by either using a reach weapon, or by targeting enemies that are flat-footed or surprised, or by pulling them on enemy casters or archers (who tend to lack a useful OA).As explained above, I believe this paints an overly optimistic picture of how this actually plays out in a real game, and it's ultimately at the very least misleading if not flat-out wrong.

And the other question, how easily can you get a +8 to maneuvers by level 10? Turns out this is fairly easy. Dirty Fighting + Improved X + Greater X gives you a +6; Heirloom Weapon trait gives +2; Gauntlets of Skilled Maneuver and Thorny Ioun Stone each add +2 more. That's a +12 when all we wanted is +8; so if you think this is too expensive, just invest less. Numerous races and classes give further bonuses, so looks like a +14 bonus by level 15 is very much doable.Well, yes, once you start investing, you can actually pretty easily reach functionality during most levels, and pretty insanely high CMB numbers with certain maneuvers with optimization. Much more so than in 3.5, for sure. But neither Psyren or I have objected to this, and since the both of us have had this particular discussion with other people in quite a few threads, I also happen to know that he's more than well aware of most ways in which you can boost your CMB. Even taking out the tarrasque (CMD 66) for at least 2d4 rounds via dirty tricks succeeding on a roll of 2, before it's even able to act, is far from impossible at 20th level. Even without temporary boosts from allies, prep time or expending much limited resources. (And for example some more highly optimized PoW Str/size/reach melee control builds can pretty reliably do the same with several opponents of an even higher CR, without so much as breaking a sweat.)

And an often overlooked part is that 3.5's Improved X feat gives an OA to you whereas PF's Greater X feat gives an OA to the entire party.No, PF Greater feats most definitely don't do this. At most, specifically Greater Bull Rush, Drag and Reposition will grant an AoO ONLY to your allies (not you), provoked by the opponent's movement caused by your maneuver success. Which in most parties will very rarely actually be more effective than you gaining an AoO instead. (Though with more investments, you can of course optimize also this specific benefit to the high heavens, for example by being mounted and having Paired Opportunists and a horsemaster's saddle.)

So overall, doesn't look nearly as bad as people think, as long as you're playing level 15 or below.Without specific investments, I'd say it is unfortunately as bad people believe, if not even worse. (Thankfully, with specific investments it's also a lot better than what most people seem to believe, as mentioned above.)

(edit) I agree that this particular spell is not very good, and particularly bad on a Magus. And that is because it doesn't benefit from most of the bonuses I mentioned above.Note that CoP isn't uniquely bad for a CMB-using spell, but an example of the standard calculation for spells granting CMB checks. Virtually all of them are practically useless against anything but the weakest mooks, and certainly not competitive with other spells unless they also do something without requiring a successful CMB check (making for example black tentacles useful in at least some situations).

And can you run me through that math again?
CMB is BAB+Str+Size.
That's it.

Where do the weapon bonuses come from? And very few class features grant any bonuses to CMB (even rage got "nerfed" in that aspect when the unchained barb replaced the ability bonuses with bonuses to the derived statistics).This isn't true. Any bonuses applying to melee attack rolls in general also apply to combat maneuver checks (they are actually a type of melee attacks). Including for example an Un-barb's rage bonuses.

As an aside, you're far from the first person posting incorrect claims about the rules for combat maneuvers, even in this thread there are quite few (see my reply to Kurald above). For some reason, it appears these erroneous echo-chambered claims are far more often grossly overstating the actual RAW limitations of combat maneuvers than they're understating them. My guess it's because back when PF was still young combat maneuvers and the relatively few related options had much less potential than they have today, and many players got a very bad impression from those early games or lingering echo-chamber beliefs, having these players simply give up on combat maneuvers without later bothering to check whether doing so remains justified.

Furthermore, the maneuvers feats are just one example in the long list of what we have established is one of PFs weak points - tons of long feat chains just there as a tax.Yes, making combat maneuvers truly worthwhile requires often quite considerable investments. But make no mistake, they can actually be the far most effective melee combat tool in the game. Yes, even to the point of completely replacing the need for dealing hp damage, not to mention they provide melee combatants with numerous potential uses with a level of viability and effectiveness far beyond that of any 3.5 equivalents.

upho

2018-09-20, 08:09 PM

I was not aware of this. In 3.5, esoteric dodginess is already accounted for by requiring a touch attack to start your trips and grapples, but apparently PF does away with this. Smashing the grab and the maneuver into the same roll actually screws with a lot, so I guess I'll have to retract my being fine with them.You're jumping to the wrong conclusion here. I can assure you that with investments many PF combat maneuvers can be made far more reliable and effective than any 3.5 equivalents. And I mean to such a level melee builds can take on combat roles and styles flat-out impossible in 3.5.

Outside perhaps certain maneuvers and levels (such as trip during higher levels), there's simply nothing to discuss here, as PF's combat maneuvers offer possibilities far beyond anything even remotely possible by any 3.5 counterparts. And again, this includes reliability in terms of both success chances and applicability to specific situations/opponents.

As an example of the actual numbers, the monster with the +11 insight bonus to AC I mentioned is the CR 24 tychilarius (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/tychilarius), having a CMD of 76. Which for example a MoMS Monk 2/Primalist Bloodrager 16/Ragechemist Vivisectionist Alchemist 2 build optimized for dirty trick beats on roll of 2, and can often do so several times per round, in every combat round, in every combat, every day. Again without the need for any outside support, prep time or expending any significant limited resources. Note that this also means not just one, but two or even three tychilariuses may end up dazed and utterly unable to act for an average of at least 6 rounds before they've even been able to act.

(I've checked the main entry on favored class bonuses and I don't think my original interpretation was much off, but I haven't looked up the examples I didn't like yet. Very spotty posting with stuff going on at home).Allow me spare you the work: there are a few very rare actually truly significant racial favored class bonuses, the most notable probably being for human Sorcerers (because Paizo has a hard-on for humans for some reason):

"Add one spell known from the sorcerer spell list. This spell must be at least one level below the highest spell level the sorcerer can cast."

It never gets any worse than this, and not even remotely close to this in the vast majority of cases (which are generally also about equally "meh"). So yes, I'd say Kurald is absolutely right to claim racial favored class bonuses very rarely limit or impact race choices in PF much at all, and that the far most common one is just the default +1 hp available to all races. This is especially true in comparison to other racial stuff, such as stat bonuses/penalties and other racial traits.

martixy

2018-09-21, 12:53 AM

If you're interested in more details for purposes outside this particular discussion, I've added the relevant target CMB numbers to this "baseline combat numbers" spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BQS6uZh7_bpp3RSwOVfuYd_Eg-4iXlHXTXeWVKksihY/edit?usp=sharing) (see the related article (https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/bench-pressing-character-creation-by-the-numbers/) for an explanation). It's a very nifty compilation for quickening the process of ensuring baseline combat viability fitting with your game's expectations and analyzing basic combat strengths/weaknesses when planning PC as well as NPC/monster builds, I think. Hopefully it can be of assistance to you as well.

And saving that one as well...

Also, shouldn't the table at row 45 say CMD?

This isn't true. Any bonuses applying to melee attack rolls in general also apply to combat maneuver checks (they are actually a type of melee attacks). Including for example an Un-barb's rage bonuses.

As an aside, you're far from the first person posting incorrect claims about the rules for combat maneuvers, even in this thread there are quite few (see my reply to Kurald above). For some reason, it appears these erroneous echo-chambered claims are far more often grossly overstating the actual RAW limitations of combat maneuvers than they're understating them. My guess it's because back when PF was still young combat maneuvers and the relatively few related options had much less potential than they have today, and many players got a very bad impression from those early games or lingering echo-chamber beliefs, having these players simply give up on combat maneuvers without later bothering to check whether doing so remains justified.

Can I get a citation on that?

Because there is no echo-chambering here. Merely reading the rules as presented (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/Gamemastering/Combat/#TOC-Combat-Maneuver-Bonus), without forum diving for FAQ entries of dubious substance(yes, I am totally questioning word of god (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod) here).

Fizban

2018-09-21, 02:18 AM

You're jumping to the wrong conclusion here. I can assure you that with investments many PF combat maneuvers can be made far more reliable and effective than any 3.5 equivalents. And I mean to such a level melee builds can take on combat roles and styles flat-out impossible in 3.5.
You mistake me- I don't actually want combat maneuvers to be super reliable. The main thing I'd taken note of was the effective addition of BAB to trip checks, which is a change I agree with. I do not agree with glossing over the difference between grabbing someone and maneuvering them.

3.5 is significantly simulationist game: in real life I can grab someone just fine, but tripping or throwing them has little to do with that. PF does not include this level of detail, it's just one combined roll. In 3.5, a character can be dodgy, but that doesn't help them once someone actually manages to get the hand on. In PF, apparently that esoteric dodginess never stops.

Same reason I'm against skill consolidation, same level of argument to be had. Either you want things like spot/listen and touch before trip to be separate, or you don't.

Allow me spare you the work: there are a few very rare actually truly significant racial favored class bonuses, the most notable probably being for human Sorcerers (because Paizo has a hard-on for humans for some reason):
Not like it took much work, I just needed a moment to get around to it. Let's take a look at the Gunslinger:

Dwarf: Reduce the misfire chance for one type of firearm by ¼. You cannot reduce the misfire chance of a firearm below 1. ARG
Elf: Add +⅓ on critical hit confirmation rolls made with firearms (maximum bonus of +5). This bonus does not stack with Critical Focus. ARG
Gnome: The gunslinger reduces the amount of time needed to restore a broken firearm using the Gunsmithing feat by 5 minutes (maximum reduction of 50 minutes). ARG
Half-Elf: Add +¼ point to the gunslinger’s grit points. ARG
Half-Orc: Add a +⅓ bonus on attack rolls when using the pistol whip deed. ARG
Halfling: Add +¼ to the dodge bonus to AC granted by the nimble class feature (maximum +2) or +¼ to the AC bonus gained when using the gunslinger’s dodge deed. ARG
Human: Add +¼ point to the gunslinger’s grit points. ARG
Skip a few
Ifrit: Add +½ to the bonus on initiative checks the gunslinger makes while using her gunslinger initiative deed. ARG
Kobold: Add +¼ to the dodge bonus to AC granted by the nimble class feature (maximum +4). ARG
Ratfolk: Add a +½ bonus on initiative checks when the gunslinger has at least 1 grit point.

Now, aside from the fact that these are a bunch of racially locked abilities (which should only exist for organizations or gross physical qualities), there are some pretty important stats on there.
-Your maximum Grit capacity is tiny, only equal to your wisdom bonus. But if you're a half-elf or a human your grit maximum just goes up as you level, and only half-elves and humans get to do that. There are apparently feats and magic items that can increase it, but if you want a top-tier grit pool then you have to be of the correct race.
-The Nimble class feature is a scaling AC bonus of 1 +1/4 levels. The halfling's favored class bonus is. . . 1/4 levels. Capping at +2, but +2 AC is +2 AC that gunslinger of another race can never match, because tying professional bonuses to race is great. It also doesn't cap the progression on improving Gunslinger's Dodge, so eventually it's even more than twice as good as normal. Or the Kobold can just go for the full +4 all the time.
-Initiative isn't an important roll, right? Just throw 1/2 levels on there which, once again, can't be matched by any other gunslinger without that bonus (and likely not by many other builds period). Maybe it's supposed to be a fringe benefit because those races are listed at 6 and 9 points? Still not buying it.
-And then of course there are plenty of crit confirmation bonuses, which are important because crit gets you grit. . . but they don't stack with or even equal the feat version by the time you can get it.
-Actually let's not leave that first bit aside: Gnomes just being better than you at tech because "waaah gnomes," how about no.

Those are just a few examples, but you get the idea. I don't really care if these bonuses don't affect your build choices, or even if they don't end up affecting my build choices, because they do affect how I view the game (and just because you aren't using a mechanic doesn't mean it doesn't impact your enjoyment). In fact, now that I know the favored class mechanic is a general thing that basically gives every character a HD or skill bump as long as you're not multiclassing, I'm even more annoyed. They got rid of one bad racial mechanic and replaced it with a worse one, which infringes upon a single-classing reward that otherwise might have been a neat idea (aside from it also just being even more glut of free stuff).

Oh, and I'm pretty sure those bonus spells aren't just on the Sorcerer. The very next class I clicked on to check racially favored bonuses for was the also oft-mentioned Witch class, and it's full of bonus spells as well, on a lot more than just humans.

upho

2018-09-21, 03:45 AM

And saving that one as well...

Also, shouldn't the table at row 45 say CMD?Ooops! Yes, it sure should. Fixed.

Can I get a citation on that?

Because there is no echo-chambering here. Merely reading the rules as presented (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/Gamemastering/Combat/#TOC-Combat-Maneuver-Bonus),You've actually linked to those rules yourself. Just don't stop reading after the general formula has been explained, continue reading also "Performing a Combat Maneuver (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/#TOC-Combat-Maneuvers)" (my emphasis):

"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target’s Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."

without forum diving for FAQ entries of dubious substance(yes, I am totally questioning word of god (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod) here).Might be worth noting that FAQ entries are official RAW, even more so than printed books.

Kurald Galain

2018-09-21, 05:05 AM

And can you run me through that math again?
CMB is BAB+Str+Size.
That's it.
Aha, now I see the cause of our disagreement. A combat maneuver check is specifically an attack roll, and therefore benefits from any and all bonuses that apply to attack rolls. Link (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/#TOC-Performing-a-Combat-Maneuver) and link (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lcom?Combat-Maneuvers-and-Weapon-Special-Features).

By default, weapon related bonuses only apply to trip, disarm, sunder and dirty tricks you're able to perform using your weapon (up to GM fiat and player creativity), but not to bull rush, drag, grapple, overrun, reposition and steal.
Also to drag and reposition (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lcom?Combat-Maneuvers-and-Weapon-Special-Features). But yes, bull rush, overrun, and steal basically suck except at low level.

Full bab classes not focusing specifically on maneuvers are likely to use Power Attack,
I'm not sure why this is a problem; if you want to use maneuvers, just don't use PA at that moment. In 3E you must declare PA on your first attack in the round, in PF you don't (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ms5f&page=2?Can-you-turn-on-Power-Attack-during-an-AoO#76). So you can trip without PA, and then take iteratives or OAs with PA.

Without specific investments, most maneuvers have absolutely awful action expenditure vs benefit ratio in comparison to simply dealing damage, especially with a mere 50% success chance or less.
The maneuvers have largely the same effect as in 3E, so if some maneuvers have little or no effect that's hardly Paizo's fault. Blinding or tripping or disarming an enemy can be very effective.

No, PF Greater feats most definitely don't do this.
Greater Trip does allow the whole party to AOO the tripped enemy, that's why the feat states it "provokes attacks of opportunity" (plural). Several (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ld3w?Greater-Trip-and-Ki-Throw) threads (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lh4c?Greater-Trip-and-AoO) on the topic (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt7v?Between-Prone-and-Stun-which-one-would-you) agree. Same goes for Greater Overrun, G. Bull Rush, G. Reposition, and G. Drag.

For some reason, it appears these erroneous echo-chambered claims are far more often grossly overstating the actual RAW limitations of combat maneuvers than they're understating them ... these players simply give up on combat maneuvers without later bothering to check whether doing so remains justified ... Even taking out the tarrasque (CMD 66) for at least 2d4 rounds via dirty tricks succeeding on a roll of 2, before it's even able to act, is far from impossible at 20th level. Even without temporary boosts from allies, prep time or expending much limited resources.
Yes, that's my point. For instance, Psyren's post above.

Gnaeus

2018-09-21, 07:55 AM

In keeping with the Polymorph discussion I will add that I think the Polymorph change falls into both categories:
Nerfing and limiting the spell effects: good
Splitting it up into 40 different spells: good
Making all those spells personal: really bad

If the Polymorph spells are for casters only, if they are good enough to use they are problematic in a niche protection sense, and if they aren’t good enough to use then you nerfed them into oblivion. Polymorph was the best team player buff in its level range by far. And it was still worth throwing a Polymorph at the BSF or monk several levels later. It was not replaced with any similar power teammate buff. This, mechanically, means that wizards looking for good spells will likely replace their Polymorph with a less team friendly SoL or BFC spell. The ways around it (yes, I’m playing a brown fur adept now) are underpowered and require actually building a character around team buffing, as opposed to just building a strong wizard and then buffing your team.

Psyren

2018-09-21, 10:42 AM

The simple fact is that CMD is 10+BAB+STR mod+DEX mod+size+misc, while CMB is just BAB+STR mod+size+misc. We're basically missing a flat 10 (representative of a middle roll on a d20) and a DEX mod in here (either positive or irrelevant due to clumsy mobs' usual larger sizes), of course it's gonna scale poorly. I have no idea who considered this to be normal and how they actually thought it was gonna work.

Exactly, and on top of which, only some CMB checks let you use all your bonuses. Grapple and Bull Rush for example are particularly shortchanged. Trip and Disarm don't, but as mentioned, they are heavily situational. Dirty Trick is probably the best one, but your GM has veto power over any particular use you come up with since it's so vague.

I don't mind the 10, since CMB is getting the d20 added which will negate it on average. But CMD as mentioned gets both Dex and Str alongside almost every AC bonus in the book besides armor/narmor/shield, and lots of higher level monsters end up with big bonuses there which is what inflates their numbers beyond what CMB can reasonably catch.

None of which I overly mind - with the right feat investment, you can either keep pace or make the opportunity cost of missing less painful. But the default feat investment is just too high even with the extra feats P1 gives you over 3.5.

Aha, now I see the cause of our disagreement. A combat maneuver check is specifically an attack roll, and therefore benefits from any and all bonuses that apply to attack rolls. Link (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/#TOC-Performing-a-Combat-Maneuver) and link (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lcom?Combat-Maneuvers-and-Weapon-Special-Features).

Sure, but a lot of bonuses to attack are themselves situational. Weapon Training won't help you land a grapple for example. Or the maneuvers themselves are situational, like disarm being useless against natural weapon monsters and trip being useless against flying monsters.

Yes, that's my point. For instance, Psyren's post above.

Or you can be myopic and disregard any limitations in said bonuses or maneuvers themselves that negatively impact your math. For instance, Kurald's post above.

upho

2018-09-21, 12:22 PM

Also to drag and reposition (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lcom?Combat-Maneuvers-and-Weapon-Special-Features).No, that's only if your weapon has the trip special feature, not by default.

But yes, bull rush, overrun, and steal basically suck except at low level.I agree about steal, but bull rush and overrun? Seriously? I mean, yes, it may be a bit tricky to boost the CMB bonuses of these two high enough to make their use reliable also against the most challenging BBEGs, but it's certainly possible. And more importantly, despite that weakness, AFAIK both of them can be made into truly formidable melee combos adding tons of control, mobility and both single- and multi-target damage. Especially in higher levels, since the usual monster immunities against both these maneuvers (size caps) are quite easy to overcome (unlike those against trip), while the most powerful combos they allow for are typically quite feat/item/ability intensive.

Hints: Siegebreaker Fighter, Shield Champion Brawler 7, Overbearing Onslaught, Unexpected Strike, Charge Through, Merciless Rush, Raging Throw, Bulette Leap, Spiked Destroyer, Demonic Slaughter, Paired Opportunists, tempest shield, pauldrons of the bull, giant fist gauntlets (add Ascetic Style with say a kusarigama or kyoketso shoge for simultaneous close and reach control emphasis), titanic armor, leveraging weapon, (Improved) Forceful Charge (with say a deinotherium mount), Minotaur's Charge (with say an elasmotherium mount, add a level of Mammoth Rider plus pounce via Evolved Companion and extra natural attacks from items for additional free action bull rushes w/o size caps), etc, etc.

And of course, with PoW options like Seize the Opportunity (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/feats/seize-the-opportunity-combat/) and Stance of the Thunderbrand (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/disciplines-and-maneuvers/piercing-thunder-maneuvers/#TOC-Stance-of-the-Thunderbrand) it gets even better, but you don't really need any 3PP options to create various IMO very powerful, reliable and action efficient bull rush and overrun combos.

I think these can be great with a charge oriented Str based combat style, and even greater with mounted variants, allowing you to flatten, pile up and seriously damage or brutally murder several enemies in single turn, even if they're initially spread out over a large area. If you consider that to "basically suck", I don't really know what to say except that your standards for not sucking must be much higher than mine, and in a completely different universe than the standards set by official AP's and the CR system.

I'm not sure why this is a problem; if you want to use maneuvers, just don't use PA at that moment. In 3E you must declare PA on your first attack in the round, in PF you don't (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ms5f&page=2?Can-you-turn-on-Power-Attack-during-an-AoO#76). So you can trip without PA, and then take iteratives or OAs with PA.That's a very old post by SKR, and the info has been outdated for five years or so IIRC. Power Attack (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/power-attack-combat-final/) includes this line:

"You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage."

Gotta keep up with the times, bro! :smallwink:

The maneuvers have largely the same effect as in 3E, so if some maneuvers have little or no effect that's hardly Paizo's fault.Well, they could've also made the effects stronger in order to make maneuvers more worthwhile even without additional investments. But yeah, I generally agree since at least their initial plan was to keep the 3.5 rules largely intact. It would've been a much better idea to simply shorten/combine the feat chains and remove the most ridiculous prerequisites from start, such as Combat Expertise and Int 13.

Blinding or tripping or disarming an enemy can be very effective.This doesn't really say anything without also looking at what is required to create those effects. For example, while blinding is often a quite devastating effect especially against lower CR foes, the problem is that without specific investments into dirty trick related stuff, you need to spend a standard action to create that effect, while the enemy only needs to spend a move action to remove it, and it only lasts 1 round even if they don't. Which means that performing a dirty trick with a 50% success chance instead of say a full attack for damage is very rarely going to be a tactically sound decision.

Though I agree that using trip with a reach weapon is of course often going to be useful much more often during lower levels, especially since you can often still get to make the attack you replaced in the form of an AoO when the enemy attempts to stand up. But as mentioned, trip unfortunately also comes with its own additional slew of issues which increasingly limits its usefulness the further up the levels you get, on top of the increasingly poor success chances you'll have without specific investments.

Greater Trip does allow the whole party to AOO the tripped enemy, that's why the feat states it "provokes attacks of opportunity" (plural). Several (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ld3w?Greater-Trip-and-Ki-Throw) threads (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lh4c?Greater-Trip-and-AoO) on the topic (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt7v?Between-Prone-and-Stun-which-one-would-you) agree.Oh, I wasn't talking about Greater Trip (but I did forget that it actually doesn't provoke also from allies in 3.5).

Same goes for Greater Overrun, G. Bull Rush, G. Reposition, and G. Drag.Huh? No:

Greater Bull Rush (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-bull-rush-combat-final/): "...provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you)"
Greater Reposition (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-reposition-combat/): "...provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you)."
Greater Drag (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-drag-combat/): "...provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you)."

(This is BTW a major part of the reason why Paired Opportunists can be so extremely valuable for mounted combatants.)

In addition, Greater Dirty Trick, Disarm, Grapple, Sunder and Steal doesn't have the target provoke at all. How does this make what you said correct?

PF's Greater X feat gives an OA to the entire party. :smallconfused:

Yes, that's my point. For instance, Psyren's post above.As mentioned, I know this is definitely not the case. Psyren is more than well aware that you can get combat maneuvers more than functional. That doesn't in any way mean he's wrong to say they're pretty useless without specific investments and that the feat chains are too long, because that's the simple truth.

Manyasone

2018-09-21, 12:31 PM

All this discussion and mud throwing concerning the maneuvers reminded me if this http://www.hearthandblade.com/#post-1491
It was back in '12 they discussed the feat bloat and the fact that in 3.5/pf you need three feat chains to accurately aim a stream of urine into the sink (pardon my French).
In any case, the pdf they published has some nice fixes which I will use when my current campaign ends

ngilop

2018-09-21, 02:13 PM

Stuffs and things

To Elaborate on how PF dropped the ball on fighters

I think that in the general big picture of things the fighter was hit so hard to almost be beat to death.

Every non d10+ HD classes got bumped up some, strike 1 against the poor fighter, and barbarian as well

every class but the fighter got cool new little doo dads to work with, strike 2 against the fighter ( barbarian got rage powahs!)

paizo was like ' fighter need big number', while not even trying to touch on what the real problem was, strike 3 against the fighter

any half decent martial feat from 3.5 got split into 2 or 3 and made really crappy( see improved trip, power attack, etc), strike 4 against the fighter

the fact that 75% of the fighter archetype are weak sauce and was not either a) given to the fighter to start off with or b) made into feats makes no sense to me, strike 5 against the fighter

PF is actually the only D&D 3rd/d20 based game where I see absolutely no use for there even being a fighter. in 3.5 the fighter has his little niche, and in games like iron heroes and such he shines very well, but in PF why would anybody NOT take barbarian, oh they wanna be laywful? blargh not like most people really play the alignments that is wrote upon their character sheet.

what Paizo did to the fighter is inexcusable, they had years nay DECADES to see what 3rd ed did with the fighter and ways to fix it, i mean hells, they could have at least stole the ritual warrior combat rites and gave it to the fighter (think weak ToB maneuvers that could be used once per day). How could you actually KNOW what all was wrong with the fighter and still completely ignore that?

at least WoTC had an excuse
'hey we just invented 3rd ed, so like yeah we had no idea that we totally overvalued heavy armor bonus feats and a full BAB' even if they gave fighters the middle finger in subsequent books.

I feel that paizo are just as big if not bigger fans of 'yaay mundane cannot have nice things' than WoTC are, I've heard that they made archery better, but I've yet to experience it.

PhantasyPen

2018-09-21, 02:24 PM

To Elaborate on how PF dropped the ball on fighters

I just want to add something onto this little tangent.

In 3.5, one of my favorite characters was a Fighter. He dual-wielded scimitars and basically used Sunder as his big trick. In 3.5, he was a purely martial character, taking a couple of prestige classes to boost his number of attacks and his ability to dual-wield.

In pathfinder? If I want to try building the exact same character I have to use a Bard archetype.

ngilop

2018-09-21, 02:55 PM

More supporting stuffs

Indeed. I found it insulting to no end that Paizo had the audacity to give every other class (paladin, rogue, etc) something new. Barbarian got some cool tricks to have and I feel are amazing! But, giving the fighter some stuff to make it more improved both in a out of combat and in combat versatility. a NOPE on that.

Then DSP comes along with ToB 2.0 and instead of fixing the classes that needs fixed with cool newly upgraded to PF martial maneuvers. They do the same dang thing WoTC did and just make completely new classes. Hence why I will never EVER use anything form DSP for as long as I live and will never sit at a table that allows such material.

I attempted to make a decent PF Fighter fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?568764-Pathfinder-Fighter-Re-Tool). I get that it might be a bit complicated. But, for me if you want a simple swing my weapon to smash stuff and have a couple extra goodies. THAT is what the barbarian is for, to me at least.

Falontani

2018-09-21, 03:09 PM

It has taken me a while to finally be able to put my thoughts on PF1 into words. There are many things that they did that didn't bother me or was decent (the skill system, more feats, different crafting feel). But the thing that I honestly did not like about pathfinder (or 5th edition) is the constant need to be able to say you are an X. Many systems including pathfinder would make so many variants and changes to the base classes, to change them from what they are, materials into what they feel they should be, a character concept.

In 3.5 you create your character concept and then figure out how to do it effectively, sometimes requiring only one or two classes, sometimes requiring 7 different classes with 3 different alternate class features to accomplish. In pathfinder, and in 5th edition you do not create your character concept. You choose from available character concepts. In pathfinder if you use the endorsed third party content you will have a high chance that you will be able to find a base class or hybrid class that fits the idea of your concept, and you won't need to take any class levels that aren't in that class to accomplish your concept. In 5th edition you figure out what kind of character you want to do, you grab the base class that most resembles that, grab the archetype that most fits, and you play that. There is no need to create an amalgamation to fit what your character concept is with those systems, because you can't. And when you can it feels strange.

What I personally like about 3.5 is that you can truly look at all the different classes and say, these are ingredients, you are making a dish. It is why I don't think that there will ever be an Iron Chef for pathfinder or 5th edition. And it is why I love the iron chef competitions.

ngilop

2018-09-21, 03:47 PM

Ignimortis

2018-09-21, 03:51 PM

Indeed. I found it insulting to no end that Paizo had the audacity to give every other class (paladin, rogue, etc) something new. Barbarian got some cool tricks to have and I feel are amazing! But, giving the fighter some stuff to make it more improved both in a out of combat and in combat versatility. a NOPE on that.

Then DSP comes along with ToB 2.0 and instead of fixing the classes that needs fixed with cool newly upgraded to PF martial maneuvers. They do the same dang thing WoTC did and just make completely new classes. Hence why I will never EVER use anything form DSP for as long as I live and will never sit at a table that allows such material.

Are you aware of the fact that DSP released archetypes for every core martial class in the game that gives them maneuvers and some special abilities? Myrmidon Fighter is a maneuver user, for instance.

And to be honest, this is how 3.PF operates in general - the best user of a dedicated subsystem is a specific class, and if you want that on your older class, you take it as feats (Martial Study, Binding, etc.), or an archetype (in PF).

Personally, I like it this way. Sure, it's selfish of me, but I like the fact that my martial adept is a special thing, and generic Fighters are both far more common and far less special.

Falontani

2018-09-21, 05:04 PM

So, I am slightly confused on this. The strength of 3.5 to you is you can think of a concept and then go into 7 different classes with 3 alternate class features to get that concept to work.

But for some contrasting reason doing the exact same thing in pathfinder (exchanging archetypes for alternative class features) is bad. Also the fact that if you stick to one class it is impossible to do your concept.

I am going to wholeheartedly disagree with you on that.
Sounds like edition nostalgia instead of any actual objective thing.

Name me 2 or 3 concepts you find impossible to do in pathfinder.

I apologize, I didn't mean to say that you couldn't do a concept, I mean that in pathfinder rather than needing to actually work with many complexities to get a character concept online, you just take a single class with one of a thousand archetypes, and there you go, your concept is online. It is too easy.

Nifft

2018-09-21, 05:19 PM

I apologize, I didn't mean to say that you couldn't do a concept, I mean that in pathfinder rather than needing to actually work with many complexities to get a character concept online, you just take a single class with one of a thousand archetypes, and there you go, your concept is online. It is too easy.

Sure but to get to that point you need sufficient system mastery to know which of the hundred base classes is the best fit for your concept, and for that base class which of the thousand-and-one archetypes are concept-relevant, then of those ten relevant archetypes which few are mechanically appropriate.

It's easy in that you don't end up with a lot of different ingredients, but it's also exhausting and difficult in that you have a much larger search space to cover... and then you have to find (+build) your race, and then find feats.

System mastery becomes a matter of product recognition rather than combinatorial cleverness.

Quertus

2018-09-21, 05:24 PM

I apologize, I didn't mean to say that you couldn't do a concept, I mean that in pathfinder rather than needing to actually work with many complexities to get a character concept online, you just take a single class with one of a thousand archetypes, and there you go, your concept is online. It is too easy.

So, suppose I want to play a holy Gish, who can cast powerful Arcane spells to roughly equal the party mage, or fight in melee as a glass cannon while (ideally simultaneously) healing wounded party members. I can pull this off with a dip in Paladin and/or Crusader, with Arcane Spellcaster (for Chr synergy, and Divine Power) or Sorcerer (or even Wizard, I suppose) as a base, adding prestige classes to taste / balance.

In Pathfinder, is there a single, simple class and archetype to allow this build?

QuadraticGish

2018-09-21, 05:49 PM

So, suppose I want to play a holy Gish, who can cast powerful Arcane spells to roughly equal the party mage, or fight in melee as a glass cannon while (ideally simultaneously) healing wounded party members. I can pull this off with a dip in Paladin and/or Crusader, with Arcane Spellcaster (for Chr synergy, and Divine Power) or Sorcerer (or even Wizard, I suppose) as a base, adding prestige classes to taste / balance.

In Pathfinder, is there a single, simple class and archetype to allow this build?

3PP allowed? I might take a stab at it for fun.

PhantasyPen

2018-09-21, 05:52 PM

3PP allowed? I might take a stab at it for fun.

I suspect that would contradict the exercise, since if you need to rely on third party content for your concept, it means that the publisher failed on some level or another.

QuadraticGish

2018-09-21, 07:04 PM

I suspect that would contradict the exercise, since if you need to rely on third party content for your concept, it means that the publisher failed on some level or another.
Don't you know? Paizo are the masters of trying new sub-system concepts with great success~! Look at PoW! Look at SoP!
Sarcasm aside, I won't try to hide it.

exelsisxax

2018-09-21, 10:36 PM

upho

2018-09-21, 11:51 PM

You mistake me- I don't actually want combat maneuvers to be super reliable.OK. But I don't think you've been following what has been said already in regards to this if you believe combat maneuvers to be super reliable in PF. They're very far from it, as I believe the numbers I posted also shows. But a full bab PC who puts in a lot of resources, is played tactically smart and built by a player with quite a lot of system mastery at least has the potential to turn one or two specific combat maneuvers into a combat focus/style as viable as the standard "repeat full attack for hp damage" focus/style of such PCs.

But if you want full bab classes to remain firmly in the single-target hp damage niche and believe the hp damage myopia of melee options in 3.5 is largely as it should be, then yes, PF's combat maneuver system won't be a good addition to your game.

The main thing I'd taken note of was the effective addition of BAB to trip checks, which is a change I agree with. I do not agree with glossing over the difference between grabbing someone and maneuvering them.

3.5 is significantly simulationist game: in real life I can grab someone just fine, but tripping or throwing them has little to do with that. PF does not include this level of detail, it's just one combined roll. In 3.5, a character can be dodgy, but that doesn't help them once someone actually manages to get the hand on. In PF, apparently that esoteric dodginess never stops.Assuming that by "simulationist" you're actually primarily referring to the game's own internal highly fictional and flexible verisimilitude, and accept that 3.5 combat is a joke in terms of simulating RL combat with medieval combat gear, I think you're making this much more of an issue than it has to be. Most importantly, you're obviously fine with 3.5's "simulation" of tripping being some kind of two-stage process in which you first have to make an "attack" to get in bodily contact with your opponent and then muscle them off their feet, despite the fact that this is often a rather poor simulation of a trip attempt in this type of combat, especially if you're wielding anything larger than a say a longsword.

The 3.5 rules for tripping with a "trip weapon" is a bit more realistic because you're actually using the weapon to perform the maneuver, but the whole notion of this being somehow exclusive to certain weapons decided on some more or less arbitrary basis is just hilariously far from the truth in the case of heavier weapons. For example, I don't think you actually believe that if you for example could easily trip most opponents with a halberd in RL, you wouldn't be able to trip anyone with a ranseur, even if you actually had far more training and skill with a ranseur. (And speaking of, why the heck is the halberd not a reach weapon in D&D? RL halberds were typically just as long as glaives or guisarmes, not some kind of cheap variant of pollaxes like the rules imply.) The second major issue here is again that the whole two-stage process isn't nearly as realistic when you're using a heavy weapon (as most "trip" weapons are) like say a polearm.

So what would be "realistic"? Assuming you think one d20 roll should represent one "move" or "action" making up the potentially multiple parts of a trip attempt and potentially opposed by multiple different defenses, then I'd definitely say that at least trip attempts with heavier two handed weapons should be one single attack roll, and a success should both deal at least some damage and have the target fall prone. Now the skill with which to both perform and resist such an attempt is of course largely dependent on your general fighting skill, not for example how much armor you wear. So yeah, BAB should definitely play a major role, but so should dodge bonuses and most other bonuses to AC applying against touch attacks. So Paizo's CMB vs CMD, including "esoteric dodginess", is definitely far closer to RL than 3.5's greco-roman/judo style "grab and throw" tripping. And frankly, anyone who'd believe such a wrestling move to be a good idea if they wield a halberd in a in RL fight against an opponent with an equally lethal medieval melee weapon would probably also be pretty far off the wrong side of the IQ bell curve, not to mention most likely also dead a few moments later, even if they happened to be an olympic medalist wrestler.

Though I must say really don't understand this highly selective demand for nit-picky "simulationism" when it specifically comes to trip attempts to begin with, at least not if you're also using the game's rules for closely related stuff which are often laughably poor simulations of RL counterparts, like full plate, crossbows, longswords, katanas, most double weapons, virtually all weapon weights, mounted combat, size bonuses/penalties, etc, etc. Of course, many of these things wouldn't end up being balanced if their rules were more realistic, just as they weren't in any way balanced in RL. (For example, masterwork full plate should be a complete no-brainer as it doesn't slow your tactical movement speed or lessen your ability to dodge in RL, while it also make you near invulnerable to attacks from most core melee weapons and all ranged ones except perhaps heavy crossbows.)

Same reason I'm against skill consolidation, same level of argument to be had. Either you want things like spot/listen and touch before trip to be separate, or you don't.But "touch before trip" would, as explained above, often be a very poor method to simulate a RL trip attempt, and often much more so than PF's single CMB vs CMD roll.

And speaking of spot/listen, just out of curiosity since Quertus touched upon it earlier in this thread; what do people roll in your games to detect a smell, faint ground vibrations, directions of subtle air movements etc?

Not like it took much work, I just needed a moment to get around to it. Let's take a look at the Gunslinger:

Those are just a few examples, but you get the idea. I don't really care if these bonuses don't affect your build choices, or even if they don't end up affecting my build choices, because they do affect how I view the game (and just because you aren't using a mechanic doesn't mean it doesn't impact your enjoyment). In fact, now that I know the favored class mechanic is a general thing that basically gives every character a HD or skill bump as long as you're not multiclassing, I'm even more annoyed. They got rid of one bad racial mechanic and replaced it with a worse one, which infringes upon a single-classing reward that otherwise might have been a neat idea (aside from it also just being even more glut of free stuff).You missed the likely strongest one of those you listed. But regardless, it appears potential balance issues isn't your concern anyways.

Since it also seems to me you're simply stating your opinion without pointing at any specific problems the favored class mechanic/options cause, I don't really have much to add. I don't particularly love them either and generally don't use them in my own games. But since they have such extremely limited impact on the game, I don't really see much reason for complaining about them either, especially since some people obviously really think they add a lot of nice flavor.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure those bonus spells aren't just on the Sorcerer. The very next class I clicked on to check racially favored bonuses for was the also oft-mentioned Witch class, and it's full of bonus spells as well, on a lot more than just humans.Bonus spells for a Witch is just yet another mediocre bonus, not even remotely close to that of the human Sorcerer, since the Witch is a prepared caster who learns new spells pretty much exactly like a Wizard does. So again, you won't find any bonuses stronger than the human Sorcerer one, and I'd be surprised if you found even a single different one you'd honestly consider equally strong (there are a few arguably coming close, but they're generally also lot more intricate and virtually impossible to discover without quite substantial knowledge of the related classes).

upho

2018-09-22, 12:38 AM

To Elaborate on how PF dropped the ball on fightersEhm... Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training? Combat Stamina? Ring a bell? Anyone? No?

Please look up the PF Fighter again, since you obviously haven't done so in the last three years or so, and then come back with some more current and relevant opinions. Because if you honestly believe the Fighter got nothing in PF, your data is hopelessly outdated.

I just want to add something onto this little tangent.

In 3.5, one of my favorite characters was a Fighter. He dual-wielded scimitars and basically used Sunder as his big trick. In 3.5, he was a purely martial character, taking a couple of prestige classes to boost his number of attacks and his ability to dual-wield.

In pathfinder? If I want to try building the exact same character I have to use a Bard archetype.Why? A PF Fighter would have no problems whatsoever doing that. With any pair of one-handed weapons, I might add, not just scimitars. It's one of the PF Fighter's unique class features (no, not a feat, a feature):

Effortless Dual-Wielding (Ex): The fighter treats all one-handed weapons that belong to the associated weapon group as though they were light weapons when determining his penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons.

Enjoy!

Indeed. I found it insulting to no end that Paizo had the audacity to give every other class (paladin, rogue, etc) something new. Barbarian got some cool tricks to have and I feel are amazing! But, giving the fighter some stuff to make it more improved both in a out of combat and in combat versatility. a NOPE on that.Not exactly. See above. (Note that I do however also think Paizo didn't do nearly enough for martials, but it's definitely not as if the Fighter stands out like a sore thumb in that regard. Far from it.)

Then DSP comes along with ToB 2.0 and instead of fixing the classes that needs fixed with cool newly upgraded to PF martial maneuvers. They do the same dang thing WoTC did and just make completely new classes. Hence why I will never EVER use anything form DSP for as long as I live and will never sit at a table that allows such material.This is...? Could you please explain just what you would've wanted DSP to do different in order for you to be happy, without ending up with them being sued by Paizo. And keeping in mind DSP has made PoW archetypes for all Paizo CRB martials as mentioned, of course.

Quertus

2018-09-22, 01:24 AM

Yes. You could be a magus, and literally cast healing spells during a full attack at level 1. I do not believe you could create a single gish of this description in 3.5 without at least 10 levels and quicken spell.

Crusader 1 / Sorcerer 1 fits that description at level 2. It could probably do it at level 1, had TSR continued support of half-levels. Alternately, using Arcane Spellcaster instead of Sorcerer, one can get immediate action healing via Close Wounds by level 6, to go with its Divine Power for BAB for only having 1 level of Paladin. EDIT: alternately, Sorcerer 1 could do it with feats to get a Crusader stance.

Mind you, it's not a perfect rendition of the character I'm actually trying to recreate, but it's artfully close enough.

Is magus, fluff-wise, a "holy warrior"? Can it, at level 20, cast roughly on par with a level 18-20 Wizard? Those are the criteria I'm concerned it may lack.

PhantasyPen

2018-09-22, 07:18 AM

Why? A PF Fighter would have no problems whatsoever doing that. With any pair of one-handed weapons, I might add, not just scimitars. It's one of the PF Fighter's unique class features (no, not a feat, a feature):

Effortless Dual-Wielding (Ex): The fighter treats all one-handed weapons that belong to the associated weapon group as though they were light weapons when determining his penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons.

It wasn't just the scimitars, it was all the abilities from his Prestige Class (Dervish) that got shoved into the bard archetype, so where before I had a Fighter, in PF I'm stuck with a Bard if I want to use any of those exact same abilities.

exelsisxax

2018-09-22, 07:48 AM

Crusader 1 / Sorcerer 1 fits that description at level 2. It could probably do it at level 1, had TSR continued support of half-levels. Alternately, using Arcane Spellcaster instead of Sorcerer, one can get immediate action healing via Close Wounds by level 6, to go with its Divine Power for BAB for only having 1 level of Paladin. EDIT: alternately, Sorcerer 1 could do it with feats to get a Crusader stance.

Mind you, it's not a perfect rendition of the character I'm actually trying to recreate, but it's artfully close enough.

Is magus, fluff-wise, a "holy warrior"? Can it, at level 20, cast roughly on par with a level 18-20 Wizard? Those are the criteria I'm concerned it may lack.

Fluff is irrelevant. Asking to cast as a level 18 wizard is like me asking for you to make a gish that can cast arcane spells during a full attack. Because yours isn't the game where that is a thing, I know you literally cannot do that. A magus deals far more damage than a wizard can hope to do, but a magus isn't a full wizard. If those are your criteria, you have successfully defined 3.5 into the only game that could ever have gishes.

Quertus

2018-09-22, 08:16 AM

Fluff is irrelevant. Asking to cast as a level 18 wizard is like me asking for you to make a gish that can cast arcane spells during a full attack. Because yours isn't the game where that is a thing, I know you literally cannot do that. A magus deals far more damage than a wizard can hope to do, but a magus isn't a full wizard. If those are your criteria, you have successfully defined 3.5 into the only game that could ever have gishes.

... Let me try again.

I want a character who can engage the "casting" minigame nearly as competently as someone in the same party / at the same level / whatever fully dedicated to the casting minigame, who is also a holy warrior (fluff matters, and is trump*), and capable of engaging the fighting minigame with... glass cannon-ette level of proficiency. Plus in some way capable of healing allies (bonus points if they can do so while attacking).

Basically, I'm a Wizard, who sacrificed a small mote of top-end power to have the option to charge in and finish off enemies / stabilize allies should the front liners drop.

I can try to recreate this character in 3e, both functionally and aesthetically, with surprising levels of success. (Arcane Spellcaster 19 / Crusader 1, using Divine Power for full BAB, plus other buffs to taste being one of several reasonable builds). The question is not, can it be done in pf, but, rather, is it not an example of something where one would have to actually engage the character creation minigame in order to accomplish? It was the lack of an engaging character creation minigame that was originally being bemoaned; my question was simply, "is that really the case?"

That having been said, personally, I almost consider certain systems' reluctance to have an engaging character creation minigame a feature, not a bug.

* The original character has things that mechanically key off being a holy warrior (kinda like a Holy Avenger?)

Psyren

2018-09-22, 11:51 AM

I'm 100% with upho in this discussion. We can discuss ways PF could do martials better without throwing out everything they actually, you know, did.

I suspect that would contradict the exercise, since if you need to rely on third party content for your concept, it means that the publisher failed on some level or another.

Or that they consciously chose not to incorporate material that was controversial in the past edition, as ToB and psionics certainly were. Which is a good thing because (a) it created a ready niche for 3PP like DSP to make a name for themselves (they were relatively obscure trying to make stuff for 3.5), and (b) freed Paizo up to focus on things like APs and setting details.

EldritchWeaver

2018-09-22, 03:20 PM

Or that they consciously chose not to incorporate material that was controversial in the past edition, as ToB and psionics certainly were. Which is a good thing because (a) it created a ready niche for 3PP like DSP to make a name for themselves (they were relatively obscure trying to make stuff for 3.5), and (b) freed Paizo up to focus on things like APs and setting details.

If we take PoW to provide a subsystem counterpart to ToB, then with Martial Training you could get the healing part on a wizard. Forgot the name of that discipline with healing maneuvers.

If we go further outside, then with SoP/SoM you can get close, too. Take an incanter with the Life sphere, spend the rest as you want. If you need more martial abilities, trading feats for the proficient track of SoM helps. Then take Spell Dabbler and Spell Adept to be able to use normal wizard spells. That is somewhat less effective than a true wizard, but you only need spells where you don't have the sphere abilities for, so this evens out things to some degree at least. If you actually want to keep being full caster as wizard, then Basic Magical Training (Life Sphere) + Advanced Magic Training grant hp healing. Though you likely want to take Extra Magic Talent twice for Revitalize 2x, so your healing is more cost-efficient.

vasilidor

2018-09-22, 03:35 PM

I was initially very happy for what they did with the fighter. but unhappy about what they did with a lot of the feats for the fighter. that said I have very successfully created my rather basic concept of "kills monsters with (insert weapon choice here)" several times with out much difficulty. I also enjoyed reach spell on a cleric very much, and the scaling healing burst clerics get. to be honest, I generally considered things like trip, disarm, etc. to be a waste of my time, with a few exceptions (balor vorpal weapons), but by then I had most probably not invested enough to make the attempt.

exelsisxax

2018-09-22, 04:48 PM

... Let me try again.

I want a character who can engage the "casting" minigame nearly as competently as someone in the same party / at the same level / whatever fully dedicated to the casting minigame, who is also a holy warrior (fluff matters, and is trump*), and capable of engaging the fighting minigame with... glass cannon-ette level of proficiency. Plus in some way capable of healing allies (bonus points if they can do so while attacking).

Basically, I'm a Wizard, who sacrificed a small mote of top-end power to have the option to charge in and finish off enemies / stabilize allies should the front liners drop.

I can try to recreate this character in 3e, both functionally and aesthetically, with surprising levels of success. (Arcane Spellcaster 19 / Crusader 1, using Divine Power for full BAB, plus other buffs to taste being one of several reasonable builds). The question is not, can it be done in pf, but, rather, is it not an example of something where one would have to actually engage the character creation minigame in order to accomplish? It was the lack of an engaging character creation minigame that was originally being bemoaned; my question was simply, "is that really the case?"

That having been said, personally, I almost consider certain systems' reluctance to have an engaging character creation minigame a feature, not a bug.

* The original character has things that mechanically key off being a holy warrior (kinda like a Holy Avenger?)

every divine fullcaster, psychic, magus, warpriest, inquisitor, bard, hunter, skald, medium, occultist. This list includes ONLY classes that provide all functionality as class features WITHOUT archetypes OR feats.

I don't want to look through archetypes to make a list of the 40 or so ways you can do this with nearly every class.

Fizban

2018-09-22, 06:12 PM

Just to be clear- you do realize that I was only bringing the racial favored class bonuses back up specifically because I told Kurald I'd get back to them, because they'd said I might not be reading them right, right?

Most importantly, you're obviously fine with 3.5's "simulation" of tripping being some kind of two-stage process in which you first have to make an "attack" to get in bodily contact with your opponent and then muscle them off their feet, despite the fact that this is often a rather poor simulation of a trip attempt in this type of combat, especially if you're wielding anything larger than a say a longsword.
Says you? If realistic tripping is just making a big swing at someone's legs (or somewhere to put them off balance) and hoping it works then I don't want realistic tripping anyway. Every instance of tripping I'm aware of involves targeting the appropriate spot and then putting them on the ground, from martial arts grappling to ridiculous movie weapons, and the touch -> trip mechanic doesn't actually preclude the big swing method anyway, so why would I change it?

Though I must say really don't understand this highly selective demand for nit-picky "simulationism" when it specifically comes to trip attempts to begin with, at least not if you're also using the game's rules for closely related stuff which are often laughably poor simulations of RL counterparts, like full plate, crossbows, longswords, katanas, most double weapons, virtually all weapon weights, mounted combat, size bonuses/penalties, etc, etc. Of course, many of these things wouldn't end up being balanced if their rules were more realistic, just as they weren't in any way balanced in RL. (For example, masterwork full plate should be a complete no-brainer as it doesn't slow your tactical movement speed or lessen your ability to dodge in RL, while it also make you near invulnerable to attacks from most core melee weapons and all ranged ones except perhaps heavy crossbows.)
Standard "it isn't perfect so it's crap"/not understanding dnd is aimed at 1st level realism pretty much only. In order: full plate is completely broken for 1 HD people including 95+% of the population, every video I've seen comparing unarmored to armored speed has put the armor as noticeably slower (not crippling, but demonstrably slower), crossbows work fine, longsword naming conventions aren't actually important, there is nothing special about the katana and if you don't like the masterwork assumption then it's about the most minor rule you could ever complain about, double weapons are there because people like ridiculous fantasy weapons, the encumbrance system is encumbrance and weapon weights may be inflated to account for being loosely secured/not balanced for easy carry and thus more encumbering, dunno what your problem is with mounted combat, size bonuses and penalties also work fine, etc, etc.

If you don't like it, great, don't play 3.5 then. I do so I will.

But "touch before trip" would, as explained above, often be a very poor method to simulate a RL trip attempt, and often much more so than PF's single CMB vs CMD roll.
Not actually explained above- you gave no examples of why this interpretaton is wrong, just said that it's bad and then assumed it should be one roll.

And speaking of spot/listen, just out of curiosity since Quertus touched upon it earlier in this thread; what do people roll in your games to detect a smell, faint ground vibrations, directions of subtle air movements etc?
Smell already has a default mechanic, creatures with Scent use a wisdom roll to get the square of an adjacent foe but otherwise it automatically works. Standard PC races don't have any significant sense of smell that requires skilled differentiation so there is no reason to have a skill for it- it's just a straw man. Ground vibrations, air currents, same thing. If I had a player who really, really wanted it, I'd make them a feat, or maybe adjust the "skill trick" system to add non-skill based tricks.

You missed the likely strongest one of those you listed. But regardless, it appears potential balance issues isn't your concern anyways.
Well you've once again refused to actually say it, so how am I supposed to know I'm so "wrong?" As always, if I actually argued it out with you I already know I would find your definition of balance is not anything supported by the books (edit: that is, the 3.5 DMG, I wouldn't be surprised if Pathfinder canonized their ideas about balance in their DMG), so your implied accusation that I don't know about "potential balance issues" isn't something I'm going to argue with you about. Correct, my concern is not "balance," it's the fact that racial abilities should be racial abilities, and anything tied to race outside of the racial stat block which isn't tied to an organizational or gross physical feature is bs.

Since it also seems to me you're simply stating your opinion without pointing at any specific problems the favored class mechanic/options cause, I don't really have much to add.
I already stated the problem, it's simply one you don't seem to care about. Congratulations, the thread asking for opinions of 3.5 players regarding Pathfinder has collected the opinion of a 3.5 player regarding Pathfinder, which is in opposition to the opinion of a Pathfinder player who doesn't like a lot of 3.5 rules.

I do find it kind of funny how I came into the thread with a few Pathfinder things I liked, and one of those immediately vanished under closer scrutiny. Most of the others wouldn't though.

the Witch is a prepared caster
Really? Huh, so it is. None of the campaign journals I've read featuring it have portrayed it as such at all.

Peat

2018-09-22, 06:51 PM

every divine fullcaster, psychic, magus, warpriest, inquisitor, bard, hunter, skald, medium, occultist. This list includes ONLY classes that provide all functionality as class features WITHOUT archetypes OR feats.

I don't want to look through archetypes to make a list of the 40 or so ways you can do this with nearly every class.

None of those fit because they either don't have full casting OR don't have arcane spells (well, maybe he dropped the arcane bit).

That might be a real finnicky answer, but I believe that's Quertus' point. You could do all sorts of finnicky things in 3.5. They mightn't be the most sensible thing ever, but you could do them.

Someone said you could do anything with just one class in PF so he's putting that to the test.

The closest I can get to something that does this in one class is a White-Haired Witch - a full arcane caster that can heal (iirc) and does have some combat functionality thanks to the hair. Maybe not the epitome of holiness, but their sources of knowledge can be holy ones. I don't think that would fit Quertus' request.

r2d2go

2018-09-22, 07:12 PM

exelsisxax

2018-09-22, 08:36 PM

Florian

2018-09-22, 09:11 PM

my question was simply, "is that really the case?"

In a way, yes, it is.

Consider some of the changes between 3.5 and PF: In 3.5, for some people, stuff like 16/9 or double-9 s were some kind of gold standard to reach, a full 20th level build without that pointless.

Contrast that with what the PF crowd is mostly talking about, which are mostly builds that come online at 1st or 2nd level, are more or less complete by 12th and focus heavily on the economy of actions.

Notice the difference of focus: 1st vs. 20th level.

As such, the entire question itself is somewhat wrong, including the metric to rate the answer, as in: In the level range that actually gets played by people and which is not just theory craft, the Magus and Warpriest are the true gishes compared to anything you can do with the Wizard or Cleric class. Period.

(As for the whole question, I think you can do a lot based on the Magaambyan Initiate/Arcanist. Full arcane caster plus druid spells and the Good domain is just great to build upon and, as usual, starts out at 1st level straight.)

upho

2018-09-23, 01:26 AM

Just to be clear- you do realize that I was only bringing the racial favored class bonuses back up specifically because I told Kurald I'd get back to them, because they'd said I might not be reading them right, right?Yes, and I assumed, perhaps wrongfully, the reason Kurald thought so was because you seemed to believe FCB's have a much greater mechanical impact than they generally do. They're basically just intended to reflect cultural differences on a class level, sometimes with a splash of a race's "physical feature" thrown in for good measure (if such a feature is present). And while I believe their actual implementation vary greatly in quality, on "average" I do think they match pretty well with how Paizo has portrayed these races and their cultures in their Golarion setting.

And judging by what you first wrote on the subject in this thread -
Favored class bonuses: so if I've read these right, rather than an xp penalty no one uses, instead your race is now even more important because each race effectively has a menu of extra bonuses based on class which can't be accessed any other way. Great, even more racial superiority complexes. - I also got the impression you believe FCB's have a much greater mechanical impact than they generally do.

(I'm going to reply to your post in the "wrong" order, since I believe the last parts are most closely related to the above.)

Well you've once again refused to actually say it, so how am I supposed to know I'm so "wrong?"It wasn't to point out that you're "wrong" per se, that would just be non-argument (and potentially rather demeaning at that, which I believe would be totally uncalled for). I'm sorry you got that impression, it wasn't intended, and I apologize for not being clear enough. It was to highlight two things I've already sort of touched upon, but perhaps not explained very well,:

First, a person viewing the FCB's from a 3.5 perspective will easily mistake many of them for having a greater mechanical impact in comparison to the standard +1 hp/skill point/level than they actually do. Such a person is highly likely to assume many of them to be stronger or weaker than they actually are, not just due to the many fine differences between the general rules of 3.5 and those of PF, but also because of the different related classes' features and other options.

Second, if they actually did have more impact, I'm fairly certain a person with a lot of 3.5 experience and system knowledge - such as you - would be able to quite easily identify a lot more of those which stand out as exceptionally strong (or weak), despite not having much experience with PF-specific stuff. For example, I think your comments on the gunslinger FCB's seem fairly reasonable from a 3.5 perspective, but I would've expected a lot stronger reactions if FCB's along the lines of the human Sorcerer one had actually been much less rare and also found among those for the gunslinger. (Because again, that one does indeed have a very considerable mechanical impact and does affect player choices AFAIK, and I'm quite certain a much larger proportion of PC sorcerers in Golarion are human than what fluff and other related stuff in Paizo publications suggest to be the norm.)

This is also the very reason why I, in my first post on this subject, offered to spare you the work of not only going through tons of FCB's, but also actually check up on each and every one to make certain the actually have the impact you believe them to have, and then also analyze and compare each related race and class to understand how much that impact is in relation to other race/class considerations. But if you think that work is worth the time and effort, please go ahead. If you did, also other 3.5 players might benefit, as you'd also inevitably learn that (judging by this thread) quite a few of the assumptions 3.5 players seem to have about PF are based on misconceptions or outdated info, and you might help them see what they're missing.

As always, if I actually argued it out with you I already know I would find your definition of balance is not anything supported by the books (edit: that is, the 3.5 DMG, I wouldn't be surprised if Pathfinder canonized their ideas about balance in their DMG), so your implied accusation that I don't know about "potential balance issues" isn't something I'm going to argue with you about. Correct, my concern is not "balance," it's the fact that racial abilities should be racial abilities, and anything tied to race outside of the racial stat block which isn't tied to an organizational or gross physical feature is bs. No, you misunderstand, I meant in the specific context of this subject and the issues you initially said you had with FCB's. Meaning I wrote "balance issues" basically as (sloppy) shorthand for "the supposed problem of FCB's having such a great relative mechanical impact they in practice largely dictate which race can choose which class and how a certain race/class combo plays". Which has little to do with PC/class power balance issues and your views on that subject per se, but much to do with what you're saying here again.

I already stated the problem, it's simply one you don't seem to care about. Congratulations, the thread asking for opinions of 3.5 players regarding Pathfinder has collected the opinion of a 3.5 player regarding Pathfinder, which is in opposition to the opinion of a Pathfinder player who doesn't like a lot of 3.5 rules.Let me rephrase. My point is that even if you may find the particular packaging and aesthetics of FCB's don't agree with your tastes, as long as they a) have very little relative impact on the suitability and playstyle of race/class combos, and b) don't disrupt the overall game balance assumptions as set out in the GM guidelines, I don't understand what the issue is? I mean, go ahead and call them something different, mix and match them according to some other criteria than race, simply remove them or whatever, it won't make much of a difference in practice, and very rarely have noticeably more impact than +1 hp/level has.

Says you? If realistic tripping is just making a big swing at someone's legs (or somewhere to put them off balance) and hoping it works then I don't want realistic tripping anyway. Every instance of tripping I'm aware of involves targeting the appropriate spot and then putting them on the ground, from martial arts grappling to ridiculous movie weapons, and the touch -> trip mechanic doesn't actually preclude the big swing method anyway, so why would I change it?I'm simply saying that in reality the method used to trip will of course often vary greatly depending on the weapon you're wielding. And that the method used with for example a big heavy polearm such as a halberd, guisarme or ranseur doesn't involve any direct bodily contact and is much closer to a single attack than any two-stage "grab and muscle off balance" method. Basically, you're making an attack specifically to throw you opponent off balance, in which case success is primarily determined by the weapon's weight and the force of your blow, the specific part of the opponent's body you target, and your skills at reading your opponent's movements and balance. (Or maybe in some rare instances you could perhaps simply use your weapon in the same manner your typical high-school movie bully would in order to trip the nerd, and just shove it at their legs at the right moment and have their own movement cause their fall.) Wouldn't you agree that "simulating" such a trip attempt by rolling a touch attack followed by an opposed Str check stretches your imagination further than CMB vs CMD does?

And if you do, then the question becomes whether you'd prefer your trip rules to be a better simulation of 3.5's unarmed/light weapons combat trip or of PF's heavy weapons combat trip. Unless you'd want to be extra nit-picky and use two different rules depending on the type of weapon wielded, of course.

Standard "it isn't perfect so it's crap"/not understanding dnd is aimed at 1st level realism pretty much only.No, I'm not saying it's crap. I'm simply stating the obvious: that D&D combat rules, like most other things involving D&D rules mechanics, produce a similar yet different reality than the one we live in. Hence, it's also typically a bad idea to tweak the mechanics of one specific mechanic for the purpose of making it a better simulation of RL, especially if the change disrupts balance or adds complexity which slows down combat.

In order: full plate is completely broken for 1 HD people including 95+% of the population,So what? A huge proportion of that population can still throw a friggin' 1/4 lb. dart from 20 feet away and actually damage a person in masterwork full plate! I don't think I need to tell you how ridiculously minuscule the chances of that happening are in our world. I mean, most likely even a very highly skilled veteran English longbow soldier from the 100-Years War would've had to be extremely lucky to cause anything more than dents and scratches to the armor and ringing ears to the wearer if shooting his 160 lbs. "warbow" from the same distance.

every video I've seen comparing unarmored to armored speed has put the armor as noticeably slower (not crippling, but demonstrably slower),If we're talking about the equivalent of D&D's overland movement and the run action, yes. If we're talking about 30 feet of "combat movement" or a 60 feet charge in less than 6 seconds, most definitely not. Likewise, why doesn't heavy armor and especially mail make you fatigued after a few rounds of combat?

crossbows work fine,Actually, they don't. At least not the heavy variant. It's mechanics make it a disastrously poor choice of weapon, and as a simulation of the RL counterparts, its arguably even more disastrous, missing both its relative armor penetration capabilities and a huge chunk of its damage potential.

longsword naming conventions aren't actually important,Note that I don't disagree with you here, but I'm pretty certain a HEMA practitioner as concerned with "simulationism" as you appear to be in other areas would.

there is nothing special about the katana and if you don't like the masterwork assumption then it's about the most minor rule you could ever complain about, double weapons are there because people like ridiculous fantasy weapons,Sure. Again, I'm not complaining. But these are definitely not realistic rules, and for example a dire flail is arguably far less so than the CMB/D rules.

the encumbrance system is encumbrance and weapon weights may be inflated to account for being loosely secured/not balanced for easy carry and thus more encumbering, dunno what your problem is with mounted combat,The problem with mounted combat is that it's not even remotely close to as superior as it is in RL.

size bonuses and penalties also work fine, etc, etc.Have you ever handled say a large horse? If you have, imagine trying to wrestle that horse while it's actively trying to kill you. And then imagine a humanoid of the same size and near twice the strength, wearing full plate and trying to kill you with its 10-foot sword, while you attempt to defend yourself and attack it with whatever toothpick of a melee weapon you're holding... Yeah, good luck.

If you don't like it, great, don't play 3.5 then. I do so I will.Hey, I really like 3.5, and I would've most likely still played it if PF (with DSP products) hadn't existed. But I'm not really questioning tastes and preferences here, I'm questioning the stated reasons for certain aspects of those tastes and preferences.

Smell already has a default mechanic, creatures with Scent use a wisdom roll to get the square of an adjacent foe but otherwise it automatically works. Standard PC races don't have any significant sense of smell that requires skilled differentiation so there is no reason to have a skill for it- it's just a straw man. Ground vibrations, air currents, same thing. If I had a player who really, really wanted it, I'd make them a feat, or maybe adjust the "skill trick" system to add non-skill based tricks.OK. Thanks.

Really? Huh, so it is. None of the campaign journals I've read featuring it have portrayed it as such at all.If I had to guess, it's because those journals haven't made it clear whether the Witch casts a spell or uses one of their hexes (sorta at-will minor SLA's), which of course can easily have you come to the wrong conclusion regarding their actual spellcasting if you're not familiar with the class. Btw, they also happen to have some of the most hilariously and aptly named abilities in the entire game IMO, such as the greater hex Cook People (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch/hexes/hexes/major-hexes/hex-major-cook-people-su/)... :smallbiggrin:

Fizban

2018-09-23, 02:34 AM

I will start by saying: well done on being exceedingly courteous, and I apologize if I was too harsh in my own responses. I was dreading a bit the impending slug-fest I'd expected to enter once again, but apparently not. I'm still gonna try and keep this short/spoiler 'cause huge.

For example, I think your comments on the gunslinger FCB's seem fairly reasonable from a 3.5 perspective, but I would've expected a lot stronger reactions if FCB's along the lines of the human Sorcerer one had actually been much less rare and also found among those for the gunslinger. . .
This is also the very reason why I, in my first post on this subject, offered to spare you the work of not only going through tons of FCB's, but also actually check up on each and every one to make certain the actually have the impact you believe them to have, . . .
Meaning I wrote "balance issues" basically as (sloppy) shorthand for "the supposed problem of FCB's having such a great relative mechanical impact they in practice largely dictate which race can choose which class and how a certain race/class combo plays". Which has little to do with PC/class power balance issues and your views on that subject per se, but much to do with what you're saying here again. . .
and very rarely have noticeably more impact than +1 hp/level has.
I haven't actually checked the human sorcerer one, but I'm guessing it's something along the lines of +1 spell known per spell level, which I would absolutely agree is far more significant, but I disagree with the idea that that's the only one that is. Nearly doubling your grit pool or gaining +2, 3, 4 AC at all times are both more significant than +1 hp/level or +1 skill point. Both hp/skill point are functionally equivalent to +2 on a stat if you stay single classed for the whole game, while these other benefits are equivalent to far more and don't reduce in effective value if you do multiclass. Furthermore, just as the existence of bad spells does not make overpowered spells less important, even if the majority of these racial favored class bonuses are bad, the fact that some of them are huge is a problem- an easily fixed problem if one likes the system, but since I already dislike it this only intensifies the dislike. As a single-classing reward I think they're a reasonably cool idea, but PF did make them racially based, and I won't include one statement without the other.

I'm simply saying that in reality the method used to trip will of course often vary greatly depending on the weapon you're wielding. And that the method used with for example a big heavy polearm such as a halberd, guisarme or ranseur doesn't involve any direct bodily contact and is much closer to a single attack than any two-stage "grab and muscle off balance" method. . . Wouldn't you agree that "simulating" such a trip attempt by rolling a touch attack followed by an opposed Str check stretches your imagination further than CMB vs CMD does?
We've got two things here- 1: halberds and guisarmes are specifically tripping weapons due to their hooks. Hooking someone can be dodged but doesn't care about armor or shield, making it the epitome of a touch attack, after which you make with the tripping. It sounds like PF may have expanded tripping to all heavy weapons or possibly just all weapons, which if anything is just another strike against it to me, since I don't think that makes any sense. And 2: I don't fully agree with 3.5's tripping either- that's actually why PF maneuvers were initially on my list of okay things. Tripping should include combat skill via BAB the exact same way grappling does, 3.5 is wrong about that and PF has it, but PF also has the problem of esoteric bonuses possibly applying in situations where they just shouldn't (or having to look up a whole separate list of what bonuses apply to what CMD situations).

I'm simply stating the obvious: that D&D combat rules, like most other things involving D&D rules mechanics, produce a similar yet different reality than the one we live in. Hence, it's also typically a bad idea to tweak the mechanics of one specific mechanic for the purpose of making it a better simulation of RL, especially if the change disrupts balance or adds complexity which slows down combat.
Except you're the one saying 3.5's rules needed the tweak (really a much more significant change) by saying PF's is better. The only issue I have with the 3.5 maneuvers is trip not including skill and Improved Trip giving out free attacks, both of which are more easily fixed without rebuilding the system. Most of the 3.5 simulationist rules bits work just fine as long as you use them correctly, and in turn I find most people complaining about them are forcing their ideas onto the system rather than reading it for what it is.

So what? A huge proportion of that population can still throw a friggin' 1/4 lb. dart from 20 feet away and actually damage a person in masterwork full plate! I don't think I need to tell you how ridiculously minuscule the chances of that happening are in our world. I mean, most likely even a very highly skilled veteran English longbow soldier from the 100-Years War would've had to be extremely lucky to cause anything more than dents and scratches to the armor and ringing ears to the wearer if shooting his 160 lbs. "warbow" from the same distance.
And that's where some sacrifices must be made/upheld for gameplay. The last time this came up I didn't think of the right fix until after the thread ended: what you're mad about is basically the natural 20 always hits rule (because making a +9 gothic/fluted plate is easy so even no-shield full plate can hit 20). So what you want is for the heaviest of armors to negate that rule, making their wearers effectively invincible against unskilled foes who don't reduce their AC. However, don't forget that hp is not always direct cuts, and that hp damage could be from a blow against the helmet that rattled you without actually drawing blood.

If were talking about the equivalent of D&D's overland movement and the run action, yes. If we're talking about 30 feet of "combat movement" or a 60 feet charge in less than 6 seconds, most definitely not. Likewise, why doesn't heavy armor and especially mail make you fatigued after a few rounds of combat?
If you've got a video I'd be interested to see it, but even then that's another sacrifice I'm willing to stick with, because there has to be some penalty for heavy armor, but no one's going to have fun with a time limit on melee characters. There are some places to be simulationist, and some not. I don't see how the touch ->trip/grapple rule would reduce heroic fun in any way, other than people not being able to handle rolling dice, so the simulation is all upside there. Making armor meet a lot of people's demands for realism would reduce heroic fun, so again I see no reason to change the base rules.

Actually, they don't. At least not the heavy variant. It's mechanics make it a disastrously poor choice of weapon, and as a simulation of the RL counterparts, its arguably even more disastrous, missing both its relative armor penetration capabilities and a huge chunk of its damage potential.
No weapons in dnd simulate armor penetration (not in 3.5, though PF's guns have that one good rule bit about them I mentioned even though I hate the rest), but the heavy crossbow has greater range than even composite longbows and plenty enough damage to one shot a large percentage of 1 HD targets. It could do with a bit more, 1d12 say, but I don't see any problem. The main reason crossbows are unimportant is that unlike real life where a longbowman is a specialist, in dnd every warrior is a switch-hitting longbowman, but that's not the crossbow's fault. As for it not being a better PC weapon, well that's up to game support- 3.5 doesn't have it, but I don't know how much if any PF has, and I've got my own support for it anyway.

Note that I don't disagree with you here, but I'm pretty certain a HEMA practitioner as concerned with "simulationism" as you appear to be in other areas would.
Names are the easiest things to change. My armor table's got a bunch of them, and the main reason I wouldn't do it for arming sword/longsword is simply because one-handed longsword is about the most deeply ingrained name problem, just not worth the effort. What I'd like to see is someone take a look at bucklers for once. A buckler is not a shield strapped to the arm that leaves your hands free. That might be a targe, but it's definitely not a buckler.

The problem with mounted combat is that it's not even remotely close to as superior as it is in RL.
Have you ever handled say a large horse? If you have, imagine trying to wrestle that horse while it's actively trying to kill you. And then imagine a humanoid of the same size and near twice the strength, wearing full plate and trying to kill you with its 10-foot sword, while you attempt to defend yourself and attack it with whatever toothpick of a melee weapon you're holding... Yeah, good luck.
And what are you? I know that I'm essentially a commoner. I have zero BAB, a couple hit points, below average physicals and maybe a bit above average mentals. Put a horse or an ogre up against an actual average person in dnd, a commoner 1 or even a warrior 1, and they will in fact get completely destroyed. That's the part I mean about not reading system correctly when it comes to simulationism. An elite PC-classed melee combatant with several levels is not a normal person. They're a guy who's fought literally dozens of life-or-death battles against foes of increasing skill, in a world where those fights literally give you the "extraordinary" toughness and skill to fight things like that. A gorilla with a sword will kill a normal person with a sword, but the world's best swordsman who practices fighting gorillas? There are historical weapons designed for killing horses, people fought off lions with spears, and at a certain level of skill it's totally believable that someone could survive one of those fights solo. If they're one of the best. In dnd, PCs gain that strength extremely quickly.

But that's just about large foes in general. Mounted combat, warhorses in specific? Again, look at that warhorse's stats compared to the 1 HD warrior. The warhorse eats him for breakfast, and a lance charge deals double damage which is almost a guaranteed kill vs a 1HD non-elite if it hits. The horse give a speed boost, a carrying capacity boost, and the big heavy horse can do the overruning for you if you want to go through the lines. Horses are huge in the realistic 1HD armies band of 3.5. The main thing missing is a "chain overrun" so you can trample over multiple people, but considering wall formations were specficially used to stop cavalry charges, I get the feeling that's would actually be unrealistic.

If I had to guess, it's because those journals haven't made it clear whether the Witch casts a spell or uses one of their hexes (sorta at-will minor SLA's), which of course can easily have you come to the wrong conclusion regarding their actual spellcasting if you're not familiar with the class. Btw, they also happen to have some of the most hilariously and aptly named abilities in the entire game IMO, such as the greater hex Cook People (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch/hexes/hexes/major-hexes/hex-major-cook-people-su/)... :smallbiggrin:
Nah, they make a big enough deal about the hexes that I didn't need to look it up to know the hex system was what I'd call feature bloat. What they didn't make quite as clear was that all the spell slinging going on was coming out of prepared lists, which is a pretty natural result when you're going over massive action scenes long after the fact and all you really remember was what spell when. Low numbers of prepared high level spells look a lot like low numbers of high level spells known when all you're hearing is a couple rounds of blow by blow combat.

Florian

2018-09-23, 02:53 AM

Ignimortis

2018-09-23, 03:10 AM

@Fizban:

Contrast two very different PoVs: Complete build vs. actually playing it from the ground up. Do things change based on the PoV? Hell, yeah, they do! Personally, I can´t decide which of the two is right, because of the difference that actual game mastery will make.

Personally, I think that playing your concept from the low levels is a good thing. It's a reasonable design goal, and if you can actually see your thing work from level 2-3 onwards, that's good for all players as far as I'm concerned.

Peat

2018-09-23, 05:23 AM

I thought the argument was that there wasn't really a reason to do finicky things in pathfinder, because there were so many archetypes and functional, easy optimizations that it doesn't take effort to get close to your concept. If not, I'm making that argument now :smalltongue:

In fact pretty much every combination of "I want these spells" and "I want to be this thing" is just take the thing, add some casting and Arcane Savant or Samsaran, and boom you've got it.

He (and now I) is not talking about a finicky character build, but a finicky character concept and whether its true that there so many archetypes that everything will be covered by single class build alone (or I guess single class with small dips would be fairer given his original character).

I don't believe his example idea is truly covered. In fairness, it would be amazing if every single idea and option that people have was catered for just in one class, so I'm not sure how much it means that it can't do everything... but it can't do everything.

Florian

2018-09-23, 09:22 AM

He (and now I) is not talking about a finicky character build, but a finicky character concept and whether its true that there so many archetypes that everything will be covered by single class build alone (or I guess single class with small dips would be fairer given his original character).

I don't believe his example idea is truly covered. In fairness, it would be amazing if every single idea and option that people have was catered for just in one class, so I'm not sure how much it means that it can't do everything... but it can't do everything.

Not "one class", we're talking about "one archetype", which is an entirely different beast.
Just a simple example: Both, Fighter (Viking) and Slayer (Witch Hunter) have options to gain Rage Powers without having the actual Rage class feature bayed on archetype. If your initial though was: "Man, I get some Barbarian levels to do X and combine that with other class levels to do Y", then the archetype did the whole heavy lifting for you, making that combo feasible from the get-go.

Naturally, the system-as-is can´t get too fiddly. Neither archetype not VMC can get another archetype. For example, while the Eldritch scoundrel might give arcane caster levels to a Rogue, it´s not possible to exchange exactly those "generic wizard levels" for, say, a Magaambyan Initiate.

But: outside of direct progression PrCs, I don't know where else that should hold true.

martixy

2018-09-23, 02:01 PM

You've actually linked to those rules yourself. Just don't stop reading after the general formula has been explained, continue reading also "Performing a Combat Maneuver (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/#TOC-Combat-Maneuvers)" (my emphasis):

Boy, do I stand corrected - and confused as f.

This throws a serious wrench in my own game's math.

But leaving that can of worms aside...
@ngilop
Give some design notes on your fighter rework.
There's a lot to parse just for one class, and I'm tempted to say that's just not very good design.

Me, I'd give em Combat Stamina (Unchained) as a bonus feat and call it day.

Quertus

2018-09-23, 07:35 PM

None of those fit because they either don't have full casting OR don't have arcane spells (well, maybe he dropped the arcane bit).

That might be a real finnicky answer, but I believe that's Quertus' point. You could do all sorts of finnicky things in 3.5. They mightn't be the most sensible thing ever, but you could do them.

Someone said you could do anything with just one class in PF so he's putting that to the test.

The closest I can get to something that does this in one class is a White-Haired Witch - a full arcane caster that can heal (iirc) and does have some combat functionality thanks to the hair. Maybe not the epitome of holiness, but their sources of knowledge can be holy ones. I don't think that would fit Quertus' request.

I thought the argument was that there wasn't really a reason to do finicky things in pathfinder, because there were so many archetypes and functional, easy optimizations that it doesn't take effort to get close to your concept. If not, I'm making that argument now :smalltongue:

In fact pretty much every combination of "I want these spells" and "I want to be this thing" is just take the thing, add some casting and Arcane Savant or Samsaran, and boom you've got it.

Then quertus' point is irrelevant. Just as I said before, those are not fiction-first definitions of gish, and if you actually apply them strictly they result in characters that are impossible to achieve in ANY system other than 3.5. "wizard 17, 16 BaB, and also healing" is basically saying "P.S: must use 3.5" When he restated things as "achieve this theme and be useful", PF in fact has more options to do that. I listed things that can do that purely through class features, leaving out the dozens of archetypes that also could, and ignoring all the feats that could enable it to work without those feats or archetypes.

If magus and warpriest don't count as gishes, then gishes don't exist.

I didn't originally create the character in 3e. Heck, I could create the concept in, say, WoD Mage, simply by spending most of my XP on spheres, including Life, but setting aside just enough to put a few dots in "melee", and saying that I was a member of the Knights Templar or something. Holy warrior, almost as good of a Mage as a truly dedicated Mage (close enough in power that skill / that "player skill" could still be primary in determining victory), capable of healing.

As described, I could probably build that concept in Heroes system, or Mutants and Masterminds, and have something that was just marginally a weaker caster than an "equal level" dedicated caster by virtue of spending a few points on passable melee skill.

So, no, this isn't 3e-centric.

As I said, the original point I was referring to was someone bemoaning the impossibility of pf allowing an engaging character creation minigame to actualize a given concept.

While it probably doesn't match a more detailed inspection of the character I played, does the White-Haired Witch match high-end / primary caster, passable melee, and capable of healing? If so, then it sounds like my concept failed to force pf into an engaging character creation minigame.

Oh, and as for my personal stance? I want to be able to put "Fighter" or "Wizard" on the character sheet, and a) be done; b) have a perfectly playable character. I also want the option to fiddle with hundreds of fiddly bits (2e kits, Skills and Powers, etc qualify, I suppose, without requiring cross-referencing as many books to build a single character as 3e), to have the option to have an engaging character creation minigame, and still have a reasonable chance of walking away with a playable character. Lastly, I'd like the characters' experiences to be reflected in the mechanics / to gently sculpt the character. 2e gets a low passing grade for proficiencies and factions and random treasure / weapon proficiencies, whereas 3e fails rather poorly in that regard.

Did I mention that 2e is favorite system?

In a way, yes, it is.

Consider some of the changes between 3.5 and PF: In 3.5, for some people, stuff like 16/9 or double-9 s were some kind of gold standard to reach, a full 20th level build without that pointless.

Contrast that with what the PF crowd is mostly talking about, which are mostly builds that come online at 1st or 2nd level, are more or less complete by 12th and focus heavily on the economy of actions.

Notice the difference of focus: 1st vs. 20th level.

As such, the entire question itself is somewhat wrong, including the metric to rate the answer, as in: In the level range that actually gets played by people and which is not just theory craft, the Magus and Warpriest are the true gishes compared to anything you can do with the Wizard or Cleric class. Period.

(As for the whole question, I think you can do a lot based on the Magaambyan Initiate/Arcanist. Full arcane caster plus druid spells and the Good domain is just great to build upon and, as usual, starts out at 1st level straight.)

I mean, I'm a big fan of "playable from level 1", but, if you're still throwing cantrips at level 20, it's not an acceptable recreation of the character that I played. If it ever fails to be almost as good as a dedicated spell slinger (ie, can one expect that the slight power difference would be less important than player skill), then it fails. If it feels like stereotypical bookish mage who had no business being in a fight, then it fails. Translate that into mechanical requirements on a per-system basis.

Scots Dragon

2018-09-23, 08:07 PM

Okay, so from my perspective...

Skill Consolidation, and Feat Progression
This is something people have gone into detail on already and I'm just echoing here. Even in the individual feats themselves suffered, the faster feat progression was welcome as it helped out many individual builds, and it's an easy trick to just use Pathfinder progression while using D&D 3.5E feats, something I'd easily port back as a house rule. Another individual thing here is how cross-class and class skills were handled, and how that was greatly simplified. Yet again this is something I'd port back as a house rule.

Improvements to Some Classes
While I don't like how all of the core eleven classes were changed, the fact of the matter is that many of them were improved. I found many class abilities were redundant or outright boring and unnecessary, most notably some of the specialist wizard traits and cleric domains, but most of the martial classes were actually marginally improved and I'd consider them a worthwhile investment; the paladin and ranger were notable examples. Another note is the sorcerer gaining a bloodline and bonus spells, which I quite liked.

New Classes
While this doesn't apply to all of them, I actually really like some of the new classes added. I adore the witch and shaman, and on a personal level appreciate the latter's iconic for providing a degree of representation appropriate to my interests.

Class Archetypes
As someone who loved AD&D 2e for its kits, their reintroduction in this form really appealed to me.

Favoured Class Bonuses
This is a solid improvement over the mitigation of XP penalties.

The Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting
It is not exactly without discussion that, at the same time as Pathfinder first being released, there was a real shift in the way Dungeons & Dragons was depicting its campaign settings and primary sources of lore. The creators of D&D 4E were revelling in the idea of dismantling the Great Wheel, and what they did to the Forgotten Realms still feels like an insult to its fanbase, and on a personal level many of the elements that were most prominently destroyed or removed from the Realms were my favourite parts. D&D 5E has done some things to try and remedy this, but only some.

Inclusivity
The game includes trans and queer characters to a near-unmatched level outside of stuff like Blue Rose, and I am personally here for that.

None of this is quite enough to really fully erase its complete list of flaws, but this is my general personal note on what things were right about Pathfinder.

Florian

2018-09-24, 03:28 AM

Quertus

2018-09-24, 08:09 AM

@Quertus:

But ain´t this heavily based on expectations? I mean 3E/3.5E classes (before they introduced ACFs) were extremely bland and devoid of class features, compared to what most PrC delivered. You basically had no incentive whatsoever to not go prestige asap, unless of course the prereqs were too prohibitive to do so.

PF moved most of the ACFs, combine-two-class-feature feats and PrC over to archetypes and called it a day after that.

I mean, it´s still up to personal taste whether one likes to grab a Pei-Zin Practitioner Oracle or build a more classic Oradin by hand, same as just grabbing an Eldritch Scion Magus or doing a Sorcerdin build. Me, I actually like having the choice between both options.

I strongly agree on the "like having the choice between both options". They scratch different itches, appeal to different desires. An optimal system should cater to both.

I think that the expectations for the character should, in this case, be calibrated to the system. In 3e, an Arcane Spellcaster using Divine Power for full BAB qualifies as passable melee (but not as good as someone with all the feat chains, or more HP), certainly after you self-buff to taste / to the table's balance point. Add in a level of Crusader, and you've got both Holy Warrior and healing covered. Some may say that by being a full spell level behind a Wizard that the character is unplayably bad as a Spellcaster. Shrug. I haven't played a sorcerer yet to know first hand, and, at level 30+, I don't think that the difference will really matter. RAW, one levels too fast in 3e for lasting groups not to go deep epic, IME.

Der_DWSage

2018-09-24, 01:42 PM

I've got a hot take for the ones wanting 16 BAB/9th level gishes...

I prefer lowering the ceiling on char-op so that you don't get the best of both worlds. Not to mention that most of the 6-level casters have something to make up for not having 9th level spells, (Magus can combine spells with a full attack, Alchemist can make use of high level potions and explosives, Bard is #1 at social skills and has unique spells, Warpriest can buff faster than Cleric, Inquisitor gets Bane, Investigator is King of Skills, Skald starts a mosh pit, even the 4-level Bloodrager gets to buff up with a rage) so the simple metric of 'Have 9th level spells' isn't always the winning factor in a talk about what's superior.

I'll put down that PF 1 heightened the char-op floor and drastically lowered the ceiling as a thing they did right. Still very far from perfect, but with plenty of room for fiddly bits so that the newbie with a Barbarian can play on the same battlefield as the Shocking Grasp Magus.

upho

2018-09-25, 02:56 AM

Dang, how many levels do you actually have in the Keyboard Wizard (Nerdy Forum archetype/ACF) class? You practically reply before I post! :smalleek:

I will start by saying: well done on being exceedingly courteous, and I apologize if I was too harsh in my own responses. I was dreading a bit the impending slug-fest I'd expected to enter once again, but apparently not.Thank you for the kind words! And really, in the light of the many lengthy repetitive slug-fests you've been dragged into on the subject of "PC balance", I fully understand your reaction, and I should've thought about that before being sloppy in my choice of words. And yeah, you definitely have no reason to dread that old pointless derail being provoked by me. (Especially since I believe I got your point early in the very first such slug-fest, and respect your views even though I may not agree with them.)

Coincidentally, I must however admit that old debate is at least a part of the reason why I find it interesting to discuss these nit-picky details with you. Meaning I think the chances of this being interesting and productive for us would probably not be nearly as high if we already shared perspectives and agreed about most details. And perhaps even more important IMO, that you also have both the eloquence and willingness to actually explain your views. Even when it comes to really nerdy tangential stuff, such as how trips are best performed with polearms in RL! Love it. :smallsmile:

I haven't actually checked the human sorcerer one, but I'm guessing it's something along the lines of +1 spell known per spell level,Correct! Though I'm afraid I'm most likely gonna have to take credit for your good guess, since I happened to quote that particular FCB in my first reply to you in this thread and your brain is just playing "subconscious memory suggestion"-tricks on you...

Anyhow, the human sorcerer FCB is indeed +1 spell known, of a level up to one below your highest known.

which I would absolutely agree is far more significant, but I disagree with the idea that that's the only one that is.As I've mentioned before, it isn't the only one, no. And while there are quite a few copies of that FCB for spontaneous full casters (like goblin sorcerers and catfolk, half-elf, half-orc and human oracles IIRC), there are none of a greater mechanical benefit, and none offering a comparable benefit in such a blatantly effortless and build-independent manner. A few examples of other powerful ones, off the top of my head: half-elf summoner (+1/4 evo point), hobgoblin (+1/2 bombs/day) and ratfolk (+1/6 discovery) alchemist and human barb (+1/3 superstition rage power bonus). Otherwise, at least there's typically some opportunity cost for making the other stand-outs actually, you know, stand out.

A decent less powerful example of this may be the elf oracle FCB, granting you benefits from one of your revelations as if you were one level higher for every six levels you've taken the FCB. Up to +3 effective oracle level revelation effects at 18th level is nothing special in most cases, and probably often of less value than +1 hp/skill. But if you've for example chosen the Nature mystery's (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle/mysteries/paizo-oracle-mysteries/nature/) Bonded Mount revelation, those extra levels will grant you additional effective druid levels determining the progress of your bonded mount, which can be quite a boon, especially together with other shenanigans to boost your effective druid level.

Nearly doubling your grit pool or gaining +2, 3, 4 AC at all times are both more significant than +1 hp/level or +1 skill point.Well, yes. But comparing FCB's in vacuum won't help you answer the only actually relevant and meaningful question of whether an FCB is one the primary reasons for making a certain race a no-brainer choice for a certain class.

And looking at the gunslinger core race FCB's, I'm fairly certain that the dwarf (-1/4 misfire chance) is the strongest for most gunslinger builds, and even more so for TWF builds, since misfire is by far the greatest reason actual firearm DPR is typically less than longbow DPR during most levels in most games. Quickly fixing misfires (with the Quick Clear deed) also happen to be what most of a typical gunslinger's grit points are spent on, at least once they get iterative attacks and need to use alchemical cartridges for free action reloads (since cartridges increases the misfire chance). And interestingly, as long as the misfire chance is kept at 1, it's also very close to the firearm base crit chance, which means the chances of a gunslinger regaining grit quicker than they need to spend it on fixing misfires is highly likely, regardless of how many attacks they make per round. And more importantly, the dwarf FCB can make many of the related options otherwise not viable due to their great misfire risks great, such as scatter weapons with alchemical cartridges (standard misfire 1-3). So all things considered, definitely more powerful than a few extra grit points for most gunslingers.

But this doesn't make dwarves the no-brainer race for gunslingers, as their racial traits are rather poor in comparison to the races best suited for the job (halflings (especially for Mysterious Strangers (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/Gunslinger/archetypes/paizo-gunslinger-archetypes/mysterious-stranger)), half-elves and of course humans). And even should we remove the gunslinger FCBs from these better suited races, the dwarf would still not be a no-brainer pick.

Also, the halfling FCB does most definitely not grant "+2, 3, 4 AC at all times". Not even close. Please read up on the class and especially the Gunslinger's Dodge deed again, and if you then still come to that conclusion, please explain how.

Both hp/skill point are functionally equivalent to +2 on a stat if you stay single classed for the whole game, while these other benefits are equivalent to far more and don't reduce in effective value if you do multiclass.I hope the above have pointed out reasonably well that in most cases, regardless of how an FCB compares to +1 hp/skill per level, they're exceedingly rarely the greatest determining factor for both player choices and the relative mechanical power of class/race combos. And perhaps just as interestingly, the FCB's - regardless of whether they're reduced in effective value or not - don't make multiclassing have any noticeably less relative power in PF, and a large majority of mid- or high-op (martial) builds are only possible by taking levels in three or more classes. And as others have already said in this thread, the simplicity of archetypes and stronger base classes are the main reason for there being less multiclassing in PF than in 3.5, at least in typical lower-op games.

But if you don't trust me to have the system insight and experience to make a fair assessment of FCB's, please check out the many guides in this compilation (http://zenithgames.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-comprehensive-pathfinder-guides.html) and see what they say about preferred race choices and FCBs. Though I'm pretty certain most of them will only rarely even mention FCBs in their race recommendation sections, since - again - they rarely have any mechanical impact actually worth mentioning.

Furthermore, just as the existence of bad spells does not make overpowered spells less important, even if the majority of these racial favored class bonuses are bad, the fact that some of them are huge is a problem- an easily fixed problem if one likes the system, but since I already dislike it this only intensifies the dislike. As a single-classing reward I think they're a reasonably cool idea, but PF did make them racially based, and I won't include one statement without the other.This I can full understand, and I definitely agree with the principle of "one bad egg ruins the entire omelette". Not to mention my own view of FCBs are... Well, let's just say they wouldn't be on my list of selling points if I was to try and promote PF for 3.5 players.

.............................................

Damn! RL calling! I'm gonna have stop here and get back to the second half of my reply in a later post later today.

Fizban

2018-09-25, 03:14 PM

Dang, how many levels do you actually have in the Keyboard Wizard (Nerdy Forum archetype/ACF) class? You practically reply before I post! :smalleek:
That was like two days ago :smallcool: Yeah, that's a thing that happens a lot when post warriors are around. 'Specially since I tend to show up late at night, right after one bunch of people have posted, and I'll be wrapping up right around when a bunch of people start waking up.

And perhaps even more important IMO, that you also have both the eloquence and willingness to actually explain your views. Even when it comes to really nerdy tangential stuff, such as how trips are best performed with polearms in RL! Love it. :smallsmile:
D'aww. But seriously, I have no idea how realistic polearm trips are performed. The dnd books mention the hook and it's a solid game reason, but since it's been a couple hundred years and even most big HEMA scrims (that I've seen random videos of) are still functioning under rather unrealistic rulesets, I doubt there's much way to prove proper polearm combat. Most polearms or big weapons could probably do the job, but for game purposes they should have some differences and trip/no trip is a simple and dramatic difference. Another gamist choice merely being divvied up based on simulationist reasoning.

Well, yes. But comparing FCB's in vacuum won't help you answer the only actually relevant and meaningful question of whether an FCB is one the primary reasons for making a certain race a no-brainer choice for a certain class.
I'm big on the perception of the game. Many arguments are based on the perception of the game rather than how it plays, and many choices of how to play are made based on perception rather than evaluation. For example, take shields. A lot of complaints about AC being terrible come from shields being only +1 or 2 AC. That's not actually true, because the correct range is +1 to +7 (not counting tower), but that starting max of +2 makes a lot of people ignore them completely, especially when they could have a bunch of damage that is easy to grok instead of a defense that isn't even noticable when it's working. So since AC could use a *little* boost anyway, I drop that right there on the starting shields and the weaker base armors, so it just looks better.

While the actual value of the FCBs is obviously important, the immediate response when they're browsing and building is what will more likely matter, and I don't like the way it makes things look (like certain races have ridiculously strong class advantages when racial abilities belong in the racial statblock). I'd say this is even more important in PF where there are if anything even more fiddly bits to keep track of than 3.5, making it less likely someone will go through and compare every combination. A handbook might spill the beans immediately, but I don't expect people to read those (and they're often just as biased or short-sighted on things outside the usual anyway).

And looking at the gunslinger core race FCB's, I'm fairly certain that the dwarf (-1/4 misfire chance) is the strongest for most gunslinger builds, and even more so for TWF builds, since misfire is by far the greatest reason actual firearm DPR is typically less than longbow DPR during most levels in most games. Quickly fixing misfires (with the Quick Clear deed) also happen to be what most of a typical gunslinger's grit points are spent on, at least once they get iterative attacks and need to use alchemical cartridges for free action reloads (since cartridges increases the misfire chance). And interestingly, as long as the misfire chance is kept at 1, it's also very close to the firearm base crit chance, which means the chances of a gunslinger regaining grit quicker than they need to spend it on fixing misfires is highly likely, regardless of how many attacks they make per round. And more importantly, the dwarf FCB can make many of the related options otherwise not viable due to their great misfire risks great, such as scatter weapons with alchemical cartridges (standard misfire 1-3). So all things considered, definitely more powerful than a few extra grit points for most gunslingers.
Don't think I'm not noticing the bit where mitigating misfire rules, part of Pathfinder's terrible firearms, are apparently the most "powerful" thing you can do with that bonus. *Blech*. That's one sort of interesting.

Also, the halfling FCB does most definitely not grant "+2, 3, 4 AC at all times". Not even close. Please read up on the class and especially the Gunslinger's Dodge deed again, and if you then still come to that conclusion, please explain how.
I'm referring to both Halfling and Kobold, and the fact that it's a scaling bonus. The Halfling constant bonus stops at +2 at 8th, while the Kobold keeps scaling as high as +3 or +4 depending on what level you reach. These are massive bonuses usually not even possible with feats (unless PF just has massive AC bonus feats I've not heard about), essentially equal to the class's existing progression, and clearly more powerful than the hp or skill point options. They're fine as part of a range of benefits and power levels on this particular parallel advancement track, but the whole thing is tied to race, and therefore invalid.

I would note that I'm not trying to make a "super politically correct" game, racial issues are fine. They just need to be reflected properly in the mechanics, and the only thing that should make the difference between two otherwise equal builds of different races is what's in the racial abilities. Entry into PrCs and feat training can be restricted by culture and organizations, but those should be theoretically breakable if you made an adventure out of it in-game.

I hope the above have pointed out reasonably well that in most cases, regardless of how an FCB compares to +1 hp/skill per level, they're exceedingly rarely the greatest determining factor for both player choices and the relative mechanical power of class/race combos. And perhaps just as interestingly, the FCB's - regardless of whether they're reduced in effective value or not - don't make multiclassing have any noticeably less relative power in PF, and a large majority of mid- or high-op (martial) builds are only possible by taking levels in three or more classes.
Again it's a bit of perception: staying single classed keeps giving you this little reward (whatever reward you chose), and makes you a bit more confident in sticking with a single-class build. That you're doing something for a reason and benefiting from it, rather than doing something "wrong" by coasting by instead of digging for the most power possible.

And RL is also calling me, though I've finished responses to this part. Back to the grind.

r2d2go

2018-09-25, 11:12 PM

Oh, and as for my personal stance? I want to be able to put "Fighter" or "Wizard" on the character sheet, and a) be done; b) have a perfectly playable character. I also want the option to fiddle with hundreds of fiddly bits (2e kits, Skills and Powers, etc qualify, I suppose, without requiring cross-referencing as many books to build a single character as 3e), to have the option to have an engaging character creation minigame, and still have a reasonable chance of walking away with a playable character. Lastly, I'd like the characters' experiences to be reflected in the mechanics / to gently sculpt the character. 2e gets a low passing grade for proficiencies and factions and random treasure / weapon proficiencies, whereas 3e fails rather poorly in that regard.

This is... kind of true of pathfinder. You can take a class, and optionally an archetype, and then type into the search bar something you want, and then take all the feats/abilities on that list, and be done. This is faster than 2e's methods of generating stats, picking proficiencies, figuring out attack speed and armor types, rolling for spell learning, etc, especially as you get higher in the levels, and for casters. You can also spend countless hours scouring the search pages for better and more synergistic options. And the first method is actually capable of making stuff stronger than the second method at its weakest - there's a fair bit of overlap power-wise, which is great.

The problem is, in my opinion, the second method for casters is much worse than the following, and almost just as simple as the first, method:

-(Option 1/2) Be a Samsaran
-Take whatever class you want.
-(Option 2/2) Be an Arcane Savant, spend four feats on the prereqs and Prestigious Spellcaster.
-Be a better version of whatever class you were

Turns out picking up 5th level Summon Monster VII, 4th level Greater Angelic Aspect/Holy Sword/Bestow Grace of the Champion, 6th level Overwhelming Presence/Teleportation Circle, the Litany line of spells, etc is pretty good. The second version is almost always worse, but also lets you cast scrolls at your caster level, which is also super busted.

upho

2018-09-26, 11:06 PM

Aight, finally got the time to continue (and yeah, huge again):

We've got two things here- 1: halberds and guisarmes are specifically tripping weapons due to their hooks. Hooking someone can be dodged but doesn't care about armor or shield, making it the epitome of a touch attack, after which you make with the tripping.And how do you define "hooks" and "hooking"? Looking at the supposedly (in this context) very similar uses of for example halberds and ranseurs, not only should both be reach and trip weapons, but also designed to facilitate both "hooking" and tripping (or rather unseating) in one single attack. IOW, a weapon doesn't need back-curved spikes or hooks to be excellent for tripping, nor is a trip with a weapon necessarily best performed as a "hook-and-pull" move AFAIK. For example, simply chopping/thrusting at your opponents legs/feet with a heavy polearm is in my (limited) experience typically going to make for a much more effective trip attempt.

It may also be worth noting that the typical hooks and spikes on polearms were most likely primarily intended to catch weapons and perform disarming moves and/or to unseat a mounted foe, not to make tripping of opponents on foot easier (which again isn't very strange considering the length and mass of these weapons are usually more than enough to make them excellent tools for such moves anyways).

So while I can see why for example basic spear or longsword/bastardsword designs may not warrant them being best "simulated" as weapons making it easier to perform trip maneuvers in the rules, I definitely don't see why for example the ranseur and glaive aren't, and perhaps even less why something like the heavy flail is (assuming it's a weapon actually designed as the historical RL weapon). To give you an idea of what I'm referring to here, have a look at the pics in the spoiler below.

https://res.cloudinary.com/upho/image/upload/c_scale,h_301/v1537905584/a-spanish-ranseur-c-1490-1540-european-longspear-polearms-weapons-product-faganarms_525_t0j7vf.jpg
"The evolution of the ranseur or runka can be traced directly to the Gothic lugged spear and indeed it was fully developed in this form in the Gothic period. Like the halberd, it is an infantry weapon which gives a foot soldier the capability of effectively attacking an armored horseman with its long spear point and low angle of attack. The sharp base lugs can cut the reins or penetrate between the armor plates. A skilled user could gain purchase on the armor as the adversary approached while angling the haft and digging the butt into the ground, and unseat the horseman or tear a portion of his armor off. Length: 100 1/2"" (Link (https://www.faganarms.com/products/a-spanish-ranseur-c1490-1540-96-472))

And then there's of course plenty of ranseurs(/"corseques"/"friuli spears") looking more like this:
https://res.cloudinary.com/upho/image/upload/c_scale,h_299/v1537905613/Friuli_Spear_1480_art_institute_of_chicago_v0ecgd. jpg(Link (http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/116264?search_no=19&index=179))

Or many/most glaives having spikes/hooks like these, which I also think illustrates the blurred lines between glaive, bill and fauchard (and their "-guisarme" versions) in RL:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Glaives_by_Wendelin_Boeheim.jpg/300px-Glaives_by_Wendelin_Boeheim.jpg(Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaive)).

Finally, here's a seemingly very well-made replica of the "iconic" 15th century Hussite "heavy flail":
https://www.wulflund.com/img/goods/en/small/flail_flails_weapon_hussite_wars_a.jpg(Link (https://www.wulflund.com/weapons/axes-poleweapons/flail-hussite-war-weapon-replica-xv-century.html/))
I don't really see what makes this weapon better suited for tripping than any of those above, but I can clearly see how the opposite could be true.

TL/DR: 3.5 flails, halberds and guisarmes being trip weapons, while glaives and ranseurs aren't, appears to be "simulationism" of the most arbitrary sort, perhaps especially if the existence of "hooks" is the deciding factor. In short, as with full plate and many other things, it appears to me that what the rules for these weapons primarily simulate is whatever fantasies their names conjure up in the mind of a 14-year old, shaped by fantasy fiction and shows like "Deadliest Warrior".

It sounds like PF may have expanded tripping to all heavy weapons or possibly just all weapons, which if anything is just another strike against it to me, since I don't think that makes any sense.You can trip with all weapons in PF. The trip weapon feature grants the option to drop the weapon in order to avoid being tripped in return on a serious failed attempt, and perhaps more importantly the ability to use the weapon for drag and reposition attempts. So on the one hand, using any kind of weapon for trips is of course horrible "simulationism", while on the other hand, the trip feature primarily allowing for drag and reposition can make far more sense than 3.5's trip weapons IMO, even though the trip weapons found in the CRB are the same as those in the PHB.

And 2: I don't fully agree with 3.5's tripping either- that's actually why PF maneuvers were initially on my list of okay things. Tripping should include combat skill via BAB the exact same way grappling does, 3.5 is wrong about that and PF has it, but PF also has the problem of esoteric bonuses possibly applying in situations where they just shouldn't (or having to look up a whole separate list of what bonuses apply to what CMD situations).What do you mean by PF having "esoteric bonuses possibly applying in situations where they just shouldn't"? AFAICT, such bonuses are always representations of some kind of extreme or supernatural dodging/prescience/deflection ability. That is, they help avoid anything which needs to be aimed at you, and should thus of course "realistically" also apply to CMD in all cases except perhaps grapple checks after a grapple has been initiated. Which is also where I believe it could be justified to say PF's CMB/D rules fail on the conceptual level of "simulation" and verisimilitude, attempting to instead gain greater ease of play (and failing rather spectacularly). Otherwise, the issue with esoteric bonuses is purely mathematical.

Except you're the one saying 3.5's rules needed the tweak (really a much more significant change) by saying PF's is better. The only issue I have with the 3.5 maneuvers is trip not including skill and Improved Trip giving out free attacks, both of which are more easily fixed without rebuilding the system. Most of the 3.5 simulationist rules bits work just fine as long as you use them correctly, and in turn I find most people complaining about them are forcing their ideas onto the system rather than reading it for what it is.But my point is that you're saying the reason why you want to alter the 3.5 rules is AFAICT specifically in order to improve the original rules mechanics' insufficient level of simulationism/realism. Which I'm saying generally makes for a poor reason, since doing so typically doesn't take the impact of the changes in other areas into account, such as ease of play and various dimensions of balance, and also tends to further highlight the many other things which remain far less realistic (though the specifics are of course often subjective depending on individual beliefs and knowledge of/experience with RL counterparts).

For example, is it good for your games' balance (in any/every sense or dimension) if Improved Trip no longer grants free attacks? Would it make affected characters more or less interesting to play in combat? Does it help make combat in general more interesting? Would it increase or decrease the ways in which characters can be mechanically diversified? Does it increase or decrease the number of character concepts which can be mechanically reflected at the appropriate power level? Does it suit with your players' tastes and preferences?

Note also that I'm not saying changing the rules for other reasons are necessarily bad at all. For example, I believe both 3.5 and PF can really benefit from houserules aimed at speeding up combat by removing the least relevant and fiddly die rolls in higher levels. Same goes for needlessly long/restrictive combat feat chains mainly serving to limit mechanical diversity and versatility (rather than pure numbers power). Which are also the two main reasons I greatly prefer the PF maneuvers. Meaning it's not because they're somehow more realistic or better simulations of the RL counterparts than the 3.5 maneuvers, but for example because they're typically faster in play and use highly consolidated values (very little need for checking up stuff in combat), without sacrificing verisimilitude in comparison to 3.5. That is, IME a player new to the system usually reasonably quickly and intuitively understands how the CMB/D basics work after having used it in a few combats (again with the exception of the darn grapple rules mess), and the verisimilitude is good enough such a player can usually make good guesses of whether something related is likely to work or not depending on whether it seems reasonable in PF's "reality". In 3.5, this is much less the case IME.

And the far greatest advantage is IMO that the PF maneuvers and related options greatly increase the possible viable combat functions and tactical options of especially full bab melee. And perhaps surprisingly, that more dynamic, varied and tactically challenging melee combat actually makes it feel far more realistic IMO. And the game is definitely improved when for example your barbarian's effectiveness in combat no longer necessarily has to be at all about how much hp damage you're capable of taking outside your turn and dealing to a single target during your own, or about the specific mechanics you use to do such things. PF maneuvers allows your effectiveness to just as well be about how great a controller, debuffer and spell destroyer you are, through both regular attacks and re-active defenses with powerful maneuver riders and/or replacements. Basically, a melee focus doesn't necessarily shut you out from doing something other than single-target DPR by repeated full attacks, to the point you can even the do same job in combat as a control/debuff wizard. Which unfortunately is very far outside the capabilities of the 3.5 full bab classes outside of ToB.

And that's where some sacrifices must be made/upheld for gameplay. The last time this came up I didn't think of the right fix until after the thread ended: what you're mad about is basically the natural 20 always hits rule (because making a +9 gothic/fluted plate is easy so even no-shield full plate can hit 20). So what you want is for the heaviest of armors to negate that rule, making their wearers effectively invincible against unskilled foes who don't reduce their AC. However, don't forget that hp is not always direct cuts, and that hp damage could be from a blow against the helmet that rattled you without actually drawing blood.First off, just in case I gave you the wrong impression, I'm personally not mad at any rules for not having a sufficient level of realism or verisimilitude, and at least ATM I can't think of anything I find even as much as mildly annoying in that regard... ...Oh wait, I actually can! I find the crossbow rules and Int 13 prereq of Combat Expertise and following feats mildly annoying also for this very reason, but the lack of realism is still far from the main issue with these rules IMO. And generally speaking, as long as the game's fictional verisimilitude is reasonably consistent, easily understood and agreed upon by everyone playing, simulationism/realism is by far the least likely to be problematic in my mind.

Regarding full plate protection, the lack of realism actually goes much further than simply natural 20s being far too easy. And after all, it is still possible for example a lucky throw with a dart manages to hit say an eye slit or other small gap, even if the probability of such a lucky throw is far less than 5%. But I'm mostly talking 'bout plain ol' hits here. To give you a simple example: if Petty the evil 1st level bog standard halfling warrior NPC (Dex 15, WF) throws her little dart at Bob the 3rd level BSF hero (Dex <12) standing 20 feet away in his new shiny mwk full plate, Petty has a whopping 40% chance of dealing just as much damage to Bob as she would've had he been naked (+6 attack vs AC 19). The 2% chance of Petty scoring a crit is of course also highly unrealistic, but far less so.

With some very rare exceptions, I believe the same would be true in the case of pretty much any other RL medieval ranged handheld weapon.

Just as a rough guess, to make full plate protection at least somewhat realistic, I'd say an attacker should have to roll two consecutive natural 20s in order to deal damage to a wearer (unless pinned/immobilized) with most light and one-handed melee weapons of the same size category as the armor, and all ranged ones besides heavy crossbows. On top of that, at least mwk full plate should probably grant something like DR 5/- and DR 10/bludgeoning and piercing, scaling with the size of the armor.

And yeah, some weapons were great at knocking out or even kill someone in full plate without penetration, such as the pollaxe, lucerne hammer and similar heavier late medieval weapons designed to fight opponents in armor. There are even some finds of heavy blunt crossbow bolts which seem to have been used for this very purpose. Other projectile weapons don't really have the capability to launch a missile heavy enough to have much effect though, and AFAIK for example tests with remakes of really powerful longbows against hardened steel armor seem to result in nothing more than scratches and ruined arrows (see for example this (https://youtu.be/Ej3qjUzUzQg) video). But of course, it would certainly be a very scary thing to advance while being hit by repeated hails of heavy longbow arrows, not to mention it would probably make you near deaf!

If you've got a video I'd be interested to see it, but even then that's another sacrifice I'm willing to stick with, because there has to be some penalty for heavy armor, but no one's going to have fun with a time limit on melee characters. There are some places to be simulationist, and some not. I don't see how the touch ->trip/grapple rule would reduce heroic fun in any way, other than people not being able to handle rolling dice, so the simulation is all upside there. Making armor meet a lot of people's demands for realism would reduce heroic fun, so again I see no reason to change the base rules.In principle, I very much agree with everything you say here. And though I disagree in the mentioned specific cases of trips and most other combat maneuvers, it's not because of realism, but probably because of me prioritizing ease of play and increased mechanical versatility of melee higher.

But now that you mention it, one of the houserules my group has used for years in 3.5/PF is that medium and heavy armor only imposes a -5 feet reduction in speed, and no reduction at BAB +6. However, improving realism (or rather verisimilitude) was just a little bonus, while the primary reason for that houserule was to improve the balance of the armor categories' benefit vs cost ratios.

(Regarding movement in full plate, I don't think I've seen anything specifically about moving at less than maximum speed. The best video I can think of right now would probably be this (https://youtu.be/pAzI1UvlQqw), maybe followed by this (https://youtu.be/qzTwBQniLSc) and this (https://youtu.be/q-bnM5SuQkI), but you have to decide for yourself how well these answer the question. I'd personally say they at least give some good hints, but perhaps mostly in a relative sense when compared to other rules like encumbrance. But you could of course also simply examine whether it seems reasonable armor slowed you down in the light of related historical records. IOW, does it seem plausible full plate has such a detrimental effect on your capability to fight, considering that historically, the far greatest reason a prepared combatant wouldn't wear one on a battlefield appears to have been that they/their boss simply couldn't afford it (or more generally speaking: the richer the army, the heavier the armors). Otherwise, I don't have much to offer aside from my personal experiences from having owned a fairly historically accurate suit of hardened steel full plate which I did quite a lot of sparring and various other physically taxing "adventuring" activities in, and hope you believe those experiences make me qualified to give a reasonably accurate answer.)

No weapons in dnd simulate armor penetration (not in 3.5, though PF's guns have that one good rule bit about them I mentioned even though I hate the rest), but the heavy crossbow has greater range than even composite longbows and plenty enough damage to one shot a large percentage of 1 HD targets. It could do with a bit more, 1d12 say, but I don't see any problem. The main reason crossbows are unimportant is that unlike real life where a longbowman is a specialist, in dnd every warrior is a switch-hitting longbowman, but that's not the crossbow's fault. As for it not being a better PC weapon, well that's up to game support- 3.5 doesn't have it, but I don't know how much if any PF has, and I've got my own support for it anyway.That's pretty much exactly my own concerns. And unfortunately, PF has only marginally better support for it (and I've also added my own). But this is besides the point here. Which is that heavy crossbows are simply poorly simulated, especially in comparison to composite bows. And this also at the most basic level, outside of support from feats, ability scores or other capabilities the wielder may have on top of basic proficiency.

Names are the easiest things to change. My armor table's got a bunch of them, and the main reason I wouldn't do it for arming sword/longsword is simply because one-handed longsword is about the most deeply ingrained name problem, just not worth the effort. What I'd like to see is someone take a look at bucklers for once. A buckler is not a shield strapped to the arm that leaves your hands free. That might be a targe, but it's definitely not a buckler.Heh, yep. But I personally don't really care unless one of my players do. It's just yet another one of those many little things which are different from RL (aside from the major ones, but you know, those come with genre).

And what are you? I know that I'm essentially a commoner. I have zero BAB, a couple hit points, below average physicals and maybe a bit above average mentals. Put a horse or an ogre up against an actual average person in dnd, a commoner 1 or even a warrior 1, and they will in fact get completely destroyed. That's the part I mean about not reading system correctly when it comes to simulationism. An elite PC-classed melee combatant with several levels is not a normal person. They're a guy who's fought literally dozens of life-or-death battles against foes of increasing skill, in a world where those fights literally give you the "extraordinary" toughness and skill to fight things like that. A gorilla with a sword will kill a normal person with a sword, but the world's best swordsman who practices fighting gorillas? There are historical weapons designed for killing horses, people fought off lions with spears, and at a certain level of skill it's totally believable that someone could survive one of those fights solo. If they're one of the best. In dnd, PCs gain that strength extremely quickly.Who cares about you and me being lowly commoners (though I think my class is actually called "Slacker" :smallbiggrin:) or the relative strengths of PCs? The point is that both of us would have a much greater relative chance against pretty much anything of a larger size in D&D than we would against RL counterparts. The fact that both you and I are most likely utterly screwed in both cases is completely besides the point. Likewise, imagine we could bring your "elite PC-classed melee combatant with several levels" to our world. They might still be able to solo most larger RL animals with say a pair of daggers or even their bare hands, but they'd sure find it a great deal more difficult than it would've been back home in D&D, and the impact of RL size differences would consistently be the far greatest reason why.

In short, I mean that in pretty much every regard relevant to melee combat, size doesn't have even remotely close to the same impact in the game as it does in reality. Humanoids larger than Medium using manufactured combat gear simply highlights how laughably poor simulation of RL physics the rules are in this regard. For example, in RL the difference in damage potential between a swing of a Medium greatsword wielded by a Medium creature and a swing by Large counterparts wouldn't merely be +50% of whatever is the RL equivalent of the Medium sword's damage die, plus the equivalent of +6 due to greater strength/mass. Instead, the damage potential of the Large wielder's swing would be the equivalent of that of the Medium wielder multiplied by a factor of likely more than 10. (Meaning: (mass of Medium size x 8) x (speed of Medium size sword swing at point of impact x 1.25+) or something along those lines.) Which in turn would also mean armor worn by Medium or smaller foes would be pretty irrelevant for the Large wielder in most cases.

And this is also the main reason why most full contact martial art competitions have weight categories, and certainly not because smaller sized fighters would otherwise have an unfair advantage.

As a comparison, the hilarious fantasy physics of the game has a 6 ft./190 lbs. standard 1st level human warrior NPC deal an average of 8.5 damage on a successful normal hit with his greatclub (1d10 + (2 x 1.5) Str), while a 12 ft./1,200 lbs. equally standard 1st level hill giant warrior deals an average of 22 damage with his greatclub (2d8 + (9 x 1.5) Str)...

RL physics simply says size does matter a whole lot louder than D&D physics do. By extension, this is also the primary reason why the relative advantages of mounted combat in the game are much less significant than they are in RL. (Although there's also some other minor related stuff missing, like the high intimidation factor of mounted charges in RL.)

Nah, they make a big enough deal about the hexes that I didn't need to look it up to know the hex system was what I'd call feature bloat.Is it the hex feature as such you regard as "feature bloat", or most of the hexes the feature grants?

Personally, the witch is probably the full caster I like the most in PF, mostly because it's a prepared arcane full caster alternative to the wizard offering a higher optimization floor and a lower ceiling. I've also found the hexes to have a pretty large impact on the game during especially the first 10 levels, and that they really make the witch feel and play like its own clearly separate class. And of course, it doesn't hurt I find the flavor of both the vanilla version and most archetypes great and far more flexible than I had first expected.

What they didn't make quite as clear was that all the spell slinging going on was coming out of prepared lists, which is a pretty natural result when you're going over massive action scenes long after the fact and all you really remember was what spell when. Low numbers of prepared high level spells look a lot like low numbers of high level spells known when all you're hearing is a couple rounds of blow by blow combat.Ah, yes of course.

Fizban

2018-09-27, 06:37 AM

Alright, you're out wall-of-texting me.

TL/DR: 3.5 flails, halberds and guisarmes being trip weapons, while glaives and ranseurs aren't, appears to be "simulationism" of the most arbitrary sort, perhaps especially if the existence of "hooks" is the deciding factor. In short, as with full plate and many other things, it appears to me that what the rules for these weapons primarily simulate is whatever fantasies their names conjure up in the mind of a 14-year old, shaped by fantasy fiction and shows like "Deadliest Warrior". . .
You can trip with all weapons in PF. The trip weapon feature grants the option to drop the weapon in order to avoid being tripped in return on a serious failed attempt, and perhaps more importantly the ability to use the weapon for drag and reposition attempts. So on the one hand, using any kind of weapon for trips is of course horrible "simulationism", while on the other hand, the trip feature primarily allowing for drag and reposition can make far more sense than 3.5's trip weapons IMO, even though the trip weapons found in the CRB are the same as those in the PHB.

Alright, more info than I had, but I'll still settle for the reason in my last post (which you haven't got to yet)- it is indeed an arbitrary gamist division being merely directed/labeled by a simulationist idea, which can be vague at times. But the game is still primarily a game, and I'm fine with that. The level of "actual" simulationism in 3.5 is just about where I want it to begin with, and when I cite simulationism as a reason for something it's usually either to direct a mechanical change I'm already okay with, or to refute someone making hyperbolic claims that every soldier in 3.5 is some sort of godlike warrior. I want there to be a difference between polearms because otherwise there's no reason to have anything other than one boring "polearm" entry, and the ability to trip is a significant difference which can be based on whether the shape of the weapon "looks" good at tripping, which 3.5 already settled on things with hook-ish shapes.

There's another little bit in there: I'm told that some lords/knights would execute peasants found to be manufacturing polearms (might have been halberds specifically?), because they were so deadly against their category of heavy armor/cav kit. If every weapon can trip, there's less reason for a peasant to need that type of weapon to kill a knight, because mechanically the trip is the most important part for a mook trying to overcome plate, and in 3.5 they can't do that safely without a trip weapon (due to AoOs). PF adding drag and reposition stuff does sound pretty good as a more accurate distinction to give hook-ish weapons, though I'd have to look the maneuvers to see if I like how they're implemented. PF may actually be more simulationist in its slate of maneuvers and what weapons can do them, but I still don't think the single roll CMB/CMD system is the right direction.

What do you mean by PF having "esoteric bonuses possibly applying in situations where they just shouldn't"? AFAICT, such bonuses are always representations of some kind of extreme or supernatural dodging/prescience/deflection ability. That is, they help avoid anything which needs to be aimed at you, and should thus of course "realistically" also apply to CMD in all cases except perhaps grapple checks after a grapple has been initiated. Which is also where I believe it could be justified to say PF's CMB/D rules fail on the conceptual level of "simulation" and verisimilitude, attempting to instead gain greater ease of play (and failing rather spectacularly). Otherwise, the issue with esoteric bonuses is purely mathematical.
Exactly. All those other combat maneuvers? Completely unimportant like 90% of the time. But *tons* of monsters have innate grappling. If the change makes grapple make less sense then that pretty much trumps anything else, since touch -> manipulate already worked fine. Fix trip by adding BAB, great, add more physical maneuvering and use those for polearm granularity instead of tripping in general, groovy, but overhaul the entire thing and make the most common maneuver make less sense, nope.

But my point is that you're saying the reason why you want to alter the 3.5 rules is AFAICT specifically in order to improve the original rules mechanics' insufficient level of simulationism/realism. . .
I became disgusted by trip first, then realized that the solution to trip's ignoring combat skill was obvious and would make more sense anyway: put BAB in. Removing the free attack is similarly obvious as no other Improved (maneuver) feats grant them, and being prone is already one of the most devastating status effects in the game- Improved Trip is OP plain and simple. These two changes tone it down without having to re-evaluate a bunch of other stuff (like changing the trip penalties or trying to buff all the other maneuvers), with the main "unintended" consequence that big high HD monsters are harder to trip, which is also a feature. They're such small alterations that I'd hesitate to even refer to them as such, especially when being compared to PF's one-size-fits-all mechanic.

For example, is it good for your games' balance (in any/every sense or dimension) if Improved Trip no longer grants free attacks? Would it make affected characters more or less interesting to play in combat? Does it help make combat in general more interesting? Would it increase or decrease the ways in which characters can be mechanically diversified? Does it increase or decrease the number of character concepts which can be mechanically reflected at the appropriate power level? Does it suit with your players' tastes and preferences?
1. Yes.
2. Define "make characters more or less interesting." If "more interesting" means "allow broken builds," then I guess not, but when you consider how helpless the few tripping monsters can make a player feel, I'd bet it still counts as more.
3. Yes, because uber-trippers are boring, tedious, and unfun to play against, and a DM not having fun makes everything worse. A combat maneuver should have cost, risk, reward, and a limited window of opportunity, not be a constantly spammed effect whose removal only boosts dps
4. The classic relative increase, by having one maneuver reduced from OP to just really strong, the others aren't as bad by comparison.
5. Increase, same reasons as 4, aside from the obvious initial effect of adding trip the list of appropriately powered things.
6. It's been a while since my last game, but no one tried to push a tripper before and I'm not going to accept players that have an issue with my main houserules, so that's a yes by default.

And the far greatest advantage is IMO that the PF maneuvers and related options greatly increase the possible viable combat functions and tactical options of especially full bab melee. And perhaps surprisingly, that more dynamic, varied and tactically challenging melee combat actually makes it feel far more realistic IMO. . . Basically, a melee focus doesn't necessarily shut you out from doing something other than single-target DPR by repeated full attacks, to the point you can even the do same job in combat as a control/debuff wizard. Which unfortunately is very far outside the capabilities of the 3.5 full bab classes outside of ToB.
The former is a result of adding more maneuvers, not the basic CMB/CMD system change, which is the main part I disagree with. The latter is not something I think should be available, and is mostly predicated on the vague Dirty Trick maneuver. Even then it's mostly the fact that blind is on the initial list and the later feats that greatly extend and worsen the penalties, that I don't like. A general purpose dirty trick maneuver is great, but blinding is *huge*, and anything longer or stronger should require specialized training- as in specifically choosing to get it. Even a wizard has to pick their spells.

To give you a simple example: if Petty the evil 1st level bog standard halfling warrior NPC (Dex 15, WF) throws her little dart at Bob the 3rd level BSF hero (Dex <12) standing 20 feet away in his new shiny mwk full plate, Petty has a whopping 40% chance of dealing just as much damage to Bob as she would've had he been naked (+6 attack vs AC 19). The 2% chance of Petty scoring a crit is of course also highly unrealistic, but far less so.
Well first off I did specify that the total invincibility plate ought to be a higher tier +9 base than the standard +8, and furthermore, I wouldn't be restricting the plate guy to less than 12 dex when their plate explicitly has that +1 max dex and even non-elite array has a 13 and 12- you've specifically chosen to give him less AC (presmably in favor of str and con).

Second, that halfling isn't actually bog-standard. They're a member of a fantasy race, which results in their non-elite members having as much dex as elite humans, their relative size gives them a further advantage in accuracy, and their throwing ability is so naturally good it's a mechanical bonus in their racial stats. You've also given them weapon focus, indicating this is a 1st level warrior focusing on aggression rather than survival. In short, yes, a "bog-standard" agressive 1st level halfling has a whopping 40% chance to land a useful blow on full plate. Because their fantasy stats let them do it.

And third, even if they deal "as much damage as if Bob was naked," the actual damage is paltry. A halfling throwing a dart deals 1d3+str, maybe 2 damage. Even a 1st level elite warrior has 8hp, let alone a 3rd level elite fighter with 21+. The 2hp this specialized halfing deals with their 40% accuracy dart throw is the same as a human would deal with a fist or a rock- the only weird part is that the dart is allowed to deal damage rather than requiring the halfling to switch to a rock, but once again that's an acceptable trade, because trying to make a truly simulationist machine for figuring out what types of edges and points are allowed to do what to what armor would be madness. Do I know for sure that taking an arrow to the helmet would really rattle someone in real-life? Not really, but I doubt anyone's doing life fire tests at actual people's heads while they're in combat. So once again it's down to what makes a good game and seems reasonable, and I find it perfectly reasonable that a halfling throwing a dart right at your eyeslot would rattle you enough to make a mistake sooner in the fight than you would have previously (hp damage).

(Do I actually find it realistic that you could *kill* someone in super plate with a dart? Eh, not really, but it's still a game yo. If I want un-dartable plate in my fantasy game that makes darts more lethal because people like throwing darts daggers, I'll use un-dartable plate).

Regarding movement in full plate, I don't think I've seen anything specifically about moving at less than maximum speed. The best video I can think of right now would probably be this (https://youtu.be/pAzI1UvlQqw), . . .
IOW, does it seem plausible full plate has such a detrimental effect on your capability to fight, considering that historically, the far greatest reason a prepared combatant wouldn't wear one on a battlefield appears to have been that they/their boss simply couldn't afford it (or more generally speaking: the richer the army, the heavier the armors). Otherwise, I don't have much to offer aside from my personal experiences from having owned a fairly historically accurate suit of hardened steel full plate which I did quite a lot of sparring and various other physically taxing "adventuring" activities in, and hope you believe those experiences make me qualified to give a reasonably accurate answer.
That first video is the one I was thinking of, wouldn't be surprised if you'd posted the link I originally watched it from. Reducing tactical speed doesn't actually hinder your combat ability though- it hinders your pursuit ability. Dunno how often guys in heavy armor pursed other guys not in heavy armor on foot, but I'm fairly certain they'd have relied on maneuvering/terrain/cavalry to make it work.

Now, if you've timed your movement in plate that's pretty cool, but I'd still question how you're lining it up with the game. Dashing from one point to another on a signal within 6 seconds seems like it'd be very different from a combat situation where the signal is not being explicitly given, you may be actively engaged with another foe, and you need to start, stop, and possibly make some sharp turns in between. My point being that the dnd combat round is not precise and has lots of wiggle room for all the background movements that you aren't explicitly making, while a lot of what people might think of as combat movement could be termed in dnd as run actions rather than hustling. Or moving within your space, or 5' steps, or running/walking which average to a hustle. While the proper way to convert a speed into dnd terms is via longer times, tactical start+stop movement is affected more by inertia and harder to quantify, I think.

Come to think of it, that might be where they pulled the 1/3 reduction from. 40-50 lbs of armor (plus weapons) on a 150-180lb-ish body means your force to mass ratio is 3/4 the usual, which should mean your acceleration is only 3/4 usual (and no matter how strong you are in other ways you still have a 30' speed). Note that 20' speeds only drop to 15' in heavy armor for 3/4 normal (same at 40'). The reductions for higher speeds seem to fluctuate, many are close to 70% with the 30, 60, and 90 getting the short end at 2/3. Furthermore, remember that hustling combat speed includes the ability to constantly turn, constantly accelerate, so basing it on a presumed reduction in acceleration due to increased mass is more reasonable than you might think. It may be more accurate to say that the heavy armor speeds suffer from trying to be *too* simulationist. Or it may be that they just took the speeds straight out of the Chainmail minatures game and whoever wrote those is to blame.

All of that said, reducing the speed penalty is perfectly reasonable. A -5' penalty will still matter tactically, just not as much as -10, but I prefer the -10 so that light armor is actually "getting" something out of the deal, especially considering how many people want to play light or unarmored characters. And if those light armored characters have as much AC and combat ability as heavy armor characters with no penalties, then obviously you should get rid of the heavy armor penalties.

For example, in RL the difference in damage potential between a swing of a Medium greatsword wielded by a Medium creature and a swing by Large counterparts wouldn't merely be +50% of whatever is the RL equivalent of the Medium sword's damage die, plus the equivalent of +6 due to greater strength/mass. Instead, the damage potential of the Large wielder's swing would be the equivalent of that of the Medium wielder multiplied by a factor of likely more than 10. (Meaning: (mass of Medium size x 8) x (speed of Medium size sword swing at point of impact x 1.25+) or something along those lines.) Which in turn would also mean armor worn by Medium or smaller foes would be pretty irrelevant for the Large wielder in most cases.
Stop- re-read the weapon size rules. A Large weapon is not double the dimensions of a Medium weapon, it's double the weight. At least in 3.5 anyway. The square-cube law says you don't even want to make your weapons that way, because your increase in useful force doesn't go up as fast as the mass.

As a comparison, the hilarious fantasy physics of the game has a 6 ft./190 lbs. standard 1st level human warrior NPC deal an average of 8.5 damage on a successful normal hit with his greatclub (1d10 + (2 x 1.5) Str), while a 12 ft./1,200 lbs. equally standard 1st level hill giant warrior deals an average of 22 damage with his greatclub (2d8 + (9 x 1.5) Str)...
Repeat after me: "Damage is not energy equations." The hill giant still pastes a 1st level human, even an elite 1st level human, in a single hit, the human still requires a dozen or more hits to bring down the hill giant. The hill giant downs a non-elite 4th level human (he dodged just enough to maybe avoid bleeding to death) and two-shots an elite 4th or 5th level human (he was fast enough to only get clipped on the first go. . . ), which they can do in a single round with their BAB (before being pasted 2 seconds later). Damage does not matter, results matter.

In fact, this is basically the same complaint as earlier with the halfling: an elite human in full plate against a 1st level non-elite halfling dart thrower can drop the halfling in one or two hits, while the halfling requires four, or ten for your 3rd level example.

Is it the hex feature as such you regard as "feature bloat", or most of the hexes the feature grants?
The hex feature itself. You're already a full spellcaster with all the spell slots that entails, but apparently you need a whole extra set of abilities for all the levels where two extra spells known and more spells per day just aren't enough. Said abilities generally have no use limits or can be used once per foe, also known as having no use limit, and are often as strong as proper spells. It's kinda like if you gave out bonus reserve feats or dragonmarks, except every two levels instead of the "usual" 5 for wizard bonus feats. Maybe their spell list is so bad they need the extra power? I doubt it (but it's hard to read the original list, at least with the srd I've been using putting all the spells from everything on there, as you'd usually want).

I'm set to give sorcerers bonus feats equal to the wizard, but only because if I took away the wizard's bonus feats they'd whine about it, and the cleric's domains are effectively granting two feats worth of unique abilities (or more depending on how many off-list spells you're getting). Most classes do have some amount of bonus feat or extra abilities and *nothing* but spells would be a little sad, so sure, some bonus feats. But a full spellcaster should not have a whole extra slate of class abilities. That's basically the PF motto though- take a 3.5 class, and add extra ability progressions until it's a new class.

You don't need a whole extra set of abilities to differentiate a spellcaster, that's what spell lists are for. But that's hard to do with the precedent that healing= cleric, plant/animal= druid, and literally everything else= sor/wiz, so there's that.

upho

2018-09-28, 10:36 PM

Most polearms or big weapons could probably do the job, but for game purposes they should have some differences and trip/no trip is a simple and dramatic difference. Another gamist choice merely being divvied up based on simulationist reasoning.And it seems we agree this is just how it should be. Especially since regardless of how high one may value simulationism over gamist considerations, it seem highly likely one soon bumps into questions even the professional experts on these subjects still actually don't have answers to.

I'm big on the perception of the game. Many arguments are based on the perception of the game rather than how it plays, and many choices of how to play are made based on perception rather than evaluation.No doubt you're right about this. If something is for example viewed as a no-brainer choice, it'll still often impact PC flavor and variety regardless of whether it's objectively true or not. And on top of that, there are also conceptions based on incomplete, outdated and/or highly biased evaluations (such as many posts on RPG forums seemingly still greatly undervaluing the potential of PF's maneuvers, as can be seen also in this thread).

For example, take shields. A lot of complaints about AC being terrible come from shields being only +1 or 2 AC. That's not actually true, because the correct range is +1 to +7 (not counting tower), but that starting max of +2 makes a lot of people ignore them completely, especially when they could have a bunch of damage that is easy to grok instead of a defense that isn't even noticable when it's working.I get your point, but I don't think this is a good example. Because while this particular specific reason for complaining about AC and to ignore shields would be wrong of course, the conception about AC and shields in general being comparatively weak nevertheless matches with the actual truth in most games. Likewise, the general damage myopia is unfortunately also shared and encouraged by a great majority of options available for combatants primarily relying on their non-magic fighting prowess.

The complaint about AC and shields is also well backed by extensive theoretical cost/benefit evaluations (taking the actual +1-7 bonus range of shields and a lot more into account) as well as experiences from real games played according to guidelines. That is, during most levels improving AC does actually have a poor return on investment in comparison to improving other areas which are in more or less direct competition for resources. The perhaps most classic example is precisely about the shield/+AC vs two-handed/+damage comparison you're talking about, and it's true a Fighter will normally be of greater use in combat by focusing on a two-handed weapon style than a sword 'n' board style. Same goes for most other AC related stuff, evaluations clearly showing the superior cost/benefit ratio of many other means to improve durability in comparison to a high AC via armor and shields during most levels, ranging from passive stuff like DR or better saves to more active stuff like concealment, mirror image or having a great reach and powerful AoOs. And while there are of course plenty of game and build exceptions to these general truths, I'd actually say the overall conception of AC seems to more often be wrong for the exact opposite reason, judging by how many posters and the advice given in quite a few guides seem to have far too optimistic ideas of its relative usefulness.

So since AC could use a *little* boost anyway, I drop that right there on the starting shields and the weaker base armors, so it just looks better.Well, that could probably help correct the misconception of shields being bad specifically because they only grant a +1 or 2 AC bonus. But it won't do much to help fix the much greater underlying issue, which is that specifically being hard to hit with weapon attacks typically has a poor cost/benefit ratio. Or rather, the game gives the impression of this being a valuable advantage all by itself, when the truth is that, at least beyond the earliest levels, it requires both smart tactics and strong active abilities to actually be worth the costs involved. And even if players may come up with good such tactics, the required abilities are typically combos far too specific, expensive and complex for most people's tastes, if they're even available at all. (As a sidenote, these combos also rarely include any of the options most obviously labeled/described to fill similar "defender" functions, as those are generally not up to the task.)

And interestingly, I believe light and heavy shields are seeing quite a bit more use in PF. Not because their defensive abilities and related options are notably better than in 3.5 IIRC, but because of their good related unique offensive options.

While the actual value of the FCBs is obviously important, the immediate response when they're browsing and building is what will more likely matter, and I don't like the way it makes things look (like certain races have ridiculously strong class advantages when racial abilities belong in the racial statblock). I'd say this is even more important in PF where there are if anything even more fiddly bits to keep track of than 3.5, making it less likely someone will go through and compare every combination. A handbook might spill the beans immediately, but I don't expect people to read those (and they're often just as biased or short-sighted on things outside the usual anyway).This seems very plausible to me as well. If I were to run a game for players for whom this might be likely, I'd most probably simply remove racial FCBs.

Coincidentally, I can clearly see why PF's increased minimum amount of fiddly bits in character creation in general would be regarded by some to be one of its greatest drawbacks in a direct comparison to 3.5. PF's somewhat cleaner combat mechanics help make the average combat run slightly quicker and smoother, but the creation of a 1st level PC is more time-consuming and likely less fun for players not interested in mechanical minutiae or the "PC building mini-game". The simplicity of archetypes and a generally higher optimization floor mostly just helps reducing the total minimum amount of time such players are required to spend on that mini-game.

Don't think I'm not noticing the bit where mitigating misfire rules, part of Pathfinder's terrible firearms, are apparently the most "powerful" thing you can do with that bonus. *Blech*. That's one sort of interesting.PF's firearm rules are definitely not well designed, even though I also think the actual power of firearms and their overall effects on the game also get quite a bit of undeserved hyperbole BS complaints which simply cannot be true in a game played according to rules. But more than anything, I'd say the effects of their rules mechanics are mostly clunky and kinda weird, and the far greatest problem with those effects is their highly binary nature. For example, fighting with a two-handed firearms is typically not an option for any class or archetype in the game besides the Musket Master gunslinger specifically. Which makes you kinda wonder about why there are so many two-handed firearms available in the first place...

And yeah, the misfire rules are another example, and certainly create some wonky and binary results, even though their "normal" direct effect is simply to reduce overall average damage, but in a rather annoying random fashion I cannot see anyone approve of besides a fan of critical fumbles. But indirectly, the punishing effects of a misfire means firearms are pretty much restricted to gunslingers, as others won't have the grit to fix misfires quickly enough to make them viable weapons in most cases. However, curiously enough, misfires can also be completely avoided from a relatively early level with for example the right combination of enchantments (+1 reliable shadowshooting) costing a total minimum of 18k and the gun's damage die likely being reduced to its minimum 1 result, which can have a considerably less impact on damage output than actions spent on fixing misfire have, at least for a Small gunslinger wielding a pistol or two. There's quite a few similar odd effects as well, although of a less general nature.

All that said, I must also admit that despite all the clunky poorly designed mechanics and their binary effects, firearms also enable some IMO really cool, unique and pretty well balanced character concepts and combat styles that simply aren't possible with any other weapons. And last but not least, they offer a ranged focused martial character a viable, if limited, alternative to archery.

I'm referring to both Halfling and Kobold, and the fact that it's a scaling bonus. The Halfling constant bonus stops at +2 at 8th, while the Kobold keeps scaling as high as +3 or +4 depending on what level you reach. These are massive bonuses usually not even possible with feats (unless PF just has massive AC bonus feats I've not heard about), essentially equal to the class's existing progression, and clearly more powerful than the hp or skill point options. They're fine as part of a range of benefits and power levels on this particular parallel advancement track, but the whole thing is tied to race, and therefore invalid.Having nimble provide an additional +2 dodge bonus to AC isn't strong enough in comparison to for example +8 skill points to impact race choice. And improving the Gunslinger's Dodge deed's bonuses would be a waste.

The kobold FCB bonuses can grow large enough to actually have some minor impact on race choice, but that's a rather good thing in the particular case of kobolds, since the race is in dire need of every mechanical edge it can get. Even if one can argue that to be an issue with the race itself and the solution shouldn't be tied to certain classes. And it's also not a core race, which does also mean the options are less concerned with power differences.

Fizban

2018-09-30, 03:17 AM

I get your point, but I don't think this is a good example.
Oddly enough, it seems like one of those with the least baggage- at least AC isn't caster arguments. In any case, I've seen enough people post phrases along the lines of "shields are only +2 AC, just ignore them" that I like to think it matters.

Same goes for most other AC related stuff, evaluations clearly showing the superior cost/benefit ratio of many other means to improve durability in comparison to a high AC via armor and shields during most levels, ranging from passive stuff like DR or better saves to more active stuff like concealment, mirror image or having a great reach and powerful AoOs.
All usually ignoring the fact that AC stacks with those defenses, and they're much thinner than people expect (monsters can take Blind-Fight and Mirror Image Does Not Work That Way [I don't care what PF says about it]). But that's a whole different digression.

Or rather, the game gives the impression of this being a valuable advantage all by itself, when the truth is that, at least beyond the earliest levels, it requires both smart tactics and strong active abilities to actually be worth the costs involved.
Again, assuming the game is being run in ways where this is true.

And interestingly, I believe light and heavy shields are seeing quite a bit more use in PF. Not because their defensive abilities and related options are notably better than in 3.5 IIRC, but because of their good related unique offensive options.
This right here is something I just can't wrap my head around. If you're running your game such that shields are only useful if they let you kill things faster, that game doesn't make sense to me. But some people like it that way I guess. I'd rather have a game where someone with a shield is hard to hit, and being hard to hit is useful, rather than all aggro all the time. Of course even then I've gone and made my own homebrew feat for a sort of shield aggro- but mine is based on the conceit that not getting hit makes you stronger, which seems pretty uncommon. What are these PF shield feats?

All that said, I must also admit that despite all the clunky poorly designed mechanics and their binary effects, firearms also enable some IMO really cool, unique and pretty well balanced character concepts and combat styles that simply aren't possible with any other weapons. And last but not least, they offer a ranged focused martial character a viable, if limited, alternative to archery.
But are those concepts because of firearms, or Pathfinder's firearms specifically? 'Cause there's plenty of other firearms rules out there.

Having nimble provide an additional +2 dodge bonus to AC isn't strong enough in comparison to for example +8 skill points to impact race choice.
'Guess we're just gonna have to disagree there, because I'd take +2 AC every time. What am I even going to care about 8 skill points? Gunslinger already has 4 base, plus skill consolidation, plus cross-class ebolishment so the first point is worth four (though I suppose they might have a Gunsmithing tax). But keep in mind that I don't buy into what I see as a constant demand from some people for every character to be able to do everything.

Gnaeus

2018-09-30, 07:23 AM

PF's firearm rules are definitely not well designed, even though I also think the actual power of firearms and their overall effects on the game also get quite a bit of undeserved hyperbole BS complaints which simply cannot be true in a game played according to rules. But more than anything, I'd say the effects of their rules mechanics are mostly clunky and kinda weird, and the far greatest problem with those effects is their highly binary nature. For example, fighting with a two-handed firearms is typically not an option for any class or archetype in the game besides the Musket Master gunslinger specifically. Which makes you kinda wonder about why there are so many two-handed firearms available in the first place...

And yeah, the misfire rules are another example, and certainly create some wonky and binary results, even though their "normal" direct effect is simply to reduce overall average damage, but in a rather annoying random fashion I cannot see anyone approve of besides a fan of critical fumbles. But indirectly, the punishing effects of a misfire means firearms are pretty much restricted to gunslingers, as others won't have the grit to fix misfires quickly enough to make them viable weapons in most cases. However, curiously enough, misfires can also be completely avoided from a relatively early level with for example the right combination of enchantments (+1 reliable shadowshooting) costing a total minimum of 18k and the gun's damage die likely being reduced to its minimum 1 result, which can have a considerably less impact on damage output than actions spent on fixing misfire have, at least for a Small gunslinger wielding a pistol or two. There's quite a few similar odd effects as well, although of a less general nature.

All that said, I must also admit that despite all the clunky poorly designed mechanics and their binary effects, firearms also enable some IMO really cool, unique and pretty well balanced character concepts and combat styles that simply aren't possible with any other weapons. And last but not least, they offer a ranged focused martial character a viable, if limited, alternative to archery.

They are actually fairly decent on both extremes. P.C. non gunslingers can’t use them well, but they are surprisingly solid in the hands of completely inept characters, like lower level NPCs or any familiar with thumbs. The non proficiency penalty is the same as for a crossbow, and firing at touch means they have a chance that their action will be meaningful, and if they have to spend some time to clear jams, well, they weren’t going to be killing anything otherwise. Even some mage type builds can use them ok, by just dropping the gun when it misfires and letting the familiar pick it up, clear it, and hand it back rounds later. This is especially true if raw on inappropriately sized weapons is used rather than the FAQ.

Pex

2018-09-30, 09:57 AM

The hex feature itself. You're already a full spellcaster with all the spell slots that entails, but apparently you need a whole extra set of abilities for all the levels where two extra spells known and more spells per day just aren't enough. Said abilities generally have no use limits or can be used once per foe, also known as having no use limit, and are often as strong as proper spells. It's kinda like if you gave out bonus reserve feats or dragonmarks, except every two levels instead of the "usual" 5 for wizard bonus feats. Maybe their spell list is so bad they need the extra power? I doubt it (but it's hard to read the original list, at least with the srd I've been using putting all the spells from everything on there, as you'd usually want).

I'm set to give sorcerers bonus feats equal to the wizard, but only because if I took away the wizard's bonus feats they'd whine about it, and the cleric's domains are effectively granting two feats worth of unique abilities (or more depending on how many off-list spells you're getting). Most classes do have some amount of bonus feat or extra abilities and *nothing* but spells would be a little sad, so sure, some bonus feats. But a full spellcaster should not have a whole extra slate of class abilities. That's basically the PF motto though- take a 3.5 class, and add extra ability progressions until it's a new class.

You don't need a whole extra set of abilities to differentiate a spellcaster, that's what spell lists are for. But that's hard to do with the precedent that healing= cleric, plant/animal= druid, and literally everything else= sor/wiz, so there's that.

I haven't been following this tangent closely, so if I'm missing context I apologize.

I disagree with the opinion. I prefer spellcasters being given class features not for the power but to avoid boredom. Casting spells is fine and dandy, but that's not all I want to do. Certainly spells have diverse effects, but the mechanic to use them is the same. It could be a me thing, but I also see the same spells being cast every adventure. Playing a wizard or cleric I only switch spells around occasionally. Sometimes it's because I know the types of foes we're facing and can plan accordingly, and other times just to do something different because I'm sick of casting the same spell over and over. It's the same with warriors. I don't want my warrior's shtick to be I attack with my weapon as the only thing I have in combat. That's why I like barbarian rage powers, paladin spells and auras, unchained monk pick a class feature, rogue talents, etc. I'm ok with a class feature being passive, a resistance to something, a bonus number, anything that's effective and noticeable that it exists. I can agree a spellcaster is given too much, like 3E druid, but that's an issue of implementation. Just because a spellcaster has spells shouldn't mean he must be denied anything else.

Cosi

2018-09-30, 10:26 AM

Yeah, I think that post is just showing a basic ignorance of game design. It's not like there's some fixed, finite amount of power classes can have. If there were, it might be that giving Wizards extra class features might push them up against that. But there isn't. You could just make all the classes more powerful, and then have them face more powerful opposition. So the question is then whether having class features makes the game more enjoyable, and I think the answer to that is a pretty clear yes. People like having Wizards that can shoot pew pew lazers when they want to not blow a spell slot instead of having to use a crossbow. So the fact that PF 1e added stuff to facilitate that is a good thing.

Other things PF 1e did that were good:

1. Incentives to encourage people to take a single class. Open multiclassing is a failed experiment. Ideally we'd break with it entirely, but soft incentives against it are better than nothing.
2. More classes. I don't particularly like the extra classes PF 1e introduced, but the game should have more classes in it, so these are good on balance.
3. More feats. Given the power level of 3e feats, characters should get far more of them than they actually do. Once again, I think PF 1e should have gone farther, but 1/3/5... is better than 1/3/6..., if only marginally.
4. I haven't dug deep into Mythic by any means, but it does seem like it might be better than Epic. This one is kind of a reach though.

Things PF 1e did that I thought were bad:

1. They reduced the number of PrCs. 3e had some pretty bad PrCs, but overall the idea of upgrading your character to an Archmage or an Angel Knight or a Shadow Stalker was a good one, and having PrCs progress base class abilities mitigated problems with multiclassing.
2. I don't think the way they fixed the skill system was correct, so I think messing with the numbers was net-negative because of the difficulty it added to converting things.
3. At the time PF came out, 3e had a wide variety of different resource management systems -- Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and more in other books -- PF 1e abandoned these completely despite their popularity with the fanbase. Instead, they should have been incorporated into Core.

Pex

2018-09-30, 11:44 AM

3. At the time PF came out, 3e had a wide variety of different resource management systems -- Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and more in other books -- PF 1e abandoned these completely despite their popularity with the fanbase. Instead, they should have been incorporated into Core.

I don't think they could have legally. They were using the SRD to keep the 3E theme. They couldn't use everything, which is why Golarion is safe from the tyrannies of beholders and mind flayers. The Core Rulebook is almost entirely a copy/paste. They would have to create their own stuff for other systems. It was likely not economically feasible. Third party companies can afford to be more focused into those systems, which is what happened. Even then only psionics could be copy/paste. To create their own version of Tome of Battle they had to rewrite everything.

I suppose it's fair to be disappointed they couldn't be official Pathfinder things, making it hard as a player to find a DM willing to use them, but it wouldn't be fair to place blame on Paizo for the situation.

Cosi

2018-09-30, 11:58 AM

You can't copyright mechanics. You can legally create a class that has abilities that use the Warblade's refresh mechanic. You'd probably have to change the names and some of the abilities, but you could launch with a Fighter that worked like a Warblade, a Paladin that worked like a Crusader, and a Monk that worked like a Swordsage just fine.

Nifft

2018-09-30, 11:59 AM

I suppose it's fair to be disappointed they couldn't be official Pathfinder things, making it hard as a player to find a DM willing to use them, but it wouldn't be fair to place blame on Paizo for the situation.

Being in an official D&D supplement wasn't enough to bring all DMs on board with Psionics or ToB before Pathfinder.

There's no reason to assume that being official Pathfinder content would make those DMs more accepting -- being official D&D content sure didn't.

Fizban

2018-09-30, 02:48 PM

I'm ok with a class feature being passive, a resistance to something, a bonus number, anything that's effective and noticeable that it exists. I can agree a spellcaster is given too much, like 3E druid, but that's an issue of implementation. Just because a spellcaster has spells shouldn't mean he must be denied anything else.
Which is why I'm okay with leaving in bonus feats. Which in 3.5 include Reserve feats on the Wizard list, and the usual addition of Heritage feats on the Sorcerer list (which is basically the same but heritage instead of item creation). There's also all the semi-unique stuff that can be pulled from ACFs and substitution levels, which can be mixed and matched and which I'll generally let the Sorcerer steal, and PrCs. Any given spellcaster could have a bunch of features, but the base classes should be defined by their spells, not a bunch of other stuff. PF did not fix this. Which seems a bit of a shame to me since regrouping spells is tedious enough that most DMs won't bother, yet simple enough that it should make for easy product, but when the trend is almost entirely binary lists I guess no one wants to rock the boat.

Krazzman

2018-09-30, 04:41 PM

What it did good:
-Barbarian: I seriously love the class despite always getting class blocked by my wife or the other party members.
- Better the races, having some options for in race differences other than having completed packages of alternatives (Sun Elves , moon elves, star elves, forest elves, bread Elves etc) as well as making half elf and half orc actually playable
- being able to single class in most cases... I can't explain how frustrating 3.5 is when you try to realise a concept and you need 7 books 4 classes and copious amounts of lenient DM... let's just say in 6 years of playing 3.5 I got to play with ToB once and with MoI once. In PF at least I can look for a class/archetype that closest fits my concept and I'm good to go.
- Magus
-

What they did so-so:
- Skills.... consolidating them was good but why not group them and give group based skillpoints. Especially with clerics or fighters compared to barbarians and druids...

What they fricked up:
- Unchained Barbarian... when it released I was like "Yay barbarian buff." ... when I opened the book I actually cursed and mentally called some people names... this was like hearing "Hey you get a raise next month." And then see one measly cent more on your paycheck...
- Feat bloat with extra trap options sprinkled on top.
- errata nerf against rule of cool...
- Kineticist... I don't know this might be better in the so-so section but... making this "obscure" class in some "obscure" book with "obscure" and weird other rules and classes... making a class that some people say is op while it actually is rather weak and even if heavily tried to min max still is often outperformed by a barbarian with an axe without much system mastery...

dascarletm

2018-09-30, 05:26 PM

HouseRules

2018-09-30, 09:05 PM

Yeah, ToB and Psionics was well received by many, but ToB was also extremely polarizing. I personally see why they wouldn't include it when trying to poach DnD's fan-base en mass.

Recoverable Martial Maneuvers are renamed to Encounter Powers (4E). Everybody is forced to become ToB Style characters in D&D 4E, so importing ToB would make the game too similar to 4E. Remember that Pathfinder wants to be broken 3E, but more of it. They are trying to keep the 3E players from moving to 4E. Thus, ToB might not be a good idea.

Play Test for 3.0 is if 3.0 Rules and 2E Rules could roleplay the same for single class characters. That's why it does not have the same level of balance. The play test was all about role playing, and nothing about the balance of the combat mechanics. Magic is broken by removing the aspects that would limit or balance the magical classes.

Nifft

2018-09-30, 09:26 PM

Recoverable Martial Maneuvers are renamed to Encounter Powers (4E). Everybody is forced to become ToB Style characters in D&D 4E

Did you actually make this observation, or is this just some second-hand edition-war meme?

I've played 3.5e with ToB a lot, and I've also played 4e, and from what I've seen first-hand you're absolutely wrong in that comparison.

PairO'Dice Lost

2018-09-30, 11:24 PM

Recoverable Martial Maneuvers are renamed to Encounter Powers (4E). Everybody is forced to become ToB Style characters in D&D 4E, so importing ToB would make the game too similar to 4E.

Did you actually make this observation, or is this just some second-hand edition-war meme?

I've played 3.5e with ToB a lot, and I've also played 4e, and from what I've seen first-hand you're absolutely wrong in that comparison.

In fact, rather than 4e borrowing stuff from ToB, ToB was actually based on an early draft of 4e, so of the many many mistakes one can lay at the feet of the 4e devs, "copying ToB too closely" isn't one of them. :smallwink:

And in fact, I'd say that 4e characters being forced to use ToB-like mechanics would have been better than the 4e we got. ToB classes have a refresh mechanism instead of each maneuver being 1/encounter, which is more verisimilar (since you can at least try to justify it with positioning or ebb and flow of combat or whatever instead of handwaving a more gamey rationale) and allows for using the same maneuver multiple times per combat (so missing with a single attempt at the maneuver isn't so bad and you don't have to double up on similar maneuvers). Different ToB classes have different refresh mechanisms, so the classes play differently even with the same general resource system, and they pull maneuvers from multiple shared lists so that you neither have to be one specific class to get a certain maneuver (barring Martial Study, which wouldn't exist in 4e because feats were puny in that edition) nor do you have to make two basically identical maneuvers with a tiny difference to justify them being on different lists.

Resource systems aside, the ToB classes themselves had an elegant design overall. Each had class features that reinforced their roles without locking them into anything, and that worked well with their classes' unique disciplines without only working with those disciplines; you could theoretically make a crusader that picked up a ton of Tiger Claw maneuvers via Martial Study and Bloodclaw Master and never readied a single Devoted Spirit maneuver, and not only would the class's flavor still come through but its class features would still be useful for a non-tanking frontliner. And every class got a non-trivial secondary benefit from a mental ability score--something rare for a non-partial-casting martial class--but none of those class features was impactful enough that you absolutely had to boost the corresponding mental score, so you could either choose to be MAD for some benefit or ignore it without penalty.

Basically, if 4e actually had straight-up shamelessly copied ToB class design, from the philosophy to the features to the disciplines to the maneuver usage to the maneuvers themselves, all of the major problems people had with 4e martial classes would have been solved.

Ignimortis

2018-09-30, 11:58 PM

Basically, if 4e actually had straight-up shamelessly copied ToB class design, from the philosophy to the features to the disciplines to the maneuver usage to the maneuvers themselves, all of the major problems people had with 4e martial classes would have been solved.

AEDU almost got where it needed to be, I think. The actual problem was that everyone had the whole AEDU thing at the same time, instead of something like this for three major archetypes (Cleric is a heal-y fighter-y mage, I swear)
Fighters: At-wills and encounter powers, but refreshable through actions - basically martial adepts
Rogues: At-wills and long-rest based knick-knacks ("just something I thought might be useful"), basically arcane trickster without the arcane part.
Mages: Weak at-wills, which mostly serve as ye olde crossbow replacement until you're ready to spend either encounter powers, which can be refreshed, or long-rest powers that can't be refreshed at all.

There. Everyone can have a somewhat wider array of tricks, and a Fireball isn't the same as a Rogue Knife Grenade.

Pex

2018-10-01, 08:04 AM

Being in an official D&D supplement wasn't enough to bring all DMs on board with Psionics or ToB before Pathfinder.

There's no reason to assume that being official Pathfinder content would make those DMs more accepting -- being official D&D content sure didn't.

Point.

Anecdotally I can only say I don't get to play the psionicist I want to because Dreamscarred Press is not official Pathfinder even when everything that is official Pathfinder is available.

Which is why I'm okay with leaving in bonus feats. Which in 3.5 include Reserve feats on the Wizard list, and the usual addition of Heritage feats on the Sorcerer list (which is basically the same but heritage instead of item creation). There's also all the semi-unique stuff that can be pulled from ACFs and substitution levels, which can be mixed and matched and which I'll generally let the Sorcerer steal, and PrCs. Any given spellcaster could have a bunch of features, but the base classes should be defined by their spells, not a bunch of other stuff. PF did not fix this. Which seems a bit of a shame to me since regrouping spells is tedious enough that most DMs won't bother, yet simple enough that it should make for easy product, but when the trend is almost entirely binary lists I guess no one wants to rock the boat.

You said yourself you allow bonus feats because players would "whine" otherwise. That's not a ringing endorsement. Bonus feats are fine but not the same thing. An Oracle is about his revelations. A Witch is about his hexes. They don't get bonus feats and no one is upset by that. The Wizard getting bonus feats was created by default. It's ingrained to the class which is why taking them away is considered a nerf. If they got interesting abilities to replace them then it wouldn't be noticed. See Arcanist.

Elkad

2018-10-01, 08:27 AM

Fizban

2018-10-01, 01:49 PM

You said yourself you allow bonus feats because players would "whine" otherwise. That's not a ringing endorsement.
You've caught me in a bit of hyperbole, I'll admit. It's more that I know wizard obsessed forumites would whine if I suggested it to them. Theoretically it would be better to strip them out, but in practice I'd rather keep the feats/ACF slots too.

Bonus feats are fine but not the same thing. An Oracle is about his revelations. A Witch is about his hexes.
Then they should have less effective spellcasting in exchange. The bar for wizard-like spellcasting is spells+ a few bonus feats. The reason they get away with it in PF is because the wizard was also given a bunch of extra stuff which they didn't need. Circle back to the class feature glut and we're there.

Cosi

2018-10-01, 02:09 PM

I've played 3.5e with ToB a lot, and I've also played 4e, and from what I've seen first-hand you're absolutely wrong in that comparison.

Yeah, I don't understand how you think ToB and 4e are the same thing. ToB has variety in its resource management, 4e doesn't. It's not even like ToB has plumbed the limits of what you could do with their setup either. You could have maneuvers refresh when you switch stance. You could have maneuvers refresh when you kill an enemy. You could have maneuvers refresh every round. Whereas 4e is pretty explicit about it's "everyone is At-Will/Encounter/Daily all the time" plan.

You've caught me in a bit of hyperbole, I'll admit. It's more that I know wizard obsessed forumites would whine if I suggested it to them. Theoretically it would be better to strip them out, but in practice I'd rather keep the feats/ACF slots too.

Right, because everyone who disagrees with you slightly about the appropriate power level for Wizards is a "wizard obsessed forumite". It's impossible for anyone to disagree with the good word of Fizban on design questions for an reason other than selfishness. None of the reasons people in this thread have suggested for believing the things they believe are real, they're all secretly whiners. You alone have accurately understood how classes should be designed.

Then they should have less effective spellcasting in exchange. The bar for wizard-like spellcasting is spells+ a few bonus feats. The reason they get away with it in PF is because the wizard was also given a bunch of extra stuff which they didn't need. Circle back to the class feature glut and we're there.

Uh, why? PF was redesigning the game. They could just move the bar up. It's not like it's possible to tell coherent stories about a guy who can cast acid fog, but impossible to tell coherent stories about a guy who can cast acid fog and also gets Acidic Splatter and some minor bonuses to Conjuration spells. People want Wizards to have abilities beyond spellcasting, and you have yet to provide a coherent reason why that is bad. Just a bunch of rambling about how clearly everyone who disagrees with you is a powergamer.

Krazzman

2018-10-01, 02:34 PM

Then they should have less effective spellcasting in exchange. The bar for wizard-like spellcasting is spells+ a few bonus feats. The reason they get away with it in PF is because the wizard was also given a bunch of extra stuff which they didn't need. Circle back to the class feature glut and we're there.

Afaik they do. The Witch is often times said to have "not that good" of a spell list compared to sorc/wiz.

I certainly am not a fan of full casters, prefering the gish or 6th level casting or even Martial classes over them... but from a design standpoint I would like to let the wizard feel different to the sorcerer, the witch, the arcanist, the psychic and the oracle.
Pathfinder realizes this with giving them something extra, which might make some options too powerful but that line is certainly hard to get. Options that bridge the seriously lousy early game for most full casters that are not Druid or Cleric.

I agree that Spellcasting is in itself a class feature and as thus would not be needed to be added but then their design philosophy with Archetypes would get... a bit impossible for full casters. I mean look at all the Fighter archetypes where most (if not all) remove the new additions to the class for alternative features... which sometimes makes things a bit... wonky for deciding to match your idea to a class/archetype combo.

PairO'Dice Lost

2018-10-01, 06:02 PM

I agree that Spellcasting is in itself a class feature and as thus would not be needed to be added but then their design philosophy with Archetypes would get... a bit impossible for full casters. I mean look at all the Fighter archetypes where most (if not all) remove the new additions to the class for alternative features... which sometimes makes things a bit... wonky for deciding to match your idea to a class/archetype combo.

Adding more class features to then be traded away by archetypes isn't strictly necessary, as they could fiddle with the spellcasting mechanic directly instead. Assuming the existing class features aren't enough, the 3e battle sorcerer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#sorcererVariantBattleS orcerer) removes spells per day and spells known, various wizard ACFs change the specialization mechanic, and so forth.

I mean, the "what to trade out" question was already a solved problem in late 3e. Bard ACFs swapped out certain bardic musics, cleric ACFs traded out domains, druid ACFs traded out the companion or modified wild shape, wizard ACFs traded out bonus feats or prohibited an extra school or two, and so forth; only the sorcerer in particular lacks multiple class features to trade out, but the sorcerer is also thought to need a boost compared to other casters, so it could have been given a few extra features without needing to do the same for the others.

But even that isn't actually required. The PF sorcerer starts with the same base number of spells known as the 3e sorcerer and then adds extra bloodline-specific spells, but they could have started with the Battle Sorcerer numbers (1 fewer spell known and per day of each spell level) and added both Bloodline Spells for spells known and "Arcane Reservoir" or something for spells/day (with flavor about how sorcerers can draw more deeply on their innate power for 1 extra slot of each spell level per day) and then traded out those separately for archetypes. That gives you nice compartmentalized features to trade out for archetypes, and no power-up relative to the baseline sorcerer.

So whether casters getting more stuff to raise the power level across the board is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of taste, but "They need more stuff or archetypes don't work" isn't a particularly good argument in favor of giving them more stuff.

Nifft

2018-10-01, 06:25 PM

Basically, if 4e actually had straight-up shamelessly copied ToB class design, from the philosophy to the features to the disciplines to the maneuver usage to the maneuvers themselves, all of the major problems people had with 4e martial classes would have been solved.

AEDU almost got where it needed to be, I think. The actual problem was that everyone had the whole AEDU thing at the same time, instead of something like this for three major archetypes (Cleric is a heal-y fighter-y mage, I swear)

Yeah, I don't understand how you think ToB and 4e are the same thing. ToB has variety in its resource management, 4e doesn't. It's not even like ToB has plumbed the limits of what you could do with their setup either. You could have maneuvers refresh when you switch stance. You could have maneuvers refresh when you kill an enemy. You could have maneuvers refresh every round. Whereas 4e is pretty explicit about it's "everyone is At-Will/Encounter/Daily all the time" plan.

Hmm. Looks like we could have a thread about what 4e got right vs. what it got wrong, too.

Pex

2018-10-01, 06:48 PM

You've caught me in a bit of hyperbole, I'll admit.

Been there myself. With empathy I drop.

Then they should have less effective spellcasting in exchange. The bar for wizard-like spellcasting is spells+ a few bonus feats. The reason they get away with it in PF is because the wizard was also given a bunch of extra stuff which they didn't need. Circle back to the class feature glut and we're there.

They do, if perhaps not to your liking. Oracles have to choose spells known like a Sorcerer. Witches have a smaller spell list. Arcanist is limited in the number of spells he can prepare.

Ignimortis

2018-10-01, 07:51 PM

PF had the right idea for Armor Training (specialization) on Fighters.

They didn't go far enough. A whole host of primary melee classes need it, and the bonus needs to be boosted for Fighters and other straight mundanes. +10 at L20 in heavy armor, and more for shields.

More AC doesn't solve being a Fighter, but it does solve the problem with AC not ramping as fast as attack bonuses.

Make BAB give scaling defensive bonuses, say anyone who gets 9th level spells can't have more than 1/2 BAB, delete Divine Power. That's gonna work better than giving Fighters and only Fighters that one thing that doesn't help outside of combat.

Cosi

2018-10-01, 08:15 PM

So whether casters getting more stuff to raise the power level across the board is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of taste, but "They need more stuff or archetypes don't work" isn't a particularly good argument in favor of giving them more stuff.

Not given the way archetypes currently work. But archetypes could have, in whole or in part, been class-agnostic trade-offs designed to support things like Rage Mage or Nature Assassin or whatever without needing to specifically write up a Witch/Druid crossover option. That would require classes to have some standardized interface to trade against.

Hmm. Looks like we could have a thread about what 4e got right vs. what it got wrong, too.

That could be interesting. I feel like a lot of things would be "good concept, bad execution" though.

Fizban

2018-10-01, 08:43 PM

I agree that Spellcasting is in itself a class feature and as thus would not be needed to be added but then their design philosophy with Archetypes would get... a bit impossible for full casters. I mean look at all the Fighter archetypes where most (if not all) remove the new additions to the class for alternative features... which sometimes makes things a bit... wonky for deciding to match your idea to a class/archetype combo.
Trading spell slots and spells known worked for the Battle Sorcerer, and again, if you don't like generic bonus feats then you can make suitably powered features/archetypes to swap them for. I'd also have been interested to see someone take a stab at a 7 or 8 level caster if they wanted to add a bunch of powerful abilities to a major caster. Obviously that's not what they wanted to do or they'd have done it.

Afaik they do. The Witch is often times said to have "not that good" of a spell list compared to sorc/wiz.

They do, if perhaps not to your liking. Oracles have to choose spells known like a Sorcerer. Witches have a smaller spell list. Arcanist is limited in the number of spells he can prepare.
Aren't Oracles also spontaneous casters, like a Sorcerer?

As for the Witch, well I don't usually follow Pathfinder threads and like I said, usually all I ever see or hear is the Witch having a bunch of staple Sor/Wiz spells (and trying to skim the srd just shows a ton of spells). If you've got a link for a breakdown I'd take a look. But even then I'd bet that with all the splat support they've got the same problem as 3.5 with original limits eventually being ignored in the rush to new and interesting spells, where interesting means "things you couldn't do before."

Pex

2018-10-01, 09:23 PM

I'll have to admit a smaller list for Witch is a misnomer now. It's still technically true, but with so many splat books that came after it was first published the list has expanded the difference is hardly noticeable. To link to the SRD would be evidence more to disprove my point. My defense is it's a Paizo problem not a class design problem. They couldn't stop making more spells. A good analogy is 3E Polymorph. The spell itself wasn't too much of a problem when it was only the Monster Manual, but as more monsters joined the fold with more Manuals the spell became ridiculous for many people. When it was only Advanced Player's Guide, where Witch was published, as the splatbook the difference in spells was noticeable. Witch does have good spells. It's allowed that, but it's not nearly the breadth the Wizard has.

upho

2018-10-02, 03:05 AM

Alright, you're out wall-of-texting me.Well, I decided it was in your best interest to have somebody crack down on any delusions of wall-of-text grandeur you may have started to nurture, seeing how you've been allowed to flaunt your mastery of the discipline largely unchallenged in a few too many threads now...:smallbiggrin:

(More seriously though, promise I'm gonna try and compress this into as few words as I'm capable of.)

Alright, more info than I had, but I'll still settle for the reason in my last post (which you haven't got to yet)- it is indeed an arbitrary gamist division being merely directed/labeled by a simulationist idea, which can be vague at times. But the game is still primarily a game, and I'm fine with that. The level of "actual" simulationism in 3.5 is just about where I want it to begin with, and when I cite simulationism as a reason for something it's usually either to direct a mechanical change I'm already okay with, or to refute someone making hyperbolic claims that every soldier in 3.5 is some sort of godlike warrior. I want there to be a difference between polearms because otherwise there's no reason to have anything other than one boring "polearm" entry, and the ability to trip is a significant difference which can be based on whether the shape of the weapon "looks" good at tripping, which 3.5 already settled on things with hook-ish shapes.This seems perfectly fine to me. Guess part of the reason to my reaction may be I've become tired of people stating "realism" as a reason for altering non-magic combat rules as if it's just as valid as any other, usually without them having done even the most rudimentary research on the RL subject and simply taking for granted their often largely fiction-based beliefs are true.

There's another little bit in there: I'm told that some lords/knights would execute peasants found to be manufacturing polearms (might have been halberds specifically?), because they were so deadly against their category of heavy armor/cav kit.Who's telling you this? Spontaneously, I have to say it sounds highly unlikely "commoners" or serfs were forbidden to manufacture polearms for that specific reason. Not to mention polearms is probably the group of medieval weapons including the greatest number of weapon types derived from farming tools, with early/basic designs near identical to those tools (bill types, fauchard, war scythe, large flails, etc.).

That said, if looking at medieval Europe alone, we're probably talking about several hundreds of different more or less well defined sets of laws and related agents/officials varying significantly depending on the specific geographic area and time period. So I find it perfectly plausible - if not highly likely - there was at the very least one period and region with say a feudal system where serfs or just non-nobility were killed by the ruling nobility for keeping/manufacturing actual weapons meant for warfare (which polearms most definitely are, unlike for example most types of swords). Especially since medieval Europe didn't exactly have a shortage of times and places fraught with more or less open civil war, and polearms are undoubtedly the most effective melee weapons for a relatively untrained wielder and especially in mass combat against cavalry.

I also know that in several regions and periods the laws instead explicitly demanded most adult male citizens to own arms and armor for personal use in war, for example in England and in Sweden (where I live).

If every weapon can trip, there's less reason for a peasant to need that type of weapon to kill a knight, because mechanically the trip is the most important part for a mook trying to overcome plate, and in 3.5 they can't do that safely without a trip weapon (due to AoOs).I'd say what your mook actually needs to do in RL is to pin the knight in order to easily target gaps, knocking the knight prone typically still won't make it much easier for the mook to overcome full plate without the right specialized weapons. And thankfully armor (or shield) bonuses won't affect the mook's chances of successfully pinning the knight in PF.

PF adding drag and reposition stuff does sound pretty good as a more accurate distinction to give hook-ish weapons, though I'd have to look the maneuvers to see if I like how they're implemented. PF may actually be more simulationist in its slate of maneuvers and what weapons can do them, but I still don't think the single roll CMB/CMD system is the right direction.Yeah, I think at least the actual total effects of those more numerous maneuvers can make for a more realistic feel of melee combat.

Exactly. All those other combat maneuvers? Completely unimportant like 90% of the time. But *tons* of monsters have innate grappling. If the change makes grapple make less sense then that pretty much trumps anything else, since touch -> manipulate already worked fine. Fix trip by adding BAB, great, add more physical maneuvering and use those for polearm granularity instead of tripping in general, groovy, but overhaul the entire thing and make the most common maneuver make less sense, nope.Note that I said "perhaps". 'Cause a pretty large majority of esoteric bonuses actually do make sense also in the case of maintaining a grapple, and why such attempts gain a flat +5 bonus to CMB instead. The primary reason for this is the simple fact that initiating a grapple in PF is explicitly described as simply getting hold of the opponent with a hand or similar, not anything like a full-on wrestling move (which would be more of a pin). So "realistically" anything that makes the target more capable of resisting being actually "wrestled" should apply. And IME once people take a brief moment to consider what the grapple rules actually try to simulate more carefully, any initial instinctive feelings of poor verisimilitude disappear, making it clear and intuitive why for example deflection, dodge, insight, circumstance or more unusual bonuses to AC normally applies.

The much greater issues with PF's grapple related rules are their high complexity and the many potential situations when they're fuzzy or have a weird and most likely unintended net impact on related combat styles. And of course they suffer from the same CMB vs CMD and PC vs monster math issues as the rules for most other combat maneuver do, making them exceedingly difficult for PCs to use and often defend against when fighting monsters, even though this is generally less of an issue than in 3.5 (with the notable exception of trip).

I became disgusted by trip first, then realized that the solution to trip's ignoring combat skill was obvious and would make more sense anyway: put BAB in. Removing the free attack is similarly obvious as no other Improved (maneuver) feats grant them, and being prone is already one of the most devastating status effects in the game- Improved Trip is OP plain and simple.I actually agree that 3.5's Improved Trip is OP in relation to other melee combat options. But I'd recommend altering the feat so the granted free attack is fluffed as an opportunity to further reduce the target's mobility by messing with it's limbs/gear/position/similar, resolved perhaps as an additional trip attempt and a success for example preventing the target from standing up or using any fine movements (no somatic components) or similar for one round, instead of dealing hp damage. That way, the feat remains a strong option, but encourages a more control focused combat style instead of needlessly furthering the same boring old damage fiesta.

These two changes tone it down without having to re-evaluate a bunch of other stuff (like changing the trip penalties or trying to buff all the other maneuvers), with the main "unintended" consequence that big high HD monsters are harder to trip, which is also a feature. They're such small alterations that I'd hesitate to even refer to them as such, especially when being compared to PF's one-size-fits-all mechanic.Well, PF also offers a much greater number of non-damage maneuver options than 3.5 does, so I think the playability and simplicity demands for a reasonably consolidated base mechanic is also higher. And regarding the usefulness of trip against big high HD monsters, it should also be noted that the general size bonuses/penalties are reduced to +/-1, 2, 4 and 8. So skill - BAB in the case of high HD monsters - actually has a much greater relative impact than size in comparison to 3.5.

This is BTW also exactly how it should be IMO, as I believe "realism" should never have nearly as high priority as playability, mechanical balance (in every regard/sense) and potential for mythic levels of badass-ness when designing rules for a mechanics- and combat heavy high fantasy "near-zero-to-superhero" RPG like 3.5. I also believe size still has far too great overall impact on the usefulness of combat maneuvers also in PF, but that's mostly due to the common size difference caps and the few or non-existing options to overcome them even with serious additional investments.

Note that this doesn't in any way prevent or discourage tough opposition and an overall very challenging game without cheesy or boring overkill spam capabilities. For example, the now 12th level party in my current "long-haul" home game includes two full bab melee focused PCs overall considerably more capable members of an adventuring party than the "norm" in a PF game restricted to 1PP options, and likely anything even possible in a 3.5 game. But neither of them deal as much hp damage as full bab PCs can in such a 1PP PF game, and way less than melee focused PCs can in a 3.5 game. And the game also has a distinct gritty feel and a strong theme of the PCs struggling against impossible odds, reflected also in the party often facing opponents with a melee prowess also mainly granted by class levels, but which is even greater and/or - most importantly - of a very different and tactically challenging kind than that of the two PCs.

2. Define "make characters more or less interesting." If "more interesting" means "allow broken builds," then I guess not, but when you consider how helpless the few tripping monsters can make a player feel, I'd bet it still counts as more.Definitely not "allow broken builds", but rather "actually competitive alternatives to spamming full attacks for maximum damage". And see above regarding my views on Improved Trip's free attack. But really, if I were to nerf anything trip related in 3.5, I'd probably first drastically nerf Power Attack and the other most significant static damage boosts/multipliers, including crits. Which has the added bonus of not just making IT's increased chance of successfully knocking a foe prone have greater value in relation to the free attack, but also to encourage the use of alternatives to max damage. Which in turn can make combat more interesting, reducing the chance of BBEGs being easily killed before they've even had the chance to act, or of doing the same to a PC. Death is often an unavoidable consequence of combat, but it sure doesn't help make combat more fun if it arrives too early.

3. Yes, because uber-trippers are boring, tedious, and unfun to play against, and a DM not having fun makes everything worse. A combat maneuver should have cost, risk, reward, and a limited window of opportunity, not be a constantly spammed effect whose removal only boosts dpsI absolutely agree, especially about the DPR boost aspect. But in order to get there, it's not even remotely enough to simply remove the free attack part of IT. You also need to provide alternatives to spamming full attacks for max DPR that are actually just as useful and effective. And of course, the less spammable those alternatives are, the less resources should be required to gain a corresponding level of expertise in each single such alternative. Otherwise, you'll still end up with melee having an even less interesting/varied/tactical spamming damage focus than before you nerfed IT, and further increase the relative power of the even more exclusively damage focused and effective spamming melee combat styles which already didn't rely on IT, such as charging.

4. The classic relative increase, by having one maneuver reduced from OP to just really strong, the others aren't as bad by comparison.This method surely works, but not if applied by using such an extremely limited comparison. You need to take at the very least all melee combat alternatives into account, or preferably all combat options including also ranged and magic. Especially since the overall general relative power and cost/benefit ratio of 3.5 maneuvers not directly related to DPR is far worse than that of PF's, which is still poor without rather extreme specialization.

6. It's been a while since my last game, but no one tried to push a tripper before and I'm not going to accept players that have an issue with my main houserules, so that's a yes by default.Well, neither should they in game played at a power level matching with DMG guidelines, I'd wager. Or rather, if they did, they sure also better keep the overall DPR potential low to compensate.

The former is a result of adding more maneuvers, not the basic CMB/CMD system change, which is the main part I disagree with. The latter is not something I think should be available, and is mostly predicated on the vague Dirty Trick maneuver. Even then it's mostly the fact that blind is on the initial list and the later feats that greatly extend and worsen the penalties, that I don't like. A general purpose dirty trick maneuver is great, but blinding is *huge*, and anything longer or stronger should require specialized training- as in specifically choosing to get it. Even a wizard has to pick their spells.Yeah, blinding is huge. At least against most opponents during early/mid levels. But it's worth noting the standard action use, the move action to remove the condition and the short 1 round duration. Anyhow, I think regardless of which mechanic(s) you want to use for combat maneuvers, it's definitely worth taking a look at PF's maneuvers, and especially the related options.

Also, though I've declared my love of dirty trick, it's a good example of a maneuver which simply won't see use without pretty significant additional investments, which I think is problematic in itself (I'd prefer something like a couple of scaling feats instead). And the problem becomes more pronounced with maneuvers which are only rarely useful, such as bull rush, drag or reposition. Without loads of additional investments granting rider effects and/or improved action economy and greater flexibility to such maneuvers, there are typically very few situations which makes it reasonable to spend actions on them in combat, especially if doing so also provokes.

Stuff about Petty the halfling throwing darts at Bob the heroThe only reason I used a halfling was because of the incredulity of a humanoid actually smaller than the average 3-year old human being able to hurt an adult human martial arts pro in high quality full plate by throwing 4 ounce darts at him from 20' away. But go ahead and replace Petty with a human warrior NPC and adjust the chances accordingly if that suits your tastes, it does absolutely nothing to change the fact that they'd have a ridiculously unrealistic chance of causing hp damage to poor Bob in his full plate.

but it's still a game yo.This.

That first video is the one I was thinking of, wouldn't be surprised if you'd posted the link I originally watched it from. Reducing tactical speed doesn't actually hinder your combat ability though- it hinders your pursuit ability. Dunno how often guys in heavy armor pursed other guys not in heavy armor on foot, but I'm fairly certain they'd have relied on maneuvering/terrain/cavalry to make it work.But that would be the run action again. Not tactical movement in combat at less than maximum running speed. And see below.

Now, if you've timed your movement in plate that's pretty cool, but I'd still question how you're lining it up with the game. Dashing from one point to another on a signal within 6 seconds seems like it'd be very different from a combat situation where the signal is not being explicitly given, you may be actively engaged with another foe, and you need to start, stop, and possibly make some sharp turns in between. My point being that the dnd combat round is not precise and has lots of wiggle room for all the background movements that you aren't explicitly making, while a lot of what people might think of as combat movement could be termed in dnd as run actions rather than hustling. Or moving within your space, or 5' steps, or running/walking which average to a hustle. While the proper way to convert a speed into dnd terms is via longer times, tactical start+stop movement is affected more by inertia and harder to quantify, I think.The point here is that I've sparred in full plate using decent remakes of medieval weapons as well as without much armor (using LARP or nylon weapons), including against multiple opponents sometimes spread out over a rather large area during the course of our "swing-a-real-sword-at-your-friends-without-really-hurting" melee parties. Which is more than enough to conclude that full plate simply doesn't noticeably decrease this kind of combat mobility, and most importantly it doesn't slow you down more than carrying the same weight in some other manner does.

Aside from your maximum running speed being a bit slower, the most noticeable related effects are of a more situational nature IME. Such as charging into/bull rushing someone potentially having quite a bit more spectacular results than without armor due to the often considerably higher impact energy, caused by the armor not only adding mass but also allowing you to really go all-in with very little risk of hurting yourself. (And I strongly urge you or anyone else reading this to not attempt any such "pretend to be a missile" stunts without armor... :smallwink:)

Come to think of it, that might be where they pulled the 1/3 reduction from. 40-50 lbs of armor (plus weapons) on a 150-180lb-ish body means your force to mass ratio is 3/4 the usual, which should mean your acceleration is only 3/4 usual (and no matter how strong you are in other ways you still have a 30' speed). Note that 20' speeds only drop to 15' in heavy armor for 3/4 normal (same at 40'). The reductions for higher speeds seem to fluctuate, many are close to 70% with the 30, 60, and 90 getting the short end at 2/3. Furthermore, remember that hustling combat speed includes the ability to constantly turn, constantly accelerate, so basing it on a presumed reduction in acceleration due to increased mass is more reasonable than you might think. It may be more accurate to say that the heavy armor speeds suffer from trying to be *too* simulationist. Or it may be that they just took the speeds straight out of the Chainmail minatures game and whoever wrote those is to blame.I think you're completely missing the far most important part here, namely that the rules for armor reduce your speed in addition to any speed reduction caused by encumbrance. In RL, it's actually the exact opposite when it comes to armor in general and full plate in particular; it slows you down less than carrying the same weight in other manners do, as the armor's weight is distributed over almost your entire body.

And I think the fact that the rules say full plate and other heavy armor slows you down considerably regardless of your Str score or carrying capacity says quite a lot of the designers' lack of insight, matching with the old wide-spread and deeply flawed "knight who cannot stand up by himself and must be hoisted into the saddle" image of full plate which still seems to persist in the minds of many people today. So yes, I'm pretty certain they took the speed idea from Chainmail, likely not seeing anything wrong with simulating the "turtle-knight" myth which I believe was pretty much taken for granted by amateur historians and fantasy writers back in the early seventies. (See for example this (https://youtu.be/5uxHYQW2Nio?t=177) with "the jousting historian" Dr Tobias Capwell explaining why that flawed image likely became so widespread.)

All of that said, reducing the speed penalty is perfectly reasonable. A -5' penalty will still matter tactically, just not as much as -10, but I prefer the -10 so that light armor is actually "getting" something out of the deal, especially considering how many people want to play light or unarmored characters. And if those light armored characters have as much AC and combat ability as heavy armor characters with no penalties, then obviously you should get rid of the heavy armor penalties.Yeah. And it actually goes much further than the speed penalty, such as flat-out not allowing for winged flight and a number of other arbitrary and potentially very punishing limitations. It's not the slightest surprising mithral and magic able to reduce the armor category are such complete no-brainers.

Stop- re-read the weapon size rules. A Large weapon is not double the dimensions of a Medium weapon, it's double the weight. At least in 3.5 anyway. The square-cube law says you don't even want to make your weapons that way, because your increase in useful force doesn't go up as fast as the mass.The Large sword's mass isn't eight times that of the Medium, but the giant's mass surely is eight times the human's. And that mass is accompanied by enough muscles to move it just about as effortlessly as Medium humans move their mass according to the rules. Meaning the sword itself really doesn't need much greater mass than the Medium one for stupidly devastating effects, as long as it's stiff enough for the acceleration of the swing and the delivery of the giant's mass behind it on impact without much loss of energy, which any RL big two-hander such as a large XVIIIe type "Danish Warsword", German "zweihander", Italian "montante" or other greatsword equivalent easily would. Also, while the sword is maybe just an additional couple of feet longer, the giant's body and arms are definitely twice as long and able to swing the sword for a considerably higher speed measured at its point of percussion, which you may have noticed I estimated to be a very modest "x 1.25" in my dumbed-down calculation.

Most importantly, this is merely a pointer. Because thankfully, the error margins are so great for the pointer to remain valid in this case it doesn't have to be more exact science.

Damage does not matter, results matter.Yes, and I'm saying none of the results are even remotely close to realistic, and the far greatest reason for that is the size differences having much less impact than they do in RL. And speaking of the halfling, instead of the horse, it's perhaps easier to imagine how much of a chance a humanoid the size of a 3-year old realistically has in melee combat against an equally (un)fit and (in)experienced adult human. Do you seriously believe that chance to be roughly equivalent to the chance a human warrior NPC has in melee against a warrior hill giant according to the rules?

If you'd like to dig deeper into the subject, I'd suggest searching for various measurements of modern day martial arts professionals like boxers and compare things like impact energy of a punch, body length and reach with various weight classes. Again, I can assure you that the numbers will confirm the reasons why those weight classes exist, even though the weight differences between them are microscopic in comparison to the rules' gigantic "mass x 8" steps.

The hex feature itself. You're already a full spellcaster with all the spell slots that entails, but apparently you need a whole extra set of abilities for all the levels where two extra spells known and more spells per day just aren't enough. Said abilities generally have no use limits or can be used once per foe, also known as having no use limit, and are often as strong as proper spells. It's kinda like if you gave out bonus reserve feats or dragonmarks, except every two levels instead of the "usual" 5 for wizard bonus feats. Maybe their spell list is so bad they need the extra power? I doubt it (but it's hard to read the original list, at least with the srd I've been using putting all the spells from everything on there, as you'd usually want).OK. So I take it you also regard say the druid's wild shape or the cleric's turn undead as similar needless "feature bloat", since they're also "full spellcaster with all the spell slots that entails"?

You don't need a whole extra set of abilities to differentiate a spellcaster, that's what spell lists are for. But that's hard to do with the precedent that healing= cleric, plant/animal= druid, and literally everything else= sor/wiz, so there's that.Just FYI, the witch is definitely less powerful than the wizard, has a much shorter spell list which includes spells not on the wiz/sorc list, and certainly also plays differently because of hexes. I'd say the witch easily differs from the wizard as much as the druid differs from the cleric.

Krazzman

2018-10-02, 03:32 AM

if you don't like generic bonus feats then you can make suitably powered features/archetypes to swap them for. I'd also have been interested to see someone take a stab at a 7 or 8 level caster if they wanted to add a bunch of powerful abilities to a major caster. Obviously that's not what they wanted to do or they'd have done it.

I think 'generic' is the one that makes me unsure here. I mean in both PF and 3.5 the Cleric has the exact same stuff... some nerfed spells and some feats/tricks won't work anymore but still everything is the same... the only difference I see is that Domains got a buff and that Channel Energy doesn't work like Turn/Rebuke Undead. Although at level 20 a 3.5 Cleric has 1 level 1-5 spell slot more than the Pathfinder Cleric which might get calculated against average WIS mod being higher for the PF one... or not. But I agree they could have done other things for the casters... but with PF1 at the end of it's cycle this comes far too late.... (and it's not like the guys behind it would have listened anyway)...

Aren't Oracles also spontaneous casters, like a Sorcerer?

As for the Witch, well I don't usually follow Pathfinder threads and like I said, usually all I ever see or hear is the Witch having a bunch of staple Sor/Wiz spells (and trying to skim the srd just shows a ton of spells). If you've got a link for a breakdown I'd take a look. But even then I'd bet that with all the splat support they've got the same problem as 3.5 with original limits eventually being ignored in the rush to new and interesting spells, where interesting means "things you couldn't do before."

The Oracle is the spontaneous casting cleric. I mean Oracle could have easily implemented as an Archetype. Trade Good Fort save for 2 more skill points, trade Domains, "Cleric Spontaneous Casting" for Mystery and Curse and change Prepared casting to Casting like a sorcerer.

The Witch, similar to the Cleric, has a way to gain access to spells not natively on her list. She can choose between multiple "Patrons" as the source of her power, granting her for example in the case of the Trickery Patron Invisibility as a 2nd level spell at level 4. Witches generally have a spell list more focused on debuffing but also get stuff like CLW and Restoration. They still have a smaller spell list than wizards though, even with all the Splats. The Witch still has access to some of the best spells in the game even without splats.

Fizban

2018-10-02, 05:53 AM

Who's telling you this? Spontaneously, I have to say it sounds highly unlikely "commoners" or serfs were forbidden to manufacture polearms for that specific reason. Not to mention polearms is probably the group of medieval weapons including the greatest number of weapon types derived from farming tools, with early/basic designs near identical to those tools (bill types, fauchard, war scythe, large flails, etc.).
Eh, some guy in a thread. Bit of a longshot, but if illicit polearms were counted as a specifically worse offense than illicit weapons in general, by someone at some point (as suggested by that poster), that does suggest something. Probably not much though, I probably just brought it up 'cause the thought stuck.

I'd say what your mook actually needs to do in RL is to pin the knight in order to easily target gaps, knocking the knight prone typically still won't make it much easier for the mook to overcome full plate without the right specialized weapons. And thankfully armor (or shield) bonuses won't affect the mook's chances of successfully pinning the knight in PF.
It's easier and safter to start the grapple if they're on the ground first, though mechanically one peasant would never get the chance, and as always bashing someone's helmeted head is easier if it's on the ground.

I actually agree that 3.5's Improved Trip is OP in relation to other melee combat options. But I'd recommend altering the feat so the granted free attack is fluffed as an opportunity to further reduce the target's mobility by messing with it's limbs/gear/position/similar, resolved perhaps as an additional trip attempt and a success for example preventing the target from standing up or using any fine movements (no somatic components) or similar for one round, instead of dealing hp damage. That way, the feat remains a strong option, but encourages a more control focused combat style instead of needlessly furthering the same boring old damage fiesta.
You say this as if getting +4 on the attempt and ignoring AoOs isn't already a strong option, as if -4 attack and AC and not being able to move until you spend an action and eat an AoO isn't enough of a penalty. None of the other Improved [maneuver] feats in 3.5 do more (or are as widely applicable, or as powerful of a status effect), why should Improved Trip?

This is BTW also exactly how it should be IMO, as I believe "realism" should never have nearly as high priority as playability, mechanical balance (in every regard/sense) and potential for mythic levels of badass-ness when designing rules for a mechanics- and combat heavy high fantasy "near-zero-to-superhero" RPG like 3.5. I also believe size still has far too great overall impact on the usefulness of combat maneuvers also in PF, but that's mostly due to the common size difference caps and the few or non-existing options to overcome them even with serious additional investments.
And I disagree. A high level mundane melee guy can trip or wrestle an Elephant and I'm fine with that, but there has to be a limit.

Definitely not "allow broken builds", but rather "actually competitive alternatives to spamming full attacks for maximum damage". You also need to provide alternatives to spamming full attacks for max DPR that are actually just as useful and effective.
I don't have a problem with dealing damage. I do have a problem when people only see mundane combat as what offensive actions you can take. There is no melee DPR role- the melee role is to take (or negate) melee hits in place of those in the party who are bad at taking melee hits, and have some amount of reliable no-resource damage. There is no "competitive" melee build, because there is no competition.

Otherwise, you'll still end up with melee having an even less interesting/varied/tactical spamming damage focus than before you nerfed IT, and further increase the relative power of the even more exclusively damage focused and effective spamming melee combat styles which already didn't rely on IT, such as charging.
That's essentially a "but this other thing is OP too!" defense. I do nerf charging. The main reason I haven't nerfed Power Attack back to it's original 3.0 ratio (which was only ever 1:1) is because I'd already made multiple combat feats incorporating 1:2 ratios. Might still decide to cap it at -5 like basic Combat Expertise though.

And if you're not satisfied with what a Fighter can do, then you take a PrC, or be a Tome of Battle class, or both.

You need to take at the very least all melee combat alternatives into account, or preferably all combat options including also ranged and magic. Especially since the overall general relative power and cost/benefit ratio of 3.5 maneuvers not directly related to DPR is far worse than that of PF's, which is still poor without rather extreme specialization.
You may have lost the origin of this tangent: You said that because the game isn't a great simulation one shouldn't go tweaking without good reason, I pointed out that your insitence PF trip was better made you the one calling for tweaks while also stating that my problems were smaller tweaks, you questioned whether those tweaks were good, I responded point by point on why yes they were, and here we are on point 4 increase/decrease of options where I say nerfing one makes the others less bad by comparison. Again, you're basically using the "but everything else is crap!" defense, setting an arbitrary power level that everything must meet.

Combat maneuvers are not about "power." They're about maneuvering, tactics. You don't trip or disarm or grapple because it's powerful, you do it because it fits the situation.

Well, neither should they in game played at a power level matching with DMG guidelines, I'd wager. Or rather, if they did, they sure also better keep the overall DPR potential low to compensate.
Not sure where you're aiming at here. Obviously if I've written down the limits and changes required to keep things in line, there shouldn't be a need for players to "self-censor." And obviously if someone takes a splatbook'd/char-op'd character into a game that is not designed for it, the game isn't going to work.

I think you're completely missing the far most important part here, namely that the rules for armor reduce your speed in addition to any speed reduction caused by encumbrance. In RL, it's actually the exact opposite when it comes to armor in general and full plate in particular; it slows you down less than carrying the same weight in other manners do, as the armor's weight is distributed over almost your entire body.
Nope: "If your character is wearing armor, use the worse figure (from armor or from load) for each category. Do not stack the penalties." It's at the end of Carrying Capacity- Weight, right before -Lifting and Dragging.

And I think the fact that the rules say full plate and other heavy armor slows you down considerably regardless of your Str score or carrying capacity says quite a lot of the designers' lack of insight,
Or game design. Because if there's no penalty for having tons of AC there's no reason to ever have anyone not in heavy armor. And then instead of nimble lightly armored rogues and wizards in robes you have everyone in full plate from 3rd level until the end of time.

Yes, and I'm saying none of the results are even remotely close to realistic, If you'd like to dig deeper into the subject, I'd suggest searching for various measurements impact energy of a punch,
:smallsigh: I was really looking forward to your response to the example, and instead you've completely ignored it- ignored the results in favor of energy equations. Maybe I should have said "energy does not matter?" or "the abstraction of hit points means that relative damage values have no reason to reflect energy equations and thus the ratio between a human and a giant does not matter." The hill giant still pastes even the experienced warrior in seconds. The only thing that will extend their life significantly is, ironically enough, having more AC. Significantly more than you can get from just mundane armor and shield- so magic and heroic dodging skill

OK. So I take it you also regard say the druid's wild shape or the cleric's turn undead as similar needless "feature bloat", since they're also "full spellcaster with all the spell slots that entails"?
3.5 PHB is the starting point, so by definition it's not the bloat. Splatbooks and adaptations can develop bloat.

Even so: duh the Druid is bloated as all heck, everyone knows that. It's pretty well known story that one of the playtesters revealed the Druid player never used Wild Shape for anything more than scouting, and the statblocks in Enemies and Allies (purported to be the playtest statblocks) don't even have animal companions listed (familiars and mounts, no ACs). The cleric has three non-spell features: domain 1, domain 2, and turn undead. Turn Undead is a safety feature that ensures the party always has some sort of response to incorporeal undead and does almost nothing else aside from dust mooks outside of splatbooks. The two domains are worth 2-3 bonus feats, frontloaded compared to the Wizard, but neccesary if you want domains to be part of their identity from 1st level. It's also a well known story that the person who wrote the Sorcerer hated them. So we have: one class with measured bonus feats, one class with measured features, one class denied any features, and one class with a ton of features no one tested. Which of these four, two of which are the default classes for their roles and two not, are the correct measures to design new classes against?

Actually the Druid can still be proper bloat- carried over from earlier editions where randomized character generation specifically gave you the ability to roll a better class, which the 3.5 removal of those requirements retroactively bloated. Assuming the Druid even had all those abilities in previous editions.

Just FYI, the witch is definitely less powerful than the wizard, has a much shorter spell list which includes spells not on the wiz/sorc list, and certainly also plays differently because of hexes. I'd say the witch easily differs from the wizard as much as the druid differs from the cleric.

Honestly, there's pretty much no amount of "but it has a shorter spell list" that is going to convince me they need a bunch of at-will/encounter abilities to make up for it. PF made them a full caster because full caster, and gave them Hexes because class features. A "restricted" class list isn't a "balancing" feature, it's an identity feature.

I think 'generic' is the one that makes me unsure here. I mean in both PF and 3.5 the Cleric has the exact same stuff... some nerfed spells and some feats/tricks won't work anymore but still everything is the same... the only difference I see is that Domains got a buff and that Channel Energy doesn't work like Turn/Rebuke Undead. Although at level 20 a 3.5 Cleric has 1 level 1-5 spell slot more than the Pathfinder Cleric which might get calculated against average WIS mod being higher for the PF one... or not. But I agree they could have done other things for the casters... but with PF1 at the end of it's cycle this comes far too late.... (and it's not like the guys behind it would have listened anyway)...

Not sure how we jumped to the Cleric here. Yeah, the PF Cleric and Wizard are mostly the same, and the Cleric lacks obvious features to swap at later levels same as before. But we were talking about how the Witch's Hexes are nearly half a class on top of full spellcasting, since I consider that a glut and people want to try and talk me out of it.

The Oracle is the spontaneous casting cleric. I mean Oracle could have easily implemented as an Archetype. Trade Good Fort save for 2 more skill points, trade Domains, "Cleric Spontaneous Casting" for Mystery and Curse and change Prepared casting to Casting like a sorcerer.
As could the Witch, or any number of true spellcaster variants made by re-alloting the spell lists.

The Witch still has access to some of the best spells in the game even without splats.
So yeah, not a ringing endorsement. You only need enough of the best spells in the game, and I expect if they didn't have enough they wouldn't be nearly so popular.

It's kinda like saying a Fighter variant with a shorter bonus feat list deserves a bunch of extra stuff, even though they've got XYZ of the best feats still on the list. Either they needed the stuff to begin with and shouldn't have the restriction, or they didn't and the class is blatantly more powerful for anyone who was already willing to play with just those feats, which were already good enough.

Cosi

2018-10-02, 10:30 AM

The Druid has the correct number of class features -- enough to make taking a casting PrC not mandatory. You want casting PrCs (or something else in basically the same space, note that this isn't exclusive to casters) because people are going to want to be Demon Summoners or Apostles of Thrym or whatever other niche concepts, and those don't deserve their own base class or need to be class-exclusive. So there needs to be something to facilitate them, and it needs to be compatible with a variety of classes. And it needs to not be a strict power up. Which means casters need to have class features they can trade off. No, they can't trade off levels of casting, that makes balancing far to complex (and is also way too steep for basically ever proposed class feature).

And Fizban is still operating under the assumption that the only possible balance point is the 3.5 PHB as he understands it (with his bizarre contention that balance operates at the party level but Wizards are somehow still overpowered). PF 1e was a new game, it was free to define new balance expectations. It doesn't matter whether Wizard + Class Features looks overpowered to you, it matters if it is bad design for substantive reasons.

I actually agree that 3.5's Improved Trip is OP in relation to other melee combat options.

That's not really the right frame of reference though. It doesn't matter if Improved Trip is better than Weapon Focus, it matters if Improved Trip is too good in absolute terms. And I think it clearly isn't, which means the correct fix was to buff other melee options.

This is BTW also exactly how it should be IMO, as I believe "realism" should never have nearly as high priority as playability, mechanical balance (in every regard/sense) and potential for mythic levels of badass-ness when designing rules for a mechanics- and combat heavy high fantasy "near-zero-to-superhero" RPG like 3.5.

This is certainly true, but it's important to distinguish "realism" and "verisimilitude". The game world's physics need not be consistent with reality (though it should have a baseline similarity to reality in order to adjudicate basic actions like jumping or throwing things), but they need to be consistent with themselves. If tripping (or whatever) is a super awesome tactic, armies should include lots of pikemen or other trip specialists.

Just FYI, the witch is definitely less powerful than the wizard, has a much shorter spell list which includes spells not on the wiz/sorc list, and certainly also plays differently because of hexes. I'd say the witch easily differs from the wizard as much as the druid differs from the cleric.

While I obviously disagree with Fizban's position that no one with spells should have other class features, I do think "it has a shorter list" is a bad argument. It's still (presumably) longer than the list of spells any given Sorcerer has access to, and those guys are fine. This board tends to dramatically overestimate the value of versatility.

Gnaeus

2018-10-02, 11:02 AM

While I obviously disagree with Fizban's position that no one with spells should have other class features, I do think "it has a shorter list" is a bad argument. It's still (presumably) longer than the list of spells any given Sorcerer has access to, and those guys are fine. This board tends to dramatically overestimate the value of versatility.

A better but incomplete way to put it is that witches have a slightly worse list in terms of the top handful of most abusive spells. It doesn’t matter if the list has 50 or 150 spells. It really only matters how good the best 20-30 spells are. Few tables will really see more than that get used.

Witches are worse than Wizards in spells per day. except for a few 3.5 elven generalists or crafter specialists almost all wizards are specialists. A specialist wizard has at least as good a list as a witch and more spells per day at all levels.

Functionally, witches trade the bonus spells of their top 2-3 spell levels for at will abilities that are weaker than those spells. That is a good or bad trade depending on whether your game has one encounter per day or 10.

PairO'Dice Lost

2018-10-02, 12:44 PM

Actually the Druid can still be proper bloat- carried over from earlier editions where randomized character generation specifically gave you the ability to roll a better class, which the 3.5 removal of those requirements retroactively bloated. Assuming the Druid even had all those abilities in previous editions.

Yes, the druid had all its 3e abilities in previous editions, but they were quite different power- and role-wise. Animal companions were just normal animals gained via animal friendship, with no extra HD or attitude adjustment to make them want to engage in combat or good at doing so. Wild shape let them turn into a normal bird, reptile, or mammal once per day each, again with nothing that made them better at combat or let them mix-and-match their own abilities with a combat-capable wild shape.

Which is why the playtest druid didn't put a specific AC in its stat block (they could change the companion easily, and they could just use the MM animal stats) and didn't use wild shape in combat (going by the 2e playstyle that the devs were trying to replicate, wild shape was only good for scouting and stealth, so they weren't thinking of combat shapes like someone new to D&D might have been).

The Druid has the correct number of class features -- enough to make taking a casting PrC not mandatory. You want casting PrCs (or something else in basically the same space, note that this isn't exclusive to casters) because people are going to want to be Demon Summoners or Apostles of Thrym or whatever other niche concepts, and those don't deserve their own base class or need to be class-exclusive. So there needs to be something to facilitate them, and it needs to be compatible with a variety of classes. And it needs to not be a strict power up. Which means casters need to have class features they can trade off.

Well, maybe. Firstly, trading off spells known and per day rather than spellcaster levels, Battle Sorcerer- or Archmage-style, is certainly doable. If you look at things in terms of spells, trading out one or more 4th-level slots (like several polymorphs per day) for Wild Shape, a 1st-level slot (like animal friendship) for a 3.0-style animal companion or a scaling slot (like summon nature's ally) for a 3.5-style one, etc. allows for more granular balance and can work better than forcing every archetype to trade out things of equivalent value, in the same way that Archmage lets you pick various class features based on what kind of powers you want and trade off roughly equivalent spells instead of having to strengthen or weaken all of them to a uniform balance point.

Secondly, there's no reason that Beastmaster (granting animal companions) or Shapeshifter (granting Wild Shape) can't be class-adjacent things just like Demon Summoner or Apostle of Thrym. In a new system, nothing prevents you from handing out kits/PrCs/etc. before 5th level, just as PF did with its archetypes, nor are you required to have PrC-equivalents replace your existing class instead of existing alongside them.

Beastmaster could be a whatever-you-call-PrCs-available-at-1st-level available to, say, Barbarians, Druids, Rangers, and people with max ranks in Handle Animal and Survival (or the equivalent in a new skill system) and Shapeshifter could be a PrC that lets you pick one kind of creature based on entry requirements (like animals for Knowledge [Nature] vs. outsiders for Knowledge [Planes]) and turn into combat-capable forms of that type. So druid could be a relatively-class-feature-light class like the 3e cleric or wizard, and you'd have a choice between going, say, Druid (Beastmaster/Shapeshifter/Hierophant) if you want a "classic" druid, Druid (Ruathar/Greensinger/Forest Lord) if you want a druid with lots of plant-related abilities, or Druid (Witch/Blighter/Vermin Lord) if you want a druid with a creepy curses/poison/disease/insects theme.

In that scenario, you never have to trade or lose class features at all, rather every character gets to bolt on kits/PrCs/etc. at appropriate levels, and having to give classes enough to discourage PrCing out isn't an issue. There are plenty of other approaches as well, of course, but in general I'd say that an approach that doesn't force you to choose between essential base class stuff and niche customization stuff is preferable to one where you need to beef up the base class with flavorful, balanced, relevant class features just to enable trading them out for other things.

Pex

2018-10-02, 01:02 PM

Florian

2018-10-02, 01:29 PM

Jepp, playing a Witch for the first time was a great experience! Same actually for an Oracle.

Spells are powerful game elements, yes, but especially 3E made them boring as class features by way of WBL.

Playing a Winter Witch or a Shadow Oracle is a very different experience than playing a Wizard or Cleiric, because of the class features.

Gnaeus

2018-10-02, 01:36 PM

I had played a witch once. I was using my hexes more often than casting spells. It was probably a result of the campaign style. It was a lot of dungeon crawling. Hexes gave me something useful to do while conserving my spell slots to use through out the game day. I suppose that's what I like about spellcasters having other things to do. It's peace of mind and ease of pressure you'll have spells available when you need them for the third and later combats of the day.

Bearing in mind that both classes are T1 and can be respecced significantly.

In something like cheesegrinder or World’s Largest dungeon with large strings of fights, I’d strongly prefer Witch.

In a sandbox that usually only has one or 2 fights in a day, I’d strongly prefer Wizard.

In an adventure path or other thing tracking 3-5 fights per day, it’s close to coin toss. Probably play style matters more than the marginal difference between those 2 classes.

I think that’s pretty excellent really. They feel different to play and that looks like balance to me.

Cosi

2018-10-02, 02:00 PM

Well, maybe. Firstly, trading off spells known and per day rather than spellcaster levels, Battle Sorcerer- or Archmage-style, is certainly doable.

It is doable, but it tends to make designs less modular. An effect that trades off with a spell known has different costs for a Cleric, a Wizard, a Beguiler, and a Sorcerer. That constrains the ways you can design classes without causing balance issues. That's not necessarily insurmountable, but I don't really see the benefit of solving that design problem when you can trade off against class features that are designed to be balanced.

Secondly, there's no reason that Beastmaster (granting animal companions) or Shapeshifter (granting Wild Shape) can't be class-adjacent things just like Demon Summoner or Apostle of Thrym. In a new system, nothing prevents you from handing out kits/PrCs/etc. before 5th level, just as PF did with its archetypes, nor are you required to have PrC-equivalents replace your existing class instead of existing alongside them.

Sure. But there is a benefit to having an established baseline for the class. It helps with class definition if all Druids have Wild Shape or an Animal Companion or Trackless Step, at least as a default.

I think that’s pretty excellent really. They feel different to play and that looks like balance to me.

That's really exactly how balance should work in general. Pick a "standard" balance point, design classes so they're balanced at that point, but give them abilities and resource management that work differently so that they change in power differently depending on how the expected encounter composition changes.

Krazzman

2018-10-02, 03:34 PM

Not sure how we jumped to the Cleric here. Yeah, the PF Cleric and Wizard are mostly the same, and the Cleric lacks obvious features to swap at later levels same as before. But we were talking about how the Witch's Hexes are nearly half a class on top of full spellcasting, since I consider that a glut and people want to try and talk me out of it.

I brought him up because of the Oracle as an example that the oracle could be fitting to PHB1 balance standards. It could've been an ACF for the cleric in PHB2 or it could have been a new class fitting right into 3.5. The same goes for the witch. Despite being a full caster with a familiar the witch has less spellslots, has an overall weaker list (as weak as the argument is) and no Bonus Feats.

This means a Wizard ACF could easily result in the witch. Trade all Bonus feats and scribe scroll for hexes. Spellbook and School specialisation is traded for Patron and using the Familiar as a Spellbook or something along those lines.

So yeah, not a ringing endorsement. You only need enough of the best spells in the game, and I expect if they didn't have enough they wouldn't be nearly so popular.

It's kinda like saying a Fighter variant with a shorter bonus feat list deserves a bunch of extra stuff, even though they've got XYZ of the best feats still on the list. Either they needed the stuff to begin with and shouldn't have the restriction, or they didn't and the class is blatantly more powerful for anyone who was already willing to play with just those feats, which were already good enough.

Limiting the stuff gained from the Bonus Feat itself? Maybe not. But limiting the amount of Bonus feats? Certainly. As is evident by Dungeoncrasher Fighter. If I was focusing on Bullrush anyway it is exactly as you mentioned an improvement. Do you miss the 2 bonus feats? Not really. Or the Thug, giving up one measly feat and profiency in medium armor and all shields for at least 40 skill points, more skills on his list and broadening up his list of stuff he can choose with his bonus feats. Or just outright trading all Bonus Feats for Sneak attack. If you only wanted to use one trick and don't need the bonus feats then Sneak Attack Fighter is also an improvement.

The Druid has the correct number of class features -- enough to make taking a casting PrC not mandatory. You want casting PrCs (or something else in basically the same space, note that this isn't exclusive to casters) because people are going to want to be Demon Summoners or Apostles of Thrym or whatever other niche concepts, and those don't deserve their own base class or need to be class-exclusive. So there needs to be something to facilitate them, and it needs to be compatible with a variety of classes. And it needs to not be a strict power up. Which means casters need to have class features they can trade off. No, they can't trade off levels of casting, that makes balancing far to complex (and is also way too steep for basically ever proposed class feature).

And Fizban is still operating under the assumption that the only possible balance point is the 3.5 PHB as he understands it (with his bizarre contention that balance operates at the party level but Wizards are somehow still overpowered). PF 1e was a new game, it was free to define new balance expectations. It doesn't matter whether Wizard + Class Features looks overpowered to you, it matters if it is bad design for substantive reasons.

I have to sadly disagree with your assessment on the druid. From a 3.5 standpoint it's just too much. I doubt that the druid even has a point where he is comparatively weak compared to other casters in the early levels and seems to break the design "philosophy" of the 3.5 creators, which shouldn't have been their design in the first place but alas.... They could easily (as they also did) make PrCs for the different druid types. Which pathfinder thankfully tried to change with their "have your concept playable asap" instead of "at around level 13, after having been in 3 different prcs and used 4 other classes my concept is now starting to come together"... which is alright but was one of the few things I really dislike about 3.5... hence my love for the classes where you could just take another level without gimping yourself like Duskblade, Totemist and Warblade.

This board tends to dramatically overestimate the value of versatility.

Yes. This is the reason why I personally did not like the Factotum. This according to so many people "good" class... just sucks in actual play unless you have ultra deep system mastery and can basically recite the statblocks of even the most obscure monster...

PairO'Dice Lost

2018-10-02, 03:37 PM

It is doable, but it tends to make designs less modular. An effect that trades off with a spell known has different costs for a Cleric, a Wizard, a Beguiler, and a Sorcerer. That constrains the ways you can design classes without causing balance issues. That's not necessarily insurmountable, but I don't really see the benefit of solving that design problem when you can trade off against class features that are designed to be balanced.

Sure. But there is a benefit to having an established baseline for the class. It helps with class definition if all Druids have Wild Shape or an Animal Companion or Trackless Step, at least as a default.

Having packages is certainly easier to balance in aggregate, and having a default loadout of class features (as opposed to something like 5e where there's no "default" subclass for any class) can be convenient for setting baseline assumptions. I'm just saying that you can't really talk about having a "correct" number of class features, because that judgment is based on how PF ended up doing things but that's not the only way it could have been done.

The 3e druid has a good number if you want to have lots of stuff in the base class to trade away, the 3e sorcerer has a good number if you want base classes to basically be a resource mechanic and a minor signature ability and add other subclass/kit/etc. stuff on top of that, the 3e cleric and wizard have a good number if you want something in the middle. The point you choose is arbitrary based on how modular you want classes to be, so it makes sense to say things like "if you add stuff to one class you should do the same for the rest and raise the bar across the board" but not so much things like "the druid has the right amount of class features."

I have to sadly disagree with your assessment on the druid. From a 3.5 standpoint it's just too much.

Number of features and power of features are two entirely orthogonal concerns. Exhibit A: the monk. :smallwink: Both the druid and the monk get lots of new and scaling features and have few to no dead levels, but the druid is powerful because all of its class features are useful and synergize with one another, while the monk isn't because they aren't and don't.

A hypothetical 2e-style druid where the druid got all the same class features but the animal companion didn't advance, wild shape didn't give combat-relevant forms, and summoning wasn't a main schtick of the druid would be plenty balanced, despite still having lots of class features. The shapeshift druid in PHB2 is halfway there, actually--it has a couple combat forms, but most of them are for mobility, and you give up the companion--and it's widely agreed that even that by itself it brings the druid's power level down quite a bit (though still not necessarily down out of tier 1).

Yes. This is the reason why I personally did not like the Factotum. This according to so many people "good" class... just sucks in actual play unless you have ultra deep system mastery and can basically recite the statblocks of even the most obscure monster...

The problem is not overestimating the value of versatility, it's that factotums are great if you can get enough inspiration and the assessment of factotums being a good class assumes you'll either load up on Font of Inspiration, you have lots of smaller encounters every adventuring day, or you do a lot of stuff during downtime so your inspiration refreshes frequently. It sucks in actual play if you try to play it exactly as you'd play a rogue, complete with spending all your inspiration to get level-appropriate sneak attack and then wondering why you can't do anything else, but as a secondary skill monkey, a PC in a social-heavy campaign, or the like, it works pretty well.

It's almost an anti-druid, in a way: where the druid is balanced in terms of number of class features but the individual things are too powerful, the factotum has a good spread of class features but was given too little inspiration to work with because the devs misjudged the average number of encounters actual groups had. Another example of how number and power of class features are uncorrelated.

Krazzman

2018-10-02, 04:43 PM

Number of features and power of features are two entirely orthogonal concerns. Exhibit A: the monk. :smallwink: Both the druid and the monk get lots of new and scaling features and have few to no dead levels, but the druid is powerful because all of its class features are useful and synergize with one another, while the monk isn't because they aren't and don't.

A hypothetical 2e-style druid where the druid got all the same class features but the animal companion didn't advance, wild shape didn't give combat-relevant forms, and summoning wasn't a main schtick of the druid would be plenty balanced, despite still having lots of class features. The shapeshift druid in PHB2 is halfway there, actually--it has a couple combat forms, but most of them are for mobility, and you give up the companion--and it's widely agreed that even that by itself it brings the druid's power level down quite a bit (though still not necessarily down out of tier 1).

Yes, that's what I meant. The Druid not only has actual class features besides casting but he has really strong ones if used right. Compared to Pathfinder the druid was a bit brought down... so far that people actually mused if he was pushed out of T1... but the Druid is still versatile and best of all a class that you can focus on things if you want to, to get to some concept you want. Don't need Wildshape in your build? How do Slayer Talents sound? Want to only use one specific form for Wildshape? There are archetypes for most of them. Don't care for an Animal Companion? How about grabbing a Domain?

The amount of time I wanted to play a Shapeshift Druid is unbearable... either PHB2 wasn't allowed or someone else was already a druid and something else was needed... or I got to play something that I was actually longer waiting for (Warblade).

And about the factotum... your assessment is true... far too low Inspiration, especially when Font of Inspiration as a feat wasn't allowed and... well let's just say the strengths of this class couldn't be played out due to the type of game/GM/other stuff.

Beckett

2018-10-02, 08:52 PM

Originally, I had went into Pathfinder as a continuation of 3E, and PF had been promising. They did make some improvements but they also made some mistakes, both in my opinion.

I do think sometimes that they get a little too much credit fir some of their changes, or that some of the downsides are ignored, ultimately, again in my opinion, making PF more of a different game rather than better or worse.

Skills: On the surface, it was nice. Ultimatly they did this for two reasons. Admitedly they loved the Bard (and Rogue), so wanted to give them a boost, and to simplify the game. The problem is it both favors some classes more than others, and simplification is not always (or most of the time) a good thing.
Some of the issues it led to where Int based classes that wanted to max out Int like Wizard and Witch having just as many skills as a decent Bard or Rogue "Skill Monkey". Add in that there where no restricted Skills, a decent (not overly optimized) Wizard could do a Rogues job fairly easily.
In some ways that is good, allowing smaller parties to cover more roles, but PF has a huge problem with stepping on toes.
Another huge factor is that the simplification, while mostly working the same, it hurt being able to throw a few ranks into this or that for fun because of the way Number of Ranks to spend works. For example, a +1 Int Dwarf Cleric (no FCB) gets:
3E = 2 + 1 (x4) @ level 1 <12>
PF = 2 + 1 @ all levels <3>

So, in both I can max out three skills. In PF, that is all I can do. In 3E though, if I want, either to build into a PC or for fun, I could put 1or 2 Ranks into any Skill, being a little better at it without really hindering others. Say not maxing Spellcraft to have a rank in Handle Animal or Know Nobility.

Archetypes: While cool and fun, the main reasons for these, (essentially Kits or Variant 3E Classes), was a mixture of PF devs hating Prestige Classes, being more interested in fluff than crunch (admitedly, that isn't an insult), and because Archetypes are much easier. One of the design goals I hated was that they wanted to restrict PC to in world groups, which I really hated, and led to what few PC we got largely being underwelming, (and not getting FCB either).
Archetypes are wholesale, where VCF you could choose each of the portions. I like that better, because a given Archetype might not be exactly what you want. This isn't a power arguement, but rather it might give you one thing at low levels, but take something later you might find essential. I just mean, in some ways Archetypes didn't do their job as well as they should, barring DM handwaving. Another huge issue I encountered was just how much PF, and Archetypes are a major factor here, not only allowed, but seemed designed to allow classes to step on other classes toes easily. Sometimes it is a good thing, again allowing smaller parties to cover more bases, but I have also seen multiple characters, <not over or under optimized> ruin other character's build or essentially force pigeonhole another character. For example a Witch being a better healer than a maxed out healbot Cleric, (while still being a blaster or whatever) or a Magus being better at both the Fighter's and Rogue's main schticks.
One major thing I also hated about Archtypes vs PC was Archetypes are just free. PC you actually (usually) had to work towards, which meant earn. To me, that felt rewarding and special. The counter I often hear is how abusable it was, which is true, but is the exact same with Archetypes. You can't badmouth one and not the other, and I would argue that stacking PCs was possible, but not really that common outside of theory builds. Doing so with Archetypes, however absolutely is (was). To be fair, I stopped playing PF just before the Survival Guide, and have not followed it at all since. Also primarily played PFS, which was pretty wide spectrum as far as styles and playerbase, but actively did try to prevent some of the worst offenders (of power gaming combos). Between the two, I think I would rather have the 3E PC over Archetypes (at their best), and hands down Variant Classes over Archetypes.

Sneak Attack: A little on the fence here, but never been a Rogue fan, to be honest. I like that they opened up Sneak Attack, but I do think they should have not included Undead, as fighting Undead is/should be largely for Divine Classes to be best at, and in some ways cheapened Undead as antagonists.

Caster/Martial Dispatity: So, I know Im not going to win a lot of frends here, but I would actually say PF worsened this significantly, just not in the way people tend to think. I do think just about every spellcasting nerf was bad, either not making sense, removed fun, or whatever. Most Save or Die spells just became substandard evocations, that could probably drop a spell level or two. But it isn't really that that was hurting the Fighter. It was a combination of not great options for martials and the push to make Rogues more able to be up front in Combat. Boost their HP, reducing the need to do as many skills, boosting Sneak Attack availability. Toss in some free Feats, Dex to Damage options, and things like that, and that is what really starts making the Fighter look less and less interesting or needed. But, the other side is that the Rogue can also do plenty of stuff outside of combat, an area many martials have trouble at is the extra kick while you are down. Now, looking back at Skills earlier, this is kind of where Fighters, Paladins, Clerics, and 2+dump stat really feel the burn. Ultimately, the best solution for Skills should have been to remove 2+Int and/or not made it Int based.

Domains/Other: Hated PF Domains. Firstly, I much prefere flat out bonuses, Feats, and permanent effects over times per day. PF really, really likes times per day abilities or Rounds per Day. Hate them so much. Seriouslt, if I can do something like a 1d6 Firebolt 6-10 times a day at level one, just make it infinite at will. Why extra book keeping? Especially as Orisons/Cantrips where made infinite to make it feel more magical. Bloodlines did something similar. Sorry, its a pet peeve that just really annoys the crap out of me.
On the surface, Domains look like they got an improvement. Key word is look. Like so much of what PF changed, at the end of the day, they basically ignored the worst offenders (Sleep, Color Spray, Luck or Travel Domain), then made the mediocre changes the standard to balance everything else off of. So, each Domain now gets two powers, you know, to help fill those "dead levels". Except what they tended to do was split one power into two, and not give you the second one until 8th level. Not so cool/fun. <It gets worse if you you can track down a 3.5 PF1 playtest book. A lot of good stuff that was just dropped>

Channel Energy: So, they took away a really cool, if heavily DM style dependent ability and gave an ability to the whole party that has a Cleric in it one instead. It was ok, but wasn't really a fan, and like Turn or Rebuke Undead/Elemental options more overall. Overall, I did not like the abundence of cheap healing really altering playstyle as well. Person preference.

Magic Weapons overcoming DR: At first I liked this. Actually, let mw baxk up. This was one of those rules they slipped in under the radar, with the intent of buffing martials. Hence why Greater Magic Weapon doesn't get this bonus. At first, like I said, hey that sounds cool. But to be honest, as a 4 Star DM of PF for like a decade, it didn't really work out so well, in my opinion. Both because you had later classes and options, (all from magical classes) that got it basically for free, (BB Magus, Greater or Improved Arcane Strike), basically benefitting non-martials or archers the most. The other thing I didn't like, and for me this is the bigger issue was it kind of made the game like easy mode. Needing different weapons for different enemies just didn't matter so much, often once you got that +3 weapon, but +5 just threw DR out the window almost completely. And archery, the single best fighting style in the game benefitted the most, because it was cheaper to by magical ammo for effects and keep your bow all +'s for DR.

CMB/CMD: At first I was neutral here. Intent was to streamline manuevers and try to give Fighters/Martials/Monks an edge, and to also attempt to make things like straightup damage less required. It really took PF until its later years to sort of fix this though, so it was not mostly an obsolete, wasted Feat path after level 5ish. Streamlining is usually not a good thing, all in all, despite it seeming to be a common design goal these years. It led to some oddities in rules like Trip Weapons being required rather than offering bonuses like in 3E, or the 3.5 Mounted Overrun issue coming back, or some Manuevers no longer really working the right way.

Fly Skill: Why?!?!?! Seriously, if there was one thing I would outright remove from the game, it is this. It does nothing but slow down combat, it hinders everyone that is 2+dump stat or even 4+Int to try to take away another advantage they might eventually get to help keep up, and is just more bother than it is worth. Bad move. Bad.

Multiclassing & Favored Class Penalty: 3E, as a system did an amazing job with allowing custimization options. And honestly, how often did the XP penalty even come up. I don't remember it being a huge deal. Ever. Now, PFs optional FCB is usually cool. I do agree that I don't think the vast majority of the other options should be racially based, but rather just options for the class, unless it is a rare case that it is really tied to a specific race. However, some are just downright trap options and others are too good.

Traits: Are interesting. A little bit of a background and a little bit of an extra boost that can help out with the lack of skill points at first level. Traits are meant to be like 1/2 Feats. Good idea and good implimentation. Keep.

Feats: A very mixed bag. Some options where great, (and largely portable), and some not. On the other hand, PF had at least two published Feats that actually made you worse at something or did absolutely nothing. Like much of PFs work, there is some fairly obvious bias towards some things, which tended to leave other things out in the cold most of the time. I tended to hate most of the changes PF implemented from 3.5, like Power Attack, and there was also a really bad habit ofgood Feats for anyone NOT Arcane, Bard, Rogue, Oracle, or Druid getting nerfed and a ton of crappy Feats. Actually, Barbarians had some nice options, too. Martials did get some towards the end, but tended to be out of luck much of the time.

Beckett

2018-10-02, 09:36 PM

Functionally, witches trade the bonus spells of their top 2-3 spell levels for at will abilities that are weaker than those spells. That is a good or bad trade depending on whether your game has one encounter per day or 10.

Not really. Many of the Hexes scalled very well. Witches are more like Wizards with Reserve Feats (or even Warlocks in a sense). They didn't really get significantly weaker over more encounters per day because they could conserve spells much easier, and even if out of spells, could usually still own with just Hexes. They did, partially trade out versatility (comparitevely to a Wizard) for a lot more enegizer bunnies.

upho

2018-10-03, 05:55 AM

You say this as if getting +4 on the attempt and ignoring AoOs isn't already a strong option, as if -4 attack and AC and not being able to move until you spend an action and eat an AoO isn't enough of a penalty. None of the other Improved [maneuver] feats in 3.5 do more (or are as widely applicable, or as powerful of a status effect), why should Improved Trip?Because the other maneuvers are underpowered. By a lot. And not because they don't have as strong DPR boost options as trip, but because their effects are by themselves far too weak to make them worthy of investments. You nerf IT down to their baseline, the only result you'll get is that none of the maneuvers will see use except as rider effects in spam combos to maximize DPR. Which doesn't make for interesting (or realistic) combat.

If the goal is to make each maneuver the most effective use of an action in certain situations, they all need to be boosted considerably and/or at least full bab classes probably need to get their related Improved feats for free. Otherwise, those "windows of opportunity" you mentioned will simply happen so rarely the maneuver rules won't be worth the paper they were written on.

And I disagree. A high level mundane melee guy can trip or wrestle an Elephant and I'm fine with that, but there has to be a limit.And what is the reason for there having to be a limit to these things, when the entire game otherwise has none of them?

I don't have a problem with dealing damage. I do have a problem when people only see mundane combat as what offensive actions you can take.Which dealing damage is the epitome of.

There is no melee DPR role- the melee role is to take (or negate) melee hits in place of those in the party who are bad at taking melee hits, and have some amount of reliable no-resource damage.Why should melee be confined to this singular role?

And if this one role was intended for melee, why are there so many very strong DPR options, relatively few and weak options for surviving focused fire at the frontline, and no options for forcing enemies to attack the melee frontliner instead of the squishy allies?

As is, a party is much better off not including a PC attempting to fill the role you're talking about. Mostly because of its sad lack of support, but also because of the design of so called "squishy" classes in 3.5 means they have little need of someone to take melee hits for them, at least not after the earliest levels in a game played according to guidelines.

There is no "competitive" melee build, because there is no competition.Not in the sense you seem to refer to, no. But there is plenty of competition between options for a PC's limited resources, all the way from race and class options down to options for how to spend an action in a specific situation. And these options vary greatly in not only their capacity to reflect a character concept mechanically, but also in their capacity to help a PC overcome the challenges they face in an adventure.

That's essentially a "but this other thing is OP too!" defense.No. First, I'm saying that IT being OP in comparison to other Improved maneuver feats tells you absolutely nothing of whether it's net total cost/benefit ratio stands out as significantly greater than that of other options of comparable cost in the game. And if you nerf stuff primarily on the basis of comparisons limited to such a very narrow selection of options of a conceptually similar nature, there's a very high risk you end up nerfing the wrong things and simply make the actually OP options even more so.

Second, I'm saying that maybe there are additional related concerns and goals worth considering here, such as giving maneuver related options overall a good enough cost/benefit ratio they'll see more play and decrease the old monotonous damage focus of melee.

But of course, if none of this is a concern and the effects of your nerf are known and fully intentional, then go ahead.

And if you're not satisfied with what a Fighter can do, then you take a PrC, or be a Tome of Battle class, or both.And what are your thoughts on your IT nerf making the Fighter even weaker and more confined to a repetitive single-target DPR melee combat style in comparison to the ToB and less melee focused classes? Is this consequence an unfortunate but acceptable degree of "collateral damage", fully intentional, simply unimportant or something else in your opinion?

Again, you're basically using the "but everything else is crap!" defense, setting an arbitrary power level that everything must meet.No. First, if I actually thought "everything else is crap", I'd obviously not only invalidate any argument based on power against nerfing trip or improving the other maneuver options, but I'd also have very little reason to call everything else crap in the first place. And I sincerely don't believe you actually have such extremely low expectations of my cognitive capabilities.

Second, despite what I've said about related matters in my previous post, it appears you still don't understand how I determine whether something has an acceptable power level, nor whether I take aspects other than power into account or what those aspects are. Hopefully what I've already written in this post makes this clearer.

Combat maneuvers are not about "power." They're about maneuvering, tactics. You don't trip or disarm or grapple because it's powerful, you do it because it fits the situation.And how do you determine whether it fits the situation?

Not sure where you're aiming at here. Obviously if I've written down the limits and changes required to keep things in line, there shouldn't be a need for players to "self-censor." And obviously if someone takes a splatbook'd/char-op'd character into a game that is not designed for it, the game isn't going to work.I honestly wasn't aiming much at all, mostly just making a nod towards the fact that generally speaking, the less tightly balanced PC options are, the greater the need to define a specific game's expected mechanical power level, and the greater the responsibility is typically put on the players to build PC's matching with those expectations. How far one should go towards either extreme on this scale is of course highly dependent on the players in question and your own preferences.

Nope: "If your character is wearing armor, use the worse figure (from armor or from load) for each category. Do not stack the penalties." It's at the end of Carrying Capacity- Weight, right before -Lifting and Dragging.Sorry, I was being sloppy in my wording. I was referring to the fact that if you're strong enough to take no movement penalties whatsoever for carrying a full plate in your backpack, the moment you take said full plate out of your back pack and put it on you'll suddenly become considerably slower for some weird reason. The exact opposite is true in RL.

Or game design. Because if there's no penalty for having tons of AC there's no reason to ever have anyone not in heavy armor. And then instead of nimble lightly armored rogues and wizards in robes you have everyone in full plate from 3rd level until the end of time.First, there are plenty of other ways to balance armor aside from mobility penalties, and quite a few significantly more realistic (some also used in other RPGs). Second, as I mentioned a few posts back, of course realistic rules would make full plate a complete no-brainer for most PCs once you can afford it, which would be a highly accurate simulation of the RL historical situation.

:smallsigh: I was really looking forward to your response to the example, and instead you've completely ignored it-I didn't ignore it. I very clearly responded to it, and even provided my own counter-example from a RL perspective (fighting a humanoid the size of a 3-year old). But I guess I must spell it out:

The statistics and probabilities you mention do nothing to help make the game's size rules appear more realistic. And while damage is of course not the same thing as impact energy, it does point at the issue of there being something serious missing if the rules attempted to actually simulate RL physics. Might've been least a bit more realistic if a human hit by a giant's melee attack is simply knocked off their feet and thrown some distance, maybe something like an integrated Awesome Blow or +50% the damage (if the giant pounds the smaller human into the ground instead).

Regarding hp, the giant should obviously have a lot more, likely at the very least four times that of the average human per HD or a combo of more hp and DR/- to reflect the increased ability to withstand physical punishment inherent to a much greater body mass. Likewise, judging by the carrying capacity numbers which are actually comparable to RL values, the Str score of a creature of about the same mass as the giant should probably be least four times that of the average human's, and probably a lot more for a hill giant, as I'd assume it's intended to be a lot stronger than say a horse of equal mass. The end result would of course be a very weird foe difficult to balance, being much more dangerous in melee than the current hill giant, but just as vulnerable to the usual non-physical stunts. Which is also most likely why size differences are so toned down in the game.

But really, if you actually want to compare statistics like hp and Str more accurately, there's no need for fantasy humanoids able to wield weapons, so I'd recommend you use a Large creature that exists in RL, like a horse. But I can assure you that if you compare the associated relative differences between the game's horse and human with those of their RL counterparts, it'll simply confirm how size differences are significantly toned down in the game. Hints: the likely equivalent of a large "knight's horse" or destrier (say 1,200 lbs) has a Str of 14 and a large draft horse (about 1,600 - 2,400 lbs) a Str of 16, and both have 19 hp according to the rules.

(It may save you a lot of time if you assume that I'm already fully aware of the basic numbers and rough probabilities a PC has against a monster I'm using in an example. It's sort of a side-effect of not using CR when designing encounters, as I prefer the actual challenge level far closer to the one intended than the CR system is capable of.)

3.5 PHB is the starting point, so by definition it's not the bloat. Splatbooks and adaptations can develop bloat.So you believe no casters after the PHB are allowed to have any features besides their casting, may only be defined by their spell lists, as anything else would be needless "feature bloat"?

Even so: duh the Druid is bloated as all heck, everyone knows that. It's pretty well known story that one of the playtesters revealed the Druid player never used Wild Shape for anything more than scouting, and the statblocks in Enemies and Allies (purported to be the playtest statblocks) don't even have animal companions listed (familiars and mounts, no ACs).I think you're talking about a 3e playtest and not 3.5, because this seems similar to how people would play a 2.5 druid. But regardless of how WS is used, you're saying it's needless "feature bloat" that does nothing to help define the druid as a class?

The cleric has three non-spell features: domain 1, domain 2, and turn undead. Turn Undead is a safety feature that ensures the party always has some sort of response to incorporeal undead and does almost nothing else aside from dust mooks outside of splatbooks. The two domains are worth 2-3 bonus feats, frontloaded compared to the Wizard, but neccesary if you want domains to be part of their identity from 1st level. It's also a well known story that the person who wrote the Sorcerer hated them. So we have: one class with measured bonus feats, one class with measured features, one class denied any features, and one class with a ton of features no one tested. Which of these four, two of which are the default classes for their roles and two not, are the correct measures to design new classes against?All of them, plus all the other classes released.

Also, it appears you believe the witch is supposed to be some sort of archetype or sub-class of one of the PHB casters. It's not, and I'm certain it never was intended to be.

Honestly, there's pretty much no amount of "but it has a shorter spell list" that is going to convince me they need a bunch of at-will/encounter abilities to make up for it. PF made them a full caster because full caster, and gave them Hexes because class features. A "restricted" class list isn't a "balancing" feature, it's an identity feature.Why do think I claimed the witch is less powerful than the wizard because it has a shorter spell list? Please read my post again. And yes, at least in the case of the witch, the shorter list wouldn't be much of "balancing feature", hence why I didn't claim it was.

But let me make it clearer for you:
Fizban: Goddamn OP witch class gets at-will spells on top of full wizard casting!
upho: Hexes are generally quite a bit less powerful than spells. And the witch doesn't get full wizard casting. It gets 2 slots/level less than a specialist wizard.
Fizban: It should be defined by a unique spell list instead of this needless feature bloat crap!
upho: It has a unique spell list, which is shorter than the wiz/sorc list and includes other spells. And hexes do also very much help define the witch, in terms of fluff as well as crunch. It doesn't feel or play like a wizard, but has it's own distinctly different identity, despite what you may think of the differentiating factors.
Fizban: But it's STILL goddamn OP and badwrongfun because it doesn't follow the Divine Design Commandments given to us by the Holy Cows in the Sacred PHB! BLASPHEMY!
upho: Great, it's actually a different class! More importantly, I think most people who have actually played or GM'ed a witch for more than a level or two would agree with me when I say it's definitely less powerful than both the PF and 3.5 wizard. Especially in an official AP or game run according to guidelines, since the at-will nature of hexes are less powerful than the wizard's greater number of spells/day beyond the very earliest levels in such games.

I'm sure you'll let me know how much I'm misrepresenting you here... :smallsmile:

upho

2018-10-03, 06:14 AM

PF 1e was a new game, it was free to define new balance expectations. It doesn't matter whether Wizard + Class Features looks overpowered to you, it matters if it is bad design for substantive reasons.Exactly.

That's not really the right frame of reference though. It doesn't matter if Improved Trip is better than Weapon Focus, it matters if Improved Trip is too good in absolute terms. And I think it clearly isn't, which means the correct fix was to buff other melee options.Indeed. Which you'll notice I also say in the very post you're quoting, and further emphasize in my latest reply to Fizban (see spoiler).

This is certainly true, but it's important to distinguish "realism" and "verisimilitude". The game world's physics need not be consistent with reality (though it should have a baseline similarity to reality in order to adjudicate basic actions like jumping or throwing things), but they need to be consistent with themselves. If tripping (or whatever) is a super awesome tactic, armies should include lots of pikemen or other trip specialists. Ah, I've already been through this with Fizban, and it seems we actually mostly agree on this. And yes, verisimilitude is more important. But it's also primarily PF's own internal fictional verisimilitude that usually matters the most, not likeness to actual RL.

While I obviously disagree with Fizban's position that no one with spells should have other class features, I do think "it has a shorter list" is a bad argument. It's still (presumably) longer than the list of spells any given Sorcerer has access to, and those guys are fine. This board tends to dramatically overestimate the value of versatility.It wasn't the argument Fizban understood it to be and had nothing to do with power. It was a response to his specific demand that a caster must be defined by its spell list, saying that the witch's list indeed different, being both shorter and containing spells not on the wiz/sorc list.

Gnaeus

2018-10-03, 12:28 PM

Not really. Many of the Hexes scalled very well. Witches are more like Wizards with Reserve Feats (or even Warlocks in a sense). They didn't really get significantly weaker over more encounters per day because they could conserve spells much easier, and even if out of spells, could usually still own with just Hexes. They did, partially trade out versatility (comparitevely to a Wizard) for a lot more enegizer bunnies.

They scale, but are still worse than most similar spells by mid level.

What are the best hexes?
Slumber: mind affecting single target SOL. Clearly worse than level 4 will disablers like Fear or confusion
Evil Eye: mind affecting single target will debuff. Most of the time people on this board argue it isn’t even worth using. I disagree, but totally not good as a high level spell
Misfortune: will debuff that gives disadvantage. Very slightly better than third level spell pugwampi’s Grace.

Yes, they are good in days with lots of encounters. Pretty sure I said that. But still, for most of their career the hexes are worse than the top level spell slots.

Fizban

2018-10-03, 01:23 PM

If the goal is to make each maneuver the most effective use of an action in certain situations, they all need to be boosted considerably and/or . . .
No they don't. You just need to have better situations.

And what is the reason for there having to be a limit to these things, when the entire game otherwise has none of them?
If by "the entire game otherwise" you mean "hit point damage" then sure, whatever.

Which dealing damage is the epitome of.
Missed the point.

Why should melee be confined to this singular role?
Because that's what the rest of the game is balanced on. Even so, you're the one complaining about confinement in response to. . . not being as OP as you want to be. (Because if you demand an option that is clearly OP, that's what you're doing, even without getting into the fact that your definition of OP rather different than mine, since the only possibly supported definition by the 3.5 rules would be based on monsters, whose CRs you apparently ignore. So let's not deal with that).

And if this one role was intended for melee, why are there so many very strong DPR options, relatively few and weak options for surviving focused fire at the frontline, and no options for forcing enemies to attack the melee frontliner instead of the squishy allies?
1: People like damage, splatbooks crank up the damage- if you actually look at the PHB, you'll find very little "strong DPR options". 2: Well when you stop ignoring AC and start factoring in the rest of the party like you're supposed to, it's not nearly so hard. 3: Because tactical wargamers don't need MMO style forced aggro.

As is, a party is much better off not including a PC attempting to fill the role you're talking about. Mostly because of its sad lack of support, but also because of the design of so called "squishy" classes in 3.5 means they have little need of someone to take melee hits for them, at least not after the earliest levels in a game played according to guidelines.
And if you play the game differently from how it was expected, you get different results. Which people like to complain about. Which leads to a whole different line about how the game "promised" them they could play whatever they want however they want in any combination and everything would work perfectly. Which it did not.

No. First, I'm saying that IT being OP in comparison to other Improved maneuver feats tells you absolutely nothing of whether it's net total cost/benefit ratio stands out as significantly greater than that of other options of comparable cost in the game. And if you nerf stuff primarily on the basis of comparisons limited to such a very narrow selection of options of a conceptually similar nature, there's a very high risk you end up nerfing the wrong things and simply make the actually OP options even more so.
I mean, I already covered how tripping itself was still the king of combat maneuvers even without the feat giving free attacks, and how I've probably nerfed all the other things you think Improved Trip is supposed to be competing against, what more do you want?

And what are your thoughts on your IT nerf making the Fighter even weaker and more confined to a repetitive single-target DPR melee combat style in comparison to the ToB and less melee focused classes? Is this consequence an unfortunate but acceptable degree of "collateral damage", fully intentional, simply unimportant or something else in your opinion?
Shouldn't that already be obvious- you think I'm "confining" them to a single role after all. ToB is actually quite overrated in what it does regarding "combat maneuvers," the biggest thing being that it gives defenses and more non-full-attack options. Mundane martial characters aren't competing with anything else because party roles do not compete with each other, so the "less melee focused classes" don't matter in this comparison. If someone in the group is making a character for a different role and is also infringing on yours, they're the one in the wrong, and rather than unending the entire paradigm of the game maybe you should just fix whatever they're using to infringe?

Second, despite what I've said about related matters in my previous post, it appears you still don't understand how I determine whether something has an acceptable power level, nor whether I take aspects other than power into account or what those aspects are. Hopefully what I've already written in this post makes this clearer.
Nope, still clear as mud. At best you seem to be presenting the idea that if anything is weaker than the most powerful option, it must be buffed until it matches the most powerful option, and said most powerful option can be drawn from any published material including those which are obviously more powerful than those that came before them, and can include classes from other roles. Those are all ideas implied from your post. And yes, I'd like to think your cognitive capabilities are enough to see that "balancing" a game based on all of those simultaneously is impossible.

And how do you determine whether it fits the situation?
Apparently based on what is most "powerful," by your implication. Or, you know, based on tactical needs. Like if it's more important to stop a guy for a turn right now, or reduce their damage output, or get past them, or capture them, or prevent them from attacking someone else. No, these should not be coming up every fight, which seems to be what some people want.

First, there are plenty of other ways to balance armor aside from mobility penalties, and quite a few significantly more realistic (some also used in other RPGs). Second, as I mentioned a few posts back, of course realistic rules would make full plate a complete no-brainer for most PCs once you can afford it, which would be a highly accurate simulation of the RL historical situation.
I thought we just got past the part with the quibbling about simulationism. There may be "plenty of other ways," but they're also more complicated, and aren't tactical. You're probably thinking stuff like "armor as DR"- great, now everything is more reliant on magic to get past the DR, or you have to print a bunch of DR-penetrating stuff to fix your fix, and the vast majority of monsters that were not designed for that are going to need to be re-designed, nice fix.

I didn't ignore it. I very clearly responded to it, and even provided my own counter-example from a RL perspective (fighting a humanoid the size of a 3-year old).
A small creature isn't a human child. A small creature is an adult with the appropriate strength to survive in the wild- a shorter primate armed with weapons would be plenty deadly.

And while damage is of course not the same thing as impact energy, it does point at the issue of there being something serious missing if the rules attempted to actually simulate RL physics.
So if the game is a physics engine instead of a game, then it's game-ness is a problem, gotcha.

Might've been least a bit more realistic if a human hit by a giant's melee attack is simply knocked off their feet and thrown some distance, maybe something like an integrated Awesome Blow or +50% the damage (if the giant pounds the smaller human into the ground instead).
You've seen how people just hit the ground and spring back up in various things, right? That's not being knocked prone. And you've got a whole 5'+ in your one combat square, could be as much as 10' if you're counting the amount that you can push forward and be pushed back towards other squares. Hey look, 10' of distance and falling over is just part of the attack, took me about as long to reconcile as it did for you to make it up. Assuming that hit was even a square enough hit to throw someone, when I specifically pointed out that any attack which isn't a kill is by definition a glancing blow, and a glancing blow doesn't usually throw people that far.

Regarding hp, the giant should obviously have a lot more, likely at the very least four times that of the average human per HD or a combo of more hp and DR/- to reflect the increased ability to withstand physical punishment inherent to a much greater body mass.
Now who's against heroic combat?

Likewise, judging by the carrying capacity numbers which are actually comparable to RL values, the Str score of a creature of about the same mass as the giant should probably be least four times that of the average human's, and probably a lot more for a hill giant, as I'd assume it's intended to be a lot stronger than say a horse of equal mass. . . .Which is also most likely why size differences are so toned down in the game.
So you've made an assumption that giants should have far more useful energy than other creatures of the same size, and are complaining that the game doesn't reflect that. In actuality, the game's carrying capacity numbers are already massively inflated for anything bigger than a horse, because that useful energy is going to go down as the square cube law wrecks you. Elephants can't actually carry all that much. So your complaint about realism stems from forcing an assumption about the fantasy creature through a faulty physics engine.

So you believe no casters after the PHB are allowed to have any features besides their casting, may only be defined by their spell lists, as anything else would be needless "feature bloat"?
So you take every instance of the word "can" as "always do?"

I think you're talking about a 3e playtest and not 3.5, because this seems similar to how people would play a 2.5 druid. But regardless of how WS is used, you're saying it's needless "feature bloat" that does nothing to help define the druid as a class?
Was there even a significant 3.5 playtest? Just because bloat is iconic doesn't mean it's not bloat.

All of them, plus all the other classes released.
The game is designed around roles, not "class balance." You may personally have reached a spot you like, but people who try to "balance" everything against everything are going to have a loooong trek from 3.x to where they want to be. And they've been trying for years, essentially writing entire new editions and then claiming 3.5 is bad for not matching their personal version.

Also, it appears you believe the witch is supposed to be some sort of archetype or sub-class of one of the PHB casters. It's not, and I'm certain it never was intended to be.
Well if it's a full caster whose only change is a "shorter" spell list, and their features aren't any more powerful than the PHB casters' features, then shouldn't it be?

Why do think I claimed the witch is less powerful than the wizard because it has a shorter spell list? Please read my post again. And yes, at least in the case of the witch, the shorter list wouldn't be much of "balancing feature", hence why I didn't claim it was.
Well everyone else sure is.

But let me make it clearer for you:
Fizban: Goddamn OP witch class gets at-will spells on top of full wizard casting!
Well you had been reasonable for while, guess it had to end eventually.

upho: Hexes are generally quite a bit less powerful than spells. And the witch doesn't get full wizard casting. It gets 2 slots/level less than a specialist wizard.
You are literally the first person I've seen mention specialist wizards in this context. To which I would respond that specialist wizards aren't actually balanced either (on various planes). Also, people keep claiming that the Witch has fewer spells than a Wizard, but they clearly use the exact same table and both are SAD, so where is this supposed loss of spells coming from?

I guess I answered the question myself with the assumption of specialist Wizards. Fine, chalk up the continuation of the myth of specialization as a balanced feature as one of the things PF got wrong, along with every game element they balanced on top of it.

And hexes do also very much help define the witch, in terms of fluff as well as crunch. It doesn't feel or play like a wizard, but has it's own distinctly different identity, despite what you may think of the differentiating factors.
Bloat with identity is still bloat. I would have thought the Druid example made that point.

Not really. Many of the Hexes scalled very well. Witches are more like Wizards with Reserve Feats (or even Warlocks in a sense). They didn't really get significantly weaker over more encounters per day because they could conserve spells much easier, and even if out of spells, could usually still own with just Hexes. They did, partially trade out versatility (comparitevely to a Wizard) for a lot more enegizer bunnies.
It's funny how people will accuse me of holding up a sacred cow of core class balance, while simulatneously holding up an even greater sacred cow of core class balance (I'm just quoting Beckett because it's the shortest post about Witches getting extra mileage from Hexes).

The Witch has greater staying power at the cost of "versatility relative to a Wizard," in a game where the strategic use and conservation of resources is rather a big part, and there is no role that depends on "versatility of a wizard." People look at the Wizard and all the things they can theorhetically do, and count any class with less than that as less powerful and thus deserving of compensation, because the wizard is apparently the balance of everything. Except the "wizard" role is actually just getting past physical defenses and hitting groups of enemies, nothing more (and nothing less).

Does the Witch fill this role with their spells? Pretty sure, yes. Does the Witch have as many spells as a Wizard? Yes. Does the Witch also have a bunch of extra staying power from Hexes? All signs point to yes. But I'll give you that maybe if you upgrade the default balance of everything from Wizard to Specialist Wizard, then the Witch is giving up a few slots (and feats) for those Hexes with are worth more than a few slots.

Segev

2018-10-03, 05:07 PM

Yeah, I don't understand how you think ToB and 4e are the same thing. ToB has variety in its resource management, 4e doesn't. It's not even like ToB has plumbed the limits of what you could do with their setup either. You could have maneuvers refresh when you switch stance. You could have maneuvers refresh when you kill an enemy. You could have maneuvers refresh every round. Whereas 4e is pretty explicit about it's "everyone is At-Will/Encounter/Daily all the time" plan.

It's not that 4e "is" ToB. It's that they clearly took the basic idea of ToB and used it to design all of the class features. All of them.

The fact that you can point to ToB and STILL see more mechanical variety is another strike against 4e for its failure to explore how mechanics can model cool, different-feeling things.

Nifft

2018-10-03, 07:19 PM

It's not that 4e "is" ToB. It's that they clearly took the basic idea of ToB and used it to design all of the class features. All of them.

The fact that you can point to ToB and STILL see more mechanical variety is another strike against 4e for its failure to explore how mechanics can model cool, different-feeling things.

That's a more coherent point than what the other poster offered, but you're also wrong.

ToB Maneuvers and their recovery mechanics are vaguely similar to 4e Encounter powers, but they're not actually encounter-based -- the Crusader, for example, has a recovery mechanic which is expected to trigger during an encounter, possibly several times per encounter.

ToB Maneuvers have no Daily and no At-Will equivalents.

There are some ToB ideas which did make their way into 4e -- for example, the Devoted Spirit maneuvers whereby you stab a jerk and heal an ally at the same time, instead of having to choose between healing vs. stabbing -- but the AEDU mechanical structure doesn't seem to trace back to ToB Maneuvers.

2D8HP

2018-10-03, 08:19 PM

I'm not a player of 3.5 or Pathfinder (I played 1e AD&D long ago and 5e more recently) butI picked up the "Inner Sea World Guide" and a book on Gods, and I'm impressed by the Golarion setting.

A wintry realm ruled by witches?

A giant hole that demons come out of?

Fantasy revolutionary France?

An island "utopia" ruled by a Dragon?

This rocks!

More details than Greyhawk, and I just like it better than the Forgotten Realms.

I like it.

Beckett

2018-10-04, 05:20 PM

They scale, but are still worse than most similar spells by mid level.

What are the best hexes?
Slumber: mind affecting single target SOL. Clearly worse than level 4 will disablers like Fear or confusion
Evil Eye: mind affecting single target will debuff. Most of the time people on this board argue it isn’t even worth using. I disagree, but totally not good as a high level spell
Misfortune: will debuff that gives disadvantage. Very slightly better than third level spell pugwampi’s Grace.

Yes, they are good in days with lots of encounters. Pretty sure I said that. But still, for most of their career the hexes are worse than the top level spell slots.

I was not really a fan of Witches, but I have seen a lot in play across low and mid levels.

The thing that really helps the Witch though is Action Economy and Cackle to extend Hexes indef, particularly Fortune or Misfortune, essentially forcing enemies to roll twice and take the worse on everything, negating a lot of crits and saves. Evil Eye can be nasty as well, because with Cackle, the save is irrelavent really. -2 AC, or Saves indef, Save or not.

upho

2018-10-04, 10:38 PM

Just noted I forgot to respond to this.

In any case, I've seen enough people post phrases along the lines of "shields are only +2 AC, just ignore them" that I like to think it matters.That's just sad. Especially since I also would like to see shields get more use for purely defensive purposes (if not necessarily passive ones). Coincidentally, there's a PoW discipline - Iron Tortoise (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/disciplines-and-maneuvers/iron-tortoise-maneuvers/) - focused on this, and it does help with precisely that. Seeing that you allow ToB classes in your games, it may very well be worth importing it. It's also one of the most modest PoW disciplines, so I believe it should suit the lower general power expectations of 3.5 with a minimum of tweaks.

All usually ignoring the fact that AC stacks with those defenses, and they're much thinner than people expect (monsters can take Blind-Fight and Mirror Image Does Not Work That Way [I don't care what PF says about it]). But that's a whole different digression.Well, just because prioritizing a high AC vs melee attacks has a poor return on investment, it doesn't mean it's useless and not worth any investments. It's just more costly to improve to values high enough to matter in comparison to other defenses, all measured against how much overall positive net total impact improving these defenses has on combat results.

Again, assuming the game is being run in ways where this is true.Yes. Because the game would typically have to be of a pretty static dungeon crawl type with lots of tight passages or mostly consist of combats against really tactically inept foes for it not to be. But it only takes mechanics such as those granted by the PoW Warder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/classes/warder/)'s armiger's mark and aegis features to quite radically change the value of armor/shield/NA investments, especially when accompanied with feats such as Defensive Expertise (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/feats/defensive-expertise-combat/). Suddenly those AC investments can benefit the entire party more directly, and typically greatly increase the value of tactical teamwork in combat, so all good IMO. I also think it was a big mistake to not give for example the Fighter any such options in a 3.5 or a 1PP-only PF game.

This right here is something I just can't wrap my head around. If you're running your game such that shields are only useful if they let you kill things faster, that game doesn't make sense to me. But some people like it that way I guess. I'd rather have a game where someone with a shield is hard to hit, and being hard to hit is useful, rather than all aggro all the time. Of course even then I've gone and made my own homebrew feat for a sort of shield aggro- but mine is based on the conceit that not getting hit makes you stronger, which seems pretty uncommon.One the one hand, I agree with this, because I also don't like seeing more of the damage myopia. On the other hand, some of the best shield options in PF aren't necessarily primarily damage related, although I believe they're most often used as damage boosters, unfortunately.

That homebrew feat of yours sound interesting btw, please share details!

What are these PF shield feats?It's not only feats, but some unique items as well. Shield Master, Maelstrom Shield, Tempest Shield, to name a few of the most powerful.

But are those concepts because of firearms, or Pathfinder's firearms specifically? 'Cause there's plenty of other firearms rules out there.Actually mostly because of PF's wonky firearm mechanics. For example, TWF with pistols would be too punishing without also significantly altering the related mechanics. But of course, there are better mechanics which may preserve those options, and I believe my own house rules for firearms do so pretty well (by removing/altering much of the clunky balance mechanics of attacks vs touch AC, misfire and too slow reload of two-handed guns). They do also tune down the overall max possible DPR of firearms, which I find to be a good thing. Still, those house rules do change almost every related option quite drastically.

'Guess we're just gonna have to disagree there, because I'd take +2 AC every time. What am I even going to care about 8 skill points? Gunslinger already has 4 base, plus skill consolidation, plus cross-class ebolishment so the first point is worth four (though I suppose they might have a Gunsmithing tax). But keep in mind that I don't buy into what I see as a constant demand from some people for every character to be able to do everything.Of course the AC bonus is going to be more valuable in most games. But again, that's completely irrelevant if it's not also so much more valuable than the skill so as to dictate class/race choices more than actual race traits. And in this case, just as in most cases, it's definitely not that much more valuable, and it doesn't make all Gunslingers kobolds. Far, far from it, in fact, which isn't strange when looking at what some of the other races' traits - not FCBs - grant (such as perfect stat bonuses, prehensile tail for reloading, and/or other strong alternate race traits).

upho

2018-10-05, 01:15 AM

No they don't. You just need to have better situations.Well, if you don't run the game according to guidelines, they can of course be made a lot less underpowered. But I don't really see how that is relevant.

If by "the entire game otherwise" you mean "hit point damage" then sure, whatever.Sort of, unfortunately. Because what better options does for example a 11th level Fighter have in combat against a Huge or larger foe? (And this is on top of the damage option also likely being greatly nerfed due to the problem of even closing to melee range, although that's more of an issue with melee overall.)

Because that's what the rest of the game is balanced on.Do you actually believe for example a Fighter cannot be balanced unless attempting to fill this very specific and poorly supported role? And if so, what role do you assign to for example Crusaders or Warblades in your games?

Even so, you're the one complaining about confinement in response to. . . not being as OP as you want to be. (Because if you demand an option that is clearly OP, that's what you're doing, even without getting into the fact that your definition of OP rather different than mine, since the only possibly supported definition by the 3.5 rules would be based on monsters, whose CRs you apparently ignore. So let's not deal with that).No. Two things:

1. What I suggested for IT was instead of damage. The net effect being that a melee damage focus has slightly fewer stacking options, and a melee control/debuff focus has a slightly higher value.

2. Regardless of what you do with IT, you either need to bring the power of other options in the game down to the level of the other maneuvers, or bring the power of the other maneuvers up. You certainly can do that by playing the opposition so as to vastly increase the number of "windows of opportunity" when these other maneuvers will be a better choice than (usually) simply full attack for max damage. It'll require some really stupid enemies though, and they sure cannot be very big...

1: People like damage, splatbooks crank up the damage- if you actually look at the PHB, you'll find very little "strong DPR options".2-handed weapon, Power Attack. Right there, enough to make DPR superior in a PHB-only game.

2: Well when you stop ignoring AC and start factoring in the rest of the party like you're supposed to, it's not nearly so hard.Not ignoring AC, not prioritizing AC. And of course, what you're saying here seems perfectly reasonable against very stupid enemies who don't get the futility of banging on the first tin-can you laid your eyes on, instead of simply moving around said tin-can and attack the squishies behind. (Which of course will often be even more futile, since those are often much more difficult to hit with melee attacks, but that's a slightly different issue.) Against smarter foes, unless you have some very significant terrain advantages, this simply doesn't work, because the tin-can Fighter simply has no abilities to teamwork with.

3: Because tactical wargamers don't need MMO style forced aggro.LOL! I don't even know what this is supposed to say... (And I don't play MMOs, and never have.) But if it matters, two of my players have won several "tactical wargame" tournaments, and two of them are quite highly ranked chess players. Oddly, most monsters of rather rudimentary intelligence would still have very little problem ignoring their tin-can fighters (if they ever played one), and these players seem to be very aware of this fact...

And if you play the game differently from how it was expected, you get different results. Which people like to complain about. Which leads to a whole different line about how the game "promised" them they could play whatever they want however they want in any combination and everything would work perfectly. Which it did not.So all those options allowing squishies to ignore melee shouldn't have been in the game to begin with? Or players should understand not to use them in ways so as to "steal" the primary reason for the tin-can Fighter's job, along with the DM being nice and not having enemies ignore the fighter if easier targets are within reach?

I mean, I already covered how tripping itself was still the king of combat maneuvers even without the feat giving free attacks, and how I've probably nerfed all the other things you think Improved Trip is supposed to be competing against, what more do you want?Unless you say otherwise, I'm assuming a game played roughly according to RAW and guidelines. That includes for example how 2-handed weapon damage and Power Attack works, not to mention that casters can and will take full advantage of their spells chosen from at least those available in the core books.

Shouldn't that already be obvious- you think I'm "confining" them to a single role after all. ToB is actually quite overrated in what it does regarding "combat maneuvers," the biggest thing being that it gives defenses and more non-full-attack options.Uhm... Yeah, that's exactly the point. Hence why they'll "outfight the Fighter" to an even greater extent than before.

Mundane martial characters aren't competing with anything else because party roles do not compete with each other, so the "less melee focused classes" don't matter in this comparison. If someone in the group is making a character for a different role and is also infringing on yours, they're the one in the wrong, and rather than unending the entire paradigm of the game maybe you should just fix whatever they're using to infringe?OK. So not important.

Nope, still clear as mud. At best you seem to be presenting the idea that if anything is weaker than the most powerful option, it must be buffed until it matches the most powerful option, and said most powerful option can be drawn from any published material including those which are obviously more powerful than those that came before them, and can include classes from other roles. Those are all ideas implied from your post. And yes, I'd like to think your cognitive capabilities are enough to see that "balancing" a game based on all of those simultaneously is impossible.Nope. I believe you can set your balance point for a game wherever you like along a scale between two very different extremes. I'm simply saying that if you allow that point to be too wide, you'll end up with serious issues. Adjusting the opposition for a reasonably balanced party is child's play for a reasonably experienced GM, regardless of whether the power level happens to be "level 1 commoners" or "ridiculously highly stacked mountains of rancid munchkin cheese", while doing it for a party including PCs with wildly different general capacities to face those challenges is most certainly not.

Apparently based on what is most "powerful," by your implication. Or, you know, based on tactical needs. Like if it's more important to stop a guy for a turn right now,= the most "powerful".

or reduce their damage output,= the most "powerful".

or get past them,= the most "powerful".

or capture them,= the most "powerful".

or prevent them from attacking someone else.= the most "powerful". Seems like we were indeed talking about exactly the same thing. :smallsmile:

No, these should not be coming up every fight, which seems to be what some people want.Ah, but the interesting bit is when they don't come up (when they're not the most powerful). And considering how rarely they seem to come up also in your games, as I suspected, why should a PC invest in any of the Improved feats?

I thought we just got past the part with the quibbling about simulationism. There may be "plenty of other ways," but they're also more complicated, and aren't tactical. You're probably thinking stuff like "armor as DR"- great, now everything is more reliant on magic to get past the DR, or you have to print a bunch of DR-penetrating stuff to fix your fix, and the vast majority of monsters that were not designed for that are going to need to be re-designed, nice fix.No. I wasn't thinking of DR. (And actually, AC is probably often just as good or even better simulation of RL armor, at least of the heavier types.) For example Ars Magica has, in this specific regard, actually plenty more realistic rules which instead balances higher protection with greater exertion. In short, the higher the AC, the higher the Con/Stamina you need to keep fighting without taking increasing penalties. And it can have a most significant tactical impact, just as in RL. Not that I think 3.5/PF needs this, of course.

Now who's against heroic combat?If you don't mind, I'm putting this particular discussion to rest, since it appears it's not going anywhere. But I'll just remind you that I have never even so much as implied that I want the size related rules more realistic, but have actually said I explicitly want them even less realistic. Because you know, heroic combat. So why are saying this?

So you take every instance of the word "can" as "always do?"Then can you give some examples of caster features besides casting that aren't "feature bloat" and aren't found in the 3.5 PHB?

Was there even a significant 3.5 playtest? Just because bloat is iconic doesn't mean it's not bloat.Uhm... Sort of three years of it? But regardless, this is irrelevant, because you're trying to impose stuff from a playtest of different game. Especially in the case of PF.

Well if it's a full caster whose only change is a "shorter" spell list, and their features aren't any more powerful than the PHB casters' features, then shouldn't it be?Eh? Is power suddenly the only worthwhile difference between classes? Of course it should be a different class. It does something no class in the PHB does! And it has its own archetypes! Rightly so, I might add. And for the third time: it's NOT "a full caster whose only change is a "shorter" spell list", the witch is a combination of class features, all of them different in some way from those of a wizard. Please put that strawman away, he's looking awfully tired.

Does the Witch fill this role with their spells? Pretty sure, yes. Does the Witch have as many spells as a Wizard? Yes. Does the Witch also have a bunch of extra staying power from Hexes? All signs point to yes. But I'll give you that maybe if you upgrade the default balance of everything from Wizard to Specialist Wizard, then the Witch is giving up a few slots (and feats) for those Hexes with are worth more than a few slots.I'll just remind you that I've never said a witch is "balanced" in, say, a game with 3.5 Fighters and Monks. Being less powerful than Wizards only says that if you think Wizards are OK in your game, then you'll most likely not find witches OP.

And no, the witch doesn't fill the role you've described as well as the wizard does.