Does Pathfinder have better class balance than D&D 3.5e?

[Katie Boundary]

Like at the very least, was some kind of effort made to nerf clerics and druids, and buff monks and fighters?

[Bartmanhomer]

Like at the very least, was some kind of effort made to nerf clerics and druids, and buff monks and fighters?

No it's the same as D&D 3.5.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes it does. Not perfect, but better.

For instance, they literally published a way for fighters to get more skill points, or for monks to get full BAB and pounce. Those are exactly common suggestions from forum users on how to buff/fix monks and fighters.

Bear in mind that PF's target audience is regular players, not high-optimizer splatbook-diving forum users. This is why PF fixes low-level spells like Glitterdust, and generally doesn't bother fixing 8th or 9th level spells because almost nobody plays at those levels anyway.

[Bartmanhomer]

Yes it does. Not perfect, but better.

Bear in mind that PF's target audience is regular players, not high-optimizer splatbook-diving forum users. This is why PF fixes low-level spells like Glitterdust and generally doesn't bother fixing 8th or 9th level spells because almost nobody plays at those levels anyway.

Agree to disagree. It still has the same balance problem as D&D 3.5. Maybe not as horrific but it still has problems.

[Kurald Galain]

Maybe not as horrific but it still has problems.

THERE you go. Since PF's balance is "not as horrific", that means it's better than 3E's. That's precisely what those words mean :smallamused:

[Bartmanhomer]

THERE you go. Since PF's balance is "not as horrific", that means it's better than 3E's. That's precisely what those words mean :smallamused:

But the wizards, clerics and druids are still Tier 1 in Pathfinder so haha. :tongue:

[EisenKreutzer]

Like at the very least, was some kind of effort made to nerf clerics and druids, and buff monks and fighters?

Effort was made. Was it 100% successful? No, but they did improve the weaker classes by giving them more class features and dealt with a few problematic spells.

The balance issues are still there, and for the most part the classes remain in their 3.5 tiers, but he improvement is noticeable.

[StSword]

There are also third party options that effect game balance.

Path of War (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/), a popular subsystem, is the pathfinder successor to Tome of Battle, as an example, buffs martials.

The popular subsystem Spheres of Power (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/using-spheres-of-power), which I kind of see as the pathfinder successor to the Warlock/Dragon Adept, aren't quite up there with standard vancian casting in power level. If nothing else, barring rituals, a spherecaster will not have a "spell for every occasion" like a wizard can. On the other hand, they will be able to do some of their tricks 24/7.

And those are just options.

If path of war doesn't do it for you, maybe Spheres of Might (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/using-spheres-of-might) will tickle your fancy, or the Stamina (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/stamina-and-combat-tricks-optional-rules/) like system from Books of Martial Action, or the ki feats system (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/legendary-games/ki-feats/).

If spheres of power doesn't do it for you, maybe you'd like wordcasters (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/words-of-power/).

So even if standard vanilla Pathfinder doesn't have the right balance for you, there are years of material to provide options to suit you better.

[Psyren]

THERE you go. Since PF's balance is "not as horrific", that means it's better than 3E's. That's precisely what those words mean :smallamused:

This. And while T1s are still T1, you can get Barbarians, Rogues and Fighters to T4 (even T3 in some cases) with archetypes.

Also, a PF T1 can't do anywhere near the shenanigans that a 3.5 one can. No Ice Assassin, no Teleport Through Time, no Mindrape, no Zodars etc.

[Bartmanhomer]

This. And while T1s are still T1, you can get Barbarians, Rogues and Fighters to T4 (even T3 in some cases) with archetypes.

Also, a PF T1 can't do anywhere near the shenanigans that a 3.5 one can. No Ice Assassin, no Teleport Through Time, no Mindrape, no Zodars etc.

I agree 3.5 T1 classes are extremely insane when they pull powerful spells.

[Malroth]

Pathfinder tier5s would fit in high tier 4, 3.5 wise
Pathfinder tier 1s would be low tier 2

Much higher floors Much lower cielings.

[False God]

Yes. Many high-power spells have been tuned down, and many low-tier classes have been given options and buffs. There are also a much wider range of viable half-casters and semi-magical martials. Also depends on if you're excluding 3.5 material, which does a lot to remove unbalanced options.

But Pathfinder also gave us the Summoner.

So....win some, lose some.

[Psyren]

But Pathfinder also gave us the Summoner.

Meh, T2 at best, and Unchained Summoner tones it down closer to T3.

[Faily]

Pathfinder tier5s would fit in high tier 4, 3.5 wise
Pathfinder tier 1s would be low tier 2

Much higher floors Much lower cielings.

More or less this.


PF took some absolute trash classes (Fighter, Monk, and Paladin to name some at the top of my head), and made them much better.

T1 are still powerful, but everyone else got much more to play around with out of the gate without diving around in 5 different splatbooks and obscure scources.

[Kitsuneymg]

The real gold for trying to balance classes in PF comes from the 2/3 casters they came up with.

Unchained summoner, bard, magus, and occultist take the narrative role of wizard. Inquisitor and warpriest do the cleric’s job. Hunter is a Druid. The various vigilante archetypes that get casting fall somewhere between those tropes. You can safely remove all the 9th level casters and be left with the same narrative tropes, just powered down dramatically.

Fighter is high t4, but can maybe make it to low 3 with a fbrswlee sip to flex item mastery AWT. Barbarian is solid 4. Unchained monk is still kinda low in 4, IMO, but there’s enough stacking options to make it solid 4. Unchained rogue is somewhere in the low to mid 4 too. But skills probably matter more in a game where no one casts above 6th level. Paizo paladin was always good in general and almost game breaking in the right circumstances.


In you insist on 1PP only, that’s the way to go, imo. For 3pp, Spheres it Power (no advanced talents) and Spheres of Might (all legendary talents) put everything into a tier 3-4 ball.

[Gnaeus]

I agree with consensus for the most part. It’s just a touch better. Mostly in stuff they fixed from 3.5 and the 2/3 casters. Bear in mind that Paizo isn’t really interested in how high op play breaks. And I question their own system mastery. They printed new T1s (witch, arcanist, S Shaman) and new T5s (Swashbuckler, Samurai). They nerfed Druid but buffed sorcerer to about the same degree. They printed classes for use that they don’t allow in their own organized play because they broke things. (Like gunslinger, which is T4, but in the right hands has ubercharger like abilities to demolish any level appropriate opponent who can be killed with bullets, while being useless if their trick doesn’t work). And the best new stuff is 3pp like Dreamscarred Press or Spheres of Power. But as a whole I think it’s better.

[Evil DM Mark3]

The main reason I prefer them (balance is not as desperate issue for my group) is the lack of dead levels and a greater feeling of class flexability. Even in the main book you have sorcerers who feel different because they gain differing abilities and spells other arcane casters may not be able to get, rogues get a lot of dirty tricks to play with, Domains feel genuinely significant parts of how you play a cleric, Paladins don't lose half their class utility in narrow spaces, figher is a class you might take to level 20 and still be looking forward to rather than just rolling d20 and adding 1 to a bunch of numbers etc.

Also, I would point out that the overall power level at any given level is a bit higher as a result. Level 5 3.5 wizard < Level 5 Pathfinder Wizard

[Gnaeus]

Also, I would point out that the overall power level at any given level is a bit higher as a result. Level 5 3.5 wizard < Level 5 Pathfinder Wizard

That isn’t really true. The 3.5 wizard has 11 less hp and is missing some special powers that are weaker than first level spells. But his glitterdust is better. His Hold Person is better. His Blink is better. And his Shivering Touch can one shot no save KO many opponents. So it’s complicated.

[Kurald Galain]

The main reason I prefer them (balance is not as desperate issue for my group) is the lack of dead levels and a greater feeling of class flexability.
Oh, definitely. Every class gets to make interesting choices right from level one, where in 3E they have to build to a prestige class with a long-term payoff.


Also, I would point out that the overall power level at any given level is a bit higher as a result. Level 5 3.5 wizard < Level 5 Pathfinder Wizard
Clearly. The infinite-use cantrips, better low-level familiars, arcane bond will do that for you. And most school abilites that aren't just a damage bolt are highly useful.

Remember how people always complain that low-level wizards are boring because they have to use a crossbow? Yeah, that will never happen in PF.

[Gnaeus]

Clearly. The infinite-use cantrips, better low-level familiars, arcane bond will do that for you. And most school abilites that aren't just a damage bolt are highly useful.

Remember how people always complain that low-level wizards are boring because they have to use a crossbow? Yeah, that will never happen in PF.

All true, but only one edition lets the wizard alter self to a dwarf ancestor for +18NA for 50 minutes at a time. Lower ceiling higher floor. Far from clear.

[Kurald Galain]

All true, but only one edition lets the wizard alter self to a dwarf ancestor for +18NA for 50 minutes at a time. Lower ceiling higher floor. Far from clear.
Yes in theory op, no on actual game tables. I mean seriously, things that are only legal because of a technicality or loophole, AND that almost no player would ever know about, AND that no sane DM would allow in the first place, are not a practical indicator of class power.

[Gnaeus]

Yes in theory op, no on actual game tables. I mean seriously, things that are only legal because of a technicality or loophole, AND that almost no player would ever know about, AND that no sane DM would allow in the first place, are not a practical indicator of class power.

Did WE use dwarf ancestor for +18 in our local campaigns? No. Did we use alter self for +8 AC? Yes! And glitterdust, blink, hold person. And Polymorph, once we hit 7. Practically every combat. Have I seen Dwarf Ancestor actually used in games? Also yes. I’ve played mid-high op RAW games.

[Rhyltran]

Personally I feel the most balanced way to play is combining aspects of both systems. As much as people bash monks and fighters in 3.5 with the right prestige classes and feats you can easily have either in a tier 3+ category with enough damage to delete any encounter your character can touch. While damage isn't the highest indicator because there are more relevant methods of ending fights it is something. Combine PF with 3.5 and you have more meaningful tools from low level martial play to high level martial play plus the ability to simply delete encounters with damage. Playing strictly PF and strictly 3.5 even with Path's improvements there are better high level play options. So I would encourage to play 3.P

[RedMage125]

This. And while T1s are still T1, you can get Barbarians, Rogues and Fighters to T4 (even T3 in some cases) with archetypes.

Also, a PF T1 can't do anywhere near the shenanigans that a 3.5 one can. No Ice Assassin, no Teleport Through Time, no Mindrape, no Zodars etc.
I frequently argue that the Core PF Fighter is already Tier 4 by JaronK's metric. This is due not only to changes to the Fighter class (gives them actual class abilities), but also to how some of the core rule changes affect the Fighter.

See, the Tier System only looks at the class itself, in sort of a vacuum. No single build or playstyle is taken into account. So even using 3.5e, it's possible to make a Fighter build that meets T4 guidelines as an individual build. But that's not what I mean about PF Fighters. I believe that they as a class meet T4 guidelines. And that's no even counting archetypes, because there's so many of those I can't even keep track. I am well aware of how good Lore Masters are, for example.

See, the core PF Fighter can -by level 7- do what no one else can. They can "Tumble" in Heavy Armor. There's some weapon mastery abilities in there, too. And their Class Skill List was explanded a bit. One of the things keeping the 3.5e Fighter in Tier 5 was that the Fighter had no defined "role" because he hads no real Class Abilities. Is he an archer? Is he a 2-weapon user? Is he a heavy-armor-wearing tank? The PF clearly defines the Fighter's role. He is a combat expert who can wear heavy armor better than anyone else.

But the rest of it comes from the changes to Core Rules. Everyone in PF gets a feat every odd level, and Fighters get a bonus feat every even one. That's a lot more feats. Now, a glut of feats by itself is not a great metric to judge a class' capabilities, because those feats could be almost anything (which goes back to my point about what a Fighter's "role" is).

The 3.5e Fighter suffered from the downside of what I have named Red Mage Fallacy*. RMF, essentially, states that "Versatility In Choice is not an advantage if that Choice cannot be changed". Kind of like how every non-human race in 4e got a +2 to TWO stats (which were fixed), but Humans only got a +2 to ONE (but it could be chosen). Once you chose, say, DEX, you were 2 points behind every other DEX race, because those races got a +2 to a second stat, so being able to choose which stat wasn't really an "advantage". Back to 3.5e/PF Fighters, they have all those feats, and some of them were very useful at low levels, but much weaker -even useless- at higher levels (looking at you, Great Cleave). Pathfinder gave everyone the opportunity, upon gaining a level, to retrain a single feat (as long as it isn't a prerequisite for another thing you have). This means that not only do PF Fighters get class abilities that help them do better in combat, not only do they get more feats than anyone else, but they can change out feats that are no longer useful, and get a better one (which can even be one you didn't qualify for before).

*It's not really named after me, I coined this on the old WotC forums, when I had a different handle. My current moniker actually shares the etymology with what I named this after, which is the character from 8-Bit Theater.

And on the T1 comment, a great deal of that could be eliminated from 3.5e as well by not allowing the Spell Compendium. I maintain, vehemently, that Forgotten Realms has a different balance point for spellcasters than Core. It's a very High-Magic setting. An Incantatrix is generally fine in FR, but you're also facing foes with Shadow Weave magic, and monsters like Phaerimms. A great deal of what was broken in the Spell Compendium was the inclusion of spells that were previously FR-exclusive. Although I think the specific spells you mentioned may not have been. I know I personally never had Frostburn, so I never had Ice Assassins, and I forbade the Spell Compendium, save for updated versions of spells found in other, DM(me)-approved sources (which was Core and most of the Complete X books). I also never had Zodars in my campaign world, lol. That creature was either a developer mistake, or it was intentionally created to abuse Shapechange.

That's just a bit of rambling on my part. I agree that PF T1s were not as horribly overpowered as 3.5e ones. My personal anecodotal experience was just that I managed to curb some of the very worst offenses when I ran 3.5e.

Pathfinder tier5s would fit in high tier 4, 3.5 wise
Pathfinder tier 1s would be low tier 2

Much higher floors Much lower cielings.

I disagree that PF T1 classes were "low Tier 2". Simply by virtue of what T2 even means. If you look at the JaronK Tier System, "Tier 2" is barely a distinct Tier in and of itself. It is specifically characterized by the spellcasting classes that share a spell list with the T1 classes, but are spontaneous casters. A Tier 2 class can do anything a T1 class can, but no single build can do everything that a T1 class can. Which would not be enough to be a distinct Tier in and of itself, but that the capabilities of T1 classes are so wildly overwhemling, that even being able to potentially do those things is enough to warrant a higher rating than Tier 3.

No, PF T1 classes are still prepared casters. Clerics and Druids still have access to their entire spell lists every day, and a wizard can still learn every spell in the world. Like I said to Psyren, those spells themselves were brought down a bit, so the cieling for those spells was lowered. But the spells that allowed a T1 class do "do absolutely everything" did not radically change that much.


Personally I feel the most balanced way to play is combining aspects of both systems. As much as people bash monks and fighters in 3.5 with the right prestige classes and feats you can easily have either in a tier 3+ category with enough damage to delete any encounter your character can touch.

It's important to remember that the Tier System is explicitly not about any one, specific build. After all, one could build a Wizard and exclusively take damage-dealing spells to be a "blaster", and you certainly wouldn't meet T1 guidelines (heck, you'd be worse than a Warmage, who has class features to help be a better blaster). And jaronK acknowledges that certain Fighter and Monk builds, with the right Feats and Prestige Classes, could escape the pit of Tier 5. Also, the person playing it makes a difference, because people are typically more familiar with some classes than others.

It is unfortunately not spelled out in this fashion, but one of the core assumtions of the Tier System is "Player > Build > Class". And the Tier System only even judges Class, because the other factors are so potentially wildly varied.

[Aotrs Commander]

I'd say yeah, in that at the least, it gives a lot of the classes that were weak some serious shoring up (which is why I've steadily yoinked more and more PF to slap on top of my 3.5). I don't agree with everything they've done (and what I did put me off looking at the better stuff), but increasingly, 3.Aotrs is "3.5 spells/psions/maneouvres bolted on to very nearly PF chassis for most classes except the primary casters, plus 3.5 feats with PF added on top."

(So you basically get 3.5 primary casters (cleric/druid/wizard/archivist) on top of Pretty Much Everything Else is very PF, Except Paladins and Fighters (of which the former I use a version of Seerow's Rebalanced - and I might take a good look at that when I alphabetically get this far in this stupid project of mine, and the latter of which my preferred fix was simple and homebrew (More Feats) which works fone for our paradigm.))

PF has had a LOT of very clever ideas, and I think it outweighs the few ones I thought were a little duff; a lot of the behind-the-scenes stuff is much better than 3.25, it's more polished.

If I had to choose between straight, unmodified 3.5 and PF, I might well consider the latter; fortunately, I'm just insane enought to go "nope, I'll do both at once, ta!"

[Doctor Awkward]

No.

Pathfinder essentially took the single biggest problems with 3.5-- spellcasters are too quadratic and martials are too linear-- and largely made it worse.

In the first place, nerfing "a spell" doesn't really do anything to affect a spellcaster's overall level of power if there still exists at least one more spell that also lets them win at that same spell level. Sure, it makes spellcasters less interesting in that they have fewer options they want to use but they aren't overall any less powerful because they now have to win by casting ghoulish hunger instead of finger of death. The fine folks at Paizo even added some spells at every level that remove enemies from combat entirely.

In addition, Pathfinder gives everyone more feats (which, for casters, translates into higher save DC's) and bonus ability scores (which means higher save DC's), raises the hit points of all caster classes, and hands out bonus features to all classes to encourage them not to prestige out. Specialist wizards in Pathfinder can freely use wands and scrolls from their "barred" schools and craft those items without penalty. They essentially don't even have spell selection limits any more.

Meanwhile, anything you would want to do with combat feats costs you more feats than than it ever did in 3.5-- more feats than you get additional feats-- The +4 bonus and free attack on a successful trip from Improved Trip has now been split into two feats, and it's additionally been nerfed into an Attack of Opportunity that eats the one you would get for the target standing back up. Also, they nerfed Power Attack.

...Yeah...

And apparently Cleave as written in 3.5 was also too powerful.

The other nerf to combat maneuvers involves the CMD/CMB system which takes what previously had been opposed checks and has you instead roll against a static number that is roughly equal to what the target would have gotten if they'd rolled a 15. By dedicating almost all of of your build resources it's very possible to build a character who will succeed most of the time (75-90%) on one single combat maneuver of your choice and be largely incapable outside of that. So if you want to, in Pathfinder you can make a guy who can succeed at grappling with essentially anything. Although I'm not sure why you would want to do that because grappling in Pathfinder is far less penalizing than it is in 3.5, now takes your move and standard action each round to maintain, and is still entirely shut down by the freedom of movement (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/freedom-of-movement/) spell (oh, hi there martial imbalance). So all in all, grappling seems to usually be a really bad plan for the grappler.

Also rogue's really got it in the earhole in terms of combat mobility, what with Tumbling now being based rolled against the CMD and thus making it impossible to succeed against at least a few monsters at every CR. Defensive spellcasting is not rolled against this number, naturally.

It's very telling to me that the best resources available to improve gameplay at a Pathfinder game were not published by Paizo. With those resources, the class balance is largely the same, though some classes have overall nudged up and down a little bit. But at the end of the day Pathfinder is a very neutral change when it comes to 3.5: for every one thing they did right there's at least one additional thing they did wrong.

[Asmotherion]

For an almost (as in as good as it can ever be) balance between casters and non casters 5e is the edition you're aiming for.

[Katie Boundary]

If I remember correctly, one of the major contributing factors to the "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" issue in 3.5e was the massive number of splatbooks in existence, and how most of these splatbooks had extra spells, deities, domains, etc. that benefitted casters while providing very little that helped non-casters. And Pathfinder, if I remember correctly, has a lot less such supplemental material.

Does Pathfinder have Divine Metamagic and other nonsense that uses turn/rebuke attempts as fuel? That was the main thing that broke Clerics.

[Willie the Duck]

If I remember correctly, one of the major contributing factors to the "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" issue in 3.5e was the massive number of splatbooks in existence, and how most of these splatbooks had extra spells, deities, domains, etc. that benefitted casters while providing very little that helped non-casters. And Pathfinder, if I remember correctly, has a lot less such supplemental material.

Does Pathfinder have Divine Metamagic and other nonsense that uses turn/rebuke attempts as fuel? That was the main thing that broke Clerics.

These are certainly factors at play, in that the expansion of options more readily benefits the more complex classes (and classes that choose spells are almost inherently the more complex) in that you can do more many-to-many combinations looking for optimal options. However, it's not like the Gate spell or natural caster feat (and bear forms) were in splatbooks. Clerics definitely do less of a good job of being 'fighting as well as fighters can, but also...' without splat support like you mention. However, they still could do it -- sure round 1-2 of a fight was dedicated to buffing (or you didn't buff as hard, or you used higher spell slots for quickened buffs instead). Splatbooks, however, also benefit martials -- in particular in having multiple ways of making a pounce-build or uber-charge build at least get really good at what a martial can do -- kill things through damage dealt.

[Doctor Awkward]

If I remember correctly, one of the major contributing factors to the "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" issue in 3.5e was the massive number of splatbooks in existence, and how most of these splatbooks had extra spells, deities, domains, etc. that benefitted casters while providing very little that helped non-casters. And Pathfinder, if I remember correctly, has a lot less such supplemental material.

Does Pathfinder have Divine Metamagic and other nonsense that uses turn/rebuke attempts as fuel? That was the main thing that broke Clerics.

You have that backwards.

3.0/3.5 Core contains the some of the most wildly imbalanced material in the entire edition.

Core is martials at their least capable when compared to spellcasters and also contains some of the most famously overpowered spells: grease, glitterdust, hold person, polymorph, scrying, teleport, gate, shapechange etc. All of that is found right on the SRD.

You can see this too with the additional base classes: martial ones are exceedingly weak early on and much more balanced as you get to the end of the 3.5 line and the designers had a better understanding of the system. Compared Hexblade in complete warrior to Duskblade in PHB2. The closer you get to the end of the line, and the further you get from core, the better the material is in general, eventually peaking for 3.5 martials in Tome of Battle.

It wasn't that supplememts didn't help martial characters. It was that they ALSO helped spellcasters who didn't need it in the first place.

[Rhedyn]

Yes and no. Default classes are closer to each other, but a 3.5 optimized fighter gets a lot closer to unoptimized source-book-capped casters than Pathfinders Core Rule Book only wizard vs Splat Fighter.

Rogues are way more useless in PF than 3.5.

PF suffers from numbers bloat and was more interesting when new content was coming out for. Now that both 3.5 and PF are dead, 3.5 is the more interesting system.

[EisenKreutzer]

PF suffers from numbers bloat and was more interesting when new content was coming out for. Now that both 3.5 and PF are dead, 3.5 is the more interesting system.

Only if you discount 3pp content, which is still coming out for PF1. It might be tempting to only consider Paizo content for PF1, but the reality is that 3pp is keeping PF1 alive the way PF1 was supposed to keep 3.5 alive.

[Gnaeus]

You have that backwards.

3.0/3.5 Core contains the some of the most wildly imbalanced material in the entire edition.

Core is martials at their least capable when compared to spellcasters and also contains some of the most famously overpowered spells: grease, glitterdust, hold person, polymorph, scrying, teleport, gate, shapechange etc. All of that is found right on the SRD.

You can see this too with the additional base classes: martial ones are exceedingly weak early on and much more balanced as you get to the end of the 3.5 line and the designers had a better understanding of the system. Compared Hexblade in complete warrior to Duskblade in PHB2. The closer you get to the end of the line, and the further you get from core, the better the material is in general, eventually peaking for 3.5 martials in Tome of Battle.

It wasn't that supplememts didn't help martial characters. It was that they ALSO helped spellcasters who didn't need it in the first place.

Awkward is correct. Note that probably the strongest 3.5 core martial is the Horizon Tripper, because among other things there just weren’t enough strong fighter feats to take.

If I were playing a game in which my class was randomly determined, and I drew fighter or monk, my system choice for balance would be 3.5 core<PF core<3.5 w/splats<PF w/splats<PF w/ DSP or Spheres.



Rogues are way more useless in PF than 3.5..

This is another ceiling/floor issue. If playing a pregen rogue I’ll take PF. Rogue talents are basically bonus feats. Better HP. Functionally better skills because of consolidation. And I can sneak attack almost anything. Unchained rogue is even better.

If I’m building the rogue then 3.5 gives me a ring of blinking to throw flasks of acid for touch sneak attacks all day long. I’ll be UMDing swift action wands from wand chambers in my gauntlets. And I think the PF version of darkstalker is actually DSP.

[Rhyltran]

It's important to remember that the Tier System is explicitly not about any one, specific build. After all, one could build a Wizard and exclusively take damage-dealing spells to be a "blaster", and you certainly wouldn't meet T1 guidelines (heck, you'd be worse than a Warmage, who has class features to help be a better blaster). And jaronK acknowledges that certain Fighter and Monk builds, with the right Feats and Prestige Classes, could escape the pit of Tier 5. Also, the person playing it makes a difference, because people are typically more familiar with some classes than others.

It is unfortunately not spelled out in this fashion, but one of the core assumtions of the Tier System is "Player > Build > Class". And the Tier System only even judges Class, because the other factors are so potentially wildly varied.

Oh absolutely. Fully agree with you there. I just feel people actually forget that. My point though is that if you combine both systems you end up with the same ceiling as 3.5 with the higher floor that Pathfinder gives. Allowing a better experience from 1-20 that transitions smoother than either system apart. Especially for martials. It makes it much easier to reach that "Tier 3" threshold in terms of breadth and customization. You can also pick the best of both worlds and of course as proven here on these forums time and time again with enough system mastery and customization you can make just about anything work.

[Silvercrys]

If I remember correctly, one of the major contributing factors to the "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" issue in 3.5e was the massive number of splatbooks in existence, and how most of these splatbooks had extra spells, deities, domains, etc. that benefitted casters while providing very little that helped non-casters. And Pathfinder, if I remember correctly, has a lot less such supplemental material.

Does Pathfinder have Divine Metamagic and other nonsense that uses turn/rebuke attempts as fuel? That was the main thing that broke Clerics.It has some stuff that uses Channel Energy (Pathfinder version of Turn/Rebuke) to do stuff but nothing like Divine Metamagic giving you Metamagic reduction (though in exchange there are some traits and things you can use to reduce Metamagic that never existed in 3.5)

They also don't have "real" Persistent Spell, the Pathfinder version isn't a 24 hour Extend Spell it just makes people roll twice against your spells with saving throws so there are pretty much zero all-day buffs except ones specifically designed to be that way like Mage Armor.

[Psyren]

I frequently argue that the Core PF Fighter is already Tier 4 by JaronK's metric. This is due not only to changes to the Fighter class (gives them actual class abilities), but also to how some of the core rule changes affect the Fighter.

See, the Tier System only looks at the class itself, in sort of a vacuum. No single build or playstyle is taken into account. So even using 3.5e, it's possible to make a Fighter build that meets T4 guidelines as an individual build. But that's not what I mean about PF Fighters. I believe that they as a class meet T4 guidelines. And that's no even counting archetypes, because there's so many of those I can't even keep track. I am well aware of how good Lore Masters are, for example.

See, the core PF Fighter can -by level 7- do what no one else can. They can "Tumble" in Heavy Armor. There's some weapon mastery abilities in there, too. And their Class Skill List was explanded a bit. One of the things keeping the 3.5e Fighter in Tier 5 was that the Fighter had no defined "role" because he hads no real Class Abilities. Is he an archer? Is he a 2-weapon user? Is he a heavy-armor-wearing tank? The PF clearly defines the Fighter's role. He is a combat expert who can wear heavy armor better than anyone else.

But the rest of it comes from the changes to Core Rules. Everyone in PF gets a feat every odd level, and Fighters get a bonus feat every even one. That's a lot more feats. Now, a glut of feats by itself is not a great metric to judge a class' capabilities, because those feats could be almost anything (which goes back to my point about what a Fighter's "role" is).

While you're right that they get a lot more feats on paper, in practice it's a bit trickier. CMD scales a lot faster than CMB, so you end up needing more resources (including feats) to stay on par with some foes. I think PF Fighters still come out ahead overall but it's not as wide a gap as it might first appear.

[Kurald Galain]

If I remember correctly, one of the major contributing factors to the "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" issue in 3.5e was the massive number of splatbooks in existence, and how most of these splatbooks had extra spells, deities, domains, etc. that benefitted casters while providing very little that helped non-casters.
Yes, that is entirely correct. Almost all of the hyper-op tricks that forums tend to take for granted require mixing spells (or items or feats, but mostly spells) from numerous different splatbooks.


Does Pathfinder have Divine Metamagic and other nonsense that uses turn/rebuke attempts as fuel? That was the main thing that broke Clerics.
No, it does not.


Rogues are way more useless in PF than 3.5.
That's nonsense. Rogues get numerous extra abilities, can sneak attack undead and plants right out of the gate, add debuffs to all their attacks, and can get spell-like abilities from class features.


For an almost (as in as good as it can ever be) balance between casters and non casters 5e is the edition you're aiming for.
Sure, but 3E and PF have way more character customization than 5E does.

[RedMage125]

While you're right that they get a lot more feats on paper, in practice it's a bit trickier. CMD scales a lot faster than CMB, so you end up needing more resources (including feats) to stay on par with some foes. I think PF Fighters still come out ahead overall but it's not as wide a gap as it might first appear.

Right, but as I said, it's not just the number of feats. It is primarily 1) the presence of actual class abilities, and 2) the fact that feats can be replaced.

[Faily]

That's nonsense. Rogues get numerous extra abilities, can sneak attack undead and plants right out of the gate, add debuffs to all their attacks, and can get spell-like abilities from class features.


Agreed. Rogue 20 in either system, I'll take Pathfinder's anyday. *Especially* if it's Unchained Rogue.

[Doctor Awkward]

Yes, that is entirely correct. Almost all of the hyper-op tricks that forums tend to take for granted require mixing spells (or items or feats, but mostly spells) from numerous different splatbooks.


That's equally nonsense.
I can create a far more overpowered and omni-capable arcane spellcaster using only the SRD than I could any non-spellcaster using any 1st-party 3.5 resource.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Others have gone into plenty of detail so I'll just throw my 2cp into the chorus.

Is PF1 better balanced than D&D3.5? Not really. Some of the most egregious excesses on both ends got snipped but the fundamental imbalance persists; it's a game where magic reigns supreme and while everyone gets access one way or another, the classes that access it directly through their primary class feature lord over the ones who have to buy it.

Honestly though: the two are very nearly the same thing. There's so little difference that porting stuff from one to the other in either direction is trivial. Personally, I have a strong preference for 3.5 but it's entirely a matter of minutia. You wouldn't have to put a gun to my head to get me to play PF as long as the group dynamics will otherwise be solid.

[Asmotherion]

Yes, that is entirely correct. Almost all of the hyper-op tricks that forums tend to take for granted require mixing spells (or items or feats, but mostly spells) from numerous different splatbooks.


No, it does not.


That's nonsense. Rogues get numerous extra abilities, can sneak attack undead and plants right out of the gate, add debuffs to all their attacks, and can get spell-like abilities from class features.


Sure, but 3E and PF have way more character customization than 5E does.

i agree. That's why i love both 3.5 and 5.

[Nihilarian]

For an almost (as in as good as it can ever be) balance between casters and non casters 5e is the edition you're aiming for.martial/caster balance is much better in 4e

[StreamOfTheSky]

No, basically as bad.
Most of the broken caster stuff taken away was replaced by something else, in some cases expanding access of a dirty trick to more primary casters than could use it before. Like the removal of 3E's Persistent Spell + turn undead shenanigans with the...ring of continuous casting or whatever its called.
In some cases, they added their own new overpowered stuff, like Samsarans being able to nab about 5 spells of any level from other class lists and add it to their own spell lists at that same level. Or Dazing Spell turning dozens of spells into potential Reflex save or lose options.

Meanwhile, the weakest core class in the game, the Monk, got nerfed. And Rogues, which were teetering just above low tier before, got badly nerfed as well to the point that numerous other classes do their jobs better than them. Supposedly Unchained fixed these problems, but I was mostly done w/ PF by then. And I did play a level 5 one shot game w/ Unchained rules and noted that the pre-made Monk was almost identical to the pre-made Summoner....'s pet Eidolon. Except the Eidolon came w/ an extra set of actions to cast Haste and stuff. So...didn't seem that fixed....

I mostly prefer to play as Rogue and martial artist / monk types along with lockdown builds. I vastly prefer 3E, it lets me do more cool stuff and feel useful at much lower level with much less resource investment, and without having to dunk 11 levels in Fighter (Pin Down) or 12 in Barbarian (Come and Get Me) to get combat abilities that used to be available to anybody. The casters are completely broken in both systems, so I'd at least rather play in the one where I can trip and lockdown effectively, get ranged sneak attack fairly easily, and typically only have to worry about save or lose hitting Fort and Will.

[Psyren]

Like the removal of 3E's Persistent Spell + turn undead shenanigans with the...ring of continuous casting or whatever its called.

Oh please, giving up your ring slots to persist a whopping two personal buffs (three if you also give up your neck slot) doesn't even come close to what DMM can do. Spare me.


In some cases, they added their own new overpowered stuff, like Samsarans being able to nab about 5 spells of any level from other class lists and add it to their own spell lists at that same level.

Right, because Shadow Miracles and Anyspell and Rainbow Servant etc etc weren't doing the same thing even easier?


Meanwhile, the weakest core class in the game, the Monk, got nerfed. And Rogues, which were teetering just above low tier before, got badly nerfed as well to the point that numerous other classes do their jobs better than them. Supposedly Unchained fixed these problems, but I was mostly done w/ PF by then.

Those classes got buffed beyond where they were in 3.5 long before Unchained came out.

If you're done with an edition, that kind of undermines your attempts to be authoritative about it, no? (Evidently.)

[Aotrs Commander]

Those classes got buffed beyond where they were in 3.5 long before Unchained came out.

Yeah, I'm confused by StreamOfTheSky statement, considering that I've been literally back-porting PF's nonprimarycaster classes almost verbatim to 3.5 as a major upgrade.

PF Monk's AC bonus is higher, the flurry attack bonus is considerably better (and it does not specifically forbid using TWF leaving it as open to intepretation as the old one), they get a couple of extra features, and the only thing I can think of that is a nerf technically is that their Ki strike (magic et al) only works if they reserve a Ki point instead of always and that Wholeness of Body only heals equal to monk level in one go (but you can heal more than twice if you used it more than once since you can use ki points to do it and assuming you has a 10 Wis, you could use it three times per day and still keep that one point left for Ki strike); everything else is the same or straight better.

In PF rogue's case, it's a very straight upgrade - HD to D8 (which I haven't taken myself, but I give the PCs max hit points anyway) and a new class feature rogue talent doofer evey other level (which at 10th plus can be used to select from any of the 3.5 rogue's special abilities, except you get five, not four, to pick from and a whole other larger list of better ones outside Improved Evasion, which I always felt was, aside from maybe crippling Blow), was the only one that wasn't largely crap). The only thing you could argue was a nerf was trapfinding no longer exclusively allows you to find traps (only exclusively allows you to find magic traps).

[Gnaeus]

Yeah, I'm confused by StreamOfTheSky statement, considering that I've been literally back-porting PF's nonprimarycaster classes almost verbatim to 3.5 as a major upgrade..

While I mostly agree, note that ^ is a bigger upgrade than just moving to PF. You get all the good stuff you mentioned, but 3.5 acrobatics, blink, polymorph, touch attack/sneak interaction.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah, I'm confused by StreamOfTheSky statement, considering that I've been literally back-porting PF's nonprimarycaster classes almost verbatim to 3.5 as a major upgrade.

PF Monk's AC bonus is higher, the flurry attack bonus is considerably better (and it does not specifically forbid using TWF leaving it as open to intepretation as the old one), they get a couple of extra features, and the only thing I can think of that is a nerf technically is that their Ki strike (magic et al) only works if they reserve a Ki point instead of always and that Wholeness of Body only heals equal to monk level in one go (but you can heal more than twice if you used it more than once since you can use ki points to do it and assuming you has a 10 Wis, you could use it three times per day and still keep that one point left for Ki strike); everything else is the same or straight better.

In PF rogue's case, it's a very straight upgrade - HD to D8 (which I haven't taken myself, but I give the PCs max hit points anyway) and a new class feature rogue talent doofer evey other level (which at 10th plus can be used to select from any of the 3.5 rogue's special abilities, except you get five, not four, to pick from and a whole other larger list of better ones outside Improved Evasion, which I always felt was, aside from maybe crippling Blow), was the only one that wasn't largely crap). The only thing you could argue was a nerf was trapfinding no longer exclusively allows you to find traps (only exclusively allows you to find magic traps).
The nerfs to monk and especially rogue are within the rules system itself, as Gnaeus mentioned. If you're porting the PF classes to the 3.5 rules system, it is a slight upgrade, for the most part (some things still are nerfed especially with monk, like flurry of blows no longer working w/ additional natural weapons and the speed boost being useless at higher levels b/c it's land speed only).


Oh please, giving up your ring slots to persist a whopping two personal buffs (three if you also give up your neck slot) doesn't even come close to what DMM can do. Spare me.



Right, because Shadow Miracles and Anyspell and Rainbow Servant etc etc weren't doing the same thing even easier?



Those classes got buffed beyond where they were in 3.5 long before Unchained came out.

If you're done with an edition, that kind of undermines your attempts to be authoritative about it, no? (Evidently.)

An overly hostile Psyren post when I have something critical to say about PF, how surprising. :smallsigh:
I abandoned PF once a 3E game became available specifically because I hated what PF had done to my favorite non-caster classes and fighting styles. So yes, I consider it pretty relevant what my views on it are.
My argument w/ the ring wasn't that it was stronger than DMM Persist. It's that it opens up that abuse to way more full casters. I think I made that statement rather clearly.
Samsaran's thing is available at level 1 onwards as a racial feature w/ no effort at all required. So yeah, I'm gonna say it's easier than those PrC methods you mentioned.

And in general, I'm going to once again point out: I never said anywhere in that post that casters are even more powerful than in 3E. You're making that argument to try and discredit my post.
I said they're pretty indistinguishably broken in both systems and provided just a few examples, because "PF at least nerfed the casters a bit" is a common and false accolade given to the system. They nerfed some things, left some things the same, and added in various new toys of their own that are overpowered. Do I need to make a list of some things they nerfed so my post is "fair and balanced" or something? The PF defenders can do that.
I said casters are completely overpowered in both, but at least in 3E I can do all the fun melee combat stuff I enjoy without waiting to very high levels and following a specific class all the way, nor do I need to invest as many feats to do it (PF gave more feats, but martial stuff was split up and caster feats were not, so the relative effect is feeling like you have less feats than your caster pals by comparison).

Tumble in PF is a suicide pact, so flanking for SA is more dangerous and Gods help me if I want to do hit and run.
I can't full attack grapple anymore.
Trip is much harder to pull off.
Bull Rush takes 3 feats and BAB +6 to give a benefit you got in 3E w/ no feats at all (cause the foe's movement to provoke AoOs).
All the combat maneuver feat chains require level 6 or more and an additional feat to "complete".
Grease and Blinking don't give me an easy way to generate ranged SA anymore.
I can't SA with flasks anymore, either.

Not a full list of what was lost/nerfed, but you get the idea. And the "you" in this case being others reading this, b/c I've laid out these complaints to Psyren before and he doesn't really care.

[Psyren]

I'd care if your complaints were accurate or even meaningful. "Persisting two 10 min./level buffs at the cost of your ring slots is every bit as heinous as DMM Persist" is neither; it's not even hyperbole, it's just wrong. And reacting calmly and civilly to these falsehoods has clearly done nothing to correct you for years, so I can only hope that other folks view your canards with the needed skepticism. Certainly I'm not out to convince any who, like you, have made up their minds to hate something they don't actually understand.

[Aotrs Commander]

Grease and Blinking don't give me an easy way to generate ranged SA anymore.

Acrobatics seems to still make you flatfooted and denied your dex when balancing in PF, so I can't see any difference to Grease aside from it explictly says what 3.x Grease implied, but not stated, i.e. that a creature that doesn't move doesn't need a balance check. (Since you only need to make a balance check if you move, which standing up and standing still isn't - and you'd need AoO or a ready action to hit them while moving.) (Obviously, standing still means you need to make the save or fall prone.) If your DM has been allowing you to have the enemy make balance checks and be flat-footed while just stood in Grease, I would say they've been extremely generous. Grease is plenty good enough without that extra help.


I can't SA with flasks anymore, either.

In fairness to PF's logic, I have never have allowed that in 3.5 at the best of times, myself, nor would have even if the rules had very explictly allowed it.



(Conversely, the flanking rules I use say that if the target's flanked, it's flanked for all allies, not just the flankers, so generating ranged SA just means working with your party a bit.)



Flurry, incidently, was one of the things I didn't bring over from PF, since I'd already fixed it to my own satisfaction (Monk = full bab and flurry gives you extra attacks explictly on a standard or full-attack action, which means the monk and only the monk get to wander over with a move and punch someone two or three times.)



Agreed on the combat maneouvres, though; I have toyed with the idea of moving to their system, but I haven't, on the basis that some of the opposed checks are hard enough without adding monster BAB into the proceedings. (I have nicked the terminogy, though, since it beats writing it all out every time). For the moment, I've just ported PF's "greater" feats (and all the extra combat maneouvres) over (so the greaters add another +2 on top of the +4 the improved feats give you (which also give you a +2 on checks to resist them being done to you now) and we'll see how we go. (Wouldn't ever make tumble based CMD, though, that's way too harsh for my taste. Starfinder's bad enough, as I found myself last night, given I can't tumble while making a trick attack, and I'm at the point the DC is not much worse than 15...)

That said, I actually ended-up re-writing the grapple rules entirely (more 3.5 than PF, but some PF elements as well1, since I didn't think either set was really quite good enough - or at least, not well-phased enough.

(Technically a slight nerf to Bull Rush, since I took out the provoking AoO rules because a) can't be arsed with rolling for the 25%s and b) I don't think we ever remembered to use those anyway when someone was bull rushed anyway, I don't think it matters. Again, we'll see how it goes when I DM again; I can always change my mind later.)



1E.g. "Grappled" is now a condition (but essentially the same as being grappled in 3.5, just codified); the distinction is made between grappler and target; as the grappler, you do have maintain the grapple now (you don't use a seperate action, but you HAVE to make an action from a subset of the grappling actions list as your first grapple action or the grapple ends); and you can use a grapple check to take control of the grapple (which means you can be the one that gets to let go when you want).

[Gnaeus]

I’d honestly rather not play a monk in either edition. But if I did and I was really worried about natural attack/flurry interaction I’d still rather play PF and waste a feat (really 2 feats) on Feral Combat Training to be able to use unchained or qinggong/hungry ghost and get decent class features.

[Kurald Galain]

Like the removal of 3E's Persistent Spell + turn undead shenanigans with the...ring of continuous casting or whatever its called.
LOL really? Three Rings of Continuation are charitably available at level 17 at the earliest. DMM shenanigans come online at level five, and works with spells like Haste, which is neither 10 minutes, nor personal range.


If you're done with an edition, that kind of undermines your attempts to be authoritative about it, no? (Evidently.)
Precisely.


Agreed on the combat maneouvres, though; I have toyed with the idea of moving to their system, but I haven't, on the basis that some of the opposed checks are hard enough without adding monster BAB into the proceedings.
PF also has traits, items, and racial abilities that improve CMB and don't exist in 3.5. I'm aware that PF maneuvers have a bad reputation, but this is only valid if you ignore all the books after the PHB1.

[Aotrs Commander]

PF also has traits, items, and racial abilities that improve CMB and don't exist in 3.5. I'm aware that PF maneuvers have a bad reputation, but this is only valid if you ignore all the books after the PHB1.

Sure, but that just means you need to have a much great investment in available resources to be able to do a CM sensibly, otherwise it might as well read "chance of success = no" past low-level if you haven't invested; you don't get THAT many more feats to play with. (And I also have to go through all pof PF to import the feats, and items...)

(Also, apparently CMD gets increased by pretty much anything in increases AC, too, ouch...)

So, between that the specter of having to go through the entire bestidary AND all the feats and spells AGAIN means that I decided that, no, we'll stick with 3.5's opposed checks for the moment.

(Maybe when I actually get around to playing Pathfinder:Kingmaker, it'll change my mind, who knows...)

[Psyren]

(Also, apparently CMD gets increased by pretty much anything in increases AC, too, ouch...)


Almost; "passive" sources of AC (i.e. Armor, Shield and Natural) don't count. I do agree with your broader point though - CMB needs a lot of investment to keep up with CMD, and it's why I'm in favor of consolidating various feats (see sig) and items.

[Efrate]

Cmd and cmb also are affected by anything that boosts or penalizes attack roles, ac, or stats. A flat footed opponent doesn't get their dex to cmd for example which can be a huge numbers swing. You also get a +2 for flanking for example.

I think the feat tree should just be improved x goes to greater or whatever at bab or character level y, then to whatever further feat if thete is one which gives a better/different bonus/effect.

It tends to require a bit more coordination with your team but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Wizard debuffing, cleric buffing, rogue flanking sneak attacking and maybe AoOing a couple times with combat reflexes is a perfectly fine playstyle. It is not the most effective but it handles most issues reasonably well. It is not as efficient as caster casts 1 spell and the encounter is effectively over, but it lets you work as a team and not try to hog all the spotlight.

That problem is somewhat nerfed in pathfinder but it does still pop up.

[Kurald Galain]

Sure, but that just means you need to have a much great investment in available resources to be able to do a CM sensibly, otherwise it might as well read "chance of success = no" past low-level if you haven't invested;
If you do the math, turns out this is incorrect.

Level 10 character vs 11 HD monster? That's +10 BAB, +2 class features (like fighter weapon training or barbarian rage), +7 str (or dex), +3 magic weapon, +2 trait, +4 those feats, +2 gauntlets... that's +30 to hit.
+30 vs average CMB of 34 means you hit 85% of the time, not counting flanking or common party buffs. Heck, you can leave out one of the feats and still hit 75% of the time (90% with haste and a flank buddy, OR if there's a bard in the party). Yeah, I'd say that's pretty effective.


(Also, apparently CMD gets increased by pretty much anything in increases AC, too, ouch...)
Yes, and CMB gets increased by pretty much anything that increases attack rolls. So that evens out.

[Silvercrys]

Ring of Continuation was errataed to only work on spells with a duration of 10 minutes per level, anyway, and also you can't even use two or three of them without shenanigans because casting any personal range spell causes the continued spell to be... discontinued.

At really high level you can persist Shapechange with it which is probably up there with most 3.5 rules abuses, but until you get Shapechange the abuses have been curbed pretty heavily -- so much so the ring probably isn't even worth the cost. Only spells really worth putting in it is Freedom of Movement and you can just buy a ring of that and still get to cast your Personal range spells.

[Psyren]

Yes, and CMB gets increased by pretty much anything that increases attack rolls. So that evens out.

Not quite - a lot of boosts to attack rolls affect your weapon, so maneuvers that use your weapon like Sunder or Trip can benefit from these, but others like Grapple and Dirty Trick don't. In addition, monsters tend to get much bigger than PCs, so you typically start off at a disadvantage even before you get to BAB and AC.

I'm not saying the gap is insurmountable, far from it - but I am in favor of trimming the fat as far as PF feats in part because of this kind of inherent discrepancy.


Ring of Continuation was errataed to only work on spells with a duration of 10 minutes per level, anyway, and also you can't even use two or three of them without shenanigans because casting any personal range spell causes the continued spell to be... discontinued.

At really high level you can persist Shapechange with it which is probably up there with most 3.5 rules abuses, but until you get Shapechange the abuses have been curbed pretty heavily -- so much so the ring probably isn't even worth the cost. Only spells really worth putting in it is Freedom of Movement and you can just buy a ring of that and still get to cast your Personal range spells.

On top of that, PF Shapechange is hella weaker than 3.5 anyway. By being very specific about the abilities you get from your chosen forms, you avoid things like Zodar and Solar abuse.

[Gnaeus]

At really high level you can persist Shapechange with it which is probably up there with most 3.5 rules abuses, but until you get Shapechange the abuses have been curbed pretty heavily -- so much so the ring probably isn't even worth the cost. Only spells really worth putting in it is Freedom of Movement and you can just buy a ring of that and still get to cast your Personal range spells.

Not really sure how abusive that is. Shapechange is a decent spell (although only a shadow of its 3.5 self) but moving it from “always on when I am remotely concerned about danger” to “always on, can’t cast personal spells” doesn’t sound like a huge improvement to me.

[Kurald Galain]

Not quite - a lot of boosts to attack rolls affect your weapon, so maneuvers that use your weapon like Sunder or Trip can benefit from these, but others like Grapple and Dirty Trick don't.
Other than the magic weapon itself (or GMW), pretty much anything I can think of affects all attack rolls.

So that drops your accuracy to 70% before party buffs and flanking... that's still decent by my book. There are also ways to dirty trick or grapple with a weapon anyway.


In addition, monsters tend to get much bigger than PCs, so you typically start off at a disadvantage even before you get to BAB and AC.
That's not true. Average CMB at that level is 34 after taking size into account. Now it is true that a maneuver build probably wants a way to enlarge himself; but this is true for most melee builds in general.

[Psyren]

Other than the magic weapon itself (or GMW), pretty much anything I can think of affects all attack rolls.

Weapon Training (and similar abilities like Divine Bond, Arcane Pool, Sacred Weapon etc.) account for another +5, plus Weapon Focus, so you're further behind than you think unless we're talking about something general like a Barbarian. Again, not insurmountable, but it's still a gap you need build resources to bridge - an unnecessary amount of them, in my opinion.



That's not true. Average CMB at that level is 34 after taking size into account. Now it is true that a maneuver build probably wants a way to enlarge himself; but this is true for most melee builds in general.

At what level? I don't remember listing one.