Rules you never realized were different between 3.5 and Pathfinder?

[atemu1234]

I've been GMing Pathfinder for a few years now, and 3.5 for a few more before that, so I guess I never really compared/contrasted the way that I should have. Like just a couple weeks ago, one of my players pointed out how Regeneration works in Pathfinder is different from 3.5, I never realized.


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#regeneration][/url] Creatures with this extraordinary ability recover from wounds quickly and can even regrow or reattach severed body parts. Damage dealt to the creature is treated as nonlethal damage, and the creature automatically cures itself of nonlethal damage at a fixed rate per round, as given in the creature’s entry.

Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, deal damage to the creature normally; that sort of damage doesn’t convert to nonlethal damage and so doesn’t go away. The creature’s description includes the details. A regenerating creature that has been rendered unconscious through nonlethal damage can be killed with a coup de grace. The attack cannot be of a type that automatically converts to nonlethal damage.

Creatures with regeneration can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts. Severed parts die if they are not reattached.

Regeneration does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation.

Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore regeneration.

An attack that can cause instant death only threatens the creature with death if it is delivered by weapons that deal it lethal damage.

A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.


https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules/]Regeneration[/url] (Ex)

A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0). Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature’s regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally. The creature’s descriptive text describes the types of damage that cause the regeneration to cease functioning.

Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Regenerating creatures can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts if they are brought together within 1 hour of severing. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally.

A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.

Format: regeneration 5 (fire, acid); Location: hp.

Does anyone else have any of these little changes that they missed because they weren't looking?

[Condé]

I saw the title and I was going to talk about regeneration.

It seems I do not have to.

Beside that, it's not I did not know... But After playing pf1e for a while I "forgot" about 3.5 rules and assumed it works the same.

I relearned very recently it wasn't the case.

[Shockwave]

Don't know if these count, but Concentrations checks are different between the two.

Also, Comprehend Languages, one works like you would expected it to, the other is near worthless.

[Biggus]

Also, Comprehend Languages, one works like you would expected it to, the other is near worthless.

The only difference I can see between the two is "you must touch the creature or the writing" in the 3.5 version. Is that what you think makes it worthless or have I missed something?

[aimlessPolymath]

In PF1e, weapons with a high enough enhancement bonus ignore certain types of damage reduction.



Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.
DR Type Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent
Cold Iron/Silver +3
Adamantine* +4
Alignment-based +5

[glass]

For about the first five years of Pathfinder, I was running across newly discovered changes almost constantly. I am pretty sure I eventually got them all, but these days I tend to get tripped up the other way - I remember the PF1 version but forget how it used to work.

One example that came up in a recent thread was point buy costs - I remembered that the 3.5 scale was different from PF1 but not how it was different.

[Maat Mons]

I recently looked a Pathfinder Lycanthropes for the first time. I was surprised to see no mention of the Base Animal's hit dice.

[Greenflame133]

One of the smallest differences, is how PF allows you to sunder worn armour, while 3.5e doesn't. I'm yet to see anyone using sunder manurer

Anoher one is how in PF whetstone has a mechanical use. The bonus is tiny, but it's there. Still, I'm yet to see anyone using a whetstone

[Darg]

One of the smallest differences, is how PF allows you to sunder worn armour, while 3.5e doesn't. I'm yet to see anyone using sunder manurer

Anoher one is how in PF whetstone has a mechanical use. The bonus is tiny, but it's there. Still, I'm yet to see anyone using a whetstone

3.5e allows sunder to work on any carried or worn object. It can be much easier to destroy armor than to try to attack through it.

[Maat Mons]

The very last sentence in the section on Sunder on page 158 is "You can’t sunder armor worn by another character..

[Darg]

The very last sentence in the section on Sunder on page 158 is "You can’t sunder armor worn by another character..

Ok, well, dang. I've been doing it wrong.

[Greenflame133]

Ok, well, dang. I've been doing it wrong.
Don't worry, you are far from the only one

[Darvin]

As a Pathfinder GM that occasionally has people more familiar with 3.5 join my games, one of the ones I notice comes up a lot is the Protection from Evil spell. In 3.5 the protection it offered against mental control worked irrespective of the alignment of the enemy spellcaster, but in Pathfinder it only works if the spellcaster is evil. It doesn't come up that often in practice since most antagonists are evil, but when it does come up I find that a lot of classic 3.5 players are unaware of that change.

There's actually one change that a lot of Pathfinder players are unaware of, and that's the Sneak Attack rules for the Unchained Rogue. A single word was added and a lot of people missed it, but it has big ramifications:


The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment.

[Shockwave]

The only difference I can see between the two is "you must touch the creature or the writing" in the 3.5 version. Is that what you think makes it worthless or have I missed something?

In my experience it is used in the following situations

To spy on someone
To read through a bunch of foreign documents

Can't really "touch" someone if you trying to spy on them, and while a book will count, there is a reasonable argument to say that multiple sheets/ scrolls do not.

Using it to have a conversation with someone doesn't work, because who in their right mind will let them touch you after casting a spell, if you haven't explained to them what you're doing first?

[animewatcha]

I've been GMing Pathfinder for a few years now, and 3.5 for a few more before that, so I guess I never really compared/contrasted the way that I should have. Like just a couple weeks ago, one of my players pointed out how Regeneration works in Pathfinder is different from 3.5, I never realized.





Does anyone else have any of these little changes that they missed because they weren't looking?

Slightly side question relating to regeneration and desiccation damage. if Troll was hit with desiccation damage (no fire or acid), would the troll suffer lethal (due to thirst/water requiring) or non-lethal?

[Darg]

In my experience it is used in the following situations

To spy on someone
To read through a bunch of foreign documents

Can't really "touch" someone if you trying to spy on them, and while a book will count, there is a reasonable argument to say that multiple sheets/ scrolls do not.

Using it to have a conversation with someone doesn't work, because who in their right mind will let them touch you after casting a spell, if you haven't explained to them what you're doing first?

Comprehend Languages is a low level spell and doesn't allow you to speak or write the language. So no conversation regardless unless both have the spell cast on them. There is a perfect spell that does exactly what you want though: Tongues.

[RNightstalker]

In PF1e, weapons with a high enough enhancement bonus ignore certain types of damage reduction.

Let's face it: DR was much better in 3.0.

[KillianHawkeye]

One that took me by surprise a few years ago was that incorporeal creatures in Pathfinder take half damage from magical sources rather than a 50% chance of taking the damage.

[Darg]

Let's face it: DR was much better in 3.0.

DR feels hollow in 3.5. There's never enough of it to feel like it's impactful.

[Biggus]

and while a book will count, there is a reasonable argument to say that multiple sheets/ scrolls do not.


What are argument is that? I can't see anything in either version which says it only works on one creature or piece of writing.


Comprehend Languages is a low level spell and doesn't allow you to speak or write the language. So no conversation regardless unless both have the spell cast on them. There is a perfect spell that does exactly what you want though: Tongues.

Also this.

[Crake]

Comprehend Languages is a low level spell and doesn't allow you to speak or write the language. So no conversation regardless unless both have the spell cast on them. There is a perfect spell that does exactly what you want though: Tongues.

Tongues doesnt make you a polyglot though. You still cant read things, and it doesnt actually allow you to speak any language, but rather, it allows you to be understood. This means its not as useful as you think, if youre trying to infiltrate a place, and posing as a native, but then start speaking in a foreign tongue to people that they strangely can understand, people will rightly be suspicious

[Darg]

Tongues doesnt make you a polyglot though. You still cant read things, and it doesnt actually allow you to speak any language, but rather, it allows you to be understood. This means its not as useful as you think, if youre trying to infiltrate a place, and posing as a native, but then start speaking in a foreign tongue to people that they strangely can understand, people will rightly be suspicious


This spell grants the creature touched the ability to speak and understand the language of any intelligent creature, whether it is a racial tongue or a regional dialect.

It specifically grants you the ability to speak their language. There might be some lore somewhere that says otherwise, but the letter of the description says it does.

[RNightstalker]

DR feels hollow in 3.5. There's never enough of it to feel like it's impactful.

Never enough of it and it's too easy to overcome. 3.0 Wyrm Red Dragon? 20/+3... 3.5 Red Dragon: 20/magic...a freaking +1 sword breaks through DR for a dragon older than ancient...Don't get me started on epic DR:furious:

[atemu1234]

Never enough of it and it's too easy to overcome. 3.0 Wyrm Red Dragon? 20/+3... 3.5 Red Dragon: 20/magic...a freaking +1 sword breaks through DR for a dragon older than ancient...Don't get me started on epic DR:furious:

That's one thing that's always irritated me, too. Part of me has wanted to have material damage reduction be a flat #/-, and give them Vulnerability to that material instead.

[Crake]

It specifically grants you the ability to speak their language. There might be some lore somewhere that says otherwise, but the letter of the description says it does.

Hmm, must be mixing it up with another edition then xD irony of doing that in this thread

[Olive_Sophia]

I realized this a while back, but for a time I didn't know that Pathfinder had greatly limited the effectiveness of size bonuses (probably because it was hidden away in the FAQ).


Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

This has a pretty big impact for monk builds and other natural attack focused concepts. In 3.5 you were able to stack several effective size increases, and you could use the provided table to figure out what your damage die would be. You can even extend the table further because the increases are logically consistent. This was a pretty efficient way of increasing the damage of unarmed strikes or natural attacks. You'd end up with a lot of base damage on your attacks, and a lot of attacks. This wasn't quite as good as the ubercharger style builds that stack bonus damage, but it was at least respectable. Pathfinder puts a strict limit on this, which sounds fair, but it ends up being a bit of a bummer for me.

[Darg]

I realized this a while back, but for a time I didn't know that Pathfinder had greatly limited the effectiveness of size bonuses (probably because it was hidden away in the FAQ).



This has a pretty big impact for monk builds and other natural attack focused concepts. In 3.5 you were able to stack several effective size increases, and you could use the provided table to figure out what your damage die would be. You can even extend the table further because the increases are logically consistent. This was a pretty efficient way of increasing the damage of unarmed strikes or natural attacks. You'd end up with a lot of base damage on your attacks, and a lot of attacks. This wasn't quite as good as the ubercharger style builds that stack bonus damage, but it was at least respectable. Pathfinder puts a strict limit on this, which sounds fair, but it ends up being a bit of a bummer for me.

Oh yeah, this one is a big bummer for me too. They kept the original size increases specifically for the monk's unarmed damage feature size table, but once you're off of that you have to use the crappy version. Swapping between d6s and d8s is really really annoying from an intuitiveness standpoint. Then again pathfinder has a lot of extra bonuses that 3.5 did not. So I guess it's fair on the whole, but doesn't mean I have to like it. Then again pathfinder monk feels weaker than 3.5 monk. I haven't exactly tried it but most of the changes seem to simply compensate for changes in the system itself, but don't quite hit it. For example, the full BAB for FoB doesn't close a gap vs fighter with weapon training. +0 actual AB isn't worth losing unlimited +1-2 attacks. Not to mention it cuts off the ability to take TWF yourself. The reduction in size increases for damage die also hurts monk because that is one of the most effective ways to increase your damage. The only good thing monk got was the ki pool (excluding the extra attack that should be free).

[Greenflame133]

Oh yeah, this one is a big bummer for me too. They kept the original size increases specifically for the monk's unarmed damage feature size table, but once you're off of that you have to use the crappy version. Swapping between d6s and d8s is really really annoying from an intuitiveness standpoint. Then again pathfinder has a lot of extra bonuses that 3.5 did not. So I guess it's fair on the whole, but doesn't mean I have to like it. Then again pathfinder monk feels weaker than 3.5 monk. I haven't exactly tried it but most of the changes seem to simply compensate for changes in the system itself, but don't quite hit it. For example, the full BAB for FoB doesn't close a gap vs fighter with weapon training. +0 actual AB isn't worth losing unlimited +1-2 attacks. Not to mention it cuts off the ability to take TWF yourself. The reduction in size increases for damage die also hurts monk because that is one of the most effective ways to increase your damage. The only good thing monk got was the ki pool (excluding the extra attack that should be free).
3.5e monk wasn't super strong either. The realy big things for PF monk is the unchained monk, since it has full BaB. On top of that PF gives you relatively easy acess to enhancement bonus on unarmed attacks, main two optsions being handwrap and parmentet greater magic fang. You could even mix and match magic fang with handwraps wraps with special properties

[Darg]

3.5e monk wasn't super strong either. The realy big things for PF monk is the unchained monk, since it has full BaB. On top of that PF gives you relatively easy acess to enhancement bonus on unarmed attacks, main two optsions being handwrap and parmentet greater magic fang. You could even mix and match magic fang with handwraps wraps with special properties

You can use gauntlets for enhancement bonuses too. 3.0 gauntlets are unarmed strikes and the only change 3.5 makes is that the weapon table has damage die instead of the -- thats on the 3.0 table.

3.5 monk is simply more reliant on consumables and party buffs. If uberchargers are ignored, the class has the highest ceiling in the game for damage output (8d8 UAS in core and 12d8 (or higher if you extend the table) with additional books). Just like how wizards aren't great if you don't have access to scribing, monks just aren't going to be great if you don't have access to the magic mart or teammates that aren't willing to spend a few probably going to be unused slots per day on you. Monk also has access to high saving throws and the highest potential AC. Monk also has potential access to full BAB through wands of divine power. So yes, monk does have the lowest floor of the classes, but it's definitely not the weakest when optimized.

[atemu1234]

.5 monk is simply more reliant on consumables and party buffs. If uberchargers are ignored, the class has the highest ceiling in the game for damage output (8d8 UAS in core and 12d8 (or higher if you extend the table) with additional books). Just like how wizards aren't great if you don't have access to scribing, monks just aren't going to be great if you don't have access to the magic mart or teammates that aren't willing to spend a few probably going to be unused slots per day on you. Monk also has access to high saving throws and the highest potential AC. Monk also has potential access to full BAB through wands of divine power. So yes, monk does have the lowest floor of the classes, but it's definitely not the weakest when optimized.

Is it monday already?

The problem with your argument is that every core class can be broken when optimized. It's ceiling is lower because with the same amount of optimization, you can break about any other class more. Plus, even sticking to core only, a Wizard has the ability to scribe new spells into their spellbook, while a monk is up a river without a paddle (but at least it can push the boat half as well as anyone else as a class feature?).

[icefractal]

It's ceiling is lower because with the same amount of optimization, you can break about any other class more.Not IME, no. In 3.5E, their ceiling is similar to most other non-casters. In PF1, it's one of the higher ones (again, for non-casters), since uberchargers aren't really a thing and the Monk's Belt doesn't give Wis-to-AC.

[Darg]

It's ceiling is lower because with the same amount of optimization, you can break about any other class more.

Just stating it's ceiling is lower after I already claimed it's higher doesn't make it lower. A monk is just as capable of doing thousands of damage as that ubercharging barbarian is. Heck, it even retains a lot more damage even when not charging, has more AC, and has better saving throws.


Plus, even sticking to core only, a Wizard has the ability to scribe new spells into their spellbook, while a monk is up a river without a paddle (but at least it can push the boat half as well as anyone else as a class feature?).

Point was wizard is just as left out in the cold without access to scribing (you need to copy spells from some where) as a monk without access to a magic mart. IN core a monk has a much higher damage ceiling than any other martial other than a rogue. There just really isn't a comparison when 8d8 unarmed strikes with full BAB are on the table. The problem is that players don't optimize monk enough and then call it a crappy class because it takes work and support from the party and a magic mart.

[Maat Mons]

A monk is just as capable of doing thousands of damage as that ubercharging barbarian is. Heck, it even retains a lot more damage even when not charging, has more AC, and has better saving throws.

Let’s give some credit to the Barbarian. You have base saves of +12/+6/+6, then Mighty Rage gives +4 to Fort via the boosted Con and a +4 morale bonus to Will. If you’re using Steadfast Determination, Will also gets a +4 from the Con bonus of Mighty Rage. Then there’s the Devil’s Luck ACF to gain a +5 luck bonus to saves instead of DR. You’re looking at +23/+11/+19 before factoring in pre-Rage ability scores and magic items.

Alternately, you could give up that +5 luck bonus to saves and instead take the ACF that lets you charge multiple times in a round.




IN core a monk has a much higher damage ceiling than any other martial other than a rogue. There just really isn't a comparison when 8d8 unarmed strikes with full BAB are on the table.

Okay, I’ll bite. How do you get full base attack bonus on a Monk in a Core-only game?

[DrMartin]

3.5

When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you’ve accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not “real” damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you’re staggered, and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. It doesn’t matter whether the nonlethal damage equals or exceeds your current hit points because the nonlethal damage has gone up or because your current hit points have gone down.

[...]

When your nonlethal damage exceeds your current hit points,
you fall unconscious. While unconscious, you are helpless (see
Helpless Defenders, page 153).


Pathfinder has the same text, but then adds:

If a creature’s nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage. This does not apply to creatures with regeneration. Such creatures simply accrue additional nonlethal damage, increasing the amount of time they remain unconscious.

that means, you cannot die of nonlethal damage in 3.5, but you can kill someone by overshooting your nonlethal attempt at subduing them.

[Darg]

Let’s give some credit to the Barbarian. You have base saves of +12/+6/+6, then Mighty Rage gives +4 to Fort via the boosted Con and a +4 morale bonus to Will. If you’re using Steadfast Determination, Will also gets a +4 from the Con bonus of Mighty Rage. Then there’s the Devil’s Luck ACF to gain a +5 luck bonus to saves instead of DR. You’re looking at +23/+11/+19 before factoring in pre-Rage ability scores and magic items.

Alternately, you could give up that +5 luck bonus to saves and instead take the ACF that lets you charge multiple times in a round.

And monk can add an extra 5d6 damage or turn invisible/blink.


Okay, I’ll bite. How do you get full base attack bonus on a Monk in a Core-only game?

Wands of divine power. It's only a DC 20 check.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Wands of divine power. It's only a DC 20 check.

Ghosts of banned people past, come to my aid!

Something I'd like to point out on his UMD-ness.

The build relies on it, I think we all knew that. He can not reliably (I call it 'reliable' if you have a 75% chance to do it. That's been my bench mark for quite a while now, except when I decide it's 80%) succeed on UMD Checks for Wands until level 9.

He will never gain the ability to reliably UMD a first level scroll.

Also, PLEASE try not to assume you will get to spend multiple rounds buffing before every single fight. Anyone who's played D&D knows that that's a rarity.

There is a reason SirGiacomo is a meme and not an acclaimed optimizer.

[RNightstalker]

That's one thing that's always irritated me, too. Part of me has wanted to have material damage reduction be a flat #/-, and give them Vulnerability to that material instead.

Go on...

And now that I think about it, it only takes a +3 to overcome an epic CR? Yeah, I'm going OT here, gonna need to start a new thread.

[Kalkra]

Just skimmed the thread but I don't think this has been mentioned, PF does multiplication differently than 3.5.

PF:

When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

3.5:

When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (×2) and a double (×2) applied to the same number results in a triple (×3, because 2 + 1 = 3).

In other words, 3.5 applies additive multiplication to any abstract value, whereas PF only applies it to die rolls. This almost never matters, because most of the time the only thing that ever gets multiplied is damage, but you can find cases where it matters, like the spell Hero's Blade.

Also, on the topic of damage, crits work a bit differently:

PF:

Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue’s sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon qualities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit.

3.5:

Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit.

I'm not that familiar with PF, but I'm assuming there are sources of bonus damage dice that aren't precision damage or special weapon qualities, and those would be multiplied on a crit in PF but not 3.5.

[Darg]

Ghosts of banned people past, come to my aid!



There is a reason SirGiacomo is a meme and not an acclaimed optimizer.

Most of the buffs can last all day, or at the very least hours in advance. The only necessary ones that are on a round duration are divine power and polymorph, and polymorph is only wanted for the strength boost, possibly pounce, and size increase. On the other hand, greater mighty wallop lasts all day, so outside of core you only need polymorph if you build as a grappler or don't want to multiclass to grab pounce.

As for UMD, it's not exactly hard to guarantee a 95% chance of success by level 12 where affording a level 4 wand becomes actually feasible.

[JNAProductions]

Relying on a rounds per level buff spell to get full BAB is a significant cost.

[Ignimortis]

The fact that concentration in PF1 was made in a way that you are always chasing autosuccess for your highest-level slot to cast defensively, but only achieve it at the highest levels (without putting actual effort in, like taking feats or w/e), unlike 3.5, where you can rather easily get it high enough to always succeed at around level 7 onwards, as long as you keep putting skill ranks into it.

[Darg]

Relying on a rounds per level buff spell to get full BAB is a significant cost.

Depends on how your combats go. Getting one cast off at the start of combat is not a significant cost unless your combats are set up to where the party always starts in optimal positioning.


The fact that concentration in PF1 was made in a way that you are always chasing autosuccess for your highest-level slot to cast defensively, but only achieve it at the highest levels (without putting actual effort in, like taking feats or w/e), unlike 3.5, where you can rather easily get it high enough to always succeed at around level 7 onwards, as long as you keep putting skill ranks into it.

You need a modifier of 18 to auto succeed on a 1 for defensively casting a 4th level spell (DC 19). You have a maximum of 10 ranks. Having a con of 14 only gets you to 12. You still need some investment to auto succeed like the feats combat focus and skill focus. It's not just handed to you. Even at level 17 you still need a +3 to auto succeed for 9ths. The difference is that you don't get that +3 over your character level from maximum skill ranks and they double the addition to DC from spell levels. So a level 20 wizard would need a +12 to auto succeed for a 9th level spell..

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Depends on how your combats go. Getting one cast off at the start of combat is not a significant cost unless your combats are set up to where the party always starts in optimal positioning.

It is quite obviously more of a cost in such a situation, since you may thus also need to be spending precious actions getting into said positioning. If I had to waste my time making a dc20 check in a skill not on my class list which uses my dump stat and costs 420gp each time just to catch up to a baseline fighter, I'd much rather be doing it when I know I'll actually be able to make a full attack next turn.


You need a modifier of 18 to auto succeed on a 1 for defensively casting a 4th level spell (DC 19). You have a maximum of 10 ranks. Having a con of 14 only gets you to 12. You still need some investment to auto succeed like the feats combat focus and skill focus. It's not just handed to you. Even at level 17 you still need a +3 to auto succeed for 9ths. The difference is that you don't get that +3 over your character level from maximum skill ranks and they double the addition to DC from spell levels. So a level 20 wizard would need a +12 to auto succeed for a 9th level spell..

Even at that level you are missing that there's lots of ways to boost it via items on the cheap. But by its nature it gets easier and easier as the bonus goes up by at least 1 each level but the DC only increases every other level.

If we use the same level 12 that you used for your UMD example above, trying to cast a 6th level spell (so DC 21), then we're getting +17 just from skill ranks and 14 con, so 85% success chance without any investment - just an amulet of health +2 (which the 12th level character probably has anyway, if not better) and a masterwork item bring that up to succeeding on a 1.

[Kish]

Thread title change.

[Metastachydium]

Thread title change.

Oh. In that case,


Never enough of it and it's too easy to overcome. 3.0 Wyrm Red Dragon? 20/+3... 3.5 Red Dragon: 20/magic...a freaking +1 sword breaks through DR for a dragon older than ancient...Don't get me started on epic DR:furious:

YES! How ridiculous is it that a naked 5th level Monk (who is bad (and you should feel bad)) can just punch through that?! And it's even worse with lower level Monks (who are bad (and you should feel bad)) wearing Wyrmfang Amulets!

[Darg]

It is quite obviously more of a cost in such a situation, since you may thus also need to be spending precious actions getting into said positioning. If I had to waste my time making a dc20 check in a skill not on my class list which uses my dump stat and costs 420gp each time just to catch up to a baseline fighter, I'd much rather be doing it when I know I'll actually be able to make a full attack next turn.

One action, and monk gets bonus speed while also not having their speed reduced by armor. In actual play it's really not a big deal. And it's not just catching up to a baseline fighter, it surpasses it. You get a +6 bonus to strength. As for the gp cost, it's the DMs job to make sure wealth remains close enough to WBL.




Even at that level you are missing that there's lots of ways to boost it via items on the cheap. But by its nature it gets easier and easier as the bonus goes up by at least 1 each level but the DC only increases every other level.

If we use the same level 12 that you used for your UMD example above, trying to cast a 6th level spell (so DC 21), then we're getting +17 just from skill ranks and 14 con, so 85% success chance without any investment - just an amulet of health +2 (which the 12th level character probably has anyway, if not better) and a masterwork item bring that up to succeeding on a 1.

The thing is though is that defensively casting was meant to be easy. It's the damage that's harder to mitigate and PF has the same formula for that, but it's practically guaranteed to fail except against the weakest of enemies because there is just very little in the way of improving your concentration score. Then again I'm not sure how feasible readying actions in PF is so maybe it's just not an issue to be worried about.

[KillianHawkeye]

Then again I'm not sure how feasible readying actions in PF is so maybe it's just not an issue to be worried about.

Pretty sure readying actions works exactly the same in Pathfinder as in 3.5.....

[Darg]

Pretty sure readying actions works exactly the same in Pathfinder as in 3.5.....

I meant value, not the how it works. Numbers are higher in PF so I don't know if it's worth readying actions to interrupt a spell cast. Though it would be a lot easier to disrupt so maybe?

[Biggus]

And now that I think about it, it only takes a +3 to overcome an epic CR? Yeah, I'm going OT here, gonna need to start a new thread.

Do you mean an epic DR? And if so, how do you do it with a +3 weapon? I know you can do it with a +4 weapon and a bane effect...

[RNightstalker]

Do you mean an epic DR? And if so, how do you do it with a +3 weapon? I know you can do it with a +4 weapon and a bane effect...

My apologies. I was referring to higher end dragons (which are technically epic since they're above CR 20) from MMI, that top out at DR 20/+3.

[Biggus]

My apologies. I was referring to higher end dragons (which are technically epic since they're above CR 20) from MMI, that top out at DR 20/+3.

Ah thank you, when I read that I was coming back to the thread and had forgotten the earlier part of the discussion.

And yes agreed that CR is a mess in both 3.0 and 3.5, and especially that DR/magic is pointless at high CRs. In my games any creature of CR 11+ with DR/magic has it changed to something the PCs are not 100% guaranteed to be able to overcome...

[RNightstalker]

Ah thank you, when I read that I was coming back to the thread and had forgotten the earlier part of the discussion.

And yes agreed that CR is a mess in both 3.0 and 3.5, and especially that DR/magic is pointless at high CRs. In my games any creature of CR 11+ with DR/magic has it changed to something the PCs are not 100% guaranteed to be able to overcome...

Yeah one of my houserules is 3.0 DR.

[glass]

I kinda miss the 3.0-style X/+Y DR, but I would be sad to lose the alignment and expanded material DRs from later editions.

The whole DR/Magic-on-a-high-CR-creature thing made more sense when I realised that it might not directly affects the PCs (at least not their main weapons) but it is more likely to affect their summons, animal companions, etc.

[Troacctid]

3.5


Pathfinder has the same text, but then adds:


that means, you cannot die of nonlethal damage in 3.5, but you can kill someone by overshooting your nonlethal attempt at subduing them.
3.5 has this text as well. It's in RC.


3.5 monk is simply more reliant on consumables and party buffs. If uberchargers are ignored, the class has the highest ceiling in the game for damage output (8d8 UAS in core and 12d8 (or higher if you extend the table) with additional books). Just like how wizards aren't great if you don't have access to scribing, monks just aren't going to be great if you don't have access to the magic mart or teammates that aren't willing to spend a few probably going to be unused slots per day on you. Monk also has access to high saving throws and the highest potential AC. Monk also has potential access to full BAB through wands of divine power. So yes, monk does have the lowest floor of the classes, but it's definitely not the weakest when optimized.
1. Why would you ignore uberchargers?
2. Monks don't have a monopoly on size increases. Anyone can easily use greater mighty wallop to do 8d6 base damage.

[Metastachydium]

The whole DR/Magic-on-a-high-CR-creature thing made more sense when I realised that it might not directly affects the PCs (at least not their main weapons) but it is more likely to affect their summons, animal companions, etc.

I mean, if someone can't be bothered to get a Wyrmfang Amulet, have puny Magic Fang or summons with inherently magical attacks ready at those levels, that someone really has it coming. I do nevertheless agree that if it's not about the PCs, it can, in fact, be a somewhat interesting worldbuilding detail. I mean, the whole reason why PCs commonly get to have a place in the messed up economy is that they have little issue dealing with problems others simply cannot even begin to handle. And DR 15/magic is the kind of thing that is entirely trivial for a self-respecting PC, but no amount of low level Warriors with heavy crossbows will ever resolve.

[Darg]

1. Why would you ignore uberchargers?
2. Monks don't have a monopoly on size increases. Anyone can easily use greater mighty wallop to do 8d6 base damage.

1. Because it doesn't matter if you do 3k damage or 2k, in either case they're dead. People get too hung up on what does the actual most that the second best that is functionally just as good is argued to be inferior

2. 6d6 one-handed or 6d8 two-handed. I'm pretty sure to get 8d6 you need exotic weapon proficiency and it's a two-handed weapon. Either way, monk gets up to 12d8 which is still nearly double the average of 8d6 (28). If allowed to take improved natural attack you can get to 16d8. A rogue using 6d6 weapons and has 10d6 sneak attack is an average of 56. 12d8 averages 54 and 16d8, 72.

[Troacctid]

1. Because it doesn't matter if you do 3k damage or 2k, in either case they're dead. People get too hung up on what does the actual most that the second best that is functionally just as good is argued to be inferior

2. 6d6 one-handed or 6d8 two-handed. I'm pretty sure to get 8d6 you need exotic weapon proficiency and it's a two-handed weapon. Either way, monk gets up to 12d8 which is still nearly double the average of 8d6 (28). If allowed to take improved natural attack you can get to 16d8. A rogue using 6d6 weapons and has 10d6 sneak attack is an average of 56. 12d8 averages 54 and 16d8, 72.
1. Okay, so what you're saying is that monks have the second or third highest ceiling, and also that the ceiling doesn't matter? Is that...am I understanding correctly? That's a little bit confusing because if it doesn't matter who does the most, why should we care about whether monks do the most, exactly?
2. No, there are martial bludgeoning weapons that deal 1d12 (warmace) and 2d6 (executioner's mace) base damage. If you take EWP, the warmace can be wielded in one hand. Anyway, if you're tracking ECL 20 damage, 16d8 out of a regular melee attack is, frankly, embarrassing compared to what a basic direct damage spell is doing at that level. The sorcerer is over there juggling empowered delayed blast fireballs like "Look what they need in order to mimic a fraction of our power!" and the druid is standing next to him with a handful of holly berry bombs like, "I know, right?"

[icefractal]

16d8 out of a regular melee attack is, frankly, embarrassing compared to what a basic direct damage spell is doing at that level. The sorcerer is over there juggling empowered delayed blast fireballs like "Look what they need in order to mimic a fraction of our power!" and the druid is standing next to him with a handful of holly berry bombs like, "I know, right?"What?? This seems like a bad example, because 16d8+X (strength, enhancement, buffs) times 4 - 6 attacks, is a hell of a lot more than that fireball (30d6). Yes, Mailman style blasting can be a lot more, but high-level full attacks in general put non-focused spell damage to shame, unless the situation is a large number of weaker foes.

Also, isn't this how Monk compared to other martials, not how it compares to casters? "Full casters are more powerful than Monk" is not exactly a new discovery! 😝

[Troacctid]

What?? This seems like a bad example, because 16d8+X (strength, enhancement, buffs) times 4 - 6 attacks, is a hell of a lot more than that fireball (30d6). Yes, Mailman style blasting can be a lot more, but high-level full attacks in general put non-focused spell damage to shame, unless the situation is a large number of weaker foes.

Also, isn't this how Monk compared to other martials, not how it compares to casters? "Full casters are more powerful than Monk" is not exactly a new discovery! 😝
The claim was "If uberchargers are ignored, the class has the highest ceiling in the game for damage output." 🤷

[JNAProductions]

Full attacks are also much harder to actually get than standard action attacks. Mostly melee ones, though ranged full attacks aren’t as easy to pull off as a standard action.

[Darg]

1. Okay, so what you're saying is that monks have the second or third highest ceiling, and also that the ceiling doesn't matter? Is that...am I understanding correctly? That's a little bit confusing because if it doesn't matter who does the most, why should we care about whether monks do the most, exactly?
2. No, there are martial bludgeoning weapons that deal 1d12 (warmace) and 2d6 (executioner's mace) base damage. If you take EWP, the warmace can be wielded in one hand. Anyway, if you're tracking ECL 20 damage, 16d8 out of a regular melee attack is, frankly, embarrassing compared to what a basic direct damage spell is doing at that level. The sorcerer is over there juggling empowered delayed blast fireballs like "Look what they need in order to mimic a fraction of our power!" and the druid is standing next to him with a handful of holly berry bombs like, "I know, right?"

1. I was countering the argument that monk isn't "super strong." The point wasn't to be super accurate. I made a general statement according to the common points of comparison. The reason it doesn't matter is because it doesn't. Monks are an incredibly capable and strong class compared to the other mundane classes.

2a. So exotic weapon proficiency. A feat isn't exactly "easy" depending on your class and race. While it's worth 2d6 for the weapon user, INA is worth up to 4d8 instead.

2b. Why would I be comparing melee attacks with spells? A plain fireball has a theoretical limit of 160d6 damage. There's not really much point in doing that. Still, on top of that 16d8 they can get Str, enhancement bonuses and abilities, feats, and miscellaneous spells that can improve it even further. That's not even getting into multiclass dips with the 4 levels your monk belt opens up.


The claim was "If uberchargers are ignored, the class has the highest ceiling in the game for damage output." 🤷

I said "if ignored" because monk can ubercharge just as hard as an ubercharger while also doing more damage when not charging. A net positive. I'm not making some claim about monk being able to outperform optimized spellcasters. I just took it as a given people would understand that the comparison would be toward the similar.

[glass]

2a. So exotic weapon proficiency. A feat isn't exactly "easy" depending on your class and race. While it's worth 2d6 for the weapon user, INA is worth up to 4d8 instead.It's not a good look to quote Troacctid saying "No, there are martial weapons..." and then respond with "So exotic weapon proficiency".

[Darg]

It's not a good look to quote Troacctid saying "No, there are martial weapons..." and then respond with "So exotic weapon proficiency".

You need the feat to make them one-handed like a bastard sword.

Then again 6d8 and 8d6 are only 1 point of damage apart. The nuance is pretty thin.

[Olive_Sophia]

It's amazing that Monk still manages to be so divisive. In my experience, a moderately optimized monk can be a solid to strong damage dealer for a party. Traditionally thought of as very weak, they do have their uses. In retrospect the class has a fair number of interesting options through ACFs and feats, and it has good synergy with several other types of build. They're a little different and can be fun to play. Sure they don't compare to a full caster, but we find plenty of reason to play mid tier classes in our games.

I think we've gotten rather off topic, so in an attempt to circle back around....

Pathfinder combined Tumble into Acrobatics, but it also nerfed it considerably. 3.5 gives you a flat DC to tumble without provoking AOOs, and this is only increased a little for additional foes. In Pathfinder you have to beat a pretty difficult scaling check to tumble past something, and it's even more difficult to tumble past large creatures. So this turned from something that most Dex oriented characters are expected to be able to do comfortably at a certain level, into much more of an unreliable ordeal.

[Kalkra]

I realize I'm kinda late to this party, but I'll mention that Telekinesis can throw up to 15 weapons each weighing an average of 25 pounds or less at a target, and each one does its base damage. You don't get strength to damage, but that's still a lot of damage. As a simple example, a Gargantuan club weighs 24 pounds and does 3d6 damage, so 15 of them will do 45d6 damage. Sure, the logistics of carrying around 15 Gargantuan clubs is a bit awkward, but there are workarounds. Anyway, it's not as awkward as spending one or more rounds buffing in the beginning of combat, and then trying to get a full attack every round.

Now if we want optimization, let's assume Sorcerer 15/Rogue 1 with Craven. Now if you're within 30 feet of your target, and your target is somehow eligible for sneak attack, you're looking at 4d6+20 per club, for a total of 60d6+240. And that's not a lot of optimization. That's ECL 16 with one feat and 0 gp worth of gear. There are weapons with a much better damage/weight ratio, and you can get magic weapons or cast Greater Mighty Wallop on them or whatnot, and there's always Twin Spell and similar effects. With an equal amount of optimization, one 5th-level spell will out-damage any Monk.

Obviously, there are spells that can do way, way more damage than that, because Telekinesis is capped at CL 15 and can't be Maximized or Empowered, but I chose it as a sort of apples-to-apples comparison.

[glass]

You need the feat to make them one-handed like a bastard sword.No you don't. You can choose to take a feat to make (one of) them one handed, but you don't need to. The damage will be the same either way (in fact, it will be slightly higher in two hands if you have at least a +3 Strength bonus).

[Olive_Sophia]

I realize I'm kinda late to this party, but I'll mention that Telekinesis can throw up to 15 weapons each weighing an average of 25 pounds or less at a target, and each one does its base damage. You don't get strength to damage, but that's still a lot of damage. As a simple example, a Gargantuan club weighs 24 pounds and does 3d6 damage, so 15 of them will do 45d6 damage. Sure, the logistics of carrying around 15 Gargantuan clubs is a bit awkward, but there are workarounds. Anyway, it's not as awkward as spending one or more rounds buffing in the beginning of combat, and then trying to get a full attack every round.

Now if we want optimization, let's assume Sorcerer 15/Rogue 1 with Craven. Now if you're within 30 feet of your target, and your target is somehow eligible for sneak attack, you're looking at 4d6+20 per club, for a total of 60d6+240. And that's not a lot of optimization. That's ECL 16 with one feat and 0 gp worth of gear. There are weapons with a much better damage/weight ratio, and you can get magic weapons or cast Greater Mighty Wallop on them or whatnot, and there's always Twin Spell and similar effects. With an equal amount of optimization, one 5th-level spell will out-damage any Monk.

Obviously, there are spells that can do way, way more damage than that, because Telekinesis is capped at CL 15 and can't be Maximized or Empowered, but I chose it as a sort of apples-to-apples comparison.

There may be a problem with this trick. Rules Compendium has this on precision damage:


A form of attack that enables an attacker to make multiple attacks during an action other than a full-round action, such as the Manyshot feat (standard action) or a quickened scorching ray (swift action), allows precision damage to be applied only to the first attack in the group.

Either way, a caster's main focus shouldn't really be damage. If we looked at a typical caster build that isn't focused solely on damage, and asked how much damage they can do with a spell slot at level 6, 8, 10, 12, etc - the optimized monk should definitely be keeping up outside of AoE scenarios, as that is his class' main focus. At very high levels both can do ridiculous amounts of damage. The thing that makes casters better is the versatility and control that spells give them.

[Kalkra]

There may be a problem with this trick. Rules Compendium has this on precision damage:

A form of attack that enables an attacker to make multiple attacks during an action other than a full-round action, such as the Manyshot feat (standard action) or a quickened scorching ray (swift action), allows precision damage to be applied only to the first attack in the group.


Huh. I had indeed missed that. A Sorcerer could get around that with metamagic though, because then you would be using a full-round action. It's a bit cheesy, but it should work.


Either way, a caster's main focus shouldn't really be damage. If we looked at a typical caster build that isn't focused solely on damage, and asked how much damage they can do with a spell slot at level 6, 8, 10, 12, etc - the optimized monk should definitely be keeping up outside of AoE scenarios, as that is his class' main focus. At very high levels both can do ridiculous amounts of damage. The thing that makes casters better is the versatility and control that spells give them.

The only concessions to damage the above build made were a 1-level dip into Rogue, and the Craven feat. Most of the other things you would do with that build to up the damage involve spending gold and doing things you'd already want to be doing, like free metamagic.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, since we're discussing damage spells, an interesting difference between 3.5 and PF is that a PF sorcerer can get up to +4 damage per die on all of his damage spells (via crossblooded, blood havoc, flumefire). This makes blasting a very viable strategy even without requiring mailman builds, even with something as basic as Empowered Scorching Ray. Of course, a sorc has plenty of spells known to avoid being a one-trick (or one-element) pony.

And since we're discussing monks (WHY are we discussing monks??) let me point out that PF monks have Pounce from level 5 (via unchained monk). Yes, where 3.5s monk is laughable weaksauce, PF raises it to a capable melee combatant, without requiring heavy optimization tricks. Note that I said "capable" and not "top-tier" or "teh best ev4r".

[Darg]

(WHY are we discussing monks??)

It started with the negative implications of the errata'd damage die size progression for PF. I voiced my disappointment in the heavy nerf to monk damage when using the original PF monk because of the errata. Someone said 3.5 monk was weak and I refuted that by saying 3.5 monk was relatively stronger. People have been refuting that refutation ever since. It's gotten way off topic.

[RNightstalker]

(WHY are we discussing monks??)

Because people keep responding?

[Forrestfire]

If you're playing with non-core sources available, it's not exactly hard to get access to pounce on a monk. By taking the Lion Tribe Warrior feat (Shining South p. 20), available to anyone with the "Human (the Shaar)" region (note: per PGtF, you can be non-human and still have this region, if you're from that area culturally) gets you pounce with light weapons such as unarmed strikes.

Outside Faerûn, you'd need to ask your DM if you can take a Forgotten Realms regional feat, but it doesn't exactly seem like a big stretch, especially since monk generally needs the help.

As for on-topic stuff, something that always tripped me up in the difference between PF1e and 3.5 is the fact that there's no rules for nonabilities in Pathfinder, or at least none that I've been able to find. You can vaguely intuit things and make a ruling, or import the 3.5 rules for them, but the omission was such a weird thing when I realized, after years of play, that I had just assumed that text was still there in PF and it wasn't.

[Maat Mons]

Speaking of being unable to find things, I still can't find any general rule in Pathfinder about whether you need to actively search for traps. There's no such thing as the Search skill in Pathfinder, so you can't infer that traps need to actively be searched for on that basis. There's a note in the section on pit traps saying you need to actively search for covered pit traps but not uncovered ones. This doesn't say anything about other types of traps though. Whoever wrote the Trap Spotter Rogue Talent apparently believed traps generally needed to be actively searched for. I don't like having to assume that the authors of the game always remember their own rules though.

[Darg]

As for on-topic stuff, something that always tripped me up in the difference between PF1e and 3.5 is the fact that there's no rules for nonabilities in Pathfinder, or at least none that I've been able to find. You can vaguely intuit things and make a ruling, or import the 3.5 rules for them, but the omission was such a weird thing when I realized, after years of play, that I had just assumed that text was still there in PF and it wasn't.

They didn't reprint the entire glossary either, but use the terms regardless.

[KillianHawkeye]

Speaking of being unable to find things, I still can't find any general rule in Pathfinder about whether you need to actively search for traps. There's no such thing as the Search skill in Pathfinder, so you can't infer that traps need to actively be searched for on that basis. There's a note in the section on pit traps saying you need to actively search for covered pit traps but not uncovered ones. This doesn't say anything about other types of traps though. Whoever wrote the Trap Spotter Rogue Talent apparently believed traps generally needed to be actively searched for. I don't like having to assume that the authors of the game always remember their own rules though.

Searching for traps is covered by the Perception skill in Pathfinder and has appropriate entries for the DCs for finding traps and secret doors in the table (which, in the case of traps, is simply "varies by trap", but it's there).