What do you like/dislike about Pathfinder?

[GoatToucher]

I read it. I dig it. I am not crazy about getting a new feat every other level, or the xp/level totals reminiscient of 1st ed, but overall, I like it.

What do you all think?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

It's better balanced, but they seem to have missed the point a bit. Some of their fixes ignored the balance problems, changing things that weren't broken(Power Attack), or making the broken classes better. I like the skill system fix and the better number of feats(7 over 20 levels? Really, WotC?), but the issues of 3.5 remain.

[Another_Poet]

As I've stated in numerous other threads, I love it and am grateful it exists - not because it is perfect (it isn't) but because it keeps my favourite game alive and offers product support after WotC has ditched us.

Thank you Paizo!



ap

[EarFall]

My only issue is if you use it, some of the other classes (Scout, Knight) need tweaked as well.

But overall, it's a good system, I think, I've implemented some of it, at least.

[peacenlove]

Includes some very good and some very bad fixes to the classes. I think the overall result is good but could be better (then again what couldn't )

Good ones: Variation to the sorcerer, new rage system for barbarians, new and improved paladin, rules (except grapple) are written in cleaner format, 1st level characters are much stronger and durable, some very interesting modifications to broken spells, higher base power level overall, less reliance on experience for spells and items.

Bad ones: Overbuffing of the wizard, fighter is just a "3,5 fighter but with more plusses around", it destroys some good feats eg Power atttack, removal of base prestige classes for no good reason (eg archmage), it should move around some spells (like the transition to 3 -> 3.5 edition did).

I personally use it because it contains many interesting ideas and its a default setting for my group, but i modify it with ideas from my own and other homebrew, and feedback gathered from many threads at wizards.

[warmachine]

If I may be so rude as to hijack this thread, I'd also like to know which major balance issues people believe have been fixed and which have not been fixed.

[DeathQuaker]

Overall I like it (and I imagine the final version will be even better). For me, it keeps what I like about 3.5 and improves what I didn't.

It isn't a good system for people who find the underlying structure of 3.5 flawed to begin with, but those people have 4th Ed (or previous editions) to play with instead.

General things I do like:

1) Eliminating dead levels in class advancement. No level where you don't get some kind of ability or improvement to an existing one. It makes leveling up a little more fun.

2) The new favored class system. The 1 Hit-Point-or-Skill-point per level in your favored class is a great way to boost people who want to work within a core concept of the race they're playing, while not actually restricting multiclass or other character concepts (and since all races get a choice of one of two favored classes, there's a little more flexibility). I know some would prefer to get rid of favored classes entirely, but it seems like the best compromise between those who like them and those who don't.

3) The skill system. Easier to track, and I love that once a class skill, always a class skill. Also, many of the streamlined/combined skills were much needed.

4) Generally a much better selection of core feats; it's easier to build a number of different combat styles with just core now.

5) I don't know how well they play, but sorcerer bloodlines seem like a very cool way to make sorcerers more unique and fun to play.

6) Combat maneuvers. Oh my lord. I am now able to run a Grapple without looking up the rules to make sure I have it right. Amazing.

Stuff I don't like:
1) The Fly skill. In a game where they overall have reduced the number of skills to a more manageable level and where certain mechanics have been streamlined, ADDING one generally useful to only a small subset of classes and only under certain circumstances seems counterintuitive. I'd rather see flight maneuvering as a feat/series of feats, or fold it into a Mobility-type skill that also incorporates seldom used modes of movement like Swimming.

2) They keep Escape Artist but not Use Rope? And still largely just to apply Escape Artist to combat maneuvers, which otherwise is handled by an entirely different kind of ability check. I don't like mixing skills with ability checks. Again, counterintuitive.

3) They folded Listen and Spot into Perception--yay! They then add sight/olfactory/touch/hearing subsets to Perception. BOO. Stupid to combine two skills into one only to redivide it, effectively, into four. It's fine in certain circumstances to take specific senses into consideration, but let Perception just be Perception, and leave HOW something was perceived to fluff (e.g., the gnome may smell the rank odour of the goblin sneaking up on them, the elf may spot him hiding in the darkness, but the end result is the same).

And there are numerous small tweaks I'd like to see to class abilities and spells, but overall apart from some skill issues I feel like they've done a nice job.

Other commentary: the tweaks to races and classes makes everyone a little more powerful starting off, but as long as you're aware of that and advance things at an appropriate rate, it's fine by me.

Mileage of course varies depending on your personal play preferences. People who want to bring in a lot of splats may get sick of conversion at some point, even if PF is supposed to be somewhat backwards compatible. It doesn't affect me personally, but I understand some players are finding that a challenge.

[Eldariel]

They did a great job at a point and completely missed the mark at another. It's a decent start, but that's about it. They fixed the Polymorph-line, but they didn't fix Two-Weapon Fighting or Sword&Board, for example. And they fuxxored up Power Attack; now the feat is completely uncontrollable making it quite worthless.

They also left the blasting magic as is without making control spells any worse, so casters are still punished for going blasty. They also failed to fix:
-Moving & Attacking in combat (only one attack if not using full-round action)
-Most non-Trip combat maneuvers (Feint, Bull Rush, etc. still fail; and yes, Freedom of Movement still obsoletes Grapplers)
-Most combat feats (Weapon Focus, Dodge, etc.)
-Caster multiclassing (yes, you're still shooting yourself in the leg if you multiclass as a caster)
-Monk (they gave him few extra bonus feats. Whoppe-friggin'-doo? Quivering Palm is still 1/week)

Basically, they don't really have a clue of what's wrong in the system so they don't know what to fix. They also failed to include a few really handy feats in the Core (there's nothing to improve charging, for example) and meh...


I really appreciate what they're doing, but they just don't know all that's wrong in the system.

[Epinephrine]

I really enjoy some elements of Pathfinder - teneleven quick things I like:

1.) Sundering - I like the new "broken" that can be applied to a weapon, making sundering useful without ruining the item completely. Then again, it's really easy to "break" an item, so it may need tweaking.
2.) Class changes - many classes have gotten nice facelifts, and it's less tempting to prestige out unless you need a particular ability.
3.) Favoured classes - there is a nice benefit to staying in a favoured class, making it worth doing.
4.) Standard actions for many combat maneuvers - fixes some issues, causes others though.
5.) Domains/Spell schools - I like that pretty much everyone has a standard action attack now, and I like the feel of domains much better.
6.) Feats - new feats such as vital strike, deadly aim, overhand chop add some interesting boosts to melee/missile builds. As well, the changes to feats like acrobatic and skill focus (foo) make them even more useful later on.
7.) Trip - I like that it's no longer just ability based. In fact, the CMB is a nice fix, making a single stat.
8.) Skills - overall, I like the streamlining of the skills. I do object to linguistics being folded in with decipher script and forgery, as I don't think it's sensible, but I can see the reasoning.
9.) Skill system - the change to class skills merely getting a +3 is amazing; it means that one can be competent without needing the class skill bonus - you just need ranks and a strong ability.
10.) Point buy system - ok, it's not that diffeernt, but by starting it at 10 players have to actually lower their stats to get a penalty. Additionally, the system increases the costs when you would attain a bigger bonus, actually providing a slight benefit to those who may choose an odd number and later rely on boosting the stat via their attribute bonuses from levelling. Yay, a reason to take an odd stat!
11.) Wildshape/polymorphs. Hurrah!

Things I dislike:
1.) The flight system. I like parts of it, but some of it is a little odd, I think it needs work. The fly skill is a cute idea, and I like the DCs for flying, but there are issues with it.
2.) Grappling. The standard action is a bit iffy, and really it has become impossible to make a decent grappler. It's especially punitive to creature grapplers. Having to make a grapple check just to continue the grapple each round also allows a possibility of escape without your opponent even trying to get away with his/her actions, so you don't want to try these things unless you have a real edge.
3.) Size modifiers for combat maneuvers. They're stupidly small. +1 for Large? +2 for Huge? Okay, theres a reason for weight classes in wrestling, and it's not "you weigh 8 times his mass, so you are in the next class". Weight is a HUGE deal, and if you wanted a realistic system you'd never get free if something that outweighs you by a factor of 64 grabbed you. We put it back to +4/+8/...
4.) Wind effects being weakened. Really?
5.) New power attack - I somewhat like it for speeding up play and making it dichotomous, but it's unreasonably penalising, and as such is likely not to see use. Also, it sucks on monsters, since they often have huge strength but mediocre BAB, and thus can't hit at all if they PA.
6.) Inconsistencies - can't tell if you can cast in a grapple, for example, and if so, at what penalty?
7.) New Multishot and Rapid Shot, and new Cleave and Greater Cleave. Sorry, just don't like them.
8.) Too many spells ported without change. Really, you change the way the wind system works, then keep gust of wind the same, which makes it not aligned with any given wind value?
9.) Lack of completeness - there are rules simply not spelled out in the book, and you need to resort to using 3.5 rules.

[GoatToucher]

but they didn't fix Two-Weapon Fighting or Sword&Board, for example.

Please explain this.

[Dark_Scary]

Good:
1) Skill system is better in the +3 to class skills and no cross class ranks costing double. Also combining skills.

Bad:
1) Fixes to spells show little understanding. Save or dies are all ruined, but all the BC/debuff ect is as good as ever.
2) Polymorph fix is not fun. Just remove it from the game or come up with something fun.
3) Fly Skill: Crack smoking.
4) Buff Wizards, Nerf Fighters. Wow.
5) CMB is terrible. It's freaking impossible to ever actually use them. 30% success rate for ridiculous optimization is not worth your standard/attack actions.
6) Fixes to classes show little consistency. It's harder for a Barbarian to Rage at high level then low? WTF? Compare spending eight points for 1d6 elemental damage, to spending 2 points for +20 AB and +20 Damage at level 20. Why would you ever choose the former?

[Eldariel]

Please explain this.

Two-Weapon Fighting still requires 3 feats, and Two-Weapon Defense is still worthless. Bonus damage is also hard to come by for non-Rogues and I don't see any measures taken to help this (Weapon Training-line helps a bit though; GL with Rangers). Also, the "you can only full attack when you don't move"-part hasn't been addressed, and two-weapon fighters haven't even been allowed to make an attack with both swords by default, meaning you'll only ever get any benefit of having two weapons when full attacking. Really, not fixing full attacks is the biggest thing although there's no reason not to roll the whole TWF-chain into one feat... Oh, and there's no feat to enable adding Dex to damage (and Weapon Finesse still costs a feat even though it should be available by default) meaning TWFers are still MAD as hell.

As far as Sword & Board goes, shields still offer no defense vs. spellcasters making the whole "wield a shield" pretty hit-or-miss. They also don't allow you to protect your allies in any way meaning again, the best way to protect your allies is to kill your opponent ASAP. The only thing they're good for is protecting yourself from martial types; offense does everything else better and that just as well. And there's no reliable way to deal decent damage with a one-handed single weapon. Oh, and Animated Shields are still in game.


Of course, it goes without saying that they have no support for non-Monk unarmed combat (at least include Superior Unarmed Strike-type feat in core so non-Monks could be decent at it) or one-hander style.

[Epinephrine]

but they didn't fix Two-Weapon Fighting or Sword&Board, for example.

Please explain this.

Well, TWF pays feat after feat to deal the same amounts of damage that a 2H weapon fighter uses, while also needing dexerity in order to take the feats. That's unfair.

Sword and Board has always been silly, thanks to animated shields. Even without a floating shield, the fact that AC can't easily keep up with attack bonuses means that the extra few AC available isn't much of a benefit to the fighter. Personally, I'd apply the fighter Armour Training to both Shield AC (so long as the shield is wielded) AND Armour AC, and I'd probably make the 19th level power Armour Mastery grant a larger DR for those wielding (not benefitting from) a shield as well.

Edit: Ninja'd

Oh - remembered that I like the change to enhancement bonuses on weapons: +3 enhancement bonus will punch through DR/cold iron/silver, a +4 bonus will punch through DR/adamantine, and a +5 bonus will affect DR/alignment-based. One nice benefit for not taking a frost/shocking/etc. weapon and using Greater Magic Weapon on it.

[Morty]

I haven't looked through Pathfinder that closely, but there are two things I like very much, even if the rest of the system isn't as good as it could be. I'm talking about capstone abilities and cutting down on dead levels. The former especially gives some incentive not to PrC out of your class at the first opportunity.
What I really don't get is the changes to races. Buffing all of them up seems pointless.

[Eldariel]

I haven't looked through Pathfinder that closely, but there are two things I like very much, even if the rest of the system isn't as good as it could be. I'm talking about capstone abilities and cutting down on dead levels. The former especially gives some incentive not to PrC out of your class at the first opportunity.
What I really don't get is the changes to races. Buffing all of them up seems pointless.

I wanna emphasize this. Pathfinder class design is about 10000 times better than Core 3.5. So if you take anything from Pathfinder, use Pathfinder classes over the Core classes (although skip the Monk; there's always Unarmed Swordsage for all the Monk-fans).

Although they haven't done anything about the fact that dipping is still great for melee.

[Morty]

I wanna emphasize this. Pathfinder class design is about 10000 times better than Core 3.5. So if you take anything from Pathfinder, use Pathfinder classes over the Core classes (although skip the Monk; there's always Unarmed Swordsage for all the Monk-fans).

I wouldn't be so sure about that in case of wizards; sure, some abilities other than spells are good, but do wizards need anything more? Then again, on low levels they're not that strong unless min-maxed heavily, and on high levels it's not much of a difference anyway. I'm torn about the implement option; an extra spell is powerful, but having to make spellcraft check to cast a spell at all without it seems to be a good balancer.

[Epinephrine]

I'm talking about capstone abilities and cutting down on dead levels.

I like the lack or reduction in dead levels; some of the capstone abilities strike me as horribly balanced.

The bard's ability? Make a difficult DC (10+1/2 level+Cha) or die, using a bardic music use? That's 20 times a day without investing in extra music. And if you make your save, be stunned for 1d4 rounds. So it's not even a save OR die, it's a stun or die, which is pretty nasty when you can throw them 20 times a day as a standard action (and it's (Su), so it bypasses SR nicely).

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I like the lack or reduction in dead levels; some of the capstone abilities strike me as horribly balanced.

The bard's ability? Make a difficult DC (10+1/2 level+Cha) or die, using a bardic music use? That's 20 times a day without investing in extra music. And if you make your save, be stunned for 1d4 rounds. So it's not even a save OR die, it's a stun or die, which is pretty nasty when you can throw them 20 times a day as a standard action (and it's (Su), so it bypasses SR nicely).

The save is pretty normal at that level(since you aren't able to go Sublime Chord, you won't have the SAD 32-34 in one stat, and you don't get Spell Focus, Veil of Allure, or similar), but weaker than a Wizard's SoD. It's the stun that's the issue. It pretty much turns insta-gibs anything without Immunity to Mind Affecting(which, granted, everything should have at that level). 20th level Rocket Launcher Tag at it's finest.

[Dark_Scary]

Wait, so Bardic music death thing is mind affecting too? Meh. I was going to point out that at level 20 everything is immune to stun, but yeah, everything of level 10 is immune to mind affecting. Or can make that save on a 5.

[Nero24200]

While theres alot of changes I like, it's completely overshadowed by the things I hate.

1. Ravid fanboys. Try talking about any legitamte problem on their forums and you'll see what I mean.
2. Channel Energy. I hate the healing aspect. The logic behind it just seems so off (Apparently granting the cleric more healing powers makes them less focused on healing).
3. Feats, I honestly dont' feel they needed such a boost to the number of feats gained. It comes across to me that they only did this to try and reel in the powergamers.
4. The power boost. Humans are already considered one of the most powerful races in 3.5, and they only made them better. What's more, the reasoning behind upping the power is heavily flawed, even in their own play-tests no one is using non-core races as-is. Each on is getting a boost to stats just to match, which makes me wonder what the point of boosting them in the first place was.
5. Alot of the logic behind various aspects of it. Boosting the classes to "compete with non-core" just seems very off to me considering 3 of "The big 5" just happen to be core. Cleric's apparently need less incentive to be played as healers...even though Clericzilla happened as a result of some players thinking "Hey, if I cast this instead, I won't need to heal since it'll just take the enemies out completely".

Truthfully, as long as these things exist (particularly number 1) it just becomes so hard for me to see anything good in it, which is a shame since there are some good ideas in there.

[Eldariel]

3. Feats, I honestly dont' feel they needed such a boost to the number of feats gained. It comes across to me that they only did this to try and reel in the powergamers.

This I disagree with. When playing standard 3.5, I mostly end up picking the feats I need for basic competence and PrC qualifications (that is, my Rogue is taking Weapon Finesse, Two-Weapon Fighting, etc. while my Wizard is taking Extend Spell, Quicken Spell and prerequisites.

There's just practically never room to take "interesting" feats outside Super Feat Heavy classes (that basically means the Fighter; of course, as that's its only class feature, getting "cute" feats isn't exactly enough to make the Fighter work out - those weaker feats should be bonuses); I've never had a Rogue pick Master of Poisons simply because I've never had the free feat slot (as poison mechanics are rather weak, it's not a strong enough addition to drop anything from a ranged or melee Rogue 20). And I've never had a two-weapon fighter pick up two-weapon rend since he's already so flooded.

And hell, Greater Spell Focus is a feat I almost never see because Wizards have more important feats to pick. Same goes for most metamagic feats really; outside überblast metamagic reducer builds, how many times have you really seen Twin Spell or even Maximize Spell put to use? Or Combat Cloak Expert [PHBII] or some such...

Point being, there's a ton of interesting, awesome feats that could give classes additional angles of action (Imperious Command, anyone?), but because of your progression, you can never really take them since the feats you need for your progression take all the slots. Flaws help this somewhat but most of the interesting feats can only be taken on higher levels and Flaws are only taken on level 1.

I feel this is specifically a boost for the people who want to build a good character without really having to optimize every feat slot in the build; when you have few more to play with, you can afford to spend them more haphazardly.


We've even played a game with this rule in place (non-pathfinder, might I add) and it's been awesome! Coupled with some feat chain combinations and eliminations (Point Blank Shot is a part of Precise Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting is a single chain, etc.), we've actually got characters who are decently competent at both, melee and range. That could never happen with non-casters in core D&D (without making it the sole point of your build, at any rate) simply because both require a large number of feats and you can't juts afford 'em.

A lot of stuff I don't agree with in Pathfinder, but I find this change to be for the best (although us using it has nothing to do with Pathfinder; we identified the matter on our own - much of the reason Humans are so nuts is because the value of feats is so insanely high especially as prerequisites).

[charl]

I really, really hate the artwork. The last thing we need is more manga silliness in our Western roleplaying.

I do like the revised skill list. I haven't read much on the rules though.

[Starbuck_II]

Bad:
1) Fixes to spells show little understanding. Save or dies are all ruined, but all the BC/debuff ect is as good as ever.

They changed Glitterdust to have Hold Person's mechanics. So save (free action) each round to be free of it.
So not as good as used to be.

5) CMB is terrible. It's freaking impossible to ever actually use them. 30% success rate for ridiculous optimization is not worth your standard/attack actions.

Maybe they didn't mean for you to use them?

[Dark_Scary]

They changed Glitterdust to have Hold Person's mechanics. So save (free action) each round to be free of it.
So not as good as used to be.

Yes, they also nerfed glitterdust. They also didn't touch Stinking Cloud/Solid Fog/EBT/Web/Slow/ect. Which really just continues my point. Glitterdust get's nerfed for no real reason that shouldn't also apply to every other spell like it. They just arbitrarily nerfed one spell because they heard a lot about it.

Maybe they didn't mean for you to use them?

Yes. That makes sense. Their goal was to make it a really bad idea to use trip/bullrush/grapple/disarm. That makes sense. It explains why they kept those feats to make you better at the thing you should never do, and why they kept those in the game in a form that sucks, instead of just removing them.

Oh wait. It doesn't. They just have no idea what an acceptable percentage of success is.

[Matthew]

Some of their fixes ignored the balance problems, changing things that weren't broken (Power Attack)

Looks like this has actually been changed for the final version (see the iconic preview), along with armour speed penalties, thank goodness! Best guess at the moment is that it is x1 with light weapons, x2 with heavy, and x3 with great, which should make things interesting. Possibly it is x2 with primary hand, x1 with off hand (limited by strength bonus or base attack value, whichever is lower).

I really, really hate the artwork. The last thing we need is more manga silliness in our Western roleplaying.

I actually do not mind the artwork, as I feel it gives Pathfinder its own identity and style. Some of the art for the current desert adventure path is astoundingly good and not very manga-esque at all!


(C)2008 Paizo Publishing


(C)2008 Paizo Publishing


(C)2008 Paizo Publishing

Taken from Jon Hodgson Art Thread.

[Hawriel]

Friend of mine picked up afew of their adventures at are local gaming store. The books are well organized and written. The simple clear statblocks are worth the price of the book itself.

I have no idea why there is alot of hate for the writers of Pathfinder. You do not know these peaple. Its as is you really believe they got some guys off the street. Had them read afew ego driven chat boards then react speradicly to what ever extream opinions where found. These peape weather you agree or not with their desisions put alot of thought into their product. I plan on checking out their core book when it comes out. I know I will not like 100% of it. However, I'm willing to wait and see for myself befor I start slamming them for ruining somthing. When I see peaple cry out some thing is ruined is it because the changes are broken, or because it stops an exploit abused by the crittic?

[charl]

I actually do not mind the artwork, as I feel it gives Pathfinder its own identity and style. Some of the art for the current desert adventure path is astoundingly good and not very manga-esque at all!


(C)2008 Paizo Publishing


(C)2008 Paizo Publishing


(C)2008 Paizo Publishing

About half the artwork is pretty great actually. The rest (such as the ridiculous barbarian with huge sword or the cute gnomes and almost naked illustrations of the main races) just ruins everything for me,

[Cedrass]

About half the artwork is pretty great actually. The rest (such as the ridiculous barbarian with huge sword or the cute gnomes and almost naked illustrations of the main races) just ruins everything for me,

Huh, guys... They are illustrations. Nothing else

What I hear is: "If D&D had the exact same system, but manga-esque illustrations, I would have never played that game".

Having said that, I'm still waiting for an actual campaign of Pathfinder to start so, I won't comment. Plus it's still the beta so, I'm hoping the game will only get better.

[Starbuck_II]

Looks like this has actually been changed for the final version (see the iconic preview), along with armour speed penalties, thank goodness! Best guess at the moment is that it is x1 with light weapons, x2 with heavy, and x3 with great, which should make things interesting. Possibly it is x2 with primary hand, x1 with off hand (limited by strength bonus].

Did they change Vital Strike so it works with a Charge because the text in the Preview says he uses it.
Since you only get 1 attack on a charge one less would be 0 attacks if he used Vital Strike.

Is that mess up or a change to the feat?

[Gorbash]

I really, really hate the artwork. The last thing we need is more manga silliness in our Western roleplaying.

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion... I disagree. Wayne Reynolds is my favorite D&D artist, along with Lockwood and Sam Wood and I think it's amazing that he does most of the artwork.

With that being said, here's my opinion.

When Pathfinder was announced, I was thrilled, because I didn't want for my favorite edition to be left in darkness and I also expected to see fixes which I expected would be in 4e. Such as:

Weapon speed - It annoys me that you attack with a greatsword or any other cumbersome weapon as fast as with a dagger.
Injury system - everyone knows it's silly that you're at full fighting capability whether you have 1 or 101 HP.

There were other flaws, but I forgot what they are lol. Anyways, since Pathfinder didn't actually bring any important changes asides making a core class playable to 20th lvl, the rest of the changes are neglible, I wasn't impressed and decided to stick b y 3.5 since it has what I adore - possibilities. With god knows how many core and prestige classes you could be anyone and anything. You could make 20 characters with the same base class and feats, items, spells, skills, prestige classes will make every character unique.

Conclusion - I very much appreciate that Paizo decided to do this, but until they start stacking splatbooks with many beautiful prestige classes (Archmage, for starters ), I'm sticking with good ol' 3.5.