[3.75] The Road to Pathfinder

[Doc Roc]

Sorry about the title, couldn't resist. So as many of you know, I'm intimately involved in the ToS and the related fix-pack for 3.5. I also do a lot of behind-the-scenes work, preparing re-writes of specific spells and similar things. So here's me, wondering if I should go hunt down a copy of the Pathfinder final release.

Understand that I would be sitting down to really examine the system, take it apart, and see if I can break it as easily at 3.5. Should I bother? Has enough changed that my kung-fu is inapplicable? Do I need to learn a New School? I don't think I'd run much of it, as a GM, but it'd be nice to maintain my ability to turn to my GM as a player and say "That monster is going to TPK us for reason X."

[Mongoose87]

As someone who paid for the PDF, I ask, why don't you use the Pathfinder SRD?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Think about it as a street racer learning to drive on the opposite side of the road. Yes, it's different enough that it will take time, and there will be a lot of confusion early on, but in the end, there is still nothing stopping him from hitting 120, and all of his talents still apply.

[NPCMook]

Personally I prefer Fantasy Craft over Pathfinder. Pathfinder just seems to come off as a bunch of house rules for 3.5, while Fantasy Craft seems to be built from the ground up using only a small bit of 3.5 as a foundation and building from the ground up.

[arguskos]

1. What is Fantasy Craft?

2. I personally think you should use the Pathfinder SRD and break it five ways from Sunday. I've been wanting to see what an experienced optimizer has to say about Pathfinder.

[NPCMook]

1. What is Fantasy Craft?

2. I personally think you should use the Pathfinder SRD and break it five ways from Sunday. I've been wanting to see what an experienced optimizer has to say about Pathfinder.

Fantasy Craft is a new game from Flaming Cobra, they did Earthdawn 3e, Mongoose Publishing Website isn't working for me, but you can head on over thier site and check it out

EDIT: Different Link, Different Site, Same thing

[Wings of Peace]

Happy birthday Doc. My personal favorite part of Divination Specialist is the first ability.

Divination School

Diviners are masters of remote viewing, prophecies, and using magic to explore the world.

Forewarned (Su): You can always act in the surprise round even if you fail to make a Perception roll to notice a foe, but you are still considered flat-footed until you take an action. In addition, you receive a bonus on initiative checks equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum +1). At 20th level, anytime you roll initiative, assume the roll resulted in a natural 20.

Diviner's Fortune (Sp): When you activate this school power, you can touch any creature as a standard action to give it an insight bonus on all of its attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks, and saving throws equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum +1) for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

Scrying Adept (Su): At 8th level, you are always aware when you are being observed via magic, as if you had a permanent detect scrying. In addition, whenever you scry on a subject, treat the subject as one step more familiar to you. Very familiar subjects get a –10 penalty on their save to avoid your scrying attempts.

[Doc Roc]

I.... That... I... I have NOTHING to say to that. You mean to tell me that I get an ability I normally would have needed to shapeshift into a dire tortoise to get? For free? Oh and then it gets BETTER?

Grease is still awesome, glitterdust is only very slightly weaker. Still an encounter-ending spell. Particularly with the new ways to jack DCs sky high.

[Wings of Peace]

Sorcerer's get some nice things too but in my opinion they bloom rather late compared to the Wizard's abilities. I haven't checked to see if there have been any changes to the Dark Shuffle combo but all those bonus feats look like free shuffle fodder to me

Formatted this time:

Aberrant

There is a taint in your blood, one that is alien and bizarre. You tend to think in odd ways, approaching problems from an angle that most would not expect. Over time, this taint manifests itself in your physical form.

Class Skill: Knowledge (dungeoneering).

Bonus Spells: enlarge person (3rd), see invisibility (5th), tongues (7th), black tentacles (9th), feeblemind (11th), veil (13th), plane shift (15th), mind blank (17th), shapechange (19th).

Bonus Feats: Combat Casting, Improved Disarm, Improved Grapple, Improved Initiative, Improved Unarmed Strike, Iron Will, Silent Spell, Skill Focus (Knowledge [dungeoneering]).

Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell of the polymorph subschool, increase the duration of the spell by 50% (minimum 1 round). This bonus does not stack with the increase granted by the Extend Spell feat.

Bloodline Powers: Aberrant sorcerers show increasing signs of their tainted heritage as they increase in level, although they are only visible when used.

Acidic Ray (Sp): Starting at 1st level, you can fire an acidic ray as a standard action, targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The acidic ray deals 1d6 points of acid damage + 1 for every two sorcerer levels you possess. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.

Long Limbs (Ex): At 3rd level, your reach increases by 5 feet whenever you are making a melee touch attack. This ability does not otherwise increase your threatened area. At 11th level, this bonus to your reach increases to 10 feet. At 17th level, this bonus to your reach increases to 15 feet.

Unusual Anatomy (Ex): At 9th level, your anatomy changes, giving you a 25% chance to ignore any critical hit or sneak attack scored against you. This chance increases to 50% at 13th level.

Alien Resistance (Su): At 15th level, you gain spell resistance equal to your sorcerer level + 10.

Aberrant Form (Ex): At 20th level, your body becomes truly unnatural. You are immune to critical hits and sneak attacks. In addition, you gain blindsight with a range of 60 feet and damage reduction 5/—.

[Doc Roc]

They did nerf poly pretty hard, at least in beta. I'll take a look tomorrow at the shape of it in final.

Edit: Yeah, it's nerfed pretty darn hard, but naturally because "Psionics Isn't Core." There's no psionics update.... so metamorphosis is still around.


Nice.

[Wings of Peace]

Someone said this awhile ago and I think it's true to some degree. It seems like they realized the arcane casters needed a buff to their class abilities (Not spells) to discourage them from mass multi-classing to godly levels as was the tradition of 3.0-3.5 though I don't think this was really the right line of thinking.

[Wings of Peace]

Double Post

[Doc Roc]

I would have hit spells a LOT harder than they did, if I had the time to redo all the core spells. Heck, let me be honest. I doubt anyone would recognize the SRD after I got done with it.

[shadzar]

Why would anyone want to try to "break the game" or anything else for that matter? Are these people QA inspectors? Do they go around beating on every wall to make sure they won't fall down?

When you look for fault in something then you will surely find it, and when you just try to enjoy it you run the risk of enjoying it.

I would say let the problems fall where they may, as no game will be perfect for everyone, so what one dislikes another may like.

Probably not enough has changed form 3.5 to Pathfinder to remove all the faults the system had for many, so the main question would be what exactly are you looking for to be "broken" and what criteria makes it "broken"?

With any game you will need to look at it to tailor it to your group and make houserules as appropriate, so if you intend to run it you should always take it apart and see how much you can put back together of the original without extra parts left over. Then decide what to do with those extra parts.

[Ernir]

Why would anyone want to try to "break the game" or anything else for that matter?

To see how easy it is within the system. Seeing how far one can stretch a set of game rules can be great fun!
It's like ripping apart an old computer. It may not be the way the computer was intended to be used, but that does not mean it is not fun to see how the parts fit together.

[shadzar]

To see how easy it is within the system. Seeing how far one can stretch a set of game rules can be great fun!
It's like ripping apart an old computer. It may not be the way the computer was intended to be used, but that does not mean it is not fun to see how the parts fit together.

As long as you can put it back together when you get done young man.

[Zeta Kai]

Why would anyone want to try to "break the game" or anything else for that matter? Are these people QA inspectors? Do they go around beating on every wall to make sure they won't fall down?

If I'm to live in a house of cards, I should surely like to know if I can touch the walls.

[Hallavast]

If by "hunt down a copy" you mean legally purchase either the pdf or a hard copy of the book from paizo or a legitimate retailer, then by all means yes.

For once, I would discourage those who would seek to engage in piracy. This company has produced a quality product that appeals to those who are interested in continuing with 3.5 D&D. And they do it for a very fair price. This is more than WoTC accomplished for me with a much bigger budget and first pick of then-current Dungeons and Dragons personel and intellectual property. Please don't discourage this practice by stealing their incentive.

Further, as a GM who is wary of rules lawyer players who don't trust my judgement, I would try to dissuade those who actively try to use rules lawyering to try and undermine GM decisions. I would instead suggest those players to trust either trust their GM with the rules or else put on the mantle of Game Mastery and try their hands at it.

Boasting about your ability to "break" a game is kind of silly. Almost anyone can do this to almost any game if they put forth the time and effort. Games are bound to have flaws, and even though this particular game has done a good job of saying "if a rule doesn't work the way you like, change it" the game remains and will remain "broken". To ask if a detailled tabletop RPG is "unbreakable" is, again, silly.

If you and your group are at all interested in playing, then by all means buy the book. It provides quality content and a modified version of the 3.5 rules.

[Ecalsneerg]

Someone said this awhile ago and I think it's true to some degree. It seems like they realized the arcane casters needed a buff to their class abilities (Not spells) to discourage them from mass multi-classing to godly levels as was the tradition of 3.0-3.5 though I don't think this was really the right line of thinking.

Yeah, but the people who generally needed to PrC in 3.5 were more often melee than casters. Wizard 20 was still an effective build, PrC or no PrC.

[PinkysBrain]

Why would anyone want to try to "break the game" or anything else for that matter?

Sometimes not breaking the game can only be done through heavy metagaming ... lets say you give the party fighter a ring of telekinesis and he has some good weapons in his loot (lets say bastards swords, although giant weapons are even better). He gets into a situation where has to perform a ranged attack, uses it with violent thrust once and he comes to the realization "damn I can do this every round for far more damage than trying to hit stuff with my sword, why do I risk my life in melee again?". (At least against low'ish AC targets.)

Why indeed? Core comes pre-broken ... you can simply stumble across these kinds of things by accident.

PS. ring of telekinesis got cheaper in Pathfinder and though the spell got changed a bit it's as effective as ever.

[Zeta Kai]

Yeah, but the people who generally needed to PrC in 3.5 were more often melee than casters. Wizard 20 was still an effective build, PrC or no PrC.

But Wizard 5 + a PrC with a full casting progression & class features is a better build. In the world of competitive CharOp, there's no room for merely effective.

[shadzar]

Sometimes not breaking the game can only be done through heavy metagaming ... lets say you give the party fighter a ring of telekinesis and he has some good weapons in his loot (lets say bastards swords, although giant weapons are even better). He gets into a situation where has to perform a ranged attack, uses it with violent thrust once and he comes to the realization "damn I can do this every round for far more damage than trying to hit stuff with my sword, why do I risk my life in melee again?". (At least against low'ish AC targets.)

Maybe then it isn't the system broken, but the players' perception the melee type must be in melee and using his sword?

While I could play a fighter wish a sword that just likes to whack things with it, does that mean everyone wants to be a sword user just because they like the fighter?

Does every wizard need to have just the optimal spells for combat?

If the thief the only one that should be able to pick locks?

Not trying to totally derail the thread, as knowing what people think about the system may help them, but you also have to think that in 4th a cleric isn't needed as everyone can heal, likewise the wizard was given the ability to unlock things because not every game will have a thief.

Just because the option exists to supplement a lack of a special skills user within the game, doesn't mean that that option existing undermines the special skills user.

This is where the game being broken can be only one way to look at it rather than the way many others may choose to play it. Does the game have to be played with all characters optimized?

Which is why I asked, what does it mean to be broken?

Some people think you aren't playing right if you aren't optimizing, and the rules are not right if they somehow make optimization not work, while others think the focus on optimization has made the game broken, because they are then forced to optimize.

So what does broken mean, and what focus should the game have to prevent it form being broken, and how can it NOT be broken for the myriad of types of players that have different interests and ideas for their own characters, games, stories, etc?

What is the objective criteria? or is it just a subjective exercise? (which is fine too so long a people understand that it is purposefully subjective to one person's view.)

[PinkysBrain]

Maybe then it isn't the system broken, but the players' perception the melee type must be in melee and using his sword?

No it's the system.

Does every wizard need to have just the optimal spells for combat?

No, but he shouldn't have to chose between win buttons and everything else. Because after you have used a win button in the game even once avoiding using it again requires a ton of metagaming.

If the thief the only one that should be able to pick locks?

Sure, why not? It's not like there aren't other way to open locks, they might not all be equally convenient but a rogue should have some advantages in his niche.

you also have to think that in 4th a cleric isn't needed as everyone can heal, likewise the wizard was given the ability to unlock things because not every game will have a thief.

You don't need a cleric to heal in 3e either, just one party member which can use a wand of CLW/LV ... as for unlocking things, you mean like the lock spell?

Which is why I asked, what does it mean to be broken?

Easily exposed win buttons to the point where you run into them without even going looking for them.

So what does broken mean, and what focus should the game have to prevent it form being broken, and how can it NOT be broken for the myriad of types of players that have different interests and ideas for their own characters, games, stories, etc?

Get rid of the obvious win buttons.

PS. don't pose every statement as a question.

[pres_man]

This company has produced a quality product that appeals to those who are interested in continuing with 3.5 D&D.

I feel like Mike Myers on Coffee Talk.

"3.5 D&D Pathfinder is neither 3.5 nor D&D. Discuss."

On Coffee Talk, Mike Myers' character would often throw out a topic like:
"The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. Discuss."

[shadzar]

Get rid of the obvious win buttons.

PS. don't pose every statement as a question.

D&D and similar games have no win-loss concept. Those are created by people unable to grasp the true nature of the game.

If I say you suck for not taking pick locks focus as a thief, that is a statement. If I ask "do you suck for not picking pick locks as a skill?", that is a question.

I have understood the language I speak since I was 5. Also a question is nothing more than an interrogative statement. So even in the form of a question it is still a statement of a special class.

[PinkysBrain]

D&D and similar games have no win-loss concept.

Every combat encounter in the game however tends to have clear victory conditions, people don't generally want to play losers nor do they want combat to be entirely untactical because it's just a question of pushing the win button.

[DeathQuaker]

I own the Pathfinder book because
- it's well-written
- it makes a lot of changes I'd similarly houseruled in before but presents them a hell of a lot more coherently than I ever could.
- it makes a lot of changes that I didn't think of that make a lot of sense to me
- It is exceptionally well laid out in terms of organization for character creation and finding rules
- I'm not going to go into an explicit, lengthy list of what I like about it, but in short races were altered so that LA+1 races no longer need that LA, half-elves are useful, half-orcs are cool, no dead levels, druids are a little less zilla, monks look like they can contribute consistently and usefully to a party, wizards' power are more in their class abilities than in their spells, sorcerer bloodlines are made of awesome and pie, the skill system is beautiful, etc. etc. etc.
- It's clear, having participated in the playtest, that they listened to their testers. I realize there are people out there who will adamantly assert the opposite (because not only did their specific suggestion not get taken--amazing that, that 50,000 playtesters might have had varying opinions and not all of them could have been used--but also because Jason Buhlman didn't get down on his knees and, weeping, thank them for their wisdom while preparing to suck them off), but I remember the debates that went on during the playtest and it seems crystal clear to me that the major issues discussed were addressed and I've seen a lot of what were good suggestions at the time implemented in some form into the final
- It's pretty
- I will get hopefully get a little muscle tone from lugging the 4 pound thing around

Now, some people get near orgasmic joy out of trying to break a rule system. I have a friend who will just open any given rulebook and tear it apart first thing he sees, and I think it's probably his very favorite part of roleplaying. I personally don't experience that, never have, but if I try to put myself in the mindset of my friend, yeah, I'm sure you could sit down with it and find all the little holes and crazinesses. As easily as 3.5? Maybe not. And I'd venture to say where you'd find the brokenness are in some of the newer features than in the same problems 3.5 had. Maybe you can find something nasty to do with the Vital Strike feat tree, or with the CMD craziness, or what have you. But you could probably do that with any rule system, because that's just what you people like to do, and you're good at it, and there's no rule system that's immune to it.

What it comes down to is, do you WANT to get Pathfinder and break it? Do you think that will be fun? Then go for it. Have at. Maybe you'll find something new to throw against the wall. There is the PRD for free to tear up (which it looks like you got started with) before you decide to put down your $10 for the .pdf or the $50 for the actual book (handy also as a weapon, a doorstop, and a flower pressing tool). If you do find you like it for whatever reason, I will echo another poster in saying yes, please buy it and support Paizo.

If you do go at it, let me know what you think of the new magic item creation rules. There's a debate as to whether the creation DC is too low.

[9mm]

D&D and similar games have no win-loss concept. Those are created by people unable to grasp the true nature of the game.

Um, there is little difference between "failing to save the world" and losing. Is D&D a copertive game in which a team of PCs are confronted with challenges they must overcome, yes. The problem is how some PC classes can not only do more, but can do things better than the other PCs. Polymorph/shapechange/wildshape+nat spell = better physical combatant than a Fighter, add in "This encounter ends NOW!" spells and the gap widens even further to the point that quite frankly, the only reason the spell caster has anybody with him is because he enjoys their company, not because he needs there help because he can litterly do everything himself.

[shadzar]

Um, there is little difference between "failing to save the world" and losing.

There is a big difference. in console games when you fail that is it because you are limited to the character given to you by the designers. On the contrary in D&D and similar games, the story CAN continue on. You just have to decide what you intent for playing is. The story or this exact group of characters?

While a new group won't know exactly what the last did, following them can be interesting. So the win and lose doesn't exist. The only lose is when you stop playing the game.

Likewise with "broken" parts, did you enjoy the game before you placed it under a microscope, and now find you dislike all the broken things you found? Then you risk losing the ability to have fun playing it.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

There is a big difference. in console games when you fail that is it because you are limited to the character given to you by the designers. On the contrary in D&D and similar games, the story CAN continue on. You just have to decide what you intent for playing is. The story or this exact group of characters?

Just because you can continue doesn't mean you haven't failed at your objectives--many video games have "Game Over" screens that let you continue playing, but you've still gotten a Game Over and might have lost progress. When people talk about "win buttons" and such, they're referring to whether you've achieved or failed to achieve your current objective; yes, there may be other objectives after you've failed to achieve the first one, but that can be dealt with when you reach that point.