Results 241 to 270 of 389
Thread: Should I get Pathfinder?
-
2011-12-08, 11:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
In 3.5:
Human Paladin, 32 pb
16 str (10pts)
12 dex (4pts)
14 con (6pts)
8 int (0pts)
14 wis (6pts)
14 cha (6pts)
Half-Orc Paladin, 32 pb
16 str (6pts)
12 dex (4pts)
14 con (6pts)
6 int (0pts)
14 wis (6pts)
14 cha (10pts)
...or just use the same PB as Human and get 18 Str and 12 cha. Not a huge deal either way.Last edited by sonofzeal; 2011-12-08 at 11:52 PM.
-
2011-12-09, 12:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
The point is it is irrelevant how awesome a human paladin in Pathfinder would be. Let it be so that a human paladin in Pathfinder is so Awesome, Huzzah, Hip Hip Hooray, Go! Go! Go!, Absolutely the best in everything everywhere for all time forever and ever. If despite all that oh so great grand poobah of awesomeness a player wants to play a half-orc paladin anyway the game mechanics of a Pathfinder half-orc paladin do not suck for him. His Righteous Do Goodism of Delicious Paladin POWER may not be as grand as could have been possible as a human, but the player doesn't care because his half-orc paladin is still juicy in its own rite. He doesn't have to be the Best Paladin EVAR! He just needs to be an effective one, which he can do as a half-orc in Paladin easier than he could as a half-orc in 3E.
-
2011-12-09, 12:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
-
2011-12-09, 12:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2011-12-09, 12:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Midwest, USA
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
This.
I'd add that I'm currently playing a Half-Orc fighter...who's a dedicated archer. And thanks to some good rolls, he's got a 12 in Charisma.
Seriously, the dynamic of giving all the half-races the floating +2 is a good one. It represents the general flexibility they possess. Meanwhile, each of them has some very good advantages (HO darkvision, HE immunities, etc.).
Humans still get a free feat, so it's not like they aren't "top dogs" still.
-
2011-12-09, 12:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
If only because PF as a whole is generally playing with kid gloves, given the buffs PCs got and (apparently) the nerfs monsters got. Everything got easier for everyone, so things are obviously easier for Mr Halforc Paladin too. Is that your sales-pitch for the system, that PCs are stronger and monsters are weaker?
-
2011-12-09, 12:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Midwest, USA
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Is that really such a bad thing, that Paladins got a buff, and the legions of monsters with abilities that instantly removed players from being able to contribute to the game (via save-or-die, save-or-suck, etc) got nerfed?
Is it really so bad that people can more easily play a wider range of options for character ideas now?
How is "everything got easier" a bad sales pitch?
Incidentally, it's not like Paladins, Fighters, or the rest of their ilk can still compete with Wizards and their ilk. So it's still pretty close to 3.5.
-
2011-12-09, 01:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
He's still going to be a worse paladin compared to the 'benchmark human PF paladin' than a 3.5 half orc paladin would be compared to his 'benchmark 3.5 human paladin' counterpart.
As for effectiveness, effective relative to what?
His other party members? That's as relative as ever. If the rest of your party is something like 3x optimized wizards you're going to be sidelined with equal ease in 3.5 as well in PF.
Effectiveness relative to monsters? Well, PF buffed pretty much all races while keeping the monsters largely the same (or nerfing them) Does this mean the half-orc paladin has an easier time? Yes, but then so does everybody else. In order to classify a half-orc paladin as 'effective' or not you'd need to answer the following question: does he have an easier/tougher time facing challenges compared to the 'average human paladin' in 3.5 than in PF?
-
2011-12-09, 01:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
"Easier to play?" Hell yeah, that's my sales pitch.
It's easy to make encounters more challenging. Use tougher monsters. Add more monsters. Add terrain disadvantages. Reduce visibility. Attack the party while they're asleep. Counter their strengths, play to their weaknesses.
"Kid gloves" as you put them - that's actually the hard part. Making something they're supposed to beat, yet keeping it from being a cakewalk.
Now I can throw a troll at them without thinking "crap, the wizard is out of spells, how do they kill it for good?" Or a vampire without saying "The Paladin has one smite left, what if he misses?" Or a mummy without saying "they have no cleric, who will remove the curse?"
Who cares? I'm not playing "everybody else." I'm playing my half-orc paladin.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2011-12-09, 01:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Portland, Or
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
As for effectiveness, effective relative to what?
This:
In order to classify a half-orc paladin as 'effective' or not you'd need to answer the following question: does he have an easier/tougher time facing challenges compared to the 'average human paladin' in 3.5 than in PF?
However, if you wanted to play a paladin and be a half orc... 3.5 would punish you and make you have to work very hard to overcome the obvious obstables in your way to make this an effective character.
Pathfinder would give you viable options as a half orc to play a paladin including:
1. No penalties to important stats.
2. +2 ability bonus to any stat you feel your Half orc paladin needs (maybe STR, or CHA, or CON... your choice!)
3. Paladin can be your favorite class, giving you bonus HP or skillpoints!
4. +2 to intimidate! With CHA important for a paladin, this could become one of your best skills in the game.
5. Orc Ferocity gives a half-orc a single more round of fighting after he hits negative hitpoints! This means if he goes below zero he can use a lay on hands on himself and still keep fighting without the aid of healers!
6. Already proficient with an exotic weapon (orc double axe) No wasted exotic proficiency feat if that's what you want your half orc paladin to wield.
7. There are a number of in game alternatives which add lots of bonuses to the half orc paladin including Gate Crasher (+2 to STR checks and sunder attemps to break objects) or Sacred Tattoo (+1 to all saves)Last edited by Sillycomic; 2011-12-09 at 01:52 AM.
No, you move.
-
2011-12-09, 01:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Nerfage of SoD/SoL would indeed be a good thing. The only one I checked was Basilisk, and that does the same thing but the PF DC is higher.
Is it really so bad that people can more easily play a wider range of options for character ideas now?
How is "everything got easier" a bad sales pitch?Last edited by sonofzeal; 2011-12-09 at 01:49 AM.
-
2011-12-09, 02:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Let's see:
3.5 half-orc paladin has: +2 str (your main stat, only core race that gives that so out of all core race paladins, you will probably have the highest to-hit), access to racial substitution levels in Races of destiny and some other misc bonuses like darkvision and orc double axe as martial (lol @ TWF paladins though). For that you pay the price of a -2 cha(int is a dump stat for most paladins, and 6 int gives the same number of SP as 8 int).
PF half-orc paladin has a +2 to a stat of his choice (just like everybody else), some favorite class bonuses (just like everybody else), and ferocity (which imho it's not that useful past early levels, when damage you receive in a round starts going over 20-30, that 9 HP range in which ferocity works will start to prove rather small).
The PF half-orc might make a better paladin than the 3.5 half-orc, but with the amount of boosts other stuff got, I feel he's further behind the power curve than a 3.5 half-orc paladin would be.
-
2011-12-09, 02:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Portland, Or
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
3.5 half-orc paladin has: +2 str (your main stat, only core race that gives that so out of all core race paladins, you will probably have the highest to-hit), access to racial substitution levels in Races of destiny and some other misc bonuses like darkvision and orc double axe as martial (lol @ TWF paladins though). For that you pay the price of a -2 cha(int is a dump stat for most paladins, and 6 int gives the same number of SP as 8 int).
So yes the 3.5 half orc paladin does get some cool things, but at a price of (-2 CHA) It's a shame there wasn't a character out there that you could play which had all of these cool things but with no price to pay at all.... oh wait, there is! Pathfinder Half orc Paladin!
Cool, thanks Paizo!
And a pathfinder half orc can also make paladin a favored class.
Plus the other bonuses, which I understand you feel aren't amazing are clearly bonuses that the Pathfinder half orc can get which a 3.5 half orc can't. You can say Orc Ferocity isn't that useful after low levels, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a bonus and useful during those low levels.
I am a little puzzled.
You say the pathfinder half orc paladin is better than the 3.5 half orc paladin.
But then you state... because of "boosts to other stuff" the half orc paladin is actually further behind than the 3.5 paladin?
First of all, I have no clue what "boosts to other stuff" means. What boosts, to what stuff?
Secondly, if the PF Half orc paladin is better than the 3.5 half orc paladin, then how is he further behind? Can you be better and further behind at the same time?Last edited by Sillycomic; 2011-12-09 at 02:48 AM.
No, you move.
-
2011-12-09, 02:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Half orc paladin in 3.5 does some cool stuff for a price. Half-orc paladin in PF does less cool stuff for less cost(+2 str is way cooler when nobody else has it).
Put side by side, PF half-orc paladin probably looks better than 3.5 half-orc paladin(that's what I meant by better). However, in practice(3.P notwithstanding), the 3.5 paladin will be in a 3.5 game, playing alongside 3.5 races/classes, whereas the PF paladin will do the same in a PF game. And given how PF races are setup, I feel you're doing yourself a greater disservice by going half-orc over human in PF than you do in 3.5.
-
2011-12-09, 02:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Wrong again; the part about thawing them out with its blood is not in 3.5. If you kill the PF basilisk, you can undo the effect of its gaze on up to 3 of your party members immediately. In 3.5, you get to
eat shfind a cleric, or adorn your garden.
1) You have no way of knowing demand for anything.
2) Any lack of demand would have been due to it being a terrible combination mechanically, not necessarily due to a lack of player desire. Or are you saying wizards make more sense for them? Bards? Or maybe they have no arcanists at all/no players that conceived of them?
It's marketed to people who got fed up with pass-fail mechanics back in 1e.Last edited by Psyren; 2011-12-09 at 02:55 AM.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2011-12-09, 03:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Portland, Or
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Ahh, I see. Ok then, again I don't disagree with you. The most effective paladin is and always will be a human.
I just feel like that's a non-issue because, no one has argued any differently. At no point was the argument about what race makes a more effective paladin, simply what version of what race is more effective.
So, I guess we can both be right.
Humans make better paladins.
Pathfinder half orcs look and are better at being a paladin than 3.5 half orcs.
Neither of those statements contradict the other.No, you move.
-
2011-12-09, 03:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
So I normally wouldn't do this... but... Legend is, you know, free? Like actually free, not just SRD'd? And if you want, you can help us save Christmas.
Lagren: I took Livers Need Not Apply, only reflavoured.
DocRoc: to?
Lagren: So whenever Harry wisecracks, he regains HP.
-
2011-12-09, 04:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
-
2011-12-09, 09:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2011-12-09, 09:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Last edited by sonofzeal; 2011-12-09 at 09:10 AM.
-
2011-12-09, 09:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
He means that even though Pathfinder half-orc paladin is stronger than a 3.5 half-orc paladin, the power difference between a Pathfinder human paladin and a Pathfinder half-orc paladin is larger than the power difference between a 3.5 human paladin and a 3.5 half-orc paladin.
The logic behind the argument is players should play the most optimal character as possible. Since a Pathfinder human paladin gets much better stuff than a Pathfinder half-orc paladin, you are The Stupid for choosing to be a Pathfinder half-orc paladin. Because the Pathfinder half-orc paladin is much weaker than a Pathfinder human paladin compared to a 3.5 half-orc paladin being weaker than a 3.5 human paladin, in Pathfinder you're more The Stupid for choosing to play a half-orc paladin than you would be if you were playing 3.5.
I find that argument to be The Stupid, but it's by the same people who think it's stupid for a spellcaster to cast a buff spell on the Fighter. If your character is not Mary Poppins ("Practically perfect in every way") then you're The Suck, a drain on party resources; go away.
-
2011-12-09, 09:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Hello sir, welcome to the Hyperbole Hotel, here's your room key. I have never seen a less accurate description of optimization than this one.
It is not The Stupid for a wizard to buff his buddy; the buff makes the party more powerful as a whole. It is, however, The Stupid for a person to build a fighter with the expectation that his buddy wizard's goodwill will turn him from a pillow with a face into a competent party member. Buffs are a supplement to your character's skill, they should not be your primary means of accomplishing anything at all.
-
2011-12-09, 09:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Pathfinder>3.5
This is because not only are there less books to constantly carry around (due to stuff being on PRD) but also Paizo doesn't vomit books of poor quality constantly like wizards did. Pathfinder is consistently good quality. It is also funner to play because less dead levels.
Don't use the SRD. It's poorly edited.
Also, Pathfinder bases its product line on a renewable product. Adventure paths. So it won't mess you around like 3.5 and 4e.
-
2011-12-09, 09:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
The question at hand is not "are pc races better compared to monsters"
It's "is the gap between humans and half orcs smaller in PF"?
This requires three steps.
A. analyze the difference in 3.5
B. analyze the difference in PF.
C. Compare the differences.
Since both humans and half orcs get a +2 to any stat, B does not in any way have a larger difference as a result. Since both 3.5 and PF have such things as darkvision for half orcs, there is no difference in C from that.
But...since you asked, yes, many monsters WERE beefed up. More importantly, it's still fairly common to fight enemies that use PC classes. So, it tends to be just a numbers inflation all round. That mostly means only that the math is slightly more involved(meh), but it has some unfortunate knock on effects. For example, unoptimized blasting tends to be a bit weaker in PF because base spell damage is the same and hp tends to be higher. This is a negative effect.
Your argument is waffling back and for- well, a more accurate description might be that it's drunkenly weaving all over the road. "The stat boost doesn't matter, because humans get it too and a feat!" Yeah, but they don't get darkvision or ferocity or orc-blooded or weapon familiarity or any of the things they can replace those features with. Those things might not matter to you and that's great, but you're instead trying to pretend they don't exist entirely simply because they hurt your argument.
This means that, in step B above, humans are relatively better than half orc in PF.
"A 1d4 bite is crappy!" So is a 1d4 slam, yet I see a ton of people taking Warforged just to get it, for whichever PrC or feat or what have you that needs a natural attack. Plus, you know, you might not have your weapons all the time or you might want that second attack before level 6 or you might need bludgeoning damage when all you have is a greatsword etc.
bludgeoning damage? As a melee char? Pick up a club. It's free, and it does more damage.
Feats or PrCs? For a half orc paladin in PF that require a bite attack? Feel free to list them, because I honestly can't think of a single one that makes your point.
"Everyone has +2 so it's meaningless!" Yet in 3.5, they didn't. Compare apples to apples, not to volkswagens. The within-system comparison is meaningless when you're trying to compare one system to another instead.
Adding a +2 to everyone is inflationary. Now, if inflation is good or bad...meh. Depends on the circumstance. But it most certainly does not fix imbalances between the races.
Wait what? Nah. In 3.5 you just beat him into the ground in the normal fashion then CdG. Repeat until save is failed. It's really not hard at all.
This is correct.
The logic behind the argument is players should play the most optimal character as possible. Since a Pathfinder human paladin gets much better stuff than a Pathfinder half-orc paladin, you are The Stupid for choosing to be a Pathfinder half-orc paladin. Because the Pathfinder half-orc paladin is much weaker than a Pathfinder human paladin compared to a 3.5 half-orc paladin being weaker than a 3.5 human paladin, in Pathfinder you're more The Stupid for choosing to play a half-orc paladin than you would be if you were playing 3.5.
I find that argument to be The Stupid, but it's by the same people who think it's stupid for a spellcaster to cast a buff spell on the Fighter. If your character is not Mary Poppins ("Practically perfect in every way") then you're The Suck, a drain on party resources; go away.
No, Psyren claimed that PF had made non-human and unpopular races more attractive.
I merely provided examples that they have not.
The ability to trade one stat for another is an important part of racial differentiation in 3.5. You're losing choice, not gaining it.
2. +2 ability bonus to any stat you feel your Half orc paladin needs (maybe STR, or CHA, or CON... your choice!)
3. Paladin can be your favorite class, giving you bonus HP or skillpoints!
[quote]4. +2 to intimidate! With CHA important for a paladin, this could become one of your best skills in the game. [quote]
In PF, intimidate is not a paladin class skill. It's probably not great.
5. Orc Ferocity gives a half-orc a single more round of fighting after he hits negative hitpoints! This means if he goes below zero he can use a lay on hands on himself and still keep fighting without the aid of healers!
6. Already proficient with an exotic weapon (orc double axe) No wasted exotic proficiency feat if that's what you want your half orc paladin to wield.
And seriously, if you picked orc double axe as your weapon, effectiveness is probably not that important to you.
7. There are a number of in game alternatives which add lots of bonuses to the half orc paladin including Gate Crasher (+2 to STR checks and sunder attemps to break objects) or Sacred Tattoo (+1 to all saves)
Imagine if the human had taken Improved Sunder instead with his extra feat. Not only would he get the +2 to breaking objects, he'd get +2 to defending his objects as well. Oh, and he'd also get to skip the whole AoO thing while sundering.
No, this is a very poor choice, even if a build based around smashing apart potential loot was a good idea.Last edited by Tyndmyr; 2011-12-09 at 10:01 AM.
-
2011-12-09, 09:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Easily; that's the same market 3e had. One need only look at the updated Tomb of Horrors to see how drastically the game's design philosophy changed since the earlier editions regarding insta-gib challenges.
PF simply took it a step further, because 3.5 still had plenty, allowing rocket tag to dominate the game even at mid-levels. Your Basilisk example for instance - if the 3.5 party's cleric gets stoned, the DM has to roll up his sleeves and throw them a bone or they're screwed. Or negative levels - instant spellcaster screw in 3.5 (as they lose their biggest guns first) yet in PF, they remain harmful without being the insurmountable obstacles they are now.
Now, I'm not saying that PF doesn't have pass-fail mechanics still, but it certainly has less than 3.5. Combined with buffing PCs and nerfing monsters (which, as I explained previously, doesn't morph the game into easymode since the DM has multiple ways to increase difficulty), and the odds of your PC biting it to random chance are much lower.
Now the players who want random chance to be able to wipe their party? They have OSRIC and CoC and all sorts of other games to feel nice and powerless in. Pathfinder is not one of them.
@Tyndmyr: Humans are not Half-Orcs. PF Humans being better at X than PF Half-Orcs has no bearing on PF Half-Orcs being better at X than 3.5 Half-Orcs, so I'm not going to bother continuing beating my head against that brick wall. If you refuse to see it, fine.Last edited by Psyren; 2011-12-09 at 09:55 AM.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2011-12-09, 10:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
-
2011-12-09, 10:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Sure I have, you just haven't been reading. You are no longer arbitrarily punished by the system for playing certain race-class combinations. Your half-orc sorcerer, for instance, can start off better than or even just on par with an Elven one (as opposed to being automatically disadvantaged like he used to.) This encourages players to try those combinations that were previously deemed unworthy on a systemic level. Diversity.
Hell, even WotC actively tried to discourage the players. From Races of Destiny:
Sorcerer: Half-orcs do not make good sorcerers. The class depends on Charisma to succeed, and that is typically a half-orc’s weakest ability.Last edited by Psyren; 2011-12-09 at 10:18 AM.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2011-12-09, 10:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Pfft, by far the best race for Sorc is Human. So, not at all sir. That does not encourage diversity. Elves were not the iconic sorcerer race in either system.
It just happens that humans get a lot more awesome stuff in PF, so again, they're better than BOTH races in comparison by an even wider margin.
Hell, even WotC actively tried to discourage the players. From Races of Destiny:
Humans are still better, but I can be a non-human without feeling like I'm fighting an uphill battle. Why is this so hard to grasp? Navar and comic got it.
The straight human sorc gets about twice as many spells known, has the same primary stat as yer half-orc sorc and the same secondary stats. And also a free feat.
He is positively filled with win. So, no, your non-human IS fighting an uphill battle to maintain parity.
-
2011-12-09, 10:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Navar and comic got it.
-
2011-12-09, 10:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Should I get Pathfinder?
Which is irrelevant if I don't want to be human.
If I didn't want to be human in 3.5, I got to eat a nice steaming pile of... mediocre.
If by "psychological" you mean "mathematical" then yes.
"Parity" was never the goal, otherwise we'd all be Pun-Pun just to be competitive. You might enjoy that game but I don't.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)