PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder (the RPG, not the movie)



Archpaladin Zousha
2009-01-25, 11:58 PM
Anybody know anything about this? I've been wondering about it, and whether it's any good or not. All I know about it are secondhand rumors claiming that it's bloated and pretentious and that Paizo are apparently being whiny or ***** about it or something.

I took a brief scan of the Pathfinder Wiki, and it looks kinda cool. Does anyone have any feelings about it or are you as much in the dark as I am?

kenjigoku
2009-01-26, 12:00 AM
You can go to the Paizo website and download the rules for free.

http://paizo.com/pathfinder

arguskos
2009-01-26, 12:00 AM
I have it, I like it, I use it as a tome of houserules. Not much else. Most people here are going to tell you it suxx0rz and similar, but really, it's fine, just not a universal fix like they claim. It's fun and different in some ways, so give it a shot. You might like it, you might hate it.

Aron Times
2009-01-26, 12:04 AM
The rules are alright, but getting feedback to the developers is an uphill battle when the rabid fanboys drown out all legitimate criticism. The worst part is that the devs seem to take their side.

Basically, it's much more balanced than 3.5, but because it tries to be reverse-compatible with 3.5 content, it does not fix 3.5's core problems.

If your group is fine with 3.5, then you'll like Pathfinder. Otherwise, 4E is much better.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-01-26, 12:06 AM
What do you mean, "the rabid fanboys drown out all legitimate criticism?"

RTGoodman
2009-01-26, 12:07 AM
The thing is, they marketed it (as far as I know) as the "fixed" 3.x for all the people that refused to go on to 4E. The PROBLEM is that, according to a lot of people that've read it, it DOESN'T, in fact, do anything to fix problems in 3.x and in many cases makes them even WORSE. I know there are several folks on here who'll gladly fill in more about it and the fawning fanboys on Paizo that supposedly agree with every change made (including the bad ones), so I'll let them do that in good time.

Aron Times
2009-01-26, 12:14 AM
Zousha, I am not making this up. Several CharOp regulars independently decided to playtest Pathfinder and wound up in the Paizo forums. While discussing the merits and flaws of Pathfinder, we got heavily flamed by people who thought that game balance was "munchkinism", and that our mathematical analyses of Pathfinder was the same.

And then one dev told us that we should be playing the game instead of mathematically analyzing it, as if all we posted were pure theory. Many of us actually played the game and found it a bit lacking.

But as I said, your mileage may vary.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-01-26, 12:18 AM
So Paizo are being snobs and rejecting criticism of their game as insulting their genius? Is that what's going on?

Gaiwecoor
2009-01-26, 12:19 AM
My group has been using PF for a play-by-post since September (I think?). It's worked out fairly well, and we've enjoyed it quite a bit. Although it's not completely backward compatible, it's close enough to not be too much of a problem (in most cases). Several mechanics were made a bit more simple than standard 3.5, but not all issues in 3.5 were addressed or adequately modified (if you were looking for a "fix").

Over all, we've enjoyed it, and have found very little to complain about. Since we weren't looking at it as a fix to 3.5, it hasn't been the disappointment many people claim it to be. Yes, it's still possible to build a CoDzilla or a wizard that will dominate the world. That's just what ends up happening in a system where magic is nearly limitless. With all that said, I fully expect to convert in August when the final ruleset is released.

[Edit]

Yeah, there are a lot of fanboys on the Paizo forum that will scream at you if you say anything critical. I've seen a Dev side with them from time to time as well. I've also seen them (the Devs) take legitimate criticism seriously and modify the beta rules accordingly, publishing updates to be tested. When flooded by feedback from a public beta test, it can be difficult to filter out those that actually take time to look at things from all those that scream opinion without anything to back it up. I think the Devs are just human, and sometimes miss the things they should be looking at, while looking at the things they should be ignoring. You win some, you lose some.

RTGoodman
2009-01-26, 12:27 AM
So Paizo are being snobs and rejecting criticism of their game as insulting their genius? Is that what's going on?

Not entirely, but it's not the Paizo designers that are the ones rejecting criticism - it's a lot of forum members that drown out and flame critics even when there's a legitimate claim of something that needs change. I think there's a lot of talk about how they didn't fix balance and, in fact, even made casters STRONGER than in standard 3.x.

thegurullamen
2009-01-26, 12:33 AM
even made casters STRONGER than in standard 3.x.

Take this with a grain of salt. Most of the complaints I've heard towards this end are geared at giving Sorcs/Wizs actual class abilities beyond the Wiz. special feats. They also tend to overlook that Paizo gave some of the more potent/broken spells (as in literally do-not-do-what-they-were-meant-to-do spells like Polymorph) a sound thrashing with the nerf stick or shattered them into other, less-recognizable versions of the original.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-01-26, 12:34 AM
Why would people just blindly accept what gets thrown at them and scream at anyone who speaks up? That doesn't get a good game made, and I think everyone knows that.

Did they do anything to help the ailing paladin?

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-26, 12:34 AM
Most people here are going to tell you it suxx0rz and similar, but really, it's fine, just not a universal fix like they claim. It's fun and different in some ways, so give it a shot. You might like it, you might hate it.
Yeah, this. It does change a few things that I don't like about 3e, but not nearly enough. To really fix the game, I'd have to institute the same house rules that I had a year before Paizo even announced PF. So for me, it's 4e.

TS

Aron Times
2009-01-26, 12:36 AM
Paladins are still forced to be lawful good. Unfortunately, I can't find my Pathfinder PDF so I can't help you right now (I think I deleted it).

RTGoodman
2009-01-26, 12:37 AM
Take this with a grain of salt. Most of the complaints I've heard towards this end are geared at giving Sorcs/Wizs actual class abilities beyond the Wiz. special feats.

Could be true, but almost everyone I've seen talk about it says that casters just get stronger. I haven't looked into it at all other than occasionally checking on specific stuff people have mentioned. In general, 3.x is fine for me and my groups, and 4E is great, too. Now if I could only get enough people together to actually PLAY D&D nowadays... :smallmad:

theMycon
2009-01-26, 12:52 AM
In general, I like their re-writes for the classes, and for the most broken spells, but nothing much else.

For example, the monk, rather than 1/day abilities, has a "pool of Ki" that allows him to perform a number of nifty abilities powered by them (like MP in Video Game RPGs), some of which are actually useful- I'm playing one in their modules, and he tends to serve as the primary tank & disrupter ridiculously well, and usually ends up dealing more than his share of damage against humanoids & caster-type monsters.

However, the grapple rules are... wildly contradictory. Every mention of them is different, and does not reference to each other. In one of them, being grappled arguably makes it easier for a magic user to cast spells. In another, he simply can't even try to cast non still-silent-eschew-materials spells, period. In another of them, he cannot attempt to do anything other than escape- which has two conflicting sets of DCs, depending on where you look.

BobVosh
2009-01-26, 12:55 AM
Why would people just blindly accept what gets thrown at them and scream at anyone who speaks up? That doesn't get a good game made, and I think everyone knows that.

Did they do anything to help the ailing paladin?

Yes, I believe we can all agree to hate paizo's forum.

They made the paladin a lot more playable. I have never liked pallies, but they are a decent class.

The things that the system really did help with is skills, CMB & some spells.

Skills: having a class skill just nets you +3 to the skill. All skills are 1 for 1, with the limit being your class level + HD. No x4 starting skills so if you go rogue it doesn't have to be your first level to properly skillmonkey. Combined a few skills, got rid of use rope. (only skill gone)

CMB: Combat Maneuver Bonus: All defenders take a 15 on the die roll and add this. Attacked rolls 1D20 and add this. Covers Trip, Disarm, Grapple, etc

Spells: As someone mentioned nerffed Polymorph, I believe gate got hit, and a few others. Glitterdust, time stop, and few others are still just as amazing.

My overall impression is that I like it. Smoother and a bit easier. You can still break it, but that is true for almost every game.

Oh, and barbarians. Fun rage powers to the point they have mechanics that are interesting. Fighters are better now, but all thier stuff is still static.

arguskos
2009-01-26, 12:55 AM
In general, I like their re-writes for the classes, and for the most broken spells, but nothing much else.

For example, the monk, rather than 1/day abilities, has a "pool of Ki" that allows him to perform a number of nifty abilities powered by them (like MP in Video Game RPGs), some of which are actually useful- I'm playing one in their modules, and he tends to serve as the primary tank & disrupter ridiculously well, and usually ends up dealing more than his share of damage against humanoids & caster-type monsters.
On the Ki Pool... yeaaaaaah. So, using the ki points, a monk can gain +20 on Jump checks, leading my group to dub the monk the "Superman guy", for his tendency to leap into the sky and then punch stuff he lands on.

Panda-s1
2009-01-26, 01:08 AM
I really love the Pathfinder setting, and I wish I could say the same for the game, but I can't. When it first came out I was excited, and thought that if I didn't like 4e then I could play this instead. But alas I like 4e, and ended up feeling alienated by Pathfinder.

In most cases it's the fans that drive me away, which I really hate to admit, but when said fans get to openly playtest the game....

Okay, let me put it like this. This game is playtested by a bunch of people on a forum. Granted this forum is organized into subboards, but it's still a very messy one, and the majority of the posts (when I left) usually fell into one of two categories: "OMG, good job with (blank)" and "Why did you do (blank)? That's broken!" Normally there'd be some kind of form or email address or something one can report their information to in order to make playtesting more organized, but I'm astounded at the fact that the designers are supposed to go through these forums in order to make this game "better."

The main issue I have with the playtesting is it's very... subjective for lack of a better term. Game balance is something they dealt with in 4e, and while the Pathfinder version of the fighter is better than it's 3.5 counterpart, so too are all the casting classes, and monk got the nerfbat for no reason than being the monk. Now one would expect being a playtest people could say why the fighter needs help, but even when they make very nice arguments as to how the fighter lags behind the wizard, all they respond with is things like "Ugh, you're one of those people who want to be overpowered at first level!" or "Well the fighter is more flexible, I can make him however I want!" then they go make a post to talk about how much they love the 3.5 fighter. *sigh*

I was in a post once praising the bard's new bardic knowledge feature. I agree that taking 20 on a knowledge check once a day is cool, but the taking 10 on a single knowledge is kinda dumb considering anyone trained in it can do it. After a lengthy argument over the Take 10 rule me and a few others finally convinced everyone on the thread that you can take 10 on a knowledge check when trained. This was one of like two threads that talked about this ability, and when the beta came out it was still unchanged.... At that point I drifted away from Pathfinder entirely.

I'd love playing a cleric in Pathfinder, but aside from that and ranger nothing seems that interesting, and they didn't resolve the issues most people had with 3.5 enough for me to care. And while Paizo writers know how to do interesting things with the 3.5 rules, things like making wizards and sorcerers more powerful and the bard taking 10 as a class feature make it seem like they aren't the best for the job.

PinkysBrain
2009-01-26, 03:13 AM
I like some of the concepts, but I think some things could have been done as variant rules (getting rid of save or dies) and I think they were unimaginative in fixing the non caster classes ... who will still be useless at higher levels.

They just did not dare go far enough.

Scaboroth
2009-01-26, 03:30 AM
Yes, I believe we can all agree to hate paizo's forum.

Speak for yourself, dude. I believe we can all agree that there are a bunch of yahoos there, but where isn't that true? And besides, not only have I seen fascinating and well-reasoned arguments play out there, the non-gaming forums are also very friendly and amusing. I've developed a real affection for the Paizo messageboards over time, sort of like an acquired taste.

xanaphia
2009-01-26, 03:47 AM
Speak for yourself, dude. I believe we can all agree that there are a bunch of yahoos there, but where isn't that true? And besides, not only have I seen fascinating and well-reasoned arguments play out there, the non-gaming forums are also very friendly and amusing. I've developed a real affection for the Paizo messageboards over time, sort of like an acquired taste.

We're all just used to the standards of this forum.

bosssmiley
2009-01-26, 05:46 AM
Why would people just blindly accept what gets thrown at them and scream at anyone who speaks up? That doesn't get a good game made, and I think everyone knows that.

Part of the problem is that the lead designer on Pathfinder has no idea what the true flaws in the 3E system actually are (as opposed to niggling but ultimately irrelevant proud nails (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a)), and part is that a lot of people on the forums can't separate their opinions and prejudices from objective fact. It really is a case of the blind leading the blind in triumphal procession over the cliff-edge to the accompaniment of 10,000 hollering gibbons.

Seen on the paizo forum recently, a prime specimen of the genus hollering gibbon:


Hogwash. Math is irrelevant.
(link to source (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/design/barbarianFighterRanger/debunkingTheFighterMyth&page=1))

In the playtesting of a new version of a game system maths and stats are irrelevant. Ok, thanks for that. :smallamused:

Oh, and this made me laugh:

"Hai guyz. We ain't fixed Core, but - seeing as you'll lap up anything we throw at you - how do you feel about shiny new Epic book? (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/announcements/whatDoesEpicMeanToYou)"
-- Erik Mona

What was that old saw about learning to walk before you try to run? :sigh:

Morty
2009-01-26, 11:07 AM
I think Pathfinder is okay, even if they didn't fix everything they should have. One very good thing they've done is that now every class has got a capstone ability of some sort on 20th level. And they haven't made anything much worse, well, maybe with the exception of making all core races stronger, which makes no sense at all. All in all, it's not bad, but not something I'd spend my money on if I already have 3ed D&D rulebooks. Even though I don't like 4th edition.

Starbuck_II
2009-01-26, 01:00 PM
Glitterdust, time stop, and few others are still just as amazing.

Glitterdust was nerfed. Unless you have a different Beta than me.

Glitterdust can now be saved for free every round as a free action.
I'm not joking. They gave it Hold Person mechanics, but with a free action.

Morty
2009-01-26, 01:06 PM
Glitterdust can now be saved for free every round as a free action.
I'm not joking. They gave it Hold Person mechanics, but with a free action.

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Glitterdust is way too good in core D&D. The only downside was that you felt as if you were playing Tinker Bell.

Nero24200
2009-01-26, 01:24 PM
As someone who has had to put up with PF, I can personally say that the claims in this topic are true, getting legitimate problems through to the developers is a nightmare.

Fanboys (and in some cases the Paizo writers themselves) will argue constanly about certain abilities even if their arugments are completly flawed. I've seen countless folk on the forums arguing that change X Y and Z are great because they fix a problem...a problem which 9 times out of 10 didn't exist before (Elemental Rage anyone? Apparently folk have been begging for a way to do a supernatural barberian ever since 3.0 :smallannoyed: And apparently the non-core classes are horrendously overpowered...even though with the exception of TOB classes I've never seen a non-core class played with PRPG that wasn't boosted to compenstate)

Also, in all honesty, it's easy to say which classes paizo favour more than others. The barbarian and sorcerer have obviously had alot of work put into them, but classes like the bard and ranger have had little influence.

I find it ironic that a forum which is pretty much anti-4 Ed seems to enjoy PRPG, even though it seems far closer to 4th Edition than 3.5 ever was (now featuring named attacks for the martial classes, "Bloodlines" for one of the spellcasting classes, skill consolidation (and a skill system pretty much identical to 4th Editions version during Alpha testing)).

theMycon
2009-01-27, 07:11 PM
On the Ki Pool... yeaaaaaah. So, using the ki points, a monk can gain +20 on Jump checks, leading my group to dub the monk the "Superman guy", for his tendency to leap into the sky and then punch stuff he lands on.

One of my favorite moments in the game so far:
DM: "you can't charge through an ally's square"
Me: "How tall is he?"
DM: "There's also 40 feet of rough terrain in front of him"
Me: "So I have to roll at least a... four?"
DM: "... fine ..."

Lorien077
2009-01-28, 03:25 AM
My reply may run a bit late, but the nice thing about pathfinder is it rebalanced some of the core classes, consolidates skills, and rebalanced some spells. (Mind blank is no longer immunity to mind affecting, just a biiiig will save boost) In some ways this is good: in my opinion it gives a lot of the 3.5 core classes the needed boost, and puts them on level with the splat books. But it will power up your game a bit, and you will need to decide if you're using traditional 3.5 skills or pathfinder skills.
I personally like it, but I can see why people would have issue with it.

kalt
2009-01-28, 08:30 AM
I have actually played it to a rather high extent. We tend to hybridize it though like in the example of the fighter. Spells and such we usually keep straight 3.5. I do like some of their changes dislike other but their adventure arcs are rather good. I have played all the way through curse of the crimson throne and our party is currently level 7 in Second Darkness. So basically what I'l trying to say is that if you want to play a sorceror use theirs as well as a fighter since Fighter 20 isn't as useless. Good adventures so so everything else.

Serenity
2009-01-28, 10:02 AM
My impressions:

Fighter is probably about as improved in PFRPG as you can get without simply rolling a Warblade instead. A few things to improve his mobility would be nice, but he has actual class features now which are pretty nice. And his capstone ability is to always confirm criticals. Give that man a kukri, and watch the damage soar.

The Rage Points mechanic is much more interesting to me than standard Barbarian Rage. Giving a character interesting and diverse options to use in combat is always nice.

Monk is better. Still worthless, especially because Quivering Palm is completely unchanged.

Sorcerer, despite having class features now, doesn't strike me as terribly increasing in power compared to its 3.5 incarnation, and without reading over the spell list in more detail, I can't say how overpowered magic is in general. The class features they get, though, are bloodline stuff that I find wholly uninteresting.

Wizards...do they really need more abilities from their magical areas of study? One of the biggest failures right here. Leave this as the 3.x version, and the bump to the other classes might make things a little more balanced.

I like the consolidated skills a lot, though there are a few things I'd change--I'd separate Concentration from Spellcraft again, and combine Climb, Swim, and possibly Ride into Athletics. Overall, great new skill system.

The favored class system is one I'd actually consider using. Rather than fiddly multiclass penalties, each race has two favored classes, choose one at first level, and gain +1 HP or +1 Skill Point at each level in that class. (Humans and half-elves choose their favored class). It's a nice minor bump, without seriously penalizing those who wish to multiclass or play outside the box. However, complaints that it's 'overpowered', 'unfair', and 'encourages vanilla characters' are apparently encouraging the Devs to let everyone choose their favored class, which is stupid; at that point, there's no reason to have favored class at all.

I'm not sure of the math behind the CMB, but I remember someone mentioning that, while it's a simplified, unified mechanic, it makes tripping/grappling/etc. harder to accomplish. Me, I want my players to want to use such tricks.

Overall, I'd say it's a good place to mine for houserules, not something I'd play out of the box.

Andras
2009-01-28, 04:06 PM
From what I've seen, it adds a bunch of nifty stuff that doesn't really address the power imbalances in 3.5.

Another_Poet
2009-01-28, 04:29 PM
Pathfinder rocks. I say this having run a party of 12th level PCs and a party of 1st level PCs using the system.

When I first heard about it I decided to give it a try purely because someone was working to keep 3.5 marketable, and I support that. I want them to succeed.

What I found out, through playing, is that it does actually fix most of the core 3.5 problems.

A lot of people will say otherwise, based on a read through of the classes. What those people usually won't mention is that they certainly did not read each of the 100+ pages of spell descriptions in detail. No one is going to read spell after spell after spell. A flip-through sure, but seeing how much better the magic system is pretty much only happens through lots and lots of play, at levels where strong spells actually get used. I've DM'd such play and I have to say it is far more balanced.

Our 12th level characters were a Druid (!), a Bard, a Paladin and a Fighter. The druid did not steal the show and in fact fit in quite nicely. The Bard was easily the most useful character (!) and the fighter and paladin were both good contributors in combat.

The bottom line is, most of the bad buzz about Pathfinder is either due to bad experiences on the Paizo forums (gee, you didn't feel valued when giving feedback to a huge company? What a surprise!) or people forming opinions without doing actual play at different character levels. I find that Pathfinder makes a more survivable low-level experience and a more balanced high-level experience. Two great things right there.

But the bottom line is, even for those who disagree with me, Pathfinder absolutely is the "fix" to 3.5 in one crucial regard: it fixes the problem of no new 3.x products, no new 3.x support, and no new 3.x players/DMs. Even if you don't like the spells, etc., Pathfinder RPG represents a major company putting a lot of resources into a game system that would otherwise shrink into obscurity. I'm pretty darn pleased with that.

ap

edit @ reese: the reason CMB makes grapples and such harder to accomplish is that it assumes 15, not 10 (nor a d20 roll), as the base number to which you add modifiers to determine the target number. If you want it to be easier, simply reduce it to 10 + modifiers.

Dienekes
2009-01-29, 02:24 AM
Ehh, I like it. It may not fix everything but it fixes a bit.

I just started using it over break. Pretty much all the players are happy, and I do think it helped a bit with the unbalancedness of the classes.

Fighters got a big bump, even more so with a new batch of feats they have on the forum (which I agree is pretty crazy) that can make the fighter useful at higher levels.

I personally think Barbarian Rage points and Rogue Tricks are awesome.

Don't know about Bard and Monk as no one in my group ever touches those classes so I didn't look over them too hard.

Sorcerers are interesting in now they aren't straight rip offs of Wizards.

Wizards have been given a buff but I don't think it's as extensive as the other classes. I'd personally use the old Wizard here as they're powerful enough.

And I don't remember the change of Clerics.

I do like the new races stats, and I think the new skill system helps out the skill suckers like the Fighter and Cleric without making the Rogue feel as if he has lost any power.

CMB is good for streamlining and my party loves it (we changed it to 12+mods though) though I can see many of the older players using the more detailed 3.5 version.

My group still has only worked from level 3-6 (though I level people slow) so we'll see how it continues. But so far we're enjoying ourselves.

Bosh
2009-01-29, 02:56 AM
Well let's put it this way: they give the wizard a bigger power boost than the monk.

In other words they WIDEN the massive gulf in power between the weakest class and the most powerful class.

This is a BAD thing. A very BAD thing. Personally I don't see myself ever playing a game made by people who can't figure out that wizards are more powerful than monks after the game as been out for so long.

thegurullamen
2009-01-29, 03:26 AM
Well let's put it this way: they give the wizard a bigger power boost than the monk.

In other words they WIDEN the massive gulf in power between the weakest class and the most powerful class.

This is a BAD thing. A very BAD thing. Personally I don't see myself ever playing a game made by people who can't figure out that wizards are more powerful than monks after the game as been out for so long.

What? How do you define "bigger power boost"? The monk got a decent set of additions. And the idea is to make classes more playable. Making the wizard more powerful in some aspects (and I say look at the spells they nerfed: the wiz had a lot of the wind taken out of his sails) doesn't reduce the playability of the monk. They're not mutually exclusive. Playability is playability.

I fail to see why this is such a very BAD thing.

Bosh
2009-01-29, 04:55 AM
What? How do you define "bigger power boost"? The monk got a decent set of additions. And the idea is to make classes more playable. Making the wizard more powerful in some aspects (and I say look at the spells they nerfed: the wiz had a lot of the wind taken out of his sails) doesn't reduce the playability of the monk. They're not mutually exclusive. Playability is playability.

I fail to see why this is such a very BAD thing.

OK, let's see, the Monk gets:

Maneuver training (decent)
His Ki Strike and Ki Strike (lawful and adamantine) get nerfed (they used to be able to use these abilities at will but now they can only use them a few times a day).
They can do other Ki things, but only at the cost of greatly limiting how much they could use a previously at will ability (Ki Strike).
High Jump
One bonus feat at level 10
One bonus feat at level 18

A very very weak set of boosts and a nerf (to ki strike). Monks barely get boosted at all.

A wizard gets:

A bigger hit dice
School power
No nerfs at all (except for changes to spells)

These School power abilities are damn powerful. Basically they give a big boost to the specialists over and above what they already had and give universalists extra spells. These is FAR FAR more powerful than anything that the monks get.

Boosting wizards more than monks in an attempt to fix class balance is rather silly. Then when reading the class section I come across this statement:



Over the years, a number of other races and classes have been released that are a bit more powerful than the base options. Since we do not want the core races and classes to be suboptimal choices, and we cannot change the the other material, adding to the base options seemed like the best option.

This is so wrong that I don't even no where to start. Overall, splatbook options are significantly weaker than core options. It is true that if you have a stack of splatbooks you can cherry pick a bunch of options for synergies and mash them together to make something that's stronger than core, but that's not because splatbook options are more powerful its that if you have a whooooooole lot of options its always easier to cherry pick the few best than if you have a few options (for example making a good M:tG deck is 10,000 common cards is a hell of a easier than making a good M:tG deck with 100 race cards).

With the exception of the Archivist and the Artificer (which are about as powerful as Clerics/Wizards/Druids), the PHB II classes (which are well balanced with comparable classes) and the Tome of Battle Classes (which are, by design, more powerful than core meleers but are still weaker than core casters).

If you go through the splatbooks virtually every new class is weaker than the most similar Core class:

Ninjas and Spell Thieves are weaker than Rogues
Healers and Favored Souls are weaker than Clerics
Swashbucklers and Samuri are weaker than fighters
Wu Jens, War Mages, Dread Necromancers and Warlocks are weaker than Wizards
Spirit Shamans are weaker than Druids
Marshals (except as a dip) are weaker than Bards

To repeat, there is not a single non-Core class that is more powerful than the Wizard/Cleric/Druid triad. So one of the most basic design changes to Pathfinder (an across the board boost to the core classes) just doesn't make any sense at all. Are Warlocks, Hexblades and Wu Jens really so powerful that Wizards need a boost to compete?

As far as races, I can think of only one truly cheesy non-Core race (Whisper Gnomes), overall the most powerful race in 3.5ed is Humans and they're core.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-01-29, 06:58 AM
I'm personally staying away from Paizo's Pathfinder:
from what I've heard I have not been impressed, and neither have I been convinced that they in any way shape or form actually balanced the game. Heck, they hammered the last nail in the coffin when it reached my ear that they nerfed Power Attack, while still giving Wizards more class features.

Serenity
2009-01-29, 10:39 AM
To those claiming that spells have been nerfed sufficiently to justify giving Wizards a whole suite of spell-like abilities, we'd all appreciate some specific examples. The various polymorph type spells do look toned down sufficiently, but Black Tentacles still looks like a win button, even with grappling being harder in Pathfinder...

theMycon
2009-01-29, 11:13 AM
His Ki Strike and Ki Strike (lawful and adamantine) get nerfed (they used to be able to use these abilities at will but now they can only use them a few times a day).

One bonus feat at level 10
One bonus feat at level 18

These, while technically true, are very misleading.
The Ki strike does not consume Ki points. It merely requires that you have at least one Ki point left. A strange requirement, I'll admit, but not truly limiting. The only reason you would be out is because you've found something you'd rather have than aligned the attacks.

This sometimes occurs, because it has a number of useful abilities, but if you're going against something with DR, you should know better. For reference, your average Ki pool goes from 6 (when you get it, level 4) to 20 (by 20)- It's 1/2 monk level + wisdom mod. With a human's free +2, and the fact that Str is now largely useless for a monk (CMBs are finessable, it remains irrelevant to damage), it could plausibly go from 8 to 28, if you start with an 18 & put all the usual "primary stat" buffs there.


Also, you retain the bonus feats at 1, 2, & 6, and you gain a bonus feat at 14. A total of 6- half the fighter's, without requiring any pre-requisites. For example, skipping to Spring Attack, without bothering with Dodge/mobility, is useful for a 60+ speed guy who can already will himself a +4 dodge bonus to AC (not just for AoO's, either).

Nero24200
2009-01-29, 11:51 AM
What I found out, through playing, is that it does actually fix most of the core 3.5 problems.

A lot of people will say otherwise, based on a read through of the classes. What those people usually won't mention is that they certainly did not read each of the 100+ pages of spell descriptions in detail. No one is going to read spell after spell after spell. A flip-through sure, but seeing how much better the magic system is pretty much only happens through lots and lots of play, at levels where strong spells actually get used. I've DM'd such play and I have to say it is far more balanced.

Sorry, but this just plain isn't true. I honestly feel they havn't fixed anything, and I have playtested it. I have thouroughly read the changes made, and so have others that still disagree that PRGP has actually solved anything. Just because our opinions are different from yours means that we havn't read the entire beta book.



The bottom line is, most of the bad buzz about Pathfinder is either due to bad experiences on the Paizo forums (gee, you didn't feel valued when giving feedback to a huge company? What a surprise!) or people forming opinions without doing actual play at different character levels. I find that Pathfinder makes a more survivable low-level experience and a more balanced high-level experience. Two great things right there. You mean being flammed on the forum? Yes, it's very off-putting. Especially since if it was nothing but positive feed-back, the game wouldn't change at all, esentailly meaning the playtest is pointless. You seem to forget what I mentioned in a previous post, which was that the designers also side with them. Again, I've been on the forums and personally argued with the designers on one or two points, and they are very defencive, in fact, one actually went as far as insulting me on the forums, implying I was a problem player simply because I played a fighter with power attack. (Yes, that's right, I'm appearently trouble because my combat character had a combat-based feat)


But the bottom line is, even for those who disagree with me, Pathfinder absolutely is the "fix" to 3.5 in one crucial regard: it fixes the problem of no new 3.x products, no new 3.x support, and no new 3.x players/DMs. Even if you don't like the spells, etc., Pathfinder RPG represents a major company putting a lot of resources into a game system that would otherwise shrink into obscurity. I'm pretty darn pleased with that.

Only if you consider PRPG still D'n'D, not everyone will. Also, this in itself won't last much longer. Paizo have said that they'll soon be making PRPG adventure paths instead of 3.5, meaning that you'll have to play PRPG to really get much use from those books, even if you don't like it and prefer 3.5 And what's more, they've also declared that further down the line they'll make another version, even more different from it's predacessor in which they won't bother with backwards compatability, so what's to say they won't do the same with that if it's popular?

DMcCoy1693
2009-01-29, 12:22 PM
Zousha, I am not making this up. Several CharOp regulars independently decided to playtest Pathfinder and wound up in the Paizo forums. While discussing the merits and flaws of Pathfinder, we got heavily flamed by people who thought that game balance was "munchkinism", and that our mathematical analyses of Pathfinder was the same.

And then one dev told us that we should be playing the game instead of mathematically analyzing it, as if all we posted were pure theory. Many of us actually played the game and found it a bit lacking.

But as I said, your mileage may vary.

Here's the problem with your argument. Paizo has been very forward and upfront about saying the most valuable data that anyone can give them are playtest reports. You have to remember that Paizo as a company has over 2 centuries of gaming experience between everyone working there. Most of the primary developers worked for and wrote major publications at Wizards. They know how to mathematically analyze their game.

What they do not have is unlimitted time to playtest everything by themselves. They want playtest reports, not mathematical analysis. People tell them their homebrew version of some class that completely changes the flavor all time time. They are not interested in that. They want capatability with 3.5 and they want a consistant flavor of 3.5. And they want playtest reports.

kalt
2009-01-29, 12:32 PM
Ohh I certainly don't think it fixes any power imbalances and somethings are most certainly still balanced. I think what they really try to push is to give someone a bonus for staying with one class, which they accomplished to some extent. Fighter also isn't nearly as worthless as before though I still wouldn't even think of staying one for all 20 levels. All and all it is just a different system, but I'm not sure it is really better. As a DM if you see something you don't like just fix it and that is what we would tend to do in a 3.5 game. I think this is more of a common mindset from people that played in 2nd edition where there was tons of broken stuff and it was pretty common to houserule tons of things.

Starbuck_II
2009-01-29, 12:34 PM
Here's the problem with your argument. Paizo has been very forward and upfront about saying the most valuable data that anyone can give them are playtest reports. You have to remember that Paizo as a company has over 2 centuries of gaming experience between everyone working there. Most of the primary developers worked for and wrote major publications at Wizards. They know how to mathematically analyze their game.


Wizards of the Coast thinks it can mathematically analyze a game too, but they were wrong on many counts.
That was why they originally made Spontaeous casting so much weaker than Prepared compared to later when they made decent spontaneous (Duskblade, Dread Necro, etc)

So I do actually doubt Paizos Math ability.

DMcCoy1693
2009-01-29, 12:44 PM
Wizards of the Coast thinks it can mathematically analyze a game too, but they were wrong on many counts.
That was why they originally made Spontaeous casting so much weaker than Prepared compared to later when they made decent spontaneous (Duskblade, Dread Necro, etc)

So I do actually doubt Paizos Math ability.

And here's two things that Paizo has that Wizards didn't have when the Duskblade and the Dread Necromancer were created: the experiences of the Duskblade and the Dread Necromancer. This isn't their hobby that they do for fun whenever they have the time. They do this as their full time profession.

Nero24200
2009-01-29, 01:01 PM
And here's two things that Paizo has that Wizards didn't have when the Duskblade and the Dread Necromancer were created: the experiences of the Duskblade and the Dread Necromancer. This isn't their hobby that they do for fun whenever they have the time. They do this as their full time profession.

It should be noted that a fair portion of splatbooks had the influence of paizo. Remember that the majority (if not all) of the spells in the spell compenduim appeared in dragon first, various paizo designers had a hand in many splatbooks (including ones with "broken" content, such as the Shivering Touch spell from frostburn).

It just sounds naive to assume right away that they have the mathematical ability to do this when they have plenty of past mistakes. And as said earlier, wizards of the coast also beleived they had the maths to balance a game well, just because they think it doesn't make it true.

DMcCoy1693
2009-01-29, 01:34 PM
It just sounds naive to assume right away that they have the mathematical ability to do this when they have plenty of past mistakes. And as said earlier, wizards of the coast also beleived they had the maths to balance a game well, just because they think it doesn't make it true.

It might sound naive, but have you played it? Have you read the opinions of those that played it vs those that just read it? More often than not, I hear glowing reports from those that played it. Also more often than not, I hear whining about how broken it is from those that just skimmed it and said no way. That alone tell me that there is something in the playing that is not obvious in the reading.

Things drastickly improved:
-Gnomes are playable,
-Half Orcs don't suck,
-There's a reason to play a wizard to 20th level instead of taking a PrC that grants the wizard abilities plus all their spells,
-The fighter has received a nice power bump so its not left by the way side and is still easy for a new player to use,
-CMB makes things like grapple, overrun, and sunder easier by giving them all a single unified system,
-Condensed the skill list to reduce redundency,
-Turn/Rebuke Undead no longer requires the use of a chart and TU allows for healing of players (so a good/neural cleric can save their spells).

Starbuck_II
2009-01-29, 02:47 PM
Things drastickly improved:
-Gnomes are playable,
-Half Orcs don't suck,
-There's a reason to play a wizard to 20th level instead of taking a PrC that grants the wizard abilities plus all their spells,
-The fighter has received a nice power bump so its not left by the way side and is still easy for a new player to use,
-CMB makes things like grapple, overrun, and sunder easier by giving them all a single unified system,
-Condensed the skill list to reduce redundency,
-Turn/Rebuke Undead no longer requires the use of a chart and TU allows for healing of players (so a good/neural cleric can save their spells).

Yes, the race thing was a good idea.
Fighters got a power down in Power attack now sucks.
Granted, they invented those new feats that add double Str bonus to an attack, but you need 2 in that feat tree before you can full attack.

CMD makes those manuvers harder to do as well (DC 15 at start).

But the Turning ability was a nice touch.

Serenity
2009-01-29, 02:57 PM
It's all well and good to give everyone a reason to stick with one class. But the wizard didn't need PrCs to be broken. His spells did that all on their own. What has the Pathfinder wizard given up? He gets the same number of spells--in fact, more, since he gets extra spells per day regardless of whether he specializes. The penalties for specialization are effectively non-existent, and universalist and specialists both get a suite of spell alike abilities for their magical focus. They even have more hit points. It's great that they have actual class features now, but what price are they paying for them? What is the downside to playing a wizard? Again, if Pathfinder has reworked the spells to the point where magic isn't overpowering, I'd love to hear some specific examples. To me, it looks like the spells are pretty much the same. Old standbys like Force Cage and Cloudkill read identically to the 3.5 PHB.

Not saying Pathfinder is bad. I love their adventure paths, and a lot of the stuff in the Beta works well. Heck, they even successfully toned down the druid by altering the spells it bases Wild Shape off of. But the wizard is more powerful than he already was, which is a basically backwards way of doing things.

Fax Celestis
2009-01-29, 03:30 PM
If you're looking for an alternative to Pathfinder (an alternative to an alternative, lol) you could try my (incomplete) d20 Rebirth project.

thegurullamen
2009-01-29, 03:50 PM
If you're looking for an alternative to Pathfinder (an alternative to an alternative, lol) you could try my (incomplete) d20 Rebirth project.

[/shameless and overall unnecessary plug]

Actually, quick tally: who hasn't heard of d20r yet?

DMcCoy1693
2009-01-29, 04:23 PM
Fighters got a power down in Power attack now sucks.

But now you have less of a problem of "Do I want to reduce my BAB by 5 or 10? Maybe I should just do a 9? I could do a full 15 and be done with it. But he might have some kind of magical armor so maybe I should just do an 11? Or maybe I should just be cautious and go for a 4?" At high level, you're probably not going to have much beyond a +6 or +7 STR


CMB makes those manuvers harder to do as well (DC 15 at start).
And that's why it is a playtest instead of the final product. Also, have you playtested this? I have. Take a level 5 fighter attacking a level 5 wizard. Fighter's going to probably have a +9 (without feats, of which the fighter gets 6). Wizard is probably going to have a DC 18 (and much less likely to have bonuses to help defend itself against such an attack). If the fighter rolls a 9 (without additional bonuses), he's got the wizard grappled or tripped or bull rushed or knocked prone or disarmed or has his pretty staff sundered. It works rather well. While it maybe "more difficult" to get the right number, the ease of the system and the unified system (so you don't have to learn 6 different systems) more than makes up for it. Add in the weapon bonus at 5th level and any of the "Improved ..." feats that help with the special attacks and you've got that 9 you need to roll down to a 6. That's 75% of the time that that "overpowered" wizard loses their somantic componant. How's that for a disadvantage to playing a wizard?

Yea you could use that in 3.5 but how many people actually did? Now that it is a single unified system, its alot easier to remember and execute. I've used more special attacks with Pathfinder than I ever did in all the years of 3.5 combined because I didn't want to open up the PHB to remember all the newances of this system vs that system.

theMycon
2009-01-29, 04:44 PM
Add in the weapon bonus at 5th level and any of the "Improved ..." feats that help with the special attacks and you've got that 9 you need to roll down to a 6. That's 75% of the time that that "overpowered" wizard loses their somantic componant. How's that for a disadvantage to playing a wizard?

While I do think they're better balanced, this isn't exactly the best example.
1: It assumes that Weapon Training feature adds to CMB. I don't see that implied, or a weapon group that included grappling. (but it'd only be one more point- 5%)
2: It assumes both are either armed or unarmed- if you're holding something, you get a -4 to your grapple checks (see Page 150). A wizard, unless holding a wand or scroll, probably won't be armed. A fighter probably will. Yes, you can drop your weapon to the ground as a free action, but I doubt many folk would- that's another 20% difference.
3: That assumes being grappled eliminates somantic spellcasting. The "Spellcasting" chapter says it does, but the "grappled" condition does not. The Grappled condition, in fact, makes the wizard able to cast and the fighter (even if they have the Mage Slayer feat) unable to AoO or ready an attack to disrupt- for the same spellcraft DC as casting defensively.

Should he be pinned, however, the spellcaster is then boned.

DMcCoy1693
2009-01-29, 04:57 PM
1: It assumes that Weapon Training feature adds to CMB. I don't see that implied, or a weapon group that included grappling. (but it'd only be one more point- 5%)


Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.


When you perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your ...

Its an attack roll, therefore it applies.


2: It assumes both are either armed or unarmed- if you're holding something, you get a -4 to your grapple checks (see Page 150). A wizard, unless holding a wand or scroll, probably won't be armed. A fighter probably will. Yes, you can drop your weapon to the ground as a free action, but I doubt many folk would- that's another 20% difference.

How about an unarmed based fighter? No -4 and you get a +1 on a grapple check. It all depends on the build. One of the strengths of 3.5/Pathfinder over 4E, allowing the same class to be built many different ways.


3: That assumes being grappled eliminates somantic spellcasting. The "Spellcasting" chapter says it does, but the "grappled" condition does not. The Grappled condition, in fact, makes the wizard able to cast and the fighter (even if they have the Mage Slayer feat) unable to AoO or ready an attack to disrupt- for the same spellcraft DC as casting defensively.

Actually, the magic chapter says:


Grappling or Pinned: The only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the level of the spell you’re casting) or lose the spell.

To me that reads you cannot caste a spell with a S componant. Period. If you want to cast a pure Verbal spell, you need to make a Spellcraft check. The Condition's description says nothing against that.

theMycon
2009-01-29, 05:33 PM
Its an attack roll, therefore it applies.

How about an unarmed based fighter? No -4 and you get a +1 on a grapple check. It all depends on the build. One of the strengths of 3.5/Pathfinder over 4E, allowing the same class to be built many different ways.

Again, where's the weapon group that includes "grapple"? You're assuming "unarmed" is equivalent to grapple for both of these.



Actually, the magic chapter says:

To me that reads you cannot caste a spell with a S componant. Period. If you want to cast a pure Verbal spell, you need to make a Spellcraft check. The Condition's description says nothing against that.
That's ... what I said. Only omitting everything but the first sentence and a half. There are 3 or 4 contradictory sets of grappling rules which don't mention eachother. Only the ones in the magic chapter mention that.
(I said "Spellcasting Chapter" instead of "magic chapter"- I was wrong, but it is the "casting spells" heading under it, two pages in.)

Fax Celestis
2009-01-29, 05:44 PM
Again, where's the weapon group that includes "grapple"? You're assuming "unarmed" is equivalent to grapple for both of these.

Correct. Both 3.5 and Pathfinder treat grappling and unarmed strikes as discrete concepts.

DMcCoy1693
2009-01-29, 06:45 PM
Again, where's the weapon group that includes "grapple"? You're assuming "unarmed" is equivalent to grapple for both of these.

Grapple is a type of attack, not a weapon. Grapple requires an attack roll, just like causing damage. There are weapons that cause damage and there are weapons that assist with grapple. The bonus applies to grapple as well as causing damage. At least that's how I'd rule it at my table.


That's ... what I said. Only omitting everything but the first sentence and a half. There are 3 or 4 contradictory sets of grappling rules which don't mention eachother. Only the ones in the magic chapter mention that.
(I said "Spellcasting Chapter" instead of "magic chapter"- I was wrong, but it is the "casting spells" heading under it, two pages in.)

When has D&D not had contradictory rules that didn't require arguing over. Seriously though, why don't you post that Paizo's forums to get that clarified in the final product.

lesser_minion
2009-01-29, 07:20 PM
From what I can see of the improvement to wizard power levels, there are a few points I'd like to make:

Universalists in Pathfinder seem overpowered compared to specialists. To the point that I wouldn't accept them as the DM
Second, specialists lose spell slots. They get to pick a few spells that they automatically prepare along with their normal allotment - so they lose power
Third - I like the school abilities concept. Many of them are quite reasonable, even for something you could give to a wizard - a touch attack for a small amount of damage means that there is no longer a 'Trusty Crossbow' issue.
Fourth - I accept that some abilities are overpowered, but they do seem to be balanced by being tacked onto schools which have historically been sub-optimal choices.
Fifth - The prohibited schools system in Pathfinder is strange.


In conclusion, I don't think these wizards are much stronger than normal D&D wizards. At the same time, there is probably more work to be done on them if you don't want them to pull ahead. And universalists make natural spell look like a good idea.

Pathfinder is not some kind of panacea to all 3.x issues (however it was marketed, there was never any reason to expect it to be), and there are elements that seem to have been done badly. However, it is not a bad system. Equally, at its current price (about three marketing e-mails), it is certainly worth 'buying'.

Note that there is no law saying that you must choose between playing 3e and playing 4e.

Thrawn183
2009-01-29, 07:23 PM
I have found the published adventures to be flavorful if somewhat shoddy. I played a first level adventure where supposedly a pseudodragon population kept the imps that escape from wizards etc. in line. Except that pseudodragons can't even hurt imps. I mean, there was an encounter where you were supposed to be helped by pseudodragons that couldn't even damage the imps you were fighting!

Secondly, I'm concerned about the power of PrC's. I'm looking to start a campaign this weekend and one of the players wants to use one from Pathfinder, the Red Mantis Assassin (I could have screwed up the name, if so I apologize). The thing can, at level 8, get a fascinate ability that is useable at will that somehow isn't mind affecting. I spoke with the player of the character and we both agreed that it should at least be mind-affecting, and I will probably tell him that I will change it further so that a creature that saves against it is immune for 24 hours.

Thirdly, the system is designed to make stronger characters than in 3.5. That makes it difficult to integrate 3.5 opponents without have to screw around with the CR. I know the CR system is messed up as it is, but more work is not what I need right now speaking as someone who is currently doing prep work for a campaign as we speak.

Long story short, I don't see how I can recommend that someone spend good money and time to buy and learn this semi-new system when it doesn't appear to me to be better than 3.5. Can you have fun with either system? Easily. Have I had fun with Pathfinder? Yes. Do I support it? No. Just isn't worth the money.

DMcCoy1693
2009-01-29, 08:39 PM
Thirdly, the system is designed to make stronger characters than in 3.5. That makes it difficult to integrate 3.5 opponents without have to screw around with the CR. I know the CR system is messed up as it is, but more work is not what I need right now speaking as someone who is currently doing prep work for a campaign as we speak.

The beta says you're suppose to treat PCs as if they are a +1 race. This way all +1 races do not require any modification to make them equally playable PCs.

serpounce
2009-01-29, 08:51 PM
I’ve been playing a pathfinder game since the beginning of last summer, and overall I like it quite a bit. While I don’t see the need for the vitriol from some of the previous posters, I agree with the general point that if you’re planning on sticking with 3.5 anyway, that Pathfinder is certainly a positive improvement, but if you prefer 4e over 3.5, then Pathfinder is unlikely to tip the scales back to 3e.
Regarding the particular changes, I’m not really interested in weighing in on the issue of “class balance,” but I do think the class changes are flavorful and fun, and I like almost all of them. Also, all the players in the group (a total of 7, so we’ve seen most of the classes in action) contribute significantly both in and out of combat.
The changes to skill system are probably the best part, they really did a wonderful job with it, while maintaining backwards compatibility with 3.5.

I’ll admit that some of the feat changes have left me scratching my head, who really thought that combat expertise needed a nerf? This is the only area where I can even take seriously the idea the Pathfinder is a step down from 3.5.

The combat mechanics changes seem to be good, although I agree that the write-ups could use some streamlining.

Spell changes are also good where they happened, although there are probably more spells that need altering.

I could give more detailed opinions if anyone is interested, but my main point is I have played a lot of both 3.5 and pathfinder, and I overall think that Pathfinder is a very good, although certainly not perfect, improvement on 3.5.

I have a theory that I haven’t quite worked out the details for: people who played AD&D extensively (either edition) and switched to 3.X with some reluctance are going to move to Pathfinder, while people who started playing D&D with 3.X will move to 4e.

serpounce
2009-01-29, 08:55 PM
Thirdly, the system is designed to make stronger characters than in 3.5. That makes it difficult to integrate 3.5 opponents without have to screw around with the CR. I know the CR system is messed up as it is, but more work is not what I need right now speaking as someone who is currently doing prep work for a campaign as we speak.


I think Pathfinder largely avoids this problem due to the way it deals with experience. XP is handed out based entirely on the CR, not on character level , and experience required increases exponentially (I mean this in the lay, not technical sense) like in AD&D, rather than arithmetically like in 3.X. They also give XP tables for slow, medium, and fast progression to further calibrate leveling pace to party power.

theMycon
2009-01-29, 09:26 PM
Grapple is a type of attack, not a weapon. Grapple requires an attack roll, just like causing damage. There are weapons that cause damage and there are weapons that assist with grapple. The bonus applies to grapple as well as causing damage. At least that's how I'd rule it at my table.
From your quote:

a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.Emphasis mine.

It explicitly says "weapon" in the description, rather than "attack". Also, there aren't "weapons that assist with grapple" in the pathfinder book - I just scanned through the weapon descriptions.

I notice the "at my table" exception there, but I feel it was intended as a "you're better trained with these types of weapons" instead of "+1 BAB ". Though, now that you bring the point up, if they'd worded it "you're better trained ... attacks" and added a CMB one, I'd go for that. I might suggest that on the fighter forums, unless you'd like the honor.



Seriously though, why don't you post that Paizo's forums to get that clarified in the final product.
Done, with explicit quotations & page #'s from the book. Check the Combat forum, the sticky'd post.

lesser_minion
2009-01-29, 09:32 PM
I’ll admit that some of the feat changes have left me scratching my head, who really thought that combat expertise needed a nerf? This is the only area where I can even take seriously the idea the Pathfinder is a step down from 3.5.


I think the reasoning behind that is that the feat has always been about making 'smart fighter' a workable character concept. It then makes sense to give a greater reward depending on how far you buy into the Smart Fighter concept.

Also, the feats Combat Expertise and Power Attack are actually quite powerful for feats - and Natural Spell overpowered when you consider that they both act as gateway feats. 3e theory states that all gateway feats must be weak - hence the sheer brokenness of Dodge.

Bosh
2009-01-29, 11:27 PM
In conclusion, I don't think these wizards are much stronger than normal D&D wizards. At the same time, there is probably more work to be done on them if you don't want them to pull ahead. And universalists make natural spell look like a good idea.

Correct, they're not much stronger than 3.5ed wizards. However, 3.5ed wizards were probably the strongest class in the game and taking the strongest class in the game and making it MORE powerful is rather stupid.



Thirdly, the system is designed to make stronger characters than in 3.5. That makes it difficult to integrate 3.5 opponents without have to screw around with the CR.


Also, it hurt compatibility in other ways. Splat book classes that were previously weak but playable (hexblades, scouts, warlocks, etc.) are now gimptacular when compared to the now more powerful core classes.


I do think the class changes are flavorful and fun, and I like almost all of them.

Right lots of flavor and fun (things that go far when making an adventure, which is what Piazo seems to be good at) but shoddy mechanically (something that is much more of an issue when making a set of Core rules rather than an adventure).


This is the only area where I can even take seriously the idea the Pathfinder is a step down from 3.5.
Its not that its a step down, its that its not worth the bother of learning a new set of rules when they change a lot of little things (thus making learning all the little differences time-consuming) without fixing the biggest issues with 3.5ed and in some cases making those core issues worse.


-Gnomes are playable
Gnomes were one of the better races before...


The Ki strike does not consume Ki points.
Doh!

DMcCoy1693
2009-01-30, 12:12 AM
I notice the "at my table" exception there, but I feel it was intended as a "you're better trained with these types of weapons" instead of "+1 BAB ". Though, now that you bring the point up, if they'd worded it "you're better trained ... attacks" and added a CMB one, I'd go for that. I might suggest that on the fighter forums, unless you'd like the honor.

You go ahead, I cannot for reasons I cannot discuss (involving an NDA).

lesser_minion
2009-01-30, 04:13 AM
Correct, they're not much stronger than 3.5ed wizards. However, 3.5ed wizards were probably the strongest class in the game and taking the strongest class in the game and making it MORE powerful is rather stupid.


However, my point was that although universalists are utterly overpowered, the wizard as a general rule is not really better off. Possibly worse off.
Lets look at the abilities:

Abjuration: can buff everyone's AC by concentrating, and resists energy attacks a lot better.
Conjuration: gain an AC bonus (saving them a spell from their buff routine). Can fire bolts of acid at people, teleport a short distance and use some ultimate summoning spell thing
Divination: cannot be surprised, can buff one dice roll for allies only, one/ally/day, and eventually gain utter immunity to scrying and a superscrying ability
Enchantment: skill bonuses, can daze targets (which become immune afterwards), can emanate a debuffing aura for a few rounds a day, and can cast one uber-dominate
Evocation: gain a damage bonus to evocation spells, a short ranged touch attack, a battlefield control effect lasting a few rounds, and an ability to blast energy damage through resistances.
Illusion: concentration illusions last a few rounds longer. Can blind or dazzle an opponent for one round. Can turn invisile for a short time. As a capstone, you get a 1st level arcane spell (except that it doesn't radiate magic and still masks your identity from true seeing)
Necromancy: double undead control, a melee touch attack, a free animate dead, and eventually you turn undead and pick up an immunity to positive energy damage. Hope you have an evil cleric!
Transmutation: movable buff to Con or Dex, a ranged touch attack, can change form for a short time, gain some other buffs as a swift action.
Universal: get a free use of mage hand that can fight, free metamagic (horrible), and buffs to save DCs and spell penetration. So they effectively specialise in everything, and get to cheese DMM into the bargain.


As I said, only the capstone abilities cannot be duplicated or rendered superfluous by spells in 3.5, and even then that is debatable. In Pathfinder, they are not gaining anything at the high levels where they pull ahead. It makes them a valid choice in low-powered games. At the same time, they need work. Especially Mr. DMM Wizard.

Just because a wizard is the most powerful class in the game at high levels, it is not 'pretty stupid' to give them a few abilities that make them more useful at low levels where everyone else is ahead.

Bosh
2009-01-30, 05:10 AM
wizard is the most powerful class in the game at high levels, it is not 'pretty stupid' to give them a few abilities that make them more useful at low levels where everyone else is ahead.
Um, wizards are one of the most powerful classes right from the beginning thanks to spells like Color Spray and Sleep which can decimate low level encounters (against pretty much anything low level besides undead). True they get stupid powerful later on, but they're damn powerful in the beginning if you play them well.

I'm not saying that the random grab bag of abilities the wizard specialists get are powerful, just that giving ANYTHING to the most powerful class without beating it good and hard with the nerf stick first is just silly.

Ravens_cry
2009-01-30, 05:55 AM
Um, wizards are one of the most powerful classes right from the beginning thanks to spells like Color Spray and Sleep which can decimate low level encounters (against pretty much anything low level besides undead). True they get stupid powerful later on, but they're damn powerful in the beginning if you play them well.

I'm not saying that the random grab bag of abilities the wizard specialists get are powerful, just that giving ANYTHING to the most powerful class without beating it good and hard with the nerf stick first is just silly.
Two things your forgetting.
A) Wizards can, no matter what their levels, only cast so many times per day. A fighter can go all choppa as long as he can stand. At low levels, this is a severe restriction for the wizard.
B) A wizard is also the hardest class to play of the base classes. I am a newbie, and I tried once. It was sort of fun, I turned a giant undead mass of animated meat into stone. But I was way over my head, and feeling less then effective. I am now playing a human barbarian,and I am feeling effective. And this is at level 14. The uber power of the wizard is a reward for the experience required to play it well.

As an aside, here is more of an in-game reason. But wizards are people to whom the laws of physics are but as guidelines. Why shouldn't they be more powerful then a person who swings a sharp piece of metal around?

Bosh
2009-01-30, 06:16 AM
Two things your forgetting.
A) Wizards can, no matter what their levels, only cast so many times per day. A fighter can go all choppa as long as he can stand. At low levels, this is a severe restriction for the wizard.
B) A wizard is also the hardest class to play of the base classes. I am a newbie, and I tried once. It was sort of fun, I turned a giant undead mass of animated meat into stone. But I was way over my head, and feeling less then effective. I am now playing a human barbarian,and I am feeling effective. And this is at level 14. The uber power of the wizard is a reward for the experience required to play it well.

As an aside, here is more of an in-game reason. But wizards are people to whom the laws of physics are but as guidelines. Why shouldn't they be more powerful then a person who swings a sharp piece of metal around?

A. The textbook number of encounters/day is 4 and a 1st level wizard with color spray or sleep could tear two of them up well. Also usually players hide and rest before they hit 4 encounters to get their spells back. Who the hell cares if a fighter can swing his sword all day if the casters run out of spells to keep him healed or if the party always rests before the casters run out of spells? Sure wizards don't start off as insane as druids, but they're no pushovers either (as they were in old editions where they got only one spell at first level).

B. It's not really that hard. If you just avoid spells that do HP damage you're pretty much golden. Compare that to the fighter, unless you plan each Feat juuuust right you'll permanently gimp yourself. If you're a wizard and choose the wrong spells, that can be easily remedied.

C. Wizards shouldn't be more powerful than other classes because it is a game. Most people don't want non-casters to be relegated to the role of side kick, which is what happens if wizards focus on non-damage spells, clerics self-bluff and druids aren't complete idiots.

Nero24200
2009-01-30, 06:41 AM
It might sound naive, but have you played it? Have you read the opinions of those that played it vs those that just read it? More often than not, I hear glowing reports from those that played it. Also more often than not, I hear whining about how broken it is from those that just skimmed it and said no way. That alone tell me that there is something in the playing that is not obvious in the reading.

Things drastickly improved:
-Gnomes are playable,
-Half Orcs don't suck,
-There's a reason to play a wizard to 20th level instead of taking a PrC that grants the wizard abilities plus all their spells,
-The fighter has received a nice power bump so its not left by the way side and is still easy for a new player to use,
-CMB makes things like grapple, overrun, and sunder easier by giving them all a single unified system,
-Condensed the skill list to reduce redundency,
-Turn/Rebuke Undead no longer requires the use of a chart and TU allows for healing of players (so a good/neural cleric can save their spells).

For someone who claims not alot of folk actually read the new rules properly, you seem to have difficulty looking at parts of my post. I've said plenty of times YES! I have played it, I've been playing it for months since my group insists it's better (well, specifically two members think it's better and the rest can't be bothered arguing).

Does my account name seem familier? It should, since I've been on the forums constantly, trying to get paizo to fix the problems they have introduced into the system.

And for the record
-Gnomes ain't playable. Thanks to their little fluff aspect it's impossible to play a "sane" gnome. I actually had to re-think a character conceapt because of this.
-Half-Orc's still suck, and whats worse is they encourage the "Orc-Rape" mentality.
-Yeah, you're right there, wizards are now more powerful than before. Have you ever actually had this problem IG? I think you and alot of folk at paizo seem to forget that the prestige classes first appeared in the DM guide, not the player's handbook, sugesting to me that all Prestige classes are at the DM's discration.
-The fighter still sucks, it still has nothing to make it special. They come up with alot of ideas for other classes, but the best they could really think of for the fighter was "he hits a little harder and is a little harder to hit". Really ingenious there, I don't see why no one else thought of that.
-While grapple needed fixing, I don't recall ever hearing anyone complaining about sundering, disarming, tripping etc being too complex. Heaven forfend we use different mecnahincs for different actions.
-The skill system? Have you actually looked at their forums? Look at the feed-back they're getting. And FYI, perception is too good, in the 3 lenghy campaigns I've played using these rules, every character I've seen has had this skill maxed out, and their consolidataion still leaves plenty of useless skills.
-As for turn and rebuke, it is flat out awful. Their logic is very flawed there "Lets make the cleric less of a healer...by giving it more healing!". Next you'll be telling me the fighter is less combat orientated since it doesn't need to spend as many feats on combat abilities....the fighter still will, just like "healer" clerics are still going to use healing spells.

lesser_minion
2009-01-30, 07:11 AM
Um, wizards are one of the most powerful classes right from the beginning thanks to spells like Color Spray and Sleep which can decimate low level encounters (against pretty much anything low level besides undead). True they get stupid powerful later on, but they're damn powerful in the beginning if you play them well.

At low levels the wizard is not the strongest class in the game - while they are probably the biggest threat in any given encounter, they are also one of the most vulnerable, defensive buffs notwithstanding. They need to co-ordinate properly with the rest of their party to get the best use out of their attacks. Equally, a half decent attack from nearly anyone can easily take them out of commission - this may be the point when 3e plays at its best, as every character can be highly effective - the first two levels of monk are fairly strong at the start.

The key advantage of a wizard remains their spells - that's why I've accepted that the universal wizard is beyond help. The others merely get a few minor abilities and small spellcasting buffs, while the universalist gets DMM lite. That means that the secondary abilities remain secondary - the class doesn't really pick up much in comparison to everyone else. They are not gaining much, because in most cases the abilities they gain are made irrelevant by their spells - at which point the loss of spell slots and slower progression in bonus spells comes back to bite them.


wizards are people to whom the laws of physics are but as guidelines. Why shouldn't they be more powerful then a person who swings a sharp piece of metal around?

I don't think anyone disputes that wizards should be more 'powerful' than a guy swinging around a sharpened piece of metal - the problem is with the way 'powerful' translates into 'effective in combat' in 3e - almost all of a wizard's strongest abilities are useful, and the defensive abilities can be combined together with certain cheeses to reach 'this is impenetrable' levels of power. The end result is that wizards can basically just press a big red button labeled 'I Win' the instant they get into any fight.

4e actually hits a good balance here - the most powerful spells require the caster to run around a mystical circle while throwing powdered magic items into the air and screaming like a lunatic for several hours, which limits their usefulness in combat somewhat.


The textbook number of encounters/day is 4 and a 1st level wizard with color spray or sleep could tear two of them up well. Also usually players hide and rest before they hit 4 encounters to get their spells back. Who the hell cares if a fighter can swing his sword all day if the casters run out of spells to keep him healed or if the party always rests before the casters run out of spells? Sure wizards don't start off as insane as druids, but they're no pushovers either (as they were in old editions where they got only one spell at first level).

First - colour spray and sleep are exceptionally powerful. They do not allow you to "tear up encounters". Encounters are varied - remember that the DM is in control here. They have every right to throw undead or elves at the party, and every right to hit the wizard with a bolt of blue lightning if the player even thinks of crying 'derailment'.

Secondly - Pathfinder has been designed to encourage players to keep going, and to encourage DMs to stop PCs resting if they want. If you have a party that rests every other encounter then just make the next adventure time-dependent. It is unrealistic to expect to be able to recover whenever you want.

Thirdly - textbook. Textbook actually says that the party can handle 4 encounters of your level. It also says that about 20% of encounters should be absolutely pathetic - allowing you to add more encounters - and that 20% of encounters should be very difficult to overwhelming - allowing you to reduce the number of encounters.

Actually, the thing I really dislike about Pathfinder is their handling of sorcery, simply because it forces you to answer the question of "why can I cast advanced magic without going through all of the training normally required?". The 3e system gave the fluff as some believing that sorcerers were descended from dragons, pointed out that dragons are known to be like that and then suggested that it was a myth suggested by the sorcerers themselves - a big part of the class was the mystery and Paizo have just thrown it all away.

DMcCoy1693
2009-01-30, 08:56 AM
Does my account name seem familier?

No. Sorry. I have played the game. I cannot provide playtest feedback due to an NDA (as I stated above). So I don't even bother going to the playtest forums just to make sure I don't forget for a moment and accidently break my NDA.

Do you hang out on the Pathfinder Setting or the PFRPG General Announcement part of the forums? How about the Off Topic/Word Game sections?

serpounce
2009-01-30, 09:57 AM
I hate to sound like an old grump, but I really think all this obsession over class vs. class balance is part of the baleful influence that MMORPGs are having on “real” RPGs. I’ve played quite a bit of 3.x including all levels 1-20, and these “massive imbalances” that people talk about just don’t come up for the most part (maybe with the exception of the Druid). There’s no shortage of people who want to play warriors because they’re “underpowered.” 3e certainly isn’t perfect , but the “huge design flaws” that you hear about in threads like this, particularly concerns relating to “balance,” just don’t come up in the type of games I’ve played in. People want to play characters that are going to be fun, not the flavorless piles of power you see on the CharOps forums.

I’m glad there’s 4e out there for people who want to play a tabletop RPG “balanced” like a MMORPG, and I’m glad some companies are still going to print a game based on fun and fantasy flavor not some sort of competition.

Thrawn183
2009-01-30, 10:08 AM
The beta says you're suppose to treat PCs as if they are a +1 race. This way all +1 races do not require any modification to make them equally playable PCs.

Hunh, didn't know that. Thanks for the info, I'll have to talk to my player using a pathfinder character about that.

Another_Poet
2009-01-30, 10:31 AM
Well let's put it this way: they give the wizard a bigger power boost than the monk.

In other words they WIDEN the massive gulf in power between the weakest class and the most powerful class.

This is a BAD thing. A very BAD thing. Personally I don't see myself ever playing a game made by people who can't figure out that wizards are more powerful than monks after the game as been out for so long.

If this was true, it WOULD be bad.

But wizards' spells are nerfed. It's true that Wizards are still more powerful than tanks at high levels, but the gulf has definitely gotten narrower, not wider.

ap

@serpounce:
If it affects your theory at all, I'm a counter-example. I had never played at all till my wife introduced me to 3.5 about 4 years ago. And I'm sticking with 3.5/Pathfinder for the time being, no desire or intention to play 4e.

Serenity
2009-01-30, 12:03 PM
Actually, most people staunchly disagree that casters should be more powerful than the fighter. A game in which you have the choice between Superman, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, and Jimmy Olsen is poor design, and not much fun for the guy who picked Jimmy Olsen. Is it unreasonable to expect that the core options should be roughly equal in playability? That the fighter should at least be up to the standards of Batman, rather than Jimmy Olsen, or that Casters should pay an actual price for reaching the level of Superman?

For the third time, I ask for specific examples of spells being nerfed. i admit I have only skimmed the spell section thus far, but I did look at a small sample of spells usually invested in the Batman Wizard's repertoire, and they looked exactly the same as their 3.5 counterparts. If you're so certain that spells have been nerfed, I would very much appreciate it if you could direct me to some examples, so I have a better chance to analyze the changes, instead of simply taking your word for it.

Let me stress: I like Pathfinder. I want to believe that their RPG is well-designed and fixes problems. It has on some counts so far, but I still need a lot more evidence to believe they've actually fixed Wizards.

DMcCoy1693
2009-01-30, 01:04 PM
Actually, most people staunchly disagree that casters should be more powerful than the fighter. A game in which you have the choice between Superman, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, and Jimmy Olsen is poor design, and not much fun for the guy who picked Jimmy Olsen.

That was 4E's design philosophy, not 3.x nor Pathfinder. In 3.x, magic is suppose to be ... well ... magical and therefore different than a guy with a metal stick. In 4E, there's no difference mechanically between magic missile and a crossbow bolt (make an attack roll vs a static defense). Anything short of that and there will always be ways to make A more powerful than B. No way around that. Pathfinder is not aiming to be 4E.

Another_Poet
2009-01-30, 01:05 PM
Well, the examples I'm most familiar with are from the Druid list, not the Wizard list. Unfortunately I'm at work and can't pull out my pdf or printout to cull exact samples. But if you look through the druid spells you should see some pleasant surprises.

ap

hamishspence
2009-01-30, 01:18 PM
I got the impression that melee heroes should be more than just a guy with a metal stick- they should be a little more spectacular than that.

warblades, and the less magical styles of swordsage, are the closest 3.5 has ever come to that.

Morty
2009-01-30, 01:23 PM
That was 4E's design philosophy, not 3.x nor Pathfinder. In 3.x, magic is suppose to be ... well ... magical and therefore different than a guy with a metal stick. In 4E, there's no difference mechanically between magic missile and a crossbow bolt (make an attack roll vs a static defense). Anything short of that and there will always be ways to make A more powerful than B. No way around that. Pathfinder is not aiming to be 4E.

There's plenty of ways to make magic roughly equal to swordfighting without making warriors superheroes or making everyone work the same like in 4ed. Putting actual thought to how do spells work is one of the simplest ways. I'll remind you that in 3ed, wizards and non-wizards are, in fact, supposed to be on the same level, it just doesn't work. Now, I don't know if Pathfinder achives this, I didn't check the spell lists in detail.

lesser_minion
2009-01-30, 01:30 PM
Actually, most people staunchly disagree that casters should be more powerful than the fighter. Is it unreasonable to expect that the core options should be roughly equal in playability? That the fighter should at least be up to the standards of Batman, rather than Jimmy Olsen, or that Casters should pay an actual price for reaching the level of Superman?

The balance between wizards and warriors doesn't come from them being roughly equal in power - there is no way this can be achieved without straining the willing suspension of disbelief. The balance arises from them being about as effective in combat, which can be achieved without straining suspension of disbelief.

A 4e wizard or cleric is still much more powerful than a 4e fighter or paladin - their most powerful abilities, and the ones that make everything 'too easy' are now rituals and take a lot of time and money to perform.

One of the problems with D&D is that the most powerful abilities can be brought to bear in combat - not that they exist. It strains suspension of disbelief just as much for a wizard to be able to drastically alter reality at what doesn't seem to be any effort - three seconds to cast wish, being an example of this.

It might be a bit more reasonable to have wish as, say a one hour ritual involving 25000gp in components and which calls forth a being with the power to bring about your request.

Effectively, the class is still as powerful - it can still alter reality on a similar scale - when its most powerful abilities are limited so as not to be especially handy in combat.

Fax Celestis
2009-01-30, 01:44 PM
I'd be a bit worried if I learned to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up and I wasn't more powerful than a normal person. The balance between wizards and warriors doesn't come from them being roughly equal in power - there is no way this can be achieved without completely bulldozing suspension of disbelief and doing a little dance on its corpse. It comes from them being about as effective in combat.

Realism and gameplay balance are two disparate concepts. Don't treat them like the same thing.

Zeful
2009-01-30, 03:01 PM
I'd be a bit worried if I learned to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up and I wasn't more powerful than a normal person. The balance between wizards and warriors doesn't come from them being roughly equal in power - there is no way this can be achieved without completely bulldozing suspension of disbelief and doing a little dance on its corpse. It comes from them being about as effective in combat.

3.x PC classes are not for "normal people" those are the NPC classes, the commoner, expert, Adept, warrior. And yes you are more powerful then them. But you are also more powerful then people who dedicate their lives, much as you have, to their art (swordfighting, theivery, what have you), and that's were suspension of disbelief fails for me. A Fighter has spent years trying to perfect his fighting abilities, yet you can be just as powerful (Tenser's Transformation, bull's strength, etc.) as him with less effort. That makes sense... no, not really. I'm not saying that the fighter should be able to swing his sword and create a wall of force or something that silly, but he should get something that represents the lifetime of training he puts in.

lesser_minion
2009-01-30, 03:42 PM
Realism and gameplay balance are two disparate concepts. Don't treat them like the same thing.

I was trying to point out that a compromise can be made between realism and game balance.

The main problem in D&D is that while the designers respected the need for wizard abilities to be powerful, they seem to have failed to make the distinction between power and usefulness in combat.

A version of Gate with an 8-hour casting time achieves as much as the vanilla form (I would describe it as being as powerful). It is, however, much less useful in combat.

As a rule, a wizard's most powerful spells should not be obviously or directly useful in combat, with possibly a few small exceptions, and such spells should not be so powerful as to remove the need to enter combat. This is the one thing that 4e does well, and it is not difficult to achieve.

From a realism standpoint, it is actually worth pointing out that there are many spells that are underpriced in terms of spell slots as well.

shadowfox
2009-01-30, 03:50 PM
I've been taking a look at Pathfinder recently, because a friend of mine is starting up a campaign using it. I've skimmed through the classes, but I've only taken a look at the rogue (which is, hands-down, my favorite class). And the rogue is, in all forms, as good or better. But, other than that, it's a lot like 3.5 with some elements of 4e sprinkled in.

Honestly, for the foreseeable future, I'm going to continue to run my campaigns in 3.5. I have a lot of books for it, Pathfinder is only in beta-testing, and 4e doesn't offer what I want. Sure, it's not balanced, but if you don't release everything in one go, than you're not going to get balance.

4e, on the other hand, is too simplified for my tastes. I like the fact that, in 3.5, I can make a Swashbuckler/Rogue, and choose from a number of prestige classes, each with its own flavor. I like how I can have a bow-wielding Scout who later goes into Order of the Bow Initiate. What some see as "complex" is a playground to me. That's what I don't like about 4e. I pick a class, and I'm stuck with it for the rest of the game; the only choices later on are, in my opinion, too few. Sure, I can take multiclass feats, but there are other feats that I can take and employ them more often.

All-in-all, I'm going to end up taking 3.5 and throwing in a bunch of house rules until a new system catches my interest.

Serenity
2009-01-30, 04:49 PM
That was 4E's design philosophy, not 3.x nor Pathfinder. In 3.x, magic is suppose to be ... well ... magical and therefore different than a guy with a metal stick. In 4E, there's no difference mechanically between magic missile and a crossbow bolt (make an attack roll vs a static defense). Anything short of that and there will always be ways to make A more powerful than B. No way around that. Pathfinder is not aiming to be 4E.

That's not what I said though, is it? I'm not asking for Jimmy Olsen to randomly be given the same fantastic superpowers. I'm saying that, instead of giving you Jimmy Olsen, they should give you Batman, and perhaps choose less mind-bogglingly cosmically powerful superheroes for the other team members.

Of course there will always be ways of making A more powerful than B. That doesn't mean it's not in the best interests of game design to avoid massive power gulfs, and try to keep the footing roughly, relatively equal. It certainly doesn't make it a good design choice to give Superman more powers when he's already playing at galaxy-throwing strength.

In terms of D&D, equal in power is the same thing as equal in combat. Especially for the fighter, who can't do anything well that doesn't involve swinging a blade. Pathfinder's skill system does give the fighter a boost to skills to the extent that he doesn't have to be completely useless in a social situation, but still, the only area where he can possibly excel is combat. Except that an intelligent caster can reduce his job to clean-up duty, and a cleric or druid can make him obsolete entirely. (Credit where credit is due: Pathfinder has successfully taken the 'D' out of CoDzilla; I'm reserving judgement on the cleric.)

Frankly, literature and myth is rife with examples of casters who can rip reality a new one, but are still effectively on par with the master swordsman--namely, because said reality revision is neither easy nor cheap, unlike D&D magic. If a wizard has actual restrictions of some kind or another on their spellcasting, than it's only a matter of fine-tuning the restrictions to avoid making wizards unplayable, and you have achieved rough power balance. If you elect to keep spellcasting as it is, than you're positing a world in which reality-altering power is easily achievable by anyone. In such a high magic world, why should it strain my disbelief that someone who devotes his life to perfection of the blade should develop his swordsmanship into a sort of magic?

Fax Celestis
2009-01-30, 04:54 PM
That's not what I said though, is it? I'm not asking for Jimmy Olsen to randomly be given the same fantastic superpowers. I'm saying that, instead of giving you Jimmy Olsen, they should give you Batman, and perhaps choose less mind-bogglingly cosmically powerful superheroes for the other team members.

Of course there will always be ways of making A more powerful than B. That doesn't mean it's not in the best interests of game design to avoid massive power gulfs, and try to keep the footing roughly, relatively equal. It certainly doesn't make it a good design choice to give Superman more powers when he's already playing at galaxy-throwing strength.

In terms of D&D, equal in power is the same thing as equal in combat. Especially for the fighter, who can't do anything well that doesn't involve swinging a blade. Pathfinder's skill system does give the fighter a boost to skills to the extent that he doesn't have to be completely useless in a social situation, but still, the only area where he can possibly excel is combat. Except that an intelligent caster can reduce his job to clean-up duty, and a cleric or druid can make him obsolete entirely. (Credit where credit is due: Pathfinder has successfully taken the 'D' out of CoDzilla; I'm reserving judgement on the cleric.)

Frankly, literature and myth is rife with examples of casters who can rip reality a new one, but are still effectively on par with the master swordsman--namely, because said reality revision is neither easy nor cheap, unlike D&D magic. If a wizard has actual restrictions of some kind or another on their spellcasting, than it's only a matter of fine-tuning the restrictions to avoid making wizards unplayable, and you have achieved rough power balance. If you elect to keep spellcasting as it is, than you're positing a world in which reality-altering power is easily achievable by anyone. In such a high magic world, why should it strain my disbelief that someone who devotes his life to perfection of the blade should develop his swordsmanship into a sort of magic?

See also: the jaecaiserr in Michael Stackpole's A Secret Atlas.

serpounce
2009-01-30, 05:06 PM
In terms of D&D, equal in power is the same thing as equal in combat.

I get the feeling that my game sessions are very different than yours', so it's not surprising we're looking for substantially different products.


Actually, most people staunchly disagree that casters should be more powerful than the fighter.
Is there some sort of survey of gamers that I'm not aware of? If not, we should probably limit our claims to our own views, and those of people we know. Additionally, even if it is true that most people who play PnP RPGs want MMORPG style balancing, that doesn't mean that all RPGs should be made that way. There's nothing wrong with targeting a minority preference group.

lesser_minion
2009-01-30, 05:14 PM
My point about power not equating to combat ability is that a wizard's power can be portrayed by giving them awesome abilities that are next to useless in combat. Teleport with a one-hour casting time, for example.


why should it strain my disbelief that someone who devotes his life to perfection of the blade should develop his swordsmanship into a sort of magic?

The point of D&D is to allow you to play a hero. A mundane hero is someone who goes up to an ancient dragon and kicks it in the draconic equivalent of below-the-belt. Then stares down a basilisk and punches out some crazy hybrid of Cthulhu and Asathoth. He does not use magic. There must be archetypes in the game that do not use magic and that are still pretty badass. The way to do that is to realise that there is meant to be a distinction between a caster's power and a character's combat ability.


Is there some sort of survey of gamers that I'm not aware of? If not, we should probably limit our claims to our own views, and those of people we know. Additionally, even if it is true that most people who play PnP RPGs want MMORPG style balancing, that doesn't mean that all RPGs should be made that way. There's nothing wrong with targeting a minority preference group.

I'm forced to disagree here - wizards played so that they can bring their most powerful abilities to bear in combat do detract from the fun of the game.

Zeful
2009-01-30, 06:04 PM
The point of D&D is to allow you to play a hero. A mundane hero is someone who goes up to an ancient dragon and kicks it in the draconic equivalent of below-the-belt. Then stares down a basilisk and punches out some crazy hybrid of Cthulhu and Asathoth. He does not use magic.The fighter you described cannot be mundane though, and is certainly not normal. Normal people turn to stone when a basilisk stares at them, as do many mundane supernaturals (people that are immortal but have no inexplicable powers.


There must be archetypes in the game that do not use magic and that are still pretty badass.Why must there be those archetypes in the game? You can perfectly simulate a mundane hero by playing a low level, low magic game.


The way to do that is to realise that there is meant to be a distinction between a caster's power and a character's combat ability.So you want to remove every offensive spell then, no disintigrate, 90% of the Evocation school is gone as is half the conjuration school and then give wizards no BAB, no Save progression? 'Cause that's the only way what you describe can happen within 3.x's framework.


I'm forced to disagree here - wizards played so that they can bring their most powerful abilities to bear in combat do detract from the fun of the game.The only way I can read this to make sense would be to read it as "Wizards should not do anything but twiddle their thumbs or shoot their woefully underpowered crossbow in battle." but that can't be right.

hamishspence
2009-01-30, 06:11 PM
there are ways- but some might be a little tricky.

All summoning spells take time, as in, minutes at least, to cast- draw the circle, place the candles, summon the beastie.

All spells are very easy to disrupt- interupt the wizard and only the greatest can hold the spell

All powerful, large area spells, creative or disruptive, require support- secondary casters lending power to the wizard.

All powerful spells exert a heavy toll on caster- enough of them and caster goes unconscious

There are others but these are the sort of restrictions common in fiction.

Draz74
2009-01-30, 06:13 PM
Um, Zeful? How about I give some examples of well-balanced caster classes that have already been published, that prove you can do spectacularly magic things without being too powerful in combat?

Dragonfire Adept. Binder. Warlock. Bard.

If the wizard's magic was reduced to the same level of in-combat power as these, there wouldn't be much complaining.

Heck, what your exaggerated argument is describing is even more pathetic than the Truenamer. If Wizards were that weak -- nay, if they were stronger than that, if they were as weak as the Truenamer -- there would be just as much complaining the other way ("why can't WotC make a magic-using character that doesn't suck so bad in combat!").

lesser_minion
2009-01-30, 06:48 PM
The fighter you described cannot be mundane though, and is certainly not normal. Normal people turn to stone when a basilisk stares at them, as do many mundane supernaturals (people that are immortal but have no inexplicable powers.


That was epic hyperbole on my part. It felt cool to write though.


So you want to remove every offensive spell then, no disintigrate, 90% of the Evocation school is gone as is half the conjuration school and then give wizards no BAB, no Save progression? 'Cause that's the only way what you describe can happen within 3.x's framework.

I disagree. The current rules for wizardry are deeply flawed and need reworking. My point is that a simple way to resolve the disparity between the amount of power that being able to stick two fingers up at the laws of physics implies and the amount of power that balance demands is to make some of their most powerful abilities a lot harder to use in combat - examples being raising the casting time for Teleport so that it cannot be readily used to escape a fight (currently the DM has no way to enforce continued adventuring), nerfing the effects of Save-or-Die spells and resolving Gate. I don't want to throw out every offensive spell there is, but many of them may need re-writing.

There is no inherent weakness in the 3.5 system that stops this being done, except for the willingness of people to design such a variant and the willingness of DMs to take it up.


Why must there be those archetypes in the game? You can perfectly simulate a mundane hero by playing a low level, low magic game.

Except that that is not what this game is about.

D&D is a game about heroes in a world where magic exists - this does not mean that there is any obligation on a player to actually learn magic. There are thousands of archetypes possible for a hero, and a system where only characters with a semblance of magic are playable is merely limiting.

A hero is someone who triumphs over things that would completely destroy a normal person. Maybe not Cthulhuthoth(?), and maybe not a 3.5 wizard, but in general they should be able to come out ahead.

Zeful
2009-01-30, 07:53 PM
That was epic hyperbole on my part. It felt cool to write though.And it's cool when it happens in play. There's nothing wrong with it, but it is a kind of magic.



I disagree. The current rules for wizardry are deeply flawed and need reworking. My point is that a simple way to resolve the disparity between the amount of power that being able to stick two fingers up at the laws of physics implies and the amount of power that balance demands is to make some of their most powerful abilities a lot harder to use in combat - examples being raising the casting time for Teleport so that it cannot be readily used to escape a fight (currently the DM has no way to enforce continued adventuring), nerfing the effects of Save-or-Die spells and resolving Gate. I don't want to throw out every offensive spell there is, but many of them may need re-writing.I was making a exaggeration of my own. But your choice of words does seem unnecessarily clumsy.


There is no inherent weakness in the 3.5 system that stops this being done, except for the willingness of people to design such a variant and the willingness of DMs to take it up.:smallmad::smallfurious:Nerf the only fun classes! How dare you try to balance the game at the expense of my single minded domination of my friends in a glorified game of make-believe![/sarcasm]



Except that that is not what this game is about.

D&D is a game about heroes in a world where magic exists - this does not mean that there is any obligation on a player to actually learn magic. There are thousands of archetypes possible for a hero, and a system where only characters with a semblance of magic are playable is merely limiting.I never mentioned the word magic. I used mundane. A mundane character is like you or me; good at stuff but not really extraordinary. A hero is someone who transcends physical limitations through skill or strength. The best word to describe them would be "supernatural", as they are beyond what is natural.


A hero is someone who triumphs over things that would completely destroy a normal person. Maybe not Cthulhuthoth(?), and maybe not a 3.5 wizard, but in general they should be able to come out ahead.
I agree, but keeping Fighters mundane also limits them with what is expected of a human, which is not suited for punching out gods, or god-like beings.

lesser_minion
2009-01-30, 08:01 PM
I never mentioned the word magic. I used mundane. A mundane character is like you or me; good at stuff but not really extraordinary. A hero is someone who transcends physical limitations through skill or strength. The best word to describe them would be "supernatural", as they are beyond what is natural.

I see what you are saying. I think there do need to be changes to the D&D combat system to really accommodate non-spellcasters. I tend to stop straining disbelief when it gets to named attack systems, which is why I try to avoid 'magic' abilities getting too close to a fighter's character sheet. Also, I still like to allow players to go badass normal.


:smallfurious::smallamused:Nerf the only fun classes! How dare you try to balance the game at the expense of my single minded domination of my friends in a glorified game of make-believe![/sarcasm]

:smallamused:

Bosh
2009-01-30, 08:24 PM
Why must there be those archetypes in the game? You can perfectly simulate a mundane hero by playing a low level, low magic game.

The problem with this is that you often get a mis-match of fantasy sub-genres.

Some of the character classes in D&D fit better for low magic gaming such as Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, etc. etc.

While some of the classes fit better for high fantasy like the Wheel of Time, etc. etc.

The problem is if you have a class that makes a character be the Grey Mouser adventuring alongside a class that makes a character be Rand al'Thor then the power mismatch messes things up and the genres don't fit well together.

Basically there's three ways of dealing with this:

1. Power up the meleers with kung-fu ****.
2. Power down the casters.
3. Relegate the meleers to being side kicks to any caster that is played half-decently.

4ed basically does 1, which is a decent enough solution. Personally I'd prefer solution 2, but I really really don't like solution 3. What's the fun to playing Conan when the rest of the party is Rand al'Thor, it ruins the whole point of playing Conan...

ericgrau
2009-01-30, 08:39 PM
It is basically a list of houserules, which seemed to be heavily influenced by forums when I read it. Then later I found out a lot came from the Pathfinder forums. Some like it some don't. It seems to me that it really just imbalances some things until they're unworkable (=> auto success/fail), whereas other issues people complain about aren't even addressed for better or worse. I got this just from some rough number crunching I did. The fact that they don't playtest it at all, but continue to rely on forum opinions for that too doesn't help. But I suppose if you like those house-rules it'll save you the trouble of remaking them yourself <shrug>.

Knaight
2009-01-30, 08:48 PM
On the magic using argument, the issue with drastically changing magic is it screws up the 3.5 system.. There are tons of ways to balance out magic, in that it becomes more difficult, tiring, and more dangerous to the user. The wizard really doesn't need that many spell slots for example. and being able to just cast wish in a second is absurd. Spells should default to taking a while to cast, except for combat spells(and bigger combat spells count). Add in some variants of quicken spell, and you have a system where casters are about even in combat, and better casters can throw around big, dramatic spells that lesser casters spend hours casting.

Zeful
2009-01-30, 08:50 PM
The problem with this is that you often get a mis-match of fantasy sub-genres.

Some of the character classes in D&D fit better for low magic gaming such as Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, etc. etc.

While some of the classes fit better for high fantasy like the Wheel of Time, etc. etc.

The problem is if you have a class that makes a character be the Grey Mouser adventuring alongside a class that makes a character be Rand al'Thor then the power mismatch messes things up and the genres don't fit well together.

Basically there's three ways of dealing with this:

1. Power up the meleers with kung-fu ****.
2. Power down the casters.
3. Relegate the meleers to being side kicks to any caster that is played half-decently.

4ed basically does 1, which is a decent enough solution. Personally I'd prefer solution 2, but I really really don't like solution 3. What's the fun to playing Conan when the rest of the party is Rand al'Thor, it ruins the whole point of playing Conan...

You don't need to give them kung-fu, just place a benchmark for peak of human potential. That's when fighters and such start getting abilities that are clearly beyond human abilities.

lesser_minion
2009-01-30, 09:02 PM
On the magic using argument, the issue with drastically changing magic is it screws up the 3.5 system.. There are tons of ways to balance out magic, in that it becomes more difficult, tiring, and more dangerous to the user. The wizard really doesn't need that many spell slots for example. and being able to just cast wish in a second is absurd. Spells should default to taking a while to cast, except for combat spells(and bigger combat spells count). Add in some variants of quicken spell, and you have a system where casters are about even in combat, and better casters can throw around big, dramatic spells that lesser casters spend hours casting.

I'm not too afraid of screwing up the 3.5 system, because it is far from perfect. Equally, what I consider perfect will differ from what other people like. That's why the homebrew fora are now groaning under the weight of as many as three different 3e Heal spells. Eventually it comes down to how much you are prepared to write (and, I guess, how much time you have on your hands)

Panda-s1
2009-01-31, 03:41 AM
I hate to sound like an old grump, but I really think all this obsession over class vs. class balance is part of the baleful influence that MMORPGs are having on “real” RPGs. I’ve played quite a bit of 3.x including all levels 1-20, and these “massive imbalances” that people talk about just don’t come up for the most part (maybe with the exception of the Druid). There’s no shortage of people who want to play warriors because they’re “underpowered.” 3e certainly isn’t perfect , but the “huge design flaws” that you hear about in threads like this, particularly concerns relating to “balance,” just don’t come up in the type of games I’ve played in. People want to play characters that are going to be fun, not the flavorless piles of power you see on the CharOps forums.


I don't get why the influence of MMORPGs is "baleful." I mean I'm not a huge MMO fan, but I understand that just 'cause a game has some things from MMOs doesn't mean it's like an MMO. Not to mention people cried wolf back when 3rd ed. came out 'cause apparently WotC tried to make D&D like Diablo II.

More than that, I too like to play characters that are going to be fun. But... well, I have a friend who's staunchly 2nd ed. and he put it this way: 2nd ed. is a mess, but it's a mess that works. 3rd ed. makes a lot more sense, but your character is a pile of numbers. This was before 4e had any real previews and I defended 3rd ed. with being more logical, but he had a very good point. Even if I'm not making a tweaked out character, 3rd ed. characters can still feel like "flavorless piles of power."

People seem to misconstrue the want for balance to be one of someone's character to be more "powerful," but it really is more a case of not wanting to feel overshadowed.


I’m glad there’s 4e out there for people who want to play a tabletop RPG “balanced” like a MMORPG, and I’m glad some companies are still going to print a game based on fun and fantasy flavor not some sort of competition.
Wow, are you somehow implying that 4e isn't about "fun and fantasy flavor?" 'Cause I'll tell you now there's thousands of players that know that that is wrong on so many levels.

And it's definitely not based around competition. If anything 3.x is! I mean if I can make a character that's a thousand times better than another character of the same level, doesn't that kinda imply the player is, I dunno, trying to outdo everyone else? With 4e, yeah your character is pretty much on par with his fellow party members, but if he works with the other members of his party my god can they cut through encounters! 4e encourages teamwork more than any edition before it, which is one reason why I love it so much.

Cue "I’m glad there’s 4e out there for people who want to play a tabletop RPG where you have to work together with your party, and I’m glad some companies are still going to print a game based on standing on one part of the battlefield and doing your own thing, not some kind of teamwork."?

FatR
2009-01-31, 05:18 AM
Basically there's three ways of dealing with this:

1. Power up the meleers with kung-fu ****.
2. Power down the casters.
3. Relegate the meleers to being side kicks to any caster that is played half-decently.

4ed basically does 1, which is a decent enough solution.
4ed does 2. Their fancy-name maneuvers are strictly weaker and often less flexible than stuff that a decent 3.X fighter can do. This solution only works because all monsters in the game were turned into weakened versions of 3.X melee brutes. In 3.X you need caster support to handle encounters, and nerfing casters completely screws CR.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-01-31, 05:21 AM
and nerfing casters completely screws CR. that really depends on what caster we are talking about, a properly built Druid even in core are capable of taking on CR equivalent and sometimes higher CR monsters. CR does not work on the basis that the power fluctuations between classes are too large to be accurate.

KnightDisciple
2009-01-31, 05:33 AM
4ed does 2. Their fancy-name maneuvers are strictly weaker and often less flexible than stuff that a decent 3.X fighter can do. This solution only works because all monsters in the game were turned into weakened versions of 3.X melee brutes. In 3.X you need caster support to handle encounters, and nerfing casters completely screws CR.

Personally, I'd be glad to not need caster support in a particular game, but instead have the flexibility to field a party composed of characters we want to play, rather thank "alright, who's healing, and who's the wizard".
Hm, which one sounds more like WoW (which I play)....hm....

On another note, please tell me what's so powerful and flexible in 3.5 with vanilla fighters than in 4th. Please.

Oh, and as for the whole "mundanes should be realistic" or whatever track, I'll cross post a bit from a post of mine on WotC:
"Realism"
Forget "vidja gemes" or "anemu", I'll go further back.
Beowolf. Cúchulainn. Gilgamesh. Shamgar. David. Dozens more.
None of them with "divine blood". All of them normal humans, with normal weapons.

Beowolf tore Grendel's arm off bare handed. You know, Grendel, the dude who weapons apparently couldn't hurt? Then, when he was an old guy, he killed a dragon. By himself. A big one, too.

Cúchulainn, the world's first Super Saiyan. Didn't this guy throw a spear that split a mountain?

Shamgar. Pointy stick (ox goad) + him = 600 dead bad guys.

David used a sling (a perfectly viable ranged weapon in the day) to knock over a giant, then killed him. Later, he used that same giant's sword. Oh noes! Oversized swords!

Note: I pulled the first four clear examples I could from memory.

My point here? Ridiculous weapons and ridiculous feats of martial prowess have existed forever, not just since "anime" or whatever. Basing something on "older fantasy" doesn't exclude much of anything.

Xion_Anistu-san
2009-01-31, 06:01 AM
Yes, the race thing was a good idea.
Fighters got a power down in Power attack now sucks.
Granted, they invented those new feats that add double Str bonus to an attack, but you need 2 in that feat tree before you can full attack.

CMD makes those manuvers harder to do as well (DC 15 at start).

But the Turning ability was a nice touch.
Power Attack does not a fighter make.

They dinked with one feat and added a bushel basket of other feats to boost the fighter (Overhead Chop, Vital Strike, etc.). They also cleaned up how Cleave and Great Cleave work so they can't be broken. Fighters even get a class feature better than Weapon Spec. and GWS as well as bumps in armor topping out at +4 to AC, +4 to max Dex bonus for armor, and 4 less on armor checks penalties. Makes a high Dex fighter think twice about not getting full plate now.

When you mentioned "2 in that feat tree before you can full attack," what were you referring to exactly?

And for the record, CMB works like this:
PC: "I want to grapple this guy."
DM: "OK. Roll your CMB." As DM looks up opponents CMB modifier and adds 15 to it.
PC: "I rolled a 12 and my CMB is 14 so I got a 26"
DM: "That's going to miss. You needed a 28 because his CMB is 13."
Basically, the CMB is a modifier for attacking and acts as a target number for defending. Seems a whole lot easier and more stream-lined to me than 3.X rules for grappling, tripping, etc.

----- (You may want to get a drink or snacks for this next part) -----

I'm playing in 2 Pathfinder games and running one. I like it. A lot. It goes back to some of the roots of D&D quite a bit. By this, I mean that they changed the core base classes in such a way as to make players think twice about multi-classing. I have noticed that these rules are quite absent in Pathfinder which further supports my hypothesis.

As my group has discussed in looking over and playing Pathfinder, it bumps the core races up to +1 LA making them attractive to play again, even the much debated over race--human.

The changes made to the classes are all solid options which open up more possibilities for each of them. The rage points and ki points are a nice change making the barbarian and monk more flexible. The bard became more defined as to its knowledge while still being a jack of all skills. Fighters I mentioned above. Clerics become more useful as Turn Undead was removed in place of Channel Energy.

All casters, no matter the class, now have a uniform spell number cap. By this I mean, clerics, druids and wizards all have the same spell progression and max out at 4 spells per spell level (0 thru 9 not including bonus spells) at 20th level. No more domain spells giving clerics more spells per day than a wizard. Sorcerers get more spell slots of 6, but they still have the same restrictions as 3.X (i.e. no stat gives bonus spell slots).

Most of the abilities many classes had were extended and sometimes even started earlier as is the case with rangers (extended combat styles) and druids (earlier and more wild shape). They even gave choices to several of the classes that were merely house-rules in 3.X. Choices like arcane bond for wizards or divine bond for paladins. Rogues get the biggest bump in the game. They get a better HD, more options in skills since there are no more cross-class skills in the consolidated skill list now, and they get a plethora of rogue talents starting at 2nd level as opposed to 10th level. Oh and I almost forgot--sneak attack works on nearly everything now, so they can sneak attack corporeal undead to their heart's content.

The skills have been mentioned before, but the only thing I would question this: how are climb, ride and swim similar that they should be combined? Hide and move silently are two ways of being stealthy. Read languages and forgery have to deal with a form of linguistics. They make sense. I don't see the similarity of climb, ride and swim to warrant combining them into one skill. They did it on 4E, but that's not a logical answer to my question.

The feats list is ginormous and was added to in the forums which is good since they changed the number of base feats from 1,3,6,9, etc. up to every odd level. Yes they fiddled with power attack, but they are all balanced and offer lots of options for fun. Monks get feats for unarmed attacks beyond the old deflect/snatch arrow. Arcane casters get armor feats for lowering arcane spell failure in light and medium armor. Intimidate gets some love with a bunch of feats that work on this skill.

I believe spells get cleaned up quite a bit. Polymorph can't be broken like it was previously as it is now broken up into several new spells called (insert name or critter) form with specifics given as to what is and is not allowed to work when in said form. The biggest improvement I think they made was changing identify and making 0-level spells at-will abilities. Identify was THE most expensive 1st-level spell in the game. Where was the party supposed to get one 100 gp pearl to crush, much less more than one. If they had that kind of money, they'd have magic items to identify the loot they found. Not any more thankfully.

-----

The biggest flames I have seen over at the paizo boards in when people say that they need to change base mechanics or overall structure of the game. The thing is those posters are fighting the design precepts for Pathfinder: improve the game, add options and reverse compatibility. Putting a cap on buff spells may improve the game, but it limits choices. Rewriting spells may be reverse compatible, but may not improve the game. And my personal favorite is when people post stuff like this:


1. Stats which scale with levels.
Examples:
- BAB
- Saves ...
In case of #1, the only real solution would be to change scaling formula. Right now it is something similar to:

round(aN+b), where
- round (value) - round value down to nearest integer
- a - scaling coefficient
- b - minimum value
- N - level ...
You'd need a math degree to understand that, and it would mean completely reworking the game tossing the precepts "adding choices" and "reverse compatibility" out the window. Not to mention the fact that this is slated for release in July and August of this year, and this kind of change would more than likely require a year or two to implement properly throughout the game.

KnightDisciple
2009-01-31, 06:05 AM
I've played some Pathfinder. Not a lot, but some. I certainly never saw anything that justified me paying for 3.5 all over again, with some rules tweaks.
I think that's part of what gets my goat on this...They took the SRD, a free document, and tweaked it, and now they're selling it as this shiny new thing. It just rubs me the wrong way.

Xion_Anistu-san
2009-01-31, 06:16 AM
I've played some Pathfinder. Not a lot, but some. I certainly never saw anything that justified me paying for 3.5 all over again, with some rules tweaks.
I think that's part of what gets my goat on this...They took the SRD, a free document, and tweaked it, and now they're selling it as this shiny new thing. It just rubs me the wrong way.
They tweaked it to try and remedy the inequities between the core books and the over-powered accessories that came out after. A major design precept was to make Pathfinder reverse compatible so you could keep playing 3.X and using all the 3.5 books you already have instead of having to mothball them and buy the new batch of 4E books. Technically, all you need to buy is the Pathfinder book in August and the Bestiary in July and keep using everything else from 3.5. Two books versus the umpteen you'd need to buy for 4E now.

KnightDisciple
2009-01-31, 06:19 AM
They tweaked it to try and remedy the inequities between the core books and the over-powered accessories that came out after. A major design precept was to make Pathfinder reverse compatible so you could keep playing 3.X and using all the 3.5 books you already have instead of having to mothball them and buy the new batch of 4E books. Technically, all you need to buy is the Pathfinder book in August and the Bestiary in July and keep using everything else from 3.5. Two books versus the umpteen you'd need to buy for 4E now.

Having owned the completes, and having been able to read several other books, I'd like specific examples of classes, and if possible races. That are over-powered, that is.

olentu
2009-01-31, 06:27 AM
All casters, no matter the class, now have a uniform spell number cap. By this I mean, clerics, druids and wizards all have the same spell progression and max out at 4 spells per spell level (0 thru 9 not including bonus spells) at 20th level. No more domain spells giving clerics more spells per day than a wizard. Sorcerers get more spell slots of 6, but they still have the same restrictions as 3.X (i.e. no stat gives bonus spell slots).

From the top of page 42 in the beta

"Like other spellcasters, a sorcerer can cast only a certain
number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily
spell allotment is given on Table 4–12. In addition, she receives
bonus spells per day if she has a high Charisma score."

From the SRD

"Like other spellcasters, a sorcerer can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Sorcerer. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Charisma score."

So it looks like they get bonus spells based on charisma in both 3.5 and pathfinder unless there is some text I have missed, or some extra stuff from the designers or something else that contradicts this.

Xion_Anistu-san
2009-01-31, 06:51 AM
Having owned the completes, and having been able to read several other books, I'd like specific examples of classes, and if possible races. That are over-powered, that is.
Actually I said "over-powered accessories" meaning that the power levels in the books after the core rules ramped up considerably as time went by. And if you would like examples of the inflated power creep, I give you the following (in no particular order): Warlock class, Orb spells, Scout class, Sacred Fist prestige class, Rainbow Servant prestige class, Relics, Skirmish, Killoren, Arcane Hierophant prestige class, Goliaths, Warforged, Duskblade class, Dragon Disciple class, most spells from PHBII, nearly everything in Tome of Battle, Illumin

Each of these things pushes the power level of 3.5 higher making the core races and classes less attractive to play. Pathfinder bumps the core races and classes up to the levels of these 3.5 accessories.

olentu
2009-01-31, 06:58 AM
Actually I said "over-powered accessories" meaning that the power levels in the books after the core rules ramped up considerably as time went by. And if you would like examples of the inflated power creep, I give you the following (in no particular order): Warlock class, Orb spells, Scout class, Sacred Fist prestige class, Rainbow Servant prestige class, Relics, Skirmish, Killoren, Arcane Hierophant prestige class, Goliaths, Warforged, Duskblade class, Dragon Disciple class, most spells from PHBII, nearly everything in Tome of Battle, Illumin

Each of these things pushes the power level of 3.5 higher making the core races and classes less attractive to play. Pathfinder bumps the core races and classes up to the levels of these 3.5 accessories.

I am almost sure that Dragon Disciple is in the DMG and thus should be core.

Xion_Anistu-san
2009-01-31, 06:59 AM
From the top of page 42 in the beta

"Like other spellcasters, a sorcerer can cast only a certain
number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily
spell allotment is given on Table 4–12. In addition, she receives
bonus spells per day if she has a high Charisma score."

From the SRD

"Like other spellcasters, a sorcerer can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Sorcerer. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Charisma score."

So it looks like they get bonus spells based on charisma in both 3.5 and pathfinder unless there is some text I have missed, or some extra stuff from the designers or something else that contradicts this.
I apologize for my faux pas; it's way past my bedtime. They do indeed get more spell slots for a higher Cha. However, they do not get to know any more than what is on the list, as is also mentioned on page 42:

At each new sorcerer level, she gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table 4–13. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by her Charisma score; the numbers on Table 4–13 are fixed.

NOTE: Please replace Dragon Disciple from my list with Dragon Shaman from PHBII. Another sleepy faux pas.

Thank you and good night.

Bosh
2009-01-31, 07:16 AM
Warlock class, Orb spells, Scout class, Sacred Fist prestige class, Rainbow Servant prestige class, Relics, Skirmish, Killoren, Arcane Hierophant prestige class, Goliaths, Warforged, Duskblade class, Dragon Disciple class, most spells from PHBII, nearly everything in Tome of Battle, Illumin

Each of these things pushes the power level of 3.5 higher making the core races and classes less attractive to play. Pathfinder bumps the core races and classes up to the levels of these 3.5 accessories.

So what you're telling me is because of the massive power of the Warlock and Scout classes, the poor underpowered Clerics, Druids and Wizards are less attractive to play since they are so weak in comparison?

Overall, material in the splat books tend to be weaker than the stuff in Core. For example, every single class in the Complete books is weaker than the most similar Core class as are all of the Tome of Magic classes. The only two non-core classes that can compete with Clerics, Druids and Wizards are the Artificer and the Archivist. Because of this it is very silly to boost the power of any of the three most powerful classes in the game (as Pathfinder does with Wizards).

Let's go down your list:

Warlock class: weaker than most Core classes.
Orb spells: decent enough spells, but weaker than save or suck Core spells.
Scout class: weaker than most Core classes.
Sacred fish prestige class: weak, all of those sort of Prestige Classes are.
Rainbow servant: stupidly overpowered. One point for you.
Relics: not familiar with the rules on them.
Skirmish: weaker than sneak attack.
Killoren: balanced.
Arcane Hierophant: weak.
Goliaths: not worth the LA in most cases.
Warforged: balanced.
Duskblade: good and balanced class, weaker than well-built core gish.
Dragon Disciple: weak.
spells from PHB II: some overpowered spells here, but not most.
nearly everything from the tome of battle: more powerful than core melee, weaker than core casters.
Illumin: not especially powerful.

Humans are probably the best 3.5ed race overall (except for whisper gnomes, they are cheese) and most of the most powerful spells and classes are in core.

This isn't to say that you can't make more powerful things with a stack of splatbooks and core than you can with just core. But this doesn't mean that splatbook content in general is more powerful (on average its weaker, especially splatbooks classes, which are mostly gimpy, especially the ones in the complete series). Its just that the more content you have the easier you can cherry pick out little bits and pieces of overpowered **** and combine them (for example cherry picking every single feat in every single book to makes you do more damage while charging and combining them, almost all of them are fine by themselves but when you combine them you get stupid results).

But except for a few bits of isolated cheese (divine metamagic, certain specific spells, etc.) most splatbook stuff tends to be gimped or balanced when compared to core, the problem isn't with splatbook content, its with how easy it is to combine a bunch of stuff and make a monster, which is a problem with 3.5ed that Pathfinder doesn't do anything to fix.

Also boosting the power of the core classes across the board doesn't make any sense since the splatbook classes are almost all weaker than the core classes...


NOTE: Please replace Dragon Disciple from my list with Dragon Shaman from PHBII. Another sleepy faux pas.
YOu think that the dragon shaman is overpowered when compared to core full casters? Oh dear...

Basically if Pathfinder is being made by people who think that wizards need a boost to be able to compete with warlocks then something is seriously seriously wrong...

lesser_minion
2009-01-31, 07:23 AM
I don't think that there is much of a dispute as to core casters being overpowered, but there does seem to have been some creep as far as the splatbooks are concerned - none of the classes mentioned are actually weak in the same way as a monk is considered weak.

Equally, there are options that have turned up during this splatbook creep that are absurdly broken. Persistent Spell isn't core, but can hardly be described as a good idea.

FatR
2009-01-31, 07:25 AM
that really depends on what caster we are talking about, a properly built Druid even in core are capable of taking on CR equivalent and sometimes higher CR monsters.
As are other spellcasters. As everyone should be. You're supposed to have 50% chance of beating an equal-CR monster on average (without optimizing like crazy), because hey, you have equal CR. Casters do have this chance. Fighers and other losers don't.

Grey Paladin
2009-01-31, 07:26 AM
You'd need a math degree to understand that, and it would mean completely reworking the game tossing the precepts "adding choices" and "reverse compatibility" out the window. Not to mention the fact that this is slated for release in July and August of this year, and this kind of change would more than likely require a year or two to implement properly throughout the game.

while (true)
{
facepalm();
}

KnightDisciple
2009-01-31, 07:33 AM
Actually I said "over-powered accessories" meaning that the power levels in the books after the core rules ramped up considerably as time went by. And if you would like examples of the inflated power creep, I give you the following (in no particular order): Warlock class, Orb spells, Scout class, Sacred Fist prestige class, Rainbow Servant prestige class, Relics, Skirmish, Killoren, Arcane Hierophant prestige class, Goliaths, Warforged, Duskblade class, Dragon Disciple class, most spells from PHBII, nearly everything in Tome of Battle, Illumin

Each of these things pushes the power level of 3.5 higher making the core races and classes less attractive to play. Pathfinder bumps the core races and classes up to the levels of these 3.5 accessories.

Disclaimer: I've only long-term played a caster once, and he was a warmage. Fun as can be, though.

I'm of two minds on the orb of spells. On the one hand, they, as written, make casters not useless against golems and the like (barring stuff like black tentacles, and a mishmash of specific spells). Especially for sorcs and warmages, this is critical (unless we're going to try to say everyone should either be a wizard, or have a bajillion scrolls, wands, etc.). On the other, I can see how it could throw a DM's plan off. But as far as the damage and mode of attack, there's nothing OP. No save, but requires an attack roll. Single target, instead of area. *Shrugs*
I can't speak to the Prestige classes, having only ever used...2, in 2 separate games, and not being a big theorycruncher. I won't deny the power of PrCs per se, but the core books have just as much potential *cough*mystic theurge*cough*.
I also can't speak to the races you named necessarily.
I can speak to the Warlock. I own that book, and have played in a game with them. It's not OP; I'd say it's significantly less powerful than a wizard. Right around rogue level or so. After all, their blast follows the same progression as Sneak Attack. Their BAB is the same. Similar weapons (don't have books handy to be exact). Same armor level. Whole lot less skills and assorted abilities. A DR of...what, 5/cold iron?...isn't bad at all. Barbarians get DR/-, after all. The one thing you may be sticking on is the invocations. But considering they get only 12 known (with a bit of swap), and they're maybe on par with 4th levels spells...yeah, not really seeing the OP. Especially since there wasn't an invocation glut like there was spell glut.
Spells overall power growth in splats; sure, but it started off in the stratosphere, and just went higher.
Scout, to me, is about like a Rogue or Ranger (personally, some melding of it and ranger would have been the ultimate ranger in my opinion, but eh). Never really saw it as OP.
Duskblade....my jury's out on that one. Haven't played as/with one. Same with Dragon Shaman.
Tome of Battle's only "OP" because it's better than Fighters and Paladins. I've played a Paladin, all the way to epic (albeit taking the Shining Blade PrC). He sucked, frankly. At least in the sense of contributing much of anything. He was great at dying (4 times, to be precise). Our wizard and cleric, and to a lesser degree the TWF Ranger, killed plenty of stuff. I just got killed by plenty of stuff.
I've played a THW fighter to mid-ish levels. He was only so so, what with the...spirit shaman, warlock, sorc (read, casters in general, not those specific classes), and rogue (after all, the rogue had so many skills, especially social ones). At least I got to hit things with my fullblade a couple of times.
And then there's the other fighter I played. He was actually a partial gestalt, with the gestalt level every...3 or 4...levels. Main side, fighter all the way. Secondary was a mix of PHB2 Knight, and the far outrider (or some such) PrC from Complete Adventurer (that PrC was taken for: flavor, and the boost to ride speed). That one also went to mid-ish levels. It was also a lower magic campaign, with a Hexblade being the most mystical character in the group. I think I felt most effective in that game as a beatstick.
Tome looks to make beatsticks effective even with wizards there. Maybe not "on the same level", but at least able to actually help/contribute.

Of course, considering you've named stuff from...what, 10 books? And only...5or so base classes. I'd say there's not too much to "power up" over. The TOB classes are kind of a "what fighter ought to have been". I guess I just didn't see the need to bump casters in Pathfinder (which they did). Fighters, sure, but I don't much like the boost. In that it feels like chump change. "Here's an extra +2 kid, and a couple tricks to give you other minor boosts. Let the wizard keep telling reality to stuff it." Yeah, about that...

Arcane_Snowman
2009-01-31, 07:38 AM
As are other spellcasters. As everyone should be. You're supposed to have 50% chance of beating an equal-CR monster on average (without optimizing like crazy), because hey, you have equal CR. Casters do have this chance. Fighers and other losers don't. CR in the book is specified as supposed to be a Challenge (IE, consume approximately 50% of the resources) when paired against a group of 4 characters of equivalent level, so according to the book that's not how it's supposed to be. The fact that the power level of a character can swing from "I might as well be missing all my limbs" to "Should I even bother?" when it comes to CR equivalent challenges, makes the CR system unusable.
I personally don't care whether all characters are capable of killing a CR equivalent monster singlehandedly or they need to be four to manage it, all I'm saying is that the system needs consistency.

FatR
2009-01-31, 07:39 AM
Personally, I'd be glad to not need caster support in a particular game, but instead have the flexibility to field a party composed of characters we want to play, rather thank "alright, who's healing, and who's the wizard".
Hm, which one sounds more like WoW (which I play)....hm....
Guess what, you can compose party of characters you want in 3.5 even in a challenging game (of course you can do so, if the campaign is not intended to challenge you), as long as there is no fighters, monks or other gimps dragging you down. For that matter, even then you can make a fighter genuinely useful until high levels. (And, BTW, healing is a nonexistent party niche in an optmized play. Buy some wands of CLW already.)


On another note, please tell me what's so powerful and flexible in 3.5 with vanilla fighters than in 4th. Please.
In 3.5 I can do some real battlefield control with a fighter, keepind down almost anything that depend on legs. Or I can deal MASSIVE DAMAGE with my charges. Or I can spam arrows and be a viable archer. Or I can shred anyone who attempts to physically attack me. Or I can go for combinationg of some of these options. Or I can simply kill **** with my two-handed sword if I don't care much about keeping up or the game is low-optimization. That's vanilla figher, before going for any prestiges. Note, that most of this is still not really adequate past certain levels, but it is far above anything that 4ed fighers can ever do.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-01-31, 07:52 AM
I won't deny the power of PrCs per se, but the core bookg one small score for buff and utility spells, the fact is that you can achis have just as much potential *cough*mystic theurge*cough*. I agree more or less with every other analysis, but this is a severe knee-jerk reaction, mystic theurge is an incredibly weak class, and here is why: Spellcasting grows at a geometrical rate, because of that having 9th level spells compared to say 7th, is a big thing. As a Mystic Theurge you are 3 levels behind on both classes (at least), you need two stats to be capable of casting spells (most cases Wisdom and Intelligence), while you can get off havineve almost as much with scrolls, wands and/or higher level spells.

I know that it becomes possible to get 9th level casting with both sides when splats are introduced, but that is because of fast progression classes that are already broken (Ur-Priest, I'm looking at you!).


Hm, which one sounds more like WoW (which I play)....hm....
Guess what, you can compose party of characters you want in 3.5, as long as there is no weak classes dragging you down. (BTW, healing is a nonexistent party niche in an optmized play. Buy some wands of CLW already.) Well the "healing" role as described in a MMORPG where you heal in combat is non-existent, but out of combat it is still relevant (and actually effective), but contrary to popular belief it's actually the Druid's Unicorn Friend (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/unicorn.htm) that does the job the best.

FatR
2009-01-31, 07:52 AM
CR in the book is specified as supposed to be a Challenge (IE, consume approximately 50% of the resources) when paired against a group of 4 characters of equivalent level, so according to the book that's not how it's supposed to be. The fact that the power level of a character can swing from "I might as well be missing all my limbs" to "Should I even bother?" when it comes to CR equivalent challenges, makes the CR system unusable.
I personally don't care whether all characters are capable of killing a CR equivalent monster singlehandedly or they need to be four to manage it, all I'm saying is that the system needs consistency.
Read. The. Book. Again. You're wrong. An equal CR is supposed to be a curbstomp battle for a party of four (20% of resources spent). And a 50/50 battle for a single characters (as being equal to an opponent of your CL freaking makes sense).
As about characters being mechanically equal, if the system is a)mechanically complicated b)allows genuinely powerful and versatile characters, the difference in possible power levels will be enormous. Period. 4ed tries to avoid this by making everyone, characters and monsters alike, really similar and removing/nerfing their abilities. They failed, as some characters still can lockdown opponents and these characters still dominate.

KnightDisciple
2009-01-31, 07:57 AM
I agree more or less with every other analysis, but this is a severe knee-jerk reaction, mystic theurge is an incredibly weak class, and here is why: Spellcasting grows at a geometrical rate, because of that having 9th level spells compared to say 7th, is a big thing. As a Mystic Theurge you are 3 levels behind on both classes (at least), you need two stats to be capable of casting spells (most cases Wisdom and Intelligence), while you can get off havineve almost as much with scrolls, wands and/or higher level spells.

I know that it becomes possible to get 9th level casting with both sides when splats are introduced, but that is because of fast progression classes that are already broken (Ur-Priest, I'm looking at you!).

Well the "healing" role as described in a MMORPG where you heal in combat is non-existent, but out of combat it is still relevant (and actually effective), but contrary to popular belief it's actually the Druid's Unicorn Friend (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/unicorn.htm) that does the job the best.

Hm. Well, I didn't play the Theurge directly. Our party member played a Sorc/Favored Soul (the one possible way that class starts to seem "OP"). So no ability mismatch there, both use Cha. but I thought if you did just a couple levels of each class, then full Theurge...gah, I don't recall the curve for gaining spells.
But now, I must have needs to leave for home.
*POOF*

lesser_minion
2009-01-31, 08:04 AM
As are other spellcasters. As everyone should be. You're supposed to have 50% chance of beating an equal-CR monster on average (without optimizing like crazy), because hey, you have equal CR. Casters do have this chance. Fighers and other losers don't.

Not quite. A PC's CR is actually lower than his level. In the event that your party falls to pieces and you actually murder one of your PCs (making their CR relevant), in general that will immediately precede either rocks fall or a bolt of blue lightning. However, a monster has to provide a credible threat while outnumbered four-to-one. If you go up against an equal-CR monster solo, your character should have serious difficulties (all NPCs are supposed to get extra magic items and so on, which is why their CR is taken to be equal to their level.)

A monster is supposed to be a decent challenge - slightly weaker than - four typical characters. On average the party loses about a fifth of its total spells and daily-use resources in each of these. There are some fairly simple points in the DMG on how to plan encounters and asses them for balance. They go something along the lines of:

You should need a barbarian, paladin, ranger or fighter to win a large number of combat encounters
You should need a cleric to survive multiple combat encounters
Wizards and Sorcerers are supposed to be best against large groups.
A Cleric or a Bard should make every encounter easier.
Rogues find it easiest when they can skulk around and use SA


From that, I think we are definitely supposed to be working on the theory that wizards, bards and clerics should be able to burn out, rather than rest every five minutes. Of course, when your encounter theory seems based entirely on evocation spells, there are going to be some problems.


An equal CR is supposed to be a curbstomp battle for a party of four (20% of resources spent). And a 50/50 battle for a single characters (as being equal to an opponent of your CL freaking makes sense).

See above. Equal CR is supposed to credibly threaten a party of four characters - all monsters are meant to be slightly more powerful than PCs of level=CR - the PCs are usually supposed to exploit teamwork and synergies between the character classes in order to win.

Bosh
2009-01-31, 08:19 AM
I don't think that there is much of a dispute as to core casters being overpowered, but there does seem to have been some creep as far as the splatbooks are concerned - none of the classes mentioned are actually weak in the same way as a monk is considered weak.

Equally, there are options that have turned up during this splatbook creep that are absurdly broken. Persistent Spell isn't core, but can hardly be described as a good idea.

Well I think that the Samuri is weaker than the monk :)

Anyway, I'm not saying that you don't end up with a more powerful game if you add in a bunch of splat books, what I'm saying is:

A. In general, core is no more balanced than the splat books, if anything it is less so.
B. No class in 3.5ed is more powerful than the three most powerful core classes.
C. Upping the power of the core classes across the board in an attempt to balance them with splat book content is counter productive.

Where the power creep comes from is:
A. There are a few bits of cheese in each splat book that should just be banned out of hand.
B. There are lots of little class features and feats that are fine by themselves but become cheesy and powerful when combined with various class features and feats in other books.

What you can often do with a stack of splat books is find every feat and class feature that improves one specific ability or tactic and then give your character all of them and make him a very powerful one trick pony. This is a real problem as is the problem of WotC not being careful about how things in different books synergize, but upping the power of core classes just make the power creep doesn't work, it doesn't nothing at all to fix these issues.

I think a good comparison is with Magic: the Gathering. If you have one core pack and then 10 expansion packs that are each overall weaker than the core pack, you can still make much more powerful decks with all the expansion packs than with just the core pack, even if the core pack is more powerful since you can cherry pick and look for synergies. Just because you can build more powerful decks with all of the expansion packs doesn't mean that the core pack is underpowered and it doesn't mean that upping the power of the core cards will fix anything.


Persistent Spell isn't core, but can hardly be described as a good idea.
Not too bad by itself, but when combined with divine meta magic *shudders* and night sticks *shudders even more.*


but the core books have just as much potential *cough*mystic theurge*cough*.
Mysteric theurge is very weak combined to a straight-up caster (unless you cheese it up with ur priest etc.).


After all, their blast follows the same progression as Sneak Attack.
Right, but a rogue can land more than one sneak attack a round, a warlock can't. That said, warlocks are a damn fun and a generally well-made class, while being a bit on the weak side. A good bit less damage output than rogues but more versatility...


Scout, to me, is about like a Rogue or Ranger (personally, some melding of it and ranger would have been the ultimate ranger in my opinion, but eh). Never really saw it as OP.
Overall scouts are weaker unless you find a way to get pounce...


In 3.5 I can do some real battlefield control with a fighter, keepind down almost anything that depend on legs. Or I can deal MASSIVE DAMAGE with my charges.
Right, 3.5ed fighters can be decently powerful if they become trip monkeys are charge monkeys (but to do that well you need feats outside of core, otherwise even fighter trip and charge monkeys start sucking after low levels with just core), but in 3.5 if you build a fighter that focused on basically anything except just charging over and over again or tripping over and over again you're going to suck. That kind of straight jacket on a class that's supposed to be flexible is damn annoying...


r I can spam arrows and be a viable archer.
arrow damage scales badly for fighters...

mostlyharmful
2009-01-31, 08:24 AM
Our party member played a Sorc/Favored Soul (the one possible way that class starts to seem "OP"). So no ability mismatch there, both use Cha.*

Gah! Even Worse! at least with wiz/Cleric your're only three levels behind which is a spell level and a half, with spont casters you're TWO full spell levels behind at all time.

MT is vaguely salvageable with tricks to get into it with just one Wiz level but then you're a. still behind on casting b. mostly a cleric which can't wear the heaviest armour and c. still require twice the ability scores. (not to mention d. that it requires twice the book keeping of a full caster which is already a stupily huge amount.)

Arcane_Snowman
2009-01-31, 08:32 AM
Read. The. Book. Again. You're wrong. An equal CR is supposed to be a curbstomp battle for a party of four (20% of resources spent). And a 50/50 battle for a single characters (as being equal to an opponent of your CL freaking makes sense). You are correct, my mistake.


As about characters being mechanically equal, if the system is a)mechanically complicated b)allows genuinely powerful and versatile characters, the difference in possible power levels will be enormous. Period. I can feel it's getting late, because my point is not getting across as I want it to :smallannoyed:.

Let me try to rephrase: take Jaronk's tier system (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0), it divides all existing classes into tiers depending on their versatility. The big 5 are tier 1, Sorcerers, Psions and similar classes are tier 2, and so on. Personally I see tier 3 as the ideal, and tier 2 and 4 are acceptable (4 more so than 2), that's where I base my judgment, you can get genuinely powerful and versatile characters within these parameters.

Tier 1, 5 and 6 are to me designer flaws: tier 1 being so by the virtue of being capable of doing practically everything if played right, and 5 through 6 being so because they are incapable of actually existing within the parameters of the game for which they have been created.

lesser_minion
2009-01-31, 08:33 AM
As far as I can tell, the only time Mystic Theurge does much is at high levels, where the option to pick up some of the worst spells of both classes comes in. I think Pathfinder tried to buff the class, but it's still not brilliant.

At least there seems to be no way for wizards to go wizardzilla - while universal wizards get their own personal flavour of smoked DMM cheese, it doesn't actually look too bad beyond being utterly overpowered in comparison to specialist wizards.

KnightDisciple
2009-01-31, 08:59 AM
@Bosh, on the subject of Warlock blast:
Oh, you're right. It's even worse if it's a TWF rogue; that's....way more d6's than anyone should have. Ever.

Bosh
2009-01-31, 09:10 AM
@Bosh, on the subject of Warlock blast:
Oh, you're right. It's even worse if it's a TWF rogue; that's....way more d6's than anyone should have. Ever.

I think you misunderstood me, normally warlocks can only get off one blast/round which severely limits their power.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-01-31, 09:13 AM
I think you misunderstood me, normally warlocks can only get off one blast/round which severely limits their power. he did not, he was merely commenting that a Rogue with TWF gets an obscene amount of d6s rolling when dealing damage. As compared to the warlocks often smallish damage.

KnightDisciple
2009-01-31, 09:18 AM
he did not, he was merely commenting that a Rogue with TWF gets an obscene amount of d6s rolling when dealing damage. As compared to the warlocks often smallish damage.

This.
I played in a group with a TWF rogue who had both daggers enchanted with the "two extra d6 of sneak attack" property. And the magebane (I think it's 2d6 against casters, or some such).
Our DM liked to throw casters at us.
The rogue killed things, a lot.

hamishspence
2009-01-31, 12:52 PM
I thought a monster was supposed to be the equal of a player in 3.5: just as a 20th level Elf Wizard, treated as a monster, is CR 20, so a 20th level Elf Wizard PC is its equal, not worse, not better.

But, thanks to the balance issue, a lone fighter gets stomped very hard by a lone wizard.

Which is, I think, the main problem- that the CR system assumes fighter power and wizard-type power is an equal threat, and it really isn't.

lesser_minion
2009-01-31, 01:38 PM
I thought a monster was supposed to be the equal of a player in 3.5: just as a 20th level Elf Wizard, treated as a monster, is CR 20, so a 20th level Elf Wizard PC is its equal, not worse, not better.


Take a white dragon, CR1 - it's mobile enough to catch a lone arcanist, a good enough tank to murder a lone fighter, and generally mobile enough and strong enough that your 1st level PC shouldn't be taking it down on his own. There are also a few monsters with more (better) hit dice than their CR and which cast spells as a higher-level caster than their CR. They are usually harder than lone PC class members.

As I said, an NPC usually balances the theoretical weakness with extra gear at the lower levels.

horseboy
2009-01-31, 06:29 PM
B) A wizard is also the hardest class to play of the base classes. I am a newbie, and I tried once. It was sort of fun, I turned a giant undead mass of animated meat into stone. But I was way over my head, and feeling less then effective. I am now playing a human barbarian,and I am feeling effective. And this is at level 14. The uber power of the wizard is a reward for the experience required to play it well. This does ask a question: To whom should the game be balanced? People that don't know how to play yet, or people with experience with it?

As an aside, here is more of an in-game reason. But wizards are people to whom the laws of physics are but as guidelines. Why shouldn't they be more powerful then a person who swings a sharp piece of metal around?
Because a sharp piece of metal through the lungs should kill just as well as a green ray that turns someone into dust.

I don't get why the influence of MMORPGs is "baleful." I mean I'm not a huge MMO fan, but I understand that just 'cause a game has some things from MMOs doesn't mean it's like an MMO. Not to mention people cried wolf back when 3rd ed. came out 'cause apparently WotC tried to make D&D like Diablo II.
Not to mention 3.x brought in the concepts of "grey mobs" to D&D. :smallfurious:
Hm. Well, I didn't play the Theurge directly. Our party member played a Sorc/Favored Soul (the one possible way that class starts to seem "OP"). So no ability mismatch there, both use Cha. but I thought if you did just a couple levels of each class, then full Theurge...gah, I don't recall the curve for gaining spells.
But now, I must have needs to leave for home.
*POOF*If it makes you feel better a Theurge of Wejass is responsible for PC's not getting to Rebuke Undead in 4th.

kalt
2009-02-01, 03:26 PM
This is an example of where I actually liked second edition with classes leveling at different speeds. It just embraced the imbalance that exists.

hamishspence
2009-02-01, 03:49 PM
I got the impression it was partly the other way round, right after D&D 3.0 came out, a sourcebook was released to make Diablo more like D&D. the rules for Diablo creatures in those sourcebooks were more D&D-ish than the standard Diablo rules- giving Balrogs the blasphemy spell-like ability, etc.

Xion_Anistu-san
2009-02-02, 02:48 AM
I fail to see the balance or equity when you compare the core races and classes with those from later accessories like the Complete series, Races books and the Tomes.

The later, non-core races have fewer penalties, more bonuses and more racial abilities. Even races with a LA do not compare to those with similar LA's from the MM.

Then we have classes. Take a look at the warlock. It gets a better HD, a better BAB, proficiency in light armor, and an Eldritch Blast that works all day long which can be shaped and stacks with their invocation class ability. They also get DR, short-term fast healing as well as energy resistance. Yes sorcerers and wizards get limited usage of some pretty nifty spells that out-strip any invocation, but they can't touch the suit of class abilities or overall damage output. A warmage isn't much better. They get a potent spell list and knowledge of all spells on that list, better HD, and the ability to cast in medium armor. How are these balanced with the core arcane classes?

Next I mentioned the scout. It also has a better HD, skirmish which comes into play more often than sneak attack and increases AC, as well as all of the trademark class abilities of a rogue (trapfinding and 8+ Int for skills). It also gets a bonus to Fort saves, a smattering of barbarian and ranger class abilities, and the big one--blindsense. Even the much maligned ninja is a notch better than a rogue in that they get better AC and a hole package of stealthy abilities as class features that rogues have to use magic items to duplicate, all while still getting a comparable sudden strike. They don't get trapfinding though, they just get poison use instead.

The classes from Tome of Battle are better/ more powerful when compared to the warrior types of the PHB. I honestly can't say a whole lot about the Tome of Magic as I don't have it, but I can't see that it would be much different than the Tome of Battle with comparison to the core arcane classes.

Look closely at any base class after the core books and you will see a marked drop in dead levels (an increase in class abilities) and some increase in other attributes (like HD, BAB, saves, etc.) which shows an increase in the overall power level of the game.

And finally let me spell this out plain and simple ... I am not saying these things are over-powered in any way, shape or form. I am saying that they are better than the comparable core races and classes in power level. And I believe it is because of that bump, this increase in power level of the 3.5 non-OGL books, that Pathfinder is rewriting the core books, so that all races and classes (and spells, and feats, etc.) will be on the same power level.

Grey Paladin
2009-02-02, 03:01 AM
Warlock is one of the weakest classes . . .ever. I couldn't keep reading.

I am sorry, but Core has Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, and Druids - there is simply nothing out there that can reach the ankles of *any* of these beside Artificer , Archiver, and Psion.

Instead of guessing wildly, do some basic math.

olentu
2009-02-02, 03:14 AM
Warlock is one of the weakest classes . . .ever. I couldn't keep reading.

I am sorry, but Core has Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, and Druids - there is simply nothing out there that can reach the ankles of *any* of these beside Artificer , Archiver, and Psion.

Instead of guessing wildly, do some basic math.

I would rank erudite rather high if the spells to powers variant is used.

Reinboom
2009-02-02, 03:40 AM
I got the impression it was partly the other way round, right after D&D 3.0 came out, a sourcebook was released to make Diablo more like D&D. the rules for Diablo creatures in those sourcebooks were more D&D-ish than the standard Diablo rules- giving Balrogs the blasphemy spell-like ability, etc.


Correction, it was released just before, very much with 2e in mind. At least, the version I'm holding was.
A small, 32 page pamphlet that was contained in a box set I no longer have the rest of that has the rules for playing the game all tucked neatly inside it. HP is life points, it uses a subtractive to hit, there are mobs of monsters, and percentages for diablo style treasure chest openings.
The only thing I'm missing would be the dice that came with, and the character sheets. :smallfrown:

edit:
oh right, my opinion on pathfinder.

I adore the skill changes, like what polymorph became, felt that everything else didn't do enough.
In short.
It is 3.5 with some very neat houserules, in my opinion.
However, yes, very 2nd edition.

Xion_Anistu-san
2009-02-02, 03:48 AM
Warlock is one of the weakest classes . . .ever. I couldn't keep reading.

I am sorry, but Core has Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, and Druids - there is simply nothing out there that can reach the ankles of *any* of these beside Artificer , Archiver, and Psion.

Instead of guessing wildly, do some basic math.
OK. Here is some basic math:
HD: warlock (d6) > sorcerer, wizard (d4)
BAB: warlock (+3/4 per level) > sorcerer, wizard (+1/2 per level)
Number of different class abilities: warlock (8) > sorcerer (1), wizard (3)
Average damage output per level: warlock (eldritch blast every round with no save) > sorcerer, wizard (limited number of spells, most subject to saves)
Class abilities: warlock > sorcerer, wizard

There was no guessing on my part at all. I gave my reasoning with the facts straight from the text.

Reinboom
2009-02-02, 03:59 AM
OK. Here is some basic math:
HD: warlock (d6) > sorcerer, wizard (d4)
BAB: warlock (+3/4 per level) > sorcerer, wizard (+1/2 per level)
Number of different class abilities: warlock (8) > sorcerer (1), wizard (3)
Average damage output per level: warlock (eldritch blast every round with no save) > sorcerer, wizard (limited number of spells, most subject to saves)
Class abilities: warlock > sorcerer, wizard

There was no guessing on my part at all. I gave my reasoning with the facts straight from the text.

Number of save or die, save or lose, or no-save or lose effects: sorcerer, wizard (takes too long to count) > warlock (1?)

The issue wouldn't be damage difference, it's utility, and or-loses/dies. Yes, there is a chance for it to not do anything, much the same way the warlock must ranged touch for most of it. When the effective disabler does hit, it destroys, catching up far beyond any potential damage it could of done.

Then there are spells that deal more disabling with almost no chance. Compare, say, a powerful eldritch blast, dealing a decent amount of damage on a touch to, say, otto's irresistible or shivering touch, shutting off the enemy completely on a touch (no save).

mostlyharmful
2009-02-02, 04:19 AM
OK. Here is some basic math:
HD: warlock (d6) > sorcerer, wizard (d4)
BAB: warlock (+3/4 per level) > sorcerer, wizard (+1/2 per level)
Number of different class abilities: warlock (8) > sorcerer (1), wizard (3)
Average damage output per level: warlock (eldritch blast every round with no save) > sorcerer, wizard (limited number of spells, most subject to saves)
Class abilities: warlock > sorcerer, wizard

There was no guessing on my part at all. I gave my reasoning with the facts straight from the text.

BUT..... really who cares about HD when you can have so many layered buffs on yourself that you aren't likely to get hit and contingencies if you do...
- Who cares about BAB when you're both making touch attacks (that's provided the wizard chooses spells that need attacks at all)
- Who cares about number of class abilities when Spellcasting rocks so hard it doesn't belong in the same catagory
- Who cares about average damage when spells don't need to do damage to utterly shut down an opponent (and oft times without a save at all, if the wiz goes blaster or debuffer which do you think they'll take?)


The warlock might have a lot more abilities on paper but arcane spellcasting can just flat break the game to such an extent that it's not even funny

Xion_Anistu-san
2009-02-02, 04:57 AM
Number of save or die, save or lose, or no-save or lose effects: sorcerer, wizard (takes too long to count) > warlock (1?)

The issue wouldn't be damage difference, it's utility, and or-loses/dies. Yes, there is a chance for it to not do anything, much the same way the warlock must ranged touch for most of it. When the effective disabler does hit, it destroys, catching up far beyond any potential damage it could of done.

Then there are spells that deal more disabling with almost no chance. Compare, say, a powerful eldritch blast, dealing a decent amount of damage on a touch to, say, otto's irresistible or shivering touch, shutting off the enemy completely on a touch (no save).
True there are the save-or-die spells. The lowest level save-or-die spell for sorcerer or wizard is 4th level phantasmal killer which gets two saves that both have to fail in order for the target to die. But how many times can a sorcerer or wizard cast it per day? Seven or eight times for a sorcerer and five or six times for a wizard, and that is if they only cast that one spell as many times as possible. And how many eldritch blasts can a warlock "cast" per day? Hundreds or even thousands. (Theoretically, it could be as high as 9,600 in a 16-hour period if he blasted every six seconds from waking to sleeping) A warlock, with a higher BAB, will hit more often with a range touch attack. Even orb spells which are a range touch attack are less likely to hit for a sorcerer or wizard because of their lower BAB.

I'm not arguing that the save-or-die and the like spells are not powerful because they are very powerful and event making. The point I'm trying to make is that they get at most 60 to 70 spells per day for a sorcerer and 40 to 50 for a wizard. The scope of these spells are far and wide and some godly even, but still limited in number. There are also components and foci that are required that can be rather costly further limiting usage. But a warlock does not have these limits. They have a focus of dealing damage and lack the breadth of invocations as compared to spells, but the other bonuses they get in BAB, AC, resistances, etc. make up for it.

And lets say for argument's sake that the bonuses do make up for the lack of versatility. The warlock is still more powerful than a bard, monk, and rogue and slightly more powerful than a barbarian, fighter, paladin and ranger. And so, the warlock is on a higher power level than the core classes.

mostlyharmful
2009-02-02, 05:03 AM
It depends what you want to focus on, all day long grind against weak mooks or CR appropriate stuff which you'll only face a few of in one day before the patry as a whole wants to rest and recover, if the average challenging combat is measured in just a handful of rounds then it becomes redundant that your Warlock can keep blasting all day. If they get into a situation where it becomes important to keep blasting all day then the party resources of healing magic becomes an issue even for the Warlock. This is all provided the Wizard doesn't feel like taking a reserve damage dealing feat. It's been my experiance that a well built and played wizard always has something to do in any combat the party takes part in and will generally have better stamina to continue than the tanks or divine casters who are limited by buffs and hp resources.

Now that being said it might be fun to come up with a team that needs never rest, a ToB Warforged with the hp recovery feat, a Warlock, a ShapeshiftRanger/Warshper, an undead rogue with fast healing. Not very powerful but a lot of fun to grind with since everyone can keep going.

The lowest death effect is 4th level, but the lowest effective save or lose, no-save or lose/suck are first and core, look at sleep, colour spray, grease and ray of enfeeblement.

The Warlock can keep slinging out the damage, but so can the melee guys and a well stocked archer, the mages are best at force multiplying for the rest of the team which is a role the Warlock can't really do. Wizards and Sorcs can be built to cover virtually any role but the key points of Buff, Debuff and Battlefield control are where they shine.

Xion_Anistu-san
2009-02-02, 05:11 AM
The warlock might have a lot more abilities on paper but arcane spellcasting can just flat break the game to such an extent that it's not even funny
Fair enough, and Pathfinder has set about to "un-break" arcane spells and spells in general from what I can see. I haven't had a chance to compare every spell yet, but those that I have are fair and rather difficult to break the game with.

Bosh
2009-02-02, 05:28 AM
The warlock has some interesting abilities (and his damn fun to play) but its offensive punch is too gimpy to keep it from being more powerful than any but the gimpier Core classes.

Basically those d6's of damage just aren't enough for it to compete, basically a warlock gets as many d6's of his blast (minus weapon damage) as a rogue does sneak attack damage, but can only ever get off one shot/round. How many d6's of sneak attack damage is the average two weapon fighting rogue landing per round?

And wizards are just completely out of a warlock's league. Damage dealing is one of a wizard's weaker options but just look at fireball, at the levels it gets used it does about double the damage of a warlock's blast and affects a whole bunch of targets. Being able to use their blast all day long doesn't help the warlock at all since in 3.5ed D&D it is very very very rare in actual game play to have a huge number of combat rounds in one in-game day. And in any case even if there's a huge number of combat rounds in a day, the best way to survive some marathon combat is to have enough offensive punch to end the marathon combat FAST, something that a warlock is very bad at doing.

Reinboom
2009-02-04, 02:37 AM
mostlyharmful replied well to most of this, however, I would like to point at a different exception:


True there are the save-or-die spells. The lowest level save-or-die spell for sorcerer or wizard is 4th level phantasmal killer which gets two saves that both have to fail in order for the target to die.

This is not true. "Save-or-die/lose" (lose being a spell that renders the target as good as dead, ie unable to perform any actions and helpless) does not necessarily have to say "die" or status-effect-x in the rules text to apply. Heading back to my original post, Shivering Touch is a save or lose at level 3 and Sleep or Color Spray are save or loses at level 1.

FatR
2009-02-05, 07:58 AM
Take a white dragon, CR1 - it's mobile enough to catch a lone arcanist, a good enough tank to murder a lone fighter, and generally mobile enough and strong enough that your 1st level PC shouldn't be taking it down on his own. There are also a few monsters with more (better) hit dice than their CR and which cast spells as a higher-level caster than their CR. They are usually harder than lone PC class members.

As I said, an NPC usually balances the theoretical weakness with extra gear at the lower levels.
1)Most dragons are underCRed, a wyrmling white dragon is CR 2, and an arcanist still has a reasonable chance to take it down with a single save-or-lose.
2)Even the classes of the Big Five do not perform equally against all opponents, at least until the high levels. Arcanists, for example, are at a disadvantage against incorporeal undead. Being adequate for your level means that you can win about half the time when tested against the opponents, picked from the entire spectrum of monsters of your CR.
3)NPCs with character levels have one-half of PCs wealth. This is in the rules.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-05, 10:33 AM
Number of save or die, save or lose, or no-save or lose effects: sorcerer, wizard (takes too long to count) > warlock (1?)



Underdark blast =negative levels so that counts as one.
Summon swarm at low levels works (bleeding has no save).
Chilling Tentacles is close to no save as grapple bonuses are good.

I think it is only three.

Xion_Anistu-san
2009-02-05, 12:52 PM
This is not true. "Save-or-die/lose" (lose being a spell that renders the target as good as dead, ie unable to perform any actions and helpless) does not necessarily have to say "die" or status-effect-x in the rules text to apply. Heading back to my original post, Shivering Touch is a save or lose at level 3 and Sleep or Color Spray are save or loses at level 1.
I was sighting specifically save-or-die, and said so in my reply you quoted, not what some call "save or lose" as this is a new term for me and one I have a hard time understanding how people would toss sleep and suggestion into the same category as finger of death and power word: kill. So that is why I said save-or-die.

-----

I will say this, my experience with Pathfinder (trying to get back to the original post of this thread somewhat) has been very good. Several of the rules lawyer issues are dealt with (e.g. grappling, polymorph, etc.) and overall it has been easy to play and DM. Our game group will be switching to Pathfinder as soon as the official books come out in July and August and using all of our old 3.5 books with it (e.g. the Complete series, the Races books, etc.).

hamishspence
2009-02-05, 01:19 PM
what I've got is To Hell & Back- very much 3.0 ed rules- DR instead of Magic Weapon Immunity, etc.

Though Diablo 1 style late 2nd ed rules may have existed, the full statting of everything from Diablo 2 waited until 3.0.

Zeful
2009-02-05, 02:13 PM
I was sighting specifically save-or-die, and said so in my reply you quoted, not what some call "save or lose" as this is a new term for me and one I have a hard time understanding how people would toss sleep and suggestion into the same category as finger of death and power word: kill. So that is why I said save-or-die.

Save-or-lose spells generally make a target helpless, allowing you (if you carry a scythe) or the fighter to CdG them, which is an auto-hit, auto-crit, and death save all rolled into one. The difference between a save-or-lose and a save-or-die is at most 1 round for a competent character.

horseboy
2009-02-05, 05:01 PM
I was sighting specifically save-or-die, and said so in my reply you quoted, not what some call "save or lose" as this is a new term for me and one I have a hard time understanding how people would toss sleep and suggestion into the same category as finger of death and power word: kill. So that is why I said save-or-die.

And that's why people are saying Pathfinder doesn't actually address the problems of 3.x. They, like you, don't understand why things like Glitterdust is one of the most powerful spells a DM is likely to have to deal with. They're repeating the errors of 3.x bad play testing.


There's an interesting and highly off-topic point I'd like to bring up regarding that. I have an uncle, Jon Pickens, who worked at TSR and WotC during the late 80's, 90's, and until just after 3.0 was released. I've asked him about play balance in 3.x several times, and he's got a great deal to say about it. The part of this that concerns us at this moment is this:

WOTC playtested D&D under their own preconcieved notions about what D&D should be. A fighter SHOULD run up and hit things. A cleric SHOULD stay in the back and heal, unless the fighter goes down, and a Wizard SHOULD primarily be a blaster. They did this because that's how they had been playing for years. The same thing happened with the DM: when the BBEG got run at by the fighter, who starting whaling on him with a sharp object, the BBEG did not immediately Dimension Door away and ignore the fighter - the DM ran the encounter in a particular style that predicated this from happening. The "balance" in D&D 3.x is only supposed to work when the players take on the party roles that the WotC playtesters assigned them. In short, if you don't play the game the way the playtesters did...it's not ever going to balance! They didn't playtest for Batman, or Pun-Pun, or CoDzilla. The ideas behind an arcane caster (and I quote uncle Jon on this) "Why would anyone NOT want to do lots of hitpoints of damage? That's what mages are for."

Play the paradigm that WotC developed, or don't. Just understand that if you don't, then the game isn't going to balance the way you think it should.

I wouldn't say WotC was made of idiots. I'd say that they aren't optimizers. When I explained CoDzilla, Jon seriously couldn't believe that it A) got through playtesting, and B) that people who wanted to hit things weren't playing Fighters.

Again, optimizers are playing D&D using a different perceptual paradigm than the playtesters were. To say in in a way that will tick a LOT of people off, optimizers really are (by the playtesters definition) "Playing D&D wrong".

Think about it - why would evokers lose 3 other schools while the rest only lose 2? Because the playtesters played almost exclusively blasters, and so weighted blasting magic more heavily in the game balance department. (There's SEVERAL examples of this - such as the animated shield problem. It's designed for casters, not fighters. MANY of the ways people put things together and interpret rules over the internet never occurred to the designers, again due to the "why would you want to supplant another classes party role?" mindset.)

THEY JUST AREN'T PLAYING THE GAME THE WAY YOU ARE.
Those that do not learn the lessons of history and all that...

Aron Times
2009-02-05, 05:35 PM
http://www.aquela.com/roleplaying/features/3e_archive.html

Here's something I dug up with my search-fu. Every single one of them is playing a horribly suboptimal character. Bard 5/barbarian 5? Rogue 5/Sorcerer 5? Wow...

It never occurred to them that these characters were horribly gimped. Oh, and they thought fighter 1/paladin 9 was overpowered. Oh yeah...

nightwyrm
2009-02-05, 05:55 PM
And that's why people are saying Pathfinder doesn't actually address the problems of 3.x. They, like you, don't understand why things like Glitterdust is one of the most powerful spells a DM is likely to have to deal with. They're repeating the errors of 3.x bad play testing.


To be fair, PF did nerf Glitterdust so the victim gets a save each round, but lots of the other SoL is still there.