I'm pretty sure +8 vs 17 is 55% chance.
Because if you needed a 10 on a 1d20 that would be about 50% chance, but you need a 9 thus 55% chance.
Why the extra 5% (60-55 =5)?
But good handbook either way.
Printable View
Arcane Archers are much better. They now get 7/10 caster level progression, a better Hit Die, and instead of free enhancement bonuses on their arrows they get free special enchantments instead - flaming/frost/shock at 3rd-level, distance at 5th-level, burst at 7th-level, and holy (or whatever) at 9th-level. You can see for yourself here.
However, it's worth noting that PrCs in general are relatively weaker than in 3.5. It's not that PrCs have been made worse, it's that most classes now have enough class features that PrCing out is no longer an automatic choice. Also, you don't get the favoured class +1 hp/+1 skill point with a prestige class.
I've started playing Pathfinder, and I do like some of the changes that were made. How do the playgrounders feel about it?
The word I would choose is "polarized."
I like it. I have never played 3.5. Well, once, in a pick up game that went nowhere, but otherwise no. I have played multiple sessions of 4.0, and I prefer Pathfinder.
I am playing a Paladin, so my views may be biased.
I played a 3.5 Ranger before we switched our game over to Pathfinder, and liked the PF changes - especially how I could add in his desert background as a mechanical benefit as well as a flavor choice! Pathfinder is a lot less restrictive with character concepts, and the base classes are much more versatile.
I've enjoyed it so far. A lot of the outrage tends to be over how Paizo didn't fix enough of the game's problems, which is true - but if you're angry about balance problems, why are you even playing 3.5?
Anyhow, the overall trend was that most classes got slightly buffed and more interesting to play, the skills system was improved, and a lot of the annoying/arbitrary rules were done away with or condensed. It reminds me of the switch from 3.0 to 3.5 - not a huge leap, and easy enough to learn the new rules, but overall more enjoyable for most classes.
Besides game balance, the other factors that influenced me to play it were that I like the art style more than 4E, I enjoy the adventure paths that Paizo puts out, I'm generally ambivalent about the campaign setting, and there is a local PF group nearby, whereas there aren't any 3.5 games running in the area. I also get to look forward to new books every few months, whereas WoTC will never print another 3.5 book.
I don't plan on switching any of the older 3.5 games that I currently run to PF, but new games that I've started up have all been using the PF rules, which my PCs have enjoyed so far (one of them is WAY more into PF than I am, actually).
Anyhow, Saph's guide to PF is very well done and about as objective and informed an opinion as you're likely to find on these forums.
Oh, and here's a shot at a PF tier system along JaronK's lines:
Tier 1 - if optimized can be the most important influence on most situations that the party faces in the game past 11th level, competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20
Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle, Sorcerer
Tier 2 - "breaks" the game after 11th or so, with some difficulty due to lack of flexibility, competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20. Any class with high ranks in UMD and enough money could fit here as well once you hit high levels.
Summoner
Tier 3 - almost never breaks the game, yet competently does 1-3 roles in party from 1-20
Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Barbarian, Inquisitor, Bard
Tier 4 - never breaks the game, competently does a single role or does a mediocre job at 1-3 different roles
Monk, fighter, alchemist, cavalier
Tier 5 - does maybe a mediocre job at 1 role
Expert, warrior, aristocrat, adept
Tier 6 - utterly useless
Peasant
Yeah, the Alchemist lacks brew potion (even though it fits them). Also they have 3/4th BAB but their warrior potion grants Str (in exchange for Cha damage). Really had to much caution in creation.
They seem to lack a definive role. Bard at least can buff.
So I can see Tier 4 easily.
Why Cavalier?
Cavalier gets stuck down there mostly because they can't handle very many roles well, especially compared with the paladin.
PF Paladin: Competent tank (especially good saves), competent damage vs. evil foes (a large number of what most parties face), mediocre damage otherwise, competent party face due to high charisma focus and the right skills, surprisingly competent healer (wands for out of combat, lay on hands for in combat and status effects), and has good mobility with a mount.
Cavalier: Competent tank (but generally not as good as a paladin), competent damage vs. 1 foe/combat (with less damage than a paladin would do against an evil foe, but no alignment issues), mediocre damage otherwise, a mediocre party face compared with a paladin since they have much less utility from a high charisma, unable to heal, and good mobility with a mount.
A charging-focused cavalier build probably hits T3 since that brings damage up significantly and several of the cavalier's class features involve charging, but otherwise there are very few other combat builds for a cavalier to pursue, and there isn't much need for a cavalier when a paladin does everything it can do, only better. And as a personal peeve, the cavalier is also unnecessarily fiddly, revolving around 2-3 sets of scaling minor bonuses from oaths and orders. It's not a horrible class, but it could have been much better designed.
I disagree with most of these. The only classes that actually go up a tier are Paladin and Rogue, and Paladin only goes up 1. (Edit, I don't think that the rogue actually goes up a full tier, especially with the "stealth nerfs" to blinking etc. But rogue was at the top of tier 4 before, and they didn't need much help to enter tier 3).
Sorcerer is still limited by his spells known. His class abilities are nice, but nowhere near the flexibility of a tier 1 caster.
Paladin still is pretty much a 1 trick pony, he has just become actually effective at his trick. That puts him in tier 4.
Ranger isn't significantly improved. He only reaches tier 3 if WS ranger is an option, and even then I'm not sure given the nerfs to WS. With barbarian it is arguable if they improved at all. They are certainly still a 1 trick pony. Tier 4.
Monks and fighters are arguably more effective, but the core problems of their classes aren't actually addressed. Monks still don't have an effective role in combat that they fill well. They don't have full BaB. Their class features don't synergize well, etc. Fighters gain some static bonuses, but they are still the same 1 trick ponies they are in 3.5. Worse, there are as many nerfs to fighter stuff as bonuses, so much so that many fighter builds are actually worse. The fact that all classes get more feats gives the fighter less of a distinctive role versus the other melee. Both still tier 5.
I don't have the new classes, so no opinion on them.
Buffs for non-Pathfinder classes that you might convert to Pathfinder:
- Incarnate: Most soulmelds provide a Skill bonus of some type. Now that Skills have been consolidated, many soulmelds effectively become twice as powerful. More importantly, the ability to by non-class Skills on a one-for-one basis means that the Incarnate no longer has to dip into another class or have ridiculous Int in order to be an effective Skill Monkey.
- Totemist: Same deal as Incarnate, though less so. Totemist soulmelds cover fewer Skills, and Totemists have fewer essentia points to throw around. Still handy though.
- Marshal: A one level dip for your Cha bonus to Str checks is a lot more potent given the CMD rules.
- Factotum: Although he has to wait until 3rd level to get it, Int to Str checks is a lot Str checks is a lot more potent given the CMD rules. And as an Int based class with and with 8 Skill Points per level and all Skills as class Skills, it wouldn't be unrealistic for a Human (now with +2 to any stat AND bonus Skill Points!) Factotum to be able to max out more then a 12ish different Skills which would cover 20ish different Skills in 3.5.
- Swashbuckler: Daring Outlaw (19/20 BAB and full Sneak Attack) is suddenly a lot more attractive given the changes to Rogue.
- Spirit Shaman: Nerfing the Druid makes him a more attractive alternative for someone who wants to play a caster focused nature class.
Unfortunately, a LOT of other classes now seem even less powerful then they did before in comparison to the buffed up Pathfinder classes. Scout, Ninja, Hexblade, Soulknife, Knight, Samurai (should we create a Tier 7?).
Interesting stuff; nice work, Saph!
I've heard a lot about pathfinder and until recently I didnt really explore it, but I've read a little about it and I'm interested. I've found a pathfinder core rulebook on sale in town and I'm pretty sure I'm gonna buy it. My main question is, is it very similar to the DnD system or would I be learning a whole new system?
And, of course I'm interested in hearing any comments or pieces of advice on the subject.
Pathfinder is essentially a book of houserules for 3.5. It's almost identical, which can kinda make it harder to learn in a way because you have the illusion that you already know things that were actually changed.
Very similar. But many small things have changed. Which means you still need to read through almost nearly the entire thing... expect it to take awhile to get caught up on that huge book. If you like 3rd and not 4th its a nice change. But if you like 3rd and already have 3.xe books...well there's not really a huge reason to change. You can update 3.xe books to pathfinder but its annoying. Summary: overall probably an improvement, but its not worth the cost to many.
GOOD: It boosts most base classes, definitely boosts all base races, nerfs a few spells, and simplifies trip/grapple/disarm. Staying in a single class is now more optimal.
BAD: Non-core classes now kind of suffer in comparison, non-core races definitely suffer in comparison, it doesn't fix many of the worst loopholes, and the trip/grapple/disarm fix is contentious at best. It also has some really random nerfs, like (I believe) Monks can't take "Improved Natural Attacks" any more and don't really have their core problems fixed.
NEW: A lot of spells have been changed, trip/grapple/disarm works totally differently now, and the official cosmology has changed. Every class/race has been altered, and a lot of little rules have changed. For example, Rogues now get d8 HD, a bunch more class features, and Sneak Attack isn't blocked by critical immunity (though the target still needs a "discernable anatomy").
CONCLUSION: It works well as a cohesive set of houserules to core-only 3.5 D&D. It's possible to use non-core, but changes enough that integrating things becomes awkward, though not impossible. If you routinely use Swashbuckers and Wu Jen and Warlocks and Knights and Factota, you may want to give PF a pass. If you have you own set of fixes already, you may want to give PF a pass. If you routinely stick to the official rules and the core books, it could be a good improvement to your game... and there's plenty of supplimental classes/feats/whatever that they've added through Adventure Paths, so it's not like you can't branch out (or houserule non-core stuff to fit).
That's not to say it can't be done though. In the campaign I'm about to run, a fair portion of my houserules are either PF-inspired or directly taken from PF itself. If you already have a good sense of what's balanced and what's not, feel free to incorporate parts of PF into your game.
It's some pretty solid work, insofar as I've seen. My group and I have switched over to Pathfinder, since we're all pretty big fans of Paizo's adventure paths. They did a pretty good job of making all of the classes viable gameplay options, and sanded off a lot of the rougher corners of ol' 3.X. There are still a few holes, mostly to do with the CMB stuff, but I'll say this: They poured a TON of work into making all of the core classes interesting. Fighter actually has a lot of depth now, and you can end up with a Shuggoth-blooded sorcerer punching people from 15 feet away with his freaking mutant arms, all that good stuff.
thanks for all the input. Im still pretty much set on buying, even though I heard mixed things, cost of the book isnt really an issue as I still have some of those useless (Though much appreciated, I'm not in ungrateful.)) gift cards I can blow on it.
Though unfortunately, the place I'm buying it only has the Core Rulebook which from my understanding is basically an amalgam of the Players Handbook and the DMG. I can always use the Pathfinder SRD, for the monsters.
But, does anyone know of any supplements that I should make sure and check out? or is the supplemental options for the pathfinder set extremely limited in that respect?
Supplements are currently scarce. The current big ones are the Bestiary (which is pretty much essential unless you want to draw all monsters off the PRD), their campaign setting (if you have any interest in campaign settings), and... I think that's all for now. The Advanced Player's Guide is a work in progress, and you can download the beta classes from Paizo's site.
"Factota"
props on proper pluralization of a latin-based name :P
I haven't played any pathfinder yet, but I just got it and am just gushing over it. I converted my Warblade/Sorc to it, and I am liking the cool new stuff that I am getting for my sorcerer side, and since ToB rocks so much ass, I am not dissapointed that it didn't get a coolness boost. The only thing that makes me sad is that I am prestiging currently in a homebrew ToB/Arcane class, so I won't be able to see a lot of the higher end Sorceror features. OH my god, though...I want to play a Paladin! >:]
IN short, Pathfinder definitely takes all the core classes and dashes some cool on them. The only things I can think of that *might* be nerfed are clerics/druids (and I'm sure that would break people's hearts :P), and if I recall, they made Specialists get specialist powers instead of extra spells per day.
If you are playing 3.5 and looking to purchase all new core books (not really feasible to use a PF handbook in the same game with a 3.5 PHB) and ultimately toss out most of your supplements (since converting each thing will ultimately prove not to be worth it), then it is a good choice.
Why do folks assume you have to convert everything if you want to use anything? If you have one or fifty or a thousand supplements, you still only have to convert the things people actually want to use, which is a much smaller number of things than 'all of it.' And a lot of the conversions amount to 'go ahead.'
This in not true. Pathfinder is currently publishing their 3rd and 4th adventure arks. Each ark is a six book campain that usualy run from 1st to 15th level. There are also map packs available, and a companion. These usualy are $10-20. Compainions for an adventure are have detailed information of the city or region that the adventure takes place in. A very nice thing to have for both players and GMs. And there is more.
Pathfinder is putting out companions for races, countries, and organizations. They are released monthly. The dwarf book came out just under two weeks ago.
Pathfinder is also organizing a Pathfinder Society. Its pritty much their version of living Greyhawk. About 50 stand alone adventures have been written so far. You can order them off of the web sight. In PDF or hard copy. These adventures are ment to be 4 hour one shot adventures. They want peaple to play them and give feedback.
D&D 3.5 is dead, and 4th ed is not going to last much longer. The cancelation of Star Wars SAGA looks to be forshadowing this. Almost every one that was invalved with D&D 3rd ed has jumped ship. They eather went on their own or work for Pathfinder. It's not 'just a bunch of house rules'. It's more like what 4th edition could have been.
IF the OP wants to get the book he should. At the very least sit down in the book store are read some of it. Maybe you will like it, maybe not. At the very least judge the book for what it is. Not what D&D 3.5 is or is not.