Should I get Pathfinder?

[LordBlades]

Which is irrelevant if I don't want to be human.
If I didn't want to be human in 3.5, I got to eat a nice steaming pile of... mediocre.

Which is different from PF how? In both your examples (sorcerer and paladin) half-orc is still mediocre for the simple reason that with buffs all over the place, the mediocrity bar is now set higher

[KnightDisciple]

Nerfage of SoD/SoL would indeed be a good thing. The only one I checked was Basilisk, and that does the same thing but the PF DC is higher.

I've been in a Pathfinder group that's been playing up to Level 10 so far (and is still going). I feel like we're not encountering as many single-save-or-suck things as we might in 3.5, but some of that's the adventure path.

Certainly, but I dispute that Half-Orc Paladin is a good example of that. Half-Orc Sorcerer maybe, but I'm not sure there was much demand for that.

Let me spin this a bit differently.

In 3.5, someone wanting to play a Half-Orc Paladin, a character who had a trouble heritage but wished to go out into the world and help the helpless, was faced with a -2 to an important stat. It wasn't the only stat, but it was important. This was a pretty big dissuader, especially if, like my group, you rolled for stats, rather than using point-buy (where apparently you have to lower the Int to the point (6) that it's literally below the point of mental retardation). You would simply have to put your biggest # in Cha and hope for the best.

In Pathfinder, Paladins actually use Charisma more. It's the basis for all their class abilities, where before Wisdom keyed for things like spells and Turn Undead. Now, you need that Charisma as high as possible. Things look bleak for our roleplay-rich Half-Orc. But wait! They've changed the race, so that like both the half-elf and the human, it gets a floating +2 stat boost! No negatives! Hooray! Now this concept isn't killed before it begins! Even if you're rolling stats!

It's not like parties I've seen wipe frequently. Is that what they thought the "problem" with 3.5 was? Is PF marketted to people who wipe frequently in 3.5?

I played a 3.5 Paladin who died 4 times in 1 campaign. Four. Times.

So, sure, maybe it's marketed to people who "party wipe frequently".

Or maybe, just maybe, some of us do like the greater strength and number of options in this iteration of the game. Because it's nice to finally feel like Paladin is a good choice of class.

[Psyren]

Which is different from PF how? In both your examples (sorcerer and paladin) half-orc is still mediocre for the simple reason that with buffs all over the place, the mediocrity bar is now set higher

You're correct that race to race, the benchmark has not moved much.

But there are still objective benchmarks in place. +2 to an ability score still gives you +1 to the relevant modifier, +1 to the save DCs of your spells, more bonus spells etc. Feat ability score requisites (e.g. 13 Dex for Dodge, 13 Int for Combat Expertise and 13 Wis for Psionic Meditation) have not changed. And so on.

Because these objective benchmarks are the same, PF races are better off than 3.5 ones.

Prove to me that these benchmarks have changed and I'll cede the point right now.

(I'll save you some time - you can't, because they haven't.)

[Hiro Protagonest]

Because it's nice to finally feel like Paladin is a good choice of class.

Paladin was always a good class. They get flight through their paladin mount (if they choose a good one), even in core-only, and Battle Blessing made in-combat spell use viable when CChamp came out. Sword of the Arcane Order on top of that makes them great.

[Tyndmyr]

I've been in a Pathfinder group that's been playing up to Level 10 so far (and is still going). I feel like we're not encountering as many single-save-or-suck things as we might in 3.5, but some of that's the adventure path.

Depends on adventure path to some degree, but it does seem like they favor hp damage slightly more than 3.5. I'd have to do some serious number crunching to validate that for sure, though.

Let me spin this a bit differently.

In 3.5, someone wanting to play a Half-Orc Paladin, a character who had a trouble heritage but wished to go out into the world and help the helpless, was faced with a -2 to an important stat. It wasn't the only stat, but it was important. This was a pretty big dissuader, especially if, like my group, you rolled for stats, rather than using point-buy (where apparently you have to lower the Int to the point (60) that it's literally below the point of mental retardation). You would simply have to put your biggest # in Cha and hope for the best.

A 60 int is not mental retardation. Assuming you mean a 6...that still is not in D&D terms. As long as you've got a 3, you're aright...if a bit short on skill points.

You're just giving subjective impressions, not mechanical effects. That's not a real comparison.

In Pathfinder, Paladins actually use Charisma more. It's the basis for all their class abilities, where before Wisdom keyed for things like spells and Turn Undead. Now, you need that Charisma as high as possible. Things look bleak for our roleplay-rich Half-Orc. But wait! They've changed the race, so that like both the half-elf and the human, it gets a floating +2 stat boost! No negatives! Hooray! Now this concept isn't killed before it begins! Even if you're rolling stats!

And when you have +2 str, and your target has a +2 con, you're basically just using bigger numbers. Meh.

Also, having cha or being an unusual race/class combo does not make your char "roleplay rich".

You can play a half orc paladin in 3.5 or pf, and get by. It'll be playable. It will not be fantastic. The main difference is that in 3.5, if it's "you can only take phb races", half orc offers you something unique for traits(ie, more strength than you can get otherwise).

In PF, that is gone.

You're correct that race to race, the benchmark has not moved much.

But there are still objective benchmarks in place. +2 to an ability score still gives you +1 to the relevant modifier, +1 to the save DCs of your spells, more bonus spells etc. Feat ability score requisites (e.g. 13 Dex for Dodge, 13 Int for Combat Expertise and 13 Wis for Psionic Meditation) have not changed. And so on.

Because these objective benchmarks are the same, PF races are better off than 3.5 ones.

Prove to me that these benchmarks have changed and I'll cede the point right now.

(I'll save you some time - you can't, because they haven't.)

Easy as pie.

You're using the term benchmark wrong.

What you are doing is like saying "AMD's chip is 20% faster than AMD's last chip. Therefore, by objective benchmarking, you should use AMD instead of Intel".

It is...not objective at all. And ignoring the intel speeds is not benchmarking against them, and thus, is utterly useless for a comparison.

[Helldog]

Um... Even if he's using "benchmark" wrong, you still didn't prove anything. Is your best argument going to be nitpicking on semantics?

[Sillycomic]

The ability to trade one stat for another is an important part of racial differentiation in 3.5. You're losing choice, not gaining it.

In this fake scenario of a person wanting to play a Pathfinder half orc paladin, the choice has already been made... namely that this person wants to play a half orc paladin.

Pathfinder doesn't punish him for making this choice by giving him a penalty to an important ability score.

Everyone gets this [+2 to any stat]. Meh.

It is very meh. Everyone in pathfinder gets a choice on how they want to improve their character. That's why more race/class combinations are now viable and the system is no longer designed to punish some combinations.

[Half orcs can make paladin a favored class] Again, everyone gets this. Oh look, humans get this AND alternative options too.

Exactly, everyone gets this. This is my point. Pathfinder rewards players for cool race/class combinations instead of only rewarding optimal choices and punishing sub-optimal ones.

And no one is arguing that humans don't make effective paladins. They do! This has never been the argument. At no point anywhere in this thread did anyone ever state that humans aren't the most optimal choice for making paladins.

My 7 points were specifically to show a pathfinder half orc paladin was better than a 3.5 one. You seemed to counter argue with how ineffective that is compared to a human. You are certainly allowed to do so, and your argument will win.

The argument will win mostly because no one is arguing against you.

In PF, intimidate is not a paladin class skill. It's probably not great.

Pathfinder cleaned up skill points so that taking ranks in something that's not a class skill is easier, more effective and won't punish you for doing so. If you wanted to make an intimidating half orc paladin the option is there for you.

Compare to the 3.5 half orc paladin. CHA is already at -2, intimidate isn't a class skill and the 3.5 cross class skill system is punching you in the face for even thinking about it

You can say it's probably not great, that's fine. It's just a small bonus... that doesn't change the fact that it IS a bonus.

Humans have an Alt racial feature that crushes this [orc ferocity] in terms of staying alive. They ditch their extra skill points(which we haven't even bothered including mostly until now) and look even more awesome than half orcs. Or, they could swap that for a list of other abilities.

Again, the argument was never that half orcs make better paladins than humans. I wasn't comparing the two, so counter arguing by comparing the two seems ridiculous.

Yes, humans make better paladins in either edition. You agree. I agree. Wizards and Paizo both agree. That's not the argument being stated.

On the bright side, if effectiveness is not a criteria, you don't need an EWP at all to wield a weapon!

And seriously, if you picked orc double axe as your weapon, effectiveness is probably not that important to you.

You are correct, you do not need an EWP to wield an exotic weapon. HOWEVER, 3.5 is punishing you for doing this. Pathfinder instead is giving you an option to play said character if you so wish.

Whether or not picking an orc double axe for a paladin weapon is effective really isn't a problem to me. I know it's not effective and so do you. The problem comes when you don't consider this a benefit.

It's another option in the game! It's another bonus, even if it's not an optimized one. Once more you show how cool Paizo is at keeping options open and handing out benefits for more diverse characters instead of rewarding the optimal choices and punishing the sup-optimal ones.

All of these [alternative class features] replace existing benefits. And seriously, +2 to breaking objects/sundering is...weak.

Imagine if the human had taken Improved Sunder instead with his extra feat. Not only would he get the +2 to breaking objects, he'd get +2 to defending his objects as well. Oh, and he'd also get to skip the whole AoO thing while sundering.

Once more you are comparing half orcs to humans. It's both an effective and useless argument at the same time. But, feel free to keep it up if it makes you feel good.

Yes these alternative class features replace other ones... but my argument will be once more diversity. Paizo is giving you a few options with how you want your half orc paladin to be played. You get to tinker around with the character to see what options work best for your concept of a character.

[Doc Roc]

Doc Roc clearly has the Sales Reflexes feat....




That's... actually not a bad argument. Can you substantiate it?

Here's my sales pitch...

We fix the following:
Errata. Our errata drops on a twice a month schedule right now, that will slow to a once a month, then finally to quarterly. The core book is digital and updating is free.

DLC. Most of our additional content is free, and edited as carefully as the core game's content.

Community. Our core ideals are acceptance, tolerance, and empiricism. We aren't going to try to eject you for playing our game "wrong."

Multiclassing. We totally rewrote how it works so that you don't end up a gimp troglodyte if you do it wrong.

Feats. We totally rewrote them. And by we, I mean me. And you trust me, right?

Skills. We have a cute system that emphasizes concise skill lists with strong out-of-combat uses and unique in combat uses. Further, we expand the mechanics for social encounters in such a way as to eliminate Diplomancy and accentuate iterative probability.

Spells. Rewrote them all. Seriously.

Classes. Our classes have distinct use-cases, clean roleslices, even power levels, elegant mechanics, and are basically just made of win. I'm not objective here, though, I'm afraid. But we get fan-mail about our paladin.

Install-base. We've moved more than 7500 copies of Legend in just under two weeks. That's almost as many copies of the core book as Burning Wheel moved in eight YEARS. I know because I talked to Luke Crane about it. He thinks we're pretty neat.

Charity. All proceeds from Legend's core book go to Child's Play. Forever.

We are coming for you. Please lower your shields and power down your weapons, so that we can have the most awesome teaparty.

Finally, our art rocks.

Spoiler

Show

[navar100]

Pfft, by far the best race for Sorc is Human. So, not at all sir. That does not encourage diversity. Elves were not the iconic sorcerer race in either system.

It just happens that humans get a lot more awesome stuff in PF, so again, they're better than BOTH races in comparison by an even wider margin.



You might FEEL that way, but there isn't actually a difference. I suspect you're attaching some sort of psychological importance to negative numbers.

The straight human sorc gets about twice as many spells known, has the same primary stat as yer half-orc sorc and the same secondary stats. And also a free feat.

He is positively filled with win. So, no, your non-human IS fighting an uphill battle to maintain parity.

In other words, if you're not playing a human you're not being the most optimal as possible. Only a Stupid person would not play a human, to choose to play something that is not practically perfect in every way. You are the weakest link, Goodbye!

As we keep telling you, the awesomeness of a human paladin is irrelevant. The point is Pathfinder allows you the option of playing a half-orc paladin without game mechanics rules discouraging that choice. Hip hip hooray to whatever the human does. If I'm playing a half-orc paladin, I don't care what the human does. Compared to 3.5, Pathfinder improved the concept of a half-orc paladin by not having a penalty to an important ability score and encourage orcish traits with a bonus to initimidate with an easier skill system and proficiency with an orc weapon. I also get a nice bonus of not dropping upon reaching 0 hit points allowing me one more round to Do Something than I otherwise would. A human gets a free feat and extra skill points. Hooray for him. I don't care.

[Doc Roc]

In other words, if you're not playing a human you're not being the most optimal as possible. Only a Stupid person would not play a human, to choose to play something that is not practically perfect in every way. You are the weakest link, Goodbye!

Joking aside, the gap is still pretty big in Pathfinder. Particularly with the pimp class options of human. I know there are flavor reasons to play the other classes, but the gap is noticeable. Then again, I'm looking for it. Whate'er. It's not like this problem is unsolvable, you know.

[Tyndmyr]

In other words, if you're not playing a human you're not being the most optimal as possible. Only a Stupid person would not play a human, to choose to play something that is not practically perfect in every way. You are the weakest link, Goodbye!

You can choose to be weaker in order to play a char concept you really like.

In an ideal game, you wouldn't have to be penalized for a mildly creative concept. It's a flaw of both systems.

[Psyren]

Easy as pie.

You're using the term benchmark wrong.

I can post links too, you know.

"Any standard or reference by which others can be measured or judged."

Such as: a feat with an ability score requirement. I listed three, none of which changed requirements 3.5 and PF. Therefore, they are standards. But with higher stats for every PC (especially the ones with a floating stat boost), these benchmarks are easier to hit. Rebuttal?

In an ideal game, you wouldn't have to be penalized for a mildly creative concept. It's a flaw of both systems.

You're only "penalized" in PF if you have the psychological need to keep up with the Joneses (humans). There are plenty of objective benchmarks that are now easier for your race to hit in a vacuum.

[Tyndmyr]

I can post links too, you know.

"Any standard or reference by which others can be measured or judged."

Such as: a feat with an ability score requirement. I listed three, none of which changed requirements 3.5 and PF. Therefore, they are standards. But with higher stats for every PC (especially the ones with a floating stat boost), these benchmarks are easier to hit. Rebuttal?

I have not seen these feats. Specifically, I have not seen you list paladin feats that are affected by this. I know I've invited you to list paladin feats that are more accessible in PF.

Note that these feats are easier to hit for the human, too, so you have yet to show a comparative advantage.

You're only "penalized" in PF if you have the psychological need to keep up with the Joneses (humans). There are plenty of objective benchmarks that are now easier for your race to hit in a vacuum.

That exact comparison with humans is the thing you originally claimed as a plus for pathfinder. Why the demeaning attitude towards it now?

If racial balance doesn't matter, why were you holding up racial balance as a positive for pathfinder?

It is very meh. Everyone in pathfinder gets a choice on how they want to improve their character. That's why more race/class combinations are now viable and the system is no longer designed to punish some combinations.

Punishment/reward is distinguishable from reward/greater reward only by the overall balance point. In short, this is not a mathematical punishment at all. It is purely a psychological one. Stat inflation does not mean equality.

Once more you are comparing half orcs to humans. It's both an effective and useless argument at the same time. But, feel free to keep it up if it makes you feel good.

I did not start comparing half orcs to humans. Psyren did. This is HIS example. If you feel it is useless, please feel free to join me on this, and tell him to pick an actual strength of the PF system to trump up.

Yes these alternative class features replace other ones... but my argument will be once more diversity. Paizo is giving you a few options with how you want your half orc paladin to be played. You get to tinker around with the character to see what options work best for your concept of a character.

Alternate racial features. Not alternate class features.

Humans have alternate racial features too. So? Oh, and they ALSO get an alternate class feature for paladin(and most other classes) that half orcs do not get.

That is not encouraging of racial diversity. That is rewarding those who pick human more.

You are correct, you do not need an EWP to wield an exotic weapon. HOWEVER, 3.5 is punishing you for doing this. Pathfinder instead is giving you an option to play said character if you so wish.

Whether or not picking an orc double axe for a paladin weapon is effective really isn't a problem to me. I know it's not effective and so do you. The problem comes when you don't consider this a benefit.

It's another option in the game! It's another bonus, even if it's not an optimized one. Once more you show how cool Paizo is at keeping options open and handing out benefits for more diverse characters instead of rewarding the optimal choices and punishing the sup-optimal ones.

You know what options that are sub-optimal bonuses that happen to look good are known as? Traps.

No, traps are not benefits. This makes the noob char more likely to pick a substandard weapon because they think they're getting a bonus. Dude's already playing a melee char with a substandard race in a system where magic is god. Do you really have to try to trick him into using a poor weapon as well?

Um... Even if he's using "benchmark" wrong, you still didn't prove anything. Is your best argument going to be nitpicking on semantics?

My point is, he's just slapping the word "objective" on things, as if that makes his argument objective.

The correct term for this sort of comparison is a naive comparison*. That is the term you use when you compare two things against each other without comparing the changes in the larger environment within which they reside.

I've already exaustively demonstrated the necessary comparison, and it's quite clear that "hey, half orcs get more stats in this edition" does not lead to "half orcs are a better choice in this edition".

*If this term has any negative connotations, they stem purely from the fact that this sort of comparison frequently tends to be incomplete, and thus, incorrect. I cannot help that the technically correct term implies invalid methodology.

[Helldog]

I've already exaustively demonstrated the necessary comparison, and it's quite clear that "hey, half orcs get more stats in this edition" does not lead to "half orcs are a better choice in this edition".

A better choice over what? Human?

[Psyren]

I have not seen these feats. Specifically, I have not seen you list paladin feats that are affected by this. I know I've invited you to list paladin feats that are more accessible in PF.

Paladins have no use for Combat Reflexes or Combat Expertise?
Is Psionic Meditation useless to a Wilderdin?
Would a ray specialist sorcerer not care about Imp. Precise Shot?


And to forestall your inevitable rejoinder, even if you don't personally care about any of these feats, does not reduce their value to others.

Note that these feats are easier to hit for the human, too, so you have yet to show a comparative advantage.

I'm not trying to show a comparative advantage, race to race. I'm showing an absolute advantage, using the benchmarks that have remained the same across systems.

That exact comparison with humans is the thing you originally claimed as a plus for pathfinder. Why the demeaning attitude towards it now?

Before Pathfinder, humans were the only race that was not penalized for anything. That is no longer true.

That is the sole reason I had for mentioning humans at all. Every other point I've made is half-orc vs. half-orc, half-elf vs. half-elf etc. If you had any doubt about that fact in your mind, hopefully this clears it.

I'm not sure where this fixation with humanity is coming from. Yeah they're good, but come on, try some variety. If power's all you care about, just roll Pun-Pun in every game and call it a day.

[Sillycomic]

Sub-optimal choices are traps? Really?

So punishments in one system aren't so bad, but sub-optimal choices in another system are somehow worse?

Well, I think that sums up your argument very well. I'm more inclined to agree with Navar here. This seems like an optimization race and unless you have the biggest baddest paladin you can't play.

Meh. That's not what I want with my game or system.

And if your argument was so persuaded by Psyren's claim that half orcs were better than humans AND you saw that my argument specifically dealt with 3.5 half orc paladins versus Pathfinder half orc paladins, then why did you argue my claims against Psyren's hypothesis?

Now that truly is confusing. Talk about a combo shot. You ignore my hypothesis, argue my claims faulty when compared to someone else's hypothesis and then conclude that I was wrong? WWWhhhaaaaaaa... ?::confused look::

Talk about missing the bus, my friend.

Aside from that, this is your only evidence that Psyren proved half orcs are better than humans?

Originally Posted by Psyren

By setting the balance point for races higher, you encourage more diversity at the table, which leads to richer games.

How does that mean half orcs are better than humans? This means exactly what it says... more options to other races means you will have other race/class combinations at the table.

Did I miss something? Both Psyren and myself have stated time and again that giving the pathfinder half orc more options makes them better at playing different classes than 3.5. In 3.5 a half orc paladin would be idiotic. In Pathfinder it is now a decent choice, just not the most optimized.

This is something that you and psyren and myself and Navar100 have all been saying since the beginning. The only difference is you are emphasizing the "NOT OPTIMIZED" part, while we are emphasizing that despite it not being the best selection it is still a pretty good one and the system itself doesn't punish you for said choice.

[Doc Roc]

Sub-optimal choices are traps? Really?

So punishments in one system aren't so bad, but sub-optimal choices in another system are somehow worse?

No, they're both f'ing terrible. Don't punish, don't entice. The job of a designer is to do no evil and prevent much pain. We suffer so you need not.

[Psyren]

No, they're both f'ing terrible. Don't punish, don't entice. The job of a designer is to do no evil and prevent much pain. We suffer so you need not.

That may be, but given a choice between the two, I'll take enticement over punishment.


RE Legend: If you guys get Dreamscarred Press on board I'll give it a second look.

[Hiro Protagonest]

RE Legend: If you guys get Dreamscarred Press on board I'll give it a second look.

That's... close-minded. You're not even willing to look at a system if a certain company wasn't involved?

[Tyndmyr]

A better choice over what? Human?

That was the original allegation, yes.

Well, second allegation. Half-orc sorcerer was the initial claim. That's already been rather emphatically disproven.

Paladins have no use for Combat Reflexes or Combat Expertise?

Combat Reflexes has no stat requirement in either edition.

Combat Expertise is weakened in PF. Furthermore, you can just fight defensively instead. It does the same thing.

Is Psionic Meditation useless to a Wilderdin?

Wilderdin is not a class. Do you mean Wilder?

Would a ray specialist sorcerer not care about Imp. Precise Shot?

Well, this is a bit off the original topic, but no, a ray specialist sorc would not care about imp. precise shot. It requires BaB +11, so it's literally inaccessible regardless.

And to forestall your inevitable rejoinder, even if you don't personally care about any of these feats, does not reduce their value to others.

Er, it's not that I don't care, it's that you've got 4/4 on bad examples. The only one that is actually an example of a bar is replicated for free in both systems by fighting defensively...and which has actually been nerfed in PF. So, if anything, it works against your argument.

I'm not trying to show a comparative advantage, race to race. I'm showing an absolute advantage, using the benchmarks that have remained the same across systems.

Ah, but you haven't been using the same benchmarks. Combat Expertise has changed, see?

And even if you DO show this...what will it prove? What does "PF half orc is stronger than 3.5 half orc" show? Is it relevant? Are there games in which a player will play one fighting the other?

Before Pathfinder, humans were the only race that was not penalized for anything. That is no longer true.

Nonsense. Lesser Aasimar also lacked a stat penalty as one example.

I'm not sure where this fixation with humanity is coming from. Yeah they're good, but come on, try some variety. If power's all you care about, just roll Pun-Pun in every game and call it a day.

Look, I buy the system with the impression that it works. You're doing the same thing as the PF designers...excusing imbalance by saying that players should ignore it.

No...imbalance is a problem. Continuing the same old imbalances is not a selling point.

Sub-optimal choices are traps? Really?

So punishments in one system aren't so bad, but sub-optimal choices in another system are somehow worse?

The difference between +0 and +2 is 2.
The difference between -2 and +0 is also 2.
There is no difference. You can call it a punishment, a sub-optimal choice, or whatever you will, but adjusting all the numbers by 2 is not an improvement.

Well, I think that sums up your argument very well. I'm more inclined to agree with Navar here. This seems like an optimization race and unless you have the biggest baddest paladin you can't play.

You have missed the point. It is not about getting the biggest paladin. It is about the person who DOESN'T make the perfect choices being relatively behind. It's about the person who tries to stay true to a concept being mechanically penalized for it.

I can break a char in either system...it's fairly trivial. What's important to me is how well the system works for normal play, and how much it encourages players to start on a similar level. PF has not helped this at all.

And if your argument was so persuaded by Psyren's claim that half orcs were better than humans AND you saw that my argument specifically dealt with 3.5 half orc paladins versus Pathfinder half orc paladins, then why did you argue my claims against Psyren's hypothesis?

Do you play games in which 3.5 half orc paladins battle it out vs PF half orc paladins? If so, choosing the PF side is obvious. However, I submit that this is not a normal game type, and the results of this have little bearing on normal tables.

In normal tables, 3.5 half orc paladins go fight other 3.5 monsters or PC classes, and PF half orc paladins go fight other PF monsters or PC classes.

So...make the comparison that actually matters in the real world.

Did I miss something? Both Psyren and myself have stated time and again that giving the pathfinder half orc more options makes them better at playing different classes than 3.5. In 3.5 a half orc paladin would be idiotic. In Pathfinder it is now a decent choice, just not the most optimized.

No...there is no change here.

3.5 half orc paladin hits a 3.5 wizard with a greatsword.
PF half orc paladin hits a PF wizard with a greatsword.

Compare the results. The PF pally does LESS damage overall.

Edit:

RE Legend: If you guys get Dreamscarred Press on board I'll give it a second look.

Why would that matter? Good rules are good rules no matter who publishes them.

I can't give a full review of Legend yet, as I'm not done grokking the system yet, but from review during beta and what I've seen so far...I can say that it's definitely worth a read through, especially since you don't have to actually pay money for it if you decide you don't like it.

[Sillycomic]

So...make the comparison that actually matters in the real world

I'm trying very hard to figure this one out. Give me a minute. I want to see if I have it right.

You take one of Psyren's posts out of context, assume it means something else and then argue against it.

I come along with a hypotheses and validly argue it.

You decide to counter my argument based on someone else's hypothesis in order to prove me wrong.

I call you out on it, and you decide that NOW my argument was just silly to begin with simply because you don't like the comparison?

I see. Yes. Excellent point. I can't argue illogic as logical as that.

What's worse? If you thought my comparison was silly to begin with... why did you argue it LINE BY LINE? Do you understand that this is ludicrus? If you truly thought my hypothesis wasn't valid then why did you argue each and every one of my claims?

By calling my argument silly and then explaining why my argument is wrong based on someone else's hypotheses, you seem to be even more ridiculous than you were before. At least before you could claim that you just misunderstood what my hypothesis was.

Now you're saying you understood my hypothesis, ignored it, changed it to someone else's hypothesis, argued that, were called out on it, and then decide the entire thing isn't good for comparison in the first place due to "reasons."

Well, the comparison was "real world" enough for you when you were arguing against it this morning.

This makes my head spin.

[Psyren]

That's... close-minded. You're not even willing to look at a system if a certain company wasn't involved?

I did look. Hence "second."

It's a respectable system, just not my personal preference, at least not yet.

Please don't jump down my throat for not being immediately enamored of Legend, I'm not going to discuss it here.

And even if you DO show this...what will it prove? What does "PF half orc is stronger than 3.5 half orc" show? Is it relevant? Are there games in which a player will play one fighting the other?

*points at thread title*

What does "PF humans are stronger than PF half-orcs" show? Is it relevant? Will someone who likes half-orcs, and is considering going from 3.5 to PF, care about what buffs or nerfs humans got?

[Doc Roc]

That's... close-minded. You're not even willing to look at a system if a certain company wasn't involved?

Radical Taoist is an old friend, is he still involved with Dreamscarred?

[MukkTB]

The 3.5 Half Orc Paladin will consider how translating to PF will effect both him and the human paladin if he expects to somehow be competing with the human paladin.

Stronger PCs is not a selling point. I could make a stronger PC by going for a larger point buy number. Are you seriously saying you would buy a game from me if I took the standard D&D material and gave everyone +10 to everything? That doing that would somehow make a better game?

[Sillycomic]

Paizo's overall goal wasn't just to make PC's stronger, but to make core viable and diverse so you can have a lot of different options without buying several hundred splatbooks.

This starts with boosting core races so they have more options and advantages in several different classes now. Paizo completely scrapped the idea of reward versus punishment mentality that 3.5 was noticeable for (the multit-classing rules that everyone ignored comes to mind, as well as cross class skills)

Better people than me have already written several reviews which explain the advantages and disadvantages to why Paizo and Pathfinder make for a better game.

Here you go: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890

The half orc paladin was just a simple example of the overall change in the two systems.

If you want to just add 10 to everything and call that 3.8 good luck to you. That's not what Paizo did at all however.

[Psyren]

The 3.5 Half Orc Paladin will consider how translating to PF will effect both him and the human paladin if he expects to somehow be competing with the human paladin.

None of you have explained why I would be doing this. If my character concept calls for a half-orc paladin/sorcerer, how do humans factor in at all? Why should I care what they're better at?

All I care, is that my concept isn't being actively and mechanically discouraged by the game's designers. This psychological imperative that "if humans are better at X, then all other choices are pointless, regardless of effectiveness in the system as a whole" is at once counterproductive and neurotic.

[Helldog]

That was the original allegation, yes.

No. Psyren is saying that a half-orc isn't a non-option in PF, unlike in 3.5. Nowhere did I see him saying that half-orc is better then a human. So simply put, you are arguing against a ghost argument.

[MukkTB]

Your concept is being discouraged by the creators. You pay an opportunity cost. You could have been a human and been x amount better. Therefore YOU ARE BEING PENALIZED FOR BEING CREATIVE. GETTING -2 INSTEAD OF 0 IS THE SAME AS GETTING 0 INSTEAD OF 2!!!!! How can you not understand that?

The fix isn't to add 2 to everything. The fix is to add 2 to the -2 and call it a day with everything at 0.

[Sception]

My problem with pathfinder is that while the core is slightly more functional/enjoyable then 3.5 core, it's still a lot less functional and enjoyable then the better 3.5 splat material, such as PHBII or Tome of Battle, expansion material that blows pathfinder expansion material like the Adv Player's Guide completely out of the water in terms of enjoyability and playability.

In a core only context, I'd rather play Pathfinder then plain old 3.5, but as soon as you move beyond that Pathfinder stops looking so great. Pathfinder doesn't really try to solve the big issues of class balance, multiclassing cludginess, item dependency, etc. As such, it doesn't really offer me sufficient incentive that I'd be willing to give up super-fun splat material like the beguilers and factotums and warblades and go back to sorcerers and rogues and fighters; and oracles and witches don't really bring me anything new either, other then strictly worse versions of core classes (though the Summoner at least comes close to something I might enjoy playing, and would be my default choice if PF were the only game in town). Of course, Pathfinder's very close to 3.5, so it takes very little to bring those elements into a Pathfinder game, at which point I'm more then happy to drink the Paizo cool aid, but according to my extensive research, PF games that allow 3.5 conversion material are purely mythical and do not exist in real life.

Legend's very impressive as a totally revised d20 game system, much more ambitious then Pathfinder, but also not really conversion friendly. Like at all. Since you can't prop up what's there with older content, that leaves Legend in a state that isn't quite up to solid playability, yet, imo. The game really wants a monster book and some functional adventure modules at the very least. Then again, that's stuff that's coming, from what I understand, so things should improve. If you want a 'fixed' d20 system, it certainly was willing to at least try and tackle the big issues that Pathfinder shied away from, so it actually offers me some incentive make me even consider setting aside my precious Binders and Dread Necromancers to give it a look. Then again, Pathfinder's a lot easier to find a gaming group for.

[sonofzeal]

No. Psyren is saying that a half-orc isn't a non-option in PF, unlike in 3.5. Nowhere did I see him saying that half-orc is better then a human. So simply put, you are arguing against a ghost argument.

But.... I've been arguing for two/three pages that Half-Orc isn't a non-option in 3.5! My avatar is a Half-Orc Paladin for crying out loud!

I really don't understand....