Should I get Pathfinder?

[LordBlades]

Read that article

magic missile is a benchmark for spells because it's the best 1st-level spell

This is about as far as I got before bursting into laughter

[Curious]

Exactly, and if you put out a feat that enables a certain archetype (the ascetic, 'I don't need material wealth type') it would be nice to make sure nobody gets punished for actually wanting to RP that archetype.

They actually did just that; one of the developers, SKR I think, actually stated in a forum post that he wanted players to sacrifice something for wanting to play without equipment. So not only are they espousing roleplaying over power, they are actively punishing you for it.

[Yora]

So it would have been better than players who chose to play without equipment don't get anything in return at all?

[Curious]

So it would have been better than players who chose to play without equipment don't get anything in return at all?

No, it would be better if players who wished to play without equipment were given a mechanic that allowed them to roleplay their character without being punished by the system.

[LordBlades]

So it would have been better than players who chose to play without equipment don't get anything in return at all?

Well, if the feat is bad enough, no longer you get next to nothing in return but you also lose a feat slot.

[Reverent-One]

PF changed: most core feats, several skills, many spells, all the core races, CMD/CMB, etc.

Even just re-learning what Power Attack does is an investment, given that I'd probably keep expecting it to work the 3.5 way unless I paid special attention. I wouldn't call it extraordinarily difficult... but it would certainly be some time until I really settled down and stopped expecting things to go the 3.5 way. I'd have to continually check my sources on everything for quite a while. Admittedly the PFSRD is a great resource for that, but I'd have to be leaning on it heavily for all sorts of stuff I take for granted in 3.5. How does TWF work now? How do I optimize Trip? Does Protection From Evil still do what I expect it to?

And yet neither I nor the rest of the group I play with or other friends I've introduced to PF had much issue making the change. Sure the odd rule occansionaly gets missed originally, but the same thing happened in 3.5.

Compare with this. It's pretty unapologetic in nerfing awesome classes and buffing weaker ones, but is pretty darn simple with how it goes about it. Feats work like you'd expect. Skills work like you'd expect. Spells work like you'd expect. Races are the same. Classes have hardly changed - just one or two new class features which can be read and learned in a couple minutes.

Making Clerics only uber inside a narrower range of activities is an easy change, and a flavourful one, but helps balance them against Fighters a whole lot better than PF's massive series of changes. It's easier to learn, does more for balance, and is entirely compatible with everything I know of from 3.5. Which is exactly what I claimed.

Great, you came up with a list of rules, doesn't mean that the rest of the group will agree with those rules, which is what I was claiming. And while your rules may make less changes than PF, that's a problem, not a feature, as your rules also lack many of the improvements PF made to the rules, including skills, races, and classes.

[Tyndmyr]

So what? When I look at all the garbage that WotC has produced over the years, the PF-Books still seem to have a very high amount of quality work inside them.

3.5 improved rather notably over it's lifespan, though. When I look at things like ToB, I think "at least they learned from their earlier mistakes".

PF had 3.5 to build on. In the same way that 3.5 is much preferable to earlier editions for me, and it addresses earlier issues, I would expect PF to address well known issues in 3.5. Especially because they sort of promised it would.

[Yora]

I would expect PF to address well known issues in 3.5. Especially because they sort of promised it would.

I give you that. This one was just completely messed up. Total failure, no objections here.
But as I see it, Pathfinder does not attempt to cater to the people who put a lot of edffort into making very well constructed character builds and giving some major thoughts on optimization. To me, it all feels a lot more like a game for people who have an idea for a character and want an easy solution out of the box and then don't spend too much time with thoughts on how to improve the build and instead have fun with the adventures.
And for that PHB and AGP seems just a lot neater than bothering with the whole Complete and Races of* lines. For a more casually inclined game, PF seems quite a bit more convenient.

[Psyren]

3.5 improved rather notably over it's lifespan, though. When I look at things like ToB, I think "at least they learned from their earlier mistakes".

I can understand them not implementing a ToB-like system though, what with all the folks who still see it as "weaboo-fightan-magic." I don't agree, but I can understand why. And with Ultimate Combat being legal in PFS, there'd be little to no place for regular melee if maneuvers/stances/what-have-you became available.

Having said that, I really think they should do something similar to ToB at some point. It was a great way to combine 4e's "melee can have nice things" with 3.5's "let the classes play differently."

[Essence_of_War]

Sean K Reynolds was one of the bigger names working with them - I believe he even wrote the forward to the main Pathfinder book. Here's his thoughts on the relative value of various Core feats. Note that Natural Spell is cheaper than Toughness. Extend Spell is cheaper than Mobility. Skill Focus: Concentration is cheaper than Combat Casting. Spirited Charge is cheaper than Athletic. And every single other feat is cheaper than Two Weapon Fighting.

Now, that's not to say the same logic went into the creation of Pathfinder... but when we hear comments from the Devs like how it's "broken" to allow Monks to take Improved Natural Attack, it's hard to believe otherwise. Two Weapon Fighting, which is horribly suboptimal on a number of levels* in 3.5 barring sources of precision damage, doesn't get improved at all. The "Two Weapon Warrior" archetype for Fighter only slightly mitigates this - but then Twohanded weapons get their own Archetype and improve even more relatively.

Holy Cow, I'd never seen that before and I nearly spit my coke out when I saw his point rankings.

[Yora]

I agree with the 10 rules, but how that results in Natual Spell, which is pretty much the best thing ever, is rated at the very bottom is beyond me.

[Tyndmyr]

I agree with the 10 rules, but how that results in Natual Spell, which is pretty much the best thing ever, is rated at the very bottom is beyond me.

It's not so much what he takes into account as what he fails to account for. Most of the ten rules are...fairly obvious. No cap is better than a cap? Yes, any brand new player could see that.

The problem is...not all numbers are equal. Agile is not among the best feats, because the numbers it boosts are...not the most important of numbers. The amount of times you roll balance and escape artist checks will probably be relatively low and their importance will likely be minimal.

The evaluation of Combat Reflexes and other feats shows a lot of misunderstanding of why people take feats. People rarely take Combat reflexes primarily to AoO while flat footed...they usually do so as part of a dex heavy build to get a LOT of AoOs. Additional attacks is a fairly notable number. 1 extra attack is quite frequently worth a LOT more than +1 to say, attack. If it gets you even 1 extra attack, it's well superior to weapon focus.

Ditto for his evaluation of Cleave. Sure, it may not arise quite as often as weapon focus, but the benefit(an extra attack)is of rather notable value. Any time you are not hitting on only 20s(but a +1 would change that), it is going to be a more valuable effect than weapon focus. I can crunch average to-hit numbers and chance of a given blow killing an enemy to get actual numeric effects, but that's not necessary to see that his estimate is way off.

For the love of god, he rated Quicken as half the value of Scribe Scroll. Clearly, he's missing things.

Edit: I just saw that he rated Leadership at 8. That's right, having another party member is apparently less valuable than having Weapon Focus. I am...puzzled as to what course of logic could lead to this, but again, I'm pretty sure I would do better while drunk out of my mind.

[Gavinfoxx]

No. No it doesn't. Even the "mundane" styles like Iron Heart or White Raven quickly become pseudo magical really fast, and become pretty much impossible for a mundane person near the end. Tome of Battle is Spells for Warriors. Its "solution" to balancing the system is giving everyone spellcasting, which frankly looks suspiciously like 4e.

If I really wanted to emulate IRL combat, I'd probably use some kind of parry and active AC system. But since the Fighters in my group seem pleased as punch with how Fighters work, I don't think I'll bother.

Eh, I'm not sure about that. Steely Strike looks like some of the concepts talked about in the german Fechtbuchs, and Lightning Recovery can show the flow of a fight really well, what with the rapid changes in directions, and there's also the fact that in a real fight, you need to withdraw and change your stance to be able to try something again, (ie, people tend to have an exchange or two and then move back to a neutral stance to try again), which fits with the recovery mechanics... things like that...

[Flickerdart]

Even the "mundane" styles like Iron Heart or White Raven quickly become pseudo magical really fast, and become pretty much impossible for a mundane person near the end.

Um...in 3.5, you're out of the realm of the humanly possible around level six. Expecting a 20th level warrior to fight Tarrasques and dragons with the skills possible for a mundane person is hilariously misguided.

[Tyndmyr]

Um...in 3.5, you're out of the realm of the humanly possible around level six. Expecting a 20th level warrior to fight Tarrasques and dragons with the skills possible for a mundane person is hilariously misguided.

Quite possibly faster. I mean, a warforged warlock is basically iron man at level 6. Flying robot shooting energy beams from his hands.

And, unlike Iron Man, he can do this basically forever.

What exactly is "humanly possible" is sketchy at best in D&D. You're better off not worrying overly much about realism in it and just embracing the flying death machines of awesomeness.

[Psyren]

Um...in 3.5, you're out of the realm of the humanly possible around level six. Expecting a 20th level warrior to fight Tarrasques and dragons with the skills possible for a mundane person is hilariously misguided.

A lot of people forget that a Fighter 20 can wade through lava, fall off cliffs and leap across chasms. However weak they might be compared to other classes, they'd still seem like demigods in our world.

[Hiro Protagonest]

A lot of people forget that a Fighter 20 can wade through lava, fall off cliffs and leap across chasms. However weak they might be compared to other classes, they'd still seem like demigods in our world.

To add to the inhuman stuff, a level 1 fighter with a feat in the PF CRB (Catch Off Guard) and 18 strength can pick up something that weighs 300 lb and use it without penalty.

Edit: Did I say fighter? I meant commoner.

[MukkTB]

The pathfinder devs really banned people who were asking them to get rid of an infinite loop? What? Why?

They pathfinder devs are really responsible for that feat cost idiocy? Have they ever played with optimized characters? What is this?

Whats this roleplay a bad character thing? Do you really want to punish the roleplayers over the powergamers? If anything the roleplayers should be treated better. Shouldn't you make options equal so roleplaying becomes the major concern when choosing how the character develops?

Suddenly I begin to lose respect.

[Yora]

I think maybe there is a possibility that people who are making a valid point, could still be acting like total *******s. We never get to hear the whole story, only the one part that sounds the most exciting.

[LordBlades]

I think maybe there is a possibility that people who are making a valid point, could still be acting like total *******s. We never get to hear the whole story, only the one part that sounds the most exciting.

Well, what I said is pretty much taken word for word off the PF boards. The devs clearly stated they feel some feats should.be bad mechanically due to 'RP value'

[Psyren]

I think maybe there is a possibility that people who are making a valid point, could still be acting like total *******s. We never get to hear the whole story, only the one part that sounds the most exciting.

This is really my reaction; without seeing any of the threads where these "helpful people" were actually banned, a lot of context is lost.

[Real Sorceror]

Um...in 3.5, you're out of the realm of the humanly possible around level six. Expecting a 20th level warrior to fight Tarrasques and dragons with the skills possible for a mundane person is hilariously misguided.

Ok, poor choice of words on my part. I see where you all misunderstood. I don't necessarily want a completely mundane warrior class (though one without casting is essential). Its a fantasy game and everyone is going to be a super-heroic.

What I really meant is that I think its necessary to have a simple warrior class. ToB, opinions aside, is not simple. In fact in some ways its more complicated than spellcasting. This is one of the reasons I dislike 4e. There is no "jump-in" class. Everything is complex.

This is why I like Fighter the way it is. Its probably the easiest class in the game to learn, but can still be made very powerful by an experienced player due to its customizable nature.

And this whole tier system? Trash. Everything about it assumes a group of individuals competing against eachother and the DM for exp and loot. Table-top RPGs are about teamwork. Classes should be looked at by how they synergize with eachother and work together rather than how they support themselves in a vacuum.

[Doug Lampert]

And this whole tier system? Trash. Everything about it assumes a group of individuals competing against eachother and the DM for exp and loot. Table-top RPGs are about teamwork. Classes should be looked at by how they synergize with eachother and work together rather than how they support themselves in a vacuum.

Crap.

Cleric/Cleric/Druid/Wizard is VASTLY stronger than Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard even if playing totally cooperatively.

Teir one classes cooperate BETTER than teir six. A fighter can't do SQUAT to help make anyone else better at their job. A caster can make a fighter almost competent. Shame that the same effort will also make the druid's AC even more competent and that all casters have more slots for buffs, but there it is.

Tiers work FINE at describing cooperative play. If your CHARACTER'S in character goal is to survive and prosper then if he's a caster he should prefer the all caster party.

[Flickerdart]

This is why I like Fighter the way it is. Its probably the easiest class in the game to learn, but can still be made very powerful by an experienced player due to its customizable nature.

Wrong. A Fighter is very difficult to build, because it requires system mastery to find the good feats. Barbarian is a much easier class to learn.

And this whole tier system? Trash. Everything about it assumes a group of individuals competing against eachother and the DM for exp and loot. Table-top RPGs are about teamwork. Classes should be looked at by how they synergize with eachother and work together rather than how they support themselves in a vacuum.

Super wrong. A T1 will always have more offer to the party than a T4. The Tier system looks at class versatility, true - but a versatile class plus another versatile class work better together as a team than a versatile class and a non-versatile class. Teamwork doesn't mean that the wizard came to the table just so that he could give the fighter buffs. Teamwork means that everyone contributes equally, and a lower-tier class cannot contribute as much as a higher-tier class.

[MukkTB]

Higher tiers are better. However I like to play tier 3 if I can help it.
Tier 3s overshadow the people playing things like fighters and rogues less.
Tier 3s have a wide application of their abilities so there's always stuff for you to do that's not going to make the DM tear his hair out.
A tier 1 character can be played very badly compared to decent optimization. I'd rather play a mid tier character sort of competently than play a high tier character badly.

EDIT - My point is that just because we say high tier characters are more powerful we aren't saying that you shouldn't play low tier characters or that you're a bad person for liking lower tiers. Fun >>> Character Power

[sonofzeal]

Great, you came up with a list of rules, doesn't mean that the rest of the group will agree with those rules, which is what I was claiming. And while your rules may make less changes than PF, that's a problem, not a feature, as your rules also lack many of the improvements PF made to the rules, including skills, races, and classes.

I don't tend to think of "it's exactly like before but with bells on" as "improvement". Nor do I think of applying Armor Check Penalty to Ride that way, nor buffing the best classes in the game even further. Hanging bells and shinies on everything may feel like improvement if you're converting, but it's largely illusionary. It's change for the sake of change, and I disagree with that on principal.

And heck, people may disagree with some of my rules, but I disagree with some of PF's rules (like ACP on Ride). And the number of changes PF made is ridiculous. I mean seriously, did they really have to rewrite every single feat?!?

So what? When I look at all the garbage that WotC has produced over the years, the PF-Books still seem to have a very high amount of quality work inside them.

Well, the art's good. And the setting's good. And everything has bells on now. But if we're talking about a group-up rewrite of 3.5, there's so much missed potential that it's depressing.

Again, take TWF. It's horrible for everyone except Rogues and others with huge sources of bonus damage (see footnote here). I would love to have seen PF fix that, and bring the two-sword warrior back into viability. Instead, they leave it exactly the same and add a pathetic excuse of an Archetype as if to claim there isn't a massive disparity here. The very least they could have done was roll TWF/ITWF/GTWF into the same feat, but they didn't even do that.

I really don't understand Paizo's logic at all, I don't agree with their decisions, and I don't need other people to write half-arsed houserules for me. They "fixed" things that weren't broken, didn't fix the things that were, and then everyone goes gaga over it because they hung bells and whistles all over the place.

I'm sorry, no. Not for me.

[Real Sorceror]

Wrong. A Fighter is very difficult to build, because it requires system mastery to find the good feats. Barbarian is a much easier class to learn.

Well thats retarded. A Fighter is incredibly easy to build. What you want to say is that its difficult to optimize, which isn't necessarily true either.

[Real Sorceror]

Is this whole tier thing actually used in practice? I've never seen it outside of internet forums. I know nothing like this existed in the 6-7 groups I've played with over the years. If someone actually told me face to face that I couldn't play a class because it was "too weak" and would bring the group down, I'd leave right there and then. This isn't WoW. D&D isn't about forming a super-synchronized raid group that needs to operate like clockwork.

[sonofzeal]

Well thats retarded. A Fighter is incredibly easy to build. What you want to say is that its difficult to optimize, which isn't necessarily true either.

Fighter still requires more effort to build, because there's more choices. A Barbarian is straight out of the box, slap Power Attack and maybe Cleave, then whatever other doodads you want. Fighters require a lot more choices. A lvl 4 Barbarian has two feats and one of them's pretty much a given); a lvl 4 Fighter has five, and none of them are givens.

Fighters are always more work. Maybe not by a huge amount, but still more.

Is this whole tier thing actually used in practice? I've never seen it outside of internet forums. I know nothing like this existed in the 6-7 groups I've played with over the years. If someone actually told me face to face that I couldn't play a class because it was "too weak" and would bring the group down, I'd leave right there and then. This isn't WoW. D&D isn't about forming a super-synchronized raid group that needs to operate like clockwork.

I routinely tell people in my gaming group what the Tier of the class they're choosing is - not to demand that they play something else, but just to warn them. Many people seem to gravitate towards "cool" classes like Monk, without realizing just how much life sucks for them, and I consider giving fair warning only proper. Most choose to play the class anyway, but at least they go in with eyes open. And we'll often institute favourable houserules if a newer player is playing a weaker class.

So yes, it's used in practice, and not in the draconian way you seem to be expecting.

[MukkTB]

How is the tier system used in practice? Have you ever seen some guy totally outperform somebody else in the same game? Have you ever wondered why exactly or have you just concluded that one guy was stupid? If you want to actually understand you have to grasp the tier system and optimization levels.

Furthermore when you actually start trying to balance things YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE TIER SYSTEM. Why? Because people have an urge to nerf the fighter when they see him doing halfway competent things. They have an urge to nerf the rogue and the other physical classes. They don't understand what a tier 1 character can do in an adventure.