Should I get Pathfinder?

[MukkTB]

In a good D&D group a proper understanding of the tier system and keeping optimization to the right levels results in a group where everyone pulls the same load. Its more fun if everyone can contribute the same amount to the team.

[navar100]

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.

Years ago a player in my group was lamenting how useless he felt his rogue was in combat. He saw me play my cleric casting spells, swinging his morningstar, going all hog-wild. The sorcerer was primarily a blaster but effectively blasting bad guys to bits.

His problem? No, it had nothing whatsoever to do with his lower tier. It was his battle tactics. He relied heavily on Use Magic Device for a wand of fireball. He didn't tumble into flanking. He didn't understand the true power of sneak attack.

What did we do? Ban Tier 1? Ban Tier 4? No, nothing so stupidly drastic. We taught him. Because he likes to use the wand of fireball, he understands fireball damage. When the player actually got to sneak attack, the DM would call out "Fireball on a stick" over and over. I taught him tactics such as tumbling into flanking. I mentioned feats he should take to help him. It was too late for the two-weapon fighting tree for that character, but others were still good, like Weapon Finesse. Yes, he didn't know to take Weapon Finesse.

That campaign ended. For the next one I helped him. He took Weapon Finesse. He took Two-Weapon Fighting. He tried out tumbling. He really got into it . "Fireball on a stick", he was delighted as he rolled all those d6s from using two weapons. He was having a blast, even though for that campaign I was playing a Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell cleric way back when Persistent Spell was only +4 levels. He only cared how easily I dispatched foes in the sense that he was happy I was able to do so as the party as a whole were doing so. The fighter and barbarian were right along with him.

Then he had an epiphany of his own. He learned the limitations of sneak attack. He understood not all creatures were vulnerable to it. He learned that two-weapon fighting has limitations on movement. He wasn't upset by this; he just understood and developed tactics and build choices to reflect this. For the next campaign he cared not about sneak attack at all. He played a fighter/DM home made prestige class. Admittedly the prestige class was beefier than published warrior-type prestige classes, but the point is he didn't need my help anymore. He learned how to create an effective character. He absolutely did not care at all whatever versatility the spellcasters were able to do. He welcomed it. He contributed in his own way.

Yes, system mastery is important to create effective warrior classes. If someone is having trouble, you teach him. The tier system is irrelevant.

[Reverent-One]

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.

I'm not talking about things like ACP on Ride or whatever, I mean cross class skills not costing double the skill points and condensing similar skills, making expanding your character's skill set notably easier, I mean the races getting improved features, with Half-elves and half-orcs no longer being the bastard children...wait, poor choice of words, I mean replacing the existing Favored Class rules that were so disliked they are near universally ignored with something useful, I mean removing most dead levels. Those are definitely not just changes for the sake of change, but improvements 3.5 could really use.

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?!?

No, which is why they didn't.

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.

You're already complaining about all the things they did change and how hard it is to learn all the changes when they've changed relatively minor things, and yet you still have to also complain they didn't overhaul the basics of a whole lot of mechanics, which would require a heck of a lot more relearning and shoot any thought of backwards compatibility to death? There's just no pleasing some people.

[sonofzeal]

I'm not talking about thinks like ACP on Ride or whatever, I mean cross class skills not costing double the skill points, making expanding your character's skill set notably easier, I mean the races getting improved features, with Half-elves and half-orcs no longer being the bastard children...wait, poor choice of words, I mean replacing the existing Favored Class rules that were so disliked they are near universally ignored with something useful, I mean removing most dead levels. Those are definitely not just changes for the sake of change, but improvements 3.5 could really use.

Removing crossed class skills and Favoured Class rules were good moves, I'll give them credit there. And Half-Elves and Half-Orcs needed a boost too. But did Humans really need a free +2 to any ability score?

No, which is why they didn't.

I keep looking for examples that aren't change and not seeing any... except possibly Two-Weapon Fighting which was one of the few ones that drastically needed a change. I'm sure there might be a couple others, but as I said I've had trouble finding any.

You're already complaining about all the things they did change and how hard it is to learn all the changes when they've changed relatively minor things, and yet you still have to also complain they didn't overhaul the basics of a whole lot of mechanics, which would require a heck of a lot more relearning and shoot any thought of backwards compatibility to death? There's just no pleasing some people.

The least they should have done for Two Weapon Fighting was roll TWF/ITWF/GTWF into a single feat. That would have been dead easy for them, dead easy to learn, and is a pretty common houserule anyway... but no. Instead they revamp Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip, none of which particularly needed it.

I don't think there's anything hypocritical in pointing out that most of their "fixes" don't actually fix anything, and that they left a heck of a lot of problems unsolved for such a massive re-write. They fixed much of what wasn't broken, and didn't fix much of what was. There were a few good ideas in there, and you mentioned several of them already, but rather than just going after the things that needed changing they just buried the whole thing under a pile of dross - some good, some bad, most of it neutral. I really don't see why that should win anyone's praise or affection.



Or let's put it this way. A good fix should {a} preserve as much as possible while still fixing, {b} actually fix all the easily-fixable problems, and {c} not add in any new ones. Given that PF fails at all three, I don't really see the point.

[Curious]

I keep looking for examples that aren't change and not seeing any... except possibly Two-Weapon Fighting which was one of the few ones that drastically needed a change. I'm sure there might be a couple others, but as I said I've had trouble finding any.

Really? Most of the feats are literally direct copies from the 3.5 SRD. I tend to have trouble finding feats that aren't exactly the same.

[Reverent-One]

Removing crossed class skills and Favoured Class rules were good moves, I'll give them credit there. And Half-Elves and Half-Orcs needed a boost too. But did Humans really need a free +2 to any ability score?

It fits their system of the core races having a +2 net gain in stats, they seem to like being consistent about such things (see also how they handle the BAB/HD relationship).

I keep looking for examples that aren't change and not seeing any... except possibly Two-Weapon Fighting which was one of the few ones that drastically needed a change. I'm sure there might be a couple others, but as I said I've had trouble finding any.

Combat Reflexes, Improved Init, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid shot, and Weapon Finesse to name a few.

I don't think there's anything hypocritical in pointing out that most of their "fixes" don't actually fix anything, and that they left a heck of a lot of problems unsolved for such a massive re-write. They fixed much of what wasn't broken, and didn't fix much of what was. There were a few good ideas in there, and you mentioned several of them already, but rather than just going after the things that needed changing they just buried the whole thing under a pile of dross - some good, some bad, most of it neutral. I really don't see why that should win anyone's praise or affection.

Again, if they actually fixed a lot of the things that 3.5 could have used having fixed, they would be changing so much they'd fail at what was obviously a primary goal, backwards compatibility with 3.5. Personally, the changes to skill system, races, removal of dead levels, archetype system, new classes like those in the APG are extremely worthy of praise. The more minor changes are definitely a big YMMV thing (for example, I like PF Cleave more than 3.5 Cleave, but it's not a dealbreaker for me either way), but given that most of it is available for free online, they've given a lot of new material and solid houserules for 3.5 players, who are also free to ignore the ones that they don't like.

[sonofzeal]

Really? Most of the feats are literally direct copies from the 3.5 SRD. I tend to have trouble finding feats that aren't exactly the same.

Most were at very least rewritten, even if the result's the same. In Reverent-One's list of examples, over half of them are in this category. Many others changed in subtle ways (like "Light Armor Proficiency", which most characters have). Sometimes the new wording clarifies things which should have been obvious but weren't by RAW, like Combat Reflexes, but then others fail to correct similar RAW oversights, like Weapon Finesse.

So yes, most that I've seen were changed, even if they remain highly similar.

It fits their system of the core races having a +2 net gain in stats, they seem to like being consistent about such things (see also how they handle the BAB/HD relationship).

Yeah, but... there's no reason for it. It just shifts the balance point upward, and makes other 3.5 races jealous in comparison - and let's be honest, few 3.5 races are as good as Core ones were anyway.

Actually, this is a perfect example of my "bells and whistles" complaint. There was zero need for it, it's not like Core Races were suffering in comparison to "splatbook power creep" or something. It feels great to people converting from 3.5 to PF which makes it seductive, but the benefit is illusionary because everything else just got boosted too. Non-core 3.5 races are now harder to play in PF games; you either have to houserule in a stat boost yourself, or suffer in comparison. More importantly, SAD classes/builds (which were generally the most powerful anyway) benefit most from this.

It exacerbates power disparity, hampers compatibility, and adds nothing to the system except to seduce new players.

Combat Reflexes, Improved Init, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid shot, and Weapon Finesse to name a few.

As I just mentioned, over half of those got reworded at very least, for no apparent reason. I don't consider that a good thing.

Again, if they actually fixed a lot of the things that 3.5 could have used having fixed, they would be changing so much they'd fail at what was obviously a primary goal, backwards compatibility with 3.5. Personally, the changes to skill system, races, removal of dead levels, archetype system, new classes like those in the APG are extremely worthy of praise. The more minor changes are definitely a big YMMV thing (for example, I like PF Cleave more than 3.5 Cleave, but it's not a dealbreaker for me either way), but given that most of it is available for free online, they've given a lot of new material and solid houserules for 3.5 players, who are also free to ignore the ones that they don't like.

Hundreds of people on this very board do exactly that. It's not like 3.5 is exactly hurting for freely available houserules. And, as I previously stated, I vastly prefer houserules to exist for definable purposes, rather than just changing everything I'd known and was comfortable with and was working fine.

People were running improved skill systems years before PF. There's dozens of rebalanced Half-elf and Half-orc ideas out there. Removing dead levels is neither here nor there - high Tier classes are more likely than most to have dead levels in the first place, and I'd rather not pile extra goodies on them any more than I have to.

[LordBlades]

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.

Yes it is actually used in practice. The fact that ypou haven't come across it is just anecdotal evidence. I've personally had plenty of experience with too strong or too weak characters and it's not fun for anyone once you realize it. To give you a couple of examples:

Weak character in strong group: new player joins my gaming group, and brings a ninja to a DMM Cleric, Druid, Incantatrix, rogue-ish wizard gish and pison party. Being a RL buddy going through a tough time, we had to let him join and he wouldn't budge from playing a ninja. What followed were 2 months of frustration. For the DM because he couldn't challenge him properly. In combat his to-hit and AC were 10-15 points (or more) lower than the druid or cleric. Anything that would hit them decently would instagib him, and anything that could hit him decently they would instagib. As a skill monkey, the rogue/wizard had more SP and skill boosting spells, ending up with way higher modifier. For us (the players) it was frustrating because keeping the ninja alive(he was rather keen on going melee with his TWF shortswords) became a tougher challenge than killing the opposition.

Strong character in weak group: One summer holiday I went back to my hometown and ran into some old friends that had picked up D&D and I got to watch a couple of sessions. They had been playing for a couple of months max, so fairly new. Party: druid, paladin, ranger, rogue, hexblade. Rogue, ranger and hexblade attempt to mug an old blind troll (not illegal in that country since only humanoids had any rights) and the NG druid opposes them. They eventually start fighting when the plaladin returns from an errand and sees his companions under attack by some animals, so he charges in. The druid easily manhandled and subdued all the 4 party members attacking him (he then gave them a lecture on 'thou shalt not steal' mentality). In fights vs. monsters it was roughly the same: druid would do the heavy lifting (not to mention provide all the party's utility, healing and travel) while the others would gently poke the enemies with their pathetic damage.

As for being told 'you can't play' because your character is too weak I guess that's depends from group to group. In mine, being in line with the party power wise is part of the gentleman's agreement. And you can build pretty much any archetype at any reasonable power level. Notice that I said power level, not tier; you can get different tiers into the same power range by using different levels of optimization(ex you can have an unoptimized sorcerer, decently built bard and optimized barbarian in the same game no problem) If you're bringing something subpar, not only does my character need to work more for the same results, but now I need to think of a RP reason for my character (regardless of personality) to want some weakling not only tag along, but get equal share of loot regardless of not-contributing.

TL;DR: If having party members contribute disproportionately to a fight is all right with your group, good for you, but that doesn't mean it should be all right with any group.

[MukkTB]

Your cleric/rogue story is a perfect example of a lower tier character needing more optimization to keep up with a higher tier character and feel like he is contributing the same amount.

[MukkTB]

Pathfinders blatant buffing of everything is an outright attempt to seduce new players.

Pathfinder giving classes bells and whistles isn't so bad. Getting a lot of little things can be pretty fun. Having dead levels is awful.

[sonofzeal]

Pathfinders blatant buffing of everything is an outright attempt to seduce new players.

Pathfinder giving classes bells and whistles isn't so bad. Getting a lot of little things can be pretty fun. Having dead levels is awful.

I'm willing to grant that. I prefer classes that gain new things every level, too. But just like buffing racial ability scores plays right into Tier 1's SAD hands, filling in dead levels does the most more the classes that need it least. Monks have class features every level already; Clerics have 19 dead levels, as do Sorcerers, and Wizards have 15. This would be a surmountable obstacle, if the developers put the time and effort into making sure their additions tilted the playing field in the appropriate directions. But PF Monk is still the weakest, and PF Wizard is still the strongest, and it's hard to say if that gap has narrowed or if it's actually gotten bigger.

So... A for Effort, but C for Cluelessness.

[MukkTB]

From a pure balance standpoint, giving a tier 1 character a tier 5 or 6 ability instead of a dead level probably won't change the balance in any significant way. (I'm not claiming Paizo did this. But just from a pure theoretical perspective.) I also believe that getting a new spell level (spells/day + spells known?) is by default not really a dead level.

Id agree that the wizard and sorcerer didn't need what they were given. Paladins can rejoice while fighters and barbarians can pout. Not all that great. Although I thought the druid was nerfed by PF?

[Dsurion]

The least they should have done for Two Weapon Fighting was roll TWF/ITWF/GTWF into a single feat. That would have been dead easy for them, dead easy to learn, and is a pretty common houserule anyway... but no. Instead they revamp Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip, none of which particularly needed it.

Hey now! Power Attack most certainly needed a change. Just... Not the way Pathfinder handled it.

If an option is so ubiquitous that everyone chooses it, it ceases to be an "option". Which is why I make the 3.5 Power Attack just another combat option available to anyone with 13+ Str (same with Weapon Finesse - I think everyone should do this).

[Khantin]

Id agree that the wizard and sorcerer didn't need what they were given. Paladins can rejoice while fighters and barbarians can pout. Not all that great. Although I thought the druid was nerfed by PF?

All polymorph and shapeshifting effects were nerfed pretty heavily. Instead of picking a creature and getting all of its cool abilities and stats, you get a set bonus to your stats based on the level of the spell you are using, and a restricted list of other abilities.

beast shape

From a balance perspective it makes sense to nerf polymorph, but I really disliked it from a roleplay perspective. 3.5/pf is first and foremost a game, it's a massive game with a lot of ways to ruin it for other players, if you can't play without wrecking it for others maybe you should go back to kindergarten and relearn the basics.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Although I thought the druid was nerfed by PF?

Yeah, they're now only 2-1/2 classes instead of 3.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, system mastery is important to create effective warrior classes. If someone is having trouble, you teach him. The tier system is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant.

It's just that other things are relevant too.

[navar100]

I like the bloodlines for sorcerers. Yes, it's a power boost, but that's not why. Bloodlines give sorcerers flavor. In 3E going into a prestige class is a no-brainer. You always get more than staying as a sorcerer. In Pathfinder, you have to give up significant stuff to go into a prestige class. I find this a good thing. It means you really, really have to want the prestige class.

I too was perturbed by the change in Power Attack, but after seeing it in practice find it working alright. It does mean there's no more Shock Trooper tricks, but I don't find it a bad thing. Pathfinder Power Attack still allows you decent extra damage. With one-handed weapons now getting +2 damage per -1 to hit (I know the minus to hit is fixed), it's a nice option. Two-handed weapons get +3 damage per minus. They still benefit more, a good thing, but now it's not overwhelming more. The change in Power Attack allows sword and shield style to be a viable option in comparison to two-handed weapons. I find this a good thing. Warriors aren't lacking for damage potential. Rangers still have favored enemies, barbarians rage, paladins smite, and fighters get free pluses in weapon groups.

I disagree the Power Attack change is inherently bad. Liking it or not is varying mileage personal preference.

[Reverent-One]

Yeah, but... there's no reason for it. It just shifts the balance point upward, and makes other 3.5 races jealous in comparison - and let's be honest, few 3.5 races are as good as Core ones were anyway.

Actually, this is a perfect example of my "bells and whistles" complaint. There was zero need for it, it's not like Core Races were suffering in comparison to "splatbook power creep" or something. It feels great to people converting from 3.5 to PF which makes it seductive, but the benefit is illusionary because everything else just got boosted too. Non-core 3.5 races are now harder to play in PF games; you either have to houserule in a stat boost yourself, or suffer in comparison. More importantly, SAD classes/builds (which were generally the most powerful anyway) benefit most from this.

It exacerbates power disparity, hampers compatibility, and adds nothing to the system except to seduce new players.

It's a personal preference, like any houserule. Races now default as a positive in some regard rather than neutral. It's better than how 3.5 did IMO.

As I just mentioned, over half of those got reworded at very least, for no apparent reason. I don't consider that a good thing.

Uh, no, they didn't.

Hundreds of people on this very board do exactly that. It's not like 3.5 is exactly hurting for freely available houserules. And, as I previously stated, I vastly prefer houserules to exist for definable purposes, rather than just changing everything I'd known and was comfortable with and was working fine.

People were running improved skill systems years before PF. There's dozens of rebalanced Half-elf and Half-orc ideas out there. Removing dead levels is neither here nor there - high Tier classes are more likely than most to have dead levels in the first place, and I'd rather not pile extra goodies on them any more than I have to.

Houserules of questionable quality buried in some thread in a forum != rules published by an actual company, if only for the ease of finding and sharing them. I haven't seen any skill rewrites like PF's, their race changes are more than simply boosting the half races, and the fighter and paladin would like to talk to you about lower tier classes lacking dead levels. The extra goodies the higher teir classes get as well mitigate the "whelp, I cast two spells, guess I'm using a crossbow for the rest of the day" early level issues and generally aren't going to make them any more tier 1 than they already are (a d6 + 1/per 2 levels touch attack isn't a big deal if you can end the encounter with one spell). And as navar100 said, they also give those classes reasons not to PrC and some actual flavor.

[Psyren]

There IS a reason for the power boost - it opens up design space.

Look at 3.5 - every single race choice defaults to either "human," "specific race because of {insert ACF/Substitution level}" or "suboptimal personal preference." If you wanted to make that choice for fluff reasons, you were forced to be suboptimal at your chosen profession.

It also flew right in the face of the fluff. "half-orcs tend towards sorcery" several sourcebooks claim, yet they are awful choices for sorcerers in 3.5. "Gnomes are natural bards/wizards" but if you go by their racial adjustments in 3.5, you have to wonder why on Toril that would be the case.

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

The same is true for the base classes. In 3.5, if effectiveness is your goal, there is no reason to stay in your base class. To make the choice meaningful, they had two options; nerf every single PrC in some way, or reward you for staying in your base class. The latter is much simpler, and even with that several PrCs (both in PF, and 3.P) offer enough goodies that there's still plenty of reason not to stay. It's just not a kneejerk choice like it was in 3.5.

[Tyndmyr]

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

I don't know that the original thread still exists, and if it does, I certainly can't find it. If memory serves, the poster WAS a bit incredulous/dismissive of the designers for missing this fairly obvious thing.

Still, even if your feelings are hurt, or you feel the manner in which he stated the finding warrants a ban....you still don't leave the broken infinite loop in. I don't get that.

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

Everything I see about the changes screams that they play low level, and very low op. Things that are nerfed are common things encountered at that level. There's a lot of fiddling with minor details for things like balancing melee options against each other a little better. The results of these changes are mixed, but the fact that they fiddle with that, while their reaction to high level casters is "Give them more powerful abilities!" indicates that their experiences are limited.

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.

Well, you can't ever really treat roleplayers better. True powergamers can roleplay if need be to get advantages. But...that outcome is hardly the worst of things. You definitely should never make roleplay-friendly choices a punitive trap.

Yeah, the more you dig, the more generally unsatisfied you tend to end up. Don't get me wrong...it's not ALL terrible. I do like the skill changes, mostly(except fly. If run/burrow are not skills, fly should not be either). I like more frequent feats. The favored class thing is better now. It's just that there's a great deal I dislike.

There IS a reason for the power boost - it opens up design space.

Look at 3.5 - every single race choice defaults to either "human," "specific race because of {insert ACF/Substitution level}" or "suboptimal personal preference." If you wanted to make that choice for fluff reasons, you were forced to be suboptimal at your chosen profession.

It also flew right in the face of the fluff. "half-orcs tend towards sorcery" several sourcebooks claim, yet they are awful choices for sorcerers in 3.5. "Gnomes are natural bards/wizards" but if you go by their racial adjustments in 3.5, you have to wonder why on Toril that would be the case.

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

No you don't. In 3.5, your sorc has to choose between going human for the feat, or going some obscure race for a higher casting stat or other handy bonus. So, while human is a really good choice, you do consider other things. Lesser planetouched might be solid.

In PF, you get the feat, you get a bonus to your casting stat, and oh look, humans only can take free extra spells known as their favored class. You get to eradicate the main weakness of the sorc. No other race competes.

In PF, a player would have to be crazy to choose an option other than human for a sorc. So, your specific example shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.

[Psyren]

No you don't. In 3.5, your sorc has to choose between going human for the feat, or going some obscure race for a higher casting stat or other handy bonus. So, while human is a really good choice, you do consider other things. Lesser planetouched might be solid.

In PF, you get the feat, you get a bonus to your casting stat, and oh look, humans only can take free extra spells known as their favored class. You get to eradicate the main weakness of the sorc. No other race competes.

In PF, a player would have to be crazy to choose an option other than human for a sorc. So, your specific example shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Yeah, I agree that the Human FC bonus for sorcerers was overpowered. That's what, one broken race-class combination out of how many?

PF enabled race-class combinations that in 3.5 would have been headscratchers at best. Enjoy your 3.5 half-orc paladin for instance. And Half-elves... lol?

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, I agree that the Human FC bonus for sorcerers was overpowered. That's what, one broken race-class combination out of how many?

PF enabled race-class combinations that in 3.5 would have been headscratchers at best. Enjoy your 3.5 half-orc paladin for instance. And Half-elves... lol?

It would still have been an excellent choice for say, wizard. The choice is no longer "primary stat boost or feat". It's "primary stat boost and feat or primary stat boost and stat I don't care about much".

So, you still end up with less choice, not more. Non human races are generally a trap.


In 3.5, a half-orc paladin was a poor choice mostly because half-orc was not a great choice. That said, it's a full bab class, you're getting str, and your skill list is not great to begin with. The loss of int is marginal. Cha is slightly more important, but trading it out for strength is fair. It's not abysmal, but there are better options. Someone who wants str and is limited to phb races might pick it.

In 3.5, for monoclass chars, favored race is irrelevant.

In PF, half-orcs get the +2 to favorite stat. This is, compared against human, entirely balanced out by humans getting exactly the same thing. So...there's no reason to take this instead of just being human and getting a feat too.

In PF, human paladins have the alternate option to get energy resistance as a favored class option. This isn't huge, but it's kind of cool and a useful options. Half orc paladins get...nope, nothing.

Oh, and the fact that you count as both human and orc for any effect related to race is mostly a negative. It doesn't say for prereqs, so that doesn't help you at all...it just means that, say, rangers are more likely to get favored enemy bonuses against you.

Nope, pretty much just made half orc paladin more pointless.

[TheArsenal]

Well thier adventure paths are great.

[Psyren]

So, you still end up with less choice, not more. Non human races are generally a trap.

Incorrect. "Trap" implies "taking this will hurt you" which none of the non-human races do anymore.

In 3.5, for monoclass chars, favored race is irrelevant.

Exactly; this is a problem, and one that PF nicely fixed without kludgy substitution levels.

In PF, half-orcs get the +2 to favorite stat. This is, compared against human, entirely balanced out by humans getting exactly the same thing. So...there's no reason to take this instead of just being human and getting a feat too.

Oh? Is there a PF feat that gets you a bite attack? How about darkvision? How about both at once? Not to mention they do get feat equivalents, such as Lucky or Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

Going human is now a meaningful choice (i.e. I'd rather have a general feat than those other things) instead of mandatory (I'd rather not suck by having a net -2 stats.) In other words, I can go H-O without feeling I got cornholed by the system.

In PF, human paladins have the alternate option to get energy resistance as a favored class option. This isn't huge, but it's kind of cool and a useful options. Half orc paladins get...nope, nothing.

Which is better than the less than nothing (i.e. disincentives) they were getting in 3.5. But I guess that's not enough for you.

[Reverent-One]

Oh, and the fact that you count as both human and orc for any effect related to race is mostly a negative. It doesn't say for prereqs, so that doesn't help you at all...it just means that, say, rangers are more likely to get favored enemy bonuses against you.

What? No. It says for they can count as human for any effect related to race, which includes feat pre-reqs. Explict reference to this is from this feat:

The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.
Prerequisite: Human.
Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as
both human and that race for any effects related to race.
For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both
a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats,
how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.

Exact same wording at the half-orc racial feature, and the example makes it clear that the wording means it counts for feats.

[Tyndmyr]

Incorrect. "Trap" implies "taking this will hurt you" which none of the non-human races do anymore.

No. They still hurt you relative to picking human. Boosting everything equally doesn't change trap status.

Exactly; this is a problem, and one that PF nicely fixed without kludgy substitution levels.

Except that human is awesome in that they get better alternate favored class bonuses than basically anyone else.

Oh? Is there a PF feat that gets you a bite attack? How about darkvision? How about both at once? Not to mention they do get feat equivalents, such as Lucky or Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

The darkvision existed in 3.5 as well. That was not a relative change.

Bite attack? PF half orcs do not get a bite attack. I don't know what you're talking about. Are you counting toothy? Because, if so, that replaces existing racial features, and it's a 1d4 bite attack, so it's pretty terrible.

EWP? He gets to treat weapons with "orc" in the name as martial. This is pretty terrible. 3.5 had misc fluffy proficiencies too. They are generally irrelevant. This gets you the orcish double axe as the only weapon that qualifies. Wee, have fun enjoying the fun of twf. This EWP gets you no special abilities or anything. It's just another generic two ended weapon. Hell, the SIMPLE weapon quarterstaff is almost as good. Since you have to take something that gives you all martial weapons proficiency to get this, you're obviously better off taking a martial weapon. No value.

Going human is now a meaningful choice (i.e. I'd rather have a general feat than those other things) instead of mandatory (I'd rather not suck by having a net -2 stats.) In other words, I can go H-O without feeling I got cornholed by the system.

No. The reason people went orcish/half orcish was "I want strength more than a feat. I don't care about the mental penalties much". It was a legit reason. That reason is gone.

You *could* try to play a orcish sorc/wiz now, I suppose. Except a human is still far, far better at it.

Which is better than the less than nothing (i.e. disincentives) they were getting in 3.5. But I guess that's not enough for you.

I've already demonstrated that the human/half orc gap is wider in PF than it is in 3.5. That's a greater disincentive, not a lesser one.

Flip through the PF Favored Class options for yourself. Humans are the obviously superior choice in a great many of them, even before you include the free feat.

There is essentially nothing that is clearly better than free feat + equally good primary stat + favored class options.

What? No. It says for they can count as human for any effect related to race, which includes feat pre-reqs. Explict reference to this is from this feat:

Exact same wording at the half-orc racial feature, and the example makes it clear that the wording means it counts for feats.

I'll grant that this is a strong implication. That would upgrade it to mostly neutral. Unfortunately, it clearly does not count for such things as favored class options or alternate racial traits. That might actually make it an advantage. As it is, it ends up being fairly unlikely to come up...but probably still marginally negative. human/orc is not really an improvement over orc. It gives you access to Eclectic, but that's of marginal use since you can't use a second favored class on a PrC. It would also qualify you for the feat you mention...but that would be rather pointless.

[Mando Knight]

The big weird issue with PF I have is that they make literally no attempt at balancing monster races (at least they know LA is terrible), then go ahead and list such races that can start at level 1... Aasimar (+4 stat modifier! Built in energy resistance! Darkvision! Daylight, in case Darkvision isn't enough! Outsider (Native)! Diplomacy bonus!) and Noble Drow (At-will SLAs, +8 total stat modifier, a relatively non-negligible SR...) especially.

[Curious]

The big weird issue with PF I have is that they make literally no attempt at balancing monster races (at least they know LA is terrible), then go ahead and list such races that can start at level 1... Aasimar (+4 stat modifier! Built in energy resistance! Darkvision! Daylight, in case Darkvision isn't enough! Outsider (Native)! Diplomacy bonus!) and Noble Drow (At-will SLAs, +8 total stat modifier, a relatively non-negligible SR...) especially.

If you closely examine the entry in the bestiary, you will notice that the Noble Drow Cleric provided as an example has a CR equal to her level, whereas most other player races have a CR equal to their class level - 1. Ergo, Drow Nobles are LA + 1.

Also, I would take human over Aasimar any day of the week.

[Psyren]

No. They still hurt you relative to picking human. Boosting everything equally doesn't change trap status.

You're still wrong. A 3.5 half-orc going paladin would be a trap because it made you ineffective at being a paladin. A PF half-orc going paladin is not.

It's really basic math, I don't see why this is so difficult to get. +2 > -2.

Except that human is awesome in that they get better alternate favored class bonuses than basically anyone else.

Humans are still a great choice; they are however no longer in total isolation from everyone else.

The darkvision existed in 3.5 as well. That was not a relative change.

Humans have darkvision in 3.5? Do you have a quote for that? I don't know what you're talking about.

EWP? He gets to treat weapons with "orc" in the name as martial.

No, not that; you can get dire flails and spiked chains as Martial also.

No. The reason people went orcish/half orcish was "I want strength more than a feat. I don't care about the mental penalties much". It was a legit reason. That reason is gone.

You can still get strength, and do so without mental penalties at all. It's called putting the +2 in Strength.

You *could* try to play a orcish sorc/wiz now, I suppose. Except a human is still far, far better at it.

I'm not seeing a point here.
PF half-orc caster/gish > 3.5 half-orc caster/gish.
PF half-orc melee = 3.5 half-orc melee.
+1 > 0.

[Tyndmyr]

You're still wrong. A 3.5 half-orc going paladin would be a trap because it made you ineffective at being a paladin. A PF half-orc going paladin is not.

It's really basic math, I don't see why this is so difficult to get. +2 > -2.

Because you're comparing in isolation. Trading cha out for str is a valid option for a paladin. Losing the feat in addition hurts notably, but in core only, str options are limited.

Pathfinder added +2 to EVERYTHING. This is not a relative change. This does NOT make half orc better than human, because human gets the EXACT SAME STAT BOOST.

So, instead of a choice that is admittedly human skewed, but actually results in different things, your choice is "do you want the feat or not?" Picking the "not" option is not really reasonable.

Humans are still a great choice; they are however no longer in total isolation from everyone else.

They are in more isolation now.

Humans have darkvision in 3.5? Do you have a quote for that? I don't know what you're talking about.

Half orcs did. If it was a determining feature in PF, it would have been in 3.5 too. It really wasn't. Light sources are pretty easy to come by. Again, you are mistaking differences within an edition for differences between editions.

No, not that; you can get dire flails and spiked chains as Martial also.

Not "also". Instead of. If, and only if, alternate racial traits are in play. Human has a feat so...if they cared, they could get this. Or anything else. Yes, you can play games with alternate features for most things. Humans have a better standard feature than almost any alternate feature. Hell, despite having some solid alternate features(hello, massive bonus to stabilization and negative hp before dying), their main racial trait is so good nobody really considers most of them.

Oh, except for that trait I just listed. That doesn't replace the feat, it just replaces the skill boost. Wow, humans are crushing orcs all over the place.

You can still get strength, and do so without mental penalties at all. It's called putting the +2 in Strength.

Yes. PF stats are higher than 3.5 stats. PF human puts the +2 in Str as well. NO NET CHANGE.

I'm not seeing a point here.
PF half-orc caster/gish > 3.5 half-orc caster/gish.
PF half-orc melee = 3.5 half-orc melee.
+1 > 0.

Er, not really. First off, factor out the +2, because in the conversion to PF, EVERYONE gets a +2. This is just inflation. It does not make the half orc better than anyone else.

Secondly, your gish uses either int or cha as a casting stat, not both. So, your PF gish has a +2 to the casting stat and a -2 to str relative to the 3.5 gish half orc. This is a balanced trade, and is roughly equal.

Oh, the melee doesn't care about how bad his cha is? He just got worse relative to everyone else.

So...
PF half-orc caster/gish = 3.5 half-orc caster/gish.
PF half-orc melee < 3.5 half-orc melee.

There we go. Inflationary changes to everyone does not make one race superior.

And, frankly, if you're playing a gish, there is basically no motivation to choose half orc in PF. It's a terrible pick.