D&D 3e/3.5e/d20The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).
It's notable that the whole point of the Pathfinder RPG was to tweak the 3.5 system but allow players to continue using their supplements from 3.x D&D. Now, basically this means that 3.x material is PF material, which essentially gives Pathfinder an out of the gate start with high amounts of supplementary material.
They even rebalanced the core classes (how well varies) to make them more in line with options provided in 3.5 splat-books, so that there are reasons to go into higher levels of base classes without prestige-classing out of them. Such adjustments were intended to make characters who didn't multi-class a lot, or those without a lot of prestige classes, just as viable. They also gave a face-lift to the existing OGL prestige classes (Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, etc) which made them a bit nicer as well.
Really, the best advice would be to check it out and see what you think. If you're a fan of 3.x, then much of it will feel familiar and nice. If you're expecting it to be identical to 3.x, then you will be disappointed. If you're expecting it to be a completely different experience, then you will also be disappointed.
I found it pretty nice though, and currently am playing in a 3.x/Pathfinder hybrid with other options, and a few extra house-rules (I like tinkering with the system and consider myself something of a game-designer).
I'm particularly fond of PF's skill system which is simple and elegant. To sum it up quickly: You have a rank limit equal to your HD in any skill. If that skill is a class skill for one of your classes you receive a +3 bonus to that skill. This means at low levels a rogue could have a +4 bonus to stealth, while the fighter could have a +1. However, the fighter could eventually reach a +20 bonus at 20th level, where the +23 the rogue has isn't as large an advantage. I like this because it allows more diverse characters without the need to multi-class a lot, while it keeps skills associated with different classes.
It's notable that the whole point of the Pathfinder RPG was to tweak the 3.5 system but allow players to continue using their supplements from 3.x D&D. Now, basically this means that 3.x material is PF material, which essentially gives Pathfinder an out of the gate start with high amounts of supplementary material.
They even rebalanced the core classes (how well varies) to make them more in line with options provided in 3.5 splat-books, so that there are reasons to go into higher levels of base classes without prestige-classing out of them. Such adjustments were intended to make characters who didn't multi-class a lot, or those without a lot of prestige classes, just as viable. They also gave a face-lift to the existing OGL prestige classes (Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, etc) which made them a bit nicer as well.
This is what they advertise, yes, but it doesn't play out in practice. Updating a single monster statblock from 3.x to pathfinder requires, at a minimum, recalculating grapple/trip/etc to the new CMB/etc system, recalculating Bab depending on type, and recalculating skills using the new system. Due to combining skills and the new flight skill, some of this is inherently subjective, and has no automatic portability method. In addition, anything with class levels or feats will have much more widespread compatibility issues.
Converting from 3.5 to PF is less difficult than converting from 3.5 to 4e, but more difficult than converting from 3.0 to 3.5(which can often be used entirely as is).
The re-balancing of base classes would best be described as "changed the base classes some", as it mostly consists of throwing more power at everything. This includes classes like wizard, that were already at the top of the power curve, and now have access to all sorts of fun, ridiculously powerful things. Significant changes, yes. Significantly improved balance, not at all.
Most of the prestige classes received only minimal changes. Some, such as loremaster, received none.
__________________
Have been sick, off forums for like...a month and a half. Apologies for anything I've missed, still in catch-up mode.
"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimization."
Work on my homebrew system, CRE8, is still marching slowly onwards. I think I can see the light at the end of the tunnel -- an Alpha release -- in the distance now. Read my Design Goals here.
The biggest problem is that both versions still allow a DM to make a paladin fall for anything at anytime, anywhere, and the RAW would justify him in every case.
No, Raw doesn't justify non-major breaks of conduct making you fall in 3.5. Well, we could go by 144 breaks meaning of grossly (actual definition), but I'm sure most DMs use gross to mean major (second deifinition).
Sorry Jaron, this is wrong. Like I said, I'm in a Pathfinder campaign, and Power Attack is used for pretty much the same thing as it usually is used for in 3.5 games, ie "Take a small penalty to hit something harder." The only time it's an issue is if you only ever used Power Attack in Shock Trooper builds or similar, which most people don't do.
Actually, I've almost never seen Power Attack used without Shock Trooper. Usually people want to actually hit things. So yeah, from what I've seen, 3.5 Power Attack is totally gone in Pathfinder, replaced by an oddball version of Weapon Specialization.
Actually, I've almost never seen Power Attack used without Shock Trooper. Usually people want to actually hit things. So yeah, from what I've seen, 3.5 Power Attack is totally gone in Pathfinder, replaced by an oddball version of Weapon Specialization.
• 3.5 Power Attack = Take a variable penalty to attack roll to add damage in a 1:1 ratio, 2:1 if with a two-handed weapon.
• Pathfinder Power Attack = Take a fixed penalty to attack roll to add damage in a 2:1 ratio, 3:1 if with a two-handed weapon.
The standard word people generally use for this sort of thing is "changed", not "gone".
__________________
I'm the author of the Alex Verus urban fantasy novels. Book #3 in the series, Taken, is now out in the US and UK! For updates, check my blog or the forum thread.
• 3.5 Power Attack = Take a variable penalty to attack roll to add damage in a 1:1 ratio, 2:1 if with a two-handed weapon.
• Pathfinder Power Attack = Take a fixed penalty to attack roll to add damage in a 2:1 ratio, 3:1 if with a two-handed weapon.
The standard word people generally use for this sort of thing is "changed", not "gone".
3.5 Power Attack: Take as large a penalty as you want (often to AC, to a maximum point) to add incredible amounts of damage to your attack, enough to one hit kill most enemies and thus making melees a threat at high levels).
Pathfinder Power Attack: Take a small penalty to hit for a slightly larger bonus to damage, roughly comperable to Weapon Specialization, a feat which was rarely worth taking in 3.5. Basically, from a mechanical standpoint, Pathfinder Power Attack is Monkey Grip (or close to it).
It's the same name, but it's a totally different thing. The point of Power Attack (allowing melees to do enough damage to be a threat at high levels) is gone.
• 3.5 Power Attack = Take a variable penalty to attack roll to add damage in a 1:1 ratio, 2:1 if with a two-handed weapon.
• Pathfinder Power Attack = Take a fixed penalty to attack roll to add damage in a 2:1 ratio, 3:1 if with a two-handed weapon.
The standard word people generally use for this sort of thing is "changed", not "gone".
True, but sometimes you can barely hit someone so you could in 3.5 PA for 1, but in Pathfinder you either use or don't.
This is a loss of versatility.
Except that Shock Trooper isn't core (source=Complete War) so we're not making a clear and clean comparison here.
Core 3.5= Power Attack exchanges 1 point of to hit for 1-2 points of damage.
Core Pathfinder= Power Attack exchanges 1 point of to hit for 2-3 points of damage, but has a cap.
Essentially, for any amount of damage up to Pathfinder's cap, you have a better chance to hit in pathfinder than in 3.5. Assume I want to deal 10 extra damage with my one hander. Pathfinder has me taking a -5 to hit while 3.5 has me taking a -10. It's true I won't be able to do more than 10 extra damage in Pathfinder with my one handed weapon (wielded as a one handed weapon), but I also won't have as a bad a chance to hit.
In exchange for the better accuracy, you're not able to select how much you want to power attack for. I'd say that's pretty balanced. Now watch for the splat book that improves the damage trade or that accelerates the progression to 1/3 levels. They might even print Shock Trooper, though I doubt it.
3.5 Power Attack: Take as large a penalty as you want (often to AC, to a maximum point) to add incredible amounts of damage to your attack, enough to one hit kill most enemies and thus making melees a threat at high levels).
That's not how it usually gets used. Most players don't use Power Attack in ubercharger builds, they use it to take a penalty to hit harder, which is what Pathfinder Power Attack does.
The issue here is that you're looking at Power Attack's usefulness in regard to super-optimised builds designed to kill everything they can land a full attack on, instead of looking at how it gets used in casual play. The fighter in our Pathfinder party uses Power Attack in EXACTLY the same way as the fighter in our old 3.5 party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starbuck_II
True, but sometimes you can barely hit someone so you could in 3.5 PA for 1, but in Pathfinder you either use or don't.
This is a loss of versatility.
This is a fair point. I'm personally still not sure about whether core-wise, Pathfinder's Power Attack is a buff or a nerf. You gain in terms of rate of return, but lose out in versatility. Hard to say which is worth more.
__________________
I'm the author of the Alex Verus urban fantasy novels. Book #3 in the series, Taken, is now out in the US and UK! For updates, check my blog or the forum thread.
Another reason it was likely changed was for speedy play - you could have your Power Attack damage and to-hit written beforehand on your character sheet without having to calculate it on the fly all the time. To make up for the lack of versatility, you get bigger returns. It's a little less flexible, but much more accessible. And at higher levels, that damage ratio increase starts to get crazy.
That's not how it usually gets used. Most players don't use Power Attack in ubercharger builds, they use it to take a penalty to hit harder, which is what Pathfinder Power Attack does.
The issue here is that you're looking at Power Attack's usefulness in regard to super-optimised builds designed to kill everything they can land a full attack on, instead of looking at how it gets used in casual play. The fighter in our Pathfinder party uses Power Attack in EXACTLY the same way as the fighter in our old 3.5 party.
You seem to be assuming "casual play" means a very specific thing. I see Shock Trooper in casual play all the time, usually because it means weaker classes like Monks can actually contribute at high levels. "Ubercharger" is the same as "has Shock Trooper and uses it."
Anyway, the point is that the feat is so different that it functionally is a different feat of the same name.
A level 10 fighter in Pathfinder with 18 Strength, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Weapon Training and Power Attack normally has 17 attack bonus.
Power Attack on a 2 handed weapon:
14 attack bonus, + 19 damage
I really don't see how the new power attack ruined anything for the fighter. He still trades off attack bonus for extra damage, the attack bonus loss/damage increase has improved and it scales with levels. He doesn't have the ability to choose how much power he wants to use, but he doesn't really need that either.
Sure you can go through the hundreds of books available in 3.5 to dig up some feats that can top these numbers, but this is just from the core rules in Pathfinder. The Advanced Player's Handbook is on its way and you can expect to see a lot of goodies in terms of damage increasing feats for the fighter there.
__________________
T'ain't what you do.
Last edited by Ellington : 02-05-2010 at 04:04 PM.
Anyway, the point is that the feat is so different that it functionally is a different feat of the same name.
It's the exact same mechanic. You take a penalty to attack in exchange for a bonus to damage. I've seen it used, repeatedly, in the exact same way. I really don't know what else I can tell you.
__________________
I'm the author of the Alex Verus urban fantasy novels. Book #3 in the series, Taken, is now out in the US and UK! For updates, check my blog or the forum thread.
I'll just quote the mechanics here if there still seems to be some misunderstanding:
From the Pathfinder SRD
Power Attack (Combat)
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
For early level fighters the damage output is slightly lower but it goes up in power at higher levels, where they needed the boost. It's pretty much an increase in damage no matter how you look at it.
By the way, why did Pathfinder remove Overhand chop?
I thought it was a great idea in Beta.
Was that the one which got turned into Vital Strike? I can't remember what it did.
__________________
I'm the author of the Alex Verus urban fantasy novels. Book #3 in the series, Taken, is now out in the US and UK! For updates, check my blog or the forum thread.
The monk damage increase via improved natural attack was a very cheap way of increasing your damage by leaps and bounds for just one feat. The monk's damage output is actually pretty good in Pathfinder when using Flurry of Blows, just slightly below the fighter in fact, and the fighter is probably the highest melee dpr class in Pathfinder.
__________________
T'ain't what you do.
Last edited by Ellington : 02-05-2010 at 04:27 PM.
Was that the one which got turned into Vital Strike? I can't remember what it did.
It doubled Str bonus similar to VS it was a standard action, but if you took further feats in the chain it became useable in a full attack (unlike Vital Strike).
Backhand Swing was 2nd feat in chain: 1st attack has double str or 3x Str bonus if +11 BAB.
Devastating Blow: This one was a standard action, but -5 to hit. If hit, auto Crit (no confirm roll, but doesn't activate things that rely on Crits like Vorpal or flaming burst).
I can see how DB might be not best as some people hate crit happening often, but Backhand swing was nice.
So you only add 6 to 12 Damage (assuming +6 str) to your attacks, but it has no hit penalty like power Attack so it was decent.
Vital Strike is always a standard action (no full attack). Since VS didn't multiple Str bonus, the don't interact (having both in the game wouldn't be Overpowered).
It's the exact same mechanic. You take a penalty to attack in exchange for a bonus to damage. I've seen it used, repeatedly, in the exact same way. I really don't know what else I can tell you.
Take a penalty to attack and get extra damage is what defines it? I guess that makes Monkey Grip into Power Attack, since you take a penalty on your attack and you get bonus damage (higher damage dice).
__________________
Definition of DMPC:
1: a character that if it was run by a non-DM would be considered a PC; a special kind of Ally (see p. 104 of the 3.5 DMG)
2: (derogatory) any character used by a DM that disrupts the game Need to replace those core 3.5 books, check out Gauric Myths.
Take a penalty to attack and get extra damage is what defines it? I guess that makes Monkey Grip into Power Attack, since you take a penalty on your attack and you get bonus damage (higher damage dice).
Oh come on.
It's the exact same mechanic except you can't choose how attack you want to sacrifice. The damage output is still higher no matter how you look at it, except at early levels.
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
For early level fighters the damage output is slightly lower but it goes up in power at higher levels, where they needed the boost. It's pretty much an increase in damage no matter how you look at it.
3.5 melee, using Shock Trooper (since that's what I said we were using), at level 6: -6 to AC, +12 to damage.
Pathfinder (we'll assume Shock Trooper is allowed, since that's fair), at level 6: -2 to AC, +6 to damage.
"An increase in damage no matter how you look at it" you say?
In fact, the Pathfinder version of Power Attack yields half or less damage at every level, because of the cap. So... which rediculous way were you looking at it that yielded superior damage? The one where the Power Attacker in 3.5 doesn't actually Power Attack for maximum, which he would pretty much always be doing with Shock Trooper, which is exactly what I said I was talking about?
Fine, you'll deal more damage when using shock trooper, (you could bring that over to Pathfinder if you'd want to, the feat seems backwards compatible enough.)
When you're making a full attack, however, you'll be gaining a lot more damage from the Pathfinder version. Damage output isn't your damage alone (unless your enemies are wearing paper mache armor), it's also your chance to hit, which will be a lot better in Pathfinder.
__________________
T'ain't what you do.
Last edited by Ellington : 02-05-2010 at 05:01 PM.
So... which rediculous way were you looking at it that yielded superior damage?
Well, let's take a wild stab in the dark here . . . maybe the one that DOESN'T assume Shock Trooper? The discussion might be a bit more productive if you compared core Pathfinder to core 3.5, not core Pathfinder to Mr-I-Can-One-Hit-The-Tarrasque.
__________________
I'm the author of the Alex Verus urban fantasy novels. Book #3 in the series, Taken, is now out in the US and UK! For updates, check my blog or the forum thread.
Fine, you'll deal more damage when using shock trooper, (you could bring that over to Pathfinder if you'd want to, the feat seems backwards compatible enough.)
I did say all along that I considered the main point to be when using Shock Trooper. And you also deal more damage when you can otherwise boost your Power Attack without too much danger, such as when using touch attacks (Wraithstrike) or against some enemies when using a Brilliant Energy weapon.
Quote:
When you're making a full attack, however, you'll be gaining a lot more damage from the Pathfinder version. Damage output isn't your damage alone (unless your enemies are wearing paper mache armor), it's also your chance to hit, which will be a lot better in Pathfinder.
Unless your chance to hit doesn't matter because you can hit them anyway. The point is, Power Attack is adjusted to the situation, allowing you to take small penalties against hard to hit opponents and big penalties for massive damage when the opportunity arises. That's the whole point of 3.5 Power Attack. The Pathfinder feat, however, is static, which is a whole different thing. It's the same mechanic as Monkey Grip really. After all, a first level character with a Greataxe and Monkey Grip has -2 to hit for +4 to damage. Later on, if that guy gets big enough he can realize greater gains from his -2 to hit. Though the numbers are slightly different, the mechanic is the same. Pathfinder Power Attack is reflavored Monkey Grip.
And Shock Trooper != Ubercharger. One shotting the terrasque was not what I was talking about at all. Notice my example was a 12th level melee doing an extra 24 damage (instead of the 12 bonus damage a Pathfinder melee would do). Does that sound like an ubercharger to you? Or just someone using Shock Trooper because once in a while melees ought to have nice things (like Improved Trip and Power Attack!).
But with Pathfinder power attack, you don't have to worry about all that variable bonus nonsense. It's streamlined and it gives you better returns.
I think the flavor behind Power Attack is that you're putting all your might into the swing, regardless of accuracy - a fighter precisely measuring exactly how much accuracy he wants to give up for damage is a little silly.
But I've pretty much spent my reasonable arguments in favor of Pathfinder's Power Attack. If I didn't convince you at least a little, I don't think it's going to happen.
No, Raw doesn't justify non-major breaks of conduct making you fall in 3.5. Well, we could go by 144 breaks meaning of grossly (actual definition), but I'm sure most DMs use gross to mean major (second deifinition).
DM can do it, but it isn't RAW.
I was talking about the notes for 'acting honorably', which lists several restrictions, and continues on, as if there are more and that these restrictions are part of a tacit understanding. What is considered honorable is judged by cultural and societal norms: what is honorable for one society might not be honorable in another. Thus, one could simply state an action is dishonorable, and be right every time.
As for Power Attack, it's essentially the video game version of the PnP feat. I'm confused as to why they chose to restrict it, but it works out okay, it just won't see any use if the choice between the 3.5 version and this is allowed.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: pathfinder good/bad?
