|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Personally I find it necessary. A big problem with Druids was that their wildshape basically let them take on every role in the party. You can wildshape into a combat beast and make the fighter look like an exhausted school-aged child, or wildshape into a small animal with flight and make the Rogue's stealth abilities look like a clamoring one-man band.
It neede to be reigned in on one or the other, and for my personal preference, I'm glad they focused it on combat.
Rolled stats are typically more allocated around the mean than point buy. You could roll 18 18 18 5 4 7, but more likely you're going to get something closer to 9 13 13 14 12 13, so no dumping your physical stats into the toilet to get stupid high mental stats. That's not to say it couldn't happen, of course, but a player can't just rely on it when planning their characters.
Pathfinder reigned this in by just making them flat bonuses to stats, but on the other hand 3.PF wild shape offered very little restriction beyond size categories. 5E cut out the fly speed before level 8, and shortened the time you're able to wild shape and made casting spells in that form a high level class feature. On the other hand, with Circle of the Moon you get multi attack nearly out of the gate.
Was it really necessary to be condescending about it? I said this is just how I pegged it so far and it would likely change with input. I based it on the experiences of players at my table and comparing similar class abilities. If you have a different opinion, I would be open to hearing it without calling it ridiculous.
So, now that 5E has been out for some time and we've all probably had a reasonable opportunity to test out the classes, it's time for our favorite TTRPG past-time:
OK, seriously though, I'm curious to get people's opinions on the individual classes and see how 5E's class list compares to the PF class list. Obviously, in PF, the generally agreed upon order (core) is something like:
Wizard >>>>>>>> Cleric/Druid > Sorcerer > Barbarian/Bard/Paladin/Ranger > Fighter/Monk/Rogue (Slashed out classes that are comparable in strength, although the lists might vary a bit. One person might says Barbarian above Bard and another not, for instance.)
So looking at 5E, here's how I've pegged it:
TIER 1 (Godlike):
Wizard: Duh. Some of the power has been reigned in by including the Concentration mechanic and save-every-round, but it's still far and away the show stopper. Throw in some of the most powerful school-dependent abilities in the current game, and you've got a class that's still king of the hill.
Druid: Wildshape is in some ways less ridiculous than Pathfinder, and in some ways way more. With rolled stats, they're damn good - with point buy, they're freaking unstoppable. In some ways even better than a Wizard since they get a lot more buff spells and less save-every-round options.
TIER 2 (Powerful):
Bard: Once again, the Bard is the queen of versatility. And still stepping on the poor rogue's toes a bit, but the rogue gets a little bit more to keep them from languishing like they did in 3.PF. But the Valor Bard is a capable combatant, and the Lore bard is a pretty awesome spellcaster. And as always, makes everyone around her better.
Cleric: This is a high Tier 2, approaching Tier 1 with the correct Domain choices. Not quite as breakable as Druids or Wizards, but always powerful, and occasionally ungodly so.
Sorcerer: I wasn't really sold on the Sorcerer at first, but upon further consideration, this gets a big boost from now being the only class that does metamagic. I would honestly probably put the Dragon Blooded here and the Wild Mage at Tier 3, but it'd be a high Tier 3, so it averages out. What keeps it from hitting Tier 1 is that the new spellcasting rules steps on its schtick a little and its list is more limited than the wizard's.
TIER 3 (Good):
Fighter: Fighters got a lot of love from WotC this version. With enchantments like "Keen" and feats like Improved Critical gone, only fighters can expand their range. Fighters are the undisputed masters of maneuvers and get more attacks than any class aside from monk - and thanks to the new movement/action rules, no more Full Attack issue. Eldritch Knight is now an archetype that ties into it, which gives it another boost. The big complaints about fighters have always been that they are only good for hitting things and that they're not even the best option to do so. Well, WotC improved the Fighter in that regard --- unfortunately, just not both things at the same time.
Monk: Never thought I'd see the day. But Monks are now a solid, viable class with Dex-based everything and some really cool, effective archetypes. No class benefited more from the new movement rules than the Monk, either.
Paladin: The Paladin has been changed greatly from 3.PF. It's lost some of its attack ability (which was approaching absurd in PF, anyway) but retained most of its defensive capability. Unfortunately, the replacements for Detect/Smite Evil are much weaker and far more situational in addition to being limited. However, allies will still be grateful to have you around when you're adding your Charisma bonus to their saves.
Rogue: Nope, that's not a typo. New critical, poison, and stealth rules finally make it a viable option. Honestly with the Bard still stepping on its toes a bit, it won't quite reach Tier 2, but for once it can actually do something the Bard can't - and that is damage, damage, damage. Assassin auto-crit with a Shortbow at Level 3 = 6d6 + Dex damage. Roll up a Lightfoot halfling and fell ECL-CR foes in one hit.
Warlock: Hands down the best blaster. You can blast to your hearts content from 300 feet away at Level 2. Unfortunately, the limited spell list holds it back a bit. It can be a low Tier-2 or mid Tier-3 depending on the Pact chosen, but it ultimately sits comfortably here.
TIER 4 (Mediocre or Pointless):
Barbarian: Oh, how the mighty have fallen. There are some good options here, but not enough to justify it at all. It just needs to be said --- Rage sucks. It doesn't last nearly long enough and the benefits aren't nearly good enough for the penalties you incur using it. A few minutes +proficiency bonus to damage and advantage on STR checks is nothing compared to the constant +2 damage a fighter can get or a Druid getting her advantage by transforming into a large creature for HOURS. (That's hours, not minutes.) It seems like it gets crappier versions of things other classes do, but with the added suckage of imposing a penalty to use it. (Reckless attack, unarmored defense.) Just a waste.
Ranger: For the first few levels, Beast Master is so weak it may as well be Tier 5 - but once it picks up, it's okay. The Hunter starts slightly stronger but doesn't get much better. The spell list is 'meh', the abilities are 'meh', it's just all around a giant meh. The Ranger gets NOTHING over the other martial classes fight wise, and nothing over the other spellcasting classes magic wise. I've been trying to find a reason to use it beyond flavor's sake, and I just can't. Favored Enemy has possibly the WORST revision I have ever seen --- it makes the Paladin's Smite Evil replacement look positively overpowered.
Obviously, there's a lot more 5E to play and the list might change over time. But I'm very curious for the others how your experience stacks up. How would you rate the classes in the PHB? Favorite/least favorite and so on?
Of course in that case, where some gold and honeyed words would suffice, it does make you question the necessity of wasting a 'dominate' spell in the first place.
The +2 has never been an issue for me, though. Will saves go neglected a lot with my players in favor of AC and damage. You think they would've caught on by now, but somehow I still always have ECL 10 games featuring a fighter whose Will save is a piddling +4.
8)Taking control of characters away from players.
I understand the frustration with this, but at the same time, I think a few rounds of 'losing control' is made out to be much worse than it is. GM's shouldn't get spam happy with it by any means, but honestly, this is treated like a mortal sin when it's barely a besetting sin. Don't do it too often or too zealously and it's okay.
One of my solutions is I still let the player play their PC, but within certain parameters. 'OK, you've succumbed to the vampire's dominate attack and you hear a voice instructing you to help her besiege the village. How would your character do that with his abilities?'
7) "Required items." (Silversheen, Alchemist's Fire, etc.)
In AP's, you have a point. In home games, I think this is a GM failing. Too many GM's fall into the trap of trying to use everything they can find in the Bestiaries. Find a 'type' with a common weakness and (mostly) stick with it. Make your game about Shifters, or Undead, or Trolls or Dragons (with kobolds and Dragonkin lackeys) or humanoid masterminds and use variations on that instead of the kitchen sink approach. That's a personal preference of course - but I feel like themed games create a more cohesive story.
If you are the kitchen sink sort, this is also the easiest fix. Just stop using those abilities on monsters.
6)The perception skill.
Perception is balanced by the fact that only one person in the party actually needs it. So yeah, Acrobatics isn't used nearly as often, but you'll have to all roll it individually. It might be a bit frustrating if the Ranger is making every perception check ever and your Cleric isn't, but A) Clerics are still more powerful and B) if you're not working against each other, you'll still reap the benefits.
5)Stuff you can't fix (at your level)
I agree that nothing at that level should have a permanent duration (Looking at you, Blindness/Deafness) but I think it can be balanced out as long as any of those effects can at least by cured with a night's rest.
4)Required magic items
Agree completely. This is the biggest problem with numbers bloat --- when 5E brought everything back down to reasonable AC, HP, and saves the best part was that it took away the required magic items list. I get tired of magical treasure becoming mundane because everybody is expected to have 300,000gp+ worth of gear.
3) Monsters with debilitating abilities on every attack.
Agree mostly. I pretty much houserule every SoD effect on an attack has a 24-hour immunity on a successful save. Ability and level damage, whatever, but the paralyzing thing is so irritating. Grapple/grab aren't really the worst conditions you can be stuck in and PC's can pretty much do the same thing if they feel like.
2)"Save or suck" & 1) Save or die
Combined since it's pretty much the same thing. But I do hate the All-or-Nothing approach and I would also support moving to a system with less pronounced successful effects in exchange for weaker partial effects if saves are made. 'Cloudkill' is pretty much how I'd like every current SoS spell to work . . . because honestly, at a certain level, you should be able to straight up kill low-level minions or (in the villain's case) peasantry and the town guard without any resistance or saves whatsoever.
Obviously this differentiates from group to group and character to character, but as a general rule:
1) What are your party (and its members if they differ) comfortable with killing?
Things that are either incapable of reason or evil by nature. So demons, devils, undead and so on, as well as destructive animals and magical beasts like bulettes. Constructs, of course.
2) What do they not like killing?
Anything sentient. I, and most of the other DM's, don't typically do 'Always Chaotic Evil' races like orcs, drow, and goblins. If it's something that can be reasoned with, they'll usually reason with it. The only exception are evil spellcasters - necromancers, in particular.
3) What does the DM (or you if you are the DM) really not like being killed, what will they come down upon?
I'm usually pretty loose, but I don't like when they kill lackeys who aren't an immediate threat. Town guards in a corrupt city and the like.
4) What makes a murderhobo for you?
Go here, kill that, rinse, repeat. Doesn't care about motivation or story; just provides XP and loot. That was actually something that really bothered me about a module I played recently where the PC's are tasked with clearing out some orcs about two days' travel from a town. The orcs haven't actually done anything, but it's expected the PC's just go and kill them. There's no major NPC's or interaction written into it. Just there's this many warriors, they have an ogre, kill them all and get money from the mayor.
5) Does ruthlessly killing the villains/bad folk without negotiating make one a murderhobo in your opinion?
Depends on the villains/bad folk and the circumstances. A demon trying to invade the material plane? There's nothing that could possibly be gained by a negotiation. A warlord trying to expand his conquest? Depends.
6) Do you think the violent escapism in pathfinder/dnd is a bad thing, i.e. finding almost any excuse to fight and kill, roll those attack and damage die and see your enemies driven before you?
The great thing about TTRPGs is they are what you make them. That is not necessarily what DnD/PF provides if that's not how you decide to play it. That being said, I don't think playing that way has a deleterious effect, but it may say something about the philosophy of the person playing if that's the only way they ever want to do it.
You have to remember YOU make the world.
The Bestiaries are stat blocks with some flavor to inspire. So, they present a minotaur to use and give you the basics. When you actually run the game, in the world you create, it can be THE minotaur --- a legendary beast at the heart of a labyrinth that an ashamed king has employed the players to destroy for him. If it's not challenging enough, throw on a few levels of Barbarian and make a mid-level party quake.
Succubi can be only THE succubus; a former courtesan who trucked with dark powers for eternal youth and was cursed to seduce victims to their doom to maintain its beauty.
Especially when it comes to big monsters --- "Titans" can become singular; a lone creation of the elemental chaos itself with power that rivals the gods.
They're called source books for a reason. They give you source material to adjust as you feel fit. And if that's not enough for you, the AP's and Revisited books provide plenty of unique, named monsters with full backstories to boot.
All of those, but especially #1. It is so, so much simpler when everyone has a maximum of 6 attacks (TWF Fighter) and just does it. No, Swift-Free-Move, Feat-to-Move-and-Flurry.
Really what I love about 5th ed is so much about what it took out, rather than what it added.
No more Full Attack/Standard Attack distinction. You have 2 attacks? You have 2 attacks.
Fewer skills to keep track of.
No skill points to assign every level.
Fewer feats, meaning fewer trap feats.
No more 1.5x Str multiplier for THF making every other fighting style obsolete.
Using common sense for which attribute to use (STR instead of DEX for thrown, DEX instead of STR for finesse) instead of tying them up with feat taxes.
Someone asked me who my previous post was directed at --- and this right here is a related, if not perfect, example.
Really, other people do this every day. The fact alone that we have a concept of 'emasculation' in our culture is a good indication about how often women are just expected to adjust their attitudes based on the subjective sensibilities of someone else. Yet we almost never argue about what is actually emasculating in that context - it's just generally assumed that they know because they've been taught from early childhood, as women, what sort of things are typically expected by and around men. Every woman I have ever met does this. This is the reality of their lives. And yet here we are again fretting about being asked to do the same thing for others we have grown completely accustomed to expecting from them.
And what's particularly telling is what exactly we are worried about. Like we won't be able to relax because what? Because somebody might unfairly dislike us? Wanna talk about what women have to fear if they step over the line?
It's not an argument worth having. We have some pretty strong guidelines about what should be expected. I think the line is typically a lot clearer than we want to believe because if it is our excuses dry up. But even if you do inadvertently step over it, you just apologize and try to do better. There are no REAL consequences for a slip up. What a freaking gift that is!
I sorta try to avoid this topics now as they get my rankles up... but I can't help it, because this always happens. Someone talks about how you can be more inclusive and the straight white guys inevitably bring up a ridiculous argument about how everyone needs to get over it and NOT being offensive would be its own form of discrimination by not treating people 'equally'. And I hate, hate, hate that argument with a passion.
Maybe there's a point, and maybe somebody gets to say that. But not you. Not me. Not us. Not the people whose entire lives have been defined by others going out of their way not to offend us.
Making a big budget Hollywood movie? Better not make it too black! Or only include women! Hell, you just better not even make it too 'girly' regardless of your male-to-female ratio.
Remember Magic Mike? How many of you actually saw it? Notice the actual ratio of male-to-female nudity in there? Even if you're targeting women in a provocative way you have to include something for their boyfriends in case they get 'dragged' along to see it. Ever see any such consideration given to women?
All this talk about sexy iconics and never once is it considered that it would actually be more than fair if Pathfinder never included a sexualized female character and only focused on the female gaze because it still wouldn't bring the industry close to parity. There was never a point at which heterosexual men were NOT considered as part of the target demographic. Can you say that about any other group?
Want to sell a predominately black musical genre to a white audience? It'd better have a white face stamped on it, even if they're despicable human beings. (Eminem springs to mind.)
Want to make feminism relevant to men? Better list the myriad ways that men are hurt by patriarchy, too - as if subjugating 51% of the population in the guise of tradition wasn't enough of a reason. And you'd better begin every single point by reminding men - mostly straight white men specifically, as the only group of people who predominately have so few actual problems that they have to go looking for them - that you don't hate them or aren't biased toward them.
Stop acting like being asked not to offend is hypersensitive or some great burden on you or like you're the "true" Egalitarian(TM) for not buying it. It's just people asking for the same basic courtesy we've taken for granted since we pretty much got control of the Western world 500 years ago. If we lived in a society that didn't do that, then you might have a case. But since you have ZERO idea what it's like to constantly be expected to just 'get over it' or being diminished, then no, you're not being fair when you're "equally" crude or belittling to everyone you meet. Especially when they're things that can only very specifically target someone for their gender - like rape, for instance - but ultimately no matter what the context.
I usually play Lawful Neutral has having a very strict code of honor, but not one that's particularly altruistic.
My last LN character, for instance, was in our 5E game - a Paladin of Vengeance who believed that everyone must pay for their sins (including himself). He would take a final confession but still execute the guilty as he was absolving their souls by giving them a chance to ask for redemption and doling out the penance they needed for the confession to be accepted.
I did a Half-Orc Fighter based on Charon from Fallout 3. Once he signed a contract, he was unbreakably loyal to the person he'd contract himself to. It never came up, but if his party did ever commit an unspeakable evil (like, raising the dead or selling children into slavery) he would complete his contract with them, but once it was over, all bets were off.
But ultimately, I feel like every alignment has its detractors:
LG - Stick in the mud.
Whole Evil spectrum - Don't want problematic jerks who are going to screw the party when it suits them.
I know too many DM's that see power only as a measure of HP and damage output. I easily play low-Will Save chars in their games because they think a 'challenge' is lots of natural attacks and big damage mods.
I personally hate low Will saves still, but if I really want to try out a certain class - like when the Slayer came out - I wait for those games confident my odds of being dominated are slim-to-nill.
A mounted, knight-type Fighter is the biggest gap. (Paladin would work, but I really can't think of a good Oath that wouldn't just be a rehash of the Oath of Protection.)
A Rogue that focuses on admixtures and splash weapons. (Good alchemist stand-in.)
And definitely more Sorcerer bloodlines. Draconic or Wild is pretty limited.
I don't even know where to begin with this. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
The atomic bomb concern was a small fraction of scientists worried about the possibility of a chain reaction. A better example would be the small fraction of people who thought the large hadron collider would open up a black hole. They were there, certainly, but a fringe group that were almost universally dismissed out of hand. It's hardly anywhere near the consensus we have on climate change.
I don't know enough about China's one-child-policy to say what lead to it, but if what you say is true, then again there's an enormous difference between clinging to policy in light of debunking evidence, and refusing to acknowledge legitimate findings.
Wow, arrogant much? I definitely trust those 'people in lab coats' - that is, people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying and understanding natural phenomena - when they overwhelmingly agree there going to be potentially catastrophic consequences, to the drivel of anti-intellectual knuckle-draggers who think their lack of education on the matter somehow makes their opinions more valid.
Kind of surprised this hasn't come up more. We are in a unique situation where the doomsday warning aren't coming from religions or prophets or mystics - but peer reviewed scientific research.
Again, probably won't wipe humans out (EDIT: completely), but it'll be apocalyptic in that the world on the other side is going to look very different.
OK, so I saw my last post was deleted. I'm not surprised. I was angry when I wrote it - I still am. I'm furious. I wrote that Fergurg, and people like him, are delusional.
I get why my post was deleted. I don't agree with it, but I expected it. However, a few posts beyond that, I find this:
And this is precisely what I'm talking about. Our slavish devotion to an abstract notion of 'civility' (toward other white males who have none for anyone else) has sincerely hampered our position. Unless you catch someone organizing a cross-burning, you can bet calling a racist racist is going to get stamped down hard.
Yet here is someone insinuating that the mayor, who has a black family - who has been touched directly by the brutality and racism of the NYPD - is responsible for the death of an innocent man over TAXES. Here is somebody who has done nothing but try to justify the murder of unarmed black citizens as legitimate police work, now using those same people he denigrated as pawns for some right-wing fantasy about Tax Collecting Death Squads.
What a vile, racist and ridiculous thing to say. What a vile, racist, and delusional position to hold. Fegurg is a very disturbed individual with disturbing views. Yet my post is the 'inflammatory' one for pointing that out?
My guess is this will probably be deleted, too. Something might happen to my account - a temporary suspension or something so I can "calm down" or whatever. But we whites who for too long placed the feelings of racists in our midst above the lives and justice for those who didn't look like us - we are just as responsible for these statistics as the "I Am Darren Wilson" crowd. Every time we legitimized these people, every time we refused to call them what they are, every time we got up on the proverbial stage and shook hands and acted like The Loyal Opposition with murderers we perpetuated that system. There is blood on all of our hands now.
I'm done treating people with respect whose entire existence is one dedicated to the oppression and murder of others. I'll save my respect for their victims.
I think they decided Charisma is almost specifically related to outsider/undead sorta stuff ---- banishment, possession, haunting, etc. The only exception I found was Nothics, who require a Charisma save in order not to reveal a secret about yourself to them.
I prefer balance to optimization. So my ideal would be:
Inquisitor (Cleric) - 6th level casting with heals and some fine skills to boot.
Bard (Thief) - Can face, scout, skill-monkey and pretty much everything better than a rogue.
Ranger (Fighter) - Can do the heavy hitting and back up the Bard as a fellow scout.
Sorcerer (Wizard) - I've said before that Sorcerers would be about the only Full Caster I would keep if we slimmed the class list down. Spontaneous casting keeps it at least somewhat balanced and Sorcerers are just way more interesting, anyway.
I know it's sarcasm, but that's about a perfect summation of FOX News' position.
Pardon the expression, but there are few issues on the scene right now that are as black and white as this one. (The only one that immediately springs to mind is torture.) You are on the side of victims, or you are on the side of the murderers. This is not left vs right, law and order vs civil liberties. This is as close to being on the side of objective good versus objective evil you will ever get.
Look at the photos from the 1950's and 60's, where the cops turned firehoses on civil-rights protesters and consider for a long while, if you'd been raised in that era, whose side you would be on.
^--- All of that. Also, semi-related, but you want to talk underpaid? More fast food workers are killed per capita than cops and their asking to be paid more than the minimum wage is met with derision and anger by the same people who defend criminal cops. I'll leave it there so as not to hijack, but it really gets my cackles up.
There's a definite problem with the police, especially when interacting with minority groups.
Truthfully, it can probably be traced back to our unique relationship with slavery and how this made America distinct from its European fellows in its development of white supremacy. The way-too-simplified explanation would probably be, whereas European white supremacy was outwardly focused and expansionist, America's looked inward. Rich European immigrants experienced uprising and revolts of both slaves and poor white immigrants - usually brought over as little more than slaves themselves - and learned quickly to divide and conquer. Keep institutionally powerless lower-class whites looking down, afraid of blacks rising to their very limited station, so they wouldn't look up and see whose boot was on the back of their neck. The very institution of the municipal police department is at its core racist, an extension of this meant to insulate white communities and cow minority ones into submission.
To put it succinctly, it working precisely how it is designed to work.
Not necessarily. In PF, a certain amount of magical equipment is assumed by each level. Less magical equipment would mean my martials would be functionally useless in a PF game.
Thia is something old school I'd like to see make a comeback. Far fewer magic items, but the ones that exist have epic names and stories behind them, rather than just +X whatever.
My 5E game has 5th level characters and they've yet to find a magic weapon, but it doesn't seem to be hurting them at all. (In fairness, the party has a Sorcerer, Druid, and Cleric; but the Paladin and Fighter are still effective.)
Actually, the only magical equipment they've found thus far is a quest item with a minor effect. But it felt a lot more special than buying enchantments when they're in town.
Christopher Dudley wrote:
My peeve is getting interested in joining a new campaign but being told for the 497th time in a row "Core only." Since 2nd edition I've been buying just about every sourcebook I could get my hands on from TSR, then WotC, then Paizo. And I read up and find some new race/class/feat/build that makes me want to play it. Only I'll give my idea to the GM and he'll say "Oh, I'm not allowing that." I don't think I ever got to play in a 2e game with the training wheels off, and I can only think of 1 3e game I got to play a later core class (Warblade from Book of 9 Swords - thank you SlyFlourish!). To be fair, I did get approved to try a duskblade in another game, but the game folded before I got to write it up.
Core Only is one of my major pet peeves, too. I often limit my games around a certain theme or I might say no to particular class/race combinations, but if I'm going to the DM, I do the heavy lifting of making sure it's balanced and appropriate. My biggest complaint about DM's is cutting things arbitrarily. I got banned from playing an alchemist by a DM because he hadn't bothered to read the class and didn't want to.
You know what I hate? Ninjas. You know what class I read all about anyway? Ninjas. You know what class I let my players choose if they're so inclined? Ninjas.
Also going to chime in with the chorus of people who can't stand Chaotic Evil Chaotic Neutral players. I love Chaotic Neutral. It's one of my favorite alignments since it is so freeing. But I know any DM that sees "CN" on my character sheet is going to groan and roll her eyes because too many players have used it as a license to kill, brutalize, rape and pillage indiscriminately.
I think yes and no here. On the one hand, 5E character abilities are scaled to be much more balanced with one another. They function on a level that offers a more blurry delineation than the PF divide between classes. On the other, 5E actively encourages building the character as more than an arbitrary set of numbers by tying several skills, languages, and proficiencies to their background. I love character building - in between games, I often come up with characters for fun.
Currently, I'd still say I prefer the 5E rules. Although when I want to build something silly, I go straight for PF. Mechanics-wise, it's the difference between Lord of the Rings and Conan the Barbarian to me ---- both have their place, but PF is better for romps and campiness than serious character building.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Off-topic (sorta), and not to make it too political, but whether I prefer PF or 5E, I hope no matter what Paizo continues to thrive. Even though it's looking like my group will be converting to 5E (for the forseeable future, anyway), I will continue to buy material from Paizo - not just because I enjoy the art, iconic characters, fiction, and AP's - but because I like the company. I like what they stand for. Too many companies undervalue what their corporate philosophy means to their customers. And I like that it seems their influence is pushing WotC in a more inclusive direction. (RPGPundit and Zak Smith controversy aside.)
David Bowles wrote:
I'd say Rogue, personally. Since skill points don't exist any longer, being able to double your proficiency in two skills is a lot tastier. And you don't get to double any of those static bonuses you get as a fighter when you critical hit any longer, but you do get to double your sneak attack dice.
As to which class is most powerful, I STILL say Diviner Wizard (You get to choose two rolls a day that you succeed or the bad guy fails. Either way, you basically get to make it work to your advantage twice. And I promise spells aren't as bad as you think.) but Rogues definitely take the cake for most buffed.
The 3.PF rogue is beyond fixing, to me. It was built in a system that doesn't support it. You can't 'fix' it without changing the underlying mechanics of the either the class or the game.
I still find Sorcerers lackluster, though. I hated them in 3.5, loved them in PF, and just feel sorry for them in 5E. WotC seems to have a grudge against the poor Sorcerer for reasons I'll never understand.
Somewhat back on topic, one of the things I appreciate most about 5E is the dismantling of "Save or Die" spells. There are a still a few high level "I Win" buttons, but saves and DCs never reach the absurd heights they do in 3.PF. So no more, it's a complete waste of time to cast "Hold Monster" on a caster-type enemy, but no more Charm the Heavy-Hitting mook and combat is over, either.
As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people… Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. --- Also Paul the Apostle. There's good and bad in all holy books, but the bad is REALLY bad. Morality isn't a zero sum game.
I'll also have to retract my earlier statement about New Zealand in light of the additional information. Guess there's none. Wait . . . maybe Iceland?
Nobody ruin Iceland for me.
I feel like channel isn't that great. Sure, you could roll high, but typically - like sneak attack - you never roll high enough for the level you're at that it'll matter. The spontaneous cure spells are marginally better since you add your CL, but eh, in combat healing is never that spectacular.
Control is largely dependent on domains. But you've never been impressed with the cleric's ability to do damage? Really? Enlarge Person, Bull's Strength, Divine Favor, and so on and so on . . .
David Bowles wrote:
Interesting. You think maybe it would be less dangerous if the clerics were adopting the heal stick role? Because maybe it's dangerous because cleric players aren't sucking it up and doing the right thing for the group.
Blech. I'll watch all of my friends die painfully before I play a healbot. In 5E especially, support-style clerics have so many buffs/debuffs that if you're healing in combat, you've already failed at your job.
But in fairness, that was my philosophy in PF, too. My Cleric is either all about control or doing damage. And then, if you really need it, when we're done I'll throw down some channels.
Usual Suspect wrote:
As examples; the Catholic Church (and the Vatican) is clearly not lawful good but does have a lawful and just society as a goal that we would call lawful good. But as any large institution is inevitably prone to corruption the Catholic Church has problems with abuse of power and position as well as institutional attempts to whitewash current and past events that put the church in a bad light. Any political institution (which means any country and any large religious organization) can ascribe to lofty goals like being a just society.
I wouldn't call any city-state whose utopian ideals include the subjugation of women and non-believers "good".
Hence the problem with every Abrahamic religious organization. It's not that they're bad when they're corrupt; it's that they're bad when they're following their teachings to the letter.
David Bowles wrote:
You're still increasing the CR in those instances. Point is CR 1 is still a joke for an actual Lv 1 party.
David Bowles wrote:
I know nothing of the 5th ed CR system. Any dev bad at math can incorrectly assign any monster a CR in any system, however.
True. Just pointing out the difference, for me at least, was that in 3.PF it seemed like it was almost always a gross underestimation, as opposed to a gross overestimation like it is in 5E. If something was "CR 1" when we started a game, I usually needed 2-3 of them to provide an appropriate challenge with slight exception. (Ghouls, for instance - although even those were a joke if you had a mostly-to-all elf party.)
I'd say probably the closest is New Zealand. No lawful state on earth will ever be good, since the entire history of the world is one of oppressors' victory over the oppressed, (Human beings are just terrible. Every revolution pretty much begets another wave of abuse.) but they were the first to give women the vote, they have recognized seats in their government for the indigenous, and they have some of the lowest rates of crime, very little political corruption, and one of the best track records on universal human rights in the world.
And for being so good and inoffensive, we typically forget to include them on our maps.
David Bowles wrote:
How tactically oriented is your GM? Because I'll tell you right now that if I were GMing this system, it would be incredibly hazardous for casters. I would take full advantage of this... feature as early and as often as possible. It's not...
Unrelated to the caster thing, but I have to say that it's interesting that in such a stripped down system, 5E demands players be more tactically astute than the rules-heavy 3.PF model.
The Monster Manual pretty much hands out advantage to GM's like candy. Even the staple of low-level counters - 1/4 CR wolves - become deadly if you throw more than one of them in there. (Automatic advantage when in a pack, and DC 13 trip attempts on every attack.)
A Level 1 Fighter in 3.PF could probably kill a dozen rats without breaking a sweat. I almost killed our party fighter with 4 of them, due to the new finesse attack/damage rules.
In PF I always had to throw harder CR's at my players to make the encounters challenging. In 5E I'm wondering what drunk hobo thought "1/8" was an appropriate challenge rating for something that can knock out your fighter in two hits.
Well, our level 1 sorcerer did single-handedly end an encounter with 5 goblins last session.... so I can say with certainty it's not unheard of for a caster to hold up by themselves. (Like I said - Sleep is still a great equalizer. Probably moreso now that that there's no save.)
David Bowles wrote:
Not necessarily. You're screwed in the healing department, you're all (pretty much) facing the same bad saves, and since proficiency replaced BAB you're not really getting a lot more out of being a martial class attack wise until the mid-levels, when spells take a jump in power.
I think it's quite possible to go all caster or all martial in 5E. I will say that in modules, considering their emphasis on straight P v E combat over ingenuity or role-playing, martials will have a much easier time of it. But a caster party isn't without merit. (A well-timed sleep spell still ends nearly every encounter faster and cleaner than Greatsword swinging fighter.)
You can still disengage (certain tank builds notwithstanding). And that again is where I say it encourages party support. And it makes Sentinel feats and the Defense fighting style viable.
David Bowles wrote:
I disagree with your last statement. I think there is a VERY real chance of getting crushed by a martial, because once they are adjacent, you can't get away. And cranking down spell slots seems to me to be cranking down choice. Maybe I'm just looking at it very differently.
I actually like that quite a bit. Essentially, D&D is a party based system, meaning that no class should be a one man show. You need every member of a party to effectively do different things.
So casters really shouldn't be able to get away from martials. In a party, the martials should be killing opposing casters or trying to prevent the other beat sticks from killing their caster.
The caster, depending on the type, should either be killing scores of smaller enemies, buffing their allies and debuffing opponents, or shaping the battlefield so it is more advantageous toward their group.
Casters should cast and martials should . . . uh, martial. I could see a two-adventurer party with a Battle Master Fighter and Diviner Wizard being more dangerous than the standard group of 4.
David Bowles wrote:
That is helpful in recommendations, at least.
If you think martials got shafted in 3.5/Pathfinder, you'll probably see 5E as a godsend.
If you think PF is balanced already, you'll probably find 5E completely unfair.
David Bowles wrote:
I have seen them. And casters are eviscerated in 5th. No channel. No summons.
You can still summon as a Caster. (Conjure X spells exist) And they do have channel?
Summoning is powerful, but I wouldn't even say it's the most powerful thing you can do as a conjurer. (Black Tentacles, Pit spells, Glitterdust, and so on.)
I guess it is a pointless argument - different strokes, and all that - but I've found casters to still be incredibly powerful.
David Bowles wrote:
Dude, have you seen the cantrips in this edition? Unlimited Xd6-Xd12/day at range with several feats and class features that allow you to add your casting stat to it?
I'm playing a Cleric with the War domain right now who currently has more attacks than our fighter and does more damage per swing. (Though that'll change around 5th level, as it should.) Plus spells get stupid powerful in the higher levels.
The only real difference I can see is it lets martial characters actually do their schtick instead of forcing everyone go into archery so they can get their full attack routine reliably.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. I feel like a big part of the reason that it works in 5E is because they ditched touch AC and tied a save to every single stat instead of the Big 3.
Dex-to-Damage could work in PF, but there needs to be some balancing against str. And something still needs to be done about archery.