So, I was talking with a friend tonight who is a long time player of D&D (ever since 2nd at least, not sure if he played 1st) who doeesn't like Pathfinder. I can accept that, except his reasoning confused me and while I tried to refute his claims, the sheer craziness of his reasons made it hard to do....
Basically, he played Pathfinder a bit during beta and when it first came out, so his only experience was the core rulebook. That said, he claims there is no difference between any of the classes.
Furthermore, whenever I mentioned stuff that Pathfinder had, like weapon training for fighters, etc... he was talking about obscure alternate class features from books I'd never even heard of when I played 3.5 myself...
He said apparently 3.5 had bloodlines... which unless he's talking about the bloodlines thing in Unearthed Arcana, I have no idea what he's talking about...
When he said that we couldn't make two fighters that were not exactly the same in Pathfinder, but we could in 3.5 I was like.. wait what? Pathfinder ADDED options to fighters, it didn't take any away.
But, the biggest WTF is when he said there is no difference between like a wizard and a rogue and I was just... well speechless... how do you refute a statement like that that just is so crazy? I finally said wizards have spells, rogues do do traps and pick locks... same as with 3.5...
So, not that I care really about converting him to play Pathfinder (we don't do much actual RP together anymore,) but do any of you have any idea where he's getting his criticisms? Cause... I don't see them.
The ONLY possible thing I can see is he's maybe thinking that 3.5 and Pathfinder are totally incompatible and that all the "Complete" books can NEVER be used with Pathfinder? So, at that core book publication, then yes options were very limited... but even then, 3.5 core rulebook compared to Pathfinder core rulebook, Pathfinder has WAY more options for characters, or am I missing something?
In my experience, it's relatively common for people to have bizarre arguments "against" systems they haven't played much.
I think it's only worth trying to refute them in the context of a discussion with others (like on a public forum or something). My response one-on-one would just be to shrug and say "I didn't find that".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Challenge him to make a 4 man party that has a 2nd rogue in place of a sorcerer or wizard, and have them be equally effective.
Then put them through the same challenges, preferably ones that are cherry picked for the party with the caster.
He had no right to try to complain.
Either A=B or it does not, so the success rate should be the same.
------------------------------------------------------
You can also invite him here. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Challenge him to make a 4 man party that has a 2nd wizard in place of a rogue or ninja, and have them be equally effective.
oh wait
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell your friend he should at least pretend to read any of the rulebooks and class pages before he embarrasses himself further.
S'what I'd do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 had feat chains for 'bloodlines', they were called Heritage Feats. It is possible that was one of the things he was referring to.
3.5 had feat chains for 'bloodlines', they were called Heritage Feats. It is possible that was one of the things he was referring to.
They also originated in DRAGON Magazine...
There was another sort of bloodline in 3.5 (aside from the "levels" in Unearthed Arcana). They are feats for spontaneous arcane castrs, and first appeared in two different Dragon magazine articles during the Paizo era. The feats from the two articles were then included in the Dragon Compendium (also published by Paizo).
But, the biggest WTF is when he said there is no difference between like a wizard and a rogue and I was just... well speechless... how do you refute a statement like that that just is so crazy? I finally said wizards have spells, rogues do do traps and pick locks... same as with 3.5...
I think he's speaking about Skills, and the fact that everyone can take any level ok skills, and the wizard has High Intelligence...that's the most I can think of.
Really, your friend is just clueless or contrariant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I second Rynjin's Suggestion.
He is probably one of those Pathfinder Sucks because it doesn't say Dungeons & Dragons on it.
|
Are you sure your friend isn't confusing PF and 4e? Because see, 4e does kinda gave the all the classes are the same bit...so I think he maybe a bit confused....
Ninja'd by 57 seconds!
From your description of his description, he's talking about 4th ed where every class gets the same number of daily, encounter, utility and at-will powers at each level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, he played Pathfinder a bit during beta and when it first came out, so his only experience was the core rulebook. That said, he claims there is no difference between any of the classes.
(...)
But, the biggest WTF is when he said there is no difference between like a wizard and a rogue and I was just... well speechless... how do you refute a statement like that that just is so crazy? I finally said wizards have spells, rogues do do traps and pick locks... same as with 3.5...
That sounds like he confused Pathfinder with 4th edition of D&D*.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, he played Pathfinder a bit during beta and when it first came out, so his only experience was the core rulebook. That said, he claims there is no difference between any of the classes.
(...)
But, the biggest WTF is when he said there is no difference between like a wizard and a rogue and I was just... well speechless... how do you refute a statement like that that just is so crazy? I finally said wizards have spells, rogues do do traps and pick locks... same as with 3.5...
That sounds like he confused Pathfinder with 4th edition of D&D*.
** spoiler omitted **
Maybe he is... though we mentioned 4th edition during our discussion and that neither of us like it... he's got the beta of D&D Next and is going to be running it with some friends (not me, no interest) so that said, I would THINK he would know the difference between Pathfinder and 4th Edition... Pathfinder isn't THAT much different from 3.5 LOL
But, the biggest WTF is when he said there is no difference between like a wizard and a rogue and I was just... well speechless... how do you refute a statement like that that just is so crazy? I finally said wizards have spells, rogues do do traps and pick locks... same as with 3.5...
No difference between wizards and rogues? Er..... the differences have been major since 3.0 It even stretches back to 2nd ed. The only difference was that they were called mage and thief.
You should remind him that he can still use all his 3.5 stuff with Pathfinder, therefore all his old options are still available.
I believed we were on Christmas, not April 1st.
Belief. Confusing minds since forever.
get him to just compare core book to core book, no other books or articals. contest won, his argments are invalid and hes just being annoying imo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you sure your friend isn't confusing PF and 4e? Because see, 4e does kinda gave the all the classes are the same bit...so I think he maybe a bit confused....
Good point, Napalm! If I go back and read the original post, replacing "Pathfinder" with "4th edition" the conversation makes a lot more sense to me. (I've played and GMed 4th edition, and I'm not saying this as a criticism of 4th.)
The answers from 4E fans would be almost identical, too..
But, the biggest WTF is when he said there is no difference between like a wizard and a rogue and I was just... well speechless... how do you refute a statement like that that just is so crazy? I finally said wizards have spells, rogues do do traps and pick locks... same as with 3.5...
Well, unlike Wizards, Rogues got nerfed.
Rogues have less avenues to Sneak Attack Land. Yes, many roadblocks, like Sneak attack immunity, were removed from golems, undead, etc, but with less roads it makes it very busy and full of traffic.- Grease road no longer allows it
- Glitterdust works but works less often (repeated saves)
- Ranged Touch Flasks like Acid flask no longer allows it (splash doesn't get sneak attack, but the direct hit used to allow it): this was a short cut to sneak attack land when High AC speed bumps got in the way.
Basically, he played Pathfinder a bit during beta and when it first came out, so his only experience was the core rulebook. That said, he claims there is no difference between any of the classes.
...sounds like this is a criticism I hear levelled against 4th edition more so than Pathfinder by a long, long way, when compared to 3.5. I think he may have the two confused!
in phbII were a plenty of otptions wich obviously paizos core ruleboocks took (for the core classes) to make theyre own versions with the alternates abilities (channeled energy vs turn/rebuke undead)
i prefeer the pfrpg core classes versions, and i love the 3.5 options (there was more option actualy than pfrpg)
maybe youre friend refeers that in pf, youre fighter will be the same fighter (almost like in 4the)at any lvl
the issue i argue with the old schools players (im one os) is that the prestiges classes were dump from pf, and the actuali new prestiges classes has a lack of inventive stuff (i agree in most of that, but the red mantis woaaaooowww awesome!!)
the archetypes are (to me), a merelly intent to emulate the alternate options from phbII
the issues with the archetypes is: those ones are so nerf
youre friend has right in most of his argues, but, thats because he only knows 3.5. if he give a chance to pf, maybe he can realize the WotC flavor is here (even the stupidity to sell a bnch of books with the same useless trash)
and for the classes, there more options in flavor and variations of. except for the cavalier/samurai class, wich is really broken since the beggining of the concept for it.
take a look in the 3.5 complete series, and youll maybe notes that are really nothing new about the core classes from 3.5. they only gave them more abilities.
im still waiting a rebalance for the monsters!! theyre suffering since 3.0 if you took the orc from AD&D and compare it with 3.5-3.5-3.75 youll notice that orc was nerfed at all and the options for the players are so overpowered
Yeah, thing is though as I said, we both agreed we hated 4th, which is why this confused me that he was thinking all these things about Pathfinder...
Well, if he confused it in the first place, what makes you so sure he didn't think you meant "Pathfinder", when you both agreed 4th Ed. sucked?
It's a bit like talking about James Bond and saying he's got real class and stuff and only later finding out that one of you meant Sean Connery and the other Timothy Dalton. ;) Or even worse, one of you has only seen the movies and one of you is talking about the books...
Maybe you could ask why exactly he thinks the wizard and rogue in pathfinder are the same? Ask him to give some examples? If he starts quoting material from 4th Ed. Then mystery solved.
Edit: also, it could be possible that he casually tried Pathfinder during beta, didnt really look at the options (and saw one thing on the surface he didn't like) and is drawing all his opinions from that. People LOVE to do stuff like that...
mmmm maybe he refeers that because the archetypes, any class can looks like any other class!!
for example, the gunslinger. every class in the game has an archetype which let make a beter use for firearms and so, than a gunslinger!!
or, because the rogue can take a spells, ki pools from monk and ninja, and every spell he takes with his talents, make him a semi caster class
or maybe he only realize that the wizards hd increase to d6 and he never watch the rogue has his own hd increment!!
Eh, it's really easy to be biased against a system that isn't the one you started with.
The first RP game I ever played was 4e, and we had a lot of fun doing it at first. Then our GM jumped on the Pathfinder bandwagon, and our sessions began to lack the quality they once had. That's why I had a beef with Pathfinder for a long time. I really liked my Teifling Warlock, and he ubruptly ended our campaign to make another one.
Since then, I've played a lot more Pathfinder then 4e. I still like 4e a lot more, but I'm not going to just make up reasons why Pathfinder is bad. That is rediculous. I'm just glad that we alternate between the two so that everybody is happy.
Anyway, every time I tried to play 3.5, it was aweful, so I'm inclinded to agree that the gentlemen mentioned by the OP is full of it.
Solution to getting him to clarify, that may or may not work.
Ask: "So what mechanics do you think changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder that make it so Wizards and Rogues are practically the same in Pathfinder but not in 3.5?"
If he says "the way skills work makes them all more accessible" or something along those lines, then maybe you can have more of a reasonable conversation.
If he says "their abilities are just the same things now" then ask him "how?"
If he can't clarify, explain to him that you can't just argue things without any real understanding of why you are arguing the point in the first place. You'll never get anywhere.
I remember he mentioned that he could make a fighter and I could make a fighter and using 3.5 they would be totally different but using Pathfinder they'd be cookie cutter. I was like... So... adding "weapon training" and "Armor Training" made the feat w***e class cookie cutter when it wasn't already?
Then, he said he didn't just mean the fighter class... at which point I really got confused cause... well, then you add in barbarians, bars, rangers, rogues, druids... all can be effective fighters and all are different.
Finally I did just give up, but I thought I'd mention it here to see if I was missing something with my Pathfinder bias LOL
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most probably that is a case of your friend showing symptoms of serious has-not-a-slightest-idea-about-spoken-topic, did-not-do-research and does-not-know-rules-at-all...
i think we have a serious case of trolling here, best to just move along.
Guy doesn't have a clue, but 3.5 did manage to be more balanced (comparing the classes) with simpler and less class abilities.
Hmm, you might be confusing intent and what was most used from the splatbooks (see below), and please prove most players "abandoned" the main classes. "Abandoned" also means they can't dabble and come back (play a warmage, come back play a rogue, then pally, etc). That is more like visiting than abandoning.
The splatbooks had a lot of cool ideas, new prestige and feats, it grew weed-like in all directions. Even just factoring all that dragon added puts a huge amount on the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guy doesn't have a clue, but 3.5 did manage to be more balanced (comparing the classes) with simpler and less class abilities.Yes, base classes were so well balanced in 3.5, that most players abandoned them for splatbook PrC's the first chance they got.
Well, nonmagical classes are weaker than magical. And 3.5 magical base classes were never abandoned.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. There was no reason to play a sorcerer any longer than it took you to qualify for a PrC that advanced your spell-casting, and virtually no reason to play a wizard any longer than the same. Clerics as well typically gave up nothing and advanced their abilities by an incredible margin by moving into a PrC instead of keeping a straight 1-20 cleric progression.
Amusingly, the only class that had any real reason to maintain a 1-20 progression was the fighter, as some of his more powerful feat chains had high fighter level requirements, and he was widely acknowledged as the weakest class in 3.x.
Clerics sure were nasty, but if you can't have an average ability score of 16, then the cleric has some weaknesses in the three physical stats so as to get their wisdom nice and high. Do they sacrifice melee to hit and damage, initiative ac and reflex or hp and fort? There is the lower bab, and the buffs to consider, but a cleric caught outside of their buffs or attacked up close before they are ready was quite weak compared to the fighter.
Combat maneuvers were also another way to really hurt low strength average bab clerics. Certainly not saying the fighter wins by default, lord no.
|
Design Manager
|
Clerics sure were nasty, but if you can't have an average ability score of 16, then the cleric has some weaknesses in the three physical stats so as to get their wisdom nice and high. Do they sacrifice melee to hit and damage, initiative ac and reflex or hp and fort? There is the lower bab, and the buffs to consider, but a cleric caught outside of their buffs or attacked up close before they are ready was quite weak compared to the fighter.
Combat maneuvers were also another way to really hurt low strength average bab clerics. Certainly not saying the fighter wins by default, lord no.
Clerics were amongst the most well-rounded charcaters in 3.5. Their proficiencies gave them access to almost the full gamut of armors and equipment, and they had a reasonable selection of weapons with their deity's as well.
Saying a cleric caught outside their buffs was weak compared to a fighter is like saying a rogue who can't deal sneak attack is weak compared to a fighter. It's a no brainer. Any spell-casting class is weaker than a fighter if you take away their spells. Proportionally, the cleric in 3.5 was the least impacted of any spell-casting class if caught unprepared or in an anti-magic field, as he still had full plate, shields, and a reasonable weapon selection to fall back on. PrC's like the Warpriest even boosted his BAB while sacrificing very little in the way of spellcasting, and supplementing any lost casting potential with potent SLA's.Combat maneuvers didn't exist in 3.5, and were instead a cumbersome cluster of various rules, which were offset just as easily by cleric buffs as fighter BAB and feats. Often more easily.