|
I think this assessment if a bit lacking. Many people, like myself, haven't played 3.5 prior to Pathfinder. They've come from a different system, 4e only being one of many.It pretty much boils down to this.
IF you really really hated 3.X, Pathfinder is not probably going to be your cup of tea.
If you thought 3.X and especially 3.5 was just a bit out of tune balance wise, Pathfinder's improvements in balance might just be the tipping point you were looking for.
Than quite frankly, there is no real answer for you. Balance is essentially a nebulous subjective concept, and if you have no experience with 3.X, there really isn't a reference point for you to judge Pathfinder by. (I've met 1st and 2nd edition grognards, Gygax among them who swore that 3.X couldn't be properly called D&D).
If you've done your whole gaming life by Storyteller, you're liable to find any D20 based system rather stifling and rolebound. If your usual cup of tea is Heros and GURPS, you'll find the game very restrictive and arbitrary compared to what you're used to, but neither game is going to give you any solid reference points for judging Pathfinder.
If 4th edition is your standard of balance, you're probably going to find any 3.X and derivative system .... unbalanced. The subjective call however will be whether that relative lack of balance is going to be an important dealkiller. That, no one can answer for you.
I don't understand the whole "its subjective" argument. It sounds like a way to brush discussion under the rug. If two people place the same importance on certain characteristics of a system then you can find an objective answer.
The OP specifically asked about balance. He seems to think its important. I do too. At this point it's pretty easy to discuss balance between two system and how we can measure it. In fact, a number of metrics have been used by people in this thread to measure balance.
EDIT: Fixed stuff.
So assuming the Wizard is staking out the Fighter and preparing to kill him, there's a good chance that if the fighter is caught with his pants down he will get pasted.
Yet equally, the same Fighter setting a similar ambush for the Wizard will paste the Wizard.
Failing to see how this has 'proven' anything.
That's not the wizard "preparing to kill the fighter"; that's the wizard having a selection of spells at his disposal that will be useful in a variety of circumstances and completely dominate the fighter.
The only way that the fighter can reasonably expect to kill the wizard is if he gets the drop on the wizard (surprises the wizard, gets within melee range, and full attacks). He can, of course, attempt ranged combat, but the likelihood of success is significantly reduced, given that wind wall spoils his day.
I removed a post and the replies to it.
When you start throwing around words like "your mom" it's a good time to rethink whether or not you should hit the "submit post" button.
Also, it would be nice if this thread could not turn into yet another edition wars or "fighter vs. wizard" thread.
When you start throwing around words like "your mom" it's a good time to rethink whether or not you should hit the "submit post" button.
You know, I really did think on it.
IMO I think Paizo tried too hard to make Pathfinder 3.5e-compatible. It would have been nice to have a distinct new system.
For example, Iron Heroes is based on 3.5e but it still feels fresh.
Pathfinder feels like 3.6e D&D.
If Paizo had been willing to tinker with 3.5e more, they could have fixed some of the big issues with the system.
There's still a ton of balance problems that have gone unresolved since 3e was released. :(
|
IMO I think Paizo tried too hard to make Pathfinder 3.5e-compatible. It would have been nice to have a distinct new system.
For example, Iron Heroes is based on 3.5e but it still feels fresh.
Pathfinder feels like 3.6e D&D.
If Paizo had been willing to tinker with 3.5e more, they could have fixed some of the big issues with the system.
There's still a ton of balance problems that have gone unresolved since 3e was released. :(
Are you seeing Iron Heroes* fly off the shelves and compete with 4E for the top sales? Well, there goes your answer.
* substitute for Arcana Evolved, Fantasycraft, Trailblazer and any other "let's make something that's not entirely 3.5ed" clones.
|
|
Are you seeing Iron Heroes* fly off the shelves and compete with 4E for the top sales? Well, there goes your answer.Answer to what? He didn't ask a question.
Also, Pathfinder selling well doesn't mean the system lacks issues.
The question (asked by many) is why didn't PF go further away from 3.5 (which would mean possibly "fixing" the "issues").
The answer is that even if it fixed every possible 3.5 problem and we would have all the usual herpers praising the game for being what they wanted it to be, the final product would be so far away from 3.5 that it would never generate a substantial profit. At best, it would be some obscure clone played by d6 people per city, like the games I mentioned.
And Paizo, as much as I hate to break it in for some folks, is a company that exists to earn money, not to pursue some holy grail of making an ultimate RPG that would be "balanced" and make Cirno/MiB/Kirth/ET say "I approve". Which, by the way, wasn't stated as a design goal of Pathfinder, for all you "failed to deliver promises" out there.
And before you reply, I have readied the "go play 4E" answer. :D
IMO I think Paizo tried too hard to make Pathfinder 3.5e-compatible. It would have been nice to have a distinct new system.
For example, Iron Heroes is based on 3.5e but it still feels fresh.
Pathfinder feels like 3.6e D&D.
If Paizo had been willing to tinker with 3.5e more, they could have fixed some of the big issues with the system.
There's still a ton of balance problems that have gone unresolved since 3e was released. :(
Are you seeing Iron Heroes* fly off the shelves and compete with 4E for the top sales? Well, there goes your answer.
* substitute for Arcana Evolved, Fantasycraft, Trailblazer and any other "let's make something that's not entirely 3.5ed" clones.
I didn't ask a question. I just stated my opinion.
I think Iron Heroes was a great game, but the budget for it wasn't huge, and it wasn't advertised a whole lot.
If Paizo put out a fresh new system and marketed it well, I'm sure they could get a fair share of the market.
However, they took the safe route and essentially repackaged 3.5e.
|
|
If Paizo put out a fresh new system and marketed it well, I'm sure they could get a fair share of the market.
Not really possible. They were up against 4E with their brand name, marketing machine, market presence, OP programmes and financial, technical and personal resources which are <------> that big.
Facing that, going with 3.5 and capturing the "thanks, no 4E, we will stick with what we were playing for the last 8 years" was the only sensible choice. Otherwise, we would be discussing now on some barely visited phpbb forum anticipating that one or two products the company would put out this year.
Something for something.
I don't understand why there's so much angst on these forums. When I read the WotC forums I don't see constant raging towards Pathfinder or Paizo...
Nope, on the D&D forum, in my experience, you (mostly) see tepid distain for pathfinder and rabid anger or blind defence of 4e. Even at its worst this forum is tame.
As to the OP, balance is realy only an issue if you make it so. The core rules for Pathfinder are, as far as I can tell, extremely well judged. Rules lawyers can probably find little loops but nothing game breaking. The "Ultimate" books, and APG, add loads of interesting things to spice up play, but the more rules one introduces the more some people are willing to exploit them.
I have never actually played a campaign where the Wizard took over the world... and got the girl... and all the treasure... and the other players just sat there. It is an oft toted statistical possibility, but has it actually ever happened to anyone here?
Q: How balanced is Pathfinder?
A: As balanced as the GM that is running it.I haven't seen many problems with balance in play, however on these boards I see a trend of the imbalance coming from what I consider lop-sided play where a GM is 'handwaving', and the consequence is imbalance.
Similarly, issue occur when the party consistently fights in perfect storm scenarios for one lot of players and the others get outshone.
None of these are the Game itself.
I refused to play 3.X back in the day, but have played various other forms of D&D and several other gaming systems - Pathfinder is one of the more solid ones.
+1
I've never personally seen the supposed caster>fighter issue either in 3.x or Pathfinder. I firmly believe the issue has to do with a lack of creativity on the part of the players and a lack of eye for detail on the part of GMs.
In my game, when I wasn't fully into it and got lazy, it was the fighting types that quickly came to dominate. Problem went away when I started paying attention again.
|
|
Are you seeing Iron Heroes* fly off the shelves and compete with 4E for the top sales? Well, there goes your answer.Answer to what? He didn't ask a question.
Also, Pathfinder selling well doesn't mean the system lacks issues.
The question (asked by many) is why didn't PF go further away from 3.5 (which would mean possibly "fixing" the "issues").
The answer is that even if it fixed every possible 3.5 problem and we would have all the usual herpers praising the game for being what they wanted it to be, the final product would be so far away from 3.5 that it would never generate a substantial profit. At best, it would be some obscure clone played by d6 people per city.
And Paizo, as much as I hate to break it in for some folks, is a company that exists to earn money, not to pursue some holy grail of making an ultimate RPG that would be "balanced" and make Cirno/MiB/Kirth/ET say "I approve". Which, by the way, wasn't stated as a design goal of Pathfinder, for all you "failed to deliver promises" out there.
You know they can fix issues with the system and still make money right? They have done/are doing it (see beginner's box and stealth rules playtest) These two things aren't mutually exclusive.
I didn't play 3.5e. I don't know or care about those promises. The issues I and others have still exist. If Paizo wants to make a quality product they will listen. I'm still looking for the point in your post.
I asked JJ if Paizo had made any poll on "what are your favorite levels to play" here is what he answered:
We haven't... because we know the answer. 7th level...
can i get a link to this thread?
|
|
I didn't play 3.5e. I don't know or care about those promises. The issues I and others have still exist. If Paizo wants to make a quality product they will listen. I'm still looking for the point in your post.
*checks n327 post history*
Ah, you consider 3.5 ruleset to be archaic. Three AC types, three save types are "convoulted". PF might be the wrong game for you.
IMO I think Paizo tried too hard to make Pathfinder 3.5e-compatible. It would have been nice to have a distinct new system.
For example, Iron Heroes is based on 3.5e but it still feels fresh.
Pathfinder feels like 3.6e D&D.
If Paizo had been willing to tinker with 3.5e more, they could have fixed some of the big issues with the system.
There's still a ton of balance problems that have gone unresolved since 3e was released. :(
Are you seeing Iron Heroes* fly off the shelves and compete with 4E for the top sales? Well, there goes your answer.
* substitute for Arcana Evolved, Fantasycraft, Trailblazer and any other "let's make something that's not entirely 3.5ed" clones.
I didn't ask a question. I just stated my opinion.
I think Iron Heroes was a great game, but the budget for it wasn't huge, and it wasn't advertised a whole lot.
If Paizo put out a fresh new system and marketed it well, I'm sure they could get a fair share of the market.
However, they took the safe route and essentially repackaged 3.5e.
Your last sentence assumes you know something about their model and intentions that you could not. Moreover, it conflicts with their stated purpose, which was not to "play it safe" and make a bunch of money doing so, but to keep a well-established and solid system going and to provide a platform to keep all the 3rd party material (including their own) that had been released over the years, valid. And, yes, stay in business doing so.
|
|
I didn't play 3.5e. I don't know or care about those promises. The issues I and others have still exist. If Paizo wants to make a quality product they will listen. I'm still looking for the point in your post.*checks n327 post history*
Ah, you consider 3.5 ruleset to be archaic. Three AC types, three save types are "convoulted". PF might be the wrong game for you.
Why? I like Golarion. It's a great setting. Paizo also produces great modules and adventures. It is because I don't feel the system is 100% perfect so the whole thing must not be for me and my opinion is void? Pft.
|
|
Why? I like Golarion. It's a great setting. Paizo also produces great modules and adventures. It is because I don't feel the system is 100% perfect so the whole thing must not be for me and my opinion is void? Pft.
I didn't play 3.5e. I don't know or care about those promises. The issues I and others have still exist. If Paizo wants to make a quality product they will listen. I'm still looking for the point in your post.*checks n327 post history*
Ah, you consider 3.5 ruleset to be archaic. Three AC types, three save types are "convoulted". PF might be the wrong game for you.
You can play in Golarion using other systems, in fact many folks around are doing so. Settings and rulesets aren't joined at hip.
Your problem doesn't lie with peripherals of the ruleset, they lie with things at the core. Changing them would likely alienate a major group of PF players. If I saw Pathfinder toss three-tier AC and Saves system away I would likely ignore it altogether. Paizo's decision to keep with 3.5 wasn't a sudden brainfart, it was a calculated move.
|
|
Why? I like Golarion. It's a great setting. Paizo also produces great modules and adventures. It is because I don't feel the system is 100% perfect so the whole thing must not be for me and my opinion is void? Pft.
I didn't play 3.5e. I don't know or care about those promises. The issues I and others have still exist. If Paizo wants to make a quality product they will listen. I'm still looking for the point in your post.*checks n327 post history*
Ah, you consider 3.5 ruleset to be archaic. Three AC types, three save types are "convoulted". PF might be the wrong game for you.
You can play in Golarion using other systems, in fact many folks around are doing so. Settings and rulesets aren't joined at hip.
Your problem doesn't lie with peripherals of the ruleset, they lie with things at the core. Changing them would likely alienate a major group of PF players. If I saw Pathfinder toss three-tier AC and Saves system away I would likely ignore it altogether. Paizo's decision to keep with 3.5 wasn't a sudden brainfart, it was a calculated move.
So? I still have issues with a Paizo product. The issues are such that I may not pay them money in the future. I don't really care what their business model is. Using that as a way to disregard my opinion is asinine. Business models change away and often change based on customer feedback.
I've played lots of 3.5, but for the past few years I've been running 4E games. I haven't tried Pathfinder yet. We're starting a new campaign and we've decided to take a break from 4E. I've been trying to decide whether to use Pathfinder or True20. I like a lot of the flavour and such in Pathfinder, but I'm a bit hesitant to use the system because on the surface it looks like it would have all the same balance issues that 3.5 had (primarily- magic dominating the game at higher levels and melee characters having few combat options beyond "full attack, again"). For those of you who have played the game past level 9 or so, is this the case or have they managed to make some changes to alleviate that trend?
The array of options is different from class to class, but if you have problem with melee at higher level it's because they are not properly played (speaking about combat, and not roleplay).
I suggest to use a game you can handle (if you are a GM), or reading something about tactics and strategies, if you are a player.
In 3.5 and 3.0 with a melee I can reach 400 damage in one round of charge, and doin not much less in following round (about level 20). Caster can do a lot of damage with summon and buffs, maybe using some "saving throw or death" spells, but not with big monsters.
I think that the real problem with melee is that they are more powerful at lower level (expecially in dungeon crawling) and few ppl learn to play well when level grow up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if that's all there was to the system, you would be correct, but it's not and you aren't.
For example: Damn near all of the best spells in 3.5 are weaker in Pathfinder. That's not a good trade for gaining 1hp/level.
Ahem. Compare the Pathfinder version of Improved Trip
( http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-trip-combat---final ) to the 3.5 one ( http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Improved_Trip ) and say that again.
Considering I didn't say anything about maneuvers I certainly could say that again.
Hold Person, incidentally, while situationally very, very good is not one of the best spells in 3.5. It's more competitive in Pathfinder specifically because a lot of the things that were head and shoulders above it were gimped.
I have question about balance in Pathfinder that has nothing to do with any comparison to 4th edition. However, I would like to hear from this community regarding the following scenario.
Would a game be more balanced ( I couldn't imagine it being less) with the following. I realize some would find the following too restrictive and boring.
1) Core book only. No APG, UM, or UC.
2) Four classes: Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Rogue
3) Four races: Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling
4) 20 levels maximum per class, No multi-classing.
5) Only minor magic item creation(potion, scrolls, etc). Majors are find only.
I believe an excellent DM could give balance to most of what Pathfinder has to offer, but I interested to know if there is continuum of very easy to difficult to balance based on rules set inclusion. Perhaps everything could be included for say level 1-15 with excellent to above average DM. It seems Paizo believes this to be the case.
It would be great especially with those with lots of 3rd edition experience or designers could chime in. Personally, my experience is limited to 1e/2e and 4e. I never really had the opportunity to play 3e/Pathfinder. Although I am have not played I am familiar with 3e/Pathfinder because it is heck of a lot more interesting to read than 4th edition.
1) Core book only. No APG, UM, or UC.
There are some nice balancing elements in the splats, for some of the classes.
2) Four classes: Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Rogue
Fighter isn't a very strong class, if you subbed Ranger, Paladin or Barbarian you would probably be better off.
I would just limit the levels you play to 1-10, and the books supplements to the core and a monster manual for any edition of D&D you play (including retro editions), if you are bored with 4E. You will have to decide on your own what is balanced and suits your tastes. Therefore, define your constraints on what material you will allow, and start off simple.
I would even recommend GURPS or Hero system, and once again, only start off with some core books. If I had sites likes these, before I started to game, I may have been dissuaded on trying a long line of games, where some failed, and others bring back fond memories.
Off all the options for D&D, an E6 application sounds like fun, with any version of 3E.
I'd wonder what fighters you play with. If you can't make a strong martial with all the extra combat feats they get, and the armor and weapon training that's part of the class features, there's a problem and it's not the class.
Fighter's can't get smite, an animal companion, spells, spell sunder, Camouflage, or self healing.
They get access to pounce later then barbarians.They get the ability to defeat DR later then Paladins.
They have fewer skills then Rangers and Barbarians.
Paladins and Barbarians are generally going to have better saves.
Ranger and Paladins will have better burst damage.
Barbarians will have more hitpoints, and generally better DR.
So compared to Paladin's, Ranger's and Barbarians, Fighters are weaker. Unless you are going to argue that having both greater trip and greater grapple somehow balances that all out.
Well I'm getting a fairly clear sense that a lot of the 3.5 issues are still fairly unresolved. I'm sure the system can be lots of fun. I mean I had lots of fun times running 3.5, but the game did have a habit of turning into a nasty spell hurling magic war- at least after level 10 or so.
Here's an example of how I feel that pre 4E versions of D&D were unbalanced, and the sort of thing I'm hoping to avoid. One of may players was telling me about an adventure he was playing in, where the premise was that a massive orc horde was approaching the city and the characters were going to have to build alliances and maybe organize an army to deal with the threat. However the orcs didn't have much access to magic. The PCs were 5th level. In theory this would be a significant challenge. However, they were able to get their hands on some flight spells and fireball wands and basically single handedly destroy the army. I'm a little sketchy on the details- apparently they were able to somehow stay out of range of archers, but the point is simple things like giving PCs access to flight and other really potent abilities at fairly low levels can make a lot of challenges trivial, and many of those abilities are considered pretty standard, as opposed to min/maxing. I'm aware of a lot of the key offenders, so I can potentially remove some of them from the game or adjust them (for example I'd bump all movement related magic up a spell level, and maybe put some other restrictions on such abilities as well).
Basically, I want the game to feel like a heroic fantasy game, not a superheroes game. I found with 3E it didn't take long for me to feel like I was running a superheroes rpg, and I suspect, from what people have said on this thread, that Pathfinder will be much the same.
Yesterday I was mentioning to some of my players about how I was thinking about running our new campaign with Pathfinder, and we started thinking back about our 3E game, and they were joking about how after a little ways into the campaign they pretty much flew and teleported everywhere and would hardly ever set foot on the ground.
The PCs were 5th level. In theory this would be a significant challenge. However, they were able to get their hands on some flight spells and fireball wands and basically single handedly destroy the army. I'm a little sketchy on the details- apparently they were able to somehow stay out of range of archers, but the point is simple things like giving PCs access to flight and other really potent abilities at fairly low levels can make a lot of challenges trivial, and many of those abilities are considered pretty standard, as opposed to min/maxing.
No that story smacks of poor GM'ing, a lot of handwaving, and a lack of application of numerous rules. Added to that the enemy were apparently lobotomised.
Thats not Pathfinder at fault, nor 3.X.
Cheeze in any game is still Cheeze.
Basically, I want the game to feel like a heroic fantasy game, not a superheroes game. I found with 3E it didn't take long for me to feel like I was running a superheroes rpg, and I suspect, from what people have said on this thread, that Pathfinder will be much the same.
Pathfinder is still a superhero game. People could take bad classes and archetypes to minimize that, but after about 7th level people stop using the stairs and just jump out of buildings cause they know they can take the damage.
Apparently it was the gm running the module RAW, which is IMO a combination of bad design and bad dming.
The PCs were 5th level. In theory this would be a significant challenge. However, they were able to get their hands on some flight spells and fireball wands and basically single handedly destroy the army. I'm a little sketchy on the details- apparently they were able to somehow stay out of range of archers, but the point is simple things like giving PCs access to flight and other really potent abilities at fairly low levels can make a lot of challenges trivial, and many of those abilities are considered pretty standard, as opposed to min/maxing.No that story smacks of poor GM'ing, a lot of handwaving, and a lack of application of numerous rules. Added to that the enemy were apparently lobotomised.
Thats not Pathfinder at fault, nor 3.X.
Cheeze in any game is still Cheeze.
Yeah, I was just having a look at that one. It might warrant a closer look, though I know that some of my players would like at least some access to magic. For me spellcasting has always been one of the main places where I run into problems. However, with martial characters there can be an issue with too many actions on a turn. Watching a player try to roll out a half dozen attacks in a round for a melee character can be pretty frustrating (obviously that's not the norm, but spells like haste don't help- there's a spell I'd drop from the game).
Well, P.H.D., once again I find myself recommending Malhavoc Press's old Iron Heroes sourcebook, which was a creditable attempt to present a d20 fantasy RPG that was not reliant on magic in any way. Sheesh, do I get a T-shirt from those guys if I recommend them one more time?... It was released well after 3.5 and made attempts to fix some of its problems, although the big one that wiped out a lot of previous problems was eliminating spellcasting (or rather, replacing it with a slightly unreliable and extremely dangerous form of magic, a la the magicians of Robert E. Howard or H. P. Lovecraft.)
(Oh dear, I just looked up-thread and saw Black Knight approves of Iron Heroes too. So, uh, if the two of us agreeing causes the Zombie Apocalypse, I officially want to take this moment to say: My Bad.)
Apparently it was the gm running the module RAW, which is IMO a combination of bad design and bad dming.
I can pretty much guarantee that not only was it not being run RAW, but neither was it being run with anything other than a desire to make the players feel like Team America... its the only way to explain not only his selective handwaving of rules, but any level of tactical competence on behalf of the enemies.
Why all the wizard vs fighter? Why not wizard and fighter?
The most powerful blast spell in the game takes a 7th and a 4th level spell slot.
It's called delay until immediately before the fighter's turn then cast quickened haste and telekinetic charge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to actually disagree that Pathfinder is better balanced then 3e.
Pathfinder Core is better balanced then 3.5 Core, yes.
But 3.5 isn't just core. As time went on WotC experimented and tried to fix their own problems. They looked at the Hexblade and made the Duskblade. They looked at ranger and made the scout, and then made Swift Hunter. They looked at the strengths and weaknesses of vancian casting and played with psionics and invocation classes. They looked at the rogue and made Beguiler and Factotum. They looked at the martial classes and made Tome of Battle.
As I said earlier, Paizo's balancing feels like someone trying to fix a problem they themselves don't see. People in this thread (humerously after my post) have talked about how oh man check out the damage the Pathfinder fighter does, it's totally better then 3e. But the 3.5 fighter's problem was never damage. He did plenty of damage. Granted he had to specialize for it, but Pathfinder isn't that much different in that aspect. The fighter's problem was everything else. But, if you never saw those problems or saw those as a problem, then the Pathfinder fighter is totally better because he does more damage.
So yeah. Pathfinder isn't better "balanced" then 3.5 because Paizo doesn't see any flaws in 3.5. I haven't seen any critical eye aimed at what's been done, which saddens me because being critical not just of things you dislike, but being critical of things you DO like matters. And being critical yourself matters most of all.
To reiterate, it's not even "if you loved/hated 3.5." It's "If you felt 3.5 had little to no balance issues to begin with, Pathfinder is the game for you."
Look through this thread and you'll see a lot of people who say that either balance doesn't matter or that 3.5 was never imbalanced to begin with. And people who say both which is really confusing because, you know, make up your mind! But that more or less strengthens my argument. If you had little to no problems with 3.5 then this is your game. If you had problems with 3.5 - even if you liked the core system - then this likely is not the game for you, because it likely does not fix those problems because it likely does not see those problems.
Why all the wizard vs fighter? Why not wizard and fighter?
Because most of the whiners going on about 'Balance' are actually pretty self-centred and want to be rockstars. They aren't a party, they are a collection of six individuals.
This is why they whine about "But HE can do...X" rather than say "Hey wow, look what WE can do"
They never really want true balance per-se, they are just pushing the barrow for their favourute flavour to get more uberfied.
Apparently it was the gm running the module RAW, which is IMO a combination of bad design and bad dming.I can pretty much guarantee that not only was it not being run RAW, but neither was it being run with anything other than a desire to make the players feel like Team America... its the only way to explain not only his selective handwaving of rules, but any level of tactical competence on behalf of the enemies.
What rules were handwaved, do you think?
I've played lots of 3.5, but for the past few years I've been running 4E games. I haven't tried Pathfinder yet. We're starting a new campaign and we've decided to take a break from 4E. I've been trying to decide whether to use Pathfinder or True20. I like a lot of the flavour and such in Pathfinder, but I'm a bit hesitant to use the system because on the surface it looks like it would have all the same balance issues that 3.5 had (primarily- magic dominating the game at higher levels and melee characters having few combat options beyond "full attack, again"). For those of you who have played the game past level 9 or so, is this the case or have they managed to make some changes to alleviate that trend?
No balance issues between PCs at all in Pathfinder. It is one of the most perfectly balanced systems I have ever seen.
There are plenty of things for spellcasters to do at low levels and plenty of things for the martial types to do at high levels.
Mind you, this is including what I can consider to be the whole system (Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, and Ultimate Combat).
We have played through one campaign up to level 20 and absolutely nobody got bored or felt useless at any time.
What rules were handwaved, do you think?
Well lets start with the Fly spell and move from there...
Similarly lets not overlook the lobotomy handed out to the enemy either.
What rules were handwaved, do you think?Well lets start with the Fly spell and move from there...
Ok...?
This isnt a challenge of any sort - I'm curious.