| CoDzilla |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've heard many people make claims as to whether or not Pathfinder closed the gap in power between the classes who get full casting progression and the classes which get no casting progression in D&D 3.5. I'm wondering not only whether people believe the disparity still exists, but whether they believe the reason behind it is mathematically based, playstyle based, or a combination thereof, and also what, if anything, can be done to appropriately and effectively close or at least lessen that gap. This tread is meant to facilitate that in open, CIVIL discussion, as well as continue my conversation with CoDzilla without threadjacking anyone.
Let's make this simple. Mathematically based. The only way to close the gap is to first completely scrap all PF non caster rules, including maneuver rules, feats, and classes, and replace them with their 3.5 versions. In addition to that, lots of 3.5 books, so that the non casting classes can get nice things. Just doing one or the other is not enough - even if you allow 3.5 material in, things like PF nerfing PA and maneuvers still means you cannot make a relevant martial character. Even if you revert PF's nerfs, core only melee is still non viable. And even with both of these things, you'll still need plenty of house rules.
1. Their full potency often stems from a single standard action every round, double that with quicken spell. They are able to move about if neccessary, and still recieve the full power in combat that the game rules allow them. If a martial type with a base attack bonus of 6 or greater needs to move then his combat potential has dropped significantly for the round, especially if he is a two weapon fighter.
Quicken is rarely necessary, as one spell is generally enough. But otherwise yes. This is the reason why we have house ruled full attacks to be a standard action. Note that this house rule was not in effect in the game I discussed with you, but it was implemented in all games thereafter.
2. Martial characters are more heavily gear dependent. They must not only worry about stastic boosting items like their caster allies, but weapons and armor as well. Again this even more heavily disfavors a two weapon fighter as he has twice the offensive investment to make out of his wealth, not to mention martial types that wish to be en equal threat in melee or at range. Also, with pathfinder rolling all physical attribute boosting items into belts, and all mental attribute boosting items into headbands, this favors the SAD classes (generally casters) over the MAD classes (generally martials), as a Fighter can no longer pick up an amulet to boost his Con, gloves to boost his Dex, and a belt to boost his Str, all to the varying degrees that he would like best - instead he is stuck paying the price of them rolled into a single item, where as a SAD caster only needs a single statistic boosting headband.
Indeed. All the usual problems, + PF adding a cost markup isn't helping matters any. If +x to y stat stuff didn't count for markup purposes, there'd be no problem. The MIC does this. And then you can just have +4 Str, and +2 Con for 20k.
3. Martial characters have a narrower scope of capabilities, and once they choose their abilities they cannot be changed. A Fighter is stuck with the feats that he has chosen whether or not they are the best option at the time. A Wizard can research, purchase, or learn a key spell to deal with a situation if he knows of it in advance, and can swap out his daily allotment of spells with 8 hours rest, making him far more versitile. A caster can often find and exploit an enemies weakness where a fighter has to rely on his standard tactics for victory (usually HP damage by attacking AC).
Lack of adaptability is perhaps the most serious problem of all. D&D is a game about adapting or dying. Naturally, playing a one or no trick pony does not end well. At best, you can contribute when your trick works (which isn't often). More likely, you just can't contribute.
Not to mention that while feats and other mundane type things are rather narrow in their applications, spells are exactly the opposite. Thus, even those casters who have a limited means of changing their spells or getting new ones, such as Sorcerers are still immensely better off as chances are if you have 6 combat spells, at least 2 of them will be extremely applicable right now, and the others are not necessarily useless here. They just won't hit the weak point.
I'd like to start off by saying that I haven't heard anyone else use the term "Caster Edition", not to say that I don't believe it isn't used in some circles, but just that I haven't heard it anywhere else.
I've seen it bounced around several different optimization boards in reference to Pathfinder.
Codzilla, you've made the claim that you think in 3.5 supplemental rulebooks helped the martial types far more than the caster types and helped to close the gap. I respectfully disagree. I saw great additions to both types repertoire, which in turn I feel aided casters more for the simple reason that not only did they gain more options but they could swap them out on a daily basis. When you say that Pathfinder "nerfed" (I hate using that word as a verb...) martial types, what specifically do you mean over the 3.5 material? Are you refering to 3.5 along with all of its supplements being stronger than Pathfinder core? If so I agree. But there is a long list of supplements and options for 3.5, and Pathfinder is fairly new, so it wouldn't be fair to compare that to Pathfinder. Or are you refering to core 3.5 to core Pathfinder?
Gaining more options only matters if those options are better. Look at an optimized caster build. Any optimized caster build. Even the ones built under anything goes rulesets are mostly core. They still use staples such as Web, Slow, and Stinking Cloud at low levels, upgrading to Fog/Tentacle combos and other lockdown methods at mid levels, and using the no save, you just lose spells such as Maze and Gate at high levels. There might be a non core spell for flavor purposes, or perhaps a defensive spell such as Greater Mirror Image or Superior Resistance but it's still mostly core.
Good luck making a martial character do anything at all, without at the least having access to all Complete books, the MIC, and core sequels (such as the PHB2) on top of core. Other than die, of course.
When I say Pathfinder nerfed martial characters, I first refer to basic, core tenets of their being. You MUST Power Attack to do enough damage to matter. However, PF PA is nerfed, compared to 3.5. Therefore even if you add 3.5 things that build on PA, such as Leap Attack you're still nerfed. And the only way martial characters could kind of sort of tank is by being spiked chain trippers. However, spiked chains and maneuvers were nerfed hard. I have heard this means that Pathfinder is "No tactics, auto attacks only, FINAL DESTINATION!"
As someone who casually plays Brawl after playing Melee casually for a while, I cannot help but agree with the sentiment, even if I would have worded it differently.
But that aside it's also subtler and more insidious than this. Ride has an armor check penalty. So if you're some guy in full plate riding a horse around, you are not allowed to have nice things as the ACP will ensure you cannot be a knight or whatever until well after the level at which mounted combat hits its expiration date. And apparently, this change was only made so that some classes can get the "feature" of dodging that nerf. Deceptive sales practices.
Or how about the fact that the martial feats are either the same or nerfed when compared to their 3.5 versions, but caster feats are the same or better? Not only that, but most of those martial feats were not only nerfed, they were divided into multiple feats. Because they weren't weak enough as a single feat. So much for any advantage stemming from having lots of feats.
As a handful of examples, Mage Slayer, one of the earliest 3.5 non core feats trumps the entire PF anti caster line. And there's what, 3 of those?
Stand Still. Compare the two.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency. Not directly nerfed, but see spiked chains.
Some have argued that Power Attack is mechanically stronger in Pathfinder and some have argued that it is mechanically weaker. I would be more than willing to say that without leap attack, shock trooper, and the numerous ways to get pounce in 3.5 it is definately weaker mechanically in Pathfinder, but I'm a bit weary to say that 3.5 power attack by itself is far superior to Pathfinder power attack. Thoughts?
Still weaker, even without those things. Not only that, but 3.5 PA actually made it worthwhile to have an average AC. You'd still be auto hit, but you would not be Power Attacked for full. In PF? Well, you're going to get auto hit, and likely PAed regardless. Might as well only take whatever AC you get incidentally, and nothing more. Running around with an AC of 10 at high levels? Completely viable. More so than 50, as you'll be auto hit either way, but have a lot of money to spend on things that actually help you instead.
But overall I'd have to say that both martial types and caster types got a definate boost in power in the core Pathfinder material over the core 3.5 material, so I'm not seeing how Pathfinder "nerfed" martial types. Their AC is better, they get more feats and abilities, many of the feats themselves are better.
Already addressed.
The buffs to casters I feel were less meaningful (excluding sorcerer, which improved in so many ways). Outside of a few specialized school abilities and cleric domains specialists and priests haven't gotten a whole lot better. Channel energy effectively lessens the need for cure wands which benefits the whole of the group more than themselves, and many SoL spells were weakened. Wild Shape got mechanically weaker, but much more managable.
The save or lose spells that were nerfed were either not nerfed in any meaningful way (Glitterdust, you'll kill them before they save) or can simply be ignored in favor of one that is not nerfed. As long as you have at least one a level you're just fine. And PF nicely added more.
Nerfing Wild Shape didn't do a whole lot, except for actually making casters better. Yes, you heard me right. See, either way you have to flip through a bunch of books to determine what, exactly you get from Wild Shape. But turning into your favorite animal, and attacking for HP damage has never been all that powerful because HP damage has never been all that powerful, in 3.x at least. However the fact the option exists, and spawned the moniker shared with my username means some people choose to exercise it. Now that makes weak classes like the Fighter feel small in the pants, but that's because they're weak classes, and easily upstaged even by accident. Nerfing Wild Shape doesn't suddenly stop making Fighters suck. It does mean Druid players say "Alright, no Wild Shape? That's cool. I'll just stick to these spells." And as a result of actually casting spells instead, they end up stronger.
Outside of retaining their SAD lifestyle and the other points from above, I don't see how PF rewarded casters over martials, outside of not weakening them much past removing Concentration as a skill and removing XP to craft. Even their big abilities like Arcane Bond with an item over an animal have some significant drawbacks.
Well, let's see...
The PB system screws MAD characters even more.
Crafting, a caster thing is massively buffed.
Free HP, just for being born.
Free spell DCs, just for being born.
More free spell DCs, handed out like candy for various reasons.
Persistent Spell. Because as we all know, casters needed +4 to +5 DC for one feat, or cheap magic item.
Back to 3.5 we were discussing AC as a viable defense in core vs supplemental material. Even changing monsters in the MM (which I think we both agreed was pretty much a given to challenge any experienced party) with the limited options in core material there aren't many significant ways to boost their offensive power past the bounds of a players ability to defend against. NPC's with class levels are an entirely different story however. That is if we are ignoring gear; though I think you and I would have a discussion at great lengths as to what amount and type of combat gear is appropriate to allow "monsters" with an intelligence score to use, without altering their "CR" (which was a bad joke in 3.5, and not terribly better in PF, in my opinion). Shall we?
Well, limited options in core goes back to fighters not getting nice things. The casting enemies still do fine. Though, even with that enemies still auto hit AC, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
NPCs with class levels are either free experience or credible threats, depending entirely on whether or not they can cast spells. While it is theoretically possible, at low levels and with heavy optimization in 3.5 to make NPC non humanoids a threat, the amount of effort required is prohibitively high. I can make a complete caster statblock in less time than it takes to dig for all the things they must have to even consider challenging the PCs.
And shall we what? Discuss how much gear is CR appropriate? What's there to discuss? It's listed right there in the statblock. Standard, or double standard, or triple standard. And then you cross reference it, subtract the value of any gear they are already listed as having unless it says that the standard is in addition to that, and then you use that amount to give it things that help it.
If that's not good enough for you, PF lets you full PC gear something for only +1 CR.
I might of missed a few topics from our last conversation starting this thread and porting some of it over here, so if there is anything that we were talking about that you would like to continue, feel free to bring it back up. I also wanted to ask you a few things:
Don't remember if there was anything in particular left out. I might remember later.
Do you like PF? I see you being very vocal with the flaws that you see in the system, but over all do you enjoy playing it? If so more than or less than 3.5? Feel free to add explanations of why and what houserules you think would improve either or both systems. I'm all ears, or rather, eyes.
That depends entirely on if you define something that has large parts of itself ignored or stripped out as still that thing. There are many around here that claim to enjoy PF when what they describe is actually freeform. I've called them on their misrepresentation. I'd say it would be a misrepresentation to call what we're playing PF, as even though some of the rules are still there, it really has little in common with it, due in large part to those parts needing to be removed to get something playable.
Whether or not I like it is quite irrelevant to the discussion, and I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it will simply serve to feed the trolls, which will not help this thread be productive.
I think any future games we play will be 3.5. We were avoiding most PF rules as detrimental to begin with, but the many "discussions", and handful of discussions (sans quotes) have sealed it for me, and by extension us. 5th edition might change that, or it might not. But overall, the community reaction was the thing that swayed that decision.
As for what house rules are necessary to fix 3.5, that'd be prohibitively long. And a PF list would be longer, as you'd have to start by stripping out most of PF.
But some of the general ideas:
Full attacks are a standard action.
All WBL, including enemy wealth (so you can actually get your treasure) is increased by 100%.
Crafting feats do not exist. Instead everyone gets double wealth (see previous line) and a Mage Mart. The game breaks otherwise.
All HP per HD are maxed. Now having a high HD size actually means something.
Various weak or mandatory feats are either removed outright and made innate abilities of the character, massively improved, or combined with other weak feats.
The rest is fixed by 3.5 material. For example, enemies become a bit harder to save or lose out when every enemy has a Conviction potion, and other save buffs are also common.
What is a session of your games usually like? A brief summary, if you'd indulge me, I'm obviously not going to ask for a line by line recap, but I'm curious to see how much emphasis is placed on social encounters, problem solving, and combat, and how those situations usually resolve. I'd reply in kind, if you'd like.
Well the important thing to realize, before saying anything else is that FatR is absolutely right. Anything other than combat in D&D is an afterthought, with little to no mechanical support. In effect, a game with high roleplaying and high optimization is a game in which you switch from playing D&D to freeform and back, often multiple times over the course of a session. And that's fine and all, as long as you're honest about it.
With that said, that is basically what we do. The combats are hard fights against intelligent, well made enemies fighting to the best of their abilities. The social encounters are a mixed bag, depending on the nature of the person being spoken to but there is a fair bit of that. This being D&D, problem solving is primarily the purview of spells, either because no mundane alternative exists, or because the mundane alternative is either not very effective, too slow, or both. Sure we have skills, and sometimes they even get used, but mundane abilities just don't solve supernatural problems. And that includes such things as "A really big, but otherwise ordinary enemy".
With that said, the efforts usually succeed. Combats are beaten down in a round or two (rarely three - almost never more than three) and if we didn't, they'd beat us down. Even when not playing on hard mode. The person playing the face or diplomat or whatever you want to call them is good at what they do, so if we need to talk to someone and get this information, and they have that information we get it. Of course, often they don't. See comments about mundane skills and short expiration dates. And problem solving? Well it might take more than one spell, and probably will if the enemy is half decent, but the problem gets solved. Now with all the house rules and such mundanes are a lot better, but they still aren't driving any plots.
And do you usally play or DM? Which do you prefer? Why?
I play slightly more often than I DM. I have no preference overall, though sometimes I'm more of a playing mood and sometimes in more of a DMing mood. It doesn't shift often, but it does shift.