|
With respect, TriOmegaZero, this is a forum for discussing Paizo products. Specifically, the Pathfinder Core Rules. I don't see any requirements that those discussions be unremitting praise.
He was not saying that it was a requirement, he was only telling him what he should expect on a Forum and section with fans of Pathfinder, disagreement.
This is a forum of people who wanted 3.5 changed. You want it changed back. We literally have no common ground to discuss from. I'm telling you now that you are going to find nothing but arguments here.With respect, TriOmegaZero, this is a forum for discussing Paizo products. Specifically, the Pathfinder Core Rules. I don't see any requirements that those discussions be unremitting praise.
I can't speak for everybody, but I didn't particularly want to see 3.5 changed three years ago. I'm happy enough with Pathfinder to play it in PFS OP, and to GM it. But I'm happy enough with 3.5 to play it with my friends in weekly campaigns.
3.5 Loyalist gave an honest review of the game system, citing reasons and concerns. If we can't respect that, then that's our lack, not his.
Chris, you are a really decent guy. Incredibly so even.
More reviews to follow. Like it or not, here I come!
An example is taking a certain interpretation on the rogue's sneak attack. From 1st ed, to 2nd, you could do one in a round. It was called backstab then. Now some people in 3.5 and pathfinder argue you can do multiple sneak attacks in the same round. Under the text description it doesn't say you can do only one sneak attack per round. So you can get players who duel wield, hasten up and do 3d6 +x3 damage mod(from three scimitar hits) +9d6 (3d6+3d6+3d6) sneak if he is fifth level (as an example). This is wrought in regards to damage, a level five wizard or ranger or barb would not get anywhere near that amount of damage. But some people consider this right, conning more d6s into the equation. That's it a precision attack is lost on them, some get behind the wrought.
So basically here we have a 5th level Rogue with, for the sake of argument, 13 Str and a 15 Dex (bare minimum needed to take the two weapon fighting feat).
She's using a Scimitar in each hand (d6/d6)
Using a Full Attack action she attacks a target that's flatfooted.
So with a 5th level Rogue (+3BAB) with a 13 STR (+1)and -4 to hit (with Two Weapon fighting as Scimitars are not light weapons) She has a +0 to hit with each weapon. But lets be kind and assume she has 2 magic Scimitar +1. So now the bonus is back up to +1/+1 to hit.
Her magic user ally has just cast haste on her which gives her an extra attack and another +1 bonus to hit. So now it's +2/+2.
Against a Dex dependent opponent that's not bad, against a heavily armored opponent who's not dependent on Dex it's not so good.
Damage wise if she hits on all three attacks it's:
d6+1(Primary Hand Attack)+ 3d6 average(mean) 3.5 + 3.5 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 14
d6+1(Secondary hand Attack)+ 3d6 average(mean) 3.5 + 3.5 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 14
d6+1(Extra Attack from Haste) + 3d6 average(mean) 3.5 + 3.5 + 3.5 + 3.5 = 14
CORRECTION:
You actually ARE looking at doing 42 points of damgage on average IF all three attacks hit. WHEN she uses a FULL ATTACK option (which means only taking a 5 foot step) AND provided that she hits with all 3 attacks (which odds of her doing so are pretty good vs. a dex opponent who has had thier Dex mod deprived from them. Not so much against a heavily armored opponent who doesnt rely on a dex bonus as much) AND does average damage (which could be the case. She could do more overall or she could do less overall)
Now if the player rolled max damage on all dice then you might have a point, seeing as that's a fairly rare occurance? I'd say that if they did roll max damage (and I've seen it happen...) I'd say let them enjoy thier sneak attack damage. Otherwise I'm not sure, at it's most basic (based off of your example), that it's really that bad.
so youre actually not looking at 40 to 50 points of damage on AVERAGE, youre actually looking at 18 points of damage (21 if you add back in the STR bonus) on AVERAGE.
The average of 4d6 is 14, not 6. If you hit for 4d6 on all 3 attacks, the avarage amount of damage would be 42.
Anyway, the reason it's not a huge problem that you can get sneak attack damage on all of your attacks in a round is that much of the time the condition that gives you sneak attack on the first attack will no longer be there for the remaining attacks (invisibility and stealth, for instance).
The few times that the Rogue gets to add sneak attack to all of her attacks in a full-round attack, the Rogue has probably worked pretty hard to get into the proper position.
so youre actually not looking at 40 to 50 points of damage on AVERAGE, youre actually looking at 18 points of damage (21 if you add back in the STR bonus) on AVERAGE.The average of 4d6 is 14, not 6. If you hit for 4d6 on all 3 attacks, the avarage amount of damage would be 42.
CRAP! forgot that the arithmetic mean of a normal fair die is 3.5. Apologies to 3.5 Loyalist...
|
Chris, there has been nothing disrespectful about my posts. Unless you consider disagreeing with him disrespectful.
In regards to classes, my concern as a dm is balance.
And here is the flaw in your premise. Balance is not objective.
You consider the 3.5 fighter balanced. I consider the PF paladin balanced.
Is one of us wrong? No. We merely have different definitions of balanced. Is one of our definitions objectively better? No. Each is better suited to our own different play styles.
You would be unhappy in my games with full SA damage on every strike. I would be unhappy in your games with SA damage on one hit only. Neither one is better than the other.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
This is a forum of people who wanted 3.5 changed. You want it changed back. We literally have no common ground to discuss from. I'm telling you now that you are going to find nothing but arguments here.With respect, TriOmegaZero, this is a forum for discussing Paizo products. Specifically, the Pathfinder Core Rules. I don't see any requirements that those discussions be unremitting praise.
I can't speak for everybody, but I didn't particularly want to see 3.5 changed three years ago. I'm happy enough with Pathfinder to play it in PFS OP, and to GM it. But I'm happy enough with 3.5 to play it with my friends in weekly campaigns.
3.5 Loyalist gave an honest review of the game system, citing reasons and concerns. If we can't respect that, then that's our lack, not his.
Chris, you are a really decent guy. Incredibly so even.
More reviews to follow. Like it or not, here I come!
I read the review. First off, thanks to 3.5 Loyalist for doing a review. However, I have some feedback about the review itself that may sound harsh.
The review contains many claims that Paizo plagerized non-OGL material (healer, knight, warlock etc.) and the word stupid. If I see the word stupid in a review that is a red flag. The review comes across as very rude and is skating on the edge of trolling. The accusations are simply silly; Paizo did not steal trademarked Wizard rule mechanics. In my opinion, the name 3.5 Loyalist is another red flag, indicating an agenda. The review also wandered back to the beta rules which I didn't understand.
Also, my opinion is that the review is not really a review but an editorial rant. Which I suppose is okay except it doesn't really help a person make an informed decision about this product, the Core Rulebook.
I give the review 1 Star. My suggestion to 3.5 Loyalist is to remove insults from future reviews, stick to the book reviewed, don't accuse Paizo of using non-OGL material, and perhaps provide more concrete examples of what doesn't work for him in a product--this could be rules, art, concept, anything. Give the reader of your review concrete examples to go with your opinions and leave the near-trolling at home.
Am I reading a completely different review, or did it get edited? I don't see anything about non-OGL material or plagiarism.
Also:
This is a forum of people who wanted 3.5 changed.
No it's not.
This is a forum of people who wanted to see 3.5 continue in some publishable (and published) form - changed or unchanged, but at a minimum, kept alive.
I understand the concept of why things had to be changed enough so that they'd justify to most people the purchase of a copy of the book over maintaining their existing books, but there was a very large and vocal group of folks that wanted to see Pathfinder published, but didn't want to see things changed as much as they were.
A lot of those folks are still here and still participating, having accepted the change.
|
|
Am I reading a completely different review, or did it get edited? I don't see anything about non-OGL material or plagiarism.
Paladin has taken abilities from the healer class, an entire other class, while retaining its old abilities in the mix.
...
I far prefer the small steady bonuses in beta over the stolen 3.5 knight abilities in core.
Am I reading a completely different review, or did it get edited? I don't see anything about non-OGL material or plagiarism.Paladin has taken abilities from the healer class, an entire other class, while retaining its old abilities in the mix.
...
I far prefer the small steady bonuses in beta over the stolen 3.5 knight abilities in core.
Sure, I see those words, but I'm not reading them as plagiarism, of non-OGL sources or otherwise.
I seem that as a claim of abilities "taken" or "stolen" from another class.
Anyhow, so, yeah, this:
The review contains many claims that Paizo plagerized non-OGL material (healer, knight, warlock etc.)
is false.
Yeah, I think some folks are stretching a bit for reasons to be offended.
|
Am I reading a completely different review, or did it get edited? I don't see anything about non-OGL material or plagiarism.Paladin has taken abilities from the healer class, an entire other class, while retaining its old abilities in the mix.
...
I far prefer the small steady bonuses in beta over the stolen 3.5 knight abilities in core.Sure, I see those words, but I'm not reading them as plagiarism, of non-OGL sources or otherwise.
I seem that as a claim of abilities "taken" or "stolen" from another class.
Anyhow, so, yeah, this:
The review contains many claims that Paizo plagerized non-OGL material (healer, knight, warlock etc.)is false.
New to semantics, I see? No problem, many people get confused with it.
The word "stolen" has rather obvious meaning and connotations. The reviewer could have used word such as "recycled" or "copied". He used the word "stolen". It's pejorative and derogatory.
The word "stolen" has rather obvious meaning and connotations. The reviewer could have used word such as "recycled" or "copied". He used the word "stolen". It's pejorative and derogatory.
Yeah, that's kinda how I saw it too. And no I wasn't looking for reasons to get offended, but I think that 3.5 Loyalist grasp of the english language is good enough that he knows what words he's using to put together a sentence and WHY he's using the words he's using.
If we're wrong then I'm sure at some point he'll step in and correct those of us who have misinterpreted his statements.
|
|
The word "stolen" has rather obvious meaning and connotations. The reviewer could have used word such as "recycled" or "copied". He used the word "stolen". It's pejorative and derogatory.Yeah, that's kinda how I saw it too. And no I wasn't looking for reasons to get offended, but I think that 3.5 Loyalist grasp of the english language is good enough that he knows what words he's using to put together a sentence and WHY he's using the words he's using.
If we're wrong then I'm sure at some point he'll step in and correct those of us who have misinterpreted his statements.
I'm not a native English speaker, but then again I am anal...sorry, I mean I am a near-lawyer, and overzealous care for use of proper word for proper phenomenon comes with the package, I'm afraid :)
The word "stolen" has rather obvious meaning and connotations. The reviewer could have used word such as "recycled" or "copied". He used the word "stolen". It's pejorative and derogatory.
He could have, but regardless of words used, he didn't make any claims of plagiarism.
I think it was a poor review, myself, but still - it's not semantics, it's outright nonsense.
Time to talk nonsense.
Please refer to page 61-62 in core, discussing mercies. Attached to lay on hands they remove effects for 1 hour. There is a 3rd level, 9th level and 12th level list. The list of ailments that can be removed are:
(3rd: fatigued, shaken, sickened, dazed, diseased, staggered.
(9th: cursed, exhausted, frightened, nauseated, poisoned.
(12th: blinded, deafended, paralyzed, stunned.
Please now consult the miniatures handbook page 9. The healer class has cleanse abilities for, in order, paralysis, disease, fear, poison, then far later blindness.
Would you look at that, the smiting +1BAB per level class get abilities highly similar to the healer class from 3.5. They are indeed reduced in duration, but the paladin has more things he can temporarily cure. Also as page 62 notes, a paladin can use multiple daily mercies on the one target. As in, use lay on hands to heal and remove multiple effects if existant. The status removing effects highly similar to another class (but with a greater range and a shorter duration) are added to a melee class (the healer had a poorer bab) which already possesses many other abilities: detect evil, smite, lay on hands, channel positive, bonds and later auras, and a d10 hit die. There is just too much, and the abilities of another class have been merged into the core paladin.
This reminds me of prestige classes I have not allowed in play. Because they keep getting more and more things. Not a little every level, not a chunk or something good, and then a wait. No, the abilities stack higher and higher.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Guys, please lay off getting into people's motives and the minutia of their language. If Loyalist sees similarities between Pathfinder changes and other class abilities from various sources, whatever. It's no skin off your back, or off mine.
Please stop picking on each other. It's one review out of like 100. If you want to offer a counter-balance, post your own thoughts about the book in your own review.
It's getting very "meta" (and very unfriendly) in here.
Which is lame.
I agree with Erik a fair bit. Pathfinder offers a new d20 system and a full conversion from 3.5 if gamers so desire.
Or, you can just take some (or none) of the rules, changes, builds, npcs, monsters and leave the rest behind. I'm not sure if I technically play pathfinder, since I only borrow about 10% of the rules (with far more monsters borrowed minus cmb and cmd and pathfinder combat feats, change the CR in accordance with 3.5 rules), but we all should be careful we don't get too serious about this hobby and angry at each-other's opinions, and become lame. :]
I have more experience using the monk and seeing it in action, so I'll elaborate upon why it is not weak. Plenty of attacks, good damage compared to two-weapon fighting, which has similarities to flurry. Good saves, okay hp, nice mobility and some special abilities and immunities once you get to mid levels. The monk is an odd sort of combat generalist, not specialised in raising to hit so high, or damage through the roof. Their AC can rise quite nicely with some enchantments, a good dex and wis.
A fighter with low speed can sometimes not flee a bad combat. The monk if things are going dire, usually can escape. Not all combat can be won out-right and with ease. A good chance of escaping is a great class benefit to survivability.
I've been watching one monk fight pathfinder/3.5/3rd ed monsters for months. The feats were put into dodge so as to win over time with flurries and power attacks, the wear opponents down tactic. Choi seems to do just fine, he is up to level 12 now. I've seen low ac monks get defeated easily, but low ac characters can always be taken out with massive damage or many hits, so this weakness isn't specific to the monk, but to the low ac build.
To put it another way, they are not quite as good at fighting as fighters, but then they get immunities and mobility that the fighter/ranger/barb doesn't. There is a balance here. Dash, to increase base speed by 5 is a feat. Monks get two of these and then more later. Not strongest on the numbers, greatly endowned on the special and feat-like abilities.
Now I've tested the core monk, let them be played. I ended up tearing them back to 3.5. The new ki abilities were far too much, all those bonuses, those extras, already added to good saves, mobility, decent damage and immunities. The designers tried to make them sexier and what ended up happening was the class info became hugely bloated. On the chart where it tracks level benefits it became just ridiculous. When each levels gives more and more, you know you have encountered wrought.
On...
I am not going to do a threadjack, but there are enough antimonk threads here and at the WoTC site that finding one to necro is not hard at all.
here is a freebie for youAs for 3.5 paladins I am sure like with any other class you can make it decent with splat books, but that is more a measure of the power of combined splats than the class.
Here's one. What do we think when comparing the combat manoeuvre rules of pathfinder core to 3.5?
The changes made to feats like sunder, disarm, trip etc. The trees compared to the old singular feats.
|
|
Here's one. What do we think when comparing the combat manoeuvre rules of pathfinder core to 3.5?
The changes made to feats like sunder, disarm, trip etc. The trees compared to the old singular feats.
The global changes to the CM mechanics (size doesn't matter as much any more, tripping a Large+ opponent is no longer somewhere around impossible) outweigh the feat changes. Also, you get more feat slots in PF than you did in 3.5 anyway.
Well, BG is hard to navigate, I haven't messed with ENWorld much, and the Den has gotten stale.
However, GitP seems to be a new home for me. ;)
Really I only stay for Kirth's threads and the occasional argument.
Speaking of, you owe me a 'Sorcerers are overpowered, wizards are weak' thread.
|
|
Well, BG is hard to navigate, I haven't messed with ENWorld much, and the Den has gotten stale.
However, GitP seems to be a new home for me. ;)
Really I only stay for Kirth's threads and the occasional argument.
Speaking of, you owe me a 'Sorcerers are overpowered, wizards are weak' thread.
Hold on, with "Monks are overpowered" threads around it's a matter of time before somebody comes around saying that bigger skill list and UMD as class skill mean that Sorcerer dominates every other caster class...
EDIT: Wraithstrike wins this round.
|
|
Here's one. What do we think when comparing the combat manoeuvre rules of pathfinder core to 3.5?
The changes made to feats like sunder, disarm, trip etc. The trees compared to the old singular feats.
Streamlined for play while abstracting the simulation. Even less useful now, and harder to invest in. Only good for dedicated users, no longer an option to be used by uninvested characters. Pretty much all around nerfed.
Brutal Maneuvers by Evil Lincoln is a recommended houserule.
Yeah I considered them really nerfed. Stream-lined, more costly to get into feat-wise and CMD can get so high against monsters the fighter could be left wondering, where do these creatures study to counter all my techniques?
In 3.5 I found they were quite easily pulled off. The opposed modded rolls or strength checks were more exciting than a bar to reach.
I did get soured especially by a player who kept going on and on, that tripping doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. They just fell over, right in front of you, jeeeez. Ha ha, anyway.
Yeah I considered them really nerfed. Stream-lined, more costly to get into feat-wise and CMD can get so high against monsters the fighter could be left wondering, where do these creatures study to counter all my techniques?
In 3.5 I found they were quite easily pulled off. The opposed modded rolls or strength checks were more exciting than a bar to reach.
I did get soured especially by a player who kept going on and on, that tripping doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. They just fell over, right in front of you, jeeeez. Ha ha, anyway.
Tripping was mostly nerfed due to the combination with the spiked chain which also got hit hard. I think the spiked chain was worth a feat in 3.5, but not now.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Some people, including some Paizo staffers, felt that the maneuver rules in3rd Edition / 3.5 are too klunky and non-intuitive. With the Pathfinder ruleset, they endeavored to make a system that is cleaner and quicker to play.
To my mind, PF RPG doesn't handle extreme cases as well. In 3.5, someone attempting a maneuver like trip or grapple needs to make two rolls: an touch attack and a maneuver roll, and a target's size modifies each of these. This simulates that (a) it's easy to grab a cow, but hard to wrestle it, while (b) it's hard to get ahold of a squirrel, but once you do get your hands around it, you can do pretty much whatever you want with it. Under Pathfinder, maneuvers against big foes are just generally tougher than against little foes; this works faster, and works fine 90% of the time.
And the final version works pretty much head-and-shoulders better than the Beta test version, where maneuvers were much dicier. Even a PC who dedicated herself to being a trip-monkey would have a hard time tripping foes in her CR weight class. The design consideration, as I remember it, was that some Paizo staffers had grown tired of seeing people trip and disarm and do all sorts of wa-hoo things instead of just,you now, sticking sharp weapons in their foes. Under the published rules, its easier for someone to be competent in a maneuver or two, but the system still discourages folks from trying such schenanigans without proper training.
But if you take a character, make him good at something via feats, and then change the system so that he is worse off, and more likely to fail, is this actually a good thing?
I remember dming a game with a spiked chain fire cleric. He did really well against a lot of the close stuff I sent at him. But I wouldn't change the rules to make his specialty harder (he was a cleric with more of a fighter-like feat selection).
It always strikes me as odd that people find 3.5 grapple confusing. Grab them, control them, then they are all yours, you have options now, and they must spend actions to get out of your grasp. A beef to grapple also helps you against grappling monsters of course.
3.5 trip? Touch with a hand or appropriate weapon, then wrench them down with an opposed strength check.
3.5 sunder? Opposed attack rolls, you must strike their weapon hard.
3.5 disarm? It is opposed and rather similar to a sunder in mechanic, with some added details.
Now I do get they are different, and that it can be a little confusing, but speeding up things isn't always better. CMD is a number to hit, but in 3.5 an opponent that is very hard to disarm or sunder, may still be vulnerable to trip. Especially if you took the feat, which really helps you out, instead of being a small sum in a big sum game.
A level 4 fighter who has trouble grappling a level 4 monk would be wondering if he has wasted years training. Or is he actually a warrior who thinks he is a fighter? Its not always about damage with the fighter especially with certain combat maneuvers. The natural order of the world punishing a melee class for trying to do something they are good at is simply..... too punishing.
The issue on cmd is strange. Implementing the AC bonus from wisdom and monk class to cmd? Doing away with touch attacks? the assumption that you can grab hold of your opponent for sure? Touch attacks are a crucial part of combat maneuvers for a good reason. Some individuals are clunky and clumsy, not co-ordinated. Others are nimble enough to dodge bullets. The rolls still have to be made cmb vs cmd etc. But are you so certain you can even get a hold of them? Potentially large oversight.
There was a separate game where the DM made it such that spellcasting really messes you up and regular "breaks" are necessary to prevent oneself from passing out. Different situations but similar issue. The natural mechanics of the world punish you for what you've been practicing to do for years; spellcasting.
Copying the shadowrun spell fatigue and exhaustion mechanic is always a bad idea.
Sometimes, before we know it, we find ourselves punishing success. If what you say of the staffers is true Chris, this is wrong. Good to finally have an explanation.
Removed some posts. Please be civil and don't make things personal.
Sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way, it wasn't intended. I sometimes come off as rather gruff in my posts. :)
Sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way, it wasn't intended. I sometimes come off as rather gruff in my posts. :)
+1
"master craftsmen which lets you craft magic items in the sense of +1 to +(whatever) magical items. Really? So the blacksmith who has no exposure to or knowledge of the arcane pulls mystical energy from OUT OF NOWHERE and imbues the normal axe with magical power. Huge gap in logic there."
I really found that feat questionable. A quick way for chars to make magic items without a wizard, and for magic items to greatly increase in economies, because craftsman can now make them. What do the rest think? I keep it well away from my games. Don't forget Zhen, the rank also counts as caster level.
You have an excellent sense of humour sir.
indeed. They're great craftsmen who scoff at smelting.......?
But if you take a character, make him good at something via feats, and then change the system so that he is worse off, and more likely to fail, is this actually a good thing?
I remember dming a game with a spiked chain fire cleric. He did really well against a lot of the close stuff I sent at him. But I wouldn't change the rules to make his specialty harder (he was a cleric with more of a fighter-like feat selection).
It always strikes me as odd that people find 3.5 grapple confusing. Grab them, control them, then they are all yours, you have options now, and they must spend actions to get out of your grasp. A beef to grapple also helps you against grappling monsters of course.
3.5 trip? Touch with a hand or appropriate weapon, then wrench them down with an opposed strength check.
3.5 sunder? Opposed attack rolls, you must strike their weapon hard.
3.5 disarm? It is opposed and rather similar to a sunder in mechanic, with some added details.Now I do get they are different, and that it can be a little confusing, but speeding up things isn't always better. CMD is a number to hit, but in 3.5 an opponent that is very hard to disarm or sunder, may still be vulnerable to trip. Especially if you took the feat, which really helps you out, instead of being a small sum in a big sum game.
It can be a good thing. It depends on how it affects the system and games as whole. You can be so good at something that it is disruptive.
I actually was good with the grapple rules, but the casual gamer may have had issues with them. I am a GM also, so I felt like I had to know them. The other maneuvers were not picked on like grapple was with regard to "how to play it". Tripping was an issue with trip-lock builds for some DM's. It was actually enough DM's that there were several complaints with it. Just because we don't have an issue with something that does not mean it is not an issue.