It does appear that the base classes and races have received some very exiting options to bring them on par with non-standard races.
My concern is that it raises the power level of a game that would normally only use the core rulebooks.
There are a number of options that could downbalance every character evenly across the board so that a party of level one adventurers created with this system have the same difficulty versus a CR1 encounter as a party of level one adventurers created using the SRD would.
I know that I am not alone with this concern, but I am very likely not with the majority.
I think that its very important to keep this balance facet in mind when working on the Pathfinder RPG product. Perhaps it could be included as an optional feature.
Please, everyone, if you have ideas to help downbalance the system fairly and across the board I'm all ears.
I'm sure the monsters will get upgraded once they do the monster book. Backwards compatibility is second to Improving the Game and Adding Options.
It seems to me that having to upbalance monsters is an unnecessary hassle, although it would help to ensure overall balance and is therefor a viable solution. I am certainly eager to check out the monster book.
The increase in power is to keep you wanting to play that class, not always reach X level and then multiclass.
I understand that some changes have been made which allow greater flexibility and allow players greater incentive to continue using the core races and classes. I have no problem with these changes.
I think that it would be very valuable for the PRPG team to keep balance and backwards compatibility in mind when they flesh out the character creation rules.
----
I want to make it very clear that I am in full support of the PRPG and I will most certainly be buying the Beta when it comes out regardless of how it is balanced.
Please allow me to elaborate on my motivation for a moment.
I don't necessarily want to up the power level of my game just because I'm embracing the PRPG and the OGL.
I would be quite thrilled if there was an easy method to ensure that an old-style EL1 encounter would have the same difficulty when encountered by a new style party. If the method were suggested in the PRPG book, in the same manner that the DMG suggests altering party attributes to adjust to different levels of difficulty, that would be sufficient.
----
Since it appears that most every race receives an additional +2 bonus to an attribute, it would probably be easy to give the characters less points during creation when using the points system. About enough points to reduce the overall sum of attributes by 2. This would effect all races whether base or using a 3rd party book, since they were created using the PRPG books.
This wouldn't completely reverse the upbalance, but it would help ensure backwards compatibility regarding EL at least.
|
It does appear that the base classes and races have received some very exiting options to bring them on par with non-standard races.
My concern is that it raises the power level of a game that would normally only use the core rulebooks.
True, but given that most people AFAIK use splatbooks, and that the stuff in the splatbooks make the 3.5 core classes essentially useless, I fully support adding interesting options for the core classes in pathfinder. It just doesn't make sense having core classes that are boring and highly sub-optimal.
Besides, it's simply more fun to get something at every level.
True, but given that most people AFAIK use splatbooks, and that the stuff in the splatbooks make the 3.5 core classes essentially useless, I fully support adding interesting options for the core classes in pathfinder.
I'm sure many people do use splatbooks, they are also probably the people who spend the most on books so I can fully understand catering to that audience.
What I'm asking for here is an good method for using an optional rule to maintain backwards compatibility for EL with existing 3.5 material.
It just doesn't make sense having core classes that are boring and highly sub-optimal. Besides, it's simply more fun to get something at every level.
I agree with you. I love what Pathfinder does to keep the classes fun at every level.
I'm a bit worried that splatbooks are going to continue this 'arms race' and produce books that provide even more powerful abilities and races. I don't really want the base Pathfinder RPG to be a splatbook (I just discovered that term, can you tell?)
I'm resigned to knowing that it must evolve along the path of (guess what I'm going to say here ..) splatbooks.
It would help my ability to sell my friends on the concept of Pathfinder RPG if there was a simple and officially supported method, for bringing the power level of the game down a notch. Preferably down to the level where a level one 3.5 human fighter is on par with a level one Pathfinder human fighter.
I'm not asking you to like the concept. I'm just asking people to help me come up with a house rule, that might potentially become an official optional rule.
Thank you for your interest and for your input. I'll post some more suggestions later, when I flesh them out.
I saw the increase in power to races and classes as a way to off set magic items. Now your character can still be at X level and hold their own against X without looking like a christmas tree. So whole lot less gloves of, headband of, belt of necklace of...
Fizz
I saw the increase in power to races and classes as a way to off set magic items. Now your character can still be at X level and hold their own against X without looking like a christmas tree. So whole lot less gloves of, headband of, belt of necklace of...
I think that is valid, but it doesn't prevent you from looking like a Christmas tree if you want .. which means an old-style tree vs a new-style tree is going to get pwned :)
Another suggestion for the backwards compatibility of EL would be to just accept that the Pathfinder stuff is more powerful, and to find a formula to convert EL(x) into APL+(y).
I'll do some testing tonight and see what I can come up with.
I saw the increase in power to races and classes as a way to off set magic items. Now your character can still be at X level and hold their own against X without looking like a christmas tree. So whole lot less gloves of, headband of, belt of necklace of...
I'd love to downplay the "christmas tree" character thing, but see a few snags:
1. We'd need new gp/level tables to adjust for fewer items;2. We'd need guidelines on how to reduce gold and items handed out in 3.5 adventures;
3. We'd have a big problem with "save or die" effects, because saves are about the only thing that haven't been powered up, and if no one has a cloak of resistance (a mandatory item for everyone in 3.5), then characters will be dropping like flies.
|
I think that some of the new items shown off in alpha 2 have done a good deal to step back some of the power of magic items and that xmas tree effect to a degree.
Now you literally only will have two stat items, a mental one and a physical one. That on its own is likely to step down the power a bit of higher level characters who have reached a point where there is enough money going around that buying a +2 wisdom for the fighter is kind of a 'why not' thing.
It doesn't mean suddenly that characters need a reduction in wealth or the like, just the shifting in stats mean that characters are much more likely to have some items that are just neat rather then because they are adding something to the characters.
I think the new system will see a pretty nice resurgence in those flavor items, we'll see paladins wearing a phylactery of faithfulness instead of a wisdom item because those slots are available again.
As for overall power level(especially at lower levels when magic items don't take a role yet) I think that its easy to step down in some ways(don't give the extra HP suggested, though I still think thats a boon since losing a char to a random roll at 1st level stinks) or adjust stat points as you mentioned(which is something that point buy using DMs already do now).
Jason and the rest of the Paizo guys have always been great at adding in helpful sidebars and designer thoughts in their products, so I wouldn't be surprised is there was something in there about giving the game a more low powered feel(be it low magic, or just stepped back) much like they gave options for how quickly we advance in level. The guys really seem to understand that their fans occupy two extremes a lot of the time and manage to cover both pretty well.
Posting your thoughts like this is a great way to ensure they get consideration(and even in the minority, you aren't alone), so keep it up.
All that and I don't think I said splatbooks once.
-Tarlane
What I'm asking for here is an good method for using an optional rule to maintain backwards compatibility for EL with existing 3.5 material.
The problem is that there is no such things as a balanced EL for 3.5 material, either. A party with two clerics, a druid, and a wizard will probably sail through an adventure unharmed compared to a party composed of a fighter, a monk, a bard and a paladin.
At any rate, I haven't seen a significant increase in power so far except for levels 1-3 (say) where the few extra hp and new at-will powers for spellcasters will make a difference.
I'd be delighted to eat my words if someone's playtest proves me wrong, though!
|
Completely agree with OP.
Can't understand why powering up is seen as good. It's a fact that game balance gets worse the more powers you give characters. People find things not thought of exploit these (that's called powergaming) and it's simply harder to design the balance.
Please redress the unbalancing power increase that's currently spiraling out of control and will make the game unplayable.
Completely agree with OP.
Can't understand why powering up is seen as good. It's a fact that game balance gets worse the more powers you give characters. People find things not thought of exploit these (that's called powergaming) and it's simply harder to design the balance.
What imbalances have you seen in your playtesting so far?
What imbalances have you seen in your playtesting so far?
Playing "Expedition to Castle Greyhawk" with converted characters. The human fighter 7/rogue 4 was easily able to go with an extra fighter level (instead of being a rogue 5/fighter 6, as his core 3.5e incarnation was) because of the more liberal skills rules in Pathfinder -- giving him a higher BAB and more feats. He now has Two-Weapon Fighting, and Improved Critical, and Off-Hand Slice, and whatever that feat is that lets you add sneak attack damge to crits, and Martial Outlaw (the one that lets you stack fighter levels for sneak attack), and a bunch of others, and can now kill everything in sight. There are two obvious solutions:
1. Reduce the number of feats back to 3.5. This guy's insane at 11th level because his fighter feats plus his 2 extra Pathfinder feats put him like 4-5 levels ahead in terms of how many feats he should reasonably have access to; or
2. Ban all non-Pathfinder feats until they've been thoroughly playtested.
So far, I'm not sure which one is the better approach. I can say that he is FAR more effective now than he ever would be in 3.5. On the other hand, the cleric has better skills use but has been nerfed of most of his offensive potential, so party-wise it might even out.
What imbalances have you seen in your playtesting so far?Playing "Expedition to Castle Greyhawk" with converted characters. The human fighter 7/rogue 4 was easily able to go with an extra fighter level (instead of being a rogue 5/fighter 6, as his core 3.5e incarnation was) because of the more liberal skills rules in Pathfinder -- giving him a higher BAB and more feats. He now has Two-Weapon Fighting, and Improved Critical, and Off-Hand Slice, and whatever that feat is that lets you add sneak attack damge to crits, and Martial Outlaw (the one that lets you stack fighter levels for sneak attack), and a bunch of others, and can now kill everything in sight.
That point about the skills is quite interesting. Are you using the Alpha 2.0 skill rules or the Alpha 1.1 rules? I would've thought he would be a bit short on skill points with 7 fighter levels, but he probably only needs to keep three or four skill completely maxed out.
What imbalances have you seen in your playtesting so far?
It seems to me that the classes and races are now more balanced in reference to eachother. A wizard at level one is a good match against a fighter at level one using the Pathfinder RPG Alpha 2 rules.
In the old 3.5 system, a wizard at level one was in no way a match for a fighter at level one.
I'm in favor of them being balanced, but this does pose an issue regarding the use of older 3.5 material and older 3.5 monsters.
At any rate, I haven't seen a significant increase in power so far except for levels 1-3 (say) where the few extra hp and new at-will powers for spellcasters will make a difference.
The low levels are the ones that I'm currently concerned about, since I'm an oddball and find that those levels very entertaining. :)
Based on my limited testing last night, I would say that level one casters in Pathfinder (especially wizards) are about as effective as level two casters in old 3.5
I'm going to make some wild and crazy assumptions here, so hold on for a moment :)
I think that the 3.5 system of EL and CR and all that was balanced assuming that a party consisted of a balanced four player group. I'll say (for ease of math) that this group has two casters in it of some type.
This party would now have the power of two level one characters and two level two characters.
(According to the DMG, two level 2 monsters is EL4, and two level one monsters is EL 2, and four level 1 monsters is EL4 .. so using those numbers the EL of the party will most certainly be greater than 4)
If they run into a monster that was balanced for four level one characters, you can easily see that this isn't going to be nearly as difficult as it would have been.
Its probably going to be easiest to come up with some function relating to old 3.5 CR and EL .. where you reduce it by 25% maybe? CR 4 becomes CR3 in the new system? More elaborate testing is certainly needed though.
EDIT: It looks like another recent thread probably covers this topic in faaar more detail: this one
EDIT #2: Nevermind about that link. It digresses into a flame war.
That point about the skills is quite interesting. Are you using the Alpha 2.0 skill rules or the Alpha 1.1 rules? I would've thought he would be a bit short on skill points with 7 fighter levels, but he probably only needs to keep three or four skill completely maxed out.
2.0, believe it or not. Even under that system, everyone is way better off than they were in 3.5e. In the case of the fighter/rogue, all of the rogue skills get the +4 bump, not just the first 8 of them, so a lot of his previously "sub-optimal" rogue skills are now just as good as they were, using fewer ranks. The skill combinations helped, and the fact that he can spend fighter skill points for rogue skills at 1:1 efficiency means he can keep Disable Device maxed out (which was impossible under 3.5 unless he spent both fighter skill points each level on that alone).
The cleric (who had a few ranks in Profession: sailor, and a bunch of cross-class skills) and the paladin are better off skills-wise as well.
2.0, believe it or not. Even under that system, everyone is way better off than they were in 3.5e. In the case of the fighter/rogue, all of the rogue skills get the +4 bump, not just the first 8 of them, so a lot of his previously "sub-optimal" rogue skills are now just as good as they were, using fewer ranks. The skill combinations helped, and the fact that he can spend fighter skill points for rogue skills at 1:1 efficiency means he can keep Disable Device maxed out (which was impossible under 3.5 unless he spent both fighter skill points each level on that alone).
Hmm...after hearing people saying that "class X is overpowered because it now has a new ability", I totally forgot that all classes get a power boost from having more feats and (to a lesser extent) more skill points.
|
|
I agree with you. I love what Pathfinder does to keep the classes fun at every level.I'm a bit worried that splatbooks are going to continue this 'arms race' and produce books that provide even more powerful abilities and races. I don't really want the base Pathfinder RPG to be a splatbook (I just discovered that term, can you tell?)
Well, the issue is this:
In 3.5 D&D, a 20th level straight-classed fighter or barbarian or ranger is completely outclassed by clerics, druids, wizards, and sorcerers. Not to start a flame war, it's just how it is. So people wanted to play non-magical melee classes adapt to it by multiclassing (heavily) and by picking up the special abilities they need to survive by dipping into prestige classes found in the different splatbooks. Holy Liberator 3, or Occult Slayer 5, for example, are very popular choices because they shore up the biggest weakness with the melee types, which is their poor Will saves. Personally, I've never taken a PC past 2nd level in Fighter, and would never even consider it past 4th. And I've built a lot of characters since 3ed came out.So I like how Paizo does it, because it gives people a reason to not ditch out of the base classes ASAP. You can still prestige class out, but it's no longer a no-brainer.
So I don't think it's an issue of them increasing the power of fighters vs the power level of fighters in 3.5; it's a matter of them putting them closer to balance with spellcasters and with prestiged-classed fighters in 3.5.
So I don't think it's an issue of them increasing the power of fighters vs the power level of fighters in 3.5; it's a matter of them putting them closer to balance with spellcasters and with prestiged-classed fighters in 3.5.
That was my attitude as well, but Keith astutely pointed out that there are some power increases that every class gets. For instance, an 11th-level character will have 2 more feats of his choice, the equivalent of the "Able Learner" feat, more hit points, and effectively more skill points (because one skill point now buys you a +4 bonus with a skill). Each bonus is probably not a big advantage by itself, but they likely add up.
|
|
And at 1st level a mage can keep using spells, that makes him far too good in a fight.
Oh and if fighters were the problem (which I can agree to an extent with) then add to them. Why add to everything?
I've actually given up on playtesting because converting over just leaves every PC too powerful by comparison.
|
And at 1st level a mage can keep using spells, that makes him far too good in a fight.
Oh and if fighters were the problem (which I can agree to an extent with) then add to them. Why add to everything?
I've actually given up on playtesting because converting over just leaves every PC too powerful by comparison.
I'm not following what your saying here. Not trying to sound snarky.
Could you give more details. (Maybe you've commented in other areas and I missed it?)
|
I'm not following what your saying here. Not trying to sound snarky.Could you give more details. (Maybe you've commented in other areas and I missed it?)
To all posters in this thread who feel like belittling the original poster's observations:
Please stop to pretend that you seriously try to discuss the alpha rules!Some people here cheer whichever changed rules Paizo will create.
Some people simply still aren't over Paizo's decision not to support 4e and now see another chance for at least more 4e-ish rules.
And then there is the less vocal crowd of people who just would like Paizo to change the rules the way it was announced by Paizo: Adjust the 3.5e rules wherever major "fun killers" exist and save backwards compatibility.
Improving those classes which felt underpowered and therefore less interesting should be a major goal of these changes: E.g. fighters come to my mind.
But what is the sense in improving *all* classes?
Does this improve the power balance between all classes?
Does it retain backwards compatibility?
Does it even retain compatibility between these classes and all the fine monsters created for the game?
The answers should be self explanatory.
Some of you certainly welcome whichever change will come.
On the other hand some people like the original poster and me would like to remind Paizo about their intention to support backwards compatibility. So at least somd advice to really keep 3.5 material playable should be part of the new "rules". There are already some such tips in the rules alpha, hopefully there will be more detailed advice in the final version.
What is making me wonder most, though:
For months message board posters complained that high level adventures were barely playable due to the complex feat, spell, and ability choices (not speaking about hit points and resulting combat duration) which caused longer and longer encounters. I assumed that this was one of the major goal of any 3e rules overhaul.
But now everyone is cheering updated classes which already feature increased feat numbers starting at first level?!
Ok. End of ranting.
Back to your question, Herald:
I think that several posters above already answered your question: If you assume that only the fighter class was underpowered in comparision to other classes, then you wouldn't see any necessity to upgrade *all* base classes and therefore shifting the whole power balance (in comparision to other npcs, monsters, PrC and so forth).
But this leads to the original question: How much real backwards compatibility do you wish...
Cheers,
Günther
|
And at 1st level a mage can keep using spells, that makes him far too good in a fight.
Oh and if fighters were the problem (which I can agree to an extent with) then add to them. Why add to everything?
I've actually given up on playtesting because converting over just leaves every PC too powerful by comparison.
I don't think wizards or clerics are that much more powerful than they were previously. Consider:
New wizard specialist gets a single at will ability which does 1d6+x damage. At low levels this bridges the wizard suckage, at higher levels it's wimpy and ineffective (which is ok).
The Pathfinder Specialist gets a specific spell at even levels, CORE Specialists get to choose their spells from a list. Saves for Pathfinder SLAs are CHA based but scale with caster level.
Pathfinder wizards are roughly equal in power to core specialists at mid-high levels and significantly better at very low levels where they sucked previously. Personally I think a good compromise.
Druids power level has actually toned down a notch with the Wild Shape changes and a loss of spells/ level. Clerics get a few nice improvements but also lose spells/ level. Sorcerer has always lagged behind the other casters a bit in power so they are getting a bit of a boost.
The rogue, fighter, barbarian all get a significant boost, looks like the ranger, monk and the bard will too. This is more or less bringing all the party members closer to each other in total power.
Yes your typical Fighter, Rogue, Wiz, Cleric party will be more powerful because 2 members are significantly more powerful. On the other hand under the previous rules you could run a party with a Druid, 2 Clerics, and a Wizard and it would also have been more powerful.
So the more powerful classes are getting mostly cosmetic changes while the less powerful classes get a little closer to parity. What are the alternatives? Seriously nerf casters down to the fighters power level? Wouldn't that introduce game balance issues as well?
-- Dennis
|
|
Adjust the 3.5e rules wherever major "fun killers" exist and save backwards compatibility.
This is where I like to think I sit.
But what is the sense in improving *all* classes?
Does this improve the power balance between all classes?
Does it retain backwards compatibility?
Does it even retain compatibility between these classes and all the fine monsters created for the game?The answers should be self explanatory.
I'm not sure the answers are as self explanatory as you do, if they were this discussion wouldn't be going on.
Have all the classes been improved or just changed? That is, the wizard which I talked about above, is it seriously more powerful than previously? How about compared to a Wizard+ArchMage build which is also core?
What is making me wonder most, though:
For months message board posters complained that high level adventures were barely playable due to the complex feat, spell, and ability choices which caused longer and longer encounters. I assumed that this was one of the major goal of any 3e rules overhaul.
But now everyone...
This I tend to agree with, I don't like the additional feats. Personally I would almost like to see them reduced. I have some players who are totally overwhelmed by the rules and feats they have and we're only at 7th level. I'm all for simplifying at least some classes.
-- Dennis
|
|
P.S.
I'd really like to know which base assumptions were made by Paizo.
It would help to dramatically decrease flaming in these boards.
I already asked after the rules alpha was released, but still didn't find any satisfying answer (maybe I just missed them) to these questions:
1. Which assumptions were made?
2. Which mistakes/ unbalancing rules etc. are to be addressed by the new rules?
3. Which restrictions are valid? (e.g. how much backwards compatibility is assumed to be mandatory?)
But of course all of us can continue pondering and requesting our own personal favourite version of the game... maybe someone from Paizo will even consider... :p
|
|
I'm not sure the answers are as self explanatory as you do, if they were this discussion wouldn't be going on.Have all the classes been improved or just changed? That is, the wizard which I talked about above, is it seriously more powerful than previously? How about compared to a Wizard+ArchMage build which is also core?
Hi Dennis,
I was thinking about increased hit points and number of feats.
Just these two changes prove to be a "power up" for all base classes affected this way by the alpha rules...
Cheers,
Günther
All Pathfinder characters now get (above and beyond what their 3.5e equivalents had):
* More feats
* Much more efficient skills
* +2 to an ability score
Most get better HD.
Most get more class features (some get a LOT more).
On the other hand:
The cleric has been nerfed, in terms of getting lame domain powers instead of bonus spells. Druid's wild shape has been nerfed slightly. But that's arguably for the best (although one cleric's player disagrees); cleric and druid were way better than all the other classes before.
So, assuming a party of 1 fighter or barbarian, 1 rogue, 1 wizard or sorcerer, and 1 cleric or druid, is a 3.P party more capable than a 3.5 party of equal level?
I personally have just started playtesting (1 encounter in before time called), but so far the answer appears to be a definite *yes*. Are they enough more capable to need some kind of "level adjustment?" The jury's out on that one. I'll post more playtest feedback, hopefully next week if all goes according to plan.
|
|
I was thinking about increased hit points and number of feats.
Well the increased HP... erm. I'm ambivalent, mostly I just don't see it as being significantly damaging in game terms. I'm trying to remember which classes got hit by that, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Rogue? I don't think that is that bad.
The feats... I tend to agree with you there. I guess I got distracted. I'm also not a big fan of the favored class bonus HP, and the extra racial ability boosts. The racial ability bumps can be countered by DMs actually requiring honest dice rolls from the players, or by using a slightly lower point buy, maybe 25 points instead of 32 points. Heck, in general the hit point issue would be resolved by a lower point buy as well.
So I guess I'm with you on being against across the board power bumps.
-- Dennis
I don't think wizards or clerics are that much more powerful than they were previously.
I am going to limit my comment to the wizard...
Have you looked at the difference between a 3.5 wizard (non-specialist) and the paizo Universalist? You don't give up anything from 3.5 (unlike the specialist that gives up bonus spells) and gain 11 different features including adding metamagic without prior memorization.
Secondly, assuming economics stays the same (meaning, that in any given campaign a dm gives out the same amount of treasure as he did in 3.5), the wizard can now without spending a feat make a magic item at reduced cost(the bonded item) and so has a greater power level being able to afford more magical augmentation.
I'm not trying to nitpick any specific classes or races. I'm just taking the following statement from the book on conversion to heart:
Monsters and NPCs will be slightly less powerful than their Pathfinder RPG counterparts
So far I've heard these suggestions for helping ensure that encounters are balanced and/or that the power level of the game isn't too far out of hand for people who like low power or low level games.
- Standard 1st level HP (max+con) rather than the higher options
- Fewer starting attributes (example: fewer points in point buy system)
- A 3.5 EL to PRPG EL system where 3.5 EL is less than PRPG EL for using old 3.5 content
- Upbalancing old 3.5 content so that its EL is on par with PRPG
I'd prefer a method that doesn't involve changing the older content much. I'm not really sure why. I'm leaning toward option #3 there though, since it keeps the power level of PRPG the same for those who like it and it allows old content to work without hitch.
Any other options I'm missing?
|
What imbalances have you seen in your playtesting so far?Playing "Expedition to Castle Greyhawk" with converted characters.
were you just using converted characters or a converted adventure to? I have found that I have had to adjust a decent number of encounters to fit the alpha encounter/XP rules
I think that many many people complain about the harder to kill PCs but arn't factoring in the more difficult encounters for the same experience, and the fact that they need more xp to level up
were you just using converted characters or a converted adventure to? I have found that I have had to adjust a decent number of encounters to fit the alpha encounter/XP rules
I thought the XP rules worked out the same basic way -- 13 encounters of an equal CR puts you up a level (on the fast chart, anyways).
|
|
were you just using converted characters or a converted adventure to? I have found that I have had to adjust a decent number of encounters to fit the alpha encounter/XP rulesI think that many many people complain about the harder to kill PCs but arn't factoring in the more difficult encounters for the same experience, and the fact that they need more xp to level up
You might have missed the point: This whole thread is about the necessity to adjust 3.5e material in order to guarantee a balanced playing experience when using 3.p characters and rules... or the original announcement of backwards compatibility which implies no or just minor adjustment efforts in most people's estimation.
In a perfect world you hadn't to readjust all encounters or really just had to add a feat and a hit dice to monsters (if the statements in the alpha rules stays true...).
Cheers,
Günther
were you just using converted characters or a converted adventure to? I have found that I have had to adjust a decent number of encounters to fit the alpha encounter/XP rulesWhat imbalances have you seen in your playtesting so far?Playing "Expedition to Castle Greyhawk" with converted characters.
That's the point. I've got years' worth of 3.5e adventures I've been wanting to run. There aren't enough hours in my life to convert them all, so if conversion of all adventures is needed, I'll stick with 3.5 instead of using Pathfinder rules. Minus one sale right there. So I'm playtesting using converted characters, non-converted adventure. If the adventure is too easy that way, Paizo needs to know so they can issue a disclaimer or whatever.
|
|
So I'm playtesting using converted characters, non-converted adventure. If the adventure is too easy that way, Paizo needs to know so they can issue a disclaimer or whatever.
doesn't the 'pathfinder RPG uses its own way of figuring out appropriate encounter levels and experience' chapter kind or work like a disclaimer?
Nervous Jester has another suggestion in this thread which helps to address this issue.
I'm going to add it to the list of options here.
- Expand the disabled range rather than adding bonus HP
doesn't the 'pathfinder RPG uses its own way of figuring out appropriate encounter levels and experience' chapter kind or work like a disclaimer?
Yes, the section of the book on conversion does function as a disclaimer, but I think there are better methods available for balance than upbalancing the older 3.5 material.
doesn't the 'pathfinder RPG uses its own way of figuring out appropriate encounter levels and experience' chapter kind or work like a disclaimer?
No, not snarky at all, I can see what you're saying. And actually, I'm the one who needs to express myself more clearly. OK. Pretend I finally get a group together for, say, Sunday (work schedules make everything uncertain until the last minute), and say they've got 5th level Pathfinder characters, and they tell me they want something with a pirate theme. I would have tomorrow only to prep, then -- not enough time to do a conversion, or to write a new adventure. So I sort through my stack of Dungeons, I find Mr. Pett's masterful "Sea Wyvern's Wake," and I see that it's for a party of 5th level characters. I cheer.
Then I stop. The adventure as a whole is a good challenge for a party of 5th level 3.5e characters. But what about a party of Pathfinder characters... can they be 5th level, too, or will it be too easy overall? What if they were fourth level instead? Would it be too hard if they're third? Can I go with a 3.5e adventure that was originally written for 6th level characters? Seventh?
Anyway, I'm sure you see where I'm getting with that. Instead of "disclaimer," I should really have said "table or equation showing level equivalents between editions."
Then I stop. The adventure as a whole is a good challenge for a party of 5th level 3.5e characters. But what about a party of Pathfinder characters... can they be 5th level, too, or will it be too easy overall? What if they were fourth level instead? Would it be too hard if they're third? Can I go with a 3.5e adventure that was originally written for 6th level characters? Seventh?
I'd go even further and point out that Pathfinder claims that a CR 5 monster (like a 5-headed cryohydra, say) is supposedly 1/13 of a level's worth of XP for a party of 4 5th-level characters, the same as it is in 3.5 D&D. So if a party of Pathfinder characters blow through the cryohydra like wet Kleenex (tm) whereas the equivalent party of 3.5 characters struggle through it, there's something fishy about giving the same proportion of XP.
|
|
Then I stop. The adventure as a whole is a good challenge for a party of 5th level 3.5e characters. But what about a party of Pathfinder characters... can they be 5th level, too, or will it be too easy overall? What if they were fourth level instead? Would it be too hard if they're third? Can I go with a 3.5e adventure that was originally written for 6th level characters? Seventh?
I don't see it making a very large difference. Extra HP and an extra +2 to a stat are pretty much irrelevant, and if you really care as a DM, you can lower their point buy, and it should even out.
Honestly, I don't see a whole lot that should make a 5th level PF character head and shoulders better than a 3.5 character. Compare a 5th level 3.5 fireballer (evoc specialist) with a 3.P character:
The 3.5 character gains a bonus 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level evoc spell of his choice.
The 3.P character does not, but gets 2 magic missiles and 1 scorching ray per day as a Sp.
The 3.P character gains +2 to damage with all evoc spells.
IMO, the 3.5 character is stronger, mainly due to the bonus 3rd level spell -- and the flexibility in what to do with all three bonus slots.
While it seems crazy overpowered to gain all those Sps, in reality, there's a major tradeoff going on.
Extra HP and an extra +2 to a stat are pretty much irrelevant, and if you really care as a DM, you can lower their point buy, and it should even out. While it seems crazy overpowered to gain all those Sps, in reality, there's a major tradeoff going on.
There's no trade-off for a universalist wizard, though; they're just flat-out better now (and, frankly, no one ever played a specialist wizard in our 3.5e games; losing 2 schools was too limiting -- although that might change now that Paizo has removed that limitation). For other specific classes, if we look at the rogue, for example, he now gets a ton of extra abilities (or even combat feats) and can sneak attack undead and constructs -- and the latter is sure to have a big impact on combat. I agree that the cleric overall seems slightly weaker, but everyone else has been pumped up quite a bit, and the cleric was arguably too strong before.
For all Pathfinder characters, the extra feats (which you don't mention) and more efficient skill use count for something as well, and almost everyone now gets a higher HD (which I don't think is irrelevant). But I haven't played enough yet to tell how much of an effect all that will have. Maybe less than it seems to me now; maybe more. I'm using a party of 1 fighter/rogue, 1 paladin, 1 sorcerer, and 1 cleric.
I wonder, have you had a chance to do any playtesting, or are you speaking off the cuff here? If you haven't, give it a whirl (at some level beyond 1st) sometime, and we can compare notes afterwards.
|
|
Then I stop. The adventure as a whole is a good challenge for a party of 5th level 3.5e characters. But what about a party of Pathfinder characters... can they be 5th level, too, or will it be too easy overall? What if they were fourth level instead? Would it be too hard if they're third? Can I go with a 3.5e adventure that was originally written for 6th level characters? Seventh?I don't see it making a very large difference. Extra HP and an extra +2 to a stat are pretty much irrelevant, and if you really care as a DM, you can lower their point buy, and it should even out.
Honestly, I don't see a whole lot that should make a 5th level PF character head and shoulders better than a 3.5 character. Compare a 5th level 3.5 fireballer (evoc specialist) with a 3.P character:
The 3.5 character gains a bonus 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level evoc spell of his choice.
The 3.P character does not, but gets 2 magic missiles and 1 scorching ray per day as a Sp.
The 3.P character gains +2 to damage with all evoc spells.IMO, the 3.5 character is stronger, mainly due to the bonus 3rd level spell -- and the flexibility in what to do with all three bonus slots.
While it seems crazy overpowered to gain all those Sps, in reality, there's a major tradeoff going on.
I'd also say you are missing out certain abilities which have been gained like a neverending ability to cast offensive spells as a touch attack, touch AC's being very easy means they can hit easily and often. That's huge at low level compared with 3.5.
Another comment from above said that Mages had been powered up at low level and it balanced out later, so they weren't weak at low level any longer. This made me smile. 1st level mages have been weak since 1st Ed. Personally I think they should be. They're an investment character who needs protecting early on for the benfit later. You have to think as a mage or you pay a potentially lethal price. That actually makes then very rewarding to play (not to say difficult). I feel that's what's being lost.
|
|
1st level mages have been weak since 1st Ed. Personally I think they should be. They're an investment character who needs protecting early on for the benfit later. You have to think as a mage or you pay a potentially lethal price. That actually makes then very rewarding to play (not...
I totally agree.
And please don't misunderstand: There is a tremendous difference between intended dis-/advantages of classes of the same rules version and the differences, the "same" class shows in two rule versions (3.5 vs 3.p) which can render them next to incompatible.
|
|
Its important, especially during an ALPHA phase, that the parameter space be widened to allow for adjustments. Increasing the "power" of the PCs, especially at lower level allows for down adjustments later on down the road.
If you take 3E as it stands, down-adjusting a 1st level classes power is a tricky thing to do. If you make adjustments up initially, then playtest, balancing classes with respect to each other as well as with respect to monsters becomes simpler. You now have the parameter space that allows for down-adjustments.
A more helpful analysis as to WHAT is overpowered (including, of course the WHY it is overpowered) and evidence to back claims like this up go a long way towards helping developers make INFORMED decisions.
|
|
There's no trade-off for a universalist wizard, though; they're just flat-out better now (and, frankly, no one ever played a specialist wizard in our 3.5e games; losing 2 schools was too limiting -- although that might change now that Paizo has removed that limitation).
Nobody in our group ever plays universalists, as the extra high level spell slot is too tasty to pass up.
The free spells as a universalist, I agree, don't make any sense -- the Sps should be replacing the bonus spells per day, so universalists shouldn't get them (or should get lamer ones, not fireball, which not even an evoker gets as a Sp in Pathfinder). The uber ability, of course, is metamagic mastery, which should hopefully be fixed before release.
I wonder, have you had a chance to do any playtesting, or are you speaking off the cuff here? If you haven't, give it a whirl (at some level beyond 1st) sometime, and we can compare notes afterwards.
Yeah, we ran through a Dungeon magazine module at ~8th level or so. Things like rogues being able to sneak attack undead doesn't make them suddenly good - it just means that players of rogues no longer sit on their hands any more in half the combats in D&D. Which is a good thing.
We did find some problems, like Caught Off-Guard + Razor Sharp Chair Leg meaning that improvised weapons are suddenly the best weapon in the game for rogues.
I'd also say you are missing out certain abilities which have been gained like a neverending ability to cast offensive spells as a touch attack, touch AC's being very easy means they can hit easily and often. That's huge at low level compared with 3.5.
Yes, but it's a very weak attack. Certainly going to do much less damage than similar at-will abilities. I don't see it affecting the game very much -- it just means they can do something vaguely arcane-y instead of busting out the crossbow like they do now.
Another comment from above said that Mages had been powered up at low level and it balanced out later, so they weren't weak at low level any longer. This made me smile. 1st level mages have been weak since 1st Ed.
This hasn't been true since 2ed, but it is a common misperception -- and has been traditionally been used to justify mages being broken at high level play.
But with spells such as mage armor, shield, mirror image, alter self, false life, etc., I've found my arcanists much more survivable in 3ed/3.5 than my fighter-types.
We did find some problems, like Caught Off-Guard + Razor Sharp Chair Leg meaning that improvised weapons are suddenly the best weapon in the game for rogues.
Remember -- Caught Off-Guard only works on unarmed opponents, generally a small minority of enemies you face (unless your campaign is designed around barroom brawls).
Yeah, we ran through a Dungeon magazine module at ~8th level or so. Things like rogues being able to sneak attack undead doesn't make them suddenly good - it just means that players of rogues no longer sit on their hands any more in half the combats in D&D. Which is a good thing.
Cool; I'd be interested in your other observations -- as they say, "the proof's in the pudding." Maybe the powering-up overall is less extreme than it initially seems. I'm running an 11th level playtest now, and getting mixed results with regards to level equivalence between 3.5 and 3.P. I'll keep posting as we run more encounters (preferrably with some non-combat stuff as well).
As an exercise, I've been going through and converting various old characters of levels 1 through 20 to Pathfinder rules. On the surface, Pathfinder characters are better than their 3.5e incarnations -- but I'm not so sure anymore that they're enough better to warrant any kind of "level adjustment" or other scaler -- they should probably still work OK with older adventures (but I'd advise giving major NPCs from 3.5 adventures the same "bump" in feats, hp, etc., given time). As Jason pointed out in the PFRPG notes, a lot of "splat-book" options have resulted in some power creep anyway, but the core classes can hold their own now.
Waiting for the next playtest installment; more observations then.