The questionable wisdom of boosting the power of core classes

[Daztur]

According to James Jacobs ( http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/archives/whatIsSoOverpoweredInNonCore3XEditionThatItRequiresAMaj orPowerBoost )

"most of the later base classes (duskblade etc.) were more powerful than the core class equivalents"

This is simply not true. The bulk of non-Core classes are weaker than the most similar Core class and most of the rest are balanced. In addition, in most of the cases in which a non-Core class is more powerful than the closest comparable Core class, the Core class in question is one of the weaker Core classes.

I know that there are other reasons for boosting the power of the Core classes (reasons that I don't particularly like) but if any part of the reason for boosting the Core classes is that they are weaker than the non-core classes, then I'm pretty perplexed.

Because of the pretty much across the board boost in power to the Core classes in Pathfinder a lot of 3.5ed non-Core classes that could otherwise be easily ported over instead end up looking pretty damn gimpy. I think this is an example of weakening backwards compatibility without doing anything to improve play experience (if I want more powerful characters, can't I just start everyone one level higher?).

Let's go down the list of non core classes (I'm sure I'm missing a few, but this is the bulk of them):

1. Archivist
Closest core class equivalent: cleric
Power level: balanced (both are very powerful)

2. Artificer
Closest core class equivalent: wizard
Power level: balanced (both are very powerful)

3. Beguiler
Closest core class equivalent: rogue/sorcerer multi-class.
Power level: more powerful

5. Crusader
Closest core class equivalent: paladin
Power level: more powerful

6. Duskblade
Closest core class equivalent: gish multiclass
Power level: less powerful than a purely core eldrich knight(self-buffs are what gives gish their power)

7. Dragon Shaman
Closest core class equivalent: bard
Power level: less powerful (bard spell casting is fairly powerful)

8. Factotum
Closest core class equivalent: rogue
Power level: balanced (different focus, hard to compare)

9. Favored Soul
Closest core class equivalent: cleric
Power level: less powerful

10. Healer
Closest core class equivalent: cleric
Power level: less powerful (focus too narrow)

11. Hexblade
Closest core class equivalent: gish multiclass
Power level: much much much less powerful

12. Knight
Closest core class equivalent: fighter or paladin
Power level: balanced (different focus, hard to compare)

13. Marshall
Closest core class equivalent: bard
Power level: less powerful (except for one level dips for the Art of War ability)

14. Ninja
Closest core class equivalent: rogue
Power level: less powerful (MAD and weaker damage mechanic)

15. Samuri
Closest core class equivalent: fighter
Power level: less powerful (do I even have to explain?)

16. Scout
Closest core class equivalent: rogue
Power level: less powerful (generally ends up dealing fewer dice of damage)

17.Spellthief
Closest core class equivalent: rogue/wizard multiclass
Power level: less powerful (assuming the rogue/wizard multi-class has some sort of PrC) they're very very narrow focus gimps them horrifically.

18. Spirit shaman
Closest core class equivalent: druid
Power level: less powerful

19. Swashbuckler
Closest core class equivalent: fighter/rogue multiclass
Power level: less powerful

20. Swordsage
Closest core class equivalent: monk
Power level: more powerful

21. Warblade
Closest core class equivalent: fighter
Power level: more powerful

22. Warlcok
Closest core class equivalent: sorcerer
Power level: less powerful (being able to have weak powers all day long doesn't stack up too well with having fewer strong powers)

23. Warmage
Closest core class equivalent: sorcerer
Power level: less powerful (direct damage is a sub par for casters)

Note I am not familiar enough with Incarnum, the Dread Necromancer, the Tome of Magic or Complete Psionics classes to include them, but I've never hear anything about them being especially powerful. As far as Tome of Magic goes specifically, I've heard that all the classes in there are significantly weaker than core casters (especially the poor poor broken Truenamer). So if I did know enough to be able to count these it would make non-Core come out even weaker.

As far as the four basic psionics classes I kind of think of them as core because they're in the SRD, but if you want to include them then the Psion and the Wilder are balanced with the Wizard and the Sorcerer respectively, the psychic warrior is more powerful than a fighter and the soul blade is arguably weaker than some NPC classes and is badly-designed joke of a class (much like the monk in Core). Overall the XPH has about the same power level as core

Tally
More powerful: 4 (note all except for one of these classes are from the Tome of Battle, basically 3/4 of all classes that are more powerful than their closest core equivalents are from a single supplement)
Balanced: 4
Less powerful: 15

This is not to say that using a big stack of splatbooks doesn't generally make a character more powerful, but that's more to do with people being able to cherry pick from a long long list of spells, feats and PrCs except for the Tome of Battle there was been virtually zero power creep with regards to non-Core classes. Because of this, boosting the power of the core classes is a very bad solution to power creep and would only make the problem worse.

The upshot of all of this:

A. If I play Pathfinder is makes it much harder for me to play fun classes like the hexblade, warlock and scout which are fun to play but weak compared to Core to begin with.

B. It makes we question just how well the Pathfinder team understands how 3.5ed mechanics work.

[Bagpuss]

Your link doesn't work as it contains spaces. You can also link directly to the post in question like this.

To be fair to James and to what he said, regardless of how you feel about the base classes, he gives a bunch of other reasons. Also, as I understand it, the idea is to make it so that base classes are as attractive as PrCs, ie, that staying in a base class is comparably powerful to leaving it for an appropriate PrC. It is felt by some that there are sufficient later PrCs that are better than core classes that the core classes needed a boost to compare, given that Paizo can't change those splat PrCs. There's a debate about whether the PrCs they can change, the DMG ones, are good enough, of course, but that appears to be aside from your main interest. In any case, other than that post by James, most of what I have seen was talk of comparison to PrCs and wanting to keep Core Classes comparable and attractive in comparison, regarding broad power level.

[Daztur]

Good point. As far as dealing with caster PrCs that's pretty easy just make all caster PrCs not advance casting the first level that its taken. This would be a pretty easy rule to apply across the board to caster PrCs. There's a trade off between funky PrC features and improved spell casting, that seems fair to me.

As far as non-caster PrCs there's not so much of an issue there content wise since non-caster base classes tend to have many more class features than caster base classes.

For the other reasons I don't think that they make up for the reduced backwards compatibility that results from making so many already weak non-core classes comparatively even weaker.

[Tholas]

Daztur wrote:

A. If I play Pathfinder is makes it much harder for me to play fun classes like the hexblade, warlock and scout which are fun to play but weak compared to Core to begin with.

B. It makes we question just how well the Pathfinder team understands how 3.5ed mechanics work.

As far as I understand it the main goal of the Pathfinder RPG is to reboot the 3.5 experience and stay compatible enough with the exisiting 3.5 modules. My guess is that over the years the designers who created 3.5 modules had a hard time to take more and more power creep from WotC splat books into account without letting core 3.5 builds go to the slaughterhouse. This dilema might also have pronounced the Codzilla effect as Clerics and Druids where the only classes who did not need stuff from splat books that badly.

I guess that Jason had to take a middle ground as Pathfinder RPG needs to stand by itself, without any old WotC splat books. Some classes lost a bit of power(and/or versatility) and some classes got quite a bump upwards. So, if some of the non-core 3.5 classes are looking bad you can't blame Jason. As much fun a few of these are to play your're out of luck when you can't convince your GM to houserule some enhancements for them.

[Chris Mortika]

Daztur,

For what it's worth, when you write:

11. Hexblade
Closest core class equivalent: gish multiclass
Power level: much much much less powerful

I'd recommend comparing the Hexblade to the Ranger.

[KaeYoss]

Tholas wrote:

As far as I understand it the main goal of the Pathfinder RPG is to reboot the 3.5 experience and stay compatible enough with the exisiting 3.5 modules.

Nah, it's more or less everything.

Doesn't mean that every last rules morsel out there still has to be edible. Neither should it be.

Especially extra rules (i.e. classes, skills, feats, spells) that were created to enable options the core rules coudln't properly represent don't have to be preserved if that means not improving the core rules themselves.

There are a number of extra rules bits that are a lot less attractive now that the core rules can better support these concepts without extra books. Some examples:

With weapon familiarity being a core rule for all races now, we don't need any Feats that grant weapon familiarity to elves or halflings any more. (And good riddance)

With the arrival of some at will back-up powers for spellcasters and enhanced flavour for sorcerers, the warlock class is a lot less necessary

Improved specialist wizard flavour lessens the need for clsses like Dread Necromancer, Beguiler or Warmage.

[David Boshko]

Quote:

My guess is that over the years the designers who created 3.5 modules had a hard time to take more and more power creep from WotC splat books into account without letting core 3.5 builds go to the slaughterhouse.

Right the more splatbooks you have the more your power will (tend) to go up. Although there are exceptions, such as stacks of splatbooks tempting people into the minefield that is 3.5ed multiclassing (for example the rogue/scout and the ranger/duskblade/arcane archer in my last campaign).

However, I don't see how boosting the power of the core classes helps with any of this at all, since splat book classes tend to be weaker than core classes.

Power boosted core + splat books is more of a power creep than
Original core + splat books

Chris Mortika wrote:

Daztur,

For what it's worth, when you write:

11. Hexblade
Closest core class equivalent: gish multiclass
Power level: much much much less powerful

I'd recommend comparing the Hexblade to the Ranger.

Hmmmm, that's a hard comparison to make since they use different spells lists and because there's such a big difference between twf rangers and archery rangers. Also favored enemy mechanics are situational enough to make a comparison hard.

*scratches head*

In any case, I don't think that hexblades are powerful enough to make it necessary to buff rangers in response :)

Quote:

I guess that Jason had to take a middle ground as Pathfinder RPG needs to stand by itself, without any old WotC splat books.

Right, but why go out of your way to make WotC material less applicable?

[Abraham spalding]

Something else that deserves mentioning:

The splat books are going to disappear with time. After all they aren't published anymore, so they are of limited quantity. There is going to be less access to them, meaning fewer people are going to use the stuff available in them, if for no other reason then fairness to those who don't have a copy of the book.

Personally I think boosting several of the classes wasn't a bad idea:
The 4 "warrior" classes needed a little more 'umph' in my opinion, as does the bard. I like the way the cleric has gone, and see that more as a step to the side then a power up, while the druid has lost some power (I would argue not much though). Personally the stuff that has been done to the wizard has left me scratching my head (give me back my d4 HD, I play a wizard not a rogue!) while the sorcerer looks like a teenager that's finally starting to fill out.

[Tholas]

Daztur wrote:

As far as the four basic psionics classes I kind of think of them as core because they're in the SRD, but if you want to include them then the Psion and the Wilder are balanced with the Wizard and the Sorcerer respectively, the psychic warrior is more powerful than a fighter and the soul blade is arguably weaker than some NPC classes and is badly-designed joke of a class (much like the monk in Core).

You might give BlaineTog's excellent Soulknife Fix a try. Imho it fits right into the Pathfinder RPG power level wise and is a fun class to play. A slightly enhanced version can be found in the Untapped Potential: New Horizons in Psionics sorcebook from Dreamscarred Press and lots of cool feats and some alternate versions in High Psionics: Soulknifes. My cleric took a soulknife cohort and its really a fun hit and run class. Another char in our group has an githyanki psychic warrior as a cohort with the pathfinder rpg warriors armor and weapon training(progression matching the slower bonus feat progession) added. I do not think that the psychic warrior is a better melee guy than the fighter, much more versatile but not better in melee.

Daztur wrote:

Overall the XPH has about the same power level as core

I cast a Protection from Energy(Fire), a quickened Expeditious Retreat and use my move action to get as far away as possible! ;-)

[Baramay]

From what I understand from multiple posts, the problem was power creep in core and prestige classes. (i.e. players jumped at prestige classes as soon as they were able to leave a core class). You make a good summation of the core classes but splatbook core classes are easier to exploit with other splatbooks, feats and prestige classes. Take the swashbuckler/duelist you get int bonuses for additional skill points, AC bonus, and damage bonus. You now outshine the fighter.

Also the more powerful core classes are being chosen more often even if there are less of them. Some are just poor choices after being playtested. The scout for example has terrific defenses but the trade off was offensive umph. Our scout would run around the battlefield being mostly ignored by the enemy, then after the fight he would feel his character never did anything exciting during the fight. While his scout always seemed to come away unscathed, too many times the class was not fulfilling for the player. This may not be the case for everyone but I would imagine it would for more than half.

Keep in mind, James, Jason and the rest of the staff respond to posts quite quickly and often while working on projects. I have seen many posts where they are not elaborate as perhaps they might wish, because of time constraints. Later I will find more information posted going into greater detail. We have quite the honor of having them respond to our question (take Clark Peterson responding to contest submissions) I can only hope as the Paizo company grows, they continue to stay in touch with us as they do now.

[Bard-Sader]

Scout...terrific defenses? When did that happen? They aren't weaksauce in terms of defense sure but they aren't armored shells by a long shot. Also, Scouts, if optimized, can do *almost* as much damage as a Fighter archer can. All you need is 16 levels of Ranger on top of 4 levels of Scout and take Swift Hunter so that they stack for Skirmish and then also take Improved Skirmish. Instant 7d6 bonus damage per shot, and you get 4 shots or more a round, and unlike a rogue, you can do this every round.

I've never lacked for damage with a Scout archetype. Now, taking 20 levels of Scout is another matter, and perhaps that can be improved upon so taking 20 levels of it is a good idea. Maybe boost its BAB to Fighter BAB would be good.

[KaeYoss]

David Boshko wrote:

In any case, I don't think that hexblades are powerful enough to make it necessary to buff rangers in response :)

I'd say the ranger buff was needed and welcome in its own right.

[KaeYoss]

Tholas wrote:

You might give BlaineTog's excellent Soulknife Fix a try.

The soulknife is among the most unnecessary classes out there. It doesn't deserve to be its own class. Longsword isn't a class, either, or magic missile, or power attack.

I whipped up a bunch of feats for psionic characters (mainly psychic warriors, but others work, too, and even non-psionic classes can dabble)

If anyone's interested, look HERE. And don't be shy with the feedback! I'd say they're still in alpha stadium.

[Bard-Sader]

Magic Missile has its own themed prestige class actually XD

[Portella]

S
e
o
n
i

Nice character sheets, i love the landscape much better orientation... never though about that it looks way better then having them in a portrait style

[joela]

Daztur wrote:

B. It makes we question just how well the Pathfinder team understands how 3.5ed mechanics work.

Good point. I never questioned Paizo's credentials until you* brought it up.

So let's see. Many of the Paizo staff wrote and/or edited mods for Dungeon and Dragon magazines. Huh, maybe their lack of understanding the rules is the real reason why WotC took both back.

Paizo has some consultant assisting Buhlman develop the Pathfinder RPG. What's his name? Rhymes with Hook or Crook or something? I'll have to check the 3.x PH; apparently his name's on it despite the fact he must not have known the rules.

So, what's your credentials?

*Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

[Mairkurion {tm}]

Oh...so now you do question Paizo's credentials, Joela. I always knew that about you...

Spoiler:

*

[KaeYoss]

Their understanding of the rules is beyond question. Whenever I make a suggestion and Jason sees it, he replies, usually saying that something like this is already planned. They clearly recognise great ideas when they see them, so they must be competent! ;-D

Portella wrote:

Nice character sheets, i love the landscape much better orientation...

To be honest, I stole the idea.

I do have one I think is original, and I might implement it yet: Instead of a single character sheet with a couple of A4/letter/legal sheets, I'll have a number of character snippets that are just as large as they have to be.

There'd be one snipped for the "fluff info" (i.e. the stuff you usually find at the top of the sheet), one for skills, one for base statistics (attributes, AC, saves, base attack), one for a weapon (yes, for one weapon - if you need more, you just get several), one for slotted equipment, one for each spell level you achieve...

Bard-Sader wrote:

Magic Missile has its own themed prestige class actually XD

It's a PrC, not a base class, and it's for all force spells (though there's not that much beyond MM really)

[Abraham spalding]

Nope there is actually a PrC just for Magic Missile too (not ardent savant), I can't remember where I've seen it, but I know I have. Had a local player that wanted to take it until I pointed out that shield was a first level spell that block most any magic missile spell.

[Turin the Mad]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Nope there is actually a PrC just for Magic Missile too (not ardent savant), I can't remember where I've seen it, but I know I have. Had a local player that wanted to take it until I pointed out that shield was a first level spell that block most any magic missile spell.

Force Missile Mage, Dragon Compendium, done by the gentlecritters here at Paizo. Don't have a page reference handy though...

[blackrose_angel]

The force missile mage can also be found in dragon 328 page 50

[Abraham spalding]

Something is also tickling my mind from the "Paths of magic" book, but I don't have a copy anymore, and am not sure what was there that is causing me to want to say something was there in the first place.

[Turin the Mad]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Something is also tickling my mind from the "Paths of magic" book, but I don't have a copy anymore, and am not sure what was there that is causing me to want to say something was there in the first place.

The OGL "Path" books did have some interesting material in them, although I have to admit to the tickling part - and not having them around any more due to multiple moves and space considerations...

[Lathiira]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Something is also tickling my mind from the "Paths of magic" book, but I don't have a copy anymore, and am not sure what was there that is causing me to want to say something was there in the first place.

Probably the Force Weaver from Paths of Magic. At a glance, it had a force theme more than a magic missile theme.

[Abraham spalding]

Lathiira wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

Something is also tickling my mind from the "Paths of magic" book, but I don't have a copy anymore, and am not sure what was there that is causing me to want to say something was there in the first place.

Probably the Force Weaver from Paths of Magic. At a glance, it had a force theme more than a magic missile theme.

That's the one thanks Lathiira, I knew there was something in it.

[Bard-Sader]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Nope there is actually a PrC just for Magic Missile too (not ardent savant), I can't remember where I've seen it, but I know I have. Had a local player that wanted to take it until I pointed out that shield was a first level spell that block most any magic missile spell.

Well yes, but the Force Missile mage allows your MMs to have a chance at going thru a Shield spell. I think it's a caster level check.