I am a little concerned about Pathfinder for a few reasons. First off, I am so far really liking Pathfinder....a lot better than 4e in fact. I am enthralled with the campaign world as well.
However, in looking through the beta they did not streamline and simplify/change as much about 3.5 as I would have thought or liked. In addition, I am hearing a LOT of people saying that even with the class boosting that has occurred so far that melee classes are still woefully underpowered, especially at higher levels, just like 3.5. Is this indeed true?
Also, I am hearing that quite a few of the changes inherent in the Pathfinder beta are getting pulled back some for the final product and that the release book will be more similar to 3.5. Is this true as well?
These kinds of things have me very concerned. I am a bit afraid to invest a lot of money and time into a system that still contains the majority of the flaws that made me loathe 3.5 originally. I thought Pathfinder was intended to simplify and fix these issues.
Creative Director
|
Pathfinder was intended to carry 3.5 on to a new era, and to keep a version of the game we use and love in print. We took advantage of that to make some changes and address some concerns, but the goal was NOT to completely re-invent the game into something new. Compatibility with 3.5 is a HUGE goal of Pathfinder RPG, because we want to be able to use our existing library of 3.5 products with it, just as I suspect a lot of our customers do. We're going to be previewing various parts of the game on a weekly basis every Wednesday until Gen Con, but if you're looking for a complete overhaul that changes so many fundamental aspects of the game that it's an entirely new game... the Pathfinder RPG might not be for you.
For example, a lot of folk are worried that our first preview of the fighter has a fighter with a critically low Will save. Yes, he does, but that's because this particular build of a character was built to show off other aspects of the rules. In the final game, there'll be a LOT of ways a fighter can bolster his Will save via feats and magic and the like, but that'll be at the cost of other powers and abilities in other areas... just as it pretty much was in 3.5.
On top of that... the game's designed to challenge a group of players. One character's strengths bolster another character's weaknesses, while that character's weaknesses are supported by even OTHER character's strengths. Again... more or less how it was in 3.5.
So in the end, all I can really advise is to follow the previews, and then when the game's out at Gen Con to read the reviews or check out a copy on the store shelves, at which point you'll be able to decide if the game is of interest to you. Frankly, for a person who really loathes 3.5 and thinks that there's a LOT of problems with the game that make it unplayable, the PFRPG probably isn't for you. Personally, I think that while 3.5 has some warts, it's still a really fun and robust and workable game. With the PFRPG, we've addressed the warts that we (and the majority of our playtesters) have had issues with, but the core and soul of the game is pretty close to 3.5.
If you really hate 3.5, then you are probably correct to be concerned that PFRPG won't be for you. But again... wait and see and check it out when it's available. You might be pleasantly surprised by what you find. Or you might hate it. Reading the previews, reading reviews, and seeing the final game in action is the only way to know for sure for each of us.
I'll see if I can answer your questions.
Melee classes being underpowered is really subjective. There are people who feel that melee classes weren't underpowered in 3.5. However, if you thought that melee classes were "grossly underpowered" in 3.5, I think it is safe to say that they aren't on par with spellcasters in PFRPG. If they are closs enough is really up to you.
Will the final rule set be more like 3.5 than the Beta? That has been confirmed as a yes. We just aren't really sure how yet.
It seems your impression of Pathfinder was misinformed. Pathfinder is intended to continue 3.5 as closely as possible. But it was going to fix some of the more glaring problems.
EDIT: Ninja'ed by 42 seconds
Whut? Underpowered? me? I kin kill me stuff real fast...
That seems to pretty much clinch it for me. I have no interest in playing a game repackaged that continues class imbalances from the previous version. Melee in 3.5 were grossly overshadowed in the high levels and will remain that way in Pathfinder it seems. That pretty much closes me out as a potential customer.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
That seems to pretty much clinch it for me. I have no interest in playing a game repackaged that continues class imbalances from the previous version. Melee in 3.5 were grossly overshadowed in the high levels and will remain that way in Pathfinder it seems. That pretty much closes me out as a potential customer.
::Shrug::
The game isn't going to appeal to everyone. I think we could have done a MUCH better job of showing off some of the neat tricks melee characters can pull in the PFRPG rules (mostly with feats we didn't explain in this preview), but whatever.
The PFRPG is a tweaked version of 3.5. If you thought 3.5 fundamentally sucked, you're probably better off playing something else.
While there's certainly nothing wrong with disliking something based on a preview, I would hope people would wait until the final is out before judging.
Either way, I'm really, REALLY looking forward to next week's preview. The sorcerer is probably my favorite class, so I'm very cusious to see how much of the beta made it into the final sorcerer, as well as what other changes there may be.
While there's certainly nothing wrong with disliking something based on a preview, I would hope people would wait until the final is out before judging.
I couldn't agree more. I too personally have a lot of complaints about 3.5 and would have preferred if some more tweaks were done towards making high-level DMing easier, but, I have yet to see the final rules so I'll refrain from making a judgment yet. But in all honesty, I have already house-ruled most of what I didn't like about 3.5 into more tolerable mechanics, and I expect that if what I didn't like before is still unaddressed I can still keep my existing house rules. In either case, if the core beneath my house rules is an improved system in general, which I am virtually certain it will be, it still ends up being well worth the time I invested in playtesting and well worth the cost of the new book. Even further, if for some reason I decided I wasn't going to play it, I'd probably still buy the book just to show my animosity towards WotC and 4E.
As an aside, I recommend anyone who would like a slightly older school feel to their D&D to check out Castles and Crusades. If I don't run Pathfinder Final, it will be Castles and Crusades for me. Right now I'm planning PF but who knows in a few months?
I am NOT basing my opinions based on the preview of the fighter at all. I am basing it based upon the contents of the beta. I am right now just starting out in a local beta game so I am holding on to try to see if I will like the finished product. I have liked most of what I have seen in the beta. I also enjoy the campaign world a lot. I have so far bought 2 copies of the beta (1 the original bound book from Paizo and one to be printed out from a printing service). I also have bought the campaign setting book, the Osiron book, and an adventure for 1st. lvl characters to use in a local game. I am holding out for the finished product and hoping that melee character can make a difference in the high levels. I just want some class balance and I don't think there is anything at all wrong with wishing for that.
P.S. Castles & Crusades is one of the very best rpg products I've ever seen. I highly recommend it.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Fair enough. I was personally pleased with additional options for fighters (particularly in the form of some really kick-ass feats) from the Beta to the final, so I'd encourage cultivating a little patience. You only have 80-some days until the release of the final.
|
I am actually glad that the core rulebook is staying fairly compatible with 3.5. I would like to keep using my library for that edition with out a ton of extra conversion work. I can handle the tweaks that I have seen so far.
But that is not saying that I have no interest in all of the ways that the PFRPG could have addressed some of the issues of 3.5. In fact I am still firmly hoping that we see a "house rules collection" of systems that were being considered for the final game that ended up being dropped for this reason or that one. I like the format that has been used in the past for books like Unearthed Arcana and Monte's most excellent house rules books. I would be highly interested in a serious reload of various portions of the 3.x system as seen from the eyes of the folks at Paizo, so long as it was presented as a book of options as opposed to being printed in the core rulebook.
But that is just my own thoughts on the matter.
love,
malkav
|
For all it's worth I'm involved in three campaigns right now, all of which have made the switch to BETA over the last year. I'm gaming, on average, 1.5 times a week (so about 8 hours a week).
Our group is composed of both 3.5 lovers and some bisexuals (i.e. people who like both 3.5 and 4E). Both the lovers and bis are absolutely loving the BETA and have preordered the PRPG, which we will all use as our ruleset of choice in the years to come. A big part of that is due to the top notch quality of the Adventure Paths, as they have solidly unified the group into wanting to play them, especially those who are to be published fully in PRPG rules.
Keep doing what you are doing Paizo.
Erik: I'm glad I met you at Winter Fantasy 2003... who knew that the guy who started that whole Lathander Dawn Cataclysm would be the man behind Golarion and PRPG? :P Wait!!! was that intentional? the seed that later imploded the Realms???! (serious tongue in cheek... :P :P :P LOL! )
Will there be a good chance of actually being able to purchase the physical rulebook at GenCon. Last year I was terribly disappointed by WotC because I desperately wanted to buy the KOTOR Star Wars Saga Edition book there but they brought a tiny supply with them and they sold out before I had chance to get one.
On the 13th. will they go on sale in the morning when GenCon opens?
Thanks again and please do not take my questions above the wrong way. I sincerely appreciate what you have done and am enjoying the products immensely. I am also enjoying our brand new local Pathfinder campaign and I will probably open up a subscription or 2 soon to Paizo products. I am pretty sure I will be playing Pathfinder and not 4e = )~
|
Director of Games
|
Will there be a good chance of actually being able to purchase the physical rulebook at GenCon. Last year I was terribly disappointed by WotC because I desperately wanted to buy the KOTOR Star Wars Saga Edition book there but they brought a tiny supply with them and they sold out before I had chance to get one.
On the 13th. will they go on sale in the morning when GenCon opens?
Thanks again and please do not take my questions above the wrong way. I sincerely appreciate what you have done and am enjoying the products immensely. I am also enjoying our brand new local Pathfinder campaign and I will probably open up a subscription or 2 soon to Paizo products. I am pretty sure I will be playing Pathfinder and not 4e = )~
No worries, we are here to help answer questions and concerns.
As for the book at GenCon, we are going to have a pretty large supply. Nothing is certain though, so I would try to get to the booth sooner rather than later once the show opens. Last year the Beta sold out in just over 9 hours.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
For what it's worth I'm 100% on board with Paizo just because of the Adventure Paths and terrific campaign setting materials. If I wind up not liking the changes in Pathfinder RPG, then I'll stick with 3.5 and continue to buy the APs...
However, just from the two previews we've been shown so far I've seen a LOT of changes that were direct suggestions from the playtests implemented in the new rules. If that trend continues I'm guessing the Final Pathfinder RPG rules will win me over.
Heh heh heh. Wait, which FR-destroying cataclysm are you talking about, again?
The one from 3 Hammer, Year of the Rogue Dragons, three hours, twenty minutes and seven seconds after sunrise.
The one from 20 minutes 58 seconds was tame. Barely Realms Shaking.
Personally, I think that while 3.5 has some warts, it's still a really fun and robust and workable game.
I second that.
No, wait. I think that wihle 3.5 has some warts, it's still just about the best "action-based" RPG ever. Well, almost.
And from what I've seen, PF will manage to improve it further.
I hope that heartens you when you start thinking about Pathfinder Second Edition!
In addition, I am hearing a LOT of people saying that even with the class boosting that has occurred so far that melee classes are still woefully underpowered
Don't got believe what people are saying, even if there's a lot of them saying it. A lot of people are saying that Kennedy was abducted by aliens to keep the King company, after all.
A PF Beta fighter is a terrible thing to behold. And the final game has more high-level feats for fighters and their friends.
I had a GMNPC fighter in my Rise of the Runelords game (not that many players, some angles weren't covered by the PCs, and the general shortage of people in the party made it a necessity) - it was Valeros (albeit brought to the PCs' power level, to beta, and given access to other splat books).
Fights where the party faced off against brutish monsters were often really fights of Valeros versus The Beast, with cameo appearances by the party members.
You think a 40 (!!) foot tall giant with a sword bigger than himself would be a daunting enemy? You'd change your mind after you saw someone wade through them with two tiny swords, felling them with frightening speed, emerging with hardly a scratch.
I actually felt bad about this, as this was supposed to be more a support character. In Curse of the Crimson Throne, the GMNPC was a cleric, and quite a nonstandard one: used a light crossbow and was more concerned with buffing and healing others than wading into the fray herself.
The party did have a paladin with them. Let something get in his reach, and it wouldn't survive long. Of course, this was in part because that player had a knack for rolling crits at just the right moment, but still, my #1 reaction to his damage announcements was "come again?". I've seen better enemy survival rates in UT instagib deathmatches against the easiest bots... :D
::Shrug::
I think a reality check is in order here!
If your memories of 3.5 are all about imbalance and wrongness then I think you should look at your GM, not at Paizo.
PF is an attempt to even things out. To correct the 3.5 problem areas. And to allow backward compatibility. Not to re-write the game.
If you want to continue using Complete Brokenness, Races of Brokenness or Broken Items Compendium then your games will still have imbalance.
GM's decide what material is ok and which is not. They are responsible for creating a balanced game where everyone feels needed and rewarded in their characters role.
It's difficult sometimes when there are tons of books out there just itching to tip the scales.
If after the book is out you feel that casters still have too much power then add in books that open up options to melee classes [Complete Warrior?, PHB2?, Bo7S?], the game is in your hands and it's up to you to take responsibility for how those games run.
::Shrug::I think a reality check is in order here!
If your memories of 3.5 are all about imbalance and wrongness then I think you should look at your GM, not at Paizo.
PF is an attempt to even things out. To correct the 3.5 problem areas. And to allow backward compatibility. Not to re-write the game.
If you want to continue using Complete Brokenness, Races of Brokenness or Broken Items Compendium then your games will still have imbalance.
GM's decide what material is ok and which is not. They are responsible for creating a balanced game where everyone feels needed and rewarded in their characters role.
It's difficult sometimes when there are tons of books out there just itching to tip the scales.If after the book is out you feel that casters still have too much power then add in books that open up options to melee classes [Complete Warrior?, PHB2?, Bo7S?], the game is in your hands and it's up to you to take responsibility for how those games run.
Actually,
To be fair, I found the Magic Item compendium items to be, on the whole, much more balanced than the stuff from the DMG. The DMG stuff tended to be massive bonus's all the time. The MIC stuff tended to be moderate bonus's usable a few times a day or small bonus's all the time. I also like the flavor items in there (Everful Mug for the Dwarf fighter was hillarious, he bought 4 of them so he always had some ale to drink).Some of the Complete books had some overbalancing stuff in them, but if you were careful as a DM, they added some useful stuff. And personally, I love alternate races. I get bored with just the core races. I'm actually running a Monster campaign right now (original world, humans got uppity, went to war with the dwarves and elves, the halflings and gnomes got caught up in it, and everyone ended up getting slaughtered by the orcs and goblins and hobgoblins and etc when they were week). It's going wonderfully (a year into it, characters went from ECL5 to ECL 9 (2 games a month)).
I've seen better enemy survival rates in UT instagib deathmatches against the easiest bots... :D
I have no idea what you just said, but it sounds cool :)
I'm actually running a Monster campaign right now (original world, humans got uppity, went to war with the dwarves and elves, the halflings and gnomes got caught up in it, and everyone ended up getting slaughtered by the orcs and goblins and hobgoblins and etc when they were week). It's going...
You're a DM, using material carefully to ensure a balanced game?
Then we agree!
I'm actually running a Monster campaign right now (original world, humans got uppity, went to war with the dwarves and elves, the halflings and gnomes got caught up in it, and everyone ended up getting slaughtered by the orcs and goblins and hobgoblins and etc when they were week). It's going...You're a DM, using material carefully to ensure a balanced game?
Then we agree!
Of course.
It's always the GM's job (can we tell I started out in GURPS rather than D&D?) to balance the game, and if it's not, he's screwing up. :)
Of course, there are some things that are easier to balance out than others. I don't allow the double dip PrC's that boost two different spell caster classes at once (Mystic Theurge, I'm looking at you!), and I discourage high level warlocks (they are overpowered already, but at about 11th or 12th, they can fire off a 30 foot acidic cone every round, blech).
Anyway, just pointing out that on the whole, MIC was, in my opinion, something that WoTC did right. Most of the equipment is designed to not be overpowering, but useful.
|
If you're really that concerned that fighters are super underpowered, I highly recommend reading the high-level playtest that Grumble Grog mentioned earlier.
Fighters are nasty.
"Don't ye be looking at that fight with the dragon and giant tho!"
|
CEO
|
I am playing the beta rules in my campaign and we are at 9th level. I would say that the fighting classes are holding their own if not slightly outshining the spell casters. Sure, if the rogue is able to do sneak attack, they will rock, but having a ranger who specializes in bow feats in the group for the Fort Rannick retaking was eye-opening. He was pretty much taking out 90+ hp Kreeg ogres at one per round. And that was with a +1 shocking long bow only. I am seeing 40 to 50 hps of damage per round from my fighter types. Sometimes I worry that my spell casters are feeling left out of the fun. But, all in all, I really think that Jason has done alot to make all the various classes shine and I think the final rules kick it up a notch to 11. As Erik said, I keep finding things as we play that make me go, "you know what, that change is really, really cool!" These are things that I didn't notice just reading the rules, but rather through actual play. I have no doubt in my mind that the final PFRPG rules make 3.5 better and are an improvement over the Beta. But your mileage may vary. :)
-Lisa
I have no doubt in my mind that the final PFRPG rules make 3.5 better and are an improvement over the Beta. But your mileage may vary. :)
-Lisa
Random observation: Once again I am (like so many others) just plain and pleasantly impressed that you and your company execs get down in the weeds and actually play what you produce and actively listen and respond to the concerns of people - regardless of their customer status. Such is so woefully rare in the corporate world. It is a model that many other companies should emulate. Y'all must be livin' right in a big way. I'm just sayin'...
Good on ya :)
I am playing the beta rules in my campaign and we are at 9th level. I would say that the fighting classes are holding their own if not slightly outshining the spell casters. Sure, if the rogue is able to do sneak attack, they will rock, but having a ranger who specializes in bow feats in the group for the Fort Rannick retaking was eye-opening. He was pretty much taking out 90+ hp Kreeg ogres at one per round. And that was with a +1 shocking long bow only. I am seeing 40 to 50 hps of damage per round from my fighter types. Sometimes I worry that my spell casters are feeling left out of the fun. But, all in all, I really think that Jason has done alot to make all the various classes shine and I think the final rules kick it up a notch to 11. As Erik said, I keep finding things as we play that make me go, "you know what, that change is really, really cool!" These are things that I didn't notice just reading the rules, but rather through actual play. I have no doubt in my mind that the final PFRPG rules make 3.5 better and are an improvement over the Beta. But your mileage may vary. :)
-Lisa
The experience in my gaming group is pretty similar. We just recently started a new campaign at 1st level and everybody wanted to play a fighter. After some negotiation we ended up with 2 fighters, a barbarian, a monk, a bard, a cleric and a rogue (mine) which is being played like a weapon master from Iron Heroes. Nobody really wanted to play spell casters due to how much Pathfinde RPG added to the warriors.
Doug
I haven't checked in around here in awhile, though my Pathfinder subscriptions are getting read (slowly).
We're coming to the end of my Shackled City Campaign, and starting to talk about what's coming next. I really liked RotRL, one of my players wants to run a separate CotCT campaign, and now I'm about halfway through reading Second Darkness and thinking about that.
Last year I ran a session of Hollow's Last Hope with normal 3.5E rules with one group, and then with Pathfinder rules (maybe alpha 3?) with another group. The 3.5E group barely got through, with the standard problems like the mage getting knocked out in every encounter and such. The Pathfinder guys just breezed through it, never really being in danger.
So, uhm, if I wanted to run RotRL as a Pathfinder campaign, how much conversion would I need to do? I'm a lazy DM (read, I have a job) who wants to pick up the adventure, do a bit of prep like making some character sheets for NPCs, and then go run the thing.
Right now I've got enough Pathfinder 3.5E material to keep my group running for at least the next 5 years. I'm interested in the Pathfinder RPG's fixes, but not if they break all previous campaigns so I have to redo the stats on every NPC and monster.
|
I haven't checked in around here in awhile, though my Pathfinder subscriptions are getting read (slowly).
We're coming to the end of my Shackled City Campaign, and starting to talk about what's coming next. I really liked RotRL, one of my players wants to run a separate CotCT campaign, and now I'm about halfway through reading Second Darkness and thinking about that.
Last year I ran a session of Hollow's Last Hope with normal 3.5E rules with one group, and then with Pathfinder rules (maybe alpha 3?) with another group. The 3.5E group barely got through, with the standard problems like the mage getting knocked out in every encounter and such. The Pathfinder guys just breezed through it, never really being in danger.
So, uhm, if I wanted to run RotRL as a Pathfinder campaign, how much conversion would I need to do? I'm a lazy DM (read, I have a job) who wants to pick up the adventure, do a bit of prep like making some character sheets for NPCs, and then go run the thing.
Right now I've got enough Pathfinder 3.5E material to keep my group running for at least the next 5 years. I'm interested in the Pathfinder RPG's fixes, but not if they break all previous campaigns so I have to redo the stats on every NPC and monster.
My big conversions were as follows:
Up the HP to 80% for std mobs to account for the power level of the PCs.
Add any extra feats, usually dodge.
that's about all I do..oh, and calculate their CMBs.
So, uhm, if I wanted to run RotRL as a Pathfinder campaign, how much conversion would I need to do? I'm a lazy DM (read, I have a job) who wants to pick up the adventure, do a bit of prep like making some character sheets for NPCs, and then go run the thing.
I've been running ROTRL under Pathfinder for a year now, without any conversion unless I simply felt like it. For instance, if the module refers to an SRD statblock, I'll often Pathfinderize the statblock before printing it.
Other than little stuff like that, it's been about 95% on the fly. If I'm converting something, it's for the practice and fun of it, not because I need to.
I am playing the beta rules in my campaign and we are at 9th level. I would say that the fighting classes are holding their own if not slightly outshining the spell casters.
I would like to respectfully suggest that, except for 1st edition where 9th level was practically demigod status, that these levels are not the levels where the fighter's true challenges lie.
It's at the highest levels, the upper teens, where the battlefield is ruled by unapproachable spellcasters, surrounded by impenetrable barriers and/or unassailable heights, cloaked in magical defenses that withstand all, or nearly all, melee or mundane ranged combat.
Fighters can't reach these casters. If they can, they likely cannot penetrate the barriers. If they can, they still may not be able to breach the personal defenses. If they can, they likely face summoned guardians.
And if fighters can surmount all those challenges, the spellcasters can nail them with a quick Save-or-Die spell and elminate the threat in a single round.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the original concern, but I suspect this is what the OP was talking about.
I can clearly see that Pathfinder has taken strides to ameliorate some of this, but I don't see that the problem has been solved.
True, I have not playtested Pathfinder beta rules at higher than 7th level, so I could be wrong; I just don't see the kinds of rule changes that would be necessary to transform fighters into equally powerful forces of battlefield domination.
And, in truth, I wouldn't want to see those kinds of changes.
|
|
I am playing the beta rules in my campaign and we are at 9th level. I would say that the fighting classes are holding their own if not slightly outshining the spell casters.I would like to respectfully suggest that, except for 1st edition where 9th level was practically demigod status, that these levels are not the levels where the fighter's true challenges lie.
It's at the highest levels, the upper teens, where the battlefield is ruled by unapproachable spellcasters, surrounded by impenetrable barriers and/or unassailable heights, cloaked in magical defenses that withstand all, or nearly all, melee or mundane ranged combat.
Fighters can't reach these casters. If they can, they likely cannot penetrate the barriers. If they can, they still may not be able to breach the personal defenses. If they can, they likely face summoned guardians.
And if fighters can surmount all those challenges, the spellcasters can nail them with a quick Save-or-Die spell and elminate the threat in a single round.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the original concern, but I suspect this is what the OP was talking about.
I can clearly see that Pathfinder has taken strides to ameliorate some of this, but I don't see that the problem has been solved.
True, I have not playtested Pathfinder beta rules at higher than 7th level, so I could be wrong; I just don't see the kinds of rule changes that would be necessary to transform fighters into equally powerful forces of battlefield domination.
And, in truth, I wouldn't want to see those kinds of changes.
Well if save or die spells are actually gone...then no worries there...
If a Fighter does not get items which help him out against those threats, then he's a poor fighter, if he only gets weapons and armor...
something which makes you fly...something which makes you more resistant to spells...something to prevent holds, these are what make the fighter a true threat...
1 feat /level helps a lot...
Penetrating Strike, Vital Strike, Blind Fighting, disrupting strike...
lots of tools in the fighters bag o tricks.
|
|
True, I have not playtested Pathfinder beta rules at higher than 7th level, so I could be wrong; I just don't see the kinds of rule changes that would be necessary to transform fighters into equally powerful forces of battlefield domination.
And, in truth, I wouldn't want to see those kinds of changes.
Agreed. Archmages should be feared. With the proper items, boosts from support spellcasting PCs, and the right amount of sleeve-tricks, though, at least fighters now at least have a shot at doing "something" to the archmage (i.e. if the archmage is a little dumb, he will be CMB'ed on his arse pretty quick...)
|
|
Agreed. Archmages should be feared. With the proper items, boosts from support spellcasting PCs, and the right amount of sleeve-tricks, though, at least fighters now at least have a shot at doing "something" to the archmage (i.e. if the archmage is a little dumb, he will be CMB'ed on his arse pretty quick...)True, I have not playtested Pathfinder beta rules at higher than 7th level, so I could be wrong; I just don't see the kinds of rule changes that would be necessary to transform fighters into equally powerful forces of battlefield domination.
And, in truth, I wouldn't want to see those kinds of changes.
[derail] Any archmage worth his status uses spells like Forbiddance to keep those pesky fighters at bay, and then Dominates them from distance! [/derail]
|
|
I am playing the beta rules in my campaign and we are at 9th level. I would say that the fighting classes are holding their own if not slightly outshining the spell casters. Sure, if the rogue is able to do sneak attack, they will rock, but having a ranger who specializes in bow feats in the group for the Fort Rannick retaking was eye-opening. He was pretty much taking out 90+ hp Kreeg ogres at one per round. And that was with a +1 shocking long bow only. I am seeing 40 to 50 hps of damage per round from my fighter types. Sometimes I worry that my spell casters are feeling left out of the fun. But, all in all, I really think that Jason has done alot to make all the various classes shine and I think the final rules kick it up a notch to 11. As Erik said, I keep finding things as we play that make me go, "you know what, that change is really, really cool!" These are things that I didn't notice just reading the rules, but rather through actual play. I have no doubt in my mind that the final PFRPG rules make 3.5 better and are an improvement over the Beta. But your mileage may vary. :)
-Lisa
I've got experience from fighters in two Beta campaigns now; my own playtest campaign, and our longest-running campaign that began about 15 years ago in AD&D (16th level PCs now that we converted from 3E to Beta). I've noticed that the biggest change is that there are dramatically less "prerequisite-then-wasted"-type of feats -- most "qualifying" feats (e.g. Cleave and Overhand Chop) still remain useful tactical options in some situations. For example, I might want to move and then use Cleave on two adjacent enemies... or maybe I want to dish out more damage on a single opponent with Overhand Chop. And the same applies for Improved Vital Strike, Devastating Blow and Great Cleave -- all different from each and every one of them a bit better than the others under different circumstances.
I hope this hasn't changed in the final rules, because we have loved that there is distinction between "as a standard/full attack action" and "as part of any standard/full attack action" in Beta.
I've seen better enemy survival rates in UT instagib deathmatches against the easiest bots... :DI have no idea what you just said, but it sounds cool :)
Just because others might not get the reference as well...
UT stands for Unreal Tournament. It is a FPS (First Person Shooter) game.
Instagib is a game setting that allows you to kill (gib) an opponent in one shot, regardless of the weapon used.
Deathmatches are a game type that the only goal is to rack up the most kills against your enemies, and everyone respawns (gets rezzed/resurrected) continuously until the time runs out.
Bots are computer controlled enemies, which are generally considered inferior to human players, and easiest is setting them on the lowest difficulty setting.
