While it is hard to judge spellcasters without seeing the spells it looks to me that a pathfinder paladin and fighter are significantly tougher than their 3.5 counterparts, maybe 1 level every 4 or so levels? Is this power creep going to be similar for the other classes?
If the treasure per character level remains as in Beta (9th level character has 49,000gp as opposed to 36,000gp in 3.5) this is definitely going to be the case.
I am aware of the risk of being told to wait & see (and I will) but on a preliminary view based on the previews and what I know of Beta if I am running a 10th level 3.5 dungeon with a bunch of pathfinder characters they look like they will make mincemeat of it- certainly the paladin will make mincemeat of any BBEG (compared to the same way a 3.5 would face it).
"Hello necromantic stone giant-I choose you to be my b#@ch"
whack/smite; whack/smite; whack/smite;
I am not a fan of powercreep but it is what it is and those who play these characters will have new faster shinier powers. I get that.
But really looking back on my 3.5 adventure collection what is expected be the level adjustment of those adventures (not based principally on going up against other character classes) to take into account pathfinder power creep?
|
Well, more than likely, at least I HOPE SO, there should be no adjustment necessary when the Bestiary comes out. Ideally the new versions of the critters should be balanced to the new version of the classes.
If you don't want to update the critters in your old adventures I think you are just hosed. It would be very similar to using 2nd Ed monsters for 3rd Ed classes. Just will be "not quite right."
In fact it is my HOPE that they are doing a MUCH better job of balancing the monsters than WOTC did.
|
One of the goals of PFRPG was to bring the core class power level up to be comperable to the base classes that were released later in the 3.5 run. So, yes they are definatly more powerful than the PHB classes. The real question is how they stack up against the ToB classes and the like. I haven't done any direct comparisons or anything, but I think a PF Fighter would be comperable to, say a ToB Warblade.
A fighter or paladin or ranger or barbarian is almost certainly tougher in PFRPG. A druid is almost certainly weaker. A wizard might be stronger or weaker, depending on whether his favourite spell has been nerfed or whether he gets a cool school ability. A sorcerer is almost certainly tougher. A cleric might be stronger or weaker, depending on which spells he uses and which domains he picks (although the party will probably be tougher due to the extra healing). A rogue might be stronger or weaker, depending on how much he relied on using grenade-like weapons or rings of blinking. A bard will almost certainly be tougher. A monk might be stronger or weaker, depending on how much he relies on combat maneuvers like grappling.
Did I miss any classes?
1st Lv Druids: 3.5 vs PF
My money is on the Pathfinder druid, even if you make them both 20th level.
if I am running a 10th level 3.5 dungeon with a bunch of pathfinder characters they look like they will make mincemeat of it- certainly the paladin will make mincemeat of any BBEG (compared to the same way a 3.5 would face it).
"Hello necromantic stone giant-I choose you to be my b#@ch"
whack/smite; whack/smite; whack/smite;
And I say, it's about time.
The 3.x paladin is so very weak. At his best, against demons and other foul CE outsiders, the paladin gets a few swings a day where he can do almst as much damage as a 3.x fighter.
All the rest of the time, all day long, day after day, the paladin does way way less damage than a fighter.
In addition, he has fewer feats than the fighter and no real class abilities to help him pull his own weight.
In return, he gets a little protection against a few uncommon and easily removed conditins, like disease, and better will saves than a fighter, so he might last a round or two longer than a fighter in combat.
But in every single combat that lasts more than a few rounds, even against the perfect foe for a paladin, if both the fighter and the paladin are on their feet at the end of the fight, the paladin looks like a noob compared to the effectiveness of that fighter.
Now the Pathfinder previews give me a great deal of hope that against the right foes, a paladin will do what he should do: shine like a bright beacon of rigteous wrath to strike down those foes with divine fury that makes even a Pathfinder fighter in awe of the paladin. But then, all the rest of the time, it's back to the fighter outperforming the paladin in the day to day combats.
That to me says balance, though it remains to be seen in actual play just how balanced it is.
1st Lv Druids: 3.5 vs PF
My money is on the Pathfinder druid, even if you make them both 20th level.
O.K., I'll give the Pathfinder druid the edge if the 3.5 druid isn't a wild shape enthusiast.
My general feeling is that starting around 3-5th level, the PF classes specifically will be about 1 level stronger. I think this is true even for classes like Wizard and Cleric, *other* than for very specific builds off spells that have been adjusted. That is to say, I think the PF class is stronger, not that a specific character/build will be, without adjustment.
I also think everyone will be able to *last* longer, through a day.
As for backing that up? I got nothing :)
I am not a fan of powercreep but it is what it is and those who play these characters will have new faster shinier powers. I get that.But really looking back on my 3.5 adventure collection what is expected be the level adjustment of those adventures (not based principally on going up against other character classes) to take into account pathfinder power creep?
So far running Beta through RotRL much stronger seems likely. If nothing else happens the rate they gain feats means all classes will have more feats then ever and that is a rather big deal.
But Pathfinder tweaked some classes from beta by alot. I expect we really don't have all the facts yet to make an informed numeric guess but we do know they are intenially increasing the core classes in power. That was a stated goal and I am assuming they can pull that much off. The rogue sneak attack working on most things is a rather large increase for that class, if crits work the same way the fighter/barbarian will also notice a rather nice power increase. The paladin seems vastly more powerful. To a lesser extent the same with the ranger based on their preveiws. Lacking the spell list I can't say much about casters although it seems the anti caster crowd's voices were heard so....
At this time though if I had to guess I would predict that melee focused characters will be universally more powerful but spell casters may or may not be as powerful.
Honestly I'd say that martial characters get a pretty significant bump up (we still haven't seen a decently optimized Fighter though) while the spellcasters see a bit of a reduction in power (mainly through spell nerfs and some ability nerfs like wildshape).
Further low level characters are tougher (more HPs primarily but increased class powers are also in effect) meaning that published modules might be significantly less challenging.
O.K., I'll give the Pathfinder druid the edge if the 3.5 druid isn't a wild shape enthusiast.1st Lv Druids: 3.5 vs PF
My money is on the Pathfinder druid, even if you make them both 20th level.
Even if the 3.5 druid is a wild shape enthusiast, my coppers are still on the PF druid. I think the PF wild shape is better(can't wait to see the preview when it comes out).
Some of the new balances (I think) can be hinted at by looking through the "Running the Game" section of the PF Beta. It'll likely be updated as time goes on, but those appeared to be some general guidelines for how things might be rebalanced.
3x needed it--there was a huge power disparity between earlier and later products that several posters have already taken note of.
Maybe we can look at this as just cleaning out the belfry.
I think the PF wild shape is better(can't wait to see the preview when it comes out).
Do whaaaaa?
Not if it's anything like Beta. Wild Shape/Polymorph got smacked down HARD.
I think the PF wild shape is better(can't wait to see the preview when it comes out).Do whaaaaa?
Not if it's anything like Beta. Wild Shape/Polymorph got smacked down HARD.
Yes, I was wondering about that too.
I probably should have chomped Jerrie...
Gonna have to say I like the Beta wild shape better myself. Very nice
I probably should have chomped Jerrie...
No chomping! Bad tarrasque, BAD!!!
*whacks DM_Blake with a rolled up newspaper.*
Who knows? The Beta and the previews is all we have to go by, and the PfRPG isn't the Beta. I doubt all classes got the same boost paladins did...
I agree, fighter got some stuff but mostly in feats and rule changes if I would guess. but the paladin did need the boost. Druid I hope stays close, cleric nerf seems to have been in rules and some spells Also needed. Would say rogue the lest, wizard/sorc got cleaned up monk and bard got some work would be my guess
if I am running a 10th level 3.5 dungeon with a bunch of pathfinder characters they look like they will make mincemeat of it- certainly the paladin will make mincemeat of any BBEG (compared to the same way a 3.5 would face it).
"Hello necromantic stone giant-I choose you to be my b#@ch"
whack/smite; whack/smite; whack/smite;
And I say, it's about time.
The 3.x paladin is so very weak. At his best, against demons and other foul CE outsiders, the paladin gets a few swings a day where he can do almst as much damage as a 3.x fighter.
All the rest of the time, all day long, day after day, the paladin does way way less damage than a fighter.
In addition, he has fewer feats than the fighter and no real class abilities to help him pull his own weight.
In return, he gets a little protection against a few uncommon and easily removed conditins, like disease, and better will saves than a fighter, so he might last a round or two longer than a fighter in combat.
But in every single combat that lasts more than a few rounds, even against the perfect foe for a paladin, if both the fighter and the paladin are on their feet at the end of the fight, the paladin looks like a noob compared to the effectiveness of that fighter.
Now the Pathfinder previews give me a great deal of hope that against the right foes, a paladin will do what he should do: shine like a bright beacon of rigteous wrath to strike down those foes with divine fury that makes even a Pathfinder fighter in awe of the paladin. But then, all the rest of the time, it's back to the fighter outperforming the paladin in the day to day combats.
That to me says balance, though it remains to be seen in actual play just how balanced it is.
My group didnt have the same experience. We found the defensive adds to the paladin (saves/immune to fear/healing) meant that against run of the mill bad guys the paladin was not quite as effective offensively but more resistant than the fighter. Usually against the BBEG the paladin would be more likely to make his saves (BBEG often have some saves to be made) and was getting a couple of really good blows in via the smite (or that divine might feat). Thus it became that the fighter would take point to get through the chaff then step aside and let the paladin smash up the BBEG and take the glory. Just seemed to be that the mechanics and common structure of the game favored the paladin getting in the important strikes while the fighter fought run of the mill chaff.
Fighter "I killed 4 ogres, and an ettin"
Paladin " Whoop de doo I killed The Dragon Adernicus"
I probably should have chomped Jerrie...No chomping! Bad tarrasque, BAD!!!
*whacks DM_Blake with a rolled up newspaper.*
Oh no you di'n't!
See the scales? That better be a +5 fishwrap you whacked me with so I have a papercut to regenerate next round, because otherwise I didn't feel a thing.
Well, I felt one thing: RAAAAGE!
Besides, when isn't a tarrasque bad?
Fighter "I killed 4 ogres, and an ettin"
Paladin " Whoop de doo I killed The Dragon Adernicus"
I hear you. Those defenses are good. But my take on it was more like this:
Fighter "I killed 4 ogres, and an ettin, and I slew the dragon, Adernicus!"
Paladin "Whoop de doo. I kept Adernicus busy until the cleric removed your icky condition and then I wounded him a few times to make your kill easier."
I guess somebody has to play goalie, but at least in soccer, those goalies get all the credit for keeping the ball out of the net.
(note: not a dig at goalies - I played varsity goalie in highschool the year we won State).
I probably should have chomped Jerrie...No chomping! Bad tarrasque, BAD!!!
*whacks DM_Blake with a rolled up newspaper.*Oh no you di'n't!
See the scales? That better be a +5 fishwrap you whacked me with so I have a papercut to regenerate next round, because otherwise I didn't feel a thing.
Well, I felt one thing: RAAAAGE!
Besides, when isn't a tarrasque bad?
*Quickly changing into a bat, Jerrie evades the chomp... but it's close. He turns back a safe distance away.*
To answer your question: When they're sleeping!
*He runs away*
I probably should have chomped Jerrie...No chomping! Bad tarrasque, BAD!!!
*whacks DM_Blake with a rolled up newspaper.*Oh no you di'n't!
See the scales? That better be a +5 fishwrap you whacked me with so I have a papercut to regenerate next round, because otherwise I didn't feel a thing.
Well, I felt one thing: RAAAAGE!
Besides, when isn't a tarrasque bad?
*Quickly changing into a bat, Jerrie evades the chomp... but it's close. He turns back a safe distance away.*
To answer your question: When they're sleeping!
*He runs away*
:: Casts "bubble of ultimate protection" (AKA resilent sphere) on Jerrie ::
"That's funny enough I'll save your life... this time"
My take on it is that teams of adventurers will have way more resilience. The melee class will be more reliable (and useful, with the needed nerfing of some cleric and druid spells and abilities). The cleric (or paladin or druid with the healing domain (my personal prediction) will be less taxed by needed healing.
All in all, we'll see better teams, with the "fifth classes" like paladin, bards and monks, becoming viable.
So yeah, beef up your adventures, do them earlier or introduce time pressure that requores longuer days of adventuring.
I sincerely believe we will ALL have more fun at the table.
DW
My take on it is that teams of adventurers will have way more resilience. The melee class will be more reliable (and useful, with the needed nerfing of some cleric and druid spells and abilities). The cleric (or paladin or druid with the healing domain (my personal prediction) will be less taxed by needed healing.
All in all, we'll see better teams, with the "fifth classes" like paladin, bards and monks, becoming viable.
So yeah, beef up your adventures, do them earlier or introduce time pressure that requores longuer days of adventuring.
I sincerely believe we will ALL have more fun at the table.
DW
Word.
Who knows? The Beta and the previews is all we have to go by, and the PfRPG isn't the Beta.
Frankly, I think the PFRPG and the Beta are 95% the same. Nothing I've seen so far in the previews contradicts that statement.
Who knows? The Beta and the previews is all we have to go by, and the PfRPG isn't the Beta.Frankly, I think the PFRPG and the Beta are 95% the same. Nothing I've seen so far in the previews contradicts that statement.
Well...the cleric aint 95% the same. Domains will be returning, change to the turning/healing, DC change, and frankly we have no idea what the spell changes will end up being in Pathfinder. The fighter too changed, so clearly did the sorc, ranger, and paladin.
I think it might be better to say a good amount of the beta made it, some of 3.5 made a return and other stuff from left field has entered play. But 95% no, that is too high a percentage to really go with based on what we have seen so far.
To answer the question of toughness I think most classes will be tougher to some degree with maybe one or two exceptions. Over all in a 4 person fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric party I would expect over all they will perform at low to mid levels a level or two higher then in 3.5.
Frankly, I think the PFRPG and the Beta are 95% the same. Nothing I've seen so far in the previews contradicts that statement.Well...the cleric aint 95% the same. Domains will be returning, change to the turning/healing, DC change, and frankly we have no idea what the spell changes will end up being in Pathfinder.
What do you mean by "domains will be returning"? PFRPG clerics had domains. I guess now they get abilities at levels 1, 6 and 8 instead of 1 and 8?
The change to channel energy is part of the 5% that is different, IMO.
The fighter too changed, so clearly did the sorc, ranger, and paladin.
Eh? I saw nothing suggesting that the sorcerer, fighter or ranger have changed substantially since the Beta. The paladin presumably changed a bit from the Beta, though (although some of those changes were mentioned by Jason before the Beta had concluded).
Tougher? Let's say just that: of all tricks that allowed my current 3.5 party (3 core members: Swift Hunter ranger, bard, cleric) to actually survive through my RotRL-based campaign so far, from trip-controlling and charging to Glitterdust and Alter Self, only Slow hadn't been nerfed to oblivion in PBeta. While those PCs obviously used non-core stuff (and some houserules that made fighting classes better), restricting the same characters to 3.5 core merely would have required stricter optimization, while in PBeta this party wouldn't have been workable at all. Minor numerical bonuses given to classes are not even close to compensating for that, because monsters win the contest of numbers anyway. Free crafting of magic items can compensate this... by breaking the game.
PFRPG clerics had domains. I guess now they get abilities at levels 1, 6 and 8 instead of 1 and 8?
Clerics get domain powers at 1 and (usually 6 or 8). Not both. [Per the preview banquet.]
Director of Games
|
Truth be told, in all of our internal playtesting, the classes got a bit of a boost at low levels, but that advantage becomes smaller and smaller as the characters advance in levels. That said, a number of classes have been reworked, changing their dynamic entirely (paladin, I am looking at you). These classes were brought on par with some of the more powerful 3.5 classes. Groups containing these classes will see a boost, but I don't think it is nearly as dramatic as some believe.
All of this, of course, is counterbalanced by the power of the monsters. While many are very similar to their 3.5 counterparts, some of the more lackluster monsters have received a boost to make them challenges again.
Its a give and take really...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Truth be told, in all of our internal playtesting, the classes got a bit of a boost at low levels, but that advantage becomes smaller and smaller as the characters advance in levels. That said, a number of classes have been reworked, changing their dynamic entirely (paladin, I am looking at you). These classes were brought on par with some of the more powerful 3.5 classes. Groups containing these classes will see a boost, but I don't think it is nearly as dramatic as some believe.
All of this, of course, is counterbalanced by the power of the monsters. While many are very similar to their 3.5 counterparts, some of the more lackluster monsters have received a boost to make them challenges again.
Its a give and take really...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
That's good to hear, and quite interesting.
But I'm wondering what the backward compatibility would be? If I whip up a Shackled City campaign, or Age of Worms, or Rise of the Runelords, etc., those adventure paths don't have the benefit of the beefy new monsters, but my players are drawing on the beefy new versions of the core classes in Pathfinder.
I anticipate some challenge imbalance that will probably require some DM interference to make the fights more interesting - but that may result in more XP for those fights causing faster level advancement which would keep the PCs ahead of the AP challenge curve...
All in all, the right answer may be to leat them tear up the early encounters, or augment the bad guys by some "surprisingly good rolls at critical moments" wink wink.
That's good to hear, and quite interesting.
But I'm wondering what the backward compatibility would be? If I whip up a Shackled City campaign, or Age of Worms, or Rise of the Runelords, etc., those adventure paths don't have the benefit of the beefy new monsters, but my players are drawing on the beefy new versions of the core classes in Pathfinder.
I anticipate some challenge imbalance that will probably require some DM interference to make the fights more interesting - but that may result in more XP for those fights causing faster level advancement which would keep the PCs ahead of the AP challenge curve...
All in all, the right answer may be to leat them tear up the early encounters, or augment the bad guys by some "surprisingly good rolls at critical moments" wink wink.
If your players run into a wight in Shackled City, use a wight from the Bestiary (or whatever other monster they're encountering)...though I did hear a lot of complaints about the earlier APs being too tough, so maybe no adjustment is necessary at all(for the Dungeon APs anyway).
Also of course curing aliments will be a bit more touchy, as a remove curse requires a caster level check now, dispel magic only can effect one magical effect on someone at a time, and casting in melee is more difficult then in 3.5. Clerics and Druids will not be able to buff themselves to be respectable fighter fillins, but the cleric at least will be ... well healing as that seems what in pathfinder he is suppose to do. Cleric thy name is healbot.
Pathfinder isn't 3.75, it's more like 3.5 melee edition. Balanced to make melee classes the classes of choice levels 1-20 instead of just the tougher classes for the first 8-10 as they were in 3.5.
Yup, I aint real happy with how caster unfriendly Pathfinder is appearing to be.
I dont see it as caster unfriendly at all, but the cleric as a whole was over the top and has been since 3.0 so him being brought down a bit does not hurt my feelings in the lest.
|
Also of course curing aliments will be a bit more touchy, as a remove curse requires a caster level check now, dispel magic only can effect one magical effect on someone at a time, and casting in melee is more difficult then in 3.5. Clerics and Druids will not be able to buff themselves to be respectable fighter fillins, but the cleric at least will be ... well healing as that seems what in pathfinder he is suppose to do. Cleric thy name is healbot.
Pathfinder isn't 3.75, it's more like 3.5 melee edition. Balanced to make melee classes the classes of choice levels 1-20 instead of just the tougher classes for the first 8-10 as they were in 3.5.
Yup, I aint real happy with how caster unfriendly Pathfinder is appearing to be.
I agree somewhat. For all my "fighter love", I really dislike seeing spells nerfed. I don't mind making casting in melee combat a bit harder (it was nearly impossible in 1e, after all), but SoD and SoS nerfs take too much shine away from wizards, and not addressing the mistake 2e/3x made with capping evocation damage output, well... Their spells should be hard to get off in the chaos of a melee, but when they DO go off, people should stop and do their best Keanu: "Whoa!"
The only deviation from your opinion I hold is that I do feel Pathfinder will promote more niche protection in the base classes. CoDzilla did step on a lot of fighter toes, after all...
But I'm wondering what the backward compatibility would be? If I whip up a Shackled City campaign, or Age of Worms, or Rise of the Runelords, etc., those adventure paths don't have the benefit of the beefy new monsters, but my players are drawing on the beefy new versions of the core classes in Pathfinder.
I anticipate some challenge imbalance that will probably require some DM interference to make the fights more interesting - but that may result in more XP for those fights causing faster level advancement which would keep the PCs ahead of the AP challenge curve...
I'm currently running a monthly Shackled City game with some friends using the Beta rules and let me tell you, they were sufficiently challanged for many of these battles which I thought were easy.
Two CR 1/2 Hobgoblins gave them trouble just by standing in a bottleneck.
Kazmogen gave them a super hard time just because he wore fullplate.
As to the power creep thought, I believe it says in the Beta book after the spells chapter that a DM should generally consider the PC's one level higher if he(or she) is not converting 3.5 published material to Pathfinder. As Jason said above, however, this increase might not even be necessary at higher levels.
I for one am pretty excited that it maybe won't be so easy to make a cleric/wizard/whateverprestige and get 9th level divine & arcane spells and the ability to wade into melee like a freakin' colossus. I never felt like CoDzilla was BETTER than a fighter (at melee), but I thought they were entirely too close.
If PF was 3.5 melee edition, I'd buy it twice.
silly stuff
Bah. Someones a little unhappy that his all-powerful uber-caster got nerfed a tiny bit so that now non-casters aren't filled with fail in comparison.
Suck it up :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Since when did "Now Meele doesn't suck" become "Fighter edition?"
Example from 3.x I was playing my Battle Sorcerer/Ruathar/Abjurant Cheesewhore We were being swarmed with Giants (oxymoron I know) and the Cleric and Druid were almost out of spells and I was running low on orbs and shadow magic. I had my box of minis with me.
"Matt, what's your action."
"Draconic polymorph" (SC)
"What?"
I plop the Mountain Troll mini on the table. I didn't have the fighters number of attacks or power attack, but with my scaled up damage, reach, and strength, I was matching him punch for punch. And I had regeneration (Draconic Polymorph does give (EX) abilities) with one spell (albiet my highest level spell) I was holding up with the fighter, and *still* outclassed him in AC due to light armor and the enhanced shield spell.
Another trick was casting Form of the dragon (PHB II, level 6 spell) on my character and her familiar (through share spell) We tore apart a BBEG in one round, since FotD is a swift action, and he appeared 10' away. Two full round dragon attacks against a fighter and he's down.
If I can't do that anymore and if the fighter can keep up with the damage output, that's not 'melee edition' that's "Wow, I don't need to prestige into the obscure third party sourcebook I found gathering dust in the discount bin to not suck.
As of the Bonus Bestiary, casters just regained all their "lost" power, with respect to warriors. Because most monster secondary attacks are now apparently at full attack bonus and full STR bonus to damage, meaning that level-appropriate melee guys are pretty well doomed if they try to actually fight monsters.
It's like the transition from 2nd to 3.0: the warriors got a little bit better in some ways, but the monsters got a LOT better in most ways = net loss for warriors.
Yes, some spells got nerfed, but overall Pathfinder is looking less like a "melee edition" than it is a "Wizards and Dragons" edition.
As of the Bonus Bestiary, casters just regained all their "lost" power, with respect to warriors. Because most monster secondary attacks are now apparently at full attack bonus and full STR bonus to damage, meaning that level-appropriate melee guys are pretty well doomed if they try to actually fight monsters.
It's like the transition from 2nd to 3.0: the warriors got a little bit better in some ways, but the monsters got a LOT better in most ways = net loss for warriors.
Yes, some spells got nerfed, but overall Pathfinder is looking less like a "melee edition" than it is a "Wizards and Dragons" edition.
It won't be problem for Melee guys. Well the fighter at least. The AC of the fighters get boosted so much that monster will barely be able to hit with these full bouns attacks and since they will be missing more the damage doesn't mean much either.
Melee types get better heavy armor and shield focus feats. The fighter get armor training on top of that.
The AC of the fighters get boosted so much that monster will barely be able to hit with these full bouns attacks and since they will be missing more the damage doesn't mean much either. Melee types get better heavy armor and shield focus feats. The fighter get armor training on top of that.
All of that peaks at like 10th level or sooner. After that, attack bonuses scale so much faster than AC that all the monsters can power attack to their hearts' content and hit pretty much every single time -- especially now that the -5 penalty on claws is gone. On the flip side, the PCs' -5/-10/-15 for their attacks is a noticeable impediment, especially if they're swapping attack bonus for AC using Combat Expertise (in its current form, possibly the single most worthless feat in the game).