I am conducting some research for my Weekly Pathfinder Polls. I plan to have a poll to see what people feel are some of the best changes in Pathfinder, and some of the worst in the following week's poll.
I am looking for changes that have made a significant impact on the game mechanics. (As compared to the D&D 3.5 edition). If anyone has any suggestions, please post them here or e-mail them to me here.
Example Best Changes:
- Combat maneuvers changed to CMB / CMD system
- Spell revisions of some of the generally most unbalanced spells
- Feat revisions
- Class revisions
- Race revisions
- Skill Amalgamations
- Core Rulebook containing all the player and GM rules.
(I'm trying to keep these categories fairly general, however if there is strong support for a specific topic, then I may add it as well)
Example Worst Changes
- (I will probably just repeat the list above)
(Note: I will likely be doing similar polls in the future, listing all the best/worse changes to core races and core classes).
|
Well, I think that the alteration of a lot of the feats like Imp. Trip, Disarm, etc. . . was sort of a bad move. One it can really alter the way a previous build works, how these new feats might interact with 3E material like later feats or prestige classes that initially built upon the original feat, and little things like that.
A lot of my groups players are put off by these as well, but also things like Power Attack and Cleave. I like how Sunder works. I do not like how Grapple works, but I never had any trouble with it in 3E, (a little but it was that some things are not clear, not the entirety of Grapple).
All in all, I think some of the best things about Pathfinder are the cleaning up of various things. Unfortunatly, some of the worst changes in Pathfinder, in my opinion, are the cleaning up of some things. I don't really like the HD based off of BaB, half the skill changes I liked and the other half I don't so much. A lot of the "weaker" 3E classes got boosted but rather than give everyone something cool and new, and worst of something awesome at 20th level, Pathfinder seemed to give the classes that already got the big overhaul even more and left out the others.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Example Best Changes:
- Combat maneuvers changed to CMB / CMD system
- Spell revisions of some of the generally most unbalanced spells
- Feat revisions
- Class revisions
- Race revisions
- Skill Amalgamations
- Core Rulebook containing all the player and GM rules.Example Worst Changes
- (I will probably just repeat the list above)
Best:
#1 Polymorph/Wild Shape (good change)#2 Skill Revamp (both combined skills and simplified ranks)
#3 CMB/CMD simplifications (Grapple, Trip, etc)
#4 Race changes, Half Elves rock now, Favored Class rocks.
#5 Rules fixes, yay
Worse:
#1 Cleric Lost Heavy Armour Proficiency (this negate the quintessential image of Cleric in D&D)
#2 Save or Die now Save or take a moderate amount of damage
#3 Wild Shape (large backward compat issues, making things like Enhanced Wild Shape, Master of Many Forms, Master Transformer, etc no longer compatible.)
#4 Grapple isn't an attack, so high BAB can't help you get out a grapple now by allowing you 4 chances, etc.
Anyone else have any comments they would like to contribute?
Anyone else have any comments they would like to contribute?
Best -
1 - I really like the skills change by and large, with only a few excptions.
2 - I like the fighter class changes, the weapon group and armor training both help buff the class in ways it needed help.
3 - Polymorph changes are pretty good
4 - My gaming group all love the Ranger, just love him.
Worst
1 - Heavy Armor for clerics was a really bad idea
2 - Cleric domains need some serious balancing
3 - Channel Energy
4 - The Paladin
5 - Not of fan of the changes to Power Attack and similar powers, not having the ability to adjust the amount of used takes some of the fun from the melee classes at least in my group it seems to have.
6 - This wasn't a change but should have beem, classes with only 2 skill points per level needed to have that total increased to 4 per, it simply is more fun that way and allows for more varried builds but doesn't add a ton more power.
Best:
Race & Class revamps.
Worse:
Finger of...some damage.
..don't Slay...just damage... Living.
[changed these to hp's = minus the spell level]
I like most of the changes except
1. Nerfing natures ally spells for druids,
2. Cleric losing heavy armor and the changes to turn undead
3. 1/2 orcs racial abilities, I can't see ever taking a 1/2 orc over a human or 1/2 elf, +2 on any stat, come on that is so un 1/2 orc like...
4. some magic items still totally broken like cube of force
5. Pally got too much love
|
just a point, skill set revision and skill amalgamation are two seperate things.
For example the best thing about pathfinder for me is the revision of cross class skill points, but one of the things that bothers me and may be the worst change is some of the skill amalgamation. Perception and acrobatics are now way way way to must have. I wasn't as bothered by stealth, but you get the idea.
Overall the categories in your first post look ok to me. Maybe you should put a spot in there for "Best looking RPG book evar!" (Layout and Illustration perhaps)
Rules clarity is my biggest 'complaint', both carry over from 3.5 and in some of the changes introduced. There is ambiguous wording in quite a few places and just poor word choices in others. I was really hoping this version would be 'more' solidified and this is likely my biggest disappointment. The book is filled with overloaded terms and in some cases they use phrases that are fairly clearly defined in one place completely differently in others.
So maybe add a category for Rules clarity and dis-ambiguification (sp?) to 'worst' changes.
In case you guys missed his first post he's not looking for voting/ discussion, he's looking for suggestions for what should be on his pole. He has also said that he wants fairly general categories. "Cleric Heavy Armor" would fall under "Class Revisions".
Maybe you could have a follow up pole to narrow down what specific changes are the 'best' of the best and 'worst' of the worst.
I'd suggest Angelina Jolie, provided she's willing and Brad doesn't object. . .
. . . he's looking for suggestions for what should be on his pole.
Isn't that the Paizocon 2010 motto? What happens at Paizocon stays at Paizocon?
Best Things About Pathfinder:
Worst Things About Pathfinder:
Likes -
More feats for all characters.
CMB/CMD is a nice mechanic.
Fresh take on classes and races.
Change to Poison/disease/curse
The new cleric - Added Channel, tweaked domains, remove heavy armor.
Sorcerer and Specialist class powers.
Mithral Armor Change
CR and XP Change
Most Spell Tweaks
Melee Feats such as vital strike, criticals, and yes the streamlined +something/-something for attacks. (Power attack, Deadly Aim, Combat Expertise.)
Concentration is now a combat choice and not a default never fail always on skill.
Removed XP costs to players for crafting and spells.
Favored class HP or SP choice.
Medium and heavy armor increases.
More Shield feat options.
Magic Staff changes are great!
Dislikes -
The loss of most save or die effects.
Generalist Wizard should have a capstone or specialists need stiffer penalties for using opposition schools.
Barbarian's need a little more rage power love.
Problems with Vital Strike line and Charging, Cleaving, Spring Attack, etc.
Having to make a "Hate" list of a game that is overall awesome!
Worst Things About Pathfinder:
Sloppy editing/language/terms use
Here is good wording for my suggested addition to least favorite things poll.
What Brad doesn't know... ;-)
Given her history I find it hard to believe that Brad doesn't know.
Skills consolidation deranged and lopsided - super-mega-consolidated Perception vs. micro-focused uselss Peform (harpsichord).
Oh, man, I want to throttle the musically illiterate bastard (...I mean, I love you James!...) who decided Perform (keyboard) and Perform (strings) were meaningful groupings. Perform (zither) and Perform (lute), guys! Harps, lyres and pianos all use the same basic theory and share several techniques, which are remarkably different from guitars and violins.
Anyway. :) I agree 100% with Kirth's list.
Most of these are duplicated, but I agree…
Likes…
- Skill Amalgamations
- Magic Item Body Slot Adjustments
- *Paladin Improvements (as a whole)
- *Barbarian Rage Powers
- *Sorcerer Bloodlines, tons of flavor
- *Rogue Talents
- *Channel Energy, allows for more variety in daily spell selection
- *Turn Undead, moved to a Feat
Dislikes…
- Spiked Chain Non-Reach, still Exotic (IMO should be Monk'd)
- *Cleric Heavy Armor removed
- Clarity of text/rules (not as bad as Beta, but still bad)
*Class adjustments, but I do not like/dislike all of them, so I singled out each one of them.
Cast defensively too hard at low levels, too easy at high levels
Really? I've seen this brought up before, and I don't see it as that big an issue. Using the elite array, a human wizard 1 will have an Intelligence of 17, putting his Concentration at +4; the DC to cast his highest-level spell is 17, which means he needs to roll a 13+ to succeed.
That same wizard at level 17, the first level at which he gets 9th-level spells, will have an Intelligence of 21 before magic items (assuming all four stat increases went into Intelligence). This gives him a Concentration bonus of +22. The DC to cast his highest-level spell is 33; he would need an 11+ to succeed. Granted, there is a bit of a disparity there, but a difference of 2 isn't that huge. And yeah, I know that's before magic items, but that's part of the benefit of being a high-level character. Even with a +6 enhancement bonus to Intelligence, though, that wizard will still need an 8+.
Skill focus no longer applies as it is basically a modified caster level check. Combat Casting is applicable, but that is a moot arguement as both high and low level characters can take the feat if they choose.
Really? I've seen this brought up before, and I don't see it as that big an issue.
It all depends on your definition of "reasonable." To me, personally, 50% failure is reasonable -- although many people on the boards consider 100% to be "more reasonable" (I do not share that opinion).
8th (DC 31) = 6 or better = 75% success.
7th (DC 29) = 4 or better = 85% success.
6th (DC 27) = 3 or better = 95% success.
5th (DC 25) = 1 or better = auto-success.
4th (DC 23) = 1 or better = auto-success.
3rd (DC 21) = 1 or better = auto-success.
2nd (DC 19) = 1 or better = auto-success.
1st (DC 17) = 1 or better = auto-success.
0 (DC 15) = 1 or better = auto-success.
At no time is he ever at serious risk of losing a spell, especially if he simply takes Combat Casting (who wouldn't?) and jacks his 8th level success rate to 95%, and auto-succeeds at everything else.
In short, the new rule doesn't actually make it any harder at all for higher-level casters to cast defensiely -- indeed, it's easier for many of them.
5th (DC 25) = 1 or better = auto-success.
Since concentration is no longer a skill, wouldn't a natural 1 be an auto-fail now no matter what? Haven't bothered to look up the exact wording on it yet so I really don't know.
5th (DC 25) = 1 or better = auto-success.Since concentration is no longer a skill, wouldn't a natural 1 be an auto-fail now no matter what? Haven't bothered to look up the exact wording on it yet so I really don't know.
I would think a roll of a 1 in a combat situation is still a failure, but that's just me I can't site any rules that support my opinion.
Either way this thread isn't really for debate on any topic, just a chance to list changes you may or may not be happy with. Kith has explained the numbers more times then I can recall and he's right, the numbers support it becoming easier as you level, I believe the Fiendish T-Rex even agreed but pointed out that it makes sense as the higher level guy is well more experinced after all. Either you accept that or you think it's wrong. But the facts and numbers do support it becoming easier as you level. Also one small other point, that level 1 guy, only has one level of spell to even try. The level 17 or 16 guy can pull spells from lower level if he absolutely must get the spell off. He also likely has wands and other options, the poor level 1 has likely nothing else to save himself so him being even worse off at getting the spell off is more or less a double hit on him. Again lets take a debate or discussion about this topic to another thread to leave this thread for collecting poll topics.
Since concentration is no longer a skill, wouldn't a natural 1 be an auto-fail now no matter what? Haven't bothered to look up the exact wording on it yet so I really don't know.
Nope... auto-success/failure is a rule stated explicitly (and separately!) in the sections for attack rolls, combat maneuvers and saving throws.
No such rule for concentration checks, or anything else to my knowledge.
It all depends on your definition of "reasonable." To me, personally, 50% failure is reasonable -- although many people on the boards consider 100% to be "more reasonable" (I do not share that opinion).
Spoiler:A 16th level wizard is likely to have Int 18 + 4 for leveling + 6 for headband = 28, for a concentration check of +25.
He's therefore got the following chances, by spell level:
8th (DC 31) = 6 or better = 75% success.
7th (DC 29) = 4 or better = 85% success.
6th (DC 27) = 3 or better = 95% success.
5th (DC 25) = 1 or better = auto-success.
4th (DC 23) = 1 or better = auto-success.
3rd (DC 21) = 1 or better = auto-success.
2nd (DC 19) = 1 or better = auto-success.
1st (DC 17) = 1 or better = auto-success.
0 (DC 15) = 1 or better = auto-success.<pulled out of the spoiler>
At no time is he ever at serious risk of losing a spell, especially if he simply takes Combat Casting (who wouldn't?) and jacks his 8th level success rate to 95%, and auto-succeeds at everything else.
In short, the new rule doesn't actually make it any harder at all for higher-level casters to cast defensiely -- indeed, it's easier for many of them.
Easier? Compared to the 3.5 16th level wizard who probably had maxed out his ranks in Concentration (+19 right there) having to make a DC 23 for the 8th level spell, your example fails 66% more often. If he hasn't maxed out his intelligence to the same degree, he'll have even more trouble. I find that a lot of players bleed off some leveling bonuses in their stats to other stats that may be weak - like a +1 to an odd-numbered Con.
Now, it may be that he's still likely to be too successful. I can buy that argument, but easier than in 3.5? If the wizard weren't too diligent about investing in Concentration, yes. But the likely case was that he invested in it until casting defensively became trivial.
Really? I've seen this brought up before, and I don't see it as that big an issue.It all depends on your definition of "reasonable." To me, personally, 50% failure is reasonable -- although many people on the boards consider 100% to be "more reasonable" (I do not share that opinion). ** spoiler omitted **
IMO while the rule might not be enough it is quite a bit better than the 3.5 version of concentration which was entirely too easy at pretty much all levels. At least this version works fairly well at levels 1-10.
At least this version works fairly well at levels 1-10.
A version using DC 10 + 1/2 threatener's BAB + (2 x spell level) works even better, across all levels, and isn't a whole lot more difficult to use in play.
A version using DC 10 + 1/2 threatener's BAB + (2 x spell level) works even better, across all levels, and isn't a whole lot more difficult to use in play.
The one thing I don't like about this is that it tells the players what their opponents' BAB is (unless you're making their Concentration checks for them). That's why I've gone with 10 + 3x SpLvl.
|
+ class changes. Especially the Paladin.
+ new melee feats.
+ spell changes. Espacially - Polymorph and Gate.
+ skill consolidation.
+ concentration
+ Cleric heavy armor removed (had to rub this one in :)
+ heavy enough to be used as domestic defense.
- counterspelling still useless.
- exotic weapons still not worth a feat.
- Bards are still sub-par.
- some wording/editing SNAFUs.
- "new" interior art is kinda meh.
BEST:
1. Skills!Skills!Skills!
2. Useful non-caster classes, more flavorful casters
3. Races
4. Armor (including removing heavy armor from cleric)
5. CMB/D... sort of. Numbers are wonky, but its still better than grapple and friends.
6. Most of the spell changes
WORST:
1. Some class abilities are too swingy (paladin is the poster child for this)
2. nothing?
A version using DC 10 + 1/2 threatener's BAB + (2 x spell level) works even better, across all levels, and isn't a whole lot more difficult to use in play.The one thing I don't like about this is that it tells the players what their opponents' BAB is (unless you're making their Concentration checks for them). That's why I've gone with 10 + 3x SpLvl.
Or the GM has to calculate it.
Overall, it's not perfect but labeling it on the list of the worst changes? At least it's an improvement, I'm less excited about the specialist changes myself.
I am conducting some research for my Weekly Pathfinder Polls. I plan to have a poll to see what people feel are some of the best changes in Pathfinder, and some of the worst in the following week's poll.
I am looking for changes that have made a significant impact on the game mechanics. (As compared to the D&D 3.5 edition). If anyone has any suggestions, please post them here or e-mail them to me here.
Example Best Changes:
- Combat maneuvers changed to CMB / CMD system
- Spell revisions of some of the generally most unbalanced spells
- Feat revisions
- Class revisions
- Race revisions
- Skill Amalgamations
- Core Rulebook containing all the player and GM rules.(I'm trying to keep these categories fairly general, however if there is strong support for a specific topic, then I may add it as well)
Example Worst Changes
- (I will probably just repeat the list above)(Note: I will likely be doing similar polls in the future, listing all the best/worse changes to core races and core classes).
Kor, here are a few more categories you might consider for the poll:
- Presitige class revisions
- Equipment revisions
- Magic Item creation revisions
- Encounter creation revisions
- Trap revisions
- Poison, Disease, Curse revisions
- NPC class revisions
- Purchasing magic items
- 0 level spells now unlimited
Hope that helps.
|
|
A version using DC 10 + 1/2 threatener's BAB + (2 x spell level) works even better, across all levels, and isn't a whole lot more difficult to use in play.The one thing I don't like about this is that it tells the players what their opponents' BAB is (unless you're making their Concentration checks for them). That's why I've gone with 10 + 3x SpLvl.
You tell your players the DCs they have to meet? I guess that's more normal than I think cause I'm trying to break a current player of that habbit, I tell him to roll something he immediately asks "what's the DC" and my immediate response is "You have no idea" and then he tells me what the result of his roll is without ever knowing what he needed to hit to either pass or fail. So while I have my players roll their concentration checks, they don't get to know the enemies BAB. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
You tell your players the DCs they have to meet?
No, but they're all observant and good at math.
Yeah... for all the good things I hear about pathfinder, I hear many things I don't like.
The fact that you're hearing as many good things as bad is amazingly positive for any product. Remember, people are more likely to complain than applaud.
Best changes? Oooooh. I know. The picture of the aristocrat.
Worst changes? Who let Asmodeus in? <Pouts.> I mean at least Bane you knew where you were with and as a former mortal (at least before they killed him and replaced him with Iychatu Xvim in a suit of armour pretending to be him, but he was a former mortal too, and so you could work around him) you could tempt him to go to town with you and spend an evening in a bar. Asmodeus is just a dreary devil, and he shows off that key, too much. I mean all the time, it's like 'look at me, I'm Rovagug's jailer', so full of himself, and he gives the poor little kiddie-winkies the wrong impression about Pathfinder. I mean Dungeons and Dragons was clearly a fun game, with baatezu and tanar'ri and slaadi and morons - uhh modrons - all over the place, but Pathfinder is this dreadfully serious game with po-faced devils like Asmodeus and demon-goddesses like Lamashtu - I mean what does she think that she's doing going out like that with hardly anything on, except for a three-skull swimsuit which is so dreadfully like-three-ages-of-the-world-ago? And the poor dear thing looks dreadfully unhealthy, so pale like that, although maybe she is trying to get a tan going around dressed (or rather under-dressed) to that extent, which might explain a thing or two...
Best changes? Oooooh. I know. The picture of the aristocrat.
Worst changes? Who let Asmodeus in? <Pouts.> I mean at least Bane you knew where you were with and as a former mortal (at least before they killed him and replaced him with Iychatu Xvim in a suit of armour pretending to be him, but he was a former mortal too, and so you could work around him) you could tempt him to go to town with you and spend an evening in a bar. Asmodeus is just a dreary devil, and he shows off that key, too much. I mean all the time, it's like 'look at me, I'm Rovagug's jailer', so full of himself, and he gives the poor little kiddie-winkies the wrong impression about Pathfinder. I mean Dungeons and Dragons was clearly a fun game, with baatezu and tanar'ri and slaadi and morons - uhh modrons - all over the place, but Pathfinder is this dreadfully serious game with po-faced devils like Asmodeus and demon-goddesses like Lamashtu - I mean what does she think that she's doing going out like that with hardly anything on, except for a three-skull swimsuit which is so dreadfully like-three-ages-of-the-world-ago? And the poor dear thing looks dreadfully unhealthy, so pale like that, although maybe she is trying to get a tan going around dressed (or rather under-dressed) to that extent, which might explain a thing or two...
I disagree with my poor deluded colleague. Except for the bit about the aristocrat. The aristocrat definitely need illustrating, and she looks suitably magnificent in that gown, fresh from a Chelaxian ball or gala-evening at the theatre to perhaps watch the latest production of The Six Trials of Larazod. Frankly all those ghastly outer planar races needed to go. They were so chaotic and untidy, cluttering the place up - if I weren't a devil I'd be quite unable to remember how to spell 'slaadi' - and (besides being legally correct) it was quite right of the esteemed messieurs Bulmahn and Jacobs to put them out of their misery.
Although Lamashtu is a bit of an eyesore actually, come to think of it, not at all like our own beloved Lord Asmodeus; the poor thing is an embarrassment to demonkind.And to see the chance to devil-worship in organised play is marvellous. Go Cheliax!
I disagree with my poor deluded colleague. Except for the bit about the aristocrat. The aristocrat definitely need illustrating, and she looks suitably magnificent in that gown, fresh from a Chelaxian ball or gala-evening at the theatre to perhaps watch the latest production of The Six Trials of Larazod. Frankly all those ghastly outer planar races needed to go. They were so chaotic and untidy, cluttering the place up - if I weren't a devil I'd be quite unable to remember how to spell 'slaadi' - and (besides being legally correct) it was quite right of the esteemed messieurs Bulmahn and Jacobs to put them out of their misery.
Although Lamashtu is a bit of an eyesore actually, come to think of it, not at all like our own beloved Lord Asmodeus; the poor thing is an embarrassment to demonkind.
And to see the chance to devil-worship in organised play is marvellous. Go Cheliax!
<Produces a wet haddock from somewhere and fishslaps Nstrivaxon with it.>
Go Andoran! And Qadira, Osirion, and even senile, decrepit Taldor, too!
<Produces a wet haddock from somewhere and fishslaps Nstrivaxon with it.>
Go Andoran! And Qadira, Osirion, and even senile, decrepit Taldor, too!
Why, you little minx!
<General fight breaks out between the pair.>
- counterspelling still useless.
Actually, I disagree. I had a Ftr/Wiz that started in 3.0 and continued into 3.5. His main tactic was using Dispel Magic to counter anything that a wizard threw at him, run up, and next round, cut the bastard down.
He not only survived, but thrived all the way to 18th level before the campaign ended, largely thanks to the fact that he specialized his casting for counterspelling.
So, useless for a character that doesn't actually try to learn counterspelling (such as getting feats like Improved Counterspell and such), sure. But at least in my opinion, unless you do specialize in counterspelling, it should be rather difficult.
On the issue of race. I think a bad change, not the worst mind you, were the elimination of sepecified favored classes for the non-human races. I think it took away from the versatility of humans, which I found unique only to humans. The half-orc isnt such a ferocious beast as in previous editions. The half-elf I still dont like the fact they can choose two favored classes and get a bonus feat skill focus. It detracts from the humans.
From what I've seen, witnessed and played with the favoured class wasn;t ever really an issue, people played humans for the extra feat and skills, not for favoured class.
Actually, I disagree. I had a Ftr/Wiz that started in 3.0 and continued into 3.5. His main tactic was using Dispel Magic to counter anything that a wizard threw at him, run up, and next round, cut the bastard down.
- counterspelling still useless.
To which I'm forced to wonder: Why didn't you just run up to the guy and cut him down in the first place instead of wasting a round (or more) holding an action just in case he cast a spell?