Best and Worst changes in Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 77 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

tejón wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
You tell your players the DCs they have to meet?

No, but they're all observant and good at math.

Robert Carter 58 wrote:
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.

This would apply somewhere like EN World which is a bit more neutral of a site. But would not apply here, so it depends on where he is hearing these comments. Here positive hugely outweigh negative if you take Paizo's messageboard as a whole. In fact if you speak negatively in the wrong way, or to the wrong people, in this forum you can be nearly flamed by hating fanbois.


Zurai wrote:
ChrisRevocateur wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


- 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.
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?

Probably because only the biggest buffoon of any enemy mage is going to start casting at the fighter while within one move action of said fighter. ;-)

If you cannot get to wizard and attack that round then making a single move and holding a dispel magic is smarter than getting almost to him but not quite and hoping to survive whatever he nukes you with magically.


Positives

1. Increased damage ability of melee classes is nice.

2. Less shoehorned races. The changes to races make it possible to build some races beyond their "given" classes without gimping them.

3. Polymorph. This was just horribly abuseable.

4. More cookies for monks. Nice to see some new abilities.

5. No more auto-defensive casting. Especially with the fighter feats one can take a wizard can no longer ignore melee opponents and cast away.

Negatives
1. Prestiege classes listed in book are too arcane caster biased. No choices for monk or druid while even the bard has multiple good choices. The core book should help all of the core classes equally.

2. Have to upgrade just about anything 3.5 now to offset all of the new cookies characters get. So now 3.5 is not straight compatible but a bit subpar compare to Pathfinder.

3. Cleric Domanins. As someone else mentioned these are not balanced at all. Some are decent while others just stink.

4. Monk still doesnt really work. I can stand there and swing like crazy or I can run like the road runner. Why nothing in between?

5. Fighter only feats. Sure there should be some benefit for fighters but make it so they can get the feats sooner or go deeper into the chain. Make them 100% exclusive means they might as well be special abilities instead of feats.


Frostflame wrote:
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.

I completely agree with everything here.

Although the favored class benefit system (+1 hp /sp) adds another layer of rules complexity to the character advancement system, I thought the racially themed benefit was appropriate. I thought Beta's introduction of 2 favored classes per race was a good balance.

I really disliked this change, almost as much as I hated the changes they did to the half-orc (which is the rule change I despise the most).


Moriartty wrote:
Monk still doesnt really work. I can stand there and swing like crazy or I can run like the road runner. Why nothing in between?

Agree 100%. In fact, I asked the same thing and was told it made for "interesting tactical choices," if the monk could do one thing worse than other classes, or a second thing worse than other classes, but never both together.

Moriartty wrote:
No more auto-defensive casting. Especially with the fighter feats one can take a wizard can no longer ignore melee opponents and cast away.

Yes, they can. Just as easily as they could before, unless they're extremely low-level (in which case they have little hope of success) -- math provided earlier (chances of success are demonstratable fact, not "opinion"). The designers are perfectly aware of this reality, have stated themselves that it was true and correct, and explained that it was "more realistic" that high-level casters should be so awesome as to be unable to fail.

Dark Archive

well as for positives honestly their is to many that i like to just pick one or even a short list. Everytime i thought of it, I would start adding more and more.

Now their is a few things I don't like but far and away the thing I personally dislike the most is the none stop casting of cantrips for all casters. It just bugs me on how I always felt casters should work.


Moriartty wrote:
This would apply somewhere like EN World which is a bit more neutral of a site. But would not apply here, so it depends on where he is hearing these comments. Here positive hugely outweigh negative if you take Paizo's messageboard as a whole. In fact if you speak negatively in the wrong way, or to the wrong people, in this forum you can be nearly flamed by hating fanbois.

While this is true to some extent I kind of feel a lot of it depends on the tone of the criticism. For example, Kirth and Hogarth both post a lot of criticisms about the system and they are not trampled down as haters. They aren't the only ones either.

You say "if you speak negatively in the wrong way" but the people who I see getting pounced on rarely post objective criticism. Many of the posts are filled with sarcasm and rhetoric and some are just plain rude and insulting to the people who like the system or Paizo.

So criticize if you want, but criticize the product, and be objective about it.


Thazar wrote:
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.

Concentration change itself could bring an entire discursion forum for pages.. but in few words:

It pushes the Combat Casting feat to low level characters, the very same levels where they are week and struggling to get the basic feats to build they chars.
High level characters won't fell this feat to be so heavy, different from low level character, and as they base intelligence is bigger and spell selection way broader, a high level spellcaster can work things out. There are too many variables to mention about high level casters, just try it and see for yourself.

Also, just so people who don't play spellcaster could get a grip of what is it like for low level casters: Just remember how much fun you use to have against incorporeal trait, specially when you have only one attack with your full round action, now imagine that you only can attack about 6 times a day.

Also, one charge touch spells are gone in pathfinder, you will have a very hard time creating a build with then, even with gishs,

Overall, players low level casters will need an extra help from melee, and low level casters BBEG will require an extra dose of protection spells or they will die easier than a regular monster.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Likes:
Really almost everything.

Dislikes:
I am rather surprised that Jump was integrated into Acrobatics, meaning that Fighters don't have it on their class skill list anymore. I'd rather have seen it integrated with Climb and Swim into an "Athletics" skill, but that's what house rules are for. ^^


magnuskn wrote:

Dislikes:

I am rather surprised that Jump was integrated into Acrobatics, meaning that Fighters don't have it on their class skill list anymore. I'd rather have seen it integrated with Climb and Swim into an "Athletics" skill, but that's what house rules are for.

Yes, I have have house ruled combined skill categories for some time now, and Athletics is one of them which includes Climb and Jump.

One of my Beta suggestions was to do this, and was supported by many. Oh well, as you said, that is what house rules are for.


lastknightleft wrote:
Perception and acrobatics are now way way way to must have.

I'm new to the concept, but the Stormwind fallacy seems applicable to a majority of these forum posts.

Those skills are only must-have by players worried their PC might not survive to some state of success without them. I've got a character in one of the games I'm running who has consistent bad luck with Perception and Acrobatics both. He is also becoming the most enjoyed character by the players because of his frequent mishaps.

His accidents, however, have not rendered him ineffectual. He remains a reliable member of the party whose other abilities make him invaluable. The amalgamation of these skills is one example of Pathfinder making it easier to min/max, I'll confess, but not necessary.

Pathfinder continues the tradition of allowing gamers to choose how to play: For fun or power, dependent on the role or the roll.


lastknightleft wrote:
Perception and acrobatics are now way way way to must have.

I've heard folks say this but I still see quite a few people IRL and on the boards building characters with no ranks in these skills. A lot of wizard/ cleric types who want to build a knowledge/ social character or fighter/ barbarian type characters who want to be good at athletic stuff.

I agree that they are very useful skills but they are far from universal.


For me.. since I don't own the PFRPG yet other than the beta PDF.. The thing I dislike is that they kept the horrible Miniature/Tactical combat & movement rules grr. If they included them it should've been as strictly optional rules with 'Official' rules dealing with movement in combat in a non-tactical manner. It's the thing I hate most about 3.5 rules & now Pathfinder RPG.I'll buy the PDF for now & get a usedcopy of the print version later when I can better afford to.


To be fair, miniatures do make running combat easier, since it helps everyone stay on the same page regarding location (particularly for the purposes of attacks of opportunity), and it's easy enough to translate squares over to feet of distance (one square=5', or 7.5' diagonally).


Best:

-Skill system!!!!!-The old system was just so bad. Now my cleric can sneak...just less good than my rogue
-Polymorph-Holy crap, they fixed it.
-Streamlined animal companion rules-(also deraping the ranger in this regard)
-Races-Make everyone a little bit better so other races don't have to be penalized
-Paladin-'nuff said.
-Channel energy-solves so many problems at once (also a big fan of clerics losing heavy armor prof)

Worst:
-Evokers-Conjurers get what? And I get what?
-Evocation-Not fixed. No explanation, just, not fixed. Adding some dex drain to polar ray did nothing to fix it.
-Bard song change-Pain.In.The.Butt.
-Shadowdancer-Slap on some crappy SLAs, that'll fix it, right?
-Dragon Disciple-Just as redundant as the archmage.
-Half Orcs-Boy we got bland.

Overall, I'd give the changes a solid 8.5. Not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than 3.5. With new classes coming out, not bound by backwards compatibility, I'm really excited to see what's going to be in the advanced player's guide (also, the only class that got a complete redo, the paladin, is awesome).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Chris Parker wrote:
To be fair, miniatures do make running combat easier, since it helps everyone stay on the same page regarding location (particularly for the purposes of attacks of opportunity), and it's easy enough to translate squares over to feet of distance (one square=5', or 7.5' diagonally).

AMEN!

I'm sorry, but I'm the GM most of the time, and while the players can easily keep track of themselves, they have trouble keeping track of 10 or 12 opponents, and I have to keep track of the PC's, the NPC's, and all the bad guys!

I love minis and have about 500 of them for the game (all the WoTC plastics, up until 4th came out and they started pumping out cheap ****).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, I've been going over the book, wasn't here for the beta, so maybe I don't have as much baggage. I also only played in a handful of 1ed and 2ed games, and got burned by horrible DM's and didn't start playing again until 3.5, so maybe I got different baggage than everyone else. Having said all that, I really can't think of anything I hate in PF. Honestly. The closest thing I can say to disliking is the Half-orc, but even there, I'm still ok with it. I do wish Climb, Jump and Swim had been made into Athletics, but, I'll just houserule that going forward myself. But it's not hate, just 'Meh, so I gotta fix that'. A *lot* less houseruling than I had to do for 3.5. And most of my houserules in 3.5 have been fixed in PF, so whoopeee!


mdt wrote:
Chris Parker wrote:
To be fair, miniatures do make running combat easier, since it helps everyone stay on the same page regarding location (particularly for the purposes of attacks of opportunity), and it's easy enough to translate squares over to feet of distance (one square=5', or 7.5' diagonally).

AMEN!

I'm sorry, but I'm the GM most of the time, and while the players can easily keep track of themselves, they have trouble keeping track of 10 or 12 opponents, and I have to keep track of the PC's, the NPC's, and all the bad guys!

I love minis and have about 500 of them for the game (all the WoTC plastics, up until 4th came out and they started pumping out cheap ****).

Personally, I love miniatures in any game. Especially any game with area effect attacks/powers...be that a spray, line, ball, etc. Honestly think at that point they boarder strongly on the required.

That said, I prefer hex to square. but that is just me.


mdt wrote:
Honestly, I've been going over the book, wasn't here for the beta, so maybe I don't have as much baggage. I also only played in a handful of 1ed and 2ed games, and got burned by horrible DM's and didn't start playing again until 3.5, so maybe I got different baggage than everyone else. Having said all that, I really can't think of anything I hate in PF. Honestly. The closest thing I can say to disliking is the Half-orc, but even there, I'm still ok with it. I do wish Climb, Jump and Swim had been made into Athletics, but, I'll just houserule that going forward myself. But it's not hate, just 'Meh, so I gotta fix that'. A *lot* less houseruling than I had to do for 3.5. And most of my houserules in 3.5 have been fixed in PF, so whoopeee!

I don't see it so much as what you hate as what you like the least... maybe I should have abstained from voting :|

Ultimately nothing bothers me so much I'd want to stick with 3.5 and the biggest things that bug me are things I feel they didn't change enough.


Velderan wrote:
Half Orcs-Boy we got bland.

Really? Bland? A 3.5 half-orc was horrid. Their only perk was darkvision, and they got a penalty to two stats. The Pathfinder half-orc can still get the +2 Strength (without the penalties to Intelligence and Charisma), and they still have darkvision, but now they also get weapon familiarity, a bonus to Intimidate, and a limited, 1/day Diehard.

Granted, I don't really like that they're at +2 to any stat, just 'cause half-orcs shouldn't be starting the game with Int 20; I'd have liked to see them with +2 Strength, +2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, but that breaks Pathfinder's idea of +2 to one physical and one mental stat. Instead of Constitution, I could see Wisdom, I suppose.


There was a lot of controversy over the Beta version of the Half Orc which was +2 STR, +2 WIS, -2 INT. It seemed pretty solidly split between folks who loved it and those who hated it. The bland comment likely comes from that change.

They are indeed vastly better than their 3.5 counterparts.

Shadow Lodge

I really still do not like most Cleric changes, and really dislike Channel Energy. Most Spel Nerfs, HATE. I also really don't think CMB/CMD is all that great, but I didn't have any problems with 3E system. Though I think that tey did great with Sunder.

To much for Paladin and Ranger, not enough for Cleric, and a few other classes.


Beckett wrote:

I really still do not like most Cleric changes, and really dislike Channel Energy. Most Spel Nerfs, HATE. I also really don't think CMB/CMD is all that great, but I didn't have any problems with 3E system. Though I think that tey did great with Sunder.

To much for Paladin and Ranger, not enough for Cleric, and a few other classes.

*Chokes* too... much... for Ranger?????? Wow, you would not be happy in my game lol.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:

There was a lot of controversy over the Beta version of the Half Orc which was +2 STR, +2 WIS, -2 INT. It seemed pretty solidly split between folks who loved it and those who hated it. The bland comment likely comes from that change.

They are indeed vastly better than their 3.5 counterparts.

Yeah, this is correct. I thought those half-orc stats made a lot of sense, given the parent races (I liked the idea that the combination of races produced children with keener insight than either parent). The pathfinder stats are undoubtedly better than the 3.5 stats, but they still feel blander to me, like half-orcs have just been lumped in with humans and half-elves.


I'm also in the I-Liked-Beta-Half-Orcs camp.
Now they're more or less a variant Half-Elf...
Which would make sense IF (full) Orcs were 'equivalents' to Elves/other Humanoid PC Races ('Net +2').
If they're NOT, i.e. full Orcs are FURTHER from the PC Humanoid Standard, then a Human/Orc half-breed should look more like Elves (or Dwarves) mechanically. But I haven't seen the new Orcs stats yet, if they're closer to the 'Net +2' norm than they were in 3.5 (making them more acceptable as a PC race), the Half-Orc Stats would make complete sense and people who want more distinction can play full Orcs.


Best stuff:

Skills, obviously. In a hundred little ways skills. No more rolling twice to sneak, I can build jack of all trade characters, even at level 2, multiclass skills no longer requires advanced engineering degrees.

The races and classes are now strong enough that building custom classes and races should be easier without them being too powerful.

Sorcerers are now actually interesting to play.

Multishot is actually useful.

Power attack is now useful in more fights overall, and no longer breaks the enemy wizard in half.

Crafting Magic Items is now practical.

The bad stuff:

Grapple (and other CMB/CMD stuff but especially grapple) works better, but requires a huge feat investment, and is basically unusable before level 6.

Monks, I don't know how to fix these either though, so I'll give Paizo a pass on that.

There's still a lot of stuff that just plain requires high levels to do, even if there's no good reason for it. Magic items in particular suffer from this. (Why do you need to be level 12 to craft a feather token?)

Wouldn't it have been easier to screw with experience rewards instead of the amount needed? I had the old numbers memorized, and the new ones don't have a pattern.


Requia wrote:

Best stuff:

Multishot is actually useful.

I was pretty much with you until you said that. Manyshot's purpose before was making a standard attack action better for the archer.

Now we have the Vital Strike chain, but in core that's 3 (read: THREE) feats, that doesn't even completely regenerate the benefits of the old manyshot. Manyshot granted arrow damage, + Magic damage, + other flat damage (favored enemy, weapon specialization, etc) to each arrow fired.

Honestly, trying to convert an old archer from 3.5 to Pathfinder really gets it's standard action damage... what's the word I'm looking for.... screwed.

51 to 77 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Best and Worst changes in Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.