Weekly Poll #6: What do you feel were the (6) WORST changes made in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook (as compared to D&D 3.5 )


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Similar to last week's "BEST of" poll, I have tried to keep this week's poll categories fairly generalized, however I included most of the "hot" topics and a few extra ones that were not on the "BEST of" poll.

Future polls will include class and race changes, so I have refrained from including these specific references in this poll.

This poll is solely intended to solicit constructive feedback.

Although you can pick up to 6 selections, please don't feel that you have to select all 6. Just select the ones you feel most strongly about.

This week's poll is located here:
www.pathfinderportal.com/poll.html

Past polls can be found at the bottom of the page.

Future polls suggestions are welcome. Email me here with your suggestions or just post in this thread.

Shadow Lodge

It may just be my phone not working with the poll, but that link just took me to past polls.


Now I hope it doesnt come accross as me kissing butt, but I honestly could not find 1 thing on that list i disliked more than 3.5 lol

Liberty's Edge

Seraph403 wrote:
Now I hope it doesnt come accross as me kissing butt, but I honestly could not find 1 thing on that list i disliked more than 3.5 lol

I could only select one (Play at High Levels) that I was disappointed in, maybe the removal of XP cost, not sure. This is one of those rare cases where I felt expected to selected the least goods rather than greatest evils.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Only thing I could gripe about was the Fly skill.

Sovereign Court

The removal of the Heavy Armor Prof. from Clerics

As an aside I dislike the removal of the bonus skill and weapon profs. that Humans had in Alpha and Beta.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You need a none-of-the-above button.


I think using the exact same choices you offered for "What were your 6 FAVORITE Changes in PRPG?" wasn't the best choice, as seen in the responses here.

That said there isn't much I feel is WORSE in PRPG compared to 3.5...

The worst I can say is there's some things in Beta that would have been great to have seen in the final product (why did the Vital Strike option to drop your lowest Iterative Attack in exchange for bonus damage disappear? it could have been in ADDITION to the Standard Attack bonus, not one or the other...) and the WORDING/ PRESENTATION could have been alot better: CMB/CMD is a big one that could be half the size and not be confusing people with "what bonuses apply?!?" by just flat-out saying it's a normal attack roll with a special size modifier, and an alternate AC based off Touch AC. Actually, along with the Vital Strike thing (which should really be an automatic feature for all players based on BAB), the MOOTED POSSIBILITY during the Beta of bringing some Full/Standard Action Economy parity to Casters would have truly been awesome... OH WELL.


10 foot ladders now cost more than two 10 foot poles. (Joking, that was actually a good, albeit subtle change)

As for what where the worst changes compared to 3.5.... I'd have to say the one thing that bugs me the most is the prestige classes were made worse then sticking to a base class. To me they should provide equal choices and opportunities for different styles and specializations, but I was really let down by Pathfinder's revisions (or not doing enough revisions in the case of the shadowdancer) of the Duelist, Assassin, and Shadowdancer. (And I STILL say Arcane Trickster deserved 3/4 BAB)

But eh, overall I'm actually happy with PF, it gave me a great foundation to build my game on, better than 3.5, though I've resigned myself to heavily redesigning the class balance and combat feats.

The Exchange

Changing save or die spells to save or take minimal damage. Ratcheting up the concentration check for casting defensivly.


Talek & Luna wrote:
Changing save or die spells to save or take minimal damage. Ratcheting up the concentration check for casting defensivly.

I agree the changes to save or die blows, but honestly I've got no problem with the increase to the check DC. Infact, I'm likely going to make it higher in my campaign.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:
Changing save or die spells to save or take minimal damage. Ratcheting up the concentration check for casting defensivly.
I agree the changes to save or die blows, but honestly I've got no problem with the increase to the check DC. Infact, I'm likely going to make it higher in my campaign.

I'm with kyrt on this one. I'm a 1e AD&D grognard, and, frankly, I think 90% of the problems with wizards eating everyone's lunch in high level 3x play comes from the casting defensively/concentration check mechanic being a joke.

But I hate spell nerfs.

Go figure.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I miss Search.

Would have loved to see a better Counterspell mechanic emerge, but the current one (with Improved COunterspell) is a little better than 3.5.


IMO The extra plusses to combat classes made the 'sweet spot' smaller


Werecorpse wrote:
IMO The extra plusses to combat classes made the 'sweet spot' smaller

Could you explain that statement for us Werecorpse? I'm not really sure what your trying to say. What is the 'sweet spot' and why would plusses to combat classes shrink it?


Mistwalker wrote:
You need a none-of-the-above button.

+1


Pygon wrote:
I could only select one (Play at High Levels) that I was disappointed in, maybe the removal of XP cost, not sure. This is one of those rare cases where I felt expected to selected the least goods rather than greatest evils.

This pretty much says it. There are a few things I was frustrated with but in general... Full of Win. Very hard to pick past the first couple items.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Werecorpse wrote:
IMO The extra plusses to combat classes made the 'sweet spot' smaller
Could you explain that statement for us Werecorpse? I'm not really sure what your trying to say. What is the 'sweet spot' and why would plusses to combat classes shrink it?

sure,

The sweet spot for me is maybe 2-12th level and the +'s make a 9th level pathfinder fighter mecahnically like a 13th level 3.5'er. Hence they are out of the sweet spot earlier (except they dont have the hp's which makes it even worse IMO). EDIT: Ok maybe not 13th but you get the general drift.

I do struggle to explain this so I will try again

It seems to me that apart from 1st level at lower/mid levels (2-10, maybe up to 12)the 3.5 combat system works well, straight forward clerics(who havent buffed up like crazy)bards monks and rogues (you know the 0.75 BAB guys) can join in a fight and hit things and do a reasonable amount of damage and not get smooshed. As you get up to higher levels (13+) in 3.5 the difference in to hit and AC between the melee classes and the non melee classes becomes such that those part timers need to keep out of the front line- this is less fun for me. The melee fights become more like 'rocket tag' where you should not go unless you are a fighter (or fighter sub class). To me giving the fighter a couple of extra plusses to hit, damage and AC has meant that the rocket tag effect seems to happen at about 9th instead of 13th. Hence the sweet spot for adventuring before this (IMO) less desirable mechanic occurs has become smaller.

Although the hps have increased a little the to hit and damage have increased more IMO so it seems melee classes are becoming more like tinfoil battleships.

I must admit the principal exposure I had to this effect was when we had a bard singing and casting good hope on everyone (everyone got another +4 to hit and damage. --- why? I guess to make the bard character feel useful but is it good for the game to pile on more plusses?). This made 9th level less fun for my group.


I'm going to explain my thoughts on the subject Werecorpse.

The reason those changes (including the bard changes) were made was to make ALL the non-casters feel useful.

You see, at a certain point (somewhere around 7th level in my experience) the non-casters lose the ability to defeat a foe in a timely, reliable manner. Casters at 7th level + are playing rocket tag, throwing save or loses around all the time, why should it be so different for non-casters?

Then again, I'm afraid you probably wouldn't enjoy the sweeping revisions I put pathfinder to. All the non-caster classes got major buffs, from the Fighter, to the monk, to the rogue, ranger, and barbarian. (Ok, I take that back, I didn't buff the Paladin, just changed his smite a little bit to make it not favor two weapons any more than two handing)


Poll wrote:
Every race can select their own favored class

Glad to see I wasn't alone with this one. It removed an aspect of culture (and thus customization) from the races. And at this point, IMHO, it became a hold over from 3rd edition, rather than a useful mechanic.

Peace,

tfad

Shadow Lodge

Mistwalker wrote:
You need a none-of-the-above button.

I on the other hand needed two more picks. Concentration and Fly didn't mke it. :(

Also, there are essentually two for Favored Class, that could really be one choice.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

I'm going to explain my thoughts on the subject Werecorpse.

The reason those changes (including the bard changes) were made was to make ALL the non-casters feel useful.

You see, at a certain point (somewhere around 7th level in my experience) the non-casters lose the ability to defeat a foe in a timely, reliable manner. Casters at 7th level + are playing rocket tag, throwing save or loses around all the time, why should it be so different for non-casters?

Then again, I'm afraid you probably wouldn't enjoy the sweeping revisions I put pathfinder to. All the non-caster classes got major buffs, from the Fighter, to the monk, to the rogue, ranger, and barbarian. (Ok, I take that back, I didn't buff the Paladin, just changed his smite a little bit to make it not favor two weapons any more than two handing)

I wasnt one of those that found that melee classes sucked and spellcaster ruled in 3.5. I found that there was pretty reasonable balance- but with spellcasters being more generally powerful than combat classes after about 8th but less before.

My point about the sweet spot is- If you believe the sweet spot (ie the levels that the game system works best for) for 3.5 is below 10th (or below 7th) it seems foolish to change the game to make a pathfinder 6th fighter have the hit & damage capacity of a 3.5 9th fighter- that isnt making the sweet spot larger it makes it smaller.

However I believe a large number of the community agree with your approach to the system and therefore you must be largely pleased with the pathfinder rule changes.

But I like the game less when it has that rocket tag feel (for me around 10-12th for you for casters around 7th- IMO it hasnt set in at this level but is just beginning so it is still OK). My experience is that it works less well at higher levels. So rather than supe up the non spellcasters I would have taken an approach of making the non-caster classes better without +'s and examining the spells that made spellcasters unbalancingly good (yes and nerfing them).

It is a difficult design issue with d20 IMO. but I dont think giving the classes that already have +'s to hit more plusses is the right way to go. ( I suspect that is why in 4e despite being over 30 levels you only gain 15 BAB. getting too much varaiance in the characters different+'s through too many +'s (ie up around +20) damages the system where the variable dice is d20 IMO)


Ya know, you keep talking about the sweet spot as a point in which the lesser PC's can't hit anything, but from what I remember reading all the time, the design goal is that the full BAB classes virtually always hit with their best attacks, hit often with their secondaries, hit decently with their third, and are pretty much shooting in the dark on the last.

If that philosophy plays true (not saying it does, CR as designed in 3.5 blows, though Paizo intends to fix that with the bestiary) then that means that the lower BAB classes would 'hit often with their primaries, decently with their secondaries, and are pretty much shooting in the dark on the last' sound familiar?

Again, I'm not saying it actually pans out, but from what I've seen that's the intent.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Chrome is being stupid and not showing me the checkboxes on the poll so I haven't voted yet. However, my single biggest peeve isn't on the list:

Damage reduction changes. :(


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Ya know, you keep talking about the sweet spot as a point in which the lesser PC's can't hit anything, but from what I remember reading all the time, the design goal is that the full BAB classes virtually always hit with their best attacks, hit often with their secondaries, hit decently with their third, and are pretty much shooting in the dark on the last.

If that philosophy plays true (not saying it does, CR as designed in 3.5 blows, though Paizo intends to fix that with the bestiary) then that means that the lower BAB classes would 'hit often with their primaries, decently with their secondaries, and are pretty much shooting in the dark on the last' sound familiar?

Again, I'm not saying it actually pans out, but from what I've seen that's the intent.

'Sweet spot' to me is the levels when you have the most fun, when the game plays best. Not when the lesser PC's cant hit anything- I am sorry if I caused any confusion on this definition.

I accept your statement of the design philosophy that has been espoused but to me when you grant the full BAB'ers an extra + to hit every 4 or so levels (through feats/class abilities/common buffs/ standard equipment or whatever) then instead of the diffence over 4 levels being +1 or +2 it is +3 or +4. Over 8 levels it is +6 to +8 not + 2 to +4. Over 12 levels it is +9 to +12 etc. Assuming a +9 difference at 12th level this means that the primary attack of the lesser class is 1 better than the tertiary attack of the full BAB fella. Now bear in mind he also does a bunch less damage when he does hit - he is no longer in the game.-- This is how it seemed to play out for me.

I am aware of the argument to the effect that such classes shouldn't be fighting and would be more useful doing something else- fine. But my issue is that that has been made even more true; thus largely denying the second class melee person the melee option.


I'll agree with you on that in the case of the monk. However in the case of the other classes, the Rogue, the Cleric, and the Druid, they all have other things going for them.

The Rogue gets sneak attack, which means when they do hit it WILL HURT

Cleric and druid both have full casting including lots of great buffs (especially in the cleric's case), and the Druid has wildshape.

Also, those extra +'s to hit aren't meant to bring the attacks up to parity with the AC's, but rather to permit the use of power attack etc.

If you compare the average damage of a PF Fighter to a PF rogue designed (optimized if you prefer) on equal levels of capability, you find they come out pretty close over the course of a campaign due to attack bonuses, power attack, etc etc.

Shadow Lodge

I don't know, full spellcasting doesn't mean that they have something to do. Rogues and Druids both have the skills and actual class features to back that up, but there is plenty of times that casting either fails or is just not a real option.


I'm guessing the relatively lower voting is due to folks who are having trouble pointing at 6 things to vote down. Maybe you should have had it what are your 3 least favorite things. I had a lot of trouble picking 6.

Lantern Lodge

prestige classes should have gotten buffed a little

i beleive the arcane trickster should have had a d8 hit dice and 3/4 bab. and the shadow dancer needs a reason to continue past 2nd level. as it is, 2 levels mean hide in plain sight and darkvision. maybe a sneak attack progresion and a minor spell progression, maybe ripped from assassin.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Beckett wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
You need a none-of-the-above button.

I on the other hand needed two more picks. Concentration and Fly didn't mke it. :(

Also, there are essentually two for Favored Class, that could really be one choice.

The question was what we thought were the worst changes. None of the items listed really did it for me. I either like them or have no issue with them.


Mosaic wrote:

I miss Search.

  • Agree.
  • But the big problem is the paldin. The Paladin needed a boost, but now she is much too powerful.
  • Some of the spell nerfs are not to my taste, but some are good.
  • The Bard: I like the rounds per day mechanics, but the write up feels forced and rushed out the door.
  • If I only get to pick one thing it is the Paladin.

  • RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    Seraph403 wrote:
    Now I hope it doesnt come accross as me kissing butt, but I honestly could not find 1 thing on that list i disliked more than 3.5 lol

    Heheh, yup.

    There are lots of individual things that drove me up a wall, but with everything worded that generally, there's really no category I can complain about on the whole.

    My least-favorite thing is the discouragement of multiclassing, with the straightjacket of "favored class" and the bat-s@+#-crazy capstones, but I'm not about to imply that "Overall class revisions" were something 3.P did poorly. And even the multiclassing system isn't as terrible as in 3.x.


    3 days left to vote.


    Hydro wrote:

    There are lots of individual things that drove me up a wall, but with everything worded that generally, there's really no category I can complain about on the whole.

    My least-favorite thing is the discouragement of multiclassing, with the straightjacket of "favored class" and the bat-s~@*-crazy capstones, but I'm not about to imply that "Overall class revisions" were something 3.P did poorly. And even the multiclassing system isn't as terrible as in 3.x.

    So leave the class level limt at 20, but not the overall level limit for the character. Make it, say 25. Or 30. Staying single classed gets you to the capstone ability faster, but in the end you still have the option to mulitclass or take a prestige class. Alternatively you could extend the core classes, but I suspect that would raise issues.

    I haven't had level caps show up as an issue since Dwarves and Elves in 1E myself, but that would be a work around for now. I never thought the Epic Level Handbook was all that good, and I'd guess it will be awhile before you see anything from Paizo along those lines. When / if it becomes an issue, if Paizo hasn't released their own version of epic, that's what I'll probably do.

    Personally, some of the skill combinations in PF bother me. It's not a huge issue, but it is annoying and may cause me to houserule / revise the available skills. The stealth related combo (move silently and hide) and the "linguistics" skill that makes you an expert in speaking, reading, and apparently forgery in any given language (after all, every expert in a foreign language is a forger, aren't they?) just don't seem right to me. And I miss "Use Rope". Really...


    Luminiere Solas wrote:
    prestige classes should have gotten buffed a little

    Most prestige classes were buffed, some of them by a lot.

    Luminiere Solas wrote:
    i beleive the arcane trickster should have had a d8 hit dice and 3/4 bab. and the shadow dancer needs a reason to continue past 2nd level. as it is, 2 levels mean hide in plain sight and darkvision. maybe a sneak attack progresion and a minor spell progression, maybe ripped from assassin.

    Trickster is MUCH better than 3.5, it's easier to get into and has a bunch of useful abilities. Shadow Dancer is also MUCH better (but still kind of meh). I do like your idea of light spellcasting for shadowdancer.

    Overall, the PrC changes are good, some like the Shadowdancer fall short but I think they felt somewhat limited by compatibility there.


    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
    Luminiere Solas wrote:
    prestige classes should have gotten buffed a little

    Most prestige classes were buffed, some of them by a lot.

    Luminiere Solas wrote:
    i beleive the arcane trickster should have had a d8 hit dice and 3/4 bab. and the shadow dancer needs a reason to continue past 2nd level. as it is, 2 levels mean hide in plain sight and darkvision. maybe a sneak attack progresion and a minor spell progression, maybe ripped from assassin.

    Trickster is MUCH better than 3.5, it's easier to get into and has a bunch of useful abilities. Shadow Dancer is also MUCH better (but still kind of meh). I do like your idea of light spellcasting for shadowdancer.

    Overall, the PrC changes are good, some like the Shadowdancer fall short but I think they felt somewhat limited by compatibility there.

    They murdered the entire role of the dragon disciple for their own blood line specialist with phony enactment bonuses with their alternate form a few times a day. Sorry the point of the class was to be a melee one that got the half-dragon template.

    P.S. Did the think that the +2 Cha was too powerful or something?


    Have to say first that overall, I'm very satisfied with the game and eagerly awaiting the bestiary. I only voted for three things in the poll, and only 2 are ones I find worse than 3.5: 0-level unlimited casting and the favored class bonus. The 3rd I chose was race revisions, but I'm mostly satisfied with them... I just don't like the new 1/2 orc, and I feel two bonuses and 1 penalty to scores was too much of an increase in ability scores.


    anthony Valente wrote:
    Have to say first that overall, I'm very satisfied with the game and eagerly awaiting the bestiary. I only voted for three things in the poll, and only 2 are ones I find worse than 3.5: 0-level unlimited casting and the favored class bonus. The 3rd I chose was race revisions, but I'm mostly satisfied with them... I just don't like the new 1/2 orc, and I feel two bonuses and 1 penalty to scores was too much of an increase in ability scores.

    Oh wow, then your just going to loooooooove the monsters as pc's guidelines in the beastiary ;) lmao. Take a look at the Noble Drow thread when you get a chance.


    Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

    They murdered the entire role of the dragon disciple for their own blood line specialist with phony enactment bonuses with their alternate form a few times a day. Sorry the point of the class was to be a melee one that got the half-dragon template.

    P.S. Did the think that the +2 Cha was too powerful or something?

    I suppose... except the previous DD was awful. I could see you complaining if they slaughtered a class that was decent but it was a skunk.


    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
    Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

    They murdered the entire role of the dragon disciple for their own blood line specialist with phony enactment bonuses with their alternate form a few times a day. Sorry the point of the class was to be a melee one that got the half-dragon template.

    P.S. Did the think that the +2 Cha was too powerful or something?

    I suppose... except the previous DD was awful. I could see you complaining if they slaughtered a class that was decent but it was a skunk.

    It was a Skunk as a casting Prestige class, however as a Martial Prestige class it played out ok (Not great, mind, thing would have needed full BAB to pull that card propperly considering the core entry options), but the stat ups, the claws, etc were geared towards a (Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger)X, Sorcerer 1 or 2 entry, or a Bard X entry, and becoming a combat beast.

    Not saying I don't like the new one a bit better, I do, but the old one did have merrits.


    Honestly I think Dragon Disciple is alot better in PRPG than 3.5.
    Would you rather have "bonus spells" and +2 CHA as a Capstone,
    or REAL CASTING PROGRESSION? (with bonus BL spells @faster than CL progression)?

    Pathfinder's DD actually has better Natural Armor ALL THE TIME, much less when in Dragon Form.
    (it's hard to see this because the DD NatArmor Increase stacks w/ the BL NatArmor,
    not to mention Form of Dragon itself separately stacking with DD's increase)

    The fact you don't technically get the Half-Dragon template seems exactly that to me: a technicality.
    Even when not in Dragon Form, you have blindsense, wings, natural attacks, stat+armor boosts, breath weapons & energy resistances. Sounds kinda dragon-y to me.
    The Half-Dragon template can actually be a hindrance: PRPG'S DD can fully utilize Enlarge Person, *EVEN IN* Dragon Form since it doesn't change your Creature Type (you just have to eat the Size Bonuses which don't stack) allowing you to become a Giant Dragon (with Dragon Form II @ DD10). Once 3.5 DD's gain the Capstone, they can't benefit from Enlarge Person anymore. Reach = Hurt.

    Take a look at this mock-up build which I posted in a thread a while back: Barb/DD build
    It doesn't bother with the final 2 levels of DD (I went with 1 more Rage Power) but by just about all measures I think it would match your 3.5 DD 1:1 for what it can do, AND THEN SOME. It doesn't gain full Sleep/Paralysis/EnergyType Immunity because I thought Barbarian levels were funner and more effective at the role, but you would also get those with enough Sorceror+DD levels to gain the Bloodline Capstone (+nice spells).

    ...I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at (your post was pretty badly typed) but Polymorph/Form of Dragon is not Enhancement Bonus, it's "Size Bonus" (aka "Polymorph Bonus" for those not constrained by BW compatable naming conventions).

    Grand Lodge

    Mistwalker wrote:
    You need a none-of-the-above button.

    Agreed. My DM hates the new rules for magic items being cursed if you don't make the roll, or that there's no prices for each curse.


    Quandary wrote:

    I think using the exact same choices you offered for "What were your 6 FAVORITE Changes in PRPG?" wasn't the best choice, as seen in the responses here.

    I agree


    Quandary wrote:

    Honestly I think Dragon Disciple is alot better in PRPG than 3.5.

    Would you rather have "bonus spells" and +2 CHA as a Capstone,
    or REAL CASTING PROGRESSION? (with bonus BL spells @faster than CL progression)?

    Pathfinder's DD actually has better Natural Armor ALL THE TIME, much less when in Dragon Form.
    (it's hard to see this because the DD NatArmor Increase stacks w/ the BL NatArmor,
    not to mention Form of Dragon itself separately stacking with DD's increase)

    The fact you don't technically get the Half-Dragon template seems exactly that to me: a technicality.
    Even when not in Dragon Form, you have blindsense, wings, natural attacks, stat+armor boosts, breath weapons & energy resistances. Sounds kinda dragon-y to me.
    The Half-Dragon template can actually be a hindrance: PRPG'S DD can fully utilize Enlarge Person, *EVEN IN* Dragon Form since it doesn't change your Creature Type (you just have to eat the Size Bonuses which don't stack) allowing you to become a Giant Dragon (with Dragon Form II @ DD10). Once 3.5 DD's gain the Capstone, they can't benefit from Enlarge Person anymore. Reach = Hurt.

    Take a look at this mock-up build which I posted in a thread a while back: Barb/DD build
    It doesn't bother with the final 2 levels of DD (I went with 1 more Rage Power) but by just about all measures I think it would match your 3.5 DD 1:1 for what it can do, AND THEN SOME. It doesn't gain full Sleep/Paralysis/EnergyType Immunity because I thought Barbarian levels were funner and more effective at the role, but you would also get those with enough Sorceror+DD levels to gain the Bloodline Capstone (+nice spells).

    ...I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at (your post was pretty badly typed) but Polymorph/Form of Dragon is not Enhancement Bonus, it's "Size Bonus" (aka "Polymorph Bonus" for those not constrained by BW compatable naming...

    Defensive? I will admit, I could have sworn the bonus was enhancement, perhaps that was just Beta. However +2 cha was NOT the capstone ability. The +4 Strength, Blind Sense, Wings, +1 Natural Armor, +2 Cha, Immunities and actually being a half dragon, all the time, was the capestone.

    I also never said the new class wasn't over all better or more powerful, my main gripe was that it was too different. It should have been a Melee PrC with ether an option to level 1 dip into sorcerer with the dragon bloodline, or a feat (for entry).

    It also errks me that you have a limited use of your dam natural weapons! Which is a downgrade.

    P.S. Which took the class even further form being a melee class.


    Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
    stuff that the quoter doesn't catch

    I don't really care for the limited claws. I like to think it was an oversight in the final and not an intentional cut. Regardless, we're kind of stuck with it.

    Most of the stuff you are talking about is part of the capstone. The class is essentially really mediocre and bleh then at 10th level gets this really nice capstone. The effect is it sucks for anyone who actually has to play through it but if you make a paper character at 16th level it's decent.

    The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Candrith wrote:
    The removal of the Heavy Armor Prof. from Clerics

    +1

    In fact, I rank this as the single worse change above all others. This change angers me, no really it does.

    Grand Lodge

    James Risner wrote:
    Candrith wrote:
    The removal of the Heavy Armor Prof. from Clerics

    +1

    In fact, I rank this as the single worse change above all others. This change angers me, no really it does.

    You have to be kidding me. Why? Rangers can't wear medium or heavy, and other divine casters don't wear heavy short of paladins. Besides, make it mithril, and you can wear whatever armour you want as medium or light. Just means you can't be the cleric/fighter dwarf with DR 3 adamantine armor anymore.


    kevin_video wrote:
    James Risner wrote:
    Candrith wrote:
    The removal of the Heavy Armor Prof. from Clerics

    +1

    In fact, I rank this as the single worse change above all others. This change angers me, no really it does.

    You have to be kidding me. Why? Rangers can't wear medium or heavy, and other divine casters don't wear heavy short of paladins. Besides, make it mithril, and you can wear whatever armour you want as medium or light. Just means you can't be the cleric/fighter dwarf with DR 3 adamantine armor anymore.

    Can too. The Fighter levels give heavy armor proficiency lol.

    Also... Rangers get light AND medium now.

    Oh, and Mythril doesn't do jack for proficiency, if your not proficient with the armor weight category your not proficient with the mithral version.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

    I could only select 5 based on my knowledge of Pathfinder rules:

    Grapple rules revisions - These seem to me just as complicated overall, just in a different way to 3.5. This could have really been cleaned up so much - or left alone so those familiar with 3.5 don't have to relearn all the intricacies.

    Fly skill added - It seems an odd skill to have by itself. Luckily the Fly spell gives significant bonuses to it as otherwise it would be a really specific skill point drain.

    575 page, Core Rulebook containing all the rules needed to play - I may not have actually voted for this as I was undecided. In general such a size book isn't bad - I own Starblazer Adventures which is bigger. However for a book that I believe would see a lot of referencing at the table, it is a bit unweildy.

    Rules clarity/wording/terminology - From looking at various discussions and what of the rules I have read, it seems that quite a few areas that were clear in 3.5 have become ambiguous in PF, or the rules are hidden in different areas.

    Examples include Concentration checks to cast spells whilst grappling being in the Magic section (or something like that), auto check for secret doors being in Gm section rather than in Race section, knowing when you stop movement if fail to tumble through a foe's square etc.

    Compatability with 3.5 edition - This is the deal breaker for me either way you look at it. It isn't compatible enough for me, but doesn't make enough fundamental changes to offer me anything knew (I wonder what would have happened if PF had been more like FantasyCraft but with classes more aligned with those in 3.5)

    Looking at the other options I rather like pretty much all the other changes - but for me they aren't enough to convince me to "convert" to Pathfinder; I play it because my GMs run it.

    The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

    kevin_video wrote:
    You have to be kidding me. Why? Rangers can't wear medium or heavy ... Besides, make it mithril, and you can wear whatever armour you want as medium or light. Just means you can't be the cleric/fighter dwarf with DR 3 adamantine armor anymore.

    Nope, dead serious. You had several errors in that post:

    1) Rangers can wear Medium.
    2) Cleric's can't wear Medium Mihtril Full Plate (requires Heavy Armour Proficiency.)
    3) Fighter grants H.A.P. so a Fighter/Cleric in Full Plate is a-ok.
    4) Quintessential D&D Cleric is a guy in Full Plate. To change that image is to not be D&D anymore.

    1 to 50 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Weekly Poll #6: What do you feel were the (6) WORST changes made in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook (as compared to D&D 3.5 ) All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.