So I've been away from D&D for a long time, Loved 3.0/3.5, hate 4th edition with a passion. Anyway, I just found out that this Pathfinder game I've been seeing is an updated and improved 3.5. I've been doing research and finding lots of good stuff. Now is the time to ask the question I'm almost certain I'm going to regret asking, but need to ask to get a complete picture of what I'm considering getting into.
What are the problems with Pathfinder? What do its detractors say they don't like about it? What did it lose in its conversion from 3.5 that takes away from the game?
Please don't make this into a flame war.
|
Please don't make this into a flame war.
You ask a great deal, my friend. :)
Overall, there are many many little changes that you will usually not notice until it comes up in play. This can cause problems with people that know 3.5 very very well, who think the rules work one way when they actually work another way. An example would be giants and trolls now being affected by Hold Person due to the giant type becoming a humanoid subtype.
Combat maneuvers were specifically changed to be rarely used. The design goal was that they should only be used against weaker enemies or when you've piled on abilities to get the highest bonus possible. It intentionally was made nearly impossible to do against an evenly matched foe.
Melee feats and things were split up and powered down, and other options were added. Some spells were nerfed, while spellcasters got a bunch of new abilities. The overall result in the view of detractors is that melee was nerfed and spellcasters were buffed.
This is all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure plenty of other people will be along to expand this into the flame war you asked us to avoid.
|
So I've been away from D&D for a long time, Loved 3.0/3.5, hate 4th edition with a passion. Anyway, I just found out that this Pathfinder game I've been seeing is an updated and improved 3.5. I've been doing research and finding lots of good stuff. Now is the time to ask the question I'm almost certain I'm going to regret asking, but need to ask to get a complete picture of what I'm considering getting into.
What are the problems with Pathfinder? What do its detractors say they don't like about it? What did it lose in its conversion from 3.5 that takes away from the game?
Please don't make this into a flame war.
There is a lot of complaints from Cleric fans about their downgrading (Lost heavy armour, changes to how Turn Undead works, nerfing of several of their spells).
Those who thought the Fighter was the weakest class have now taken to picking on the poor Barbarian who got less shinies.
It ups the power of PCs a little.
It changed some rules so those who are very used to 3.5 keep getting tripped up with little changes. There are also complaints that things have been made less clear with regards to some manoeuvres.
It doesn't do enough to address the disparity of high -level play.
Not all of these are necessarily the most important thing, but they are the major complaints. I've noticed. But I'm using it for my game and the players are still playing so none of them are the end of the world.
Also, in before the Flame War.
|
|
Not a problem with the game itsself, but I bet I'm not the only one; I sometimes find myself doing things the 3.5 way unless I pay strict attention to what I'm doing.
This isn't that big a deal; I also can inadvertently do things the 1e way and/or the palladium rpg way.
Also, I'm not quite 100% sure yet that they should've gotten rid of the concentration skill. That jacks me up a lot when I'm trying to pilfer from 3.5.
Pathfinder is almost 100% compatible with the 3.5 rules, you can use most of your splatbooks from the old edition.
that beeing said there are a few radical changes, the 3 i can think of on the spot are:
no more exp lose. from raising the dead or from creating magic items
turning undead is a totally different mecanism now. it can be used to heal the living or damage undeads.
grapple/bull rush/ trip/disarm/sunder/overun have been fixed and are now 100% more easy to use in the game, they have been fixed by introducing a new combat manuver system that is derived form BAB,str,dex and size
also there are a lot of minor changes to feats skills and classes
no more cross class skills(instead you gain a bonus with skills asosiated with your class(es))
lots of classes have been recived more abbilities or upgrates to old ones. like the druids wild shape(now more in line with the overall power curve)
smite evil is now a very powerfull signature abbility for the paladin
and so on.
all in all i think paizo did somthing great with the old rules, best of all where the fixes that fine tuned an already great system.
Couple things:
They have upped the complexity of making a character. Making a character takes longer than it did in 3.5, as you now have a feat every odd level, 3 times as many class abilities, and tons of options within those abilities. For some, it has become a daunting task. I like it because it allows me to play core while still having more wiggle room that I would normally look to splat for.
As far as fighters/fighter types being nerfed, the debate rages on. A feat every odd level has given most fighter types a pretty good boost. In addition, every fighter class received significant boosts in the form of new abilities. They are not as powerful as casters still, but if you hated 4th, I don't think that's a concern for you.
Alot of the major concerns from 3/3.5 are still there. Power creep, significant loopholes for powergamers, class imbalance, prestige gish; but for now, that's what DnD is. It comes with the territory. It's a significant upgrade from 3.5, but it's still 3.5.
|
|
I think the posts here illustrate exactly what some people have issue with. Some people have already stated things were 'fixed' that others stated were not.
People do not agree that Pathfinder is backwards compatible with 3.5 for various reasons.
People do not agree that Combat Maneuvers were fixed.
People do not agree that the Fighter was improved.
Hopefully this has showed you pitfalls to be aware of.
Turn undead is now channel energy which by default gives you 2 options:
30' AoE Heal or 30' AoE Damage to Undead (assuming Neutral/Good Positive Energy, vice/versa if Evil/Negative Energy Channeler) with a Will Save for half. This lets you have effect against stronger enemies you would have zero or little chance of effecting with 3.5 Turn Undead, and also doesn't have the "enemies run away to fight later and warn other enemies" aspect that many disliked. You can take a Feat (of which there are more in PRPG) to gain an option to "scare" Undead to make them run away, but this effect now follows the more standard Save vs. DC mechanic than the wonky multi-stage means of finding how many HD you effect, and the max HD you can effect that 3.5 used (check the SRD, it even bizarrely used the title 'Turning Damage' to refer to the total HD you can effect, when NO damage is dealt whatsoever).
Maneuvers use a unified CMB/CMD mechanic now, of which CMB is basically a normal attack roll with the reverse size modifier (since large size helps in maneuvers while it hinders melee accuracy), likewise CMD is basically Touch AC + BAB + STR except likewise with reverse size modifier (since large size strengthens maneuver defense while small size makes you easier to man-handle). All attack bonuses applicable to your attack help your maneuver rolls, so weapon enhancements, weapon focus, flanking, attacking from invisible, etc can help your maneuver attacks, but likewise any AC Bonuses applicable to Touch AC (deflection, etc) apply to CMD. So if you can handle melee attacks vs. touch AC, you should be able to handle maneuvers pretty well.
Skills are alot more simpler, besides the fact there have been some prominent consolidations (like perception covering all senses, spot and search). Class skill vs. non-class skill is a static +3 bonus from all your classes skill-lists combined, so it makes figuring skills for mid and higher level characters much easier because it doesn't matter at which level (and which class) they took each rank with. Also, Concentration is no longer a Skill, but a rating that automatically goes up with Caster Level - this helps non-INT-based Casters like Clerics or Sorcerors actually get some other skills, and it also removes the wierd situation of Skill Focus:Concentration AND Combat Casting doing basically the same thing but stacking (in 3.5) - I always wondered why there wasn't Skill Focus: Greatsword. The net effect is a minor boost to all characters' skills.
Alot of debate and confusion (hopefully soon to be fixed in next Errata/ Print Run) centered around the definition of 'attack action' which though present in 3.5, wasn't as important a distinction as it is in PRPG. In PRPG the Feat Vital Strike lets you make more powerful Standard Attacks (attack action) for when you need to Move + Attack, but the 'attack action' distinction is meant so this bonus doesn't apply to Cleaves, AoO's and Charges (more than 1 Move Action of Movement), but it probably applies to Spring Attack.
First thing that comes to mind is the lacking of specific costs for making a mithral weapon. You end up with a sword that weighs half as much as normal, and does silver type damage, but costs more than an adamantine weapon, which is a much better weapon.
They made enhancement bonuses overcome weapon damage types. While this does help out, it makes making a silver or cold iron weapon worthless.
Fighter now completely outshines the barbarian. The rage powers that were supposed to balancing things out, really didn't. (Ball Dropped)
Eldrich Knight was an improvement, but the excessive use of swift actions with obvious feat choices seem ridiculous. You have arcane armor training and arcane strike, both melee caster type feats, both use swift actions, but when you get to level 16 and you have to keep your swift actions open to use it, you might have as well not gotten the feats meant for your fighting style, or just consider that you do not have a capstone ability.
P.S.
A lot of feats got changed so much that people don't even notice the fact that they got nerfed. Example the new cleave.
With the exception of the new feats, I would stick with the 3.5 versions.
People do not agree that the Fighter was improved.
REALLY???
YEAH, YOU WANNA MAKE SOMETHING OF IT?! :)REALLY???People do not agree that the Fighter was improved.
I just can't see how. It does what it does the most consistently well.
It can wear armor the easiest, and not eventually go to lighter armor, and then bracers of armor.
|
|
I just can't see how. It does what it does the most consistently well.
It can wear armor the easiest, and not eventually go to lighter armor, and then bracers of armor.
I'm with the group that says it's still too one dimensional. PF went the route of 'add more numbers!' and while that gives its niche back, it is still too narrow. But hey, let's not start that argument up again. I think we've illustrated it for the OP quite well by now. :)
I'm with the group that says it's still too one dimensional. PF went the route of 'add more numbers!' and while that gives its niche back, it is still too narrow. But hey, let's not start that argument up again. I think we've illustrated it for the OP quite well by now. :)I just can't see how. It does what it does the most consistently well.
It can wear armor the easiest, and not eventually go to lighter armor, and then bracers of armor.
No argument, you are right, it is one-dimensional. But hey at least it has a niche.
|
Pathfinder's biggest failing in the eyes of its most vocal detractors is that if you couldn't stand 3.5, you probably won't love Pathfinder either. Fighters still can't punch through walls of force, fly or reflect spells back at their casters, which means that Pathfinder is 'full of fail' and 'broken.'
As was once said of 3rd editions changes from 2nd edition, it either 'changed nothing' or 'changed everything,' depending on the speaker, and there are people dissatisfied that too much changed and others dissatisfied that not enough changed.
I have moments I agree with both positions. Some changes seem completely unnecessary and have led to what appear to be unanticipated trickle-down changes (if the surprised reactions from the writers asked about them are to be taken seriously), while other 'issues' with 3rd edition ('standard 10 items,' '15 minute workday,' 'class tiers,' etc.) may or may not have been addressed to anyone's liking. (I put 'issues' in air quotes because not everyone is going to agree that those were issues, and not just quirks of the system, or even 'working as intended.')
Everyone still gets those same old stat-enhancing items, which was a complaint about 3rd edition in general. There are still things a Wizard can do that a Fighter can't deal with.
On the other hand, the significant buffs that the Fighter has gotten means that it now consistently outdamages the Barbarian, which hasn't so much eliminated a perceived shortcoming, as foisted it off on another class, which runs the risk of creating the impression of an endless game of catch-up, where the 'weak sister class of the month' needs to be touched up to appear attractive as an option.
Channel Energy is powerful, and utterly limiting (and not even balanced with itself). Positive Energy is great, for a PC, but hammers home the notion that a Cleric is a healbot. Negative Energy sucks for a PC, but rocks for a bad-guy, which is an odd design choice, as it makes evil Cleric encounters *brutal* for a party to face, while making neutral or evil PC Clerics significantly sub-par compared to Positive Energy Channelers.
An example of problems not being addressed, polymorph / wild shape are in version 5.0, and flavorless to the point where one could transform into a shark, and not be able to breath underwater (or even turn into a crocodile and not be able to Hold Breath), depending on the spell / ability one uses, although its possible that errata has dealt with that. Hell, the basic Beast Shape spells don't even state that you gain any of the natural attacks of the forms you assume, meaning that you could use Beast Shape III to turn into a Dire Tiger and explicity gain the abilities of Pounce and Rake, but since you've got no claws or bite attack by RAW, it's pretty much a big fluffy ball of nonlethal bashing damage.
IMO, one of 3.X biggest failings was that the creatures in the MM were not balanced for use with Polymorph/Wild Shape/Shapechange, as Cohorts, as PCs, as allies, as possible subjects of Enchantment / Charm spells, as subjects of good Diplomacy rolls, as Summoned / Called assistants to the party, as Rebuked / Commanded fodder or as potentially intelligent adversaries that might decide to intelligently use their inherently abusive and ridiculous abilities. Every single change to Wild Shape / Polymorph just attempted to fix *one* of the many symptoms of the problem, until it became obvious to the designers who worked on 4.0 that the only solution was to remove charm magic, shapeshifting magic, cohorts, monsters-as-PCs, summoning magic, etc. from the game.
The only *other* solution would be to take the problem creatures and beat *them* with the nerf stick, so that 8 HD Efreeti couldn't grant 3 wishes a day, or a Rebuked Shadow couldn't Spawn an unlimited number of minions, or a Planar Bound Barghest couldn't triple its HD with appropriate bodies to Feed upon, or a Shambling Mound Rebuked by a Plant Domain Cleric or summoned up by a Druid couldn't be Call Lightning-ed up to Con 60 or so.
Pathfinder didn't go the 4.0 route, of just abandoning any meaningful or lasting version of charm / transformation / summoning magic completely, but it didn't fix the *problem* either, just doing the old standby of fiddling with Wild Shape / Polymorph and calling it a day, while the actual problem, those monsters with powers that are ridiculously unbalanced for their CR (grant wish, create spawn, electric fortitude), laugh and get away with it, which means that any PC capable of dominating one, befriending one, summoning one, calling one, making a cohort of one, playing one as a PC, etc. is *still* going to bend the game until it screams. (They did fix the Barghest, at least, although I suspect they overdid it, as the first three words of their re-write 'Once per month,' would have *completely* dealt with the issue anyway, since the ability of the Barghest to gain HD by eating wasn't the problem, it was the ability to potentially gain 1 HD *every three rounds*...)
Tons of good changes (skill consolidation, bloodline powers for sorcers, specialist options for wizards, new stuff for fighters, etc.) but not everyone is going to agree with every change, or that changes haven't gone too far, or not far enough. Obviously they couldn't please everyone, but, IMO, the game is better balanced and more fun for the changes they've made, in most cases, allowing a greater range of choices for most of the classes, which, IMO, was a big step towards making different characters of the same class more distinctive and memorable.
Honestly some of the complaints that I'm seeing sound more like improvements to the systems. Though if many of the changes are subtle with dramatic effects they could sneak up on me. I see more fighter type feats, but I don't see anything that was split up into multiple feats.
The only thing that jumps out at me as maybe a problem is Combat Manuver Defense. Since it adds Strength and Dex while attack only adds Strength, it does make for an unbalanced situation if your target has both high Strength and Dexterity. And with the Armor Training feature that Fighters now get it is much more likely that you will find fighters with a high dexterity as well as Strength.
An example of problems not being addressed, polymorph / wild shape are in version 5.0, and flavorless to the point where one could transform into a shark, and not be able to breath underwater (or even turn into a crocodile and not be able to Hold Breath), depending on the spell / ability one uses, although its possible that errata has dealt with that. Hell, the basic Beast Shape spells don't even state that you gain any of the natural attacks of the forms you assume, meaning that you could use Beast Shape III to turn into a Dire Tiger and explicity gain the abilities of Pounce and Rake, but since you've got no claws or bite attack by RAW, it's pretty much a big fluffy ball of nonlethal bashing damage.OK, here's an example of PRPG's changes meaning you actually need to read the book, because in this example ALL Polymorph Spells are barely functional if you aren't aware of the GENERAL rules for how Polymorph spells operate.
If the form grants a swim or burrow speed, you maintain the ability to breathe if you are swimming or burrowing.
In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks.
Incidentally, the general premise of Polymorph has now changed from 3.5's 'wholesale subsitution' of physical stats to what is classed as a Size Modifier, which means "Melee Druids" will actually focus on STR and physical stats because their actual stats effect their strength in Polymorphed form. This aspect was one where Paizo crucially was open to feedback during their playtest, when originally Polymorph applied an Enhancement Bonus (which of course, didn't stack with Belts of STR, etc), and heeding the feedback, it was shifted to a Size Bonus (which is effectively "Polymorph" Bonus since PM is the only thing that applies Size Bonus to STATS as opposed to to-hit, AC, etc) which DOES allow stacking with those common Enhancement bonuses.
What are the Problems With Pathfinder
Every robot that I build in my secret laboratory is defeated by adventurers who scramble its logic circuits when they implant them with commands to "Find a better RPG than Pathfinder".
Really f$@!ing annoying.
|
|
OK, here's an example of PRPG's changes meaning you actually need to read the book, because in this example ALL Polymorph Spells are barely functional if you aren't aware of the GENERAL rules for how Polymorph spells operate.
I read the spell, to find out what the spell did, not the entire book. That was obviously my bad.
Strangeness abounds, as that example demonstrates (rats have a swim speed, so I can turn into a rat that can breath underwater?).
And if a creature has a racial bonus to a certain skill check (say, hide in tall grasses, or perception rolls because of it's awesome vision), or to certain combat maneuver checks (hard to trip, due to its many legs), or a bonus feat that represents some structural property of the animal (improved natural attack because it has such big shiny teeth), are those properties also conferred, or does the shapechanger turn into a tiger that's not colored right to blend into tall grasses or a hawk that lacks the proper eye-structure to see as far as a real hawk?
Incidentally, the general premise of Polymorph has now changed from 3.5's 'wholesale subsitution' of physical stats to what is classed as a Size Modifier, which means "Melee Druids" will actually focus on STR and physical stats because their actual stats effect their strength in Polymorphed form.
Yup, that's true, and I do prefer that a Halfling Druid who dumped Strength down to 6 doesn't automatically get to ignore that when she Wild Shapes into a bear.
My own choice was for it to be a racial bonus, back in Alpha, when we were tossing ideas around, since, IMO, a Halfling who turns into a Wolf should lose her -2 penalty to Strength and +2 bonus to Dex (since she's not a Halfling anymore) and gain a Wolfs +2 Str and +4 Dex instead. Her base attributes, before racial adjustments, would make her a stronger and faster (or weaker and slower) Wolf, but her Halfling adjustments would be meaningless.
The Str 8, Dex 15 Halfling (Str 10, Dex 13, before Halfling modifiers) would become a Str 12, Dex 17 Wolf. The Halfling who dumped Strength down to 6 ends up becoming a fairly feeble Str 10 Wolf.
The Str 15, Dex 11 Half-Orc (Str 13, Dex 11 before 1/2 Orc modifiers) would become a Str 15, Dex 15 Wolf, swapping his 1/2 racial adjustment to Str for the Wolfs 'racial modifiers' to Str and Dex.
But that's the road not taken.
What are the Problems With PathfinderEvery robot that I build in my secret laboratory is defeated by adventurers who scramble its logic circuits when they implant them with commands to "Find a better RPG than Pathfinder".
Really f&&#ing annoying.
Mr. Fishy counters with a find a logic using group of PC's.
Mr. Fishy has seen rage filled, crazed, high, drunk and stupid, but never logical.
Every game has bad parts some are written in the rules some are caused by accident, many are caused by pricks and munchkins, wait that's redundant. Just munchkins.
Mr. Fishy has been smurfed!!!!! Mr.Fishy HATES SMURFS.
I don't think there's anything about Pathfinder that's worse than 3.5. The changes are either improvements or picky little crap that I don't care about/house rule over. The "big rules" are what's important to me; if some player is like "I get waterbreathing when I'm a crocodile because you see this rule fencepost case says so" I say "no you can't, since crocs don't breathe water, let's move on."
I do think that it could have gone father in addressing the pain of high level play and general NPC/stat block complexity, but it's certainly not worse than 3.5 on that count.
Mr. Fishy is SMURFING SMURF.
Strangeness abounds, as that example demonstrates (rats have a swim speed, so I can turn into a rat that can breath underwater?).
Per RAW, Yes. Honestly, I have no idea why it didn't just say 'If the form can breathe without air, you gain that ability.' Shorter, and to the point. I suppose alot of these cases are down to the fact they were trying to beat the deadline to get it printed in time for GenCon, and you can only spend so much time thinking about each sentence in that situation.
And if a creature has a racial bonus to a certain skill check (say, hide in tall grasses, or perception rolls because of it's awesome vision), or to certain combat maneuver checks (hard to trip, due to its many legs), or a bonus feat that represents some structural property of the animal (improved natural attack because it has such big shiny teeth), are those properties also conferred, or does the shapechanger turn into a tiger that's not colored right to blend into tall grasses or a hawk that lacks the proper eye-structure to see as far as a real hawk?
Polymorph says it may not grant you "all the abilities and powers" of the creature (and each spell details which are allowed). But racial bonuses to skills are not "abilities or powers", and if they are a feature of the physical form, like the four-legged bonus to CMD or a camouflaged appeareance, IMHO you should gain that benefit (just as you lose similar benefits, i.e. dwarven stability). Most all those examples you list (besides INA, which normal creatures would never have: they would just have the bigger damage factored into them from the start) seem like they would transfer. I suppose there could be corner cases where it's unclear if it's due to a physical quality, or a 'cultural' reason, but that holds true for similar traits of PC races, and is basically a GM call until Paizo deigns to classify all these bonuses as physical/cultural.
My own choice was for it to be a racial bonus, back in Alpha, when we were tossing ideas around, since, IMO, a Halfling who turns into a Wolf should lose her -2 penalty to Strength and +2 bonus to Dex (since she's not a Halfling anymore) and gain a Wolfs +2 Str and +4 Dex instead...
Yes, that certainly makes sense (I think I recommended likewise during the playtest) - I think there was a certain resistance to it from the "BW-compatability" angle, given that such "racial bonuses" DON'T (or didn't) exist for any creature, including Halflings, the 'modifications' were done at character creation and that was it. That said, you should bear in mind the 'adjustment chart' under Polymorph for non Small/Medium polymorpers, which essentially DOES 'cancel out' the STR/DEX/CON 'adjustments' for very small or very large creatures. The difference between (typical) stat mods for Small/Medium races when they Polymorph can be chalked up to the differing amount of size shift needed, e.g. for a Halfling to turn into a Large Horse vs. a Human doing the same. Though the NAME of the current typing DOES seem potentially misleading/confusing, I think it works out fine functionally.
I miss Mr.Fishy.
The biggest improvement I can honestly say is that my favourite circle of players plays Pathfinder not 4e, or 3.x. We've really enjoyed the books and some of the other publications.
The differences make sense to me and nothing stands out as a huge step backward.
My only comments about flaws would be:
I don't generally like pathfinder crafting rules. I tend to like 3.x more for that (with or without exp point cost)
Although they have done a huge job with balancing the bazillion D&D monsters they have not addressed the issue of monster characters. They discarded level adjustment without really having a replacement mechanic. I think LAs were unpopular enough that removing them was a selling point but they haven't really found a replacement in this special case.
Sigurd
They discarded level adjustment without really having a replacement mechanic. I think LAs were unpopular enough that removing them was a selling point but they haven't really found a replacement in this special case.
I can honestly say this is a con for me. I liked how basically everything was playable in 3.x. I can understand issues with the system being poorly balanced and confusing, but removing the system without putting in an effective replacement is a real lose as far as I'm concerned.
I miss Mr.Fishy.
Mr. Fishy miss Mr. Fishy to Check the Gish post it's funny.
They discarded level adjustment without really having a replacement mechanic. I think LAs were unpopular enough that removing them was a selling point but they haven't really found a replacement in this special case.I can honestly say this is a con for me. I liked how basically everything was playable in 3.x. I can understand issues with the system being poorly balanced and confusing, but removing the system without putting in an effective replacement is a real lose as far as I'm concerned.
The CR system isn't that bad. Everything is now playable, even more than before.
I can honestly say this is a con for me. I liked how basically everything was playable in 3.x. I can understand issues with the system being poorly balanced and confusing, but removing the system without putting in an effective replacement is a real lose as far as I'm concerned.
But you CAN use any 3.5 LA race if you want to with the 3.5 LA rules. I would apply about a -1/2 LA across the board, so if you think something was on the low end of other races of the same LA, subtract 1, and if was on the high end, it's fine with the 3.5 LA rating.
The thing with '3.5 compatability' is that it comes down to a judgement call what you want to allow. Alot of stuff might technically be compatable, but it really would be 'side stepping' "How Things Work" in PRPG now, so would cheesy/unfair. Other stuff can stand in perfectly fine. Alot of alternative classes can easily work in a PRPG game, and since most of them were on the stronger sided of things rather than the lower (3.5 melee classes), they should need minimal adjustments, mainly to HD/BAB and everybody gets the same accelerated Feat schedule.
The CR system isn't that bad. Everything is now playable, even more than before.
I believe it's been clearly stated by Paizo staff that CR is not meant to be a stand in for LA for Player Characters, it is only meant to adjudicate Class Level on NPC Monsters, which means in the scope of 1 encounter. Obviously, everyone can play the game that they want, but Paizo has made clear that their game is not balanced around non-PC-race PC's at this point.
The CR system isn't that bad. Everything is now playable, even more than before.
A CR 20 Gold Dragon is now fairly well balanced with a Level 20 Sorcerer?
Unless something dramatic has changed I can't imagine a CR 20 Dragon not having better stats than an entire level 20 party combined.
The CR system isn't that bad. Everything is now playable, even more than before.A CR 20 Gold Dragon is now fairly well balanced with a Level 20 Sorcerer?
Unless something dramatic has changed I can't imagine a CR 20 Dragon not having better stats than an entire level 20 party combined.
Please, stop being so one dimensional. Stats are not everything. The list of class abilities and spells to be cast from a lvl 20 sorcerer is to par. It is CR- challenge rating, it is meant that if in this situation a level 20 character went toe to toe with a CR 20 monster, the character should win, or at least have a 50% chance of winning. So your problem is more with the proper rating of CR?
Please, stop being so one dimensional. Stats are not everything. The list of class abilities and spells to be cast from a lvl 20 sorcerer is to par. It is CR- challenge rating, it is meant that if in this situation a level 20 character went toe to toe with a CR 20 monster, the character should win, or at least have a 50% chance of winning. So your problem is more with the proper rating of CR?
I understand the limitation of stats, just because a Dragon can do a lot of things very well doesn't mean that it can do all of those things at the same time. That is important and the reason players are able to take on a dragon, just because the Dragon outclasses the party in every way, doesn't mean that the Dragon can do as much as the party fighting it. Between the players in the party there are a lot more actions than the Dragon can pull off by itself.
Without a major rework of the CR system I can't imagine that CR being a good substitute for LA, and that is my point. Dragons just illustrate it well because they do tend to outclass an entire party in almost every way.
Yeah, Quandary touched on - and, Hark, you continued touching on - what I consider to be the biggest advantage of 3.X compared to Pathfinder RPG - monster PCs.
No longer can you trade in 4 levels to get a pixie PC. And the pixie has been beefed up, so it's very hard to tell what the LA should be now - or indeed, if perhaps the pixie is too powerful to be allowed as a PC at all.
And I always thought it was nice to play, say, a goblinoid once in a while.
Not to mention the potential of Savage Species. Imagine playing a low-level Astral Deva, Genie, or Hound Archon, or trading 2 levels for the winged template.
Fortunately, there are PC racial stats for goblins and hobgoblins. The Qadira companion also details a 'Genie Offspring' race ('Suli', I believe) akin to Aasimar which is kind of interesting (though I preferred somebody on the boards here's take on it, giving them more of a specific elemental focus).
If you want to play a race that did have a LA in 3.5 but no longer has a PC race equivalent in PRPG, I think the best bet is to adjust their LA by -1/2 or even -1 and use their 3.5 Stats as-is. So me of the weak LA1's could even be upgraded a bit for PRPG. Even if PRPG bestiary creatures have different stats/abilities now, there's no fundamental reason you can't use the old stats (and their LA) for PCs (or even throw some 3.5 monsters into some encounters).
(or even throw some 3.5 monsters into some encounters).
All other things aside, if I do deside to play Pathfinder I fully intend to make extensive use of the massive pile of 3.0 and 3.5 books that I have and just convert the stuff before using it.
pathfinder skills and part of the combat maneuver bonus stuff works well but for mine the crucial problem is that while some spells got nerfed (which I am fine with) most everything else just got ramped up a bit. ie extra pluses all round.
I had always considered 3.5 playability sweet spot for levels to be 3rd to 9th (maybe for high level play up to 15th)
The effect of the power up of the 'weaker classes' is that a pathfinder 10th level character is like a 3.5 14th level character in power- ie it is already a bit toxic to gameplay. Given high level 3.5 was a problem in playability before (and was stated as one of the things they were trying to solve) to mine mid to high level pathfinder has this problem now.
BTW, A 3rd Printing is in the works and should be out soon.
I expect ALOT of errata type issues to be fixed in it. FYI.
But I do recommend switching over.
Please, stop being so one dimensional. Stats are not everything. The list of class abilities and spells to be cast from a lvl 20 sorcerer is to par. It is CR- challenge rating, it is meant that if in this situation a level 20 character went toe to toe with a CR 20 monster, the character should win, or at least have a 50% chance of winning. So your problem is more with the proper rating of CR?I understand the limitation of stats, just because a Dragon can do a lot of things very well doesn't mean that it can do all of those things at the same time. That is important and the reason players are able to take on a dragon, just because the Dragon outclasses the party in every way, doesn't mean that the Dragon can do as much as the party fighting it. Between the players in the party there are a lot more actions than the Dragon can pull off by itself.
Without a major rework of the CR system I can't imagine that CR being a good substitute for LA, and that is my point. Dragons just illustrate it well because they do tend to outclass an entire party in almost every way.
Well, I will say I probably was wrong, but until I see it in action I will with hold my judgments. Just because a CR 20 dragon looks great as a character on paper doesn't automatically mean it is over powered in actual play.
The average encounter for a group of four or five PCs is supposed to have CR equal to the average party level. If CR is substitutable for level, that means a CR20 dragon is an average encounter for... 4 or 5 CR20 dragons. See the problem?
So I've been away from D&D for a long time, Loved 3.0/3.5, hate 4th edition with a passion. Anyway, I just found out that this Pathfinder game I've been seeing is an updated and improved 3.5. I've been doing research and finding lots of good stuff. Now is the time to ask the question I'm almost certain I'm going to regret asking, but need to ask to get a complete picture of what I'm considering getting into.
What are the problems with Pathfinder? What do its detractors say they don't like about it? What did it lose in its conversion from 3.5 that takes away from the game?
Please don't make this into a flame war.
Overall, every class has far more reasons to say in their own class now - just cool powers and abilities that emphasize their roles, etc. Good stuff.
Problems:
1) magic/mundane power dynamic still remains, though many spells were adjusted to attempt some balance, magic is still WAY more powerful.
2) Some classes, while updated and made nicer, didn't go far enough in revision/addition to the classes in terms of broadening utility and/or keeping in line power-wise to at least (as a melee type) to get to close the power gap with magic-types.
3) Feats seem ... weak - a lot more weak for some reason. It's like they've been arbitrarily split into 2-3 "mini-feats" to get to the main benefit of what one original, 3.x feat could manage. For my $, though - this is an EASY fix: just go w/the old feats, OR combine all the new feats into a single feat - done! Ta, Daaaa!
I *think* those three sort of cover the basics of the PF "problems" end of your question.
|
Personally, I dislike a great deal about the PF Cleric. In my opinion, it took a pretty great hit almost all around, while nearly every other class bothgot something new and cool and got stronger over all.
I personally hate the way PF Domains work, which is probable one of two of my biggest complaints with the class. The other is utterly generic it is (compaired to the Scorcerer for example), and difficult to build beyond the basic healbot sort of Cleric. Domains tend to be features that the party (except for the Cleric themselves) get to use, (or minor quasimagic rays that become obsolete very quickly) until 8th level or so when some grant the Cleric a sort of cool ability. Maybe.
Lastly, (and your right, no class needs one), they are the only class that gets no capstone, while not offering a good reason not to stay in the class as soon as a prestige class is vailable, (except, well there are not any. . ., not really, there are two very wizardy ones I know of).
I personally think they went more than a bit overboard with the Paladin. It is now a good class to play (vs the 3E version that really wasn't past Divine Grace). Smite has gotten a huge boost, an hey get very good, scalling class features that make them argueably better party healers than healing devoted Clerics.
Druids are a very different class, but still feel similar. Not nearly as easy to break, but still a lot of good abilities and options.
Rogues are just hands-down strong, if played by a partially competent player. Probably, in my opinion, the strongest class now.
Wizards an Sorcerers are now very diferent classes. Both from each other, and other versions of themselves. A Necromancer gets both fets and class features that an Enchanter can not, while a Dragon Sorcerer is a completely different monster than a Fire Sorcerer, but not because they get fire spells rather than, um, dragon spells. Their iitial Bloodline grants them cool class features practicall every other level or so. They are both almost different classes.
Still a lot of complaints about Bards, Barbarians, and Monks, but I haven't really had any personal experience with problems as much as the way they now ork is different. Bards and Barbarians core class feature now works off of rounds per day that you can turn off and on at will. This allows for a Barbarian to Rage about the same total tie per day, but because they can Rage a few rounds here and a round there, they can essentually break it up to be more advantagious. For example not wasting a Rage if they kill all foes in an enounter in 1 round, they use 1 round of rage verses 4+ like in 3E. A lot of Monk's change has come from gear chaning (in a good way) and the number of Skills being reduced, sort of netting them more skill points.
|
|
Something else that irritates me - blood lines for Sorcerers.
It was originally a stupid rumor that -some- Sorcerers tried to spread, now it's part of the core rules. Your Sorcerer is an X-man or the child of a magical genetic experiment. It's retarded.
Would you feel better if your Sorcerer (handwaved the fluff) and was more of a arcanist that studied a discipline and focused their innate(or psionic) magic through a sort of wild philosophy?
You know what? I can see the lack of love on the cleric, too. I'm also not a fan of the way most domains fell out.
That said, I think that the clerics should have gotten a sorcerer-like treatment only instead of a 'bloodline' it would be a 'religious order' of some sort dedicated to God X.
I'll probably get around to messin' w/something like this, but no time soon, though.
|
|
Don't get me wrong. As negative as it sounds, I like most of PF. I just feel that the Cleric was a miss. I kind of think that (fluff aside) it might have been better to drop Sorcerer completly and give everything over to the Cleric. [only half way serious]
Makes more sense to me at least, the Clerics get Escew Material as a bonus feat, (never seen a Cleric pull out bat fur to cast a spell, only a holy symbol), each bloodling really shows a different aspect of th class that I think both makes more sense and fits to Clerics of different beliefs (deity, philosophiy, whatever).
Hark, if you love 3.0/3.5 I think you'll love Pathfinder too. Everyone seems to have their pet peeves, but overall I think its a definite improvement over its predecessor.
So far my only complaint is that the Paladin seems overpowered but I can kind of look past it considering the limited uses to smite and alignment/code restrictions. I haven't heard any complaints about the other classes, although no one has tried the bard or ranger yet.
Oh, and remembering to check what spells and feats do, although that's not really a complaint. We're just getting used to the changes.