|
I can honestly say that you are the first person I have ever heard of in my entire life who played 3e and had problems with fighters and rogues and not clerics.
Ever.
On one hand, congratulations on being unique! That's pretty cool!
Thanks, I guess. I know my view on this point is not popular on this forum, but even here it is far from unique or uncommon. The problem is, this forum is the vocal minority. Period. The silent majority do not get on forums and discus this, so claims that the rest of the world believes as you do are just not true. It may seem that way, to you but it is not the great universal truth, by far.
Below is so long, and not really on topic, so I'm hiding it, but I am not trying to be rude.
On the other hand, your experiences are so hilairously far from the norm that it's rediculous for you to assume that the rest of the game plays that way.
No, it actually isn't. It is however the exact opposite. Some people over on a forum started this huge rumor about how you could (as in potentually) destroy a very strictly run RAW D&D game with the Cleric class. Especially a Party of 4 Clerics. And that caught on, and everyone cries conspirecy and the sky is falling and clerics are branded OP, and everyone that reads and hears about it assums that all Clerics must be broken and can out________ the _______ Class. They assume that this is not only common, but the nature of the Cleric, so lets ban this and claim that. It is not true. No more than any other class, (Yah, even freaking BARD!!!!!!! don't go and have a heart attack now, it is true, Monk too !!!!!! for shame!!!!) can be broken, and with the improper player attitude own nearly all encounters. It is nothing but an exageration, and the people that do tend to latch on to the rumor almost universally fail to see the many downsides and restrictions that Clerics also have to deal with besides all that cosmic power.
Such things as being practically the only class that can lose all their power if the DM is a a jerk or the player makes the character do something they shouldn't. Things like the lack of many options (and when you concider options designed for the class that are not automatically chased by DMs with pitch forks and torchs when someone even so much as mentions their name, that list gets damn tiny fast).
Or that it is practically the only class that spends the majority of it's time sitting back and fixing everyone else's screw ups.
Or the list just goes on and on and on.
I have played with up to 10 completely different groups at a time, ranging from strict RPGA style rules at an open game at a gaming store to story/plot driven games, to ones run by Power Gaming Rules Lawyers, to typical home games to some rediculous everything goes. Suggesting that neither the Rogue nor the Fighter can not be easily broken/power gamed/muchkined/etc. . . is pretty rediculous. Especially in 3E, and I am just talking about WotC material.
There is, however, a difference between not knowing how to play a class, like fighter, and the class itself being weak, which ios probably about 75% of the case when people say that this calss or that is to underpowered.
Yeah, I'm not going to respond to that as the number of facts in your post is about zero. We've had this discussion before, and it always devolves into you ignoring everything and stating that WELL IN YOUR GAMES THIS AND THIS HAPPENS ERGO ALL GAMES MUST BE THIS WAY!
It's tiresome and old and boring. Make a new thread (again) if you want to continue this, but do try to back it up with mechanics this time.
ANYWAYS, PROBLEMS WITH PATHFINDER!
Assassin is weaker, which is both curious and irritating, but nobody plays those to begin with, so heyoooooo. People who want to make fighter/mages who aren't bards are sorta left out to dry, but then again, they had the same issue in 3.5 core, so that's not anything that new. Plus, that and most other issues in Pathfinder I've seen are fixed with a simple "Oh wait, lol, backwards compatable, hello 3.5 thing!"
The polymorph swim/breathe question is NOT a granted ability. The language specifically says 'retain the ability to breathe'. To retain that ability, you must have it in the first place. Not all creatures with a swim speed have the ability to breathe underwater, so, no, you don't retain that ability, because they never had it.
You retain the ability to breath AT ALL, not the ability to breath underwater/underground. You are simply misreading the text.
The Dork hath raved and it is so.
|
|
Your right, it is not the place for that. However, I would point out that I only see two things that are not facts, and neither are presented as such?
The point is simply almost exaclty what you said, reversed. These are matters of opinion, and neither is absolutely true. It seems you are one of the (not an astronomically high number like you believe) that did have a problem with Clerics and/or Druids, Wizards, and Sorcerers. That does not mean that everyone else did, and yu know what, that is perfectly fine.
But, that was in 3E, and we are talking about PathFinder now. In my opinion, and as a fact, I am not the only one that feels that, (proof of the factual nature of this statement is right here is this very thread) the Cleric is not as good a class as it could/should be, by PathFinder standards.
You do bring up a good point, though, that may not have been touched upon just yet. In Pathfinder, many of the Prestige Classes have been significantly changed.
All have in that like Base Classes, HD and BaB are linked, but also the nature of Prestige Class Saves are different. Rather than having either +0 or +2 pregressions, they now all have either +0 or +1, essentually attempting to remain similar to the base classes. So if you take 5 different Prestige Classes, you Saves do not get a huge bump like in 3E.
Additionally, many of the Class features have been smoothed out or put better in line with the concept. For example, Arcane Archer and Dragon Disciple now get +1 Arcane Spellcasting levels now rather than bonus spells or Caster Levels.
The polymorph swim/breathe question is NOT a granted ability. The language specifically says 'retain the ability to breathe'. To retain that ability, you must have it in the first place. Not all creatures with a swim speed have the ability to breathe underwater, so, no, you don't retain that ability, because they never had it.You retain the ability to breath AT ALL, not the ability to breath underwater/underground. You are simply misreading the text.
Well, he simply deserves a spanking then, does he not?
Smurfed again.
|
|
the Cleric is not as good a class as it could/should be, by PathFinder standards.Not that I'm defending the Prof (I'm not), but this statement just sort of jumped out at me.
In what ways -specifically- should the Cleric be a better class?
I'll be the first to admit that it is more than a little my fault it keeps getting off topic, so I'll keep this away. I have given a lot of examples and reasons above, and if you want to start a different thread, I'll be happy to present a case there, granted that i am not told how stupid/wrong/whatever I am because the proverbial you is so perfect and correct and sets all gaming standards world wide.
:)
CoDzilla enough said.Enough said about what? Cleric was no easier to break than any other class. Druidzilla, Roguezila, Fighterzilla. Blah, blah, blah. That doesn't explain anything about what I said.
Besides, they included the PF deities with the Cleric. So is not like setting neutral was their full goal, especially in this regard.
They wouldn't have to be any more specific than Sorcerers are to Golarion.
It is a well established fact that the cleric and druid were the most over powered classes in 3.5. They had too many abilities other than healing to make them more appealing to play, because normally it would be a chore. So if a cleric or druid when ahead and just played for combat they could do or out-do the classes meant for that role and not perform the role they where supposed to.
Sorry if you disagree with the years of 3.5 forum talk at the WotC forums. But they need the changes that were done, and now they can heal and use the nifty spells they have during the day, not just one or the other, and not out-do the other classes.
|
Melee fighters should have more hit points! 1E, non-melees had a max con to HP bonus of +2. I.e. Fighters always had more hit points. [Snip]
\
And, IMO, biggest balance change ever, if a spellcaster wanted to cast a spell, he could be interrupted and his spell ruined. Spells didn't just pop out fully-cast on your initiative.
Can you imagine if *every* spell (save, like, feather fall) was a full-round action and if the spellcaster was hit, it failed, with no concentration check? Yowza.
|
|
On one hand, congratulations on being unique! That's pretty cool! On the other hand, your experiences are so hilairously far from the norm that it's rediculous for you to assume that the rest of the game plays that way.
He's not unique. He's just part of a group that doesn't bow to the popular girls clique and their overwrought hyperbole about CoDzilla stomping all over Tokyo.
Those of us who spent a decade playing Clerics without;
1) Nightsticks
2) Persistent Spell
3) Divine Metamagic
4) jacking CL through the roof with some SC spell that acts like an AoE Death Knell
*never* had a problem with 'CoDzilla.' Divine Power and Righteous Might could have used a tweak, and, now, in Pathfinder, they got tweaked. All is well on that front. (Gate remains a quibble, but that applies to Wizards as well.)
IMO, the only 'problem' with Clerics also applied to Druids, and that wasn't the Divine Persist-cheese or any other idiotic optional rules that were never designed to stack together, and turned into stinky cheese when slapped together, it was the the Cleric and Druid got access to every spell on their list.
Again, IMO, the Cleric, Druid (Bard, Paladin, Ranger, Adept, Wizard) should have a choice at 1st level, to be a Spontaneous Caster, and have a tiny little spells known list, like that of a Sorcerer, and more castings per day that they can use flexibly, *or* be a Prepared Caaster, and keep some sort of Ogham lorebook or Sacred text or whatever, to which they get to add 2 spells / level from their class list, and purchase any other spells they want to know, just like a Wizard. No more Favored Souls (because a Cleric could be spontaneous or prepared right out of the gate), no more Sorcerers with their lack of bonus feats and delayed spell progression (because a 'Sorcerer' would just be a Wizard who chose to be a Spontaneous Caster at 1st level, and not someone whose mommy got bizzy with a flying lizard), and, most importantly, Clerics, Druids (Adepts, Paladins and Rangers) would *not* have every spell on their spell list automagically, having to either acquire / purchase them like a Wizard, or function with a much smaller list, like a Sorcerer.
You retain the ability to breath AT ALL, not the ability to breath underwater/underground. You are simply misreading the text.
Unless it's different in the book, everybody's misreading the text. The word used is 'maintain' not 'retain'.
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.
To bad you don't like 4E, I enjoy it and was playing 3.5, but Pathfinder is a more natural progression from 3.0/3.5.
I think you will get more mileage just asking what problems folks had converting old material, as your intent is probably to use 3.5 material.
|
|
Rapid Shot
Quicken Spell
Prayer Beads of KarmaJust sayin'. "Clerics aren't a problem without non-core material" doesn't explain why clerics were identified as a problem before DOTF.
And what is keeping any other class from doing things just like that?My problem is that everyone focuses on A the Cleric and B the Druid for being "so ungodly broken" and "ruining" the game and what not, like they are the only thing that can be min-maxed to all heck. It is both a gross overexageration and just plain false.
The first thing you can tell is that if it were true, 80? of all "boss fightes" would be Clerics or Druids a level or two lower than the lowest level party member. But that is generally nor the case. It is typically a Wizards/Sorcerer with cohorts, Fighter types, or Rogues. In my eperience, even in the WotC published adventures, Clerics were amongst the least common intelligent boss encounters.
Not trying to come off as rude, I just do not buy it.
I guess you've never seen a Core Monk with a Touch AC of 40+, or mostly Core Fighters or Barbarians that can destroy the world, (literally the entire planet) in one round, wield greatswords that literally larger and heavier than the entire party, or a Fighter, Ranger, or (oh uh. . .) Rogue dual wielding (3E) Spiked Chains, or Mounted Combat Fighters or Paladins that just devistate combat a partially open battlefield, or getting a flying mount (bloody hell). A Rogue the goes down the Leap Attack/Power Attack/Combat Brute or hock Trooper route. Or a smart player looking at Frenzied Berserker with a Healer/buffer Cohort. Or a Sorcerer/Duskblade/*Warmage* that goes Rainbow Servant and gets each and every Cleric spell added to their list + like three Domains. Do a search over on Wizards for the "Pheonix Servant" Warmage build. There is a Bard build, but I can't remember the name, so I'll have to ask about that, but easily the most powerful single class character there is in print, (minus the hulking hurler earth shatterer :) ).
Nah, as far as I can tell, when groups have a problem with Spellcasters, (double for Psionics), it is't because the group or spellcaster play, it is because the DM doesn't understand how to rn encounters, (in the way that the base mechanics are built upon). They would do one or two encounters a adventuring day, and wonder why spellcasters seem so powerful. Or not have surprize encounters when the arcanists would rest.
Nah, as far as I can tell, when groups have a problem with Spellcasters, (double for Psionics), it isn't because the group or spellcaster play, it is because the DM doesn't understand how to run encounters, (in the way that the base mechanics are built upon). They would do one or two encounters a adventuring day, and wonder why spellcasters seem so powerful. Or not have surprize encounters when the arcanists would rest.
There is much truth in that statement. The best tactic for spell-casters is not to 'pwn' each encounter and rest frequently, it is to support the non-casters only as much as is necessary to get through each encounter and conserve their resources for when they are really needed. Many of the 'broken' builds of caster rely on being able to blow most of their spells in a short period of time, and being able to prepare for each encounter.
|
Finding a negative ?
Man ... gotta think hard. Not easy ...
Hmmm : last week I was too soft on my players as I ran a 3.5 monster (Tentamort), I forgot that secondary attacks no longer carry this stupid -5.
Man, I was way too soft !
Otherwise, I think of the positive : No more time wasted on useless sub systems like disarm/grapple/overrun
Much more fun !
Unless it's different in the book, everybody's misreading the text. The word used is 'maintain' not 'retain'.
You retain the ability to breath AT ALL, not the ability to breath underwater/underground. You are simply misreading the text.
:P
|
|
My group only had one cleric who played the "all buff spells are for me only" route. Eventually the DM got fed up with him, and when he rounded a corner he ran into a beholder. The poor guy was hasted, enlarged (via the 5th level cleric spell), plus whatever else, and was moving at full speed to get to the encounter and finish it off before the rest of us could get there. Then he hit the anti-magic zone, and all the lights went out. The DM, in a bad mood, stated that the loss of magic suddenly meant the laws of physics applied, and multiplied his already doubled speed by the lost weight (meaning all his momentum stayed).
The good news is that he killed the beholder!
First, why is that a bad thing? It is not written in stone on the Cleric that they must devote all their class features to the party. Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate playing that way, but it always gets really annoying when people think that A cleric (or anyone else for that matter) must be devoted to playing the one and true way.
Most Psionic buffs are either personal only or automatically affect everyone, and that is not amongst the main factors of complaints against psionics. People don't complain that the Fighter must ready actions to move in front of the Cleric/Wizard in case opponents try to move in for the kill. Or that Rogues must use Aid Another actions to help the rest of the party find and avoid a trap, rather than just taking care off it.
So why this huge double standard for casters, but specifically Clerics? Seriously, maybe they wanted to play a self buffing battle priest, and not a healbot party buffer that sits back after a spell or two to watch the fighter have fun actually playing a game. That puts the burden of the rest of the party to find ways to keep up their HP and buffs themselves (ie that is the rest of the parties fault for not covering their own backside and having false expectations), not on the Cleric/Druid/Wizard/etc. . . to drop thier concept because other players misunderstand the group dynamic of the game.
Secondly, Pathfinder has made it much more difficult for Clerics to only self buff, (which by the way, I do not advocae, but I do believe that if that is the character a player wants to play, they shouldn't get any crap for it).
Over all, I think Pathfinder has done a great job. I don't like most things related to the Cleric Class, but besides that, it is a fantastic game in so many ways, many so minor that they really pop ou weeks later.
|
Not trying to come off as rude, I just do not buy it.
A 3.5 core Cleric can do anything a 3.5 core Fighter can do AND cast spells at a full progression. It's just that simple. If I had more time I could build a side-by-side core Clr and Fgt to prove the point, but I'm out of time. Maybe MiB or Zurai can knock something together on a pinch.
So why this huge double standard for casters, but specifically Clerics? Seriously, maybe they wanted to play a self buffing battle priest, and not a healbot party buffer that sits back after a spell or two to watch the fighter have fun actually playing a game. That puts the burden of the rest of the party to find ways to keep up their HP and buffs themselves (ie that is the rest of the parties fault for not covering their own backside and having false expectations), not on the Cleric/Druid/Wizard/etc. . . to drop thier concept because other...
Because clerics were the most often abused class, I think.
The example given was a case of 'show-boating' where one player sets out to show up everyone else's character by trying to 'solo' the adventure. The cleric has a lot of options other than being a heal-bot, and I doubt anyone would have minded so much if he buffed himself and fought alongside the rest of the party, but it sounds like he was trying to hog the limelight for himself. It's a lot easier for a 3.5 cleric to do this than it is for any other class.
(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.
This is almost certainly the single best thing about pathfinder. I still use alot of things from my old 3.5 library, because well there are still things i liked that havent been replicated yet. Not to mention homebrew stuff that's piled up over the years.
Fighters get more feats than anyone else and therefore benefit more from the improved combat feats than anyone else.I take umbrage on the argument that an improvement in feats is not an improvement in the Fighter because other classes can take feats as well. The fighter gets a LOT of feats. They define MUCH of what a build can do. The Fighter relies on feats for most of what he does. To say an improvement in feats isn't an improvement in the fighter is just sticking your head in the sand quid-pro-quo nonsense, IMO.Get real. When you talk about the Fighter, you talk about the Fighter class, not benefits he gets outside it. ALL CLASSES are improved if you consider that everyone gets 3 more feats...in which case you've a moot argument. Everybody loves feats.
Either rephrase it to all characters are improved by feats, or strike it, because it has no bearing on the Fighter class and what abilities a Fighter gets. You're pulling in Fighter 'characters', which is a seperate focus from Fighter 'the class'.
THe Fighter class gets exactly 0 more feats then it did before. ALL characters get 3 more feats then they did before, meaning the Fighter benefits no more and no less then anyone else.
The facts the feats are somewhat better is also somewhat moot. You can make KILLER fighters with 3.5 feats...and some of those feats were NERFED in Pathfinder, so 'improvement' doesn't fly, either.
==Aelryinth
:PUnless it's different in the book, everybody's misreading the text. The word used is 'maintain' not 'retain'.
You retain the ability to breath AT ALL, not the ability to breath underwater/underground. You are simply misreading the text.
I'm not sure if you are arguing with me or agreeing with me. I'm positing that you retain/maintain the ability to breathe, but there's nothing that says you are 'granted' the ability to breathe in a new medium. Maintain and retain both subsume the ability existed prior to the form change, one continuous process.
i.e. unless the new form naturally has the ability to breathe in the new medium (such as a fish), you aren't 'maintaining' anything. No water breathing crocs for you (although I doubt you'd get a DM to let it fly, regardless).
==Aelryinth
The CoDzilla argument and supremacy of spellcasters hinges on one thing...unlimited access to and abuse of specific spells. MY reply to this has always been "Anti-Magic Shell".
Seriously. IN anything resembling a sensible world, combat squads would be dispatched with relatively cheap doses of Dust of Dispersion or whatever it's called in the Tome of Horrors, for either throwing at spellcasters as a touch attack, or smashing on themselves. Then simply throw yourself at the spellcaster and grapple him, then throttle with bare hands.
Spellcasters naturally HATE this argument, and go to incredible lengths to try and protect themselves against it. It does not change the fact that they can be prevented from being uber very simply and easily, and cry foul at mere hint of sensible tactics, while gloating over their uberness.
Another feat I loved was Pierce Magical Protection. A strict reading of the feat says it eliminates any magical spell that grants AC. This naturally includes a wide range of stat buffing spells, and especially the whole polymorph/shapechange change, which affects Natural AC. Automatically dispels them. Combined with Pierce Magical Concealment, you could dispel massive chunks of a spellcaster's buffs with one spell, AND do damage to him, while not missing.
They didn't much like that feat, either. Or the one that granted an AoO against spellcasters, no defensive casting allowed.
===Aelryinth
The facts the feats are somewhat better is also somewhat moot. You can make KILLER fighters with 3.5 feats...and some of those feats were NERFED in Pathfinder, so 'improvement' doesn't fly, either.
I disagree with this sentiment. The fact that the fighter has access to more feat trees, and deeper feat trees at that, goes a LONG way towards making them much better contributors to their party role (as tanks and bruisers). It also makes them far more versatile.
Sure, the other classes got more feats too, but they really don't benefit from them in the same way the fighter does (this is particularly true with most casters).
A 3.5 core Cleric can do anything a 3.5 core Fighter can do AND cast spells at a full progression. It's just that simple. If I had more time I could build a side-by-side core Clr and Fgt to prove the point, but I'm out of time. Maybe MiB or Zurai can knock something together on a pinch.
Not trying to come off as rude, I just do not buy it.
If someone would do this, I request you compare the Cleric to the Fighter while the Cleric continues to do what it was intended to do.
I realize this will never happen, since everyone loves to put the Cleric into the role of the class they are trying to prove it is better than. But I'd like to see if it can actually be better while doing what it was intended to do. And that is "cover" the rest of the party during combat. Not quite "healbot," but using their actions as intended.
I'm just really curious if the 3.5 Cleric was so broken for the design goals, rather than the way some players took them.
I think that "Trip" is a bit to easy to pull off. When I DM i hate to pit any monster against the PCs that can be tripped. once the PCs get the monster down it seems like it's all over. mostly it is the monk that causes this problem for me.
I think that "Trip" is a bit to easy to pull off. When I DM i hate to pit any monster against the PCs that can be tripped. once the PCs get the monster down it seems like it's all over. mostly it is the monk that causes this problem for me.
How is it easier to pull off than any of the other CMB attacks?
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.
I haven't read through all the posts, but the first few caught a lot of the big issues.
I will say the biggest "problem" with PF for me, is the fact that it changed the rules just enough that a person with a PF rulebook couldn't sit at my 3.5 table and play. That rulebook would be ultimately useless to them, and it would have been better if they printed off the 3.5 SRD. This created a situation, either I force everyone in my group to toss their 3.5 PHBs and all purchase PF's, or I bid PF good luck on its voyage, but remaining on the shore as it sails away. I chose to stick with 3.5.
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?
That is for an "average encounter", which is an encounter that drains the party of approximately 20% of their resources (spells, hit points, ability uses, etc.). So, a CR 20 creature is a full up fight to the death for a 20th level character alone.
But the important thing to remember about CR (and why it absolutely does not work as ECL) is that it gauges a creatures challenge to a party of adventurers for ONE fight of 3-10 rounds or so. That is why some of the abilities (spell-likes, I'm looking at you) seem out of scale with the CR.
|
|
I will say the biggest "problem" with PF for me, is the fact that it changed the rules just enough that a person with a PF rulebook couldn't sit at my 3.5 table and play. That rulebook would be ultimately useless to them, and it would have been better if they printed off the 3.5 SRD. This created a situation, either I force everyone in my group to toss their 3.5 PHBs and all purchase PF's, or I bid PF good luck on its voyage, but remaining on the shore as it sails away. I chose to stick with 3.5.
So your problem is that the base rule system of a game based on 3.5 but considered an evolution of those rules, can't revert to the older system it evolved from? Wasn't that the same problem 3.5 had with 3.0? I mean yes, there was a lot of compatibility but it also took some work if you wanted to use 3.5 material in a 3.0 game right?
I mean, I get that you don't want to force your group to choose, but I don't see how you are complaining that a revamping of the rules means they are fundamentally different than the rules they changed. Perhaps complain is the wrong word here. I can't think of a word to describe the situation, so complain is the best this lexicon of mine can come up with.
I guess beef would work too, at least that doesn't have a whiny connotation.
Basically I am just asking, is your...problem with PF based on the fact that the rules changes were so much that you can't use a PF book to play 3.5, and if so, why so surprised?
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 share your grief....take that as you want.
Here's a tip; my group adopted this years ago and it seemed to do the trick, along with a little common sense:
Each LA grants a Commoner level (sort of), which is essentially like half a PC level in overall power (half a weak PC level). So 1d4 + Con hit points (this is 1d6 by Pathfinder updates), +1/2 BAB, all poor saves, and 2 skill points + Int mod (we treat them as without any class skills, instead of granting commoner skills). You then treat the ECL as true Character Level, and calculate max skill ranks, feats, attacks, and saves normally.
It gives enough hit points and other defenses to live long enough to actually use your cool racial abilities. However, it isn't a silver bullet. Much of the problem with ECL is the overestimation of the power of racial hit dice, and the need to keep them. But this helps a lot.
THe Fighter class gets exactly 0 more feats then it did before. ALL characters get 3 more feats then they did before, meaning the Fighter benefits no more and no less then anyone else.
Debatable, as some new fighter-only feats were actually introduced. Also they get Armour Training and Weapon Training, which are not to be sneezed at - they work synergistically with the fighter's feat to make them faster and crank up the damage.
The facts the feats are somewhat better is also somewhat moot. You can make KILLER fighters with 3.5 feats...and some of those feats were NERFED in Pathfinder, so 'improvement' doesn't fly, either.
Well, the frequent complaints of 'nerf' are focussed on the combat manoeuvre feats, and having seen them in the new system in action, I can say that the nerf was needed to stop combat manoeuvres completely dominating combat. Other complaints have been aimed at Cleave and Power attack, but I found these to be improvements also - cleave was rarely employed in 3.5, but in Pathfinder it makes combat more mobile because you can still move and make multiple attacks. Power Attack, while it restricts the penalty it increases the bonus you gain, so while in theory you could do more damage in 3.5, in practice you would have nerfed your attack to the point where you wouldn't hit anything anyway. I think it's an improvement that give you more bang for your buck.
I will say the biggest "problem" with PF for me, is the fact that it changed the rules just enough that a person with a PF rulebook couldn't sit at my 3.5 table and play. That rulebook would be ultimately useless to them, and it would have been better if they printed off the 3.5 SRD. This created a situation, either I force everyone in my group to toss their 3.5 PHBs and all purchase PF's, or I bid PF good luck on its voyage, but remaining on the shore as it sails away. I chose to stick with 3.5.So your problem is that the base rule system of a game based on 3.5 but considered an evolution of those rules, can't revert to the older system it evolved from? Wasn't that the same problem 3.5 had with 3.0? I mean yes, there was a lot of compatibility but it also took some work if you wanted to use 3.5 material in a 3.0 game right?
Yes, it is a similar problem, and luckily the people I gamed with hadn't invested heavily in 3e before the switch over, most didn't even have a 3e PHB and were sharing at that time. The same can't be said now of 3.5 in my group. My group has invested more heavily in 3.5. Still there was room for more core books, as the DM and host, I am always on the look out for a new core book in case someone forgets their's. And there is still a player that doesn't have one, using a printed out copy of the SRD, it would be nice to pitch in and get them one for christmas or their birthday, like we had done in the past for a player.
I mean, I get that you don't want to force your group to choose, but I don't see how you are complaining that a revamping of the rules means they are fundamentally different than the rules they changed. Perhaps complain is the wrong word here. I can't think of a word to describe the situation, so complain is the best this lexicon of mine can come up with.
I guess beef would work too, at least that doesn't have a whiny connotation.
Basically I am just asking, is your...problem with PF based on the fact that the rules changes were so much that you can't use a PF book to play 3.5, and if so, why so surprised?
I am not sure where you are getting all of this negative emotion? Surprised? Who is surprised? Whinying? Why is it whinying to respond to the OP with the problem or issue, I have when that was pretty much asked for?
I understand if my "issues" are not your "issues", I've read posts where people have said they are buying everyone in their group a PF core book and are also buying themselves multiple copies. I think that is great, if you have the funds for that good for you and your group. It just isn't really an option for my group.
|
|
Yes, it is a similar problem, and luckily the people I gamed with hadn't invested heavily in 3e before the switch over, most didn't even have a 3e PHB and were sharing at that time. The same can't be said now of 3.5 in my group. My group has invested more heavily in 3.5. Still there was room for more core books, as the DM and host, I am always on the look out for a new core book in case someone forgets their's. And there is still a player that doesn't have one, using a printed out copy of the SRD, it would be nice to pitch in and get them one for christmas or their birthday, like we had done in the past for a player.I will say the biggest "problem" with PF for me, is the fact that it changed the rules just enough that a person with a PF rulebook couldn't sit at my 3.5 table and play. That rulebook would be ultimately useless to them, and it would have been better if they printed off the 3.5 SRD. This created a situation, either I force everyone in my group to toss their 3.5 PHBs and all purchase PF's, or I bid PF good luck on its voyage, but remaining on the shore as it sails away. I chose to stick with 3.5.So your problem is that the base rule system of a game based on 3.5 but considered an evolution of those rules, can't revert to the older system it evolved from? Wasn't that the same problem 3.5 had with 3.0? I mean yes, there was a lot of compatibility but it also took some work if you wanted to use 3.5 material in a 3.0 game right?
Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought. I was just pointing out its not the first time such a thing had occurred. It's also not exactly a complaint about the system so much as a complaint about it's existence. That's more what the OP was referring to IMHO.
I am not sure where you are getting all of this negative emotion? Surprised? Who is surprised? Whinying? Why is it whinying to respond to the OP with the problem or issue, I have when that was pretty much asked for?I mean, I get that you don't want to force your group to choose, but I don't see how you are complaining that a revamping of the rules means they are fundamentally different than the rules they changed. Perhaps complain is the wrong word here. I can't think of a word to describe the situation, so complain is the best this lexicon of mine can come up with.
I guess beef would work too, at least that doesn't have a whiny connotation.
Basically I am just asking, is your...problem with PF based on the fact that the rules changes were so much that you can't use a PF book to play 3.5, and if so, why so surprised?
1) More an externalization for my thoughts to show you I don't think you're a whiner, just have a lack of a better term for the situation.
2) I thought this was an honest critique of the system, not a complaint that it exists, which your main problem seems to stem from.
I understand if my "issues" are not your "issues", I've read posts where people have said they are buying everyone in their group a PF core book and are also buying themselves multiple copies. I think that is great, if you have the funds for that good for you and your group. It just isn't really an option for my group.
Again, I thought the thread was for the debates about the mechanics of the system, not a grounds to say "It sucks that Pathfinder exists because if someone wants to play pathfinder I can't support them."
Your problem seems more to stem from that than any mechanical problem, at least as far as you have said in this thread so far.
Again, I thought the thread was for the debates about the mechanics of the system, not a grounds to say "It sucks that Pathfinder exists because if someone wants to play pathfinder I can't support them."
Your problem seems more to stem from that than any mechanical problem, at least as far as you have said in this thread so far.
I'm not sure I would word it that way. I have no problem with PF existing. My "problem" with it, the reason why I don't use the system, is it doesn't mesh with the system I currently have. But you are right, if my group was not invested in 3.5, I would have no real problem with going to PF. I don't find huge flaws with the mechanics over 3.5. The other side of that coin is that I don't find huge advantages to it over 3.5 either. I might point out that the reason I didn't switch over to 4e wasn't because I was offended by the system or the destruction of a beloved campaign setting. It was because I didn't feel I was lacking any thing fundamentally with 3.5 that 4e could fix for me. I feel the same way about PF.
In the OP, the poster said that they were a huge fan of 3e/3.5. I just wanted to point out that going to PF would require everyone in the group to toss their old PHBs in favor of the new core books (or as Gorbacz points out using the PRD). In my case that was a no go, in his it might be fine.
|
|
This brings up a funny story about how me, my 3.5 bookshelf and PF went. At first, I wanted just to swap the rulebooks and run all the 3.5 stuff with PF as a base.
But then I began to realise, that PF gives me an opportunity to start from grounds up. I got tired of dumpster diving my players did, of constant questions in the lieu of "if I use feat X from this FR book with spell Y from this Eberron book and item Z from that 3pp book, is that OK ?". I hate saying "no" to my players and I hate wasting my time on trying to figure out if such combo won't break my game.
So from the next campaign on, I'm dropping a crunch nuke. We're going from grounds up with PF Core, APG, most stuff from Paizo books, and *maybe* PHB2, because it rocked. But I'll fondly wave goodbye to the Completes, Spell Compendium and all that jazz. It's time for a reset :)