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 :)
I have never played 3X with all that extra rule bloat. It's been strictly PHB 1, DMG 1, and MM1.
I think the game runs much better that way as you don't have to keep flipping through pages to find rules or dealing with players who play the game like a Magic: The Gathering tournament.
This hurts melee classes far more than the casters, which is counter intuitive.
I think it's an improvement that give you more bang for your buck.
I disagree. The change to Power Attack does make it hit harder for what you exchange but it suffers from two serious problems - it doesn't increase the damage at the same scale as occurs in 3.5 and, more importantly, if you want to use it, you don't get to decide HOW to use it. You always lose -X to attack and add +Y to damage.
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 :)
Same here. I like Pathfinder Core tremendously, warts and all. I'm intrigued by your PHB2 allowance, I'll have to take a fresh look at it regarding its interaction with PF rules. Until we get the inevitable 'glut' of Paizo rules product, I'm enjoying the relative 'ease' of a condensed ruleset.
Problems with Pathfinder?
I don't get to play it nearly enough. I mean, really, my Pathfinder play-time is low.
|
I think the production values are too high to be taken seriously as an RPG. What's wrong with some Cerlox bound B&W photocopies of typewritten pages and crude line drawings? It was good enough for Chainmail, why not PRPG?
PS
:)
PPS The only real problem I have with PRPG are some relatively minor oversights in editing, which have mostly been pointed out by the fans and staff, and will no doubt be incorporated into some sort of document which will be available for download.
PPS The only real problem I have with PRPG are some relatively minor oversights in editing, which have mostly been pointed out by the fans and staff, and will no doubt be incorporated into some sort of document which will be available for download.
Although holding one's breath is still not recommended for this occasion.
I think it's important to note that extra feats help martial classes significantly more then casting classes. There are vastly more feats that benefit martial classes then others.
As for clerics doing their job, it's also important to note that healing is best done after combat, not during. A cleric can fight like a fighter, if not better, and then once combat is over pass around heals, in 3.5 core.
I think it's an improvement that give you more bang for your buck.I disagree. The change to Power Attack does make it hit harder for what you exchange but it suffers from two serious problems - it doesn't increase the damage at the same scale as occurs in 3.5 and, more importantly, if you want to use it, you don't get to decide HOW to use it. You always lose -X to attack and add +Y to damage.
The new Power Attack lets you use it consistently and consistently hit with it. It also makes more sense with the two handed damage coinciding with the normal Strength rules. And finally, just let your players choose how much penalty to take and base the damage off of that. This isn't the freakin Bible.
The new Power Attack lets you use it consistently and consistently hit with it. It also makes more sense with the two handed damage coinciding with the normal Strength rules. And finally, just let your players choose how much penalty to take and base the damage off of that. This isn't the freakin Bible.I think it's an improvement that give you more bang for your buck.I disagree. The change to Power Attack does make it hit harder for what you exchange but it suffers from two serious problems - it doesn't increase the damage at the same scale as occurs in 3.5 and, more importantly, if you want to use it, you don't get to decide HOW to use it. You always lose -X to attack and add +Y to damage.
Which isn't the point is it? This thread isn't 4 pages going because "Rule 0 makes problems in Pathfinder disappear!" is an accepted excuse.
Which isn't the point is it? This thread isn't 4 pages going because "Rule 0 makes problems in Pathfinder disappear!" is an accepted excuse.At least it went four pages before that fallacy came up?
I am kind of impressed at that..
I disagree. The change to Power Attack does make it hit harder for what you exchange but it suffers from two serious problems - it doesn't increase the damage at the same scale as occurs in 3.5 and, more importantly, if you want to use it, you don't get to decide HOW to use it. You always lose -X to attack and add +Y to damage.
Well the way I look at, at level 20 what can you do?
With a one-handed weapon in Pathfinder, you take -6 to hit and +12 damage. In 3.5 you can take up to -20 to hit and +20 to damage - but at -20 to hit, are you actually going to hit anything at all? Even at -12 to hit for +12 damage you might struggle.
With a two-handed weapon, PF gives you +18 damage for -6 to hit. In 3.5 again you can take up to -20 to hit for +40 damage, but again, will you hit anything?
Now assume you have a chance to full-attack: if your -20 in to hit in 3.5 is likely to hit with the first attack, then in PF you are likely to hit at least three times; unless you are attacking something with a truly abysmal armour class for that level, your 3.5 attacker isn't likely to land more than one or at the absolute outside two hits (if you can hit twice, though, the Pathfinder one will hit four times). That effectively triples the PF version damage in real terms, which far exceeds what 3.5 gives you. Whichever way you work it, the Pathfinder version gives you more bang for your buck.
Well the way I look at, at level 20 what can you do?With a one-handed weapon in Pathfinder, you take -6 to hit and +12 damage. In 3.5 you can take up to -20 to hit and +20 to damage - but at -20 to hit, are you actually going to hit anything at all? Even at -12 to hit for +12 damage you might struggle.
With a two-handed weapon, PF gives you +18 damage for -6 to hit. In 3.5 again you can take up to -20 to hit for +40 damage, but again, will you hit anything?
You could also take -12 for +12 to hit. Or -6 for +6 to hit or -15 for +15 to hit. The point being that the increased base power of Power Attack does not make up for the ability for the player to make a decision when attacking that was removed. Sure, it might have been easier for math, but if you don't want to keep up with math, why are you playing D&D/PF?
You could also take -12 for +12 to hit. Or -6 for +6 to hit or -15 for +15 to hit. The point being that the increased base power of Power Attack does not make up for the ability for the player to make a decision when attacking that was removed. Sure, it might have been easier for math, but if you don't want to keep up with math, why are you playing D&D/PF?
That is true, you do have the option to mess around with it more, but I have to say I prefer the quick and easy option - I prefer not to mess about in combat, it slows things down.
3.5 power attack was "good" because of how man stupifying modifiers and multipliers you could stack on top of it.
Power attack in 3.5 core, with none of the multipliers, was somewhat bad. It wasn't terrible, but it was far worse then Pathfinder power attack is.
|
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.
Less magical versions could use natural toxins (like 'witchweed' from the old FR setting) or alchemical itching powders (requiring Concentration checks to do anything) or naturally-occuring fantasy substances that react strangely with magic.
3.5 power attack was "good" because of how man stupifying modifiers and multipliers you could stack on top of it.
Power attack in 3.5 core, with none of the multipliers, was somewhat bad. It wasn't terrible, but it was far worse then Pathfinder power attack is.
Power Attack along with swift action spells that made all your attacks touch attacks made gish builds possible.
There were far more broken combinations and builds that relied on the old power attack.
I was really happy to see that Paizo brought its power back in line with the other feats.
Power Attack along with swift action spells that made all your attacks touch attacks made gish builds possible.
Power attack at -lots with a 2-handed weapon and wraithstrike ... yes, I take your point. Even if you import wraithstrike or one of the psionic feats that allows making an attack as a touch attack, Power Attack's limitation does make it ... not useless, but not over-powered to the point of being broken.
I am kind of impressed at that..Which isn't the point is it? This thread isn't 4 pages going because "Rule 0 makes problems in Pathfinder disappear!" is an accepted excuse.At least it went four pages before that fallacy came up?
I actually hate the "rule zero solves everything" stance that some posters use. I guess I see how my comment sounded that way, but I'm not talking about completely changing a rule, or ignoring a whole subset of rules because its not worth fixing. Just a minor common sense adjustment making the new rule work like the old rule.
Sorry I ruined your thread....
I don't know why this sense of protection exist and it bothers me that it can be a barrier to people speaking freely. People should be able to say "I don't like this game" without it being followed by ten other people turning it into an argument.I actually hate the "rule zero solves everything" stance that some posters use.I think this stance (at least in some people) comes as a response to the attitude a few other posters have. Some of them come across as if one small thing doesn't work right, then it is a critical failure that breaks down the entire system.
That's how the 1st amendment works. People are allowed to have an opinion and other people are allowed to tell people what they think of said opinion.
One might wonder how it could possibly be that "I don't like this game" could start an argument on any game's forum. You know since it inherently involves saying you don't like the game the forum is for.
That's how the 1st amendment works. People are allowed to have an opinion and other people are allowed to tell people what they think of said opinion.That's true* and if we want to have long arguments about 4e, we should be sure to stress the 1st amendment right to respond to other peoples' stated opinions with bickering.
*Let me clarify that. There is no first amendment right in these boards. These boards are the property of Paizo - not the government - and Paizo's right to prohibit speech isn't blocked by the first amendment. But, while the argument you make doesn't make sense, I do understand the sentiment.
There's nothing in the Paizo CoC about disagreeing with the opinions of other's either. 6 of one, half a dozen of another.
The problem with Pathfinder is that one person's problem is not another person's problem so many discussions are moot from the beginning as presented. A better way to start posts would be X is a problem for my group because......
You(general statement) can argue 'til you are blue in the face, but if some of us can play with ToB, Spell Compendium, and psionics without an issue it can't really be considered universally broken.
I chose 3 as examples because they seem to get picked on the most from my observations. You can substitute any feat/spell/etc to stand in for those books.
PS: This post is not about those particular items*, or things being called broken. It is only about what does and does not work(aka problematic) can't ever really be proven. It can only be proven that it(random problem) will or will not work for every group, for whatever reason.
*Yes I felt as though I had to state it again in so they don't become the focus of my post.
Arguments are not a negative thing. Arguments are discussions with opposing viewpoints or one-sided dissertations trying to prove a point. Fights are when it becomes personal.
|
I have been running PFRPG games now for about a year, after running 3.5 for 4 years, and AD&D for 5 years (with about a decade off just playing computer AD&D 2).
My problems with Pathfinder (all pretty easily fixed by small house rules):
1. The increased feat progression (1/2 levels rather than 1/3 levels) disadvantages the fighter class unnecessarily; the other classes have a raft of special abilities so that feats are not as critical, fighters on the other hand need to be seen as the feat-monster class so that someone who wants to have a ton of special moves in combat know where to stay.
2. The ranger class didn't get additional combat styles, and the RAW actually seem to discourage additional combat styles more than 3.5. The 'archetypal' ranger combat style boils down to the archer and Drizz't. I just don't buy that, having the ranger from AD&D hard-wired into my brain and believing that 'combat style' really just stands for a fighter who has had to focus himself on one kind of combat to compensate for all the time he spends studying his favored enemy and learning survival skills.
3. The wizard class needs to be less hardy than the sorcerer class. That d4 has always been the 'magic-user die' and to take it from him in his hit points and spell damage dice is a homogenization of the game I just don't see as necessary. Let the sorcerer have his d6 HD, he needs it since he doesn't have the spell variety and intellect of the wizard. The wizard needs to be given a reason to avoid combat like the plague and to see 'Tenser's Transformation' as the sell-out sacrifice to combat when all his meatshields have gone away.
4. Halflings should be sling and rock-chucking hobbits, not kleptomaniac kender. I have always disliked the loss of Tolkien's archetype that Dragonlance made into the main game. Kender are great on Krynn but the halfling niche shouldn't be abandoned everywhere. After all, on Krynn, gnomes are made into crazed tinkerers whereas everywhere else they are treated as midget elves. Niches matter and I don't like stealing away Bilbo and Frodo, Merry and Pippin.
5. Monstrous PCs are much more difficult to create since the Savage Species rules-set doesn't really transfer smoothly to the PFRPG. I only rarely have a player who wants to play something unsual (as a long-time DM though, I almost never want to give up my broad pallette of choices when I move back into the role of a player, playing a dragon PC and then a centaur PC were epic joys for me) but having the rules available to make it happen quickly was really helpful.
Those are my 5 concerns with Pathfinder. 4 are easily house-ruled and the fifth just takes custom attention and collaboration between DM and player, never a bad thing.
All told, I am well ahead on balance as PFRPG makes core classing better, combat faster, skill management easier, and character differentiation clearer. And it comes wrapped up in some of the best looking and written material I have read in my entire 25 years gaming.
More and deeper feat trees for Fighters with their 3 character feats is a smokescreen. Every class can now master an additional feat tree and go deeper. It's a non-issue. Fighters did not get more feats - CHARACTERS got more feats.
Fighters get class abilities to fill in the gaps. THAT was the big improvement for Fighters. They don't get much else, but by Mithar, they can FIGHT!
Ah, the witchweed of Luthcheq (from memory, no less). Now wasn't that an anti-arcane spellcasting thing!
The POWER ATTACK problem with 3.5 is that ANY effect which gave you a great bonus led to Power Attack abuse. This could be Touch Attack effects (like Wraithstrike), True Strike (which negated the penalty with its +20 to hit), massive Strength scores (via Polymorph, Rage, Frenzy, Charge Bonus) and Shock Trooper (where you took the - against your AC rather then your TH bonus). Tack on Improved Power Attack and Supreme Power Attack abuse, and it just got ridiculous.
My solution to spellcasters is to take advantage of their powers and use them against them. You overly rely on one shtick, it should be neutralized and taken away from you. Here comes the Melee God! "I levitate him into the air out of reach of everyone." "But-but that neutralizes all his abilities!" "Tough. I mock!" and there's nothing inherently wrong with a spellcaster doing that to a melee now, is there?
3.5 spellcasters could no-save lock down a MElee without effort. Forcecages, walls, grease spells, TK, whatever. They could make themselves untouchable except by more magic. Basically, a high level Melee had to be able to True See, own some method of teleporting, some method of flight, some method of dispelling, or he was just meat on the plate...and that didn't even cover the save-or-die effects against his crappy will saves (mandating a Mind Blank or Prot/Evil).
Anti-magic shell turns that on its head, but that's intrinsically unfair? Unlike the melee, the spellcaster can get out of the area of effect. He does have the option of using mundane skills, while the melee does not have the option of using spellcasting.
And popping an A-M shell is suicidal for a mage, and only makes sense about half the time for a melee. Most monsters have natural abilities that REQUIRE buffed magical prowess to combat. rendering yourself immune to a dragon's spells and breath weapon via A-M could be suicide when it closes to melee.
IN the real world, with no magical ability...everyone would have this available to take out spellcasters. It would reset the equality bar, and that spellcaster better have something to fall back on. Complaining about it doesn't make it any less sensible. Dust of Dispersion (is that the name? someone tell me) was one of the best things ever put into the game.
I love reading Dresden for this reason. magic doesn't work? Bop it on the head or put a bullet into it. total reliance on magic will get you killed.
===Aelryinth
To the OP:
Pathfinder is indeed better to play out of the box then 3.5. There's less game mastery required...the classes tend to be better balanced...broken abilities have been tamped down, and most of the broken spells have been fixed or addressed.
The Melee classes in particular got a leg up. It didn't solve all the problems, but it solved some of them.
==Aelryinth
Arguments are not a negative thing. Arguments are discussions with opposing viewpoints or one-sided dissertations trying to prove a point. Fights are when it becomes personal.So, if you consider arguments to be non-negative, then is it fair to assume that you see nothing wrong with all the arguments that pop up in this forum (such as all the arguments over 4e)?
No, he means the definition of argument isn't negative; as in giving an argument in court, for example. And he is simply pointing out that what you are talking about is fighting.
My biggest gripes:
CMB/CMD: as others have said, a streamlined system that is rarely used.
Fighter: no real options. Yeah, you get good with weapons and armor, and are going to have the highest attacks, ACs, variety of feats, etc. But you still are just attacking and damage-rolling. Feats add effects to attacks, like the crit tree, but I am sick of only really being able to do one thing in combat. Rogues, monks, barbarians all got some great customization built into them. The fighter still doesn't.
...
Fighter: no real options. Yeah, you get good with weapons and armor, and are going to have the highest attacks, ACs, variety of feats, etc. But you still are just attacking and damage-rolling. Feats add effects to attacks, like the crit tree, but I am sick of only really being able to do one thing in combat. Rogues, monks, barbarians all got some great customization built into them. The fighter still doesn't.
Wasn't it that fighter is the "simplicity to play" class? Personally I'll wait what options (feat trees etc.) will appear in the Advanced Player Guide...
2. The ranger class didn't get additional combat styles, and the RAW actually seem to discourage additional combat styles more than 3.5. The 'archetypal' ranger combat style boils down to the archer and Drizz't. I just don't buy that, having the ranger from AD&D hard-wired into my brain and believing that 'combat style' really just stands for a fighter who has had to focus himself on one kind of combat to compensate for all the time he spends studying his favored enemy and learning survival skills.
Believe it or not, this isn't true. Treantmonk's ranger handbook showed that it's not only easy to make a more classic bow and sword ranger, it's actually very beneficial to do so.
1. The increased feat progression (1/2 levels rather than 1/3 levels) disadvantages the fighter class unnecessarily; the other classes have a raft of special abilities so that feats are not as critical, fighters on the other hand need to be seen as the feat-monster class so that someone who wants to have a ton of special moves in combat know where to stay.
I see your point, but the extra feats are more useful to the fighting classes, and the fighter is certainly not disadvantaged by them. They also get their armour and weapon training that help them out a great deal.
2. The ranger class didn't get additional combat styles, and the RAW actually seem to discourage additional combat styles more than 3.5. The 'archetypal' ranger combat style boils down to the archer and Drizz't. I just don't buy that, having the ranger from AD&D hard-wired into my brain and believing that 'combat style' really just stands for a fighter who has had to focus himself on one kind of combat to compensate for all the time he spends studying his favored enemy and learning survival skills.
I confess, I create extra feat chains for my rangers and add them into the options available. I don't see anything wrong with this, myself, it's just adding variations.
3. The wizard class needs to be less hardy than the sorcerer class. That d4 has always been the 'magic-user die' and to take it from him in his hit points and spell damage dice is a homogenization of the game I just don't see as necessary. Let the sorcerer have his d6 HD, he needs it since he doesn't have the spell variety and intellect of the wizard. The wizard needs to be given a reason to avoid combat like the plague and to see 'Tenser's Transformation' as the sell-out sacrifice to combat when all his meatshields have gone away.
I think with the wizard/sorcerer thing, there were two options for improving the sorcerer:
1 - give them extra powers and spells along the theme of the bloodlines that had already been trialed and were popular, or2 - give them 3/4 BAB and d8 hit dice.
They chose 1. The Pathfinder sorcerer is a powerful enough spell-caster that he doesn't need improved hit dice.
4. HHalflings should be sling and rock-chucking hobbits, not kleptomaniac kender. I have always disliked the loss of Tolkien's archetype that Dragonlance made into the main game. Kender are great on Krynn but the halfling niche shouldn't be abandoned everywhere. After all, on Krynn, gnomes are made into crazed tinkerers whereas everywhere else they are treated as midget elves. Niches matter and I don't like stealing away Bilbo and Frodo, Merry and Pippin.
You forgot Sam. Everyone forgets Sam.
5. Monstrous PCs are much more difficult to create since the Savage Species rules-set doesn't really transfer smoothly to the PFRPG. I only rarely have a player who wants to play something unsual (as a long-time DM though, I almost never want to give up my broad pallette of choices when I move back into the role of a player, playing a dragon PC and then a centaur PC were epic joys for me) but having the rules available to make it happen quickly was really helpful.
On the other hand, the level adjustment system sucked donkey-balls. There are better ways of doing it than that. However, Paizo seem to have decided to stick with the main races, at least for now. thatr;s not a bad thing, and maybe there will be a monster-PC supplement along later.
I have 4 Halfling subraces in my campaign, some of the nomenclature based on the Tolkien divisions. It's a bit excessive but I don't care.
Hairfoot Halflings - The key Halfling subrace in my campaign is a bit more introspective than that of Pathfinder core.
Stout Halflings - Basically Hobbits.
Tallfellow Halflings - A hybrid between Elves and Halflings.
Golden Halflings - A race derived from the Halflings from Kingdoms of Kalamaar. Instead, these Halflings are tied to my world's alternate magic system, Primordial Power.
I love Halflings.
Halfling Love. I think I've been to that website....
2. The ranger class didn't get additional combat styles, and the RAW actually seem to discourage additional combat styles more than 3.5. The 'archetypal' ranger combat style boils down to the archer and Drizz't. I just don't buy that, having the ranger from AD&D hard-wired into my brain and believing that 'combat style' really just stands for a fighter who has had to focus himself on one kind of combat to compensate for all the time he spends studying his favored enemy and learning survival skills.Believe it or not, this isn't true. Treantmonk's ranger handbook showed that it's not only easy to make a more classic bow and sword ranger, it's actually very beneficial to do so.
I think you misunderstand.
Sutekh is lamenting the wording in the Core that states a Ranger "must select one of two combat styles." That suggests, heavily I might add, that a Ranger only ever has access to those two styles, and the class shouldn't - or can't - have more available.
