|
To counter-argue, I'd say I would not be able to game much if not for PFS. As you get older it's tougher to find 6 people who can commit to any given day and stick with it. Society is a "play when you have time" series, and for it's part Paizo does a great job of making quality modules. No need to worry about other's schedules, you show up when you can and have fun.
Campaigns take the commitment of hours and hours of time to run properly for the GM, and the biggest reason 4E has picked up some steam I feel is it has eliminated much of this burden. Pre-bought modules can also fix some of this, but in the end this is basically the same as living campaigns, except they tend to fall apart because people can make the game. Yes, I do miss the continuity and customization, but not as much as I thought I would.
And to keep this on track, I like PFS' simplified experience set more than LGR, though miss LGR's more generous magic item availability. I also feel like the "Society Points", while well-meaning, don't really add anything to my experience and make playing old modules (which only offered one) mean you can't get good magic items on your character.
It has reached the point where many posters here credibly describe the upper levels of PF as more of a superheroes game than a classic heroic fantasy game. I'm fine with this, but I wouldn't want to see the power inflation continue forever. If anything, I would be more interested in a power down.It may be just me, but PF *does* seem like a power-down to me. Not a small one, either.
Granted, the classes that weren't very good in 3.5 did generally get brought up, but the top end classes generally got brought down.
The people I played 3.0/3.5 with mostly were at least part-time organized play players, and it's possible I have a different skew on 3rd edition than a lot of people here, but it really did get to a point with those players where basically every character was wizard/druid/cleric, not because they're all inherently powergamers, but because, in a team game it's fun to be able to contribute, and if anyone at a high-end-skill-ish player is going to play one of those classes in 3.0/3.5, they can't help but overshadow the hell out of everyone who doesn't.
So, I don't know. The level 20 PF fighter is surely a lot tougher than the level 20 3.5 fighter, but I'd strongly argue that the latter is a trap, a build so bad that all but the greenest players know to avoid it. (A 3.5 melee character would by necessity be a mutt of a few levels of many different classes, and even that character would pale before a pure caster at any but the very lowest levels.) Conversely, even with some new perks, the PF druid does not hold a candle to the power of the 3.5 druid -- the gap in power is so immense it's almost hard to describe in words without seeming to descend into hyperbole.
It's easy to miss in a casual reading of PF that almost all of the strongest spells in 3.5 were hit with the nerf stick. Generally this is a really good change and drastically brings down the power level of high-end characters, even if it did produce some odd inconsistencies. (e.g., all of the...
I hear you on the nerf applied to certain spells, however I think that is more than balanced out by additional feats and class abilities for the spellcaster classes, and the huge move to d6 hit points that did a lot to remove the arcane classes long-time greatest weakness.
That said, clearly the caster classes gained less than the others going into PF, and I would posit that the druid gained the least of any class.
One problem I have with the many, many folks who regularly post about the supposed inherent and immutable supremacy of the casting classes is that they almost inevitably put what I see as disproportionate weight on high-level play. I would agree with them that, over time, the casters gradually become more powerful in comparison with the non-caster classes, but I think that is balanced by the low-level superiority of the non-casters. I would also posit that many, many campaigns, probably the majority, never get into the high levels where casters have the biggest advantage, so you really should give weighted consideration to performance at lower levels and mid-levels.
It's depressing to watch the druid's animal companion far outdamage the party's fighter, and then the druid gets a turn, too.
Really? I've never ever seen this happen, and I'm curious. What animal companion are you using and at what level for the PCs?
For me the most significant negative thing for the druid was the downgrade in the animal summoning spells, making it so that they aren't clearly superior to the monster summoning spells, but then my last druid character was built around being the summoner supreme.
|
|
One problem I have with the many, many folks who regularly post about the supposed inherent and immutable supremacy of the casting classes is that they almost inevitably put what I see as disproportionate weight on high-level play. I would agree with them that, over time, the casters gradually become more powerful in comparison with the non-caster classes, but I think that is balanced by the low-level superiority of the non-casters. I would also posit that many, many campaigns, probably the majority, never get into the high levels where casters have the biggest advantage, so you really should give weighted consideration to performance at lower levels and mid-levels.
I agree with this and point out a few points about 2nd ed to 3.0 and then PFRPG.
The greatest break or disparity of power between casters and non-casters occurred when the 2nd ed was converted into 3.0
The major changes:
Over codification and simplification of spells - Spells started having fixed or controlled results. Gone were the risks associated with casting spells -aging, chance of death, etc. Ex- Teleport and Teleport without Error always had a 1% of PC death - always. All these nonsense combos (scry and die) and bizarre economies were considerable more difficult to pull off in 2nd.
Concentration - This ability to mitigate the potential loss of a spell was a huge boon in making casters more melee ready.
So they got to keep SoD spells, the ability to manipulate the environment, more spells and Spells got changed to to a more hand-held user friendly versions while retaining their potency. Throw in concentration and you have some extremely powerful classes.
What PF did is they scaled back on some of the spells power - while rope trick didn't get reduced back to its original duration (the unabusable anti-nova 20 minutes a level) it still got a nerf. SoD abilities got a nerf. So in that way casters got dialed back, but for their inherent power and battlefield control it still (imo) wasn't enough.
So in many ways PF reversed some of the stupidity/bad design inherent to 3.0/3.5. It didn't completely address some issues with spells - it would have been nice if they looked at some of the older versions of spells as inspiration. It was a fix that addressed the symptoms and not the root cause of class imbalance.
Overall it was an improvement over the horribly bad 3.5 system, it would have been better if they returned to a risk vs. reward paradigm with regard to casting spells but that would never have gone over well with modern players who don't want to lose attribute points, age every time they cast a spell or even risk death for something as casual as Teleport.
One problem I have with the many, many folks who regularly post about the supposed inherent and immutable supremacy of the casting classes is that they almost inevitably put what I see as disproportionate weight on high-level play. I would agree with them that, over time, the casters gradually become more powerful in comparison with the non-caster classes, but I think that is balanced by the low-level superiority of the non-casters. I would also posit that many, many campaigns, probably the majority, never get into the high levels where casters have the biggest advantage, so you really should give weighted consideration to performance at lower levels and mid-levels.
I also used to believe this; the problem is (in 3.5), the better your players get, the lower the level where things switch over is. By the time the people I played with were done with 3.5, the pure casters were about equal by level 3 or 4, and pulled ahead past that.
Two levels of being weaker than the fighter (assuming you're the wizard and not the druid) just isn't that bad.
Re: 3.5 animal companions outshining the fighter, which I think was also something you questioned, basically, look at just about any of the companions with multiple attacks (e.g. ape) and assume the druid is going to spend some of his time/spells buffing it. When the animal (through advancement) gets bonus feats to spend, put them into helpful things like improved natural weapon. Assume the animal will get to start most fights with the hour/level duration buffs (e.g. greater magic fang... at low levels the +1 to all natural weapons version is fine) and possibly the 10 minute / level buffs depending on the situation (e.g., you're going into a dungeon, probably you can safely toss barkskin and be pretty well guaranteed to get something done while it's still up), and that the druid will spend some of his first few actions in a serious combat throwing the shorter buffs like bull's strength and nature's favor (at least that was eventually errata'd to +1/3 levels instead of +1/2) while the animal moves up and full attacks.
In my experience, a well built fighter at those levels might have more utility in the form of moves like disarm or trip, and probably will have a more damaging single attack, but in terms of pure damage output the animal companion tends to pull way ahead -- it tends to have more +hit, more attacks, and better reach to allow it to full attack more often (unless the fighter is a chain build, which has some of its own problems.)
As you gain levels, the fighter's ability to beat material DR seems like an advantage, but I find that (especially once animal growth comes out) the animal companion just throws so much damage and adds enough control (probably, by that point it's something with good reach and improved grab) that you don't even really care if you're losing the first 10 points of each hit.
I miss, from 3.0 (and all the other D&D systems from since the beginning of time), that you had
DR 5/+1
DR 10/+2
DR 15/+3,
instead of the lame ass, pathetic
DR whatever / magic.I was confused when 3.5 changed it and upset when Paizo didn't change it back.
I like the material and damage type DRs(blunt, cold iron, adamantite), but I do think that something was lost when all the magical DR were lumped into DR X/magic.
PF did bring that back a little with the higher magical enhancements negating certain DR.
Sorry, to clarify my above post slightly, when I'm talking animal companions I'm mostly talking low levels since once 3.5 animal growth comes out I don't think it's even a fair comparison.
Agreed - full agreement with Aux and the 2nd template as "how to fix" caster imbalances.
If you make magic dangerous - ESPECIALLY to the user, now we're cookin' and able to balance well enough.
I like the old +X wpn "to hit" better for simplicity. I do NOT like that the DR dropped on such things was 5/10/15 - WAY high, IMO. I'd have rather seen 3/5/7 or something like that (3/6/10 maybe tops). I mean 15 freakin' DR!??!?! You can get a +X off the bat (in that +x = +anything) just for using magic in the first place (ie: bypasses all DR of that nature anyway), so why penalize the poor melee guys EVEN MORE???
:shrugs:
I did like the idea of granting a DR that had to be overcome if you didn't have the right enchantment and weapon, but not the #'s involved.
I *do* love the idea of special materials being able to break DR, too, though. IMO, it fits that "fantastic" or "mythic" feel of creatures and vulnerabilities very nicely.
So if you want an undead with DR 10/+2, OR silver I think it really nice. Sure, it adds info to the stat-block, BUT it also opens up the potential to challenge nigh-invulnerable targets outright.
Moreover, consider the +3 requirement vs. a Flaming, Shocking, Keen Longsword +1 ... is the +3 req met by the boosters on the weapon? Is the +1 bonus the only piece that counts? It's just kind of clunky to stick to the old AD&D formula in that case as it's not an easy comparison to be made (given the codification of items and bonuses, etc. in 3.x/PF).
Nah - I think I'd rather mix the two together really.
One of the things that led me to Pathfinder was that encounters seemed shorter and more concise which allows the game to return to roleplaying. However, I'm curious if that changes at higher levels. Do Pathfinder encounters start to resemble 4e encounters as levels progress?
I'm asking this because I've noticed that Pathfinder increased hp's and stats overall from 3.5.
I am running a game where characters recently hit 18th level. I would say that the only thing that has slowed down from lower-level combats is that it takes longer for ME as a GM to PREPARE high level NPCs, and sometimes to review things like spell-lists to choose an ability to do. Which has been more or less a "problem" in every version of D&D and variations thereof I've played, so I can't say it's any better or worse.
In some cases, combat goes faster because certain abilities just eliminate the weaker competition faster, and the players are experienced and skilled enough to resolve difficult issues quickly. Player experience and ability always varies, so it's hard to apply my experience broadly.
I've only played 4E briefly and at low levels, so I can't tell you how it compares to that.
This got me to thinking if there are any other things that people preferred in 3.5. I kind of like that level 0 spells had restricted usage as well. A very restrictive magic system makes magic feel special for me.
The only thing off the top of my head that I miss is the clearer Uncanny Dodge rules, and I houseruled those back into my game.
That's it. Everything else I can think of, I wouldn't turn back and use if you paid me. (And personally, I adore the at-will cantrips. I agree magic should be special, but I tend to reflect that in different ways--making high level magic rare is far more a priority for me and that's a setting thing more than a mechanical one. But I also understand your POV there.)
|
I do NOT like that the DR dropped on such things was 5/10/15 - WAY high, IMO. I'd have rather seen 3/5/7 or something like that (3/6/10 maybe tops). I mean 15 freakin' DR
That's cool -- I'm not opposed to designers playtesting different numbers.
But a +1 should not be, IS not as cool as a +4.
- - - -
And my complaint has nothing to do with the Cold Iron & Silver, Holy & Unholy, Lawful & Chaotic, and Adamantine system. They can work together easily, smoothly.
The biggest thing I liked better about 3.5 is cantrips. It just bugs me they are unlimited now. I know it is a minor thing but it just bugs me.Oh yes, this too.
You mean I'm not alone...?
|
|
One thing I really miss about 3.5 that PF lacks is the sheer amount of options and ways to make a concept work (mechanically) or to break away from the mold.
I personally like the way 0 Level spells work, but can see that. I like old style concentration, up until high levels, but I generally don't like "only fail on a Nat 1" regardless.
Old school concentration was a skill check, if a natural 1 meets the DC, you succeed. Because skills have never had auto-failure or success. Otherwise there would be silly shenanigans like critical successes on skill checks, which I have never seen or heard mentioned.
Re: 3.5 animal companions outshining the fighter, which I think was also something you questioned, basically, look at just about any of the companions with multiple attacks (e.g. ape) and assume the druid is going to spend some of his time/spells buffing it. When the animal (through advancement) gets bonus feats to spend, put them into helpful things like improved natural weapon. Assume the animal will get to start most fights with the hour/level duration buffs (e.g. greater magic fang... at low levels the +1 to all natural weapons version is fine) and possibly the 10 minute / level buffs depending on the situation (e.g., you're going into a dungeon, probably you can safely toss barkskin and be pretty well guaranteed to get something done while it's still up), and that the druid will spend some of his first few actions in a serious combat throwing the shorter buffs like bull's strength and nature's favor (at least that was...
OK. I see where you are coming from. You are saying that a buffed animal companion can outperform an unbuffed fighter. I agree. A buffed anything can outperform an unbuffed anything else, most of the time. It's also not a particularly fair or realistic comparison.
Do your druid characters really devote themselves to nothing more than buffing their animal companion? Doesn't this annoy other characters? Don't any of the other casters give the fighter any buffing love?
Seriously, if that's your playstyle, I can see your arguments and agree with them. Casters, played competitively against other characters (in the sense that they want to outshine the others) rather than as part of a team, and working only for their own benefit or on the theory that what's best for them is best for the team, will likely rule the day.
That's not the way we play. Team comes above all for us, and the buffs go out to all pretty evenly, but especially to the fighter-types who are hangin' and bangin' in the front line. A character who insisted on only buffing himself and his animal companion would soon find himself adventuring alone with his furry friend.
Thanks for the informative breakdown Aux. I think I would support the return of those checks and balances.
As would I.
FYI - the "society" rules or "living" rules or whatever.As presented it was packaged adventures, run by GM's that followed *exactly* the path of the adventure and had NO ability to deviate, or alter anything.
To me, it was railroading and took the whole "open experience" of gaming right out of the game. How can you just have canned adventures and be straight-jacketed into one and ONE way to play it ever?
Nah - not for me. Not under any circumstances or conditions. I'll never go back to that, or partake in that style of game again. I found it far too limiting in scope to be enjoyable for me.
That may not be your style, that's fine. But these are simply relatively limited adventures, they're not saying anything at all about playing the game wrong. You come to the table knowing that the modules are fairly limited, linear, and railroady so there's really nothing saying that this is how all games should play out... just the ones for that particular campaign. And that's fair.
OK. I see where you are coming from. You are saying that a buffed animal companion can outperform an unbuffed fighter. I agree. A buffed anything can outperform an unbuffed anything else, most of the time. It's also not a particularly fair or realistic comparison.
Do your druid characters really devote themselves to nothing more than buffing their animal companion? Doesn't this annoy other characters? Don't any of the other casters give the fighter any buffing love?
Seriously, if that's your playstyle, I can see your arguments and agree with them. Casters, played competitively against other characters (in the sense that they want to outshine the others) rather than as part of a team, and working only for their own benefit or on the theory that what's best for them is best for the team, will likely rule the day.
That's not the way we play. Team comes above all for us, and the buffs go out to all pretty evenly, but especially to the fighter-types who are hangin' and bangin' in the front line. A character who insisted on only buffing himself and his animal companion would soon find himself adventuring alone with his furry friend.
Just making an observation here:
What you say is true about the game being a team effort as the default assumption. But when a particular class basically comes with what essentially amounts to its own personal fighter, with the ability to spontaneously summon a bunch of warriors to boot, that is not a very well thought out concept in the context of looking at all of the classes as a whole and how they interact with each other as PCs.
That may not be your style, that's fine. But these are simply relatively limited adventures, they're not saying anything at all about playing the game wrong. You come to the table knowing that the modules are fairly limited, linear, and railroady so there's really nothing saying that this is how all games should play out... just the ones for that particular campaign. And that's fair.
Yeah ... don't get me wrong. I'm NOT making accusations against fairness - just saying that style of play, of only module X of only paths y or z, etc is fully NOT why I game, nor can it ever entice me TO game.
To *me* that style just dumps everything I like about gaming in the first place, so why would I bother with that? I can play a computer game for that matter, and IT will be more open that garbage to me.
:shrugs:
Different strokes and all that.
The major changes:
Over codification and simplification of spells - Spells started having fixed or controlled results. Gone were the risks associated with casting spells -aging, chance of death, etc. Ex- Teleport and Teleport without Error always had a 1% of PC death - always. All these nonsense combos (scry and die) and bizarre economies were considerable more difficult to pull off in 2nd.
Concentration - This ability to mitigate the potential loss of a spell was a huge boon in making casters more melee ready.
Nice summary, Aux. I would add, as major changes in play:
Cyclical Initiative - In 2e, characters declared their actions then rolled initiative. If the spellcaster rolled poorly and ended up being slow, any hits taken before he got the spell off disrupted the spell. Cyclical initiative made the spellcaster's position in the turn order fixed.
Casting Time - Hand in hand with initiative, casting times got simplified. In 2e, as an optional but pretty widely recommended rule, casting times got added to the initiative to slow the caster down. The caster had a choice: cast a quick but weaker low-level spell hoping to have a good initiative and get it off undisrupted, cast a more powerful, higher-level spell that has a longer casting time increasing the risk of disruption. Reducing most casting times to a standard action resolved at once reduces the window opponents have to disrupt the caster. They now have to specifically hold their action rather than take it as the initiative normally comes up.
Note also that resolving character actions all at once also exacerbates problems with multiple, iterative attacks. In 1e and 2e, multiple attacks with the same weapon were traded off with other characters, PC and NPCs, who also had them. 3e iterative attackers concentrate the damage they do - for most PCs this may not be so bad. Fire and cloud giants, however, can be quite nasty with them as a result.
OK. I see where you are coming from. You are saying that a buffed animal companion can outperform an unbuffed fighter. I agree. A buffed anything can outperform an unbuffed anything else, most of the time. It's also not a particularly fair or realistic comparison.
Do your druid characters really devote themselves to nothing more than buffing their animal companion? Doesn't this annoy other characters? Don't any of the other casters give the fighter any buffing love?
Seriously, if that's your playstyle, I can see your arguments and agree with them. Casters, played competitively against other characters (in the sense that they want to outshine the others) rather than as part of a team, and working only for their own benefit or on the theory that what's best for them is best for the team, will likely rule the day.
That's not the way we play. Team comes above all for us, and the buffs go out to all pretty evenly, but especially to the fighter-types who are hangin' and bangin' in the front line. A character who insisted on only buffing himself and his animal companion would soon find himself adventuring alone with his furry friend.
Just making an observation here:
What you say is true about the game being a team effort as the default assumption. But when a particular class basically comes with what essentially amounts to its own personal fighter, with the ability to spontaneously summon a bunch of warriors to boot, that is not a very well thought out concept in the context of looking at all of the classes as a whole and how they interact with each other as PCs.
In 3.5, I might have agreed with you regarding the summoned critters. The PF nerf of the animal summoning spells brings them down to roughly the same level as the monster summoning spells. In general, our group's experience is that summoned critters of all types usually are little more than speed bumps and very temporary meat shields in most battles. The same can be said of unbuffed animal companions. And buffing the animal companion comes at the expense of using those spell slots for something else, like buffing the fighter, who would be even more of a damage-dealing, hit absorbing combat god than the buffed animal companion with that help.
|
|
OK. I see where you are coming from. You are saying that a buffed animal companion can outperform an unbuffed fighter. I agree. A buffed anything can outperform an unbuffed anything else, most of the time. It's also not a particularly fair or realistic comparison.
Do your druid characters really devote themselves to nothing more than buffing their animal companion? Doesn't this annoy other characters? Don't any of the other casters give the fighter any buffing love?
Seriously, if that's your playstyle, I can see your arguments and agree with them. Casters, played competitively against other characters (in the sense that they want to outshine the others) rather than as part of a team, and working only for their own benefit or on the theory that what's best for them is best for the team, will likely rule the day.
That's not the way we play. Team comes above all for us, and the buffs go out to all pretty evenly, but especially to the fighter-types who are hangin' and bangin' in the front line. A character who insisted on only buffing himself and his animal companion would soon find himself adventuring alone with his furry friend.
Just making an observation here:
What you say is true about the game being a team effort as the default assumption. But when a particular class basically comes with what essentially amounts to its own personal fighter, with the ability to spontaneously summon a bunch of warriors to boot, that is not a very well thought out concept in the context of looking at all of the classes as a whole and how they interact with each other as PCs.
And that doesn't even address action economy. Sure he can cast a summon spell and then have a melee fighter + cast spells/take actions every round. That actually isn't a big deal since he still had to cast the orginal summon -so a resource is used to summon a subpar soaker.
In the case of the druid the mini-fighter is with him ALL the time. So he can buff/not buff the creature and he is still getting melee +spell/action every turn. Powerful.
OK. I see where you are coming from. You are saying that a buffed animal companion can outperform an unbuffed fighter. I agree. A buffed anything can outperform an unbuffed anything else, most of the time. It's also not a particularly fair or realistic comparison.Do your druid characters really devote themselves to nothing more than buffing their animal companion? Doesn't this annoy other characters? Don't any of the other casters give the fighter any buffing love?
Well, I'll point out a few things:
First, I think "What can just a druid (including an animal companion that's part of his class features) do vs. what can just a fighter do" is a fair comparison. Because how fun is it to play the guy who can only fight, when there's a guy who can fight as well or better AND has wild shape AND has more/better skills AND has offensive and utility spellcasting etc. etc. etc. Is it more fun to play the guy who desperately needs the rest of the team to help him out to even be okay, or is it more fun to play the guy who can contribute right out of the box and then gets even better with team help? Even at level 4 a common druid combat round can be something like: my animal companion takes 3 attacks on this enemy, then my move action rolls my flaming sphere onto this other enemy, then I attack or cast a spell -- that's typically a lot more going on than anyone else has at that point.
Second, consider that the "buffing the animal companion as a common, if not constant, combat strategy" druid is still, via the animal companion, attacking every round even without any form of quicken yet in play. I feel like, though you didn't explicitly say as much, you're comparing it with, say, the (badly played) cleric who wants to spend the first three rounds of the fight casting divine power, divine favor, and righteous might before starting to hit things. The druid isn't like that -- he's pouring out damage while casting those buff spells.
Third, consider that most of the best (but not all) of the best druid buff spells simply can't go on the fighter, unless he's polymorphed into an animal first.
Finally, factor in share spells and wildshape. Unless there's some reason that they can't or don't want to move together, the druid's buffing himself at the same time as his animal companion. Sometimes that isn't relevant, but sometimes that's another big incentive to spell up the animal companion instead of a fighter.
Of course the druid isn't all buff spells, and he'll still drop his battlefield control spells or summon when appropriate -- but even in the least nature-friendly setting, fighting monsters with unbeatable SR or on whom his damage spells aren't effective, he still has a combat strategy (buffing the animal companion possibly followed by attacking himself from wildshape if it makes sense) that's very competitive with the fighter, even at low levels, in the only area the fighter is good at.
Teamwork is a nice idea, but it falls apart if one of the members of the team is just too much stronger than the rest of the team. It's like putting Michael Jordan in his prime on a random junior high basketball team -- the star player outshines the rest of the team so badly that even if he passes the ball about as much as he can it's still the MJ show. Playing a druid as a tertiary character in the 3.5 era of LG, it wasn't uncommon for me to sit down with a table of 4-5 other characters each 2 levels higher than me, and still the druid is so much the strongest character at the table that, despite my best efforts, the module devolves into the other players watching the druid do everything. I'm honestly not even that good with the class, and I'll be the first to point to many people who play it better than I do -- it was just that overpoweringly good.
In 3.5, I might have agreed with you regarding the summoned critters. The PF nerf of the animal summoning spells brings them down to roughly the same level as the monster summoning spells. In general, our group's experience is that summoned critters of all types usually are little more than speed bumps and very temporary meat shields in most battles. The same can be said of unbuffed animal companions. And buffing the animal companion comes at the expense of using those spell slots for something else, like buffing the fighter, who would be even more of a damage-dealing, hit absorbing combat god than the buffed animal companion with that help.
Actually, I was referring to 3.5 in this case. The share spells ability/feat whatever it was then, didn't encourage a druid to buff the fighter, or anyone else for that matter. Which was my experience. It was a class built with bent towards acting selfishly.
To *me* that style just dumps everything I like about gaming in the first place, so why would I bother with that? I can play a computer game for that matter, and IT will be more open that garbage to me.
For what it's worth, I think if you're playing a Living game or equivalent at home with people you'd normally game with, you're missing the point of it. The better way to experience it is to go to one of the better local gaming conventions.
There's no argument that that style of game does lose some things that you (and I) like about "normal" gaming, but I think you've only tried it out in an environment in which you didn't get to experience the angles by which it's better -- you've seen the downsides, but not the upsides.
Imagine an event in which 20 tables (each with 5-6 PCs and a DM) are each playing out a small piece of a major fantasy battle, each table's actions having some effect on the other's. A few tables are each in almost pure combat defending a keep's walls, another table's undertaking a stealth mission trying to finesse their way through enemy lines to get word to reinforcements, another table's trying to infiltrate the enemy army and assassinate its general, and so on. That's just one example of the kind of really cool thing that can happen in a Living game that just is not logistically possible in a normal game.
That's not to say this kind of play is better than normal play, just that it's got its good sides and bad sides, kind of like how playing a computer game has its good sides and bad sides.
In 3.5, I might have agreed with you regarding the summoned critters. The PF nerf of the animal summoning spells brings them down to roughly the same level as the monster summoning spells. In general, our group's experience is that summoned critters of all types usually are little more than speed bumps and very temporary meat shields in most battles. The same can be said of unbuffed animal companions. And buffing the animal companion comes at the expense of using those spell slots for something else, like buffing the fighter, who would be even more of a damage-dealing, hit absorbing combat god than the buffed animal companion with that help.
In my 3.5 experience, animal companions are better than (or at least comparable to) fighters in nearly every way, at level 1. The companions end up getting the majority of kills in battles against groups, and battles against a single monster end up relying on the animal companion heavily for regular damage and its higher hp.
And, while Pathfinder has improved this, some of the current animal companions are still pretty beastly compared to fighters. Look at the Boar, which can soak attacks WAY better than a level 1 fighter. AC 18 without armor? Come on. Or the Dinosaur, which (when Weapon Finesse is its one feat) has 3 attacks at +5 which do reasonable damage, while still having ok AC and 60ft move speed. And, most of the critters end up with more hp than any fighter can squeeze out.
Even without buffs, the companions are nearly always as good melee fighters as fighters, and then the druid gets him/herself as a caster or combatant on top of that.
Our 3.5 gaming groups almost never see straight fighters anymore. It's just not worth the effort.
As for the original topic, the only thing I really miss from 3.5 (besides the variety of 3.5 resources created over the years) is the cleric's 0th level cure spell. It's nice to have spot healing for between encounters without using full cure spells. (Even if the Healer class abused it.) But, that was obviously removed due to the infinite 0th level spells rule.
|
|
Nice summary, Aux. I would add, as major changes in play:
Cyclical Initiative - In 2e, characters declared their actions then rolled initiative. If the spellcaster rolled poorly and ended up being slow, any hits taken before he got the spell off disrupted the spell. Cyclical initiative made the spellcaster's position in the turn order fixed.
Casting Time - Hand in hand with initiative, casting times got simplified. In 2e, as an optional but pretty widely recommended rule, casting times got added to the initiative to slow the caster down. The caster had a choice: cast a quick but weaker low-level spell hoping to have a good initiative and get it off undisrupted, cast a more powerful, higher-level spell that has a longer casting time increasing the risk of disruption. Reducing most casting times to a standard action resolved at once reduces the window opponents have to disrupt the caster. They now have to specifically hold their action rather than take it as the initiative normally comes up.
Note also that resolving character actions all at once also exacerbates problems with multiple, iterative attacks. In 1e and 2e, multiple attacks with the same weapon were traded off with other characters, PC and NPCs, who also had them. 3e iterative attackers concentrate the damage they do - for most PCs this may not be so bad. Fire and cloud giants, however, can be quite nasty with them as a result.
LOL, actually I use a heavily modified version of the weapon/action speed system from 2nd ed and my martial players LOVE it. They can change actions round to round, maybe taking a potentially weaker action/attack for speed trade-off (ex. throwing a dagger at a caster 20 ft away). Spells speeds are based on level and if they have material components, etc, so higher level spells are slower to cast than say magic missile - the fastest spell in the game.
Multiple attacks are resolved at speeds so a monster can still get at least one hit in before the second wave of strikes even if it lost the initiative for the round. So it is actually an exchange of blows going back and forth with multiple attacks.This system also places casters on the defensive and requires more care on there part so that:
A) They do their best in planning and choosing spells round-to-round so that their spells get off first or as early as possible in the round
B) Play a little more defensively/classic format so they don't get popped and have the chance of spell failure due to damage.
I never liked 3.0 initiative - I know in many respects it is easier then a action speed system but it doesn't reward choice or planning, plus once you're locked in your in, fighters are really screwed.
Again, you do hit the design decision on easy/faster = more detail, plus I don't think weapon and action speeds would work for every group.
Once you have everything calculated ahead of time it speed it up, but for most people it would probably be too much.
Honestly, I haven't been able to come up with a 3.x element I prefer to PF. The only pre-PF elements I prefer or wish to mix in all came from OGL or d20 supplements anyway.
Even looking at non-core classes or 3rd-party supplements, the APG & PF-compatible 3PP stuff is superior to what was 3.x compatible.
Over 3.x core D&D, Pathfinder kicketh much backside.
Lots of druid love
Let me clarify. I like druids. One of my last 3.5 characters was a druid and he pretty much rocked for many of the reasons you state. That said, he never stole the show from anyone else. I've played in campaigns in which one character was notably more powerful or effective than the others. I've never played in one or DMed one in which one character so far outshines the others that the rest are relegated to supporting cast.
My experience with the animal companions was that they really has to be played carefully to keep them alive, as they didn't have the AC/hp/attack bonuses to really play up front with the big boys. They've worked best as flankers and secondary fighters. Sure, they can be buffed up to the same level of combat awesomeness as a fighter, but it takes multiple spells to do so. At low levels, that means the druid would be doing little else, spell-wise. At higher levels, I think the druid/animal companion combo becomes more awesome, with the synergies available from sharing spells and more powerful wildshape options.
Fighters have bows towershield and are, generally speaking, intelligent beings so pure damage is not the only thing when you compare them.
Said this, yeah, 3.5 Druid definitively deserved the nerfbat. the word CoDzilla existed for a mean.
LOL, actually I use a heavily modified version of the weapon/action speed system...
Might we con you into posting some of it?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
1) Power Attack does not work with Touch Attacks (nor does the ranged equivalent they put in). This is an unnecessary hit to martial characters, especially when it really only gets into the high damage range at higher levels (you know, the levels where casters are blowing up the world).
Given that Touch Attacks can be delivered with an Unarmed Strike or Natural Attack which IS a melee attack that Power Attack applies to, I believe you can still use Power Attack (if you choose that method to deliver it... though I can`t really find a good categorization of a NON UAS/NA Touch Attack, other than that it targets Touch AC).
Now, obviously that is bypassing what seems to be a general prohibition of PA`ing with Touch Attacks, but the difference is that this bonus damage is from the UAS/Natural Attack (and it`s damage type), not the (spell/SLA) Touch Attack (and it`s damage type), which is what the intent in barring Power Attacking Touch Attacks probably was. In effect, the UAS/Nat. Attack is somewhat distinct from the delivered Touch Attack, so gets around the ban. And according the Touch Spells in Combat section, you will provoke an AoO if you normally would with your UAS/Natural Attack (!?).
...Of course Touch Attacks themselves (as opposed to Touche effects riding on UAS/Nat Attacks) are never very well defined in 3 or 4 different places they are mentioned (only in the context of describing what targets Touch AC)...
[/threadjack]
During the Beta I had really been hoping there would be more of a return to 2nd Edition style dynamics, though alternate/new mechanics like not being able to cast max-Spell Levels as a Standard Action would have similar effect to 2nd Edition`s motivation to cast lower power/faster spells because of the Casting Time. It is telling that there was a huge amount of whining that Casting Defensively got SLIGHLTY harder (it still reaches auto-pass at high levels if you reasonably focus on buffing Casting Stat, it just happens somewhat later). IMHO, Casting Defensively as seen in 3.x should have been scrapped, and it should have approximated Melee Fighting Defensively more, giving a bonus to AC, and possibly reducing some of the penalty (from damage) to the Concentration check (in effect DR but only for purposes of Concentration, not HP)... It should also have not been usable with top-Level spells, and probably make lower level/standard action spells take up a Full Round Action. (anybody can Move+Tumble to get position to Cast, but you shouldn`t need to STILL use Combat Casting in that case). I think an opportunity was lost to extend the tactical relevance of the action economy to Casting, as was done to melee in 3.x (which was good in itself, only bad that it wasn`t extended to Casting).
LOL, actually I use a heavily modified version of the weapon/action speed system...Might we con you into posting some of it?
I'd like to see this as well. I'm working on bringing back weapon speed and caster time for my 3.x based homebrew if only because I'm tired of CoDzilla stupidity and want to resolve it without going all nerf-happy.
In 3.5, I might have agreed with you regarding the summoned critters. The PF nerf of the animal summoning spells brings them down to roughly the same level as the monster summoning spells. In general, our group's experience is that summoned critters of all types usually are little more than speed bumps and very temporary meat shields in most battles. The same can be said of unbuffed animal companions. And buffing the animal companion comes at the expense of using those spell slots for something else, like buffing the fighter, who would be even more of a damage-dealing, hit absorbing combat god than the buffed animal companion with that help.In my 3.5 experience, animal companions are better than (or at least comparable to) fighters in nearly every way, at level 1. The companions end up getting the majority of kills in battles against groups, and battles against a single monster end up relying on the animal companion heavily for regular damage and its higher hp.
And, while Pathfinder has improved this, some of the current animal companions are still pretty beastly compared to fighters. Look at the Boar, which can soak attacks WAY better than a level 1 fighter. AC 18 without armor? Come on. Or the Dinosaur, which (when Weapon Finesse is its one feat) has 3 attacks at +5 which do reasonable damage, while still having ok AC and 60ft move speed. And, most of the critters end up with more hp than any fighter can squeeze out.
Even without buffs, the companions are nearly always as good melee fighters as fighters, and then the druid gets him/herself as a caster or combatant on top of that.
Our 3.5 gaming groups almost never see straight fighters anymore. It's just not worth the effort.
As for the original topic, the only thing I really miss from 3.5 (besides the variety of 3.5 resources created over the years) is the cleric's 0th level cure spell. It's nice to have spot healing for between encounters without using full cure spells. (Even if the Healer class abused...
I'll have to look closer at the boar and the dinosaur. I've never had a player choose one as an animal companion (and I think as a DM I would say dinosaur only works for specific settings/regions). My current druid player uses a tiger, and it's pretty good, but not anywhere near the equal of the party fighter, who at first level had 14 HP, AC 21, +6 to hit, doing 1d8+5 damage, crit 20/x3. Granted he's a dwarf and his movement sucks, and he only gets one attack, but he deinitely outshines Deathstripe, our young tiger, who as best I can recall had 17 HP, AC 15, +3 to hit with three attacks, each doing 1d6+2 damage, crit 20/x2, when he gets full attack, which is only about a third of the time. The AC is the real big difference. The dawarf gets hit a lot less.
Quandary: That might make it better, but that isn't RAW.
Druid argument: The argument that "yes, it could be played that way, but if you are responsible it's balanced" is not really valid imo. Just because YOU play nice, doesn't mean others will, and merely having your arsenal of awesome creates feelings of irritation and inferiority in some... The U.S. hasn't dropped a nuke in 65 years, but it doesn't stop other countries from trying to build up an arsenal. I know that this is still an issue, because we are playing a game currently where this situation has been coming up constantly. It's a gestalt game, and the Druid character DOESN'T EVEN USE its other side (barbarian, limited casting options too much to be in a rage), and still outshines most of the other players. Oh, and another metagame irritation: because it is THE class for many power gamers, this highly thematic class attracts some of the most boring and bad RPers (referencing current situation, our "Druid" doesn't ever technically violate his oaths, but doesn't give a *^*% about nature and doesn't play out any of his class, except of course to reward his cat for eating things). And you can say all day "that's just bad RP/players/GM's/whatever" but without the overpowered option there, it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
The druid comes with too many good options. They are a full caster, they have a pet that is the equivalent of a whole other character, they have the ability to fight themselves. They can quicken a flame strike, hit like the fighter with minimal prep buffing before combat, and then top it off with their pet tiger and 3 summoned bears leaping on the opponent. What does the fighter do during this time period? Take a full round attack. Yeah, there's a great deal of disparity there.
My personal desire for the druid would be to see it take multiple paths: casting, fighting, and pets. Let them keep all three, but force some actual choices in what they want to be good at. Letting them have everything (and putting out yet more options in the form of spells with every splat) is just bad game design. PF improved it a bit, but the core of the druid, and the Tier 1 classes in general, are all intact, so it doesn't ultimately change the situation much.
I'll have to look closer at the boar and the dinosaur. I've never had a player choose one as an animal companion (and I think as a DM I would say dinosaur only works for specific settings/regions). My current druid player uses a tiger, and it's pretty good, but not anywhere near the equal of the party fighter, who at first level had 14 HP, AC 21, +6 to hit, doing 1d8+5 damage, crit 20/x3. Granted he's a dwarf and his movement sucks, and he only gets one attack, but he deinitely outshines Deathstripe, our young tiger, who as best I can recall had 17 HP, AC 15, +3 to hit with three attacks, each doing 1d6+2 damage, crit 20/x2, when he gets full attack, which is only about a third of the time. The AC is the real big difference. The dawarf gets hit a lot less.
Looking over things, the only way as a Level 1 Dwarven Fighter to start with AC 21 is to have Breastplate Armor, a Heavy Shield, and Dex of 16-17. That armor then costs 207 gold, 32 more than an average gold roll.
The only way to get +6 to atk is with 18 Str and Weapon Focus.And, you cannot get 1d8+5 damage as a starting Level 1 Dwarf Fighter with a one-handed weapon. So, I'll assume you mean 1d8+4.
And, to get 14hp as a Level 1 Dwarf Fighter, you must have rolled 16-17 Con to get 18-19 Con or used the Toughness feat.
My campaigns rarely involve characters with stat rolls that consistantly high. In fact, if I was the GM (as I often am) and a player in my group had 3 stats with +3 or higher modifiers, I'd strongly consider asking them to re-roll before building just to maintain game balance.
It is true that a Level 1 Fighter with massive stats and maxed gold will out-perform the Level 1 Druid's companion, but that is only because the companion's stats are set and they don't get the benefit of a maxed first HD. With standard rolling systems or point buy stats, the animal companion out-performs.
Lastly, if we were to take the boar (since you seem to feel AC is the key,) you could have the Druid add Leather armor to the boar for 20 gp and take the Toughness feat to result in a beast with an average of 17hp, AC20, and a Gore with +2 to hit and 1d6+1 damage. That's nearly the equivelant of the Dwarf Fighter in survivability even without the druid doing anything. And, that last part is the point. The druid gets this while still doing his/her own casting or fighting.
Quandary: That might make it better, but that isn't RAW.
Assume you`re playing a game where Flaming and such properties trigger on a Touch AC hit.
Does that mean you can`t power attack with a Flaming Longsword now?How is that different than /delivering a Touch effect/ with an UAS or Natural Attack?
In cases where the rules are vague, I think it`s reasonable to err on the side of what makes the most sense. Whether or not you are Holding a Charge of Vampiric Touch wouldn`t seem to effect whether you choose to throw a more accurate punch for lesser damage or a wilder punch for more damage. When I imagine WHY such a ban would be in Power Attack, it only makes sense to me when I consider that Paizo doesn`t want Power Attack damage applied via non-physical damage types, not to mention non-HP damage... Allowing Power Attack to apply to Unarmed Strikes and Natural Attacks, whether or not they have Touch AC triggering effects, doesn`t run into that problem, which is why I think it`s allowed.
If you recognize that (possibly provoking depending on Feats/etc) UAS/NatAttacks that happen to deliver Touch Effects/Charges are distinct from the (never provoking)¨Touch Attack¨, then ¨Touch Attack¨ can have a more specific meaning then you first assumed. The RAW suggests UAS/Nat.Attacks are an OPTION (to deliver Touch Effects) vs. the normal Touch Attack mode, i.e. they are distinct from each other. Take that as you will.
Anyhow, I encourage anybody to Flag my previous post as FAQ material (re: Power Attacking with Touch Attacks/Effects) since the wording could certainly be made more clear here (and re: Touch Attacks in general).
The thing I most prefer about 3.5 is my age when it first launched.
LOL, actually I use a heavily modified version of the weapon/action speed system...Might we con you into posting some of it?
I'd be curious to see it as well.
Looking over things, the only way as a Level 1 Dwarven Fighter to start with AC 21 is to have Breastplate Armor, a Heavy Shield, and Dex of 16-17. That armor then costs 207 gold, 32 more than an average gold roll.
The only way to get +6 to atk is with 18 Str and Weapon Focus.
And, you cannot get 1d8+5 damage as a starting Level 1 Dwarf Fighter with a one-handed weapon. So, I'll assume you mean 1d8+4.
And, to get 14hp as a Level 1 Dwarf Fighter, you must have rolled 16-17 Con to get 18-19 Con or used the Toughness feat.My campaigns rarely involve characters with stat rolls that consistantly high. In fact, if I was the GM (as I often am) and a player in my group had 3 stats with +3 or higher modifiers, I'd strongly consider asking them to re-roll before building just to maintain game balance.
It is true that a Level 1 Fighter with massive stats and maxed gold will out-perform the Level 1 Druid's companion, but that is only because the companion's stats are set and they don't get the benefit of a maxed first HD. With standard rolling systems or point buy stats, the animal companion out-performs.
Lastly, if we were to take the boar (since you seem to feel AC is the key,) you could have the Druid add Leather armor...
Don't have the character in front of me, but my recollection is scalemail, heavy shield, 18 DEX. Right on for the +6 to attack. I'd have to check his character sheet again on the damage, but am pretty sure he got that extra +1 damage legit but can't remember exactly how. I believe it was only 13 HP, not 14, now that I think about it more, 14 CON with the additional 1 HP from favored class. As you point out, my characters have very generous stats, leading to a high-powered game. The druid has Wisdom 20, by the way, so her spellcasting is exceptional. I can certainly see your point that at low point buys/ less generous rolling systems, the animal companion would be more competitive, given it's fixed stats. I do give the animal companion max HPs for the first hit die, by the way, but not the second one they receive at first level.
When you start adding armor to animal companions, you've entered into something that my group would find kind of cheesy and out of character for a nature-loving druid. Better equipment (or equipment at all) is also one thing that separates the fighter from the beast. Take that away by having armor, weapons and magic items for animal companions apppear commonly in your games, and you have indeed closed a major gap.
Point is, we each have different campaigns and what happens in your campaign isn't going to be replicated in mine, and vice versa. I'm prepared to admit animal companions rock in your campaign, if you'll allow that things are a tad different in mine.
My apologies to all for threadjacking so long.
The abilities my clerics had were all based upon the general balance point of Turning, and were all very situational. Channel Energy is much less situational, and much better overall. It's the sort of thing that I can't really wrap my brain around converting my old abilities to be comparable.
Give the clerics those powers as free Channel-based feats? That means also giving Turn Undead for free to the appropriate clerics. It's a little power creep, of course.
Give the clerics those powers as free Channel-based feats?
That means also giving Turn Undead for free to the appropriate clerics. It's a little power creep, of course.
Those weren`t free abilities to start with, they were usually Feats.
3.5 Turning Alternate Usages can in PRPG be used in place of Channel Energy itself, Turning is still it`s own ignorable Feat off to the side. Turning is then equivalent with these OTHER alternate usages of Channel Energy.|
|
I'll run down the basics here -if people want more I can post it in the houserules section. So this is for Mr. Dunn, Freehold DM and Bwang.
Basic rundown - expand it as you like. It can be a bit complicated but if you are familiar with 2nd ed IN system it is pretty much the same if not just inverted in the numbers.
Operates on a declare system.
DM determines what he is going to do, everyone else declares their actions for the round.
There are 9 speed categories with this system. For this to work you need to do your homework ahead of time. I can run it on the fly, but since I print up all my stat blocks I have all this info already configured on my side
These are the 9 categories.
Ultra Fast - UF +15
Very Fast - VF +13
Fast - F +11
Rapid - R +9
Quick- Q +7
Normal - N +5
Slow - S +3
Very Slow - VS +1
Held Over +0 or Less
Calculations - You need to determine weapon speed. I have my own chart based off of 2nd ed, but it really isn't that hard to put together if you want to do it on your own.
Examples - Shortsword - AS (action speed) 7 which equates to Quick (+7).
If there are no other modifiers and the attacker is in range he will add +7 for his short sword attack.
Other weapon examples - Longsword is Normal (+5) while a Greatsword is Very Slow (+1).
Resolution is top down, highest (fastest) goes first.
Modifiers - for every +2 adjustment (Dex, +X weapon bonus, Improved Init) the AS gets a shift up 1.
So in our shortsword example a guy with 17 dex (+3) with a +1 shorts word gets 2 shifts on his attack action speed. So now it goes from Quick (+7) to Fast (+11). If he also had Improve Initiative his action would move up another 2 shifts to the fastest speed VF - Very Fast (+15)
This is all calculated ahead of time. So in our 17 dex example the speed of his attack action remains the same unless he gets a bump in dex (cats grace 2 AS shift), etc.
So improving the +1 on weapon helps, even if its only a temporary boon. You only get bumped a catagory if the total is +2. So if you have a lingering +1 (+2 dex, +1 sword = only 1 AS shift better total) you can get a bump from a spell which gives you another +1. I usually don't track this but desperate players will try to squeeze out any improvements onIN they can find.
Multiple attacks resolve at -2 AS shifts from the highest. So in our above example our 17 dex guy rolled a 12+11 (his Fast speed) for a total of 23. His first attack (if he is in striking range) occurs on resolving 23 as you tick down the IN clock. His second attack resolves on 19 (12+7) and if he has a third attack it would resolve on 15.
Spell are easy to calculate on the fly, but it would be good for PCs to have all the spells they know done. The system I used to determine speed (where spells are listed as standard actions) is pretty simple.
Level of spell - 10 = starting AS. If there is a material component or DF then it goes one AS slower. Fireball is 3rd level so 10-3 = 7, then 1 AS slower due to a material component so it is now Normal (+5) speed.
Round up if a number falls in between an AS. So for a 4th level spell it would be 10-4 = 6, so it gets bumped to 7, which is Quick (+7).
Example - Magic Missile Level 1, no Material = 9 = Rapid (+9)
You would add dex of course to this, and improved initiative would add 2 AS to the speed. So a magic missile cast with improved initiative would go off at VF (+13)
Improved Initiative is broken out into two categories Improved Initiative (Actions/Attack), and Improved Initiative (Casting)
Monsters use their size to fall into each category for their move initiatives; their attacks can be faster or slower by an AS or two.
Spells cast out of items are faster since they don't have a material component which affects IN.
Swift actions and free actions have their own base speeds using the same system and go off on their own step (shouting out to everyone, etc)
I have rules for changing actions mid round (just re-adjust new action at new speed -negative) and a ton of other stuff.
Anyway, those are the basics, hopefully no one’s head exploded.
No more threadjacking for me, sorry for the derail.
I prefered my undead not suceptible to critical hits or sneak attacks.
However, I much prefer how Pathfinder has returned the core races and classes to the forefront, so it's a wash.
I prefered my undead not suceptible to critical hits or sneak attacks.
However, I much prefer how Pathfinder has returned the core races and classes to the forefront, so it's a wash.
Hmm ... good point, actually. I *almost* forgot about these changes.
I prefer that in PF you *can* crit things. I mean, if there's a body and some sort of corporeal thing to make contact with, it *can* be hit in a particularly devastating way to the structure overall.
Sneak Attack, though, being as it targets "vital regions" is really not a fit for essentially *all* undead and golems, etc. So, for SA I really don't like that change. So drop me on that list, too (only for SA, though).
I prefered my undead not suceptible to critical hits or sneak attacks.
However, I much prefer how Pathfinder has returned the core races and classes to the forefront, so it's a wash.Hmm ... good point, actually. I *almost* forgot about these changes.
I prefer that in PF you *can* crit things. I mean, if there's a body and some sort of corporeal thing to make contact with, it *can* be hit in a particularly devastating way to the structure overall.
Sneak Attack, though, being as it targets "vital regions" is really not a fit for essentially *all* undead and golems, etc. So, for SA I really don't like that change. So drop me on that list, too (only for SA, though).
What undead and golems don't have vital regions? I know this argument has been done to death but I'm curious. You still can't crit or SA incorporeal creatures.