No, but it does reflect the value of their -worth-. -Worth- is not the same as "how much it cost to buy something".
Sure, but now you're just being pedantic.
|
No, but it does reflect the value of their -worth-. -Worth- is not the same as "how much it cost to buy something".Sure, but now you're just being pedantic.The point is that backwards compatibility is only a virtue to the extent that what Pathfinder is being backwards compatible to is of any worth.
Being backwards compatible to a bunch of crap just causes problems.
There's more than enough good 3.5 material to warrant the compatibility.
A thought exercise on rules manipulation.Ahh...links or it didn't happen :):P
And actually LT, if he spent thousands of dollars on stuff marked as d20 system, it IS thousands of dollars of 3.5 product. Your opinion of their quality does not negate the action of buying 3.5 product.
Umm...wow. A small part of me died after reading that :(
|
The point is that backwards compatibility is only a virtue to the extent that what Pathfinder is being backwards compatible to is of any worth.
Being backwards compatible to a bunch of crap just causes problems.
Well, if all of your 3.X/d20/OGL stuff is worthless crap, that speaks more about YOUR buying preferences than it does the total quality of 3.X/d20/OGL material. I myself have bought quite a bit of really good stuff...much of it AFTER I transitioned to PFRPG.
The worst thing about pathfinder for me is trying to remember the minor changes from 3.5 but really I just have to dedicate the time to learn the new rule system.
My other frustration is people who act like rule-lawyers to try and create (what seems to be) some sort of self satisfaction in "breaking the system". The reality is that the majority of the broken system issues are failure of the players part to use common sense.
My minor annoyances come from spelling mistakes in books, pdf's with bookmarks that aren't accurate and a clear table of what the different attack actions are.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Ineptus, I find your questioning of the decision about the cleric in a chain shirt ... "ironic". Especially given your proclivity for playing skill-monkeys regardless of class.
That is an awesome way to fix the Cleric in PF (I'm half serious.)
Clerics get Heavy Armor Proficiency but when wearing any Heavy Armor gain one point (or two?) less than normal. In other words, all the penalties and none of the benefits.
To me, the problem is not wearing it. I couldn't care less about the "more AC provided by Heavy vs Medium" and other issues. A Cleric isn't a Cleric if not wearing full plate. All my imagination and the vast majority of older (1E/2E/3E) material show Clerics (if you consider the 6th level + ones) wearing Full Plate. Yes, I know, in some places they show Medium (but in every single one of the core ones that show Medium the Cleric depicted is below 6th level.)
Ineptus, I find your questioning of the decision about the cleric in a chain shirt ... "ironic". Especially given your proclivity for playing skill-monkeys regardless of class.That is an awesome way to fix the Cleric in PF (I'm half serious.)
Clerics get Heavy Armor Proficiency but when wearing any Heavy Armor gain one point (or two?) less than normal. In other words, all the penalties and none of the benefits.
To me, the problem is not wearing it. I couldn't care less about the "more AC provided by Heavy vs Medium" and other issues. A Cleric isn't a Cleric if not wearing full plate. All my imagination and the vast majority of older (1E/2E/3E) material show Clerics (if you consider the 6th level + ones) wearing Full Plate. Yes, I know, in some places they show Medium (but in every single one of the core ones that show Medium the Cleric depicted is below 6th level.)
Considering the additional feats that are given (compared to 3.5) in pathfinder why not just spend a feat on heavy armor proficiency?
Because you don't actually have any extra feats until 5th level.
Well there's a perfect opportunity to get heavy armor proficiency at level 5 and then the cleric character can depict the image of a level 6 or lower cleric in heavy armor.
Personally, I don't see it as a huge issue considering the cleric has full spell progression, average BAB with two good saves, domain powers and the ability to channel energy to heal themselves and others. There is plenty of power to be had in that class as it stands.
Cleric, differently from Wizard, has the ability to cast wearing a full plate.
The proficency it's ONE feat away. I can see 2,3 could be a problem, but it's ONE feat.
The class cast up to level 9 spells. If you want it specialize more on combat, spend that one feat and choose domains, as well as other feats, accordingly.
Otherwise, chose more "casting" or "utility" (or "healing" or whatever) domains and don't take the armor feat, focusing on chanelling or metamagic or whatever.
The class it's already very powerful, why should take everything at level 1 without the need of specialize?
|
Because you don't actually have any extra feats until 5th level.Well there's a perfect opportunity to get heavy armor proficiency at level 5 and then the cleric character can depict the image of a level 6 or lower cleric in heavy armor.
Personally, I don't see it as a huge issue considering the cleric has full spell progression, average BAB with two good saves, domain powers and the ability to channel energy to heal themselves and others. There is plenty of power to be had in that class as it stands.
And if the game ends at 4th you never get the chance.
If you really want it that bad, what's stopping you from taking it at 1st or 3rd lvl?
The bad people...
And if the game ends at 4th you never get the chance.Because you don't actually have any extra feats until 5th level.Well there's a perfect opportunity to get heavy armor proficiency at level 5 and then the cleric character can depict the image of a level 6 or lower cleric in heavy armor.
Personally, I don't see it as a huge issue considering the cleric has full spell progression, average BAB with two good saves, domain powers and the ability to channel energy to heal themselves and others. There is plenty of power to be had in that class as it stands.
OK but on the long road these are things you must consider to balance the game. You cannot ignore them.
And you CAN take it at level 1. It's not forbidden, you just have to specialize because you are a spellcaster too.
Yes, let us all sacrifice a cow at the altar of "less choices."I just wish we had more options to make rather than all or nothing when it cam to using the feat.Whoever says that the "slider" Power Attack was cool obviously never had a player at the table who would break out a calculator and a spreadsheet before every attack in order to caluculate the most optimal hit-to-damage ratio at given condidtions.
Thanks heavens that's behind us.
This man speaks the truth. We should never take away anything, ever. Just keep on adding more things. If it turns out that a mistake was made, then just ignore it and don't ever try to fix it.
Ever.
Oh but wait, let's not give spellcasters more options because they'd be worthless additions competing for already valuable spell slots.
Another person whose only "defense" of the Power Attack level not being able to be chosen is a straw man.
|
|
And you CAN take it at level 1. It's not forbidden, you just have to specialize because you are a spellcaster too.
You'll note that I was responding to the argument that 'you can spend one of your extra feats on it and be just like you were before' with 'you don't have any extra feats until 5th level'.
Being backwards compatable to such material as the first three Adventure Paths and "season zero" of PFS, though, was essential.
And is PFRPG backward compatible with the first three Adventure Paths?
Look at your "Rise of the Runelords" Player's Guide, page 14. The Lone Wolf feat includes the following:
"Whenever you are dying, your chance of stabilizing is 50%."
Now look at your PFRPG Core Rulebook, page 190.
"...the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check to become stable." It's not a percentage; it's an ability check now.
When I joined a PFRPG RotR game, and said that I wanted Lone Wolf for my PC, the GM replied "Here's how I'm modifying the Lone Wolf feat: Once a day, the first time your condition is 'dying', you automatically stabilize. After this on the same day, if your condition is 'dying', you must make a DC 6 check to stabilize. You also get a +1 bonus on Fortitude saves."
I'm not saying that it's an impossible situation, but backwards compatible? I don't think so.
(And by the way, when you said "the first THREE Adventure Paths, were you excluding Legacy of Fire? Or was that just a slip of the tongue?)
And is PFRPG backward compatible with the first three Adventure Paths?
We do have an operational definition for backwards compatibility. The objective was that you could use statblocks from old products in the new system with little or no conversion. This is doable with the first four Pathfinder APs.
In fact, if a PRPG book were released with a totally different mechanic for the "Lone Wolf" feat, any statblock with that feat would be an automatic conversion. That's a pretty elegant solution, IMO.
It isn't a perfect conversion, but it really requires very little effort. It is certainly effective enough to claim "compatibility". If you tried to run any of those APs for 2e or 4e, you'd have a mountain of work cut out for you!
You'll note that I was responding to the argument that 'you can spend one of your extra feats on it and be just like you were before' with 'you don't have any extra feats until 5th level'.
I consider the latter claim to be an opinion rather than an ironclad statement of fact; I assume he does, also.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yeah, Aaron; I miscounted.
There are all sorts of little changes you need to make -- give all NPCs an additional hit point for each level of their strongest class (or two classes, if they're half-elves). Make Perception the best of their Spot, Listen, and Search bonuses. That sort of stuff.
Yeah, Aaron; I miscounted.
There are all sorts of little changes you need to make -- give all NPCs an additional hit point for each level of their strongest class (or two classes, if they're half-elves). Make Perception the best of their Spot, Listen, and Search bonuses. That sort of stuff.
Yeah, but you don't need to make these changes.
A 3.5 character has 98% of the stats that he needs to be run as an NPC. Yes, they will be a little weaker than their book-legal PF counterparts, but as a GM I really don't concern myself with the legality of my NPCs. If the numbers are there, good enough... nothing different from if I decide to build my own monster.
I don't feel people give the backwards compatibility the credit it deserves. I've been mixing the Runelords AP with PFRPG adventures and bestiary statblocks effortlessly since PFRPG released. There is no other game that upgrades as cleanly from 3.x. Even other d20 games like Star Wars d20 or d20 Modern would require more effort to convert than from 3.x to PF.
You'll note that I was responding to the argument that 'you can spend one of your extra feats on it and be just like you were before' with 'you don't have any extra feats until 5th level'.
And you CAN take it at level 1. It's not forbidden, you just have to specialize because you are a spellcaster too.
Ok, I see. I was just pointing out that the option is nevertheless available at level 1, is just not automatic and IMHO the reasons behind it are acceptable.
|
|
I consider the latter claim to be an opinion rather than an ironclad statement of fact; I assume he does, also.
Please explain where a 4th level PF cleric gets an extra feat over a 3.5 one. That can be used on armor proficiency preferably. If you can, I will admit I was wrong.
Kaiyanwang, no argument there. Heavy armor is so insignificant to balance in my view that I don't care one whit if clerics can use them or not.
Edit: Rereading, I do note that he never claimed there were extra feats there, just that given you eventually get more feats, it should not be a problem to spend one on heavy armor.
Kaiyanwang, no argument there. Heavy armor is so insignificant to balance in my view that I don't care one whit if clerics can use them or not.
Well, of course, expecially on the long road - you cannot compare it with, say, Gate - and for a reason.
And, of course again, if they kept the heavy armor for Clerics, I probably wouldn't mind. But little things like this IMHO make the game better. After all, it's a warrior-priest. Fairly protected (medium armor) but not at the level of a warrior, barring extra training (the feat). Makes sense for a "generic" cleric.
If wants to go melee, The Cleric is forced to choose, and this will be part of his build as domains are. Yeah this could be trivial compared to some spells and stuff, but at least he will have to spent a feat to take the proficency.
And small things like this, put together, can mean something... se what said above about the mithral.
Maybe this could seem counter-intuitive compared to other claims of mine (feats should scale, no pidgeonholing of combat techniques) but we are talking of a class able to cast 9th level.
Wanna melee? Fine, I don't like cookie cutter PCs.. but at least, put an effort in it, build wise. Not af is everything is due "because it's the Cleric".
IMHO, of course ;)
And if the game ends at 4th you never get the chance.
Absolutely correct. If having to spend a feat for armor proficiency on an already powerful class is one of the biggest drawbacks to pathfinder then I am a very happy camper!
Please explain where a 4th level PF cleric gets an extra feat over a 3.5 one. That can be used on armor proficiency preferably. If you can, I will admit I was wrong.
Oh, I see. To you, an extra feat is one you have to spend in Pathfinder that you wouldn't have had to spend in 3.5., whereas I mean it in the context of "a feat that can be spared to spend on heavy armor proficiency."
Yeah, the PF cleric isn't quite as strong as the 3.5 cleric. I'm not sure anyone thinks this is a bad thing.
*shrugs* Some people don't even believe they are less powerful.
I think that's insane.
Disclaimer: I'm assuming Complete Divine as a pretty standard 3.5 source and not a PF source.
|
Please explain where a 4th level PF cleric gets an extra feat over a 3.5 one. That can be used on armor proficiency preferably. If you can, I will admit I was wrong.
Oh, I see. To you, an extra feat is one you have to spend in Pathfinder that you wouldn't have had to spend in 3.5., whereas I mean it in the context of "a feat that can be spared to spend on heavy armor proficiency."
Yeah, the PF cleric isn't quite as strong as the 3.5 cleric. I'm not sure anyone thinks this is a bad thing.
I'd gladly trade heavy armor prof. for channel energy!
Without this "mistake" though, we wouldn't be talking about Pathfinder today. It would be just another one of failed third party systems that had no reason to catch on to become the mass movement it is now.
Indeed.
And in any case, the moment Pathfinder stops being compatible with 3.5 is the moment I immediately stop buying Paizo's APs and modules.
I'd gladly trade heavy armor prof. for channel energy!
Please explain where a 4th level PF cleric gets an extra feat over a 3.5 one. That can be used on armor proficiency preferably. If you can, I will admit I was wrong.
Oh, I see. To you, an extra feat is one you have to spend in Pathfinder that you wouldn't have had to spend in 3.5., whereas I mean it in the context of "a feat that can be spared to spend on heavy armor proficiency."
Yeah, the PF cleric isn't quite as strong as the 3.5 cleric. I'm not sure anyone thinks this is a bad thing.
Some people have suggested this just forces the cleric into the heal-bot role even more than before.
I disagree. In 3.5, you didn't need anything except ability to spontanously convert spells into healing to be a healer. Now, you need 2 feats (Selective Channeling and Extra Channel) to be effective at it. Without Selective, you can't effectively heal in combat, and if you're playing with 15 point buy (which you should) you just don't have enough heals to last.
I disagree. In 3.5, you didn't need anything except ability to spontanously convert spells into healing to be a healer. Now, you need 2 feats (Selective Channeling and Extra Channel) to be effective at it. Without Selective, you can't effectively heal in combat, and if you're playing with 15 point buy (which you should) you just don't have enough heals to last.
Wait, doesn't the PF cleric still convert spells?
As for not getting foes in the area, well that is why the cleric now needs to be way in the back. So unless foes are readying actions to leap into the area, it shouldn't be too hard to avoid hitting foes, just like you can often avoid hitting friendlies with area attacks.
I disagree. In 3.5, you didn't need anything except ability to spontanously convert spells into healing to be a healer. Now, you need 2 feats (Selective Channeling and Extra Channel) to be effective at it. Without Selective, you can't effectively heal in combat, and if you're playing with 15 point buy (which you should) you just don't have enough heals to last.
Um...
You know they can still do that, right?
I disagree. In 3.5, you didn't need anything except ability to spontanously convert spells into healing to be a healer. Now, you need 2 feats (Selective Channeling and Extra Channel) to be effective at it. Without Selective, you can't effectively heal in combat, and if you're playing with 15 point buy (which you should) you just don't have enough heals to last.Um...
You know they can still do that, right?
Of course. I'm just saying that having Channel Energy doesn't make them insta super healers.
|
|
And in any case, the moment Pathfinder stops being compatible with 3.5 is the moment I immediately stop buying Paizo's APs and modules.
I agree. I actually wish PF where more compatible in some areas. I dislike that feats became less powerful, the lack of Prestige Classes, PF Grapple, (actually understood and mostly liked the 3.5 version), monsters being more unique, (mostly undead, but others to a lesser extent), the drastic upping of the Rogue class, and a other few things.
On the other hand, I like some things that PF did such as minor revamps to the core races, buffing all the classes (save Cleric, see later), armor (should have done more for Medium though), and Skills, (excluding Fly and the fact that 4 + Int is not min.).
The absolute worst thing about PF, in my opinion, is the Cleric.
Domains flat out suck. Domain powers are pretty much all boring and way to similar. Should be much more like the Sorcerer Bloodlines, in my opinion, adding a skill or two, granting bonus Cleric Spells, and offering powers more like the 3.5 versions. 2 + Int!!! . . . I am against te los of Heavy Armor, but that is such a minor thing, comparitevely. Even the nerfing of spells pale vs the other stuff, in my oinion.
I think other posters here are right...Pathfinder is pointless unless you want to play a game that clings vehemently to D&D's "past glory", while 4E is way too much of a "omg lol cool powers" video game. Dragon Age is even worse than Pathfinder, and Warhammer Fantasy is even worse than that (plus it's stupidly expensive).
It seems to me like there's a huge gap in fantasy gaming, something that neither Pathfinder nor 4E fill, but they both skirt the edge of. Too much of a jump between them. There should be a good game filling that gap, and if Paizo was willing to give a little, Pathfinder could easily do that.
However, it's blatantly obvious that neither Paizo nor most Pathfinder fans have any interest in doing so, so my topic is moot.
|
|
I think other posters here are right...Pathfinder is pointless unless you want to play a game that clings vehemently to D&D's "past glory", while 4E is way too much of a "omg lol cool powers" video game. Dragon Age is even worse than Pathfinder, and Warhammer Fantasy is even worse than that (plus it's stupidly expensive).
It seems to me like there's a huge gap in fantasy gaming, something that neither Pathfinder nor 4E fill, but they both skirt the edge of. Too much of a jump between them. There should be a good game filling that gap, and if Paizo was willing to give a little, Pathfinder could easily do that.
However, it's blatantly obvious that neither Paizo nor most Pathfinder fans have any interest in doing so, so my topic is moot.
This post doesn't make sense.
Agreed. Maybe sarcastin, maybe serious?
|
|
I think other posters here are right...Pathfinder is pointless unless you want to play a game that clings vehemently to D&D's "past glory", while 4E is way too much of a "omg lol cool powers" video game. Dragon Age is even worse than Pathfinder, and Warhammer Fantasy is even worse than that (plus it's stupidly expensive).
It seems to me like there's a huge gap in fantasy gaming, something that neither Pathfinder nor 4E fill, but they both skirt the edge of. Too much of a jump between them. There should be a good game filling that gap, and if Paizo was willing to give a little, Pathfinder could easily do that.
However, it's blatantly obvious that neither Paizo nor most Pathfinder fans have any interest in doing so, so my topic is moot.
Well, I'm not even really sure what this huge gap that you talk about is. What do you want to fill that gap? It may be that something already exists, and someone could point you in the right direction. But if you're so nebulous about what you actually want, nobody can be helpful.
I think it's worth noting that there is a large amount of 3PP products for Pathfinder. Some of them might at least partially fill in this gap that you find so disturbing.