|
For me, Clerical Channeling does not increase the disparity between a party with and without a cleric.
For me its this a 3rd level cleric (Wisdom 14, Charisma 10) without Channelling in 3.5 could cast:
4x Cure Minor Wounds = 4 HP3x Cure Light Wounds = 3d8+9 HP
2x Cure Moderate Wounds = 4d8+6 HP
Total 7d8+19 HP; expected value of 50.5 HP (31.5+19)
And that is assuming converting all non-domain spells to Cures.
In PF RPG the cleric loses the Cure Minor Wounds and so can heal:
3x Cure Light Wounds = 3d8+9 HP
2x Cure Moderate Wounds = 4d8+6 HP
3 x 2d6 Channelling = 6d6 HP
Total 7d8+6d6+15; expected value of 67.5 HP (31.5 + 21 +15)
However that doesn't take into account that channelling can heal everyone in the area of effect. So assuming a party consists of 5 members, channelling is actually worth 30d6 of healing, making an expected value of 151.5 HP (31.5 +105 +15).
Now I know that not every party member will get full use out of each channel but even so I think it can be appreciated that in 3.5 the difference between having a cleric in the party in terms of healing was 50.5 HP on average whereas in PF its at least double that with a decent size party.
It DOES make the cleric more than a healbot by allowing his spells to do something else besides healing.
Agreed, the cleric doesn't have to use spells for healing, but there is still the problem of having to use a Standard action to heal, which means any healing in combat (which does happen despite the theory that it is always sub-optimal) removes the opportunity for the cleric to cast one of those spells. Which is why I like 3.5's equivalent which is a Swift action.
|
|
And my first thought is, 'what's wrong with house ruling?'
Nothing really, although I personally try to avoid it (though ironically I am actually putting together a couple of house rules for 4e to make it more to my liking).
The reason I avoid house rules is because I play at conventions and with lots of different groups, so its just easier to play RAW as then everyone is on the same page and no one gets surprised by a houserule or forget a houserule that isn't used in another game they play in.
I like PF, a lot. But...
Once APG came out, the power creep started.
And the 'Ultimate' books?
Cr@p. If I wanted to see options like those presented in the U-line, I could just peruse 3E splatbooks. Really.
As it is, my PF games are CRB/APG only, with some redactions on the APG.
Mind you, I have a lot of fun with those games, but I'm really sad that the later releases suck so hard.
It really wasn't that different in 3.5.
It's not even close. By 10 level a rogue has gotten 3 feats, and it's first special. In Pathfinder, at 10th level the Rogue has gotten 5 feats, 5 talents, and an advanced. How is that even close?
|
I like PF, a lot. But...
Once APG came out, the power creep started.
And the 'Ultimate' books?
Cr@p. If I wanted to see options like those presented in the U-line, I could just peruse 3E splatbooks. Really.
As it is, my PF games are CRB/APG only, with some redactions on the APG.
Mind you, I have a lot of fun with those games, but I'm really sad that the later releases suck so hard.
There's something in APG/UM/UC that's more powerful than core high-level divine and arcane spells?
I like PF, a lot. But...
Once APG came out, the power creep started.
And the 'Ultimate' books?
Cr@p. If I wanted to see options like those presented in the U-line, I could just peruse 3E splatbooks. Really.
As it is, my PF games are CRB/APG only, with some redactions on the APG.
Mind you, I have a lot of fun with those games, but I'm really sad that the later releases suck so hard.
Once the APG was released, Pathfinder became it's own game. While it's true some of the ideas in APG are similar to UA 3.5, it was still distinctly Pathfinder. I don't see the APG as power creep of the Core, rather the Core was the basic game book needed to play, but was missing the necessary fits to complete the game. While I think the UC is better than the UM, I very much prefer what has been included in PF, more than all the books produced for 3.5 added together.
During and after Beta, I was playing a combined 3.5 and Pathfinder game. After doing that for a year, our group abandoned 3.5 altogether and now only play Pathfinder - we do not want to include 3.5 rules, and think that doing so, makes the game less playable.
|
|
So far I see no major differences between 3.5 and PF. I a few new rules, a clarification here and there. Rules that imo make things worse such as the change to flurry of blows. To the OP you have to ask yourself are your group happy with 3.5 with alls its flaws and postives. If you are I say stick with it. I'm not saying not to buy PF far from it. it's just that unless your plannning to buy more than the corebook and bestiary your kind of reinvesting in material you may have aleady. For myself I sold off all my 3.5. when 4E was released thinking I would never never play 3.5. The opposite happened so for myself it make sense to get into PF. Not so much for the rules so much as wanting a new material. I also agree with gamer-printer in that once the APG was released PB became it's own game.
As for power creep it's inevitble in any rpg. A few months back I bought Hero system 6E and later a book for it called Chmapions powers. I did not need the powers book since I could on my own build all the powers in that book on my own with the core rules yet it makes my life easier having a book with premande super powers on hand. I never understood why they said they would attmept to keep power creep to a minimum. It was an almost impposible promise to keep. Paizo also needs to pay the biils and staff. Which comes from them releasing new books. It's not like I or others are going to be being multiple copies of the core book or bestiary over and over. New releaases also offers Paizo the ability to try and showcase what they can do with the system or offer say another alternative to the core classes with new spells. I'm also sure no one is being forced to buy the new material. It's like rather than blame themselves for an impulse buy easier to blame Paizo. I have a shop that sells really delicious fresh bread in my area. I'm not blaming the baker for doing his job because I can't stop buy stuff from his store.
My take on the later material for the most part I like it. A few things I will never use such as the gun rules unless I'm playing a Gunslinger. A few archtypes that imo I don't think they are worth the paper they are printed on and would have to play me large sums of money to play or ever use. My own real complaint if it is one is that they try and be less conservative minded with the options. Take the system and show me what you can do with it. As opposed to keeping the material balanced sometimes overly balanced imo. Which is why I'm one of the few looking forward to a new edition many years down the line. The first attempt had to be backwards compaitable with little or few changes. The second attempt should not be tied to backwards compitable and I want to see the devs go wild so to speak.
It really wasn't that different in 3.5.It's not even close. By 10 level a rogue has gotten 3 feats, and it's first special. In Pathfinder, at 10th level the Rogue has gotten 5 feats, 5 talents, and an advanced. How is that even close?
By 10th level in 3.5 a rogue would have 4 feats (1st level, 3rd level, 6th level, and 9th level).
By the way pres man, thanks for giving me a better name for my houserules. :)
No problem. I'm glad you liked it. Now when someone asks, ".5?" You can say, "Yeah, just Tri It!" ;D