| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter got a buff that really doesn't matter.
Rogue is more a stealth nerf (no pun intended) because now there is more creatures that you can Sneak, but most of the methods are gone (Telling Blow don't made the transition, the splash weapons don't trigger SA anymore).
Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers got buffed.
Druid was as needed nerf, same to the Cleric.
Wizards and Sorcerers got buffed too, and for "better". Now they have real Class features, but it's a shame that they are still so powerful and dominant.
There is more but I'm SO sleepy right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are talking about the entirety of 3.5 to the entirety of Pathfinder, it would be a monumental task.
If you are speaking of Core rulebooks, here is my take -
Prestige classes were hurt badly, one person at Paizo at Dragoncon 2011 basically said it was somewhat intentional because it was felt no class should exist that needed someone to survive several levels before that PC could properly buckle a swash.
Every core class gained new features, yet a quick glance at the other board threads will quickly show that the rogue, fighter, and monk did not fare as well as other classes with the new additions. No class was nerfed in the transition to Pathfinder, yet some classes were overshadowed in one way or another.
Fighter - gained new features, and those features helped the fighter in its primary combat role, yet did nothing to help it when a situation occurred that did not need a weapon applied to someone's face. Combat feat taxes also mitigate the added features (such as combat expertise needed as a prerequisite for many combat feats).
Rogue - A strong choice as a first level multiclass in 3.5; in Pathfinder, skills are calculated differently so the advantage was much watered down. Trapfinding is now a perception boost to traps, rather than a feature needed in order not to autofail a spot DC over 15. This means the two strongest reasons to take a rogue class in 3.5 are gone or watered down. The bard unintentionally became the best skill monkey with its Pathfinder class features (performance versatility, and the new bardic lore). Unchained did much to fix it.
Monk was always difficult to optimize in 3.5, and remained so in Pathfinder. It could still be made well, yet one had to ignore some class features to strengthen others. The unchained monk is easier to optimize, yet is still no more powerful or weaker than the Pathfinder base monk - just different. Best to think of the unchained version as an archetype. Still, I was digressing. The main point is that it requires so many good stats to use all of its class features, that in a point buy or array game, one must pick and choose what class features they want you of the monk and focus on one or two stats. Want to hit hard and not miss often? Boost strength, yet you might have a low AC as you would not buy up wisdom. Want to be an untouchable AC machine? You buy up dexterity and wisdom, yet might have to have a low strength, so you would miss more often and do less damage. The trade offs were painful, and doing a little of everything means not excelling at anything.
Hope this helps.
The 3.5 core rulebook material was pretty much all balanced. It was really all the prestige classes and feats in the supplements that were poorly thought out. Some were wildly ridiculous and some were either poor options or even worse, boring.
Pathfinder added a few abilities to the fighter, but it wasn't much. Some more non-combat abilities would have provided more opportunities for roleplaying.
They added options that allowed people to break the molds on the druid, ranger, wizard, and paladin. This is good.
They made sorcerers more interesting than a variant wizard.
Barbarians were improved by some fun abilities. Monks and bards are pretty much the same. (Unchained monks are a strange downgrade.)
Pathfinder's strength is in the new classes, in particular the APG classes really let it shine as its own game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter got a buff that really doesn't matter.
Technically yes - but no one actually took the martial base classes past level 5-8 anyway because prestige classes were straight-up better, and 1-4 levels in Fighter was one of the best ways to get all of the feat pre-reqs to get into an awesome prestige ASAP.
So - yes - Fighter itself got boosted. (aside from the Tower Shield nerf) But fewer optimizers actually use the Fighter class than they did in 3.5.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The unchained monk is easier to optimize, yet is still no more powerful or weaker than the Pathfinder base monk - just different. Best to think of the unchained version as an archetype.
If you go with the standard floor/ceiling ratings - unchained monk has a much higher floor, but the ceiling is about the same as a core monk with well picked archetypes. (I'd argue a hair lower, but I like defensive builds generally - and unchained definitely took a defense hit and makes a noticeably worse DEX monk, so take that with a grain of salt.)
To answer none of the specific questions, the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook (not the 3rd Edition Psionics Handbook) was rather solidly balanced, and had comparatively few of the balance issues - and internally, it was even better.
That has, to some extent, carried over to Dreamscarred Press' treatment thereof.
The 3.5 core rulebook material was pretty much all balanced. It was really all the prestige classes and feats in the supplements that were poorly thought out. Some were wildly ridiculous and some were either poor options or even worse, boring.
While I see what you're going for, I would like to state that this is... not correct.
I mean, it's relatively correct - that is, it is "correct" that the Player's Handbook was relatively "balanced" at least relative to many of the supplements - but even internally it was imbalanced and spread across the spectrum.
It was, far and away, more balanced than its predecessors, however.
Pathfinder added a few abilities to the fighter, but it wasn't much. Some more non-combat abilities would have provided more opportunities for roleplaying.
They added options that allowed people to break the molds on the druid, ranger, wizard, and paladin. This is good.
They made sorcerers more interesting than a variant wizard.
Barbarians were improved by some fun abilities.
Fairly accurate assessment.
Monks and bards are pretty much the same. (Unchained monks are a strange downgrade.)
I'm... I'm not sure how you came to that assessment, but it is... not accurate. Especially for bards.
Pathfinder's strength is in the new classes, in particular the APG classes really let it shine as its own game.
This is very accurate. The new classes give a great identity and self-representation.
|
Pathfinder
Love -> Bards and most of their "new classes"
Has A Crush On -> Barbarians, Druids, Paladins, (only half way), Wizards, Sorcerers
No Opionion -> Rangers (except Dwarven Iconics)
Detests -> Clerics, Fighters*, Monks*, Rogues*, Ninja's, Samurai, (also, many rules and rulings that actually make sense)
* = starting to come around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What classes from 3.5 were overpowered and broken, and are still broken?
The big three are: Cleric, Druid, and Wizard. Still broken? All 3. They tried to tame some of the stuff down with the Druid and there's no Divine Metamagic in Pathfinder (that I'm aware of) but still, full armor and d8 HD and 9th level spells and two good saves and the spell list make both the Cleric and Druid FAR FAR better than most Martials*.
What broken classes have been appropriately nerfed?
Well the Druid has been toned down slightly but their companion is still good and they still get Natural Spell. Clerics are still amazing and good but they can't convert their turns into meta-magic effects, so there's a significant nerf. Wizards, honestly, weren't hit at all with Pathfinder but instead build up more with x/day combat effects and at-will Cantrips.
What classes from 3.5 were terrible?
Oh boy. Well if we're talking "Base Classes"...lets see:
• Everything from Complete Warrior
• Everything from Complete Adventurer
• Warmage and Wujen from Complete Arcane
• Favored Soul (honestly, why not just play a cleric?), Shugenja from Complete Divine
• Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue from the PHB. Barbarian comes close but there's Rage/Pounce that helps it out.
• Dragon Shaman and Knight from PHB2
• Most classes from Dragon mag.
I have never used the Psionics stuff (lack of interest from the party) so I can't comment there. We also didn't use too many supplemental stuff like Incarnum so I can't comment there. Tome of Battle was good, considering what it replaced and I had a friend who liked the Dragon Fire Adept, which is a Dragon-themed Warlock.
Which ones of those have been fixed?
Fixed? Well nothing that doesn't use spells won't compare at later levels to full spellcasters. Period. But if you mean Fixed as-in "I can play this class until at least 10th level and still remain relevant" then I'd say the Monk (unchained version), Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue (unchained version) received some much needed help. Fighter still only good for dips though. To my knowledge they didn't really do a good job converting and up-grading anything else. Their Swashbuckler isn't very good and I haven't seen a Shugejna or Favored Soul stylized class yet.
Which ones are still terrible?
Non-spellcasting classes and even low spellcasting classes still won't hold a candle to anything that's casting 9th level spell with a bit of optimization. So all of them compared to that specific example. I wouldn't play a Pathfinder Swashbuckler or Unchained Rogue/Monk/Barbarian for example.
Which classes received buffs or nerf that they didn't need?
From my perspective, the Wizard received too much in terms of keeping most of his spell-list intact AND giving them spell-like abilities AND at-will cantrips PLUS bonus feats on top.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No class was nerfed in the transition to Pathfinder, yet some classes were overshadowed in one way or another.
The Druid and the Cleric received nerfs, period.
The Druid Wild Shape now isn't that gamebreaker, the Animal Companion is way better balanced now too, but still is a nerf.
Clerics lose armor proficiency, channel energy is a very meh abilty and the iconic Class Feature, Turn/Rebuke Undead now is a Feat.
Fighter - gained new features, and those features helped the fighter in its primary combat role, yet did nothing to help it when a situation occurred that did not need a weapon applied to someone's face. Combat feat taxes also mitigate the added features (such as combat expertise needed as a prerequisite for many combat feats).
But Tower Shield and the Spike Chain are nerfed, Cleave now requires more feats (Cleaving Finish requires the new PF Cleave), and the Maneuver Feats was nerfed too (used to be +4, now it's just +2).
Rogue - A strong choice as a first level multiclass in 3.5; in Pathfinder, skills are calculated differently so the advantage was much watered down. Trapfinding is now a perception boost to traps, rather than a feature needed in order not to autofail a spot DC over 15. This means the two strongest reasons to take a rogue class in 3.5 are gone or watered down. The bard unintentionally became the best skill monkey with its Pathfinder class features (performance versatility, and the new bardic lore). Unchained did much to fix it.
Unchained helped a lot, but the Rogue still is behind the Vivisectionist, the Investigator and the Sanctified Slayer. And while it lacks the SA damage, Archeologist Bards are still a better Rogue, but a worse "Assassin".
Monk was always difficult to optimize in 3.5, and remained so in Pathfinder. It could still be made well, yet one had to ignore some class features to strengthen others. The unchained monk is easier to optimize, yet is still no more powerful or weaker than the Pathfinder base monk - just different. Best to think of the unchained version as an archetype. Still, I was digressing. The main point is that it requires so many good stats to use...
Agree. But is a shame that a LOT of archetypes can't be taken with the unMonk.
The 3.5 core rulebook material was pretty much all balanced.
Er.... Not. At. All.
I'm pretty sure they where meaning that more like "They took the 3.5 Core Rulebook and balanced it out better" rather than "the 3.5 Core Rulebook was already pretty balance".
The Core of 3.5 and PF is where the worst offenders in balance are. The PF conversion achieved a better balance, but the tiers are almost the same ones of the 3.5, like Diffan said.
They made sorcerers more interesting than a variant wizard.
Agree.
Monks and bards are pretty much the same. (Unchained monks are a strange downgrade.)
Not true, really. unMonk is a straight buff (still have some strange design decisions, but now have true BAB and a better Hit Die), and the Bards are just plain better.
Pathfinder's strength is in the new classes, in particular the APG classes really let it shine as its own game.
I can't agree more. The hybrids are so fun in flavor and mechanics that for me is hard to not play one.
Oh boy. Well if we're talking "Base Classes"...lets see:
[good stuff]
Pretty much agreed. The Samurai is one of the worst offenders in the 3.5.
From my perspective, the Wizard received too much in terms of keeping most of his spell-list intact AND giving them spell-like abilities AND at-will cantrips PLUS bonus feats on top.
And thanks to Aroden's Spellbane Wizards are even more strong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding terrible 3.5e classes: Soulknife, samurai and soulborn are made out of pure undiluted suckage, the same way the outer planes consist primarily of alignment made material.
Avernus is made out of Law. The seven heavens are made out of Law and Good. The soulborn is made out of Suck.
Complete list of classes to avoid taking 1-20:
Divine Mind
Dragon Shaman
Fighter
Healer
Hexblade
Kight
Lurk(ish)
Marshal
Monk
Ninja (although they do make the only half-way functional precision based archers)
Ranger
Rogue
Samurai
Soulborn
Soulknife
Spellthief(ish)
Swashbuckler
Truenamer(probably)
I'm not saying you couldn't make something good with the things on this list. You could, if you multiclassed and stuff. I'm just saying that as written, if you take these 1-20, you're going to suck.
3.5e had a much lower optimization floor, and a much higher optimization cieling than pathfinder ever had.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying you couldn't make something good with the things on this list. You could, if you multiclassed and stuff. I'm just saying that as written, if you take these 1-20, you're going to suck.
In 3.5 - that was true of EVERY class relative to multi-classing & going prestige.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards have been more buffed than anything. The new form of specialization is essentially an exact spiritual remake of the Master Specialist prestige class. That said, the specializations do enforce theme and actually make you better at casting the spells you specialize in. Opposition schools exist now instead of banned schools. Wizards also got an upgrade to their hit die, as they now get 6's.
Sorcerers received many of the same boosts, like the same improved hit die, and they gained specializations like the wizard in the form of different magically influenced bloodlines (as opposed to the 3.5 lore that all magic blood came from dragons).
Clerics are considerably weaker. Turn/Rebuke has been replaced with Channel Energy, and Divine feats no longer exist. On top of that, clerics are no longer proficient in heavy armor, and Divine Power no longer grants full BAB nor can it be Persisted to turn you into Clericzilla.
Druids have changed, they are no longer omnipotent. You have to choose between being strong in combat and being strong in spellcasting. Wild Shape (and all polymorph spells as a matter of fact) is completely different, and much much weaker. You can no longer genuinely assume forms, and instead gain numerical bonuses to stats and select abilities of whatever creature you shape into. Still can't use metal armor either.
What has been said of fighters, rogues, and monks upthread is basically all accurate. Fighters are stronger in combat, that's it. Monks are intrinsically MAD (a design element that is inherited as evidenced by the newer classes being designed around the point buy paradigm and either giving away free feats or class features that mitigate MAD entirely). Rogue's have had their niches stolen from them, in that they were meant to be the 'skill' class. Half-ranks no longer exist making the rogue's superior class skill list no where near as good of a feature. That said, sneak attack was buffed in that it now works on undead and some others. They maintain medium BAB (the worst legacy choice imo) but they did receive a boost to hit die so it's not all bad.
Barbarians have gotten stronger, literally. Bards as well. This is due to both of their class features now being changed to per round durations giving the player much more control and freedom over their character. This is actually one of the better design choices made. Bards get a bigger hit die in d8's.
Paladins and Rangers were both made stronger. Paladins mainly because their reliance on WIS is removed, making them less MAD. Lay on Hands now functions as a swift action, and Smite Evil is so much more powerful that it functions against a single enemy nonstop for an entire fight, AND gives you more AC. Rangers get double the bonus from favored enemy, gain different bonuses from a new favored terrain mechanic, improved hit die (10's now), and their combat style was opened up to allow more choices. Both of these classes have had their spellcasting mechanics changed the same way which lowers their CL into a linear scale, rather than always being at 1/2 level. Both of these classes also now have Spellcraft as a class skill, as do all spellcasters.
That pretty much covers the Core Rulebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[good stuff]
Nice post.
I happy that some Prestige Classes never made out to PF.
Frienzed Berserker - Disruptive in play. I have some BAD ingame experiences with players usign this class.
Initiate of Seven Veil - If you campaign lasts enough to see one, it's a overpowered class. Almost impossible to bypass the Veils without extreme cheese tactics.
Planar Shephard - Planar Bubble to gain 10 Rounds in 1 is broken beyond belief.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers received many of the same boosts, like the same improved hit die, and they gained specializations like the wizard in the form of different magically influenced bloodlines (as opposed to the 3.5 lore that all magic blood came from dragons).
Sorcerer Bloodlines actually came out right about the time 3.0 became 3.5. They are not something Pathfinder created, but took from 3.5
Clerics are considerably weaker. Turn/Rebuke has been replaced with Channel Energy, and Divine feats no longer exist. On top of that, clerics are no longer proficient in heavy armor, and Divine Power no longer grants full BAB nor can it be Persisted to turn you into Clericzilla.
Paizo really overreacted with the Cleric, getting scarred into thinking the Clericzilla was more than a myth, and did a ton of hard not notice nerfs across the board. Another thing they did was to remove a lot of the better Domain Abilities that gave permanent bonuses, Bonus Feats, etc. . ., and went out of their way to make Clerics unable to realistically affect themselves with a lot of Domains, forcing them to play as background buffers and healbots a lot more. They later also introduced the Oracle, (their more ideal version of the divine spellcaster) which in a lot of ways is just better and a lot more open than the Cleric.
Druids have changed, they are no longer omnipotent. You have to choose between being strong in combat and being strong in spellcasting. Wild Shape (and all polymorph spells as a matter of fact) is completely different, and much much weaker. You can no longer genuinely assume forms, and instead gain numerical bonuses to stats and select abilities of whatever creature you shape into. Still can't use metal armor either.
That's what they tried to do, but in reality, the Druid is still the strongest (debatable vs Wizard) class in the game. Wild Shape isn't as weak as people claim, it's just not as potentially strong as it was back then, (which was mainly because off all the other books that opened up new options and ways to modify Wild Shape).
Paladins and Rangers were both made stronger. Paladins mainly because their reliance on WIS is removed, making them less MAD. Lay on Hands now functions as a swift action, and Smite Evil is so much more powerful that it functions against a single enemy nonstop for an entire fight, AND gives you more AC. Rangers get double the bonus from favored enemy, gain different bonuses from a new favored terrain mechanic, improved hit die (10's now), and their combat style was opened up to allow more choices. Both of these classes have had their spellcasting mechanics changed the same way which lowers their CL into a linear scale, rather than always being at 1/2 level. Both of these classes also now have Spellcraft as a class skill, as do all spellcasters.
A few more pretty significant changes to the Paladin is PF gave them Mercies, (a rider to the turn undead channel energy ability that allows them to heal their allies, but at the same time wash away various conditions, and also altered their Code a bit, adding in another level of Alignment Debate.
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
The intent was to make the Paladin a bit more party friendly, but realistically, it makes it worse than ever.
Sorcerer Bloodlines actually came out right about the time 3.0 became 3.5. They are not something Pathfinder created, but took from 3.5
Not on 3.5 Core.
They later also introduced the Oracle, (their more ideal version of the divine spellcaster) which in a lot of ways is just better and a lot more open than the Cleric.
Yes, Oracles are pretty strong, but not in the same level a optimized 3.5 Cleric is.
That's what they tried to do, but in reality, the Druid is still the strongest (debatable vs Wizard) class in the game. Wild Shape isn't as weak as people claim, it's just not as potentially strong as it was back then, (which was mainly because off all the other books that opened up new options and ways to modify Wild Shape).
Yes, but now they must focus on be good with magic or in combat. 3.5 Druid can easily perform any task in the game, I've played a lot with Druids and while the Core is already very strong, splat books only helps him to be better.
|
|
Why stick to just Core?
I'd say they must focus, but only to be better at it. Either way, they are still good. A Druid that focuses on Spellcast is still good at combat, and a Druid that focuses on combat is still a great caster. Better spell list than the Cleric, (and less MAD), decent AC and better with unique, long lasting, early level buffs, generally pretty good weapons, and 4+Int skills with a few key tactical movement related skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 3.5 - that was true of EVERY class relative to multi-classing & going prestige.
I'm not saying you couldn't make something good with the things on this list. You could, if you multiclassed and stuff. I'm just saying that as written, if you take these 1-20, you're going to suck.
Nuh uh.
Psion 20
Psychic warrior 20
Druid 20
Duskblade 20
Warblade 20
Crusader 20
Totemist 20
Incarnate 20
Binder 20
Cleric 20
Beguiler 20
Wizard 20
None of these are going to make you suck.
It's true for the sucky classes(see the other list). These (just as an example) are perfectly fine if taken for 20 levels. They might get even better if you prestige, but only if it's a full casting prestige. Otherwise you're just making yourself worse for no reason. Thou Shalt Not Lose a Caster Level, remember?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo really overreacted with the Cleric, getting scarred into thinking the Clericzilla was more than a myth, and did a ton of hard not notice nerfs across the board. Another thing they did was to remove a lot of the better Domain Abilities that gave permanent bonuses, Bonus Feats, etc. . ., and went out of their way to make Clerics unable to realistically affect themselves with a lot of Domains, forcing them to play as background buffers and healbots a lot more. They later also introduced the Oracle, (their more ideal version of the divine spellcaster) which in a lot of ways is just better and a lot more open than the Cleric.
I guess we played with different groups then - CoDzilla was totally a thing, and it was glorious.
I must admit I can't agree with you on the oracle thing - the cleric is such a potent class because it can shut down a lot of nasty stuff on the fly. If you play it smart, ANY cleric spell of the level you can cast and below is, at worst, 25 minutes away.
This means that you can go from DEAD to alive in the space of 15 minutes. Your friend got stuck on a different plane of existence? 30 minutes to prep 2 spells, zap over to him, then zap back.
This is power.
Oracle is weaksauce, not because it's a bad class (I like revalations as much as the next guy) it's just that the spontaneous spell list is far too limited, and unlike the sorcerer spell list, the cleric list lends itself to spells you only cast once in a while. If you want plane shift and raise dead, that's a whole 2 of your spells known. What when someone gets poisened? Paralyzed? Blinded?
Oracles can't effectively deal with that and still retain spells to be effective in regular combat. Sure, they can buy scrolls for eventualities, but then what are they bringing to the table that a fighter with Use Magic Device isn't? Also, in my experience, GMs are unreasonable jerks who will use silly excuses like 'You're in a damn dungeon right now!' or 'You just burned down their temple, what did you expect?!' to deny you access to buying scrolls of whatever you like.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They might get even better if you prestige, but only if it's a full casting prestige. Otherwise you're just making yourself worse for no reason. Thou Shalt Not Lose a Caster Level, remember?
I didn't say relative to ANY multiclass/prestige - if it wasn't clear - I meant any 3.5 class relative to a multi/prestige version of itself. A Wizard 20 was still weaker than Wizard 5 / Full Caster Prestige Class of Awesome. Same for virtually all of the above. (Can't weigh in on Tome of Battle or Psion type stuff as I never played with them.)
But yes - I remember how you never wanted to lost a CL on primary caster characters, with the exception of a few REALLY good prestige classes which lost 1-3.
Actually - the whole nerf to multiclass/prestige was an unintentional nerf to martials by Pathfinder (though it intentionally boosted them in other places). Because they didn't have to worry about CL, they did far more multiclassing - especially dipping into several prestige classes since there was no multiclass penalty for such. This had the secondary benefit of jacking up their saves since class saves are front-loaded, especially if you took multiple classes with good fort/will saves. This made it so that well built martials nearly always had much higher base saves than casters did.
I'm guessing that the main reason Paizo nerfed multiclass/prestige was to 'raise the floor' of power levels, so that you didn't need to have a half dozen splat books to make a competitive character. :P
Just to say, The Dragon, the problem isn't that the Oracle is weak, is that Prepared Spellcasting is TOO GOOD.
They might get even better if you prestige, but only if it's a full casting prestige. Otherwise you're just making yourself worse for no reason. Thou Shalt Not Lose a Caster Level, remember?I didn't say relative to ANY multiclass/prestige - if it wasn't clear - I meant any 3.5 class relative to a multi/prestige version of itself. A Wizard 20 was still weaker than Wizard 5 / Full Caster Prestige Class of Awesome. Same for virtually all of the above. (Can't weigh in on Tome of Battle or Psion type stuff as I never played with them.)
Fair enough. You were responding to something related to what I said, not what I actually said, hence the confusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to say, The Dragon, the problem isn't that the Oracle is weak, is that Prepared Spellcasting is TOO GOOD.
I can't agree to this, at least not in the case of the cleric.
The ability to make blindness, ability damage and death go away in a timely fashion is not game breaking.
In fact, it's very enabling for the rest of the game to move forward.
The fact that oracle's limited spells known is a bad way to use the cleric list, because it encourages not helping out your team with the spells, instead going for workhorse spells like Harm and Righteous Might; stuff you can use in every encounter. No-one wants to be the sucker that took ressurection on an oracle - you'll never use that spell, except in the rare case that someone dies.
Wizards are another story, but that's because their preparation is about knowing a bunch of tricks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, it's very enabling for the rest of the game to move forward.
Never thought on it. Be a healer in PF sucks major ass, and I must agree that almost nobody will want to play a healbot.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that oracle's limited spells known is a bad way to use the cleric list, because it encourages not helping out your team with the spells, instead going for workhorse spells like Harm and Righteous Might; stuff you can use in every encounter. No-one wants to be the sucker that took resurrection on an oracle - you'll never use that spell, except in the rare case that someone dies.
I must be an outlier then, as all of my oracles have been support characters. My Winter Oracle will only not take Resurrection because we probably won't get that high in level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel I should note that while yes, spontaneous casting is weaker then prepared the gap is significantly smaller in Pathfinder. Especially once Favored Class Bonuses that give additional spells known, things like Mnemonic Vestment, and Paragon Surge (seriously it's amazing) are factored in. Archetypes for spontaneous casters also offer amazing flexibility that didn't exist in 3.5 like Razmiran Priest Sorcerers and Spirit Guide Oracles.
In regards to the effectiveness of the Oracle, now that Animal Soul has been changed, Spirit Guide Nature Half-Elf (or counts as) Oracles are back to being the #1 hands down strongest class in Pathfinder. So keep that in mind when talking about them.
Slight tangent while I'm thinking of it. Bards are unusual in that at low levels of optimization, Bards are better in Pathfinder. But at high levels of optimization a 3.5 Bard comes out WAY WAY ahead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, the good and old Dragonfire Inspiration + Words of Creation...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prestige classes were hurt badly, one person at Paizo at Dragoncon 2011 basically said it was somewhat intentional because it was felt no class should exist that needed someone to survive several levels before that PC could properly buckle a swash.
With the introduction of archetypes, I now question the purpose of prestige classes. While a few of them do enhance a single class's features, most of them barely do anything to enhance a character.
I'm pretty sure they where meaning that more like "They took the 3.5 Core Rulebook and balanced it out better" rather than "the 3.5 Core Rulebook was already pretty balance".The 3.5 core rulebook material was pretty much all balanced.*eyetwitch*
No, that's not what I meant. I mean using only the Player's Handbook, they were pretty close to being balanced. It was the supplements like the "Complete" series and so on that were poorly designed and thought out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, that's not what I meant. I mean using only the Player's Handbook, they were pretty close to being balanced. It was the supplements like the "Complete" series and so on that were poorly designed and thought out.
I think you must have had a PHB different to everyone else on the planet. Most broken options in the game were from the Core Rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, that's not what I meant. I mean using only the Player's Handbook, they were pretty close to being balanced. It was the supplements like the "Complete" series and so on that were poorly designed and thought out.I'm pretty sure they where meaning that more like "They took the 3.5 Core Rulebook and balanced it out better" rather than "the 3.5 Core Rulebook was already pretty balance".The 3.5 core rulebook material was pretty much all balanced.*eyetwitch*
I think that's some rose colored glasses you're wearing there.
Core was horribly balanced. They had monks and druids in the same book, for one thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, that's not what I meant. I mean using only the Player's Handbook, they were pretty close to being balanced. It was the supplements like the "Complete" series and so on that were poorly designed and thought out.I'm pretty sure they where meaning that more like "They took the 3.5 Core Rulebook and balanced it out better" rather than "the 3.5 Core Rulebook was already pretty balance".The 3.5 core rulebook material was pretty much all balanced.*eyetwitch*
Oh. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that 3.5 was a better and better balanced game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Advanced Class Guide really put the final nail in the coffin on the old prestige class design. Since most prestige classes are about combining classes together (eldritch knight, dragon disciple, arcane trickster) we get a whole book about hybrid classes.
I expect a release in the next few years that finally seals the coffin on the remaining core prestige classes. A real spell thief class that works like an arcane trickster (because the Greensting Slayer is not that playable), and a theurge like class that gets partial arcane and divine spellcasting.
Enabling players to have these character concepts at level 1 is really what Paizo's game design has been all about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter - gained new features, and those features helped the fighter in its primary combat role, yet did nothing to help it when a situation occurred that did not need a weapon applied to someone's face. Combat feat taxes also mitigate the added features (such as combat expertise needed as a prerequisite for many combat feats)...That was not a change from 3.5. The Fighter got considerably better. He's the only class that can move full speed in heavy armor once you hit mid-level. He gets inherently better in both weapon and armor use without feat expenditure. And all those people moaning about the fighter not having options besides "hit people in face" for get that for 80 percent of the game... that's what you do... and in that department he has mastery and versatility par none.
Overall the biggest change in Pathfinder from 3.5 is that base classes aren't something you run away from as soon as you qualify from a PrC.
Except the knight could already do that in 3.5e. Also, you don't need more than 3 levels of fighter to move 30ft in mithral heavy armor.
'Mastery and versatility bar none'. Except for, oh, I don't know, the Barbarian, Bloodrager, Paladin, Ranger and Warpriest? The alchemist also makes a pretty good showing here, and Horizon Walkers (Oh god, a functional prestige class! Call the Pailice!) can teleport all over the battlefield while they fight.
You spend 80% of your game just fighting? That's pretty strange, but if you enjoy that kind of gaming, have fun with that. Most of the rest of us actually spend the majority of the game out of combat, I think.
The lack of PRCing is not a function of buffed base classes - it's a function of sucky pathfinder prestige classes. War Mind, just for the sake of a random example off of the SRD, is still a straight upgrade over taking pathfinder fighter levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Advanced Class Guide really put the final nail in the coffin on the old prestige class design. Since most prestige classes are about combining classes together (eldritch knight, dragon disciple, arcane trickster) we get a whole book about hybrid classes.
Emphasis mine; that's the only PrC that actually enhances a class (sorcerer).
To add to my statement earlier:
- some PrCs had some ridiculous requirements, such as:
* The Fochlucan Lyrist (Complete Adventurer) needed the Druidic language, divine spells (druid), bardic knowledge, arcane spells (bard) AND evasion (a 3rd class was needed, such as rogue).
- some PrCs had very limited abilities, such as:
* The Master of the Unseen Hand (Complete Warrior) needed Telekinesis, which is in limited supply most of the time.
* The Shining Blade of Heironeous (Complete Divine) could charge his sword a few times per day for 15 rounds on average, without it being non-continuous... and it was the ONLY ability it received.
- some PrCs could break your character, such as:
* The Walker in the Waste (Sandstorm) turned you into a dry lich.
- some PrCs locked you into a specific location
- some PrCs relied on specific terrains
- some PrCs were just dumb class combinations that went with the genral theme of the book.
* Complete Warrior -> fighter/monk/barbarian with whatever class
* Complete Divine/Champion -> cleric/paladin/druid with whatever class
* Complete Arcane/Mage -> bard/sorcerer/wizard with whatever class
* Complete Adventurer/Scoundrel -> rogue/ranger with whatever class
In the end, 3.5 was heavily bloated with PrCs with little to no use or simply to be a one-trick pony.
Then again, Pathfinder kinda has a bunch of rather useless PrCs, all of which could be reworked into archetypes or hybrid classes:
- Arcane Archer (archetype; magus)
- Arcane Trickster (hybrid (rogue/wizard)
- Assassin (done, almost by the slayer)
- Dragon Disciple (archetype; sorcerer and bloodrager)
- Duelist (done, almost by the swashbuckler)
- Eldritch Knight (archetype; magus)
- Loremaster (archetype; bard)
- Mystic Theurge (hybrid; cleric/wizard)
- Pathfinder Chronicler (archetype; bard)
- Shadowdancer (archetype; bard)
- Battle Herald (hybrid; bard/cavalier)
- Holy Vindicator (done, almost by the warpriest)
- Horizon Walker (archetype; ranger)
- Master Chymist (archetype; alchemist)
- Master Spy (archetype; rogue)
- Nature Warden (done, almost by the hunter)
- Rage Prophet (either a cleric/barbarian hybrid, a bloodrager archetype that swaps arcane spells and bloodlines for divine spells and domains or a warpriest archetype that swaps something else for rage)
- Stalwart Defender (archetype; fighter)
To further prove my point, we haven't gotten new PrCs in core rulebooks since the Advanced Player's Guide. Yep, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Advanced Race Guide, Advanced Class Guide, Mythic Adventures and Occult Adventures didn't feature PrCs at all.
If they ever rework the PrCs into actual archetypes or hybrid classes, these mecanics would probably be more used by everyone.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Fighter received more feats. The rest I don't know just feel underwhelming. Sure he can move at full speed in armor. Which at most is a ok ability imo. Now if he could move and do a full range of attacks that would be a upgrade. As soon as a Fighter moves more than five feet. He can do one attack. Weapon training is useful. With the right feats I can do that anyway to a lesser degree. Bravery don't get me started on that. Even Weapon Mastery by the time you get it is also underwhelming. By level 20 everyone else has better captstone abilites. It's like congratulations you can auto crit with a weapon but guess what too bad the game is over.
I would have to say the rest of the classes were given buffs. Sorcerers actually came into their own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Fighter received more feats. The rest I don't know just feel underwhelming. Sure he can move at full speed in armor. Which at most is a ok ability imo. Now if he could move and do a full range of attacks that would be a upgrade. As soon as a Fighter moves more than five feet. He can do one attack. Weapon training is useful. With the right feats I can do that anyway to a lesser degree. Bravery don't get me started on that. Even Weapon Mastery by the time you get it is also underwhelming. By level 20 everyone else has better captstone abilites. It's like congratulations you can auto crit with a weapon but guess what too bad the game is over.
I would have to say the rest of the classes were given buffs. Sorcerers actually came into their own.
I don't know that the fighter got more feats - they get the same number as 3.5e fighters.
If you figure that the 3 feats from the base upgrade is 'extra' sure, but 3.5e had flaws, and pathfinder split the combat maneuver feats into two-feat chains, so most fighters actually lose at least 1 feat there.
---
Also, the reason you don't run screaming from being a high-level fighter isn't that the fighter is actually a good thing to take levels in: It's that pathfighter prestige classes are bad on general design principle.
Besides, you don't need more than 3 fighter levels to move in mithral full plate. And then you can go multiclass into a real class, like barbarian or ranger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warblade 20
Binder 20
Cleric 20
Beguiler 20
Wizard 20Excepting for new players, I don't see very many go Cleric 20 or Wizard 20. Even you ban super-powerful prestige classes like Incantatrix and IotSV (Dweomerkeeper for Clerics), both classes care mostly about their spellcasting, and there are plenty of Prestige Classes that offer full advancement on them. Even tame ones like Divine Oracle or Sentinel of Bharrai are strict upgrades.
Beguiler 20 is a myth. Taking a level of something (probably Mindbender) at level 6 is pretty much a staple of Beguilers to delay their Advanced Learning and allow them to take Shadow Conjuration with it. That's assuming that Warsnake isn't in play and they didn't have Binder 1 to go Anima Mage.
I actually haven't seen many Warblade 20 either. Assuming they didn't go elf and become an Eternal Blade or find a way to get into Mo9S, many of them still dip Lion Totem Barbarian for pounce. This is not to mention that the ToB classes are some of the most multiclass-friendly ones in the book due to how IL advanced on off-class levels, and a lot of Warblade's class features after 6 (Improved Uncanny Dodge) are kinda meh unless if you are waiting to wait for the capstone.
I don't disagree that there are some classes that can be taken to 20, but even Totemists and Binders have a tendency to prestige or dip at some point. The druid is the only one that is strictly better at 20 levels than anything else...assuming Planar Shepherd is banned, at least.
Even my Core only Cleric took all 5 levels of Thaumaturgist and was taking the rest of their levels as Loremaster. Because I mean seriously... have you seen all the abilities Clerics *don't* get (even in Pathfinder, but *especially* in 3.5).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even my Core only Cleric took all 5 levels of Thaumaturgist and was taking the rest of their levels as Loremaster. Because I mean seriously... have you seen all the abilities Clerics *don't* get (even in Pathfinder, but *especially* in 3.5).
Sorry about deleting my post. I did it because I thought it was too argumentative about a minor point.
It's definitely true that a lot of (somewhat optimizing) players dipped or took prestige classes for even the really powerful classes, though. Wizards also did this in core-only games, except with Archmage rather than Loremaster.
Even classes with powerful features, like Beguiler and Incarnum classes, are often victims of multi-classing. Druid's pretty much the only exception (assuming no Planar Shepherd).
Rogue - A strong choice as a first level multiclass in 3.5; in Pathfinder, skills are calculated differently so the advantage was much watered down. Trapfinding is now a perception boost to traps, rather than a feature needed in order not to autofail a spot DC over 15. This means the two strongest reasons to take a rogue class in 3.5 are gone or watered down. The bard unintentionally became the best skill monkey with its Pathfinder class features (performance versatility, and the new bardic lore). Unchained did much to fix it.
Just wanted to add something about rogues. While their mastery of skills was definitely a major reason why they are much more highly rated in 3.5, it's not the only reason - sneak attack is strong in those days due to splatbook support.
First of all, there were many feats and features that makes sneak attack much easier to land without the need for positioning. One of my favorites was Gloom Razor; the feat gives you considerable tactical advantage and multiple ways to use Stealth (Hide) to make the target flat-footed. It helps that the per-requisite feat for this is Shadow Blade, which gives you DEX to damage (if you are in a shadow blade stance, which you can get with a Crown of Assassin's Stance).
Second of all, DEX to damage was more plentiful. One of the characters I made for a Eastern campaign - a martial artist girl with eldritch-enhanced attacks re-fluffed as Ki strikes - had quadruple DEX to damage: Shadow Blade, Skirmish (Drow) Fighter, doubled by Eldritch Claw+Beast Claw. Since sneak attackers tend to depend on dexterity for TWF, it makes them much more powerful. Even if you don't want Warlock levels or Skirmish Fighter, Shadow Blade still offers you very easy DEX to damage for little cost.
Third, sneak attack had powerful support. Craven is the big one here - any time you sneak attack, deal damage equal to your class level (non-precision). Added to this are the sneak attack feats that allow you to sacrifice a few die for effects like ability damage, and you have versatility bundled in as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually say that 3.5's Skills, and particularly for the Rogue where much stronger, just because the way Ranks worked, you had a lot more options to spread things out, if you wanted. Instead of say, maxing out Tumble (Acrobatics), you could just put a rank or two into it (a level one) and then put the other 1-3 Ranks into other skills, allowing you at least a chance to use them. In PF you can't, because you get 1/4 the number of skill points. In a lot of ways it works out similar, and is simpler, but I prefer customization over simplicity in general.
I'd actually say that Pathfinder watered a lot of things down more than the reverse, though. By allowing most things, as an example, to be subject to Sneak Attack like Undead, it does make things better for the Rogue, but it does so by reducing a lot of the cool factor and threat level of those Undead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF you can't, because you get 1/4 the number of skill points.
Note that's only for first level, and you accomplish the same bonus as if you put four ranks in through the way class skills work, and the way class skills work means your character can put ranks in cross-class skills without permanently sucking at them. So.... customization has increased...
Regarding terrible 3.5e classes: Soulknife, samurai and soulborn are made out of pure undiluted suckage, the same way the outer planes consist primarily of alignment made material.
Avernus is made out of Law. The seven heavens are made out of Law and Good. The soulborn is made out of Suck.
Complete list of classes to avoid taking 1-20:
Divine Mind
Dragon Shaman
Fighter
Healer
Hexblade
Kight
Lurk(ish)
Marshal
Monk
Ninja (although they do make the only half-way functional precision based archers)
Ranger
Rogue
Samurai
Soulborn
Soulknife
Spellthief(ish)
Swashbuckler
Truenamer(probably)I'm not saying you couldn't make something good with the things on this list. You could, if you multiclassed and stuff. I'm just saying that as written, if you take these 1-20, you're going to suck.
3.5e had a much lower optimization floor, and a much higher optimization cieling than pathfinder ever had.
in regards to the list of allegedly s+## classes (not arguing most of them, just a few)
I just finished DMing a group of 4 through Castle Whiterock, party was composed of a moderately optimized Dragon Shaman, a reach-weapon build Knight, a warlock(Walk Unseen, Fell Flight, the whole kebab), and a pouncing variant barbarian.
1) Dragon shaman has AoE buffs for DR/, fast healing, energy resistance, Touch of Vitality(for those who don't know, it's similar to the paladin's lay on hands), and a Juicy breath weapon with 1d4 recharge time, which means it can benefit from all of those metabreath feats. which means it's basically always Empowered and Maximized from the get go, not to mention the various debuff and CC effects thrown on top. Yes that's a 1st round trick and then you wait half a minute to use it again, but you've still got higher con than anybody in the party, barbarian included, and can handle yourself as a second line melee.
2) Knight. Combat reflexes, a reach weapon, Bulwark of Defense(area you threaten is difficult terrain) short haft(use your reach weapon as if it didn't have reach, thus no blind spot), and stand still with a belt of growth. That's a tank that outdoes all other tanks, and locks down a 15foot radius circle nigh infallibly starting at level 4.
3) Swashbucklers make a solid class. Int to damage in addition to strength on an full BAB progression class. Nothing in the class requires you to go high dex, but if you want to replace DEX for STR for damage, pick up Champion of Correlon and go to town with a 2handed elven court blade.
now, you mention taking a class 1-20. That's not something you do for nearly *any* class in 3.5, with the obvious exception of invocation based classes like the Dragon Shaman which rely heavily on their own class levels. most classes in 3.5 get frontloaded, and about level 6-7 you bounce over to a prestige class that offers more. for any class. You don't take a wizard in 3.5 for 20 levels either, so it's a bit of a false comparison you're making.
with the exception of full casters, almost everybody multiclasses. the fighter does it, the Duskblade takes a few levels of Swashbuckler to add his casting stat to damage so that he can drop STR. It's a Pathfinder mindset, keeping the same class for 20 levels, not something you do to optimize in 3.5. you'd be better served compiling a list of classes that people do take for 20 levels.
as for 3.5 having a higher optimization ceiling; you can thank paizo for a lot of that concerning the broken stuff the released in Dragon starting in 2002, and just wait a little longer. they've already had to ban their own classes from their own organized play, sit around for a few years, let Pathfinder acquire the same rules bloat that 3.5 has, and Paizo will hand you Pun Pun in a class of its own.
[Edit; elven court blade(RotW), not curved blade]
The Advanced Class Guide really put the final nail in the coffin on the old prestige class design. Since most prestige classes are about combining classes together (eldritch knight, dragon disciple, arcane trickster) we get a whole book about hybrid classes.Emphasis mine; that's the only PrC that actually enhances a class (sorcerer).
To add to my statement earlier:
- some PrCs had some ridiculous requirements, such as:
* The Fochlucan Lyrist (Complete Adventurer) needed the Druidic language, divine spells (druid), bardic knowledge, arcane spells (bard) AND evasion (a 3rd class was needed, such as rogue).
Ring of Evasion worked.
Ring of Evasion worked.The Advanced Class Guide really put the final nail in the coffin on the old prestige class design. Since most prestige classes are about combining classes together (eldritch knight, dragon disciple, arcane trickster) we get a whole book about hybrid classes.Emphasis mine; that's the only PrC that actually enhances a class (sorcerer).
To add to my statement earlier:
- some PrCs had some ridiculous requirements, such as:
* The Fochlucan Lyrist (Complete Adventurer) needed the Druidic language, divine spells (druid), bardic knowledge, arcane spells (bard) AND evasion (a 3rd class was needed, such as rogue).
That's... not what for most players would go. It also doesn't change the fact that the requirements are absurd...