Anything you feel 3.x did better than Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
In theory I agree with you - but going by the 3.5 HD etc., some monsters you build were crazy OP for their CR, and others were push-overs.
It was easy to build critters with insanely high melee capability for their CR -- but they'd be pushovers when it came to spells or missile fire, so I always felt the results were just about right. (As far as underpowered, that came up when you tried to make a Large wraith, but that's a pretty minor corner-case.)

CR has always been more of an art than a science, especially since there's a fair amount of it that depends on the party's capabilities. The CR system might call a Shadow an easy encounter for a level 3 party, but I've seen quite a few level parties that wouldn't have much in the way of tools to deal with one.

Sovereign Court

Feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
The CR system might call a Shadow an easy encounter for a level 3 party, but I've seen quite a few level parties that wouldn't have much in the way of tools to deal with one.

That's more a failure of those parties than of the CR system, IMHO... then again, I'm coming from a background in which lack of a 10-ft. pole meant certain death.

One major failure of the CR system I'll readily acknowledge is that a 10th level NPC fighter is in no way a CR 9 challenge (closer to CR 5, in fact). But that's a C/MD disparity problem, a bigger issue than CR.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
The CR system might call a Shadow an easy encounter for a level 3 party, but I've seen quite a few level parties that wouldn't have much in the way of tools to deal with one.
That's more a failure of those parties than of the CR system, IMHO... then again, I'm coming from a background in which lack of a 10-ft. pole meant certain death.

I'm somewhat inclined to agree, but the party generally doesn't have magic weapons at level 3 so martials are useless, which means handling incorporeal undead is really dependent on what classes are in the party and what spells the casters are packing.

Then, of course, there's the fact that a CR+2 encounter is considered fair but hard. I do recall much complaining about one PFS scenario that tossed level one characters against an incorporeal undead of some sort.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have ended up preferring Pathfinder over 3.5 in every way.

I did enjoy my faux leather bound, gold edged versions of the 3.5 Core Rules. But that was then. *shrug*

To be truthful, I use PDFs almost exclusively now in terms of use. Physical product is on the shelf and I like it, sure, but the PDF is where the value-in-use lies for me. It's how I play.

The improvements from 3.5 to PF have been incremental and across the board, but especially in the adventures, accessories and software side of the product lines. Herolab is an essential tool for me. Yes, if you are coming in to the game now it's expensive to get a full version of Herolab. But for those of us in from the get go, its incremental purchases have been easy to afford. While Herolab is not perfect -- it gets it 99.9% plus right and they try hard to fix the missing .01% when it comes to their attention. I wouldn't try to play or run Pathfinder without it.

In the end, there is one thing that 3.5 had that Pathfinder doesn't have (in the same way): We don't have Dragon Magazine (as it then was) and we don't have Dungeon Magazine (as it then was).

What we have instead is the people who made those publications continuing to make Pathfinder. And now we have Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder and its complete product range. While part of me will always miss Dragon and Dungeon, that is really the only thing I DO miss about 3.6 D&D. But it wasn't WotC I was missing; rather it was Paizo's monthly contribution to D&D under 3.5.

Would I trade Pathfinder AP for Dungeon Magazine? I'm nostalgic for it, sure, but no, I wouldn't give up Pathfinder AP to go back to Dungeon. No way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I dont like how stealth combined hide and move silently. I also dont like how spot and listen were combined.

I'll agree, but for the different reason of finding I like variety in my "stealth" and "finding" skills.

For my full contribution I'm going to go with:
* Variety of core publisher settings.

I don't know why it is but I really don't like that Paizo sticks with just one official setting. Partly because it's one I dislike. But another part is an illogical need for the official publisher to "mix things up": things feel stagnant otherwise.

(Starfinder doesn't count since it's set in the same universe.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I miss about 3.5 is skill synergy. Used to be that if you were really good at one skill you would get a bonus to skills that related to it. It wasn't a large bonus, only a +2, but it really gave you the feeling that your characters focus in something was something that was actually affecting other things. It would be nice if having a high Knowledge (arcana) gave you a boost to your Spellcraft and Use Magical Device, due to your high understanding of the underlying principles involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Bitman wrote:

But at least Pathfinder has the NPC Codex, which I found to be a great time-saver. 3.X doesn't have anything like that.

And I always did think that choosing gear was the most tedious part of creating an NPC, in any edition.

In my current campaign I have no humans, dwarves, halflings, etc. and I am nearly regretting it purely because of how many statblocks I have to write up.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I still prefer D&D hit dice going down all the way to d4, but that's a minor quibble.

The big thing I prefer in 3.x is Level Adjustment races. Now, with no LA, all player races MUST be either forced down to the same level (powering down of drow for example) or they will be overpowered (like drow noble being *technically* a 0-HD race but no GM will let you play it). The LA system worked well enough to balance things so that you could have tougher player races and compensate for it by giving up some of your class levels.

And this is more fluff than crunch, but I do still prefer Faerûn to Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I liked the idea of Level Adjustment, but was very unhappy with the execution. Nearly all the +1 races where exactly as powerfull as the base ones. My group loves play stranges things, but on 3.5 it was like shooting yourself on the feet as the adjustment was too great nearly always. We thought of using Level Adjustment as half the oficial number (+4 > +2) but never doing it.
Is interesting that two of the changes that I liked more from 3.5 (skill system and level adjustment) has been mentioned here.


Milo v3 wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:

But at least Pathfinder has the NPC Codex, which I found to be a great time-saver. 3.X doesn't have anything like that.

And I always did think that choosing gear was the most tedious part of creating an NPC, in any edition.

In my current campaign I have no humans, dwarves, halflings, etc. and I am nearly regretting it purely because of how many statblocks I have to write up.

Just subtract the ability score changes and racial features of the race from the statblock (2 from the highest score in case of humans) and put in the features of the race you want it to be. You still have to do some recalculating of stats, but its probably faster than making them from scratch.


Samy wrote:

I still prefer D&D hit dice going down all the way to d4, but that's a minor quibble.

The big thing I prefer in 3.x is Level Adjustment races. Now, with no LA, all player races MUST be either forced down to the same level (powering down of drow for example) or they will be overpowered (like drow noble being *technically* a 0-HD race but no GM will let you play it). The LA system worked well enough to balance things so that you could have tougher player races and compensate for it by giving up some of your class levels.

And this is more fluff than crunch, but I do still prefer Faerûn to Golarion.

It does feel like every NPC class should use 1 HD category lower. But the HD boost for PC classes feels like a good thing to me.


Samy wrote:
I still prefer D&D hit dice going down all the way to d4...

I agree. I feel that low-level wizards and sorcerers should need protection. It's part of the flavor. (People have vehemently argued with me on that point.)


Alaryth wrote:
I liked the idea of Level Adjustment, but was very unhappy with the execution. Nearly all the +1 races where exactly as powerfull as the base ones. My group loves play stranges things, but on 3.5 it was like shooting yourself on the feet as the adjustment was too great nearly always...

I do think that Aasimar and Tieflings aren't powerful enough to warrant the +1 LA.

On the other hand, in my current 3.0 campaign, I'm playing a gnoll, and I do feel like I'm overpowered. It does seem like I'm cheating, not taking the 1-level penalty that 3.5 prescribes.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of being able to play monsters, but LA very often created characters whose basic stats were far too low for their level. Having a nominally 10th level character with a BAB of +4 and all worse than poor saves and only 6 HD was quite possible. Sure, you got some fun abilities but for many monster races you were objectively worse off at nearly everything.

It worked okay for a few monsters, for example the troll's regeneration kept it afloat, but for most any level adjustment above +2 meant a death sentence. The grig comes to mind - 1d3 total hp at 4th level? Sign me up!


ryric wrote:

I like the idea of being able to play monsters, but LA very often created characters whose basic stats were far too low for their level. Having a nominally 10th level character with a BAB of +4 and all worse than poor saves and only 6 HD was quite possible. Sure, you got some fun abilities but for many monster races you were objectively worse off at nearly everything.

It worked okay for a few monsters, for example the troll's regeneration kept it afloat, but for most any level adjustment above +2 meant a death sentence. The grig comes to mind - 1d3 total hp at 4th level? Sign me up!

Yap, and they totally overpriced ability boosts. It should have been something like racial levels rather than totally dead lvls from LA.

I miss many feats, especially divine feats. I liked skill synergy.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Nope, Fluffies just kick ass.


ryric wrote:
The grig comes to mind - 1d3 total hp at 4th level? Sign me up!

Obviously, it's not for everyone. But I love the idea of playing a pixie, to the point where I feel it's totally worth 4 class levels. Yes, I'll have to stay hidden and out of range a lot. The invisibility and flying help with that. But - Ah! - how about those Sleep arrows? And the ability to remain invisible while attacking? That pixie just takes some levels of rogue and gets Sneak Attack bonuses round after round! I would totally risk getting killed for the chance at kicking butt like that!


Most LA could be replaced with RHD without too much trouble. Honestly, Dragon and Outsiders were the only two types where the benefits you got from a RHD made the delay not only in hp, but BAB, max skill ranks, feats, and ability score boosts worthwhile.


Aaron Bitman wrote:
Samy wrote:
I still prefer D&D hit dice going down all the way to d4...

I agree. I feel that low-level wizards and sorcerers should need protection. It's part of the flavor. (People have vehemently argued with me on that point.)

I feel that- if the status quo of what spells can do compared to martial prowess is maintained- all wizards level 1-20 should meed protection.


Alaryth wrote:

I liked the idea of Level Adjustment, but was very unhappy with the execution. Nearly all the +1 races where exactly as powerfull as the base ones. My group loves play stranges things, but on 3.5 it was like shooting yourself on the feet as the adjustment was too great nearly always. We thought of using Level Adjustment as half the oficial number (+4 > +2) but never doing it.

Is interesting that two of the changes that I liked more from 3.5 (skill system and level adjustment) has been mentioned here.

Some few were worth it. But there were some Elemental based +1 races, which were such a bad buy that even after i took off the +1LA and made them 0 LA, no one tried one.

We had a couple campaigns where you HAD to be a LA race, and that also had the effect of downpowering spellcasters, so it worked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They even introduced buying off level adjustments in Unearthed Arcana.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i played several genasi in 3.0. Especially the fire genasi was bad, its SLA was the worst out of all of the planetouched races. A tiefling could achieve similar or better result with its darkness SLA, had more resistances and better ability scores. Water and air genasis at least got good abilities for getting past obstacles

I liked the four races well enough, but the LA was wholly unjustified, especially on fire genasi.


Yes, that's it, Genasi. Barely a La 0 race.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting, Genasi were a fine race in 4ed, the best for swordmages...


I played in a 3.5 game where I played...I think some +4 LA race. It was awesome, and I never felt underpowered for a moment!

Spoiler:
Of course, the DM didn't actually enforce LAs until they got above +4...


I hated LA... the nerfing of Gith races and drow was just about overwhelming.


I do kinda miss spell synergies. I might house rule that back into my next campaign. I don't mind the combining of some skills, though.

I don't think some of the classes get enough skill points as it is, and spreading them out among 4 or more instead of 2 or 3 is much more to my liking. And increasing the HD of some of the classes was also a decision I really like.


Klorox wrote:
I hated LA... the nerfing of Gith races and drow was just about overwhelming.

Yeah, it was definitely a very flawed implementation, even if it was a step up from Pathfinder just not having any solid rules for playing stronger races.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Yeah, it was definitely a very flawed implementation, even if it was a step up from Pathfinder just not having any solid rules for playing stronger races.

*looks at the rules for playing stronger races in the ARG*

*looks at the rules for playing monster races in the Bestiary*


there are such rules in the bestiary? where?

As for the ARG, I guess it's in the Race builder chapter, that I ought to read in detail...


Klorox wrote:
there are such rules in the bestiary? where?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/monstersAsPCs.html

Quote:
As for the ARG, I guess it's in the Race builder chapter, that I ought to read in detail...

Yeah it's in the Race Building chapter, for if people end up using races like Trox, Kasatha, Gargoyles, etc. or making up their own powerful races.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JosMartigan wrote:

I'm definitely not in the majority because of this, but I feel PF has overstuffed their classes. You don't need a special ability every level. I like 3.5 for their take on classes a little better.

I prefer to approach things from the opposite direction: start with 3.5 as a base and modify with select things from PF

That is literally one of the main reasons I like pathfinder better. I am all about filled out classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Yeah, it was definitely a very flawed implementation, even if it was a step up from Pathfinder just not having any solid rules for playing stronger races.

*looks at the rules for playing stronger races in the ARG*

*looks at the rules for playing monster races in the Bestiary*

Pathfinder's rules for that are more "vague guideline" than "solid rule." Which, granted, might be the best way to go about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Shapeshifting. I loved shapeshifting in 3.5 and went out of my way to use it whenever I could because it was fun, not because I wanted to break the game. Pathfinder watered down shapeshifting so bad it's basically useless.


I miss some of the old monsters and races, such as mind flayers, grell, or Goliaths.

One thing I also don't like is the sort of...tension? there is within the game design and flavor elements due balancing nostalgia/existence as a DnD offshoot, and being an original game. Stuff like mentioning of Tiamat and Demogorgon...but oh well these are associated with DnD so we are never going to do anything with them. Or taking popular options in DnD like Dragonborn style races and nixing them as options. While at the same time basically using Drow, Cosmology, etc that is basically the same as what we see in old DnD.

The above is not a deal breaker, but I do find it disappointing at times


Post 20 levels, although Mythic have its uses, sometimes feel too alien, almost like playing a different game, while Epic was a proper continuation if a bit flawed.

Another one for me is Deities, gods should have stats IMO.


Skill Tricks.

We sorta have them in the Skill Unlocks, but I miss having things to do with skill tricks.

I'm a big fan of "no dead levels" and "let's design a class that doesn't need multiclassing to function."

That said, I do miss the multiclassing feats from 3.5 like Devoted Tracker, Devoted Performer, etc. But overall Pathfinder's feats are better designed.

I'd like to see pathfinder fill all the class design niches, like spontaneous druid, full casting bard, etc. This was something that could be found or created in 3.5 easily, though it required extensive reading.

Pathfinder's approach to hardcover books being anthologies of total options rather than "complete x" is also nice, while the companion line covers the other stuff. I really like this setup, though I would personally prefer the Companion be written in a more OGL compatible manner.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:

Post 20 levels, although Mythic have its uses, sometimes feel too alien, almost like playing a different game, while Epic was a proper continuation if a bit flawed.

Another one for me is Deities, gods should have stats IMO.

I'm actually a fan of the "Non Statted Deities". In my Homebrew they are simply unable to be defeated by a PC. I see no need to stat them, as the players will not encounter them. Now I do stat "aspects" of the deities, lesser mortal versions that can be fought but doesn't affect the deity in anyway.


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
edduardco wrote:

Post 20 levels, although Mythic have its uses, sometimes feel too alien, almost like playing a different game, while Epic was a proper continuation if a bit flawed.

Another one for me is Deities, gods should have stats IMO.

I'm actually a fan of the "Non Statted Deities". In my Homebrew they are simply unable to be defeated by a PC. I see no need to stat them, as the players will not encounter them. Now I do stat "aspects" of the deities, lesser mortal versions that can be fought but doesn't affect the deity in anyway.

Yeah but that is your Home Game, is easier to ignore stats than create them.

EDIT for clarity


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What benefit is there to giving stats to deities anyway? I've always run it as "if you're in the presence of a deity in their full power (i.e. on their home plane) then that being can succeed on any roll they choose to, and have infinite HP and other defenses."

If the PCs want to actually kill a deity, they need to figure out some sort of secret weakness or rare alignment of the stars in which that being is vulnerable, not just "roll for initiative, ragelancepounce." Make it a quest to get the one weapon which can actually make the deity in question vulnerable, not just a combat.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

What benefit is there to giving stats to deities anyway? I've always run it as "if you're in the presence of a deity in their full power (i.e. on their home plane) then that being can succeed on any roll they choose to, and have infinite HP and other defenses."

If the PCs want to actually kill a deity, they need to figure out some sort of secret weakness or rare alignment of the stars in which that being is vulnerable, not just "roll for initiative, ragelancepounce." Make it a quest to get the one weapon which can actually make the deity in question vulnerable, not just a combat.

I just stat deities as ordinary characters of levels 17-20.

Silver Crusade

DungeonmasterCal wrote:
edduardco wrote:

Post 20 levels, although Mythic have its uses, sometimes feel too alien, almost like playing a different game, while Epic was a proper continuation if a bit flawed.

Another one for me is Deities, gods should have stats IMO.

I'm actually a fan of the "Non Statted Deities". In my Homebrew they are simply unable to be defeated by a PC. I see no need to stat them, as the players will not encounter them. Now I do stat "aspects" of the deities, lesser mortal versions that can be fought but doesn't affect the deity in anyway.

While the character builder in me loves stated deities, the player/DM in me hates them. Under normal circumstances you should not be able to beat a god, period. If you stat it, they will kill it.

EDUT: also wish they wouldn't stat archdevils, demon lords, and the like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isonaroc wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
edduardco wrote:

Post 20 levels, although Mythic have its uses, sometimes feel too alien, almost like playing a different game, while Epic was a proper continuation if a bit flawed.

Another one for me is Deities, gods should have stats IMO.

I'm actually a fan of the "Non Statted Deities". In my Homebrew they are simply unable to be defeated by a PC. I see no need to stat them, as the players will not encounter them. Now I do stat "aspects" of the deities, lesser mortal versions that can be fought but doesn't affect the deity in anyway.
While the character builder in me loves stated deities, the player/DM in me hates them. Under normal circumstances you should not be able to beat a god, period. If you stat it, they will kill it.

If I don't want a game where gods can be killed I keep the game under level 13.

If I don't mind lesser dieties at risk to the coordinated efforts of a party but wish to protect the pantheon's key players, I keep the game under level 15.

Silver Crusade

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
edduardco wrote:

Post 20 levels, although Mythic have its uses, sometimes feel too alien, almost like playing a different game, while Epic was a proper continuation if a bit flawed.

Another one for me is Deities, gods should have stats IMO.

I'm actually a fan of the "Non Statted Deities". In my Homebrew they are simply unable to be defeated by a PC. I see no need to stat them, as the players will not encounter them. Now I do stat "aspects" of the deities, lesser mortal versions that can be fought but doesn't affect the deity in anyway.
While the character builder in me loves stated deities, the player/DM in me hates them. Under normal circumstances you should not be able to beat a god, period. If you stat it, they will kill it.

If I don't want a game where gods can be killed I keep the game under level 13.

If I don't mind lesser dieties at risk to the coordinated efforts of a party but wish to protect the pantheon's key players, I keep the game under level 15.

I'm not saying that players shouldn't be able to kill gods, only that it should be only by abnormal means. I personally feel there should be a significant difference between a god and a level 20 character. As cabbage said, I don't think you should be able to punk out Asmodeus or Pharasma via ragelancepounce.


I don't think a level 20 character is powerful enough to be a deity, really. The thing about level 20 characters is that a sufficient number of say, level 12 characters, can take them out, just because of how action economy works.

If that were the case, "death of gods" is a thing that shouldn't be exceptionally rare, which is a valid choice for a campaign setting but it wouldn't be mine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't think a level 20 character is powerful enough to be a deity, really. The thing about level 20 characters is that a sufficient number of say, level 12 characters, can take them out, just because of how action economy works.

If that were the case, "death of gods" is a thing that shouldn't be exceptionally rare, which is a valid choice for a campaign setting but it wouldn't be mine.

I know for sure that most of the "gods" in our myths and legends would be happy to be able to do even half of what a level 20 full caster is capable of.

Create a new plane of existence that you can morph at will. Just 6 hours away!

Bring someone back to life? 10 Minutes of effort (though you can do it in less).

Move objects instantly from one point to another? Once you set-up the circles you can put the distance between point A and point B somewhere else.

Cure all ailments. Not even 6 seconds of effort.

Control Minds. Not even 6 seconds of effort.

Horde of Angels? Not even 6 seconds of effort.

Stop Time? Ok, look you made Zeus cry. This is your fault really.

Seriously, a level 20 Caster makes most gods just look plain silly. The sad thing is here just how much stuff I didn't mention, because the post would just keep going and going...

On the actual topic of the thread:

Prestige Classes: Look I get it Paizo, 3.5 Prestige classes were better than base classes. OK. But remember how you buffed all the base classes? Filled in all the dead levels? So, now to make a good prestige class you don't necessarily have to take anything away. A good PRC can just *GIVE* things, since by taking the PRC, the PC is already giving up their class abilities. *sigh*

Class Skills: To clarify I am not talking about skill consolidation here. 3.5 has really more skills than needed with a number of them being *extremely* niche. However, having a skill as a "class skill" is practically worthless in PF, which hurts skill monkeys. One of the main benefit of having a huge skill list and huge skill points per level, was that skill monkeys could actually master a lot of skills very quickly. Other classes had to pay a huge penalty to gain skills that weren't on their list and even than could never be as good as someone who had that skill as a class skill at least in terms of skill ranks. A +3 bonus doesn't help the Rogue much when the Wizard has practically the same number of skill points as them and is paying the same cost per skill as they are.

Diverse Classes: While not right at the start of the game, 3.5 did add lot of truly diverse classes to the game. Stuff like Binders, Psions, Swordsages, Totemists, and Warlocks all play completely differently from the original classes and use fresh mechanics to help define them. Paizo has a pretty rigid class template and only rarely steps outside of it.


But a 20 level wizard can only stop time ~5 times a day. A deity with "time" within their portfolio should be able to stop time whenever they want as often as they want for as long as they want at no real cost to themselves.

The difference between 20th level casters and gods is the difference between "standard action time stop for 1d4+1 rounds" and "free action time stop at will".


Anzyr wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't think a level 20 character is powerful enough to be a deity, really. The thing about level 20 characters is that a sufficient number of say, level 12 characters, can take them out, just because of how action economy works.

If that were the case, "death of gods" is a thing that shouldn't be exceptionally rare, which is a valid choice for a campaign setting but it wouldn't be mine.

I know for sure that most of the "gods" in our myths and legends would be happy to be able to do even half of what a level 20 full caster is capable of.

Create a new plane of existence that you can morph at will. Just 6 hours away!

Bring someone back to life? 10 Minutes of effort (though you can do it in less).

Move objects instantly from one point to another? Once you set-up the circles you can put the distance between point A and point B somewhere else.

Cure all ailments. Not even 6 seconds of effort.

Control Minds. Not even 6 seconds of effort.

Horde of Angels? Not even 6 seconds of effort.

Stop Time? Ok, look you made Zeus cry. This is your fault really.

Seriously, a level 20 Caster makes most gods just look plain silly. The sad thing is here just how much stuff I didn't mention, because the post would just keep going and going...

I disagree. The non deific Djinni from the story of Aladdin was capable of as much. Thor could drink an ocean and lift a mountain. Hera threw Heracles into a murderous rage with little effort. Even discounting the Abrahamic god, classical gods were capable of truly epic deeds.


Deities & Demigods was the 1st place I saw avatar stats for God's in 3.5. Avatars were manifestations, not even close to the true form of tge gods themselves. If I remember correctly no god had less than 2 classes of at least 15 levels each per avatar. Most had 20+. So they were essentially gestalt with a bunch if additional powers based on their divine rank. A 20th level anything (non mythic) should be trounced by even a 15/15 demigod IMO. A mythic 20th might get lucky and mess up an avatar, but killing a full fledged god should require an artifact, a special celestial ocvurence, or some other unique circumstance. Not just dps or a spell. And that unique info should be all but impossible to find out.

101 to 150 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Anything you feel 3.x did better than Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.