Anything you feel 3.x did better than Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Turn/Rebuke Undead much more than Channel Energy, and I like the Elemental Domains much more in 3.5 than PF.

In fact, Id say I like Positive and Negative Energy across the board better in 3.5.

I liked the Skill System, especially at level 1 more, although I do like some of PFs changes. Its half good and half bad. I outright detest the Fly Skill. I also think that Perception was inadvertently made too good a Skill, so making it Spot + Listen seperate from Search would have been much better.

I miss 3.5 Prestige Classes (especially when they where not based on Setting Organizations, but rather cool or multiclass concepts), and I think that 3.5s version of Archetypes was handled better, (allowing you the option to swap out features rather than automatic).

The 3.5 Cleric in general. PF just did too much nerfing that wasnt needed, and forgot about the class when it came to getting rid of dead levels and updating it to a new spin.

In general, I felt that WotC had a much better grasp of the rules and intent, and made a much better effort to word things much more clearly. Also they had a much better system for getting FAQs, Errata, and explanatiins for how things worked out, but also easier to find and be aware of by the general public. Paizo on the other hand, seems to not really have any sort of internal consistency as far as FAQs/Errata/RAI,with any given explanation only applying to a given example and not a general group of similar things.

I also liked that 3.5 seemed a lot less set that a given Class or concept could only be one thing only, (with a tiny bit of variation possible via Archetypes).


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
TOZ wrote:
It damn sure isn't for me. I have yet to see a 20th level character in Pathfinder.
I'll let you know when my group gets there. We made a promise to start at 1st and stop at 20 in this campaign and by gosh we're gonna do it. Right now the group is a combo of 12-14th level with varying Tiers of Mythic ranks. The 12th level player is going to get to play more often now, and she'll start to catch up soon. It's going to be yuge.

You should switch to milestone leveling. I assume your players are adults, with lives?


They are, but what is milestone leveling?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
They are, but what is milestone leveling?

Basically- stop tracking XP, and give the players a level whenever they accomplish something especially meaningful to the narrative or right before the quality of opposition they will face escalates (ideally these two cases are the same thing.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
They are, but what is milestone leveling?
Basically- stop tracking XP, and give the players a level whenever they accomplish something especially meaningful to the narrative or right before the quality of opposition they will face escalates (ideally these two cases are the same thing.)

And they are usually noted in APs explicitly, making it easier.


I might do that in the next campaign, but I don't want to throw major new changes into the current one. And sadly, I don't play the APs for the simple fact I can't afford them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing you can do if you're not using a printed adventure that tells you when to level the characters is just do this by feel. Whenever your players seem to be a bit bored with the abilities they've got and are craving some new toys to play with, it's time to give them a a level next time they accomplish anything meaningful. This means that level 2 will come pretty quickly, but the transition between levels 9 and 10 might take longer than usual.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well you're in luck Cal, you can get a complete AP for only $15 at humblebundle.com. One of the better APs (Iron Gods) IMO, too.


I'll take a look. Thanks!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Yolande d'Bar wrote:

My question is what was wrong with the 3.5 animal companion rules that PF changed them into their current iteration? Yeah, there was some broken pouncing dinosaur BS around, but were the ordinary wolves and bears and cheetahs really so game-breaking that needed such a strong nerf to their skills & abilities?

Yes.

A 10th level human fighter, built on 32pt gen and with appropriate gear for his level and a permanent enlarge person is a Str 24, large sized, greatsword wielding armor clad monster. Or should be. He sits around the AC22, 99hp, Attack +21 for 3d6+14 (+11 for 3d6+34 with full power attack), and will benefit a little from buffs, except those that don't stack with his magic items.

A 10th level druid's wolf, without magic items and PHB only buffs (so no bite of the wereX spells)... is a huge sized beast with Str 38 and an autotrip attempt on its bite (+22 bonus against medium creatures). It has around AC 28, 100 hp, attack around +20 for 2d6+23 damage (+14 and 2d6+35 with full power attack). Probably has Great Cleave.

So with the investment of (all 10min long, so fitting within the work day) 3 x 2nd level spells, 1 x 3rd and 1 x 5th, the druid's animal companion out-fights the fighter, while also being tougher, faster and infinitely more expendable. Only downside? Druid has to wait 2 more levels before it can get Great Cleave (aw....).

Applying Spell Compendium (do I want to give my animal companion a +16 enhancement bonus to Strength? Why, yes I do!) to a 15th level druid with a rhino... and yeah, martial characters largely become irrelevant.

Yolande d'Bar wrote:
Why did PF change this?

Because stat replacement, which is what 3.5 animal companions basically did, is an unbalanced mess that produces numbers that are not intended for PCs, and grossly overshadow what a martial character can do. Yes, vastly more so that in PF.

DM Beckett wrote:
I also liked that 3.5 seemed a lot less set that a given Class or concept could only be one thing only, (with a tiny bit of variation possible via Archetypes).

I suspect this is a Perception specific to your table. My experience is distinctly the opposite: That Pathfinder allows a much greater range of character concepts for a given class, due to a widening of class features and options (more than two ranger combat styles!), more flexible skill system (and not needing to build characters/NPCs level-by-level) and the introduction of archetypes.

Other than Clerics and the silliness that could be wrought from them, I'm not really seeing how 3.5 classes could be more flexible than PF.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Honestly, most of Pathfinders innovations were already available in 3.5 through optional books, including extra ranger styles and archetypes (called alternate class features). Pathfinder hasn't much improved on that, just continued the trend of fixes being add-on content.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I might do that in the next campaign, but I don't want to throw major new changes into the current one. And sadly, I don't play the APs for the simple fact I can't afford them.

It is really nice when playing with adults, as usually their reasons for missing a game are things we have to deal with- illness, work assignments, sick kids, etc.

Basically, no one is penalized for exps by missing a game. Yes, you sometime lose out on loot and of course the fun, but not exps.

You can fix this by simply saying everyone now has the same exps, the same amount as the highest player.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I might do that in the next campaign, but I don't want to throw major new changes into the current one. And sadly, I don't play the APs for the simple fact I can't afford them.

It is really nice when playing with adults, as usually their reasons for missing a game are things we have to deal with- illness, work assignments, sick kids, etc.

Basically, no one is penalized for exps by missing a game. Yes, you sometime lose out on loot and of course the fun, but not exps.

You can fix this by simply saying everyone now has the same exps, the same amount as the highest player.

Agreed. I know some people use XP as an award for showing up to the table, however, at this stage my players want to be at the table regularly. They usually have a good reason for missing.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It is a tricky proposition, as I can't deny that some of my groups have dropped in attendance after going XP-less. But I do prefer finding a group that doesn't need incentives to make time for the game, rather than try to offer enticements to get them to show.


Raynulf wrote:


A 10th level human fighter, built on 32pt gen and with appropriate gear for his level and a permanent enlarge person is a Str 24, large sized, greatsword wielding armor clad monster. Or should be. He sits around the AC22, 99hp, Attack +21 for 3d6+14 (+11 for 3d6+34 with full power attack), and will benefit a little from buffs, except those that don't stack with his magic items.

A 10th level druid's wolf, without magic items and PHB only buffs (so no bite of the wereX spells)... is a huge sized beast with Str 38 and an autotrip attempt on its bite (+22 bonus against medium creatures). It has around AC 28, 100 hp, attack around +20 for 2d6+23 damage (+14 and 2d6+35 with full power attack). Probably has Great Cleave.

So with the investment of (all 10min long, so fitting within the work day) 3 x 2nd level spells, 1 x 3rd and 1 x 5th, the druid's animal companion out-fights the fighter, while also being tougher, faster and infinitely more expendable. Only downside? Druid has to wait 2 more levels before it can get Great Cleave (aw....).

False comparos, these dont figure in magic items, that the fighter gets two or even three attacks, and five spells vs one for the fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
It is a tricky proposition, as I can't deny that some of my groups have dropped in attendance after going XP-less. But I do prefer finding a group that doesn't need incentives to make time for the game, rather than try to offer enticements to get them to show.

I've found that in home games, cutting filler is a big part of milestone leveling and thus attendance is something we rarely worry about save for work schedules etc.

I tend to go through levels rather quickly as a result, with most of the combat being something like 2-3 mook fights followed up by 1-2 boss fights per level. Sometimes really big important boss fights are worth a level on their own, but that is rare and usually saved for really high levels where mook fights are largely filler.

Filler in this case is any fight that otherwise has no consequences to the players, as they don't force the expenditure of resources for the important fights nor do they expand the narrative.

Generally we have a good session of role playing, followed by some role playing mixed with combat, and then we go straight into combat for a level around every 2-3 sessions (which is 2-3 weeks for us). I start all my main campaigns at 3rd level, so this formula gives us around 35-51 weeks of campaign which usually ends up filling out a whole year when you consider holidays and special events.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


False comparos, these dont figure in magic items, that the fighter gets two or even three attacks, and five spells vs one for the fighter.

A) The fighter included; Belt of Giant Strength +4, +2 Greatsword, +2 Fullplate, Amulet of Health +2, Ring of Protection+1, Cloak of Resistance +2. I didn't apply magic items to the animal companion because it doesn't need them.

B) Druids are spellcasters. Fighters aren't. Comparing a druid's animal companion without buffs (most lasting the entire work day) is like comparing a fighter to a wizard without spells. Additionally, most of those spells (bull's strength, barkskin etc) are also active on the druid if they are using the companion as a mount, via share spells.

Furthermore, I also applied barskin to the fighter, otherwise he'd have an AC of 20.

If you feel the comparison is unfair, by all means feel free to provide some examples of each to demonstrate. My experience is that animal companions using monster (animal) stats plus multiple size changes with full bonuses (rather than +2 Str, -2 Dex, which is all PCs get) and stacking both personal and animal combat buffs creates abominations that no martial character can come close to.

And that's without even going outside of the PHB, whereby things get very silly, very fast -arcane hierophant mounted combatant with a pouncing, diving, flying gargantuan rhino with great cleave and four natural attacks, and the ability to instakill anything within 15ft. Of point of impact.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Honestly, most of Pathfinders innovations were already available in 3.5 through optional books, including extra ranger styles and archetypes (called alternate class features). Pathfinder hasn't much improved on that, just continued the trend of fixes being add-on content.

Sorcerer Bloodlines, Monk styles, Spontanious Clerics/Druids, the Battle Sorcerer, Reserve Feats, Priest of <environment>, Disciple of ______.

Something else I miss from 3.5 is the way both Power Attack and Cleave work. And Leap Attack.


I still use Cleave that way.

Shadow Lodge

Like most other 3.5 combat feats, it now costs two feats to get what you want.

Shadow Lodge

Raynulf wrote:

I suspect this is a Perception specific to your table. My experience is distinctly the opposite: That Pathfinder allows a much greater range of character concepts for a given class, due to a widening of class features and options (more than two ranger combat styles!), more flexible skill system (and not needing to build characters/NPCs level-by-level) and the introduction of archetypes.

Other than Clerics and the silliness that could be wrought from them, I'm not really seeing how 3.5 classes could be more flexible than PF.

So, there are many facets to this. PF has an absolutely terrible habit of "lets just make a new class" rather than finding cool ways to allow more classes to do things. So, for example we have the Summoner and the Alchemist as Classes rather than as a collection of options that allow existing classes to branch our. Don't get me wrong, these are interesting ideas, but I'd rather have seen a small Feat chain that a Rogue, Cleric, or Wizard could have taken to be an alchemist instead.

Archetypes are, well lets face it, all over the damn place. 3.5's Variant and Alternate Classes, I think where much more interesting as they allowed you to pick and choose which Class Feature changes you wanted each time you leveled. PF simply replaces them outright, with no choice allowed.

The whole "Cleric silliness" was 99% a myth, largely taken out of context. Even Divine Metamagic was largely no that bad (without Persistent Spell + buttloads and buttloads of Nightsticks).

No, PF has introduced the concept of :
"I want to play a ______ that does this, this, and that"

A1 "so play a <completely different class> instead"
A2 "<completely different class #2> does that better"
A3 etc. . .


TOZ wrote:
Like most other 3.5 combat feats, it now costs two feats to get what you want.

huh i completely forgot that they made this change to cleave. Can you combine great cleave and cleaving finish to potentially attack four or more foes who are not all in one line adjacent to each other? Say two are on your left and three on your right, you attack the first of the two on the left, hit, then attack the second, hit and drop it, use cleaving finish to attack the first in the group on your right and then great cleave your way through those?

Shadow Lodge

No, actually, as even with Great Cleave the previous target still needs to be adjacent to the previous target. Kinda silly, but there it is.


Threeshades wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
It was a lot easier to make an interesting martial character who did things in combat beyond full attacking in 3.5.
Now this one makes me curious, mainly because I am always looking for ways to expand the on the fly options for non-casters, do you have a few examples?

Tome of Battle was the big one, providing maneuvers and stances. Pounce with a one level dip. Devotion feats giving a few magical options. Feats that, effectively, let you combine two classes into one, the Rogue/Swash, for example, giving you a nearly Full BAB Rogue who adds INT as a bonus to damage. The Dervish prestige class giving you a mobile warrior who could dance around the battlefield making attacks as you moved.

Not strictly martial, but the Eberron feat that let you combine Monk and a Psionic class to create something much closer to an effective "ki" powered warrior was the closest officially published thing to what a Monk, IMO, should be in either PF or 3.X.

They also published a bunch of toned down magic classes, like the Warmage, Beguiler, Dread Necro, and the Shifter variant Druid, that you could easily use in your campaign in place of the more powerful wizard or Druid.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
It was a lot easier to make an interesting martial character who did things in combat beyond full attacking in 3.5.
Now this one makes me curious, mainly because I am always looking for ways to expand the on the fly options for non-casters, do you have a few examples?

Tome of Battle was the big one, providing maneuvers and stances. Pounce with a one level dip. Devotion feats giving a few magical options. Feats that, effectively, let you combine two classes into one, the Rogue/Swash, for example, giving you a nearly Full BAB Rogue who adds INT as a bonus to damage. The Dervish prestige class giving you a mobile warrior who could dance around the battlefield making attacks as you moved.

Not strictly martial, but the Eberron feat that let you combine Monk and a Psionic class to create something much closer to an effective "ki" powered warrior was the closest officially published thing to what a Monk, IMO, should be in either PF or 3.X.

They also published a bunch of toned down magic classes, like the Warmage, Beguiler, Dread Necro, and the Shifter variant Druid, that you could easily use in your campaign in place of the more powerful wizard or Druid.

This can be done with Elven Battle Style on a Slayer.

And the DSP release has a Soulknife archetype that covers Unarmed that does monk things like damage and energy/ki blasts. It's the dragonball z class basically, if you build it right with power manifesting.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Raynulf wrote:
Furthermore, I also applied barskin to the fighter, otherwise he'd have an AC of 20.

I feel that any argument that relies on a 10th level fighter having only AC 20 isn't living in the real world.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
It was a lot easier to make an interesting martial character who did things in combat beyond full attacking in 3.5.
Now this one makes me curious, mainly because I am always looking for ways to expand the on the fly options for non-casters, do you have a few examples?

Tome of Battle was the big one, providing maneuvers and stances. Pounce with a one level dip. Devotion feats giving a few magical options. Feats that, effectively, let you combine two classes into one, the Rogue/Swash, for example, giving you a nearly Full BAB Rogue who adds INT as a bonus to damage. The Dervish prestige class giving you a mobile warrior who could dance around the battlefield making attacks as you moved.

Not strictly martial, but the Eberron feat that let you combine Monk and a Psionic class to create something much closer to an effective "ki" powered warrior was the closest officially published thing to what a Monk, IMO, should be in either PF or 3.X.

They also published a bunch of toned down magic classes, like the Warmage, Beguiler, Dread Necro, and the Shifter variant Druid, that you could easily use in your campaign in place of the more powerful wizard or Druid.

This can be done with Elven Battle Style on a Slayer.

And the DSP release has a Soulknife archetype that covers Unarmed that does monk things like damage and energy/ki blasts. It's the dragonball z class basically, if you build it right with power manifesting.

What can be done with Elven Battle Style? All it says it does is let you perform a combat maneuver as an AoO without provoking an AoO ...

As for DSP, it's 3rd party material, and therefore is not an option in many games.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
It was a lot easier to make an interesting martial character who did things in combat beyond full attacking in 3.5.
Now this one makes me curious, mainly because I am always looking for ways to expand the on the fly options for non-casters, do you have a few examples?

Tome of Battle was the big one, providing maneuvers and stances. Pounce with a one level dip. Devotion feats giving a few magical options. Feats that, effectively, let you combine two classes into one, the Rogue/Swash, for example, giving you a nearly Full BAB Rogue who adds INT as a bonus to damage. The Dervish prestige class giving you a mobile warrior who could dance around the battlefield making attacks as you moved.

Not strictly martial, but the Eberron feat that let you combine Monk and a Psionic class to create something much closer to an effective "ki" powered warrior was the closest officially published thing to what a Monk, IMO, should be in either PF or 3.X.

They also published a bunch of toned down magic classes, like the Warmage, Beguiler, Dread Necro, and the Shifter variant Druid, that you could easily use in your campaign in place of the more powerful wizard or Druid.

This can be done with Elven Battle Style on a Slayer.

And the DSP release has a Soulknife archetype that covers Unarmed that does monk things like damage and energy/ki blasts. It's the dragonball z class basically, if you build it right with power manifesting.

What can be done with Elven Battle Style? All it says it does is let you perform a combat maneuver as an AoO without provoking an AoO ...

As for DSP, it's 3rd party material, and therefore is not an option in many games.

Tome of Battel, despite being 1st party, wasn't allowed in a bunch of games either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
Raynulf wrote:
Furthermore, I also applied barskin to the fighter, otherwise he'd have an AC of 20.
I feel that any argument that relies on a 10th level fighter having only AC 20 isn't living in the real world.

Base 10, +10 armor (+2 full plate), +0 Dex (Dexterity 12 - 2 from enlarge person = 10), +1 Deflection, -1 Size (enlarge person), +4 Natural (barkskin - forgot the +2 increase) = 24

He'd be AC22 without enlarge person or barkskin.

You could argue that they should have more AC than that... and with the appropriate buffs (shield of faith at that level is +3, recitation would be +2 or +3, haste would be +1, UMDing a wand of shield would be another +4 etc) you would be. For comparison purposes, cleric and wizard buffs apply equally, so there's little point in factoring them in.

But feats and gear alone, without a shield? AC 22 is pretty realistic if you're going a two-handed power attack route.

There are frequent criticisms of fighters and similar martial classes in Pathfinder; that an animal companion is 75% of a fighter, and doesn't occupy a PC slot. In 3.5, however, animal companions could and frequently did outshine martial classes by orders of magnitudes. I don't think martials are where they should be yet... but I personally welcomed the nerfing of animal companions to be a class feature, rather than an unparalleled combat machine.

Random silliness:

Fred the Human Fighter: Hitting his 15th level, Fred is excited. He's on par for his WBL (200,000gp), was made with 32pt gen (Str 16; Dex 14; Con 16; Int 14; Wis 10; Cha 8) and has managed to acquire some spiffy magic items and abilities. He travels with a druid with a barkskin habit, so usually has it on him in most combats.

Gear: (200,000 gp) belt of giant strength +6, amulet of health +4, bracers of Dexterity +4, +5 full plate, +5 falchion, +5 cloak of resistance, +3 ring of protection, boots of striding and springing and a permanent enlarge person from a friendly wizard a few towns back, and a bit under four thousand gp of potions and trinkets

Feats: (1) Weapon Focus (Falchion), (1) Power Attack, (1) Cleave, (2) Combat Reflexes, (3) Combat Expertise, (4) Weapon Specialization (falchion), (6) Great Cleave, (6) Improved Trip, (8) Improved Critical, (9) Greater Weapon Focus (falchion), (10) Dodge, (12) Greater Weapon Specialization (falchion), (12) Mobility, (14) Spring Attack, (15) Whirlwind Attack

Cool bananas. So the final stat line looks like:
Str 27 (+8); Dex 16 (+3); Con 20 (+5); Int 14 (+2); Wis 10 (+0); Cha 8 (-1)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.; AOs 4/round

AC 31 (13 armor, 1 Dex, 1 dodge, 3 deflection, 4 natural, -1 size)
HP 162 (15d10+75); Fort +19; Ref +13; Will +10

W/o Power Attack falchion +29/+24/+19 (2d6+21, 15-20x2)
Max Power Attack falchion +14/+9/+4 (2d6+51, 15-20x2)

Going with the assumption (can't recall whether this is RAW or not) that his successful trips with his unarmed strike (e.g. a foot) can be followed up with an AO with his falchion, he then has a +16 bonus on the trip attempt, and can do so in lieu of an attack; though he cannot do so with Whirlwind Attack. Attacks using max power attack are extremely unlikely to connect unless he finds a nice cleric and/or bard to buff his attack bonus through the roof... but the option of "I hit it hard" is nice.

So off he goes into the wilds, ready to blend some monsters.

Dave the Human Druid: Fred's best friend, Dave, just hit his 15th level of Druid, which saw his beloved pet rhino, Stompy, gain extra HD, while he got spells and even more loot to throw on the pile.

Let's put Dave himself aside for a moment, and look at Stompy.

Stompy is a rhino (base 8 HD) whose bonus HD just hit +6, putting him at 14 HD and granting him a size increase from Large to Huge, a 9th and 12th level feat, and a 12th level ability score increase. He also gains a bonus +6 natural armor and +3 Str and Dex, because Dave loves him so much.

This puts Stompy's basic statline before spells or items as:
Str 38 (+14); Dex 11 (+0); Con 25 (+7); Int 2 (-4); Wis 13 (+1); [b]Cha 2 (-4)
AC 25 (17 natural, 0 Dex, -2 Size);
HP 161 (14d8+98); Fort +16; Ref +9; Will+5
Feats (retrained) Improved Natural Attack (gore); Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Critical (gore)

W/o Power Attack Gore +22 (3d6+21, 19-20x2) / +24 (6d6+42)
Max Power Attack Gore +12 (3d6+41, 19-20x2) / +14 (6d6+82)

But Dave doesn't like Stompy failing saves, so gives him a +5 cloak of resistance (looking like a horse blanket) to be sure. before combat, Dave likes to buff his friends - especially his beloved Stompy. His long term buffs tend to be greater magic fang (+3), animal growth, barkskin, cat's grace and bull's strength. He reserves lion's charge, bite of the werebear and girallon's blessing for serious fights.

How does this change Stompy? Well... he looks like this:

Str 62 (+26); Dex 13 (+1); Con 37 (+13); Int 2 (-4); Wis 13 (+1); [b]Cha 2 (-4)

AC 33 (24 natural, 1 Dex, -4 Size);
HP 245 (14d8+182); Fort +27; Ref +15; Will+10

W/o Power Attack (on the charge)

  • Gore +37 (8d6+58, 19-20x2)
  • 2 x Claws +34 (4d6+26)
  • 2 x Claws +32 (2d6+13, plus rend 4d6+39)
  • Bite +32 (3d6+13)

Max Power Attack (on the charge)

  • Gore +27 (8d6+78, 19-20x2)
  • 2 x Claws +24 (4d6+36)
  • 2 x Claws +22 (2d6+18, plus rend 4d6+59)
  • Bite +22 (3d6+18)

(Plus the benefits of Blind-Fight). On subsequent rounds he can full attack, but that only -2 attack rolls, and drops the gore to a "mere" 4d6+38 damage.

But that's just Stompy. Let's look back at Dave himself. Dave doesn't like using wildshape much, as it stops him from riding his beloved steed... so he goes:

Str 14 (+2); Dex 14 (+2); Con 14 (+2); Int 10 (+0); Wis 25 (+7); [b]Cha 10 (+0)

Gear: Periapt of Wisdom +6, +5 ironwood breastplate, +4 ring of protection, +5 cloak of resistance, +5 rhino blanket of resistance and 56k of other stuff. Wands, maybe a +1 or +2 scimitar.

Feats: (1) Mounted Combat, (1) Ride-by-Attack, (3) Spirited Charge, (6) Power Attack, (9) Cleave, (12) Great Cleave, (15) Combat Reflexes.

Applying the same buffs to himself as Stompy (he can do that with a single casting), we then get him fighting atop his steed as follows:

Str 30 (+10); Dex 18 (+4); Con 22 (+6); Int 10 (+0); Wis 25 (+7); [b]Cha 10 (+0)

AC 25 (10 armor, 4 Dex, 4 Deflection, 7 natural);
HP 157 (15d8+90); Fort +20; Ref +14; Will+21

W/o Power Attack (on the charge)

  • 2 x Claws +24 (2d8+20)
  • 2 x Claws +22 (2d4+10, plus rend 2d6+15)
  • Bite +22 (2d6+10)

Not as impressive as Stompy to be sure, but Dave often spends his actions casting spells, given that so far he has used:

  • 0 out of 7 first level spells
  • 4 out of 7 second level spells
  • 3 out of 7 third level spells
  • 0 out of 5 fourth level spells
  • 1 out of 5 fifth level spells
  • 1 out of 4 sixth level spells
  • 0 out of 3 seventh level spells
  • 0 out of 2 eighth level spells

Now, there is the argument that the fighter can be as powerful as he is all day long... but that isn't actually all that true. Fighters run out of hit points and have no means of recovering them; they are as dependant on the druid's spell slots to function as the druid is, so when the druid runs out... the party withdraws (which is the reasoning behind the 15-minute work day issue with 3.X games).

Now... can you make horrific animal companions in Pathfinder? Yes, you can. But can you turn them into claw-centipedes with Strength scores that make great wyrm gold dragons look puny? No, you cannot.


Rysky wrote:
Tome of Battle, despite being 1st party, wasn't allowed in a bunch of games either.

Yeah. I loved it and allowed it as a GM - but then I am normally quite easy going when it comes to mechanics.

Most other GMs I know/played with either banned it, or nerfed it to the ground.


How does one nerf tome of battle to the ground while retaining general use of the concepts within?

I could see partially allowing it- by way of only allowing no ToB classes to access the rules by way of feats- but I don't see a nerf-path for the nerf-bat.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

How does one nerf tome of battle to the ground while retaining general use of the concepts within?

I could see partially allowing it- by way of only allowing no ToB classes to access the rules by way of feats- but I don't see a nerf-path for the nerf-bat.

"All maneuvers are once-per-day abilities".

Again: I had no issue with the Tome of Battle, but others felt that it was "unbalanced" that the maneuvers could be recovered by any means other than 8 hours sleep, because they are reminiscent of spells, and spells only come back by resting.


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I'll let you know when my group gets there. We made a promise to start at 1st and stop at 20 in this campaign and by gosh we're gonna do it. Right now the group is a combo of 12-14th level with varying Tiers of Mythic ranks. The 12th level player is going to get to play more often now, and she'll start to catch up soon. It's going to be yuge.

My group is headed there as well (we're playing Wrath of the Righteous, so we're in for 20/10). We're currently at 16/7 (the DM awards levels at appropriate story points, so we all level up at the same time - and we're past the individual mythic trials, so we also all tier up at the same time as well). To be honest, though, I've never really expected to play at such a high level.

We have a warpriestess (pretty sure that capstone is going to be used), an arcanist (that one might or might not be used), a paladin (that one probably won't be used much, too much fighting in the Abyss), a barbarian (definitely going to be used, since it's passive and it's my character) and a u-rogue/sorcerer (no capstone). The generic mythic capstone is passive, so we'll all use it. We'll also all get to use the paladin's marshal capstone. The others might or might not get used. When we get there, I'll tell you more (if I still remember, feel free to remind me).


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
It was a lot easier to make an interesting martial character who did things in combat beyond full attacking in 3.5.
Now this one makes me curious, mainly because I am always looking for ways to expand the on the fly options for non-casters, do you have a few examples?

Tome of Battle was the big one, providing maneuvers and stances. Pounce with a one level dip. Devotion feats giving a few magical options. Feats that, effectively, let you combine two classes into one, the Rogue/Swash, for example, giving you a nearly Full BAB Rogue who adds INT as a bonus to damage. The Dervish prestige class giving you a mobile warrior who could dance around the battlefield making attacks as you moved.

Not strictly martial, but the Eberron feat that let you combine Monk and a Psionic class to create something much closer to an effective "ki" powered warrior was the closest officially published thing to what a Monk, IMO, should be in either PF or 3.X.

They also published a bunch of toned down magic classes, like the Warmage, Beguiler, Dread Necro, and the Shifter variant Druid, that you could easily use in your campaign in place of the more powerful wizard or Druid.

This can be done with Elven Battle Style on a Slayer.

And the DSP release has a Soulknife archetype that covers Unarmed that does monk things like damage and energy/ki blasts. It's the dragonball z class basically, if you build it right with power manifesting.

What can be done with Elven Battle Style? All it says it does is let you perform a combat maneuver as an AoO without provoking an AoO ...

As for DSP, it's 3rd party material, and therefore is not an option in many games.

Sorry, it's the sequel feat, Elven Battle Focus.


Rysky wrote:
Tome of Battel, despite being 1st party, wasn't allowed in a bunch of games either.

Yep, my DM thought it was overpowered and then when my Warblade dominated the middle part of the game, he arranged for him to leave.

Of course after that, full spellcastes take over, so much so that when one spellcaster finally got 9th lvl Shapechange, there was literally nothing for my martial to do.

Please note, i think the whole "martial/caster disparity" issue IS overblown- but not when the casters get 9th lvl spells. They totally rule then.


DrDeth wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tome of Battel, despite being 1st party, wasn't allowed in a bunch of games either.

Yep, my DM thought it was overpowered and then when my Warblade dominated the middle part of the game, he arranged for him to leave.

Of course after that, full spellcastes take over, so much so that when one spellcaster finally got 9th lvl Shapechange, there was literally nothing for my martial to do.

Please note, i think the whole "martial/caster disparity" issue IS overblown- but not when the casters get 9th lvl spells. They totally rule then.

And 3.5 was a bit worse about it than Pathfinder, since 3.5's shapeshifting rules meant that the strength-dumped caster could outdo the martials at their own job, on top of all their other advantages.

Granted, 3.5's rules did make shapeshifting a lot more awesome and terrifying than it is in Pathfinder, but I think that aside from the lack of a martial-focused shapeshifting class that's a decent tradeoff.


TOZ wrote:
No, actually, as even with Great Cleave the previous target still needs to be adjacent to the previous target. Kinda silly, but there it is.

A dwarf can acquire a few feats to get around the adjacent restriction: Cleave Through and Goblin Cleaver -> Orc Hewer -> Giant Killer.

And it should be that feat intense because Cleave competes with Whirlwind Attack - which needs a full-round action and is feat intense on its own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The end result is, though, that both the cleave feats and whirlwind attack are very rarely used by anybody who knows what they're doing.

Shadow Lodge

I don't think either of them should be that feat intensive, but that's neither here nor there.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

IMO both Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack were originally designed from a 2e perspective, where it was a reasonable challenge to throw, say, a horde of gnolls at a mid level party. Being able to attack every adjacent for is great when you're fighting dozens of 9 hp monsters, but that encounter design doesn't function nearly as well in d20. But since the designers hadn't realized that yet, these feats have prerequisites that almost move them out of the era in which they are actually useful.


Raynulf wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...

See that's the issue. No one plays D&D as One Fighter vs One Druid. The Druid is on the fighter's side, and will buff the fighter just as much as he buffs his companion.


DM Beckett wrote:

I like Turn/Rebuke Undead much more than Channel Energy, and I like the Elemental Domains much more in 3.5 than PF.

Thematically I preffer turn and rebuke undead. But in my experience GMs pretty much never used undead in games with clerics and only used them in games without any. I don't ever remember succeeding a turn or rebuke check, because the few times it did occur, the undead had more HD than me and turn resistance...

Channel is meh, but at least it saves you costs on the CLW wands.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Raynulf wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...
See that's the issue. No one plays D&D as One Fighter vs One Druid. The Druid is on the fighter's side, and will buff the fighter just as much as he buffs his companion.

That's the issue you are missing: He can't buff the fighter as much as his animal companion. The most powerful spells don't work either because they don't affect humanoids, are personal, or clash with the fighter's ability to use weapons.

It doesn't matter if they're on the same team when the fighter is largely redundant.

Pathfinder not only made the animal.companions less insane (partly by needing the benefits of increasing in size), but also kept spells at a somewhat saner level of power. Again: A good thing.


It is True, in PF the Druid is no longer a Fighter AND a Nature Mage who fights really really well.

It's just a Nature Mage who fights really really well... but still has magic in addition to fighting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Raynulf wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...
See that's the issue. No one plays D&D as One Fighter vs One Druid. The Druid is on the fighter's side, and will buff the fighter just as much as he buffs his companion.

No that is in fact not the issue. It never has been. The issue is that the party would be better served having another Druid instead of a Fighter so you have twice the number of buffs, battlefield control, animal companions and people that can turn into lions and tigers and bears. And Druids have more spells that buff other Druids (since other Druids come with Animal Companions as well) than Fighters.


Raynulf wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Raynulf wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...
See that's the issue. No one plays D&D as One Fighter vs One Druid. The Druid is on the fighter's side, and will buff the fighter just as much as he buffs his companion.
That's the issue you are missing: He can't buff the fighter as much as his animal companion. The most powerful spells don't work either because they don't affect humanoids, are personal, or clash with the fighter's ability to use weapons.

Exactly this: Unless your Fighter is Sir Bearington, he's not going to get much use out of Animal Growth and Strong Jaw.

Liberty's Edge

If the DM allows 3pp and this book you can be Sir Bearington. Complete with Human Cohort if one takes Leadership. Otherwise I'm in agreement with the others. Many Druid spells can't be cast on the Fighter.

http://paizo.com/products/btpy8d08?The-Noble-Wild-An-Animal-Player-s-Handbo ok-for-Fantasy-RolePlaying-Games

Shadow Lodge

Goblin_Priest wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

I like Turn/Rebuke Undead much more than Channel Energy, and I like the Elemental Domains much more in 3.5 than PF.

Thematically I preffer turn and rebuke undead. But in my experience GMs pretty much never used undead in games with clerics and only used them in games without any. I don't ever remember succeeding a turn or rebuke check, because the few times it did occur, the undead had more HD than me and turn resistance...

Channel is meh, but at least it saves you costs on the CLW wands.

I dont know. In my experience it was something fairly common early on, but late game it became more rare, (as an effective ability). Still, those times it did work where pretty amazing, where as Channel Energy feels more like a party resource.

Very very rarely after level 1 or 2 is Channel Energy all that dramatic.


Rysky wrote:
Tome of Battel, despite being 1st party, wasn't allowed in a bunch of games either.

Individual GMs can't be accounted for, but ToB was an official part of the 3.5 rules while PoW is not part of the Pathfinder rules.

Show up at a PFS game wanting to play a Path class (or a DSP Psionic class) and you're getting rejected 100% of the time.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Sorry, it's the sequel feat, Elven Battle Focus.

It just lets you add INT to damage in place of STR? Again, I don't see how it's relevant to what I was talking about.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tome of Battel, despite being 1st party, wasn't allowed in a bunch of games either.

Individual GMs can't be accounted for, but ToB was an official part of the 3.5 rules while PoW is not part of the Pathfinder rules.

Show up at a PFS game wanting to play a Path class (or a DSP Psionic class) and you're getting rejected 100% of the time.

Uh, your post was that it being 3pp so it's not allowed by certain GMs (you didn't specify PFS), when ToB, despite being 1pp was also not allowed by plenty of GMs, so yeah, individual GMs are accounted for when we're talking about what is and isn't allowed at certain tables outside of PFS, which I don't play.

251 to 300 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.