Hi everyone
We are starting a 1st Ed Pathfinder game using Rise of the Rune Lords. Most of us have played 3.5 a long time ago, but seeing that we have bought most of the Pathfinder RPG books over time cheaply/2nd hand, we are going to us Pathfinder.
What books should we use to create characters other then the Core Rule Book? We do not want a lot of power creep, but still would like a bit more options other than what is in the Core Rule Book.
Thanks in advance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd recommend "The Advanced Player's Guide". It brings in some new classes such as the Magus, the Cavalier, and the Witch, among others. It also introduces the archetypes each class can choose from. After that several of the other books have at least one class in them, but the APG is where I'd start.
Advanced Players Guide for sure. I'd also recommend Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat (though might want to disallow the gunslinger from the latter).
There's not a lot of power creep out there compared to basic wizard/cleric from core.
Summoner from Advanced players guide will be OP for maybe the first 1/3 of the campaign then drift downward
Master summoner archetype in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is generally OP all the way up.
Unchained rogue, barbarian, summoner and monk are more in line with the other classes, and fighter comes into its own with weaponmaster and armor master's handbooks.
OH, I made a mistake, the Magus is not in the APG, but "Ultimate Magic".
Power creep is a relative term. For the most part Pathfinder has a lot less power creep then previous games. Where there has been significant power creep is usually with the least powerful classes. The rouge is the best example of this. The unchained rouge is definitely more powerful than the core rouge. But the core rouge was so weak it was not worth playing. Look at any older rouge thread and the most common advice is not to play a rogue, and to play an archetype of another class because they are better rogues then the actual rogue class. The fighter has also seen some decent increase in power, but again it is more a matter of catching up to the other classes. A better measure of power is comparing the new options against a 1st tier class. If the archetype makes the class more powerful than the base class, but less powerful than a CRB wizard or cleric it is not a problem.
The only area where power creep is significant is in magic items. Many of the overpowered builds rely on access to specific magic items. Most of these types of items are from latter books.
My recommendation would be to allow the class features from most of the books, but to watch magic items carefully. Unchained rogue should definitely be on the approved list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most important secondary book to allow is Unchained (classes section only), followed by Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Class Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic, in about that order. Lastly, Weapon Master's Handbook, especially when combined with Magic Tactics Toolbox and Inner Sea Intrigue, fix the Fighter.
Not a lot of power creep? Just use the CRB.
Never, ever do this! CRB only is the most unbalanced state you can play the game in.
Apart from very few select options (one feat and one Wizard archetype spring to mind), there is almost no true power creep - the strongest classes didn't get notably stronger (almost all the strongest spells are in the CRB, and the CRB class Wizard is still the strognest overall class). The weaker classes did get much stronger, but that is not power creep, but rather improved balancing.
Also, most CRB only martials are so boring (in addition to being weak) that disallowing the material that makes them interesting drives more people towards full casters. It's the same as low wealth or low point buy: The end effect is that more people play the stronger classes, so the party's power level will actually be higher instead of lower.
I doubt that’s the conventional wisdom though.
I don't know about "conventional wisdom", but overall yes, ACG is a rather good book, and the flak these classes get is unwarranted. Swashbuckler and Brawler are rather weak (although not as bad as CRB-martials), but everything else is in a pretty good spot.
The flak that the ACG book got was mostly for poor editing, I think.
When I started my first PF campaign (about 6 years ago now), my collection was still fairly small (and the other players' were smaller). We used the CRB, APG, and ARG (plus Bestiary 1, for me). That turned out to be a pretty solid ground for that first campaign, and has pretty much been been the default baseline for my group's other PF games since then.
The APG introduced rules for archetypes and background traits, which are practically considered core rules by most PF players I know. It also gives a nice selection of classes, feats, and spells to round out the CRB a bit more, without making the range of choices TOO overwhelming for new players.
We also included the ARG because I acquired it early on, and my group likes to have options beyond just the 7 core races. I've yet to play in any campaign that allowed anywhere near all of the races from it, but it adds some nice flavor to however many you end up using in your game.
In my current campaign, I kept the starting options pretty restricted (back to that original set of CRB, APG, parts of ARG, and B1), and we've been adding a little bit from other books as the campaign goes on. I have a blog post here with some details about what I consider primary sources for the game, which I'm restricting for now, and which will probably never see use. Perhaps my thought process there might help you work through your own, even if you end up making very different choices about what books to allow.
(FWIW, I don't mention very many softcover PF books in that post, because I owned very few when I wrote it. Even now, I don't own a vast number of them, because most are too Golarion-specific to be useful in our home games, which don't use that setting.)
Most of Pathfinder's power creep has benefited weaker classes, like the Fighter, Rogue, and Monk. You could build a core-only Wizard and it would still stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a Wizard built using all sourcebooks. There are a few overpowered options for Wizards, but by and large most of the options they use are still found in the CRB. If you tried to run a core-only rogue or fighter they'd be sad campers if they were running side-by-side with characters running all sources.
When I started playing, I used Core Rulebook + Advanced Player Guide + Ultimate Magic + Ultimate Combat, and I still feel that's a great mix of options for a table that's just starting out. I would also recommend substituting the Unchained Rogue instead of the standard core rogue. The Pathfinder Unchained book it comes from really isn't the kind of book you'd introduce when first starting out (it's mostly alternative and optional rules systems) but the Unchained Rogue turned the class from arguably the single weakest class in the game to being a middle-of-the-road option.
In terms of softcovers, I have a soft spot for Arcane Anthology and Weapon Master's Handbook. The former just has a lot of really cool stuff, while the latter is the Fighter buff we were all waiting for.
Since I've seen some misuses of the term:
Wikipedia describes power creep as "The gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content." - buffing weaker classes does the opposite, what Paizo did provided gradual balancing due to successive releases of new content. WP also says "older content falls out of balance and becomes regressively outdated or relatively underpowered, effectively rendering it useless from a competitive or challenge-seeking viewpoint.", which is definitely not the case, as the CRB classes Wizard and Cleric are still the most powerful classes, with most of the powerful and often for a GM problematic spells (Invisibility, Haste, Teleport, overland Flight, etc.) being from the CRB. A well build CRB only Wizard is stronger than 99% of all non-Wizard Pathfinder characters build with all books aviable, thus apart from very few select options (I mentioned Sacred Geometry and Pact Wizard), the term "power creep" is not valid to describe Pathfinder.
The Pathfinder Unchained book it comes from really isn't the kind of book you'd introduce when first starting out (it's mostly alternative and optional rules systems) (...)
I strongly disagree here, provided you tell the players that only the class section is used. Apart from VMC; the classes are the only section directly for players, the rest is more for the GM to read and, if desired, implement.
With all books aviable, cMonk is actually playable even without an archetype that completely changes playstyle, but I would still heavily recommend allowing unchained Monk - much better overall class, and it isn't locked into one specific style feat chain. unBarb is also a much better class for beginners than cBarb (easier calculations, supports more palystyles without needign archetypes, and no more random dying because you didn't knew you need Raging Vitality), and the removal of the ridiculously cheesy rage cycling is icing on the cake. unSummoner is still too strong, but certainly less problematic than cSummoner.Overall, all four classes are much better suited for beginners than their original versions, and thus you should always use the book for any Pathfidner game, no exception.
WP also says "older content falls out of balance and becomes regressively outdated or relatively underpowered, effectively rendering it useless from a competitive or challenge-seeking viewpoint.", which is definitely not the case, as the CRB classes Wizard and Cleric are still the most powerful classes
While I agree up to there, a lot of martial options have become regressively outdated as they have been replaced by better ones. While it is true that Wizards do almost everything better than martials, at-will DPR is the one place where martials are and always have been best. A well-balanced party contains a full martial to fill that role, and within that role there most definitely has been significant power creep. This still balances the game ecosystem overall, but specific niches within the game have experienced marked power creep that has obsoleted old content.
I strongly disagree here, provided you tell the players that only the class section is used. Apart from VMC; the classes are the only section directly for players, the rest is more for the GM to read and, if desired, implement.
That's fair enough; the class section is certainly good. However, I still stand behind what I said in regards to the rest of the book. It's not something you'd introduce right away.
While I agree up to there, a lot of martial options have become regressively outdated as they have been replaced by better ones.
The issue is that these options that got replaced were never actually useful "from a competitive or challenge-seeking viewpoint". cMonk and cRogue are clearly outclasses by the unchained version, but in a 'competitive or challenge-seeking' environment, the core versions would have been de-facto non-existant, and thus that definition of power creep doesn't apply to them.
This bleeds right into another point you've made:While it is true that Wizards do almost everything better than martials, at-will DPR is the one place where martials are and always have been best.
I didn't play back in the days, but I'm not sure this is true. WS Druid was probably the by far best melee in CRB/B1, as it was the only melee with pounce. With APG, Summoner is a good contender for strongest 'martial character'. Later on, 6/9 caster make for some very strong archers. That pretty much leaves CRB archery Fighter, which funnily enough did not get notable improvements in raw damage numbers.
Of course, Wizards always had the power to make sure that you don't need "at-will DPR", which is exactly why they're the the most powerful class. In play, direct damage is always merely a means to an end, and having the highest DPR against a sparring dummy doesn't mean you're the most useful character for the group. A few points of DPR more don't make up for the ability to handle flying or invisible enemies well, for instance.
If you look within a class, or within a tier (except for tier 1), there's plenty of power creep, sure. But if you look at which challenges a well-build party can overcome, that is not the case. Indeed, it can actually be the opposite, because in CRB only, "well-build party" probably means "all full casters" (Wizard/Wizard/Cleric/Druid or something like that for a four-man party), but with more books, you can have something worthy of being called a "well-buld party" with plenty of 6/9 casters and possibly even some tier 4 classes (non-casters or 4/9 casters, I'm especially looking at unMonk here).
Another way to look at the isue is to see where the most used martial optiosn come from. The staple martial feats (like Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, Manyshot; Improved Initiative, Iron Will) are mostly from the CRB. Most staple weapons are from the CRB (Greatsword, Composite Longbow, Scimitar, Longspear, Morningstar, Dagger, Starknife, Elven Curve Blade). The staple Rage Powers are from CRB and APG (Superstition and Greater Beast Totem). The CRB ones should still be the most used Ranger Combat Styles. The other martial classes didn't really have options (apart from cRogue with I consider an NPC class).
However, I still stand behind what I said in regards to the rest of the book. It's not something you'd introduce right away.
If you mean that it's not something to give the players, I very much agree. If you mean the GM not using the other sections for beginner players, I disagree - I see no harm, and much good, to start right away with Fractional Base Bonuses and Automatic Bonus Progression.
A well-balanced party contains a full martial to fill that role
What is a "well-balanced party", and why should I want one? Warning, trick question!
The issue is that these options that got replaced were never actually useful "from a competitive or challenge-seeking viewpoint". cMonk and cRogue are clearly outclasses by the unchained version, but in a 'competitive or challenge-seeking' environment, the core versions would have been de-facto non-existant, and thus that definition of power creep doesn't apply to them.
Sure, core-only Monk and Rogue are extremely underwhelming, but core-only Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger are all perfectly serviceable within their roles.
I didn't play back in the days, but I'm not sure this is true. WS Druid was probably the by far best melee in CRB/B1, as it was the only melee with pounce. With APG, Summoner is a good contender for strongest 'martial character'. Later on, 6/9 caster make for some very strong archers. That pretty much leaves CRB archery Fighter, which funnily enough did not get notable improvements in raw damage numbers.
While WS Druid is a strong melee option and one of the only options to get pounce in core, it couldn't keep up with a martial in terms of raw attack power.
For instance, let's consider a 10th level core Fighter with a greatsword versus a wild shape druid. Druid has to choose between being huge sized and large sized with pounce, since in core-only there are no huge-sized animals with pounce. A non-descript CR 10 monster has 24 AC and 130 HP.
Just running some reasonable core-only numbers, the Druid might have +15 to hit for 2d4+10, 2d4+10, and 2d6+10. That gives him an expected DPR of 34.5 on the pounce (counting the charge bonus and crit chance). The Fighter might have +20 to hit for 2d6+23, which averages 31.9 on the charge (again, counting crits), and on the full attack it rises to 56.4. Notably the Fighter 3-rounds the monster while the druid 4-rounds it.
The Druid is still the better character overall because he's also a 9th level caster while still being able to fight side-by-side with that Fighter, but in terms of raw DPR the Fighter is still notably better than the Druid. This becomes more clear if you start thinking of things as a strategy game rather than as a roleplaying game. Mos tpeople don't want to play a one-dimensional beatstick in a roleplaying game, but in a tactical strategy game you'd put one on your party in a heartbeat.
The comparison is very similar with the Summoner, with the additional caveat that the Eidolon is very fragile compared to a PC. The Druid will be unlikely to match the AC of a core fighter, but the eidolon is nowhere close to them.
Now, in terms of power creep, let's consider the feats I added to my hypothetical Fighter above: Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, and Critical Focus. In today's Pathfinder you would not put Weapon Specialization on a Greatsword Fighter (it's almost exclusively the purview of two-weapon fighter builds), and there's something else to notice here: that's only five feats. A 10th level Fighter should have 10 feats. I ran out of good choices at the half-way mark. Sure, you could argue that options like Lunge or Improved Initiative or a combat maneuver feat chain are still viable today, but most Fighters have much better options to pursue. And the same is true of Barbarian rage powers. Fighters are also abnormal in that vanilla unarchetyped remains a powerful option in Pathfinder today (mainly because their unmodified class features have all gotten stealth buffs). Look at Invulnerable Rager; in the context of core+APG it was king. In today's Pathfinder, it's more or less middle-of-the-road and a good benchmark to compare against other archetypes.
What is a "well-balanced party", and why should I want one?
Better DPR that more quickly eliminates threats while the spellcaster control the pace of the combat so the Fighter-type can work his figurative magic and end the lives of those enemies in an efficient manner. Also since Fighters don't have any daily resources other than hit points, the party will overall have more staying power than a pure-caster one that relies on 3/4 BAB characters who use daily abilities.