GMforPowergamers
Legend
he was compairing it to 4e...it gains alot (Lost alot) in that switch...
Convincing a 4e group to try Pathfinder
he was compairing it to 4e...it gains alot (Lost alot) in that switch...
doctorhook
Legend
That's definitely somewhat reassuring, but still doesn't completely quell my fears of CoDzilla...
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
PF completely nerfed polymorph (which wild shape is based around), so that now you get very specific benefits as additions to your existing ability scores (no more druids dumping dex and str) among other things. Or at least that's what I recall. I need to read over the changes more myself.
Cleric gained more class features and domains seem better overall. The final determination of how powerful the primary casters are will really be when I take the time to look through all the spells and what was changed. Which I won't feel like doing for a while.
You might be better off playing a more rules-light game for a while. Something that encourages ad libbed roleplaying instead of understanding game mechanics.
Feng Shui might be a good choice.
A rules light game has a few advantages. First, it will be easier on new players, both in terms of learning the rules and in terms of handling a switch from a system they've partially assimilated. Second, tactics aren't as imporant, so mastery isn't as important. Third, character builds matter less, so there are fewer decision points to deal with, and less chance of making decisions that screw over your character. Finally, fourth, it may encourage your players to talk and describe things more than just throw dice and fight.
Feng Shui might be a good choice.
A rules light game has a few advantages. First, it will be easier on new players, both in terms of learning the rules and in terms of handling a switch from a system they've partially assimilated. Second, tactics aren't as imporant, so mastery isn't as important. Third, character builds matter less, so there are fewer decision points to deal with, and less chance of making decisions that screw over your character. Finally, fourth, it may encourage your players to talk and describe things more than just throw dice and fight.
Herremann the Wise
First Post
As I said, the proof is in the playing: I'm moving my Age of Worms campaign over to Pathfinder where the characters are currently at 15th level. I should be able to gauge how balanced it is at that point after a few sessions.
However, trying to equate a martial character to a spell is difficult - to a spellcaster is more suitable. The damage output per round is less than disintegrate but for repeated output, the fighter can produce a strong steady stream of damage to opponents. Defensively, the Fighter can take a lot more damage than the spellcaster. Defensively, the fighter has good consistent protection (particularly with fighter armor boosts) where as the spellcaster will vary. The fighter gains more feats which means more options and more chances to specialize (which is both fun and effective). Both have their weaknesses which certain enemies can exploit. The style of each character is different - which I think is a good thing. Over the course of those twelve levels, I think there is plenty of opportunities for both the fighter and spellcaster to shine. (If you look at any particular in isolation, then I think what you infer from that is most likely wrong and misses the point).
You acknowledge that the Fighter has been assisted at most levels but you seem to think that spellcasters have got some huge boost that I don't believe they have. They have been given a few more options to reduce the "15-minute-day" syndrome but I don't believe their overall power has increased dramatically from before. It has increased enough though where single-classing is an option where as before, it was rare to find a wizard who hadn't prestige-classed at higher levels. Specialization is now a good option too, where as before, it varied.
Personally, I like how they have balanced these out - your mileage obviously varies.
You are correct, this makes Starbuck_II's comment make sense now.
doctorhook was referring more to 3.x. however which is where I was coming from.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
GMforPowergamers
Legend
the problem is one sided SoD effects....if there are 20 100 hp monsters and 1 2,000 hp monster, and the wizard starts the battle with finger of death and kills the 2,000 hp monster...does that mean his damage this encounter should or should not account for that 2000 hp? what if the cleric used mass hold person on 10 of the other 20... how much damage does the fighter need to keep up then?
what about just general use...If the wizard can buff his AC to near equal the fighter, and give himself miss % and DR... how much before that equals the fighters hp??
again with limited wish changing reality...well fighters swing there swords...
my roommate insists that rouges and fighters can 'go all day' well clerics and wizards are limited...but I can count on 1 hand the number of times PCs kept pushing with no spells...
Herremann the Wise
First Post
My Warlord does hardly any damage compared to the Rogue and Ranger in our group - but I suppose his effectiveness in combat is on par: or at least I don't complain about the difference in damage output.
Likewise, it is the fact that the Fighter can take some damage and still do his thing effectively, regardless of the length of combat that makes them effective in combat - admittedly with the help of appropriate equipment. In a shorter combat, the Wizard can go nova which is what I think you are referring to but I don't think per combat is a fair way of looking at that. Obviously a wizard can't keep doing that all day in every encounter. Over the course of a typical day's adventuring, the output of the Fighter and the Wizard should be about equal give or take a little luck or circumstances going one way or the other. The wizard would not be able to do it on his own and I think that's a good thing.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Herremann the Wise
First Post
Pathfinder turned most of the save or die effects into save or take a load of damage which I think was a good thing - Finger of Death notably.
Dispelling or antimagic can even this up - as well as the amount of time resources that it takes to buff. If the only encounters the PCs partake in are ones where they can buff up first, then perhaps this is more a DMing problem rather than a rules problem.
Wizards get the coolest toys I suppose.
In my game which has a dominant Wizard PC, I style the game to work with and around this issue. Sometimes, the party can't afford to take a days rest and they know this beforehand. As such, the Wizard is more frugal with his spells so as to be effective across the entire day, making sure the overall task is completed. Other times, yeah, the wizard can nova. It is an issue but I believe it is one that the DM can easily manage.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Similar Threads
