Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder - sell me

[GMforPowergamers]

Unfortunately, due to the magic system in 3.5, this is simply not possible. The only way of bringing the martial classes up to par, is to have them cast the same spells as the spellcasters

My guess is that they have simply made the gap (a little?) smaller, because a lot of those who want to play PF like that spellcasters are clearly superior to the rest, so why change too much and risk alienating people?

I agree just look at Tomb of battle...It brought martial character up to about 1/10th the power of casters...and lots of people still cry broken

"I don't see how it's possible without everyone being a pseudo-spellcaster" is a very, very limited view of what is possible with good game design. (And I don't consider "everyone is a pseudo-spellcaster" to be good game design for D&D.)

Are you kidding me? lets take a look here...
player 1: Save or Die
Player 2: Hi I'm a bear that can summon other bears, and call lightning
Player 3: I can attack, full attack, trip or sunder...
Player 2: I can do all of that too...

- spellcasters still reign supreme, however some most obvious game breakers (polymoprh spells, some divinations) were changed.

WHAT!?!??!?
people endorseing the game admite

spellcasters still reign supreme

are you kidding??? then why would anyone every not play one? Becuse playing less powerful is fun when? Yea becuse when I read old sherlock homes novels I think "Wow I want to be watson" or maybe "Side kick sounds like fun"

The revisions to the various classes seemed fairly cosmetic on a whole. If anything, it seems spellcasters are stronger than ever. The so-called "improvements" to fighters don't really do anything to address their main flaw - lack of options (everything the warblade is).

I am getting the impression that while the designers of pathfinder did perhaps set out to "right" 3.5e, the problem was that they did not really know where the actual problems stemmed from. It really seems like a haphazard bundle of house rules. Fairly hit-and-miss, I daresay they are potentially creating as many new problems as they are purportedly fixing, if not more.

At best, it would be different from 3.5, not better, IMO.

I keep comeing back to why am I paying for YOUR set of house rules...


Also keep in mind it is never going to really be like 3.5 becuse 3.5 has 100+ books that are not OGL...(all of the complete books, the tomb of battle, tomb of magic, Heros of horror) so be ready to just make it a new edtion...becuse that is what it is.
Infact I have to say some people call it 3.75, I think 4eB is better. It is diffrent enough to be a new edtion but it is not the 4e that WotC put out.






I am still wish I was a bug on the wall a year ago when someone said with a straight face "Lets give wizards more class features" I mean really, was there some player somewhere who thought it was weaker to take 17 levels of wizard that to take 30 levels of fighter???

 

[Runestar]

Or maybe, they simply don't share your opinion about what the actual problems are...

Possible. I just wish they would explain why they nerfed improved trip so (or did I miss it somewhere?). Was the extra attack granted on a successful trip that overpowering? For me, it was pretty much the only thing which made the feat worthwhile.

At least with 3.5, my 10th lv fighter still had a 50/50 chance of successfully tripping a fire giant with the appropriate buffs in place. Now, I would be lucky to succeed 1/3 of the time!

Don't even get me started on why they felt that +1d6 fire damage at high lvs is a very big deal (to cost a barb 8 rage points to use), considering that it will likely get canceled out by resistances, and the overall boost to damage is really very minimal.

Maybe we just are living in different worlds. They continue fine-tuning their pathfinder system the way they deem fit, I stick with 3.5 since I am still most comfortable with it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm in two minds at the moment. Should I delete half a dozen or more completely off topic posts, or leave them and just post this warning?

I think I'll go with the warning.

This thread is for someone who wants to be sold on the virtues of Pathfinder. Page 2 of this thread has wandered right away from it.

If you want to discuss cons of pathfinder, or compare 4e with 3e or CoDzilla or whatever, start another thread to do so. Fork from a post here if necessary, that is what it is there for.

Stick to the topic of the thread (helping a guy to see the reasons why he might like it). If you don't, you'll get booted.

 

[Runestar]

I'm in two minds at the moment. Should I delete half a dozen or more completely off topic posts, or leave them and just post this warning?

I think I'll go with the warning.

This thread is for someone who wants to be sold on the virtues of Pathfinder. Page 2 of this thread has wandered right away from it.

If you want to discuss cons of pathfinder, or compare 4e with 3e or CoDzilla or whatever, start another thread to do so. Fork from a post here if necessary, that is what it is there for.

Stick to the topic of the thread (helping a guy to see the reasons why he might like it). If you don't, you'll get booted.

With all due respect... <snip>

~ Check out the ENworld rules please. If you want to make any comment about moderation, email the moderator concerned. Don't do it in the thread. Thanks ~

 

[billd91]

Possible. I just wish they would explain why they nerfed improved trip so (or did I miss it somewhere?). Was the extra attack granted on a successful trip that overpowering? For me, it was pretty much the only thing which made the feat worthwhile.

Keep in mind that the changes to the combat maneuvers aren't all to make them "better" but better to deal with in the flow of the game. Their use has been simplified, particularly with sunder and grapple, at least as presented in Beta.

 

[billd91]

Or maybe, they simply don't share your opinion about what the actual problems are...

They certainly fixed a number of problems that I saw as very serious.
They provided reasons to stay in a base class, particularly for casters, rather than jump off to a prestige class at the first opportunity.
They simplified grapple.
They fixed the polymorph problem.
They simplified turning.
They improved damage reduction.

I'm looking forward to getting my copy.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Out of curiosity how did they improve NPC statting?

Ok, say you want to make a Rogue 5/Wizard 10. This is only for skills and this is for the Beta (it may have changed for the final version, I don't know)


3.5 Method:

• What class did he take at 1st level? Determine skill points, remember the x4.
• Figure out what classes he took in what order until first Int stat bump. Remember that cross class skills cost 2x to receive a single rank. Spend skill points.
• Bump Int, determine which skill points increased.
• Determine when he found a magic item that increased his Int. follow previous step.
• Repeat last 2 steps until you reach level 15.

Pathfinder Method:

• Total Skill points = (2+Int Bonus with all stat bumps and magic items)*10 + (8+Int Bonus with all stat bumps and magic items)*5. Spend skill points.
• Determine which skills are Class Skills. Those get a +3 bonus.

That's it. Much more simple.

 

[bouncyhead]

We've been using the Beta for a while now. Don't know if all this will make it to the finished product but:

Channel Energy rules stop Clerics swapping out all their spells for heals and the mechanic is artfully handled.

There are more HP around in general (HD have been upscaled through the classes and we've been playing double max dice + CON mod at 1st) which makes things a little less fragile at v low levels (we had got to the point where we started all 3.5 games at 3rd).

Combat Maneuvers rule imposes one mechanic on most 'special' attacks and thus simplifies. They've dialled down some of the effects as well.

Pretty much all classes are given a bump in power level. Nothing spectacular.

We keep coming across little fixes in individual spells.


There are some tweaks to feats.

Skills pared down and rationalized(?) - No more festivals of math when skilling PC's and weird lost half ranks. Examples - Concentration is now in Spellcraft. Spot/Listen are now in Perception. Hide/Move Silent are now in Stealth. Tumble now in... well, you get the idea.

Otherwise it's the game you know and love (or hate). If you feel 3.5 is fundamentally broken, then PF won't fix it. If, however, you find that spam trip fests, Overlord spellcasters and hawking-level maths issues at high level only seem to happen to people on forums and not in your actual game, I think you will find the changes broadly welcome.

But they are just house rules.

 

[Bluenose]

Until the "real" version comes out, I don't think it's possible to evaluate it's quality and provide recommendations. If you didn't like D&D 3rd edition you won't like this, and depending on how compatible it turns out to be you may well not need it if you did. My recommendation would be to wait and see.

 

[billd91]

are you kidding??? then why would anyone every not play one? Becuse playing less powerful is fun when? Yea becuse when I read old sherlock homes novels I think "Wow I want to be watson" or maybe "Side kick sounds like fun"

Why wouldn't everyone want to play one? Because we want to play other things? This is about playing in a role-playing game and not a board game.

Wizards and other full casters may have the flexibility to be very powerful, but reigning supreme? That's never been my experience with a well-run game with a variety of challenges.