Pathfinder 1E Power and Pathfinder Classes - Forked Thread: Pathfinder - sell me

[zag01]

Personally, I think the Char Op boards are a great thing. If a feat/class/spell is much talked about on the CharOp boards, you better believe I'm banning it from my home campaign....

Oh, I'm not saying they are a bad thing. No I love to read the cheese they put out.

I'm just saying it seems like a lot of people (on the boards) seem to think that you can't 'win' at D&D without the cheese and I refuse to believe that thats the way the majority of home games are actually played. I believe most home games are played with a group of friends who all have brains and that nothing is in the vacuum the CO boards seem to live in.

And in my version of 'the real world' I think Pathfinder is very much compatable with 3.5 (just to say something on topic).

 

[Voadam]

I've so wanted to replace all prep-casters with spontaneous casters (+ reserve feats) but my players threatened mutiny if I did.

I wonder if they've changed their mind in the 4e era...

After seeing the spontaneous caster variant in Unearthed Arcana I switched over my games to use it as it fixed numerous things I did not like about core clerics and druids. I like not having to know and evaluate every spell out there, just the ones my character or my players' casters know and then evaluate new ones as players show interest in them. I also love how it changes the game world. When they gain a level I only have to evaluate one or two spells, not a whole levels worth from every sourcebook I have. Casters can cast any spell off a scroll, but do not have automatic daily access to any spell on the spell list. It allows for NPC oracles and other magical niches and means not requiring considering the full range of divine spells in thinking up gaming scenarios or world building.

I also prefer the play style of having spells ready to go and using them on the fly versus the tedium of plotting out spell prep for every day and poring over spell lists to find the right one for the anticipated situations. At higher levels spell prep was a real speed bump in our games.

 

[Cadfan]

GMforPowerGamers- you're probably suffering a bit of culture shock here. People who regularly play with 3rd party products, ie pathfinder fans, are pretty accustomed to "compatibility" being a vague sort of term that includes in it the assumption that you're going to have to do a little work to cull and adjust the "compatible" material.

 

[Krensky]

GMforPowerGamers- you're probably suffering a bit of culture shock here. People who regularly play with 3rd party products, ie pathfinder fans, are pretty accustomed to "compatibility" being a vague sort of term that includes in it the assumption that you're going to have to do a little work to cull and adjust the "compatible" material.

Not surprising they would... since that's what the term means when used in a general sense.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Damage output in 3e can get really high if you optimise, vastly outstripping hit points. And high CR monsters can easily take down a frontline PC in a round or two unless he has an optimised AC. A barbarian without mithril plate needs vastly more hit points than a d12, possibly 2d12 or even 3 imo, in order to reasonably go toe-to-toe with CR appropriate sluggers.

So there is a good case for either nerfing damage output of both PCs and monsters or, as Wulf suggests, greatly increasing the hit points of monsters and also frontline PCs such as barbarians and fighters.

That said I don't agree with increasing wizard's hit points, or their anything else, they are powerful enough already. Instead of buffing the most powerful PHB classes a better solution would be to ban PrCs that provide full casting plus bennies.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not surprising they would... since that's what the term means when used in a general sense.

so when PS3 says it is backward compadable with ps1 and ps2 I should expect a small bit of hardware and software tweeks right...gee I guess since I have no tech skills that isn't a selling point for me then...

 

[Roman]

I just want to clarify a few things - the first is that I am actually a fan of Pathfinder and merely expressed my concerns, but am definitely not a detractor. Jason has actually stated that many of these concerns have been addressed in the final version, but he cannot reveal the changes yet, so I guess we are discussing the BETA. Hopefully, some previews will soon shed light on some of the solutions adopted.

As to hit points, it is only one of the increases to overall power level and I just chose it as a particularly gratuitous example - but there are obviously many other small boosts. As has been pointed out, the boosts to hit points are not huge overall (though in some cases, such as Wizard or Sorcerer, these are actually pretty big boosts in relative terms), but they do add up together with the other power increases. I hope these increases have been toned down (not necessarily eliminated completely, since some of them serve useful functions that justify the power increase) - I guess we will soon get some indication in the previews.

As to the CoDzilla question... the BETA has addressed this to some extent. The Druid has been significantly toned down with the mega-nerf of Wildshaping (some might even say this particular nerf went too far), though in other areas less so. On the Cleric side, I don't think this has been addressed to a great degree in the BETA (though we don't know about the final version) - there were some nerfs, but the Channel Energy (as much as I love the ability) is very, very, very powerful when the campaign involves going against the undead. It might be wise to tone out the healing/damage output per use of Channel Energy in return for more uses per day and perhaps the ability to use it as a move action (which would also give the Cleric the opportunity to do other things) - perhaps something like this was done in the final version - we will see.

 

[Krensky]

so when PS3 says it is backward compadable with ps1 and ps2 I should expect a small bit of hardware and software tweeks right...gee I guess since I have no tech skills that isn't a selling point for me then...

Considering the amount of time I spent tweaking the PS1 subsystem to get my backwards compatible PS2 to play PS1 games, and that since they stripped the PS2 chips out of the PS3, requiring software emulation which doesn't work for tons of games...

Ideally, backwards compatability should be straightforward and transparent to the end user. In an RPG though, you aren't the end user. Your players might be, but as the GM you aren't. You're the developer. Paizo or WotC are the systems programmer. 3.5 was backwards compatible to 3.0, Pathfinder is backwards compatible to 3.5 and 3.0. You, as developer, need to fiddle and double check things to make sure the new open source compiler (Pathfinder) still works the way you expect with all your old closed libraries and modules (non-ogl Wotc content). The new open compiler is source compatible with the old, abandoned pseudo open one, but you still need to recompile and make sure that your code doesn't call the old modules and libraries in ways that break things.

 

[Betote]

so when PS3 says it is backward compadable with ps1 and ps2 I should expect a small bit of hardware and software tweeks right...gee I guess since I have no tech skills that isn't a selling point for me then...

You know that's the exact same thing you do (or should do) with any other books apart from the PHB, DMG and MM, don't you?

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

If your not looking over books(any books) and it is unbalancing your game( as you seem to be saying it is) then you can only blame yourself.

As for me I have allowed 3.0 and 3.5 stuff with my pathfinder games. It's not hard really. I do ban stuff but it's the stuff I banned in 3.5 so no change there. If it was broken in 3.5 good chance it will be broken in pathfinder. Paizo can not or should not be held accountable for things they did not make. They worked on the core, anything else is on you to balance or ban, just as it always has been.

On a side note, don't worry about your spelling that's petty pointing that out I spell far worse then you, trust me for worse.