Hussar
Legend
Again, I have to say, of course not.
But, thanks for trying to drag an unrelated argument into this one.
Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?
Again, I have to say, of course not.
But, thanks for trying to drag an unrelated argument into this one.
I don't find Pathfinder lower, but watching the point buys is important. Pathfinder provides a lower point buy, but a abilities start at 10 rather than 8, and you get points back for dropping below 8. It is more expensive to have a really high stat in Pathfinder.
I equate 28 point buy in 3.5 to 20 point in Pathfinder. Example: 4x6 = 24 + 2x2 = 4 totals 28, so 4 14 stats and 2 10's. In Pathfinder, that's 4x5 = 20 with two stats left at the 10 point base.
I recall looking at the transition of 2nd ed to 3rd ed and thinking, first, the stats would drop. However, I found it more practical to reverse engineer the results. A 16 DEX in 2e was a +2 modifier, so make that a 14 in 3e. That worked for most stats. For STR, if you average the To Hit and Damage bonuses, the result comes out pretty reasonable, with a 17 STR in 2e being a 12 in 3e (+1 to hit and damage). All the range in STR bonuses was in that percentile STR. Set 18/00 at an 18 in 3.0 (4.5, rounded down) and we get a decent translation, although I rounded the bonus up at all other levels.
We didn't actually transition, so this never got used, but if you look at the bonuses instead of the stats, I think you get a better comparison.
A bit OT, but then the whole stat thing is anyway - do you think AD&D paladins are underpowered?
silverblade56
First Post
Well, when you compare them to fighters who could specialize in weapons or rangers that could dual wield, and get favored enemy bonuse plus skills, and some spells, they were pretty lackluckster. They had to waste a 17 in a stat that did nothing for them in combat, all so they could get detect evil, and a mount, and a few cleric spells.
I was thinking of 1st ed AD&D paladins pre-UA (so no specialisation). Rangers have brutal state requirements in that edition too. And paladins can turn undead.
The entire campaign in question was pre-UA, so [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has the right comparable. Weapon Specialization was a definite issue, and I often saw it extended to other warrior classes, banned or restricted (one example was specialization being in a specific weapon, as each one's balance varied a little - enough that it took a true master time to transition his specialization).
The Paladin got protection from evil, lay on hands and saving throw bonuses, as well as detect evil and a mount (how did 1e Smite Evil work? not memorably well, obviously).
Pre-UA, Paladins and Rangers got pretty much everything Fighters got and more besides. The needed higher stats, so that was "balance".
The Paladin got protection from evil, lay on hands and saving throw bonuses, as well as detect evil and a mount (how did 1e Smite Evil work? not memorably well, obviously).
Pre-UA, Paladins and Rangers got pretty much everything Fighters got and more besides. The needed higher stats, so that was "balance".
No such ability. It's a 3E invention.
The only gamey (hung meats) version of D&D that I know of is 4th Ed.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Well, the OP used "gamey" as a pejorative meaning "anti-simulation", so under than definition, I would have to agree that 4e is the most "gamey" version. Fortunately, I don't find "anti-simulation" to be pejorative at all.
