High-level overview of Pathfinder vs 3.5

[Arkhandus]

I'm sure Treebore was using DR (damage reduction) synonymously with ER (energy resistance), Freyar, just not saying it explicitly. Lots of creatures and characters have several energy resistances at upper levels.

 

[Aus_Snow]

One major feature is that the base classes are all worth taking, even 20 level of. Even just in one base class! Quite the change from 3e.

So far, I"d say they're doing an excellent job of achieving this design goal.

 

[Treebore]

Sorry, I haven't played 3E in over 2 years. Yes, I meant energy resistances. The fighters usually managed to always over come DR versus their weapons. A shame it wasn't so easy for spellcasting wizard types.

 

[freyar]

Oh, yeah, of course. My bad.

 

[RangerWickett]

Hm. There's a thought. A fighter gets a silver weapon, he can hurt a devil. What if a fireball mage could get some sort of icy silver wand to transform his fireball into a cold ball? I mean, they do have energy substitution metamagic rods, but I was thinking of something that would affect all your spells. Maybe require it to be 'primed' by expending a spell slot of Xth level of the appropriate energy type.

 

[serow]

I thought the idea of Wizards in 3E was *not* to use too many direct attacks, instead focusing on battlefield control?

 

[Treebore]

Hm. There's a thought. A fighter gets a silver weapon, he can hurt a devil. What if a fireball mage could get some sort of icy silver wand to transform his fireball into a cold ball? I mean, they do have energy substitution metamagic rods, but I was thinking of something that would affect all your spells. Maybe require it to be 'primed' by expending a spell slot of Xth level of the appropriate energy type.

I would say that is a solid idea. I would even go so far as allowing a feat designed to allow spells to bypass energy resistances. In my C&C games I allow SIEGE checks for such things, it works OK, but only because failed checks result in loss of the spell.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

One major feature is that the base classes are all worth taking, even 20 level of.

See, looking at Alpha 3, I don't consider this to be the case at all. The Fighter got a sizeable boost to his attack, damage, and AC, which likely introduces more problems than it solves. He may well become dominant martially, but even a modicum of magical effort will still take him out of the fight, and you may actually be worse off than before if, say, Dominate Person gets used. The core issues with the class remain largely unresolved.

Looking a the Monk, he's got a few new toys, but he's still a hodgepodge of abilities that don't work well together. He's a skirmisher with no ability to skirmish. "Stand still and make a flurry of blows (whiffs?)" still doesn't play well with "Low AC, mediocre HP, mediocre damage, high mobility." Adding his monk level instead of his BAB to special attacks helps, but his MAD means that he's still worse than an equivalent Fighter or Barbarian in most cases. He seems to retain his position as "warrior who is okay at out-warrior-ing people who are lousy warriors." He still doesn't strike me as a terribly useful party member, comparatively.

The one concrete measure that seems to address the problem of non-magical classes getting Batman'd by casters is the increase in PC wealth by level, but I'd call that far from ideal as far as solutions go. It further emphasizes that the weapons make the warrior, and the secret to real ultimate power is either becoming a Wizard or hiring a Wizard to make you lots of magical doodads so you can bluff it with UMD.

 

[Nifft]

The one concrete measure that seems to address the problem of non-magical classes getting Batman'd by casters is the increase in PC wealth by level, but I'd call that far from ideal as far as solutions go.

Ugh. The fact that specific wealth levels are required for PCs to function correctly is one of the things I like least about 3e.

:\, -- N

 

[Aus_Snow]

See, looking at Alpha 3, I don't consider this to be the case at all.

Fair enough too. I don't think it's safe to say the problems are solved yet, either. Some of my wording wasn't quite right there: I meant to be writing more in the future tense. More like optimism, less like the praise it turned out as. Sorry for the confusion.

I would say your assessments are pretty accurate, too. I'm looking over the classes again, in more detail this time. It's true that as things stand, full casters are still going to dominate (hur, hur) to some extent.

Which kind of leads to a another issue: mutliclassing. I hope everyone involved manages to sort out a system for multiclassing caster with non-caster classes, so that people are generally satisfied with the results. This is a huge area of concern, for many folks.

A fixed (and alternative), standardised form of those multiclass feats, as originally found in Complete Adventurer (IIRC), wouldn't be the worst way, perhaps.