Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Alpha "crunch" discussion

[Geron Raveneye]

So, in conclusion, a 5th level Elven wizard using PATHfinder rules gains when compared to a 3.5 RAW Elven Wizard,

+2 to Intelligence, which translates to Spell Focus in ALL the schools, PLUS more spells per day due to high intelligence.
+2 to overcome Spell Resistance (effectively Spell Penetration)
+10 HP
3 orisons he can cast at will
3 school powers (Universal): Hand of the Apprentice (At will, SU): Ghostly hand that uses your weapon to attack foes within 30 feet while you concentrate on it. Shield (2/day, SP): As the spell. Levitate (1/day, SP): As the spell. Keep in mind, in 3.5, the generalist didn't receive the extra spell per spell level a la the specialist. These extra powers are on TOP of what a 3.5 generalist wizard has.
1 extra feat and 1 extra metamagic feat
Item creation times cut in half.

You keep insisting that with these upgrades that the wizard no longer needs the Headband of Intellect but I don't think you understand truly WHY the stat boosters became ubquitous.

When 3.0 first appeared, WOTC honestly didn't understand the power of the stat boosters. Namely the fact that they are ALWAYS ON thus allowing you to use your own powers. Gamers naturally went for them (and frankly, this WAS in-character role-playing. Give me an option between a 2008 Chryseler 300 and a VW Beetle from the Flowerchild era and I'm taking the better option) and that's what made them the big six.

Not because they were NEEDED per se (that came later when WOTC realized its monsters at mid to high level were getting demolished) but because they were the BEST items.

Wait, should I even look at the cleric to see how much more powerful they made it?

Yep, that's what the elven wizard in Pathfinder gets over the elven wizard in D&D 3.5, and yes, I'd cut the bonus spells for high INT out as well, as they did with the specialist bonus spells already.

And yes, I keep insisting that this will make a Headband of Intellect, or wands of magic missile, easier to ditch. And I'm sorry, but all the arguments about why those "big six" are so ubiquitous simply boil down to one fact...because DMs allowed them to be. There is nothing in the RAW that translates to "player characters can order magical items from a menu". It is assumptions and expectations, and DMs that let themselves be overruled by the desires of their players (which isn't always bad as long as it doesn't lead to totally unbalanced games...which THIS did, as the discussions around 4E clearly showed). In my opinion, the power-ups Pathfinder gives the classes simply gives the DM a more solid argument to stand by his "Sorry, not available" when his players want to send their characters on a shopping spree through Magic-Mart.

I'd agree on toning down the wizard in Pathfinder, or rather on rebalancing his powers...at will cantrips and school powers as well as more feats make bonus spells completely unnecessary in my eyes, and I've said so on the Paizo boards as well. But even if they don't take them out...taking them out myself is, as far as houserules concerned, a lot less problematic than, say, taking out Attacks of Opportunities.

Clerics exchange their domain bonus spells for domain powers, and the regular turning for a burst of positive energy that hurts undead and heals living (or vice versa with negative energy). That's all, as far as I can see. But take a look...as you can see, our discussion about the wizard has already pointed me at something I'd misunderstood before.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yep, that's what the elven wizard in Pathfinder gets over the elven wizard in D&D 3.5, and yes, I'd cut the bonus spells for high INT out as well, as they did with the specialist bonus spells already.

And yes, I keep insisting that this will make a Headband of Intellect, or wands of magic missile, easier to ditch. And I'm sorry, but all the arguments about why those "big six" are so ubiquitous simply boil down to one fact...because DMs allowed them to be.

And now you expect Paizo to "re-educate" DMs and players to change how they handed out magical items our how they handled magical item acquisition?
How is that backwards-compatible? What if I actually run a campaign that offers magical item shops? What if my campaigns have enough downtime to make magical item creation worthwhile and go around any limitations of a non-existing or limited magical item markets?

As a designer, you should try to look both into what's "the expected average" and the extremes, and ensure that the system works in both situations (possibly by limiting the differences between extremes and averages)

I suppose this will still happen - with the playtest feedback or general feedback on Paizos forums - and the Paizo designers will look into this, and find ways to reduce the possibilities for game balance. But they certainly should do it.

Off course, maybe Paizo customers are fine with it. There could be a point to say that "Game Balance" isn't the most important thing in a game system (but that was not the assumption on which 3.x started). But for me, it is very important.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

And now you expect Paizo to "re-educate" DMs and players to change how they handed out magical items our how they handled magical item acquisition?
How is that backwards-compatible? What if I actually run a campaign that offers magical item shops? What if my campaigns have enough downtime to make magical item creation worthwhile and go around any limitations of a non-existing or limited magical item markets?

As a designer, you should try to look both into what's "the expected average" and the extremes, and ensure that the system works in both situations (possibly by limiting the differences between extremes and averages)

I suppose this will still happen - with the playtest feedback or general feedback on Paizos forums - and the Paizo designers will look into this, and find ways to reduce the possibilities for game balance. But they certainly should do it.

Off course, maybe Paizo customers are fine with it. There could be a point to say that "Game Balance" isn't the most important thing in a game system (but that was not the assumption on which 3.x started). But for me, it is very important.

Nah, of course not. Just as I don't fault Monte Cook et al. for creating this kind of playstyle in the first place, I can't expect Buhlman to try and "reeducate" anybody. That's still mostly our responsibility (meaning players and DMs). And if people who have found this kind of playstyle actually like it, why should it be taken away from them.

You mention that a designer should make sure that his system works in the "expected average" as well as the extremes. The problem is, that does only work if the expected average and the extremes (to both sides) are not that far away from each other. Looking at 3.0, that doesn't seem to be the case. The expected average is a group not tricked out with all the "best bang for the buck" items (apparently), which seemed to be one extreme, with the other being the totally underequipped group. 3.5 tried to fix that by moving the expected average towards the more powerful extreme, powering up monsters while trying to nerf booster spells. This simply distanced the average from the other extreme (underequipped) even more, and has culminated in the playstyle getting its own name (Big Six). I'd love it if Pathfinder can put the average back on a "powerful in their own right" group that doesn't need a heap of magical items to overcome the challenges placed in front of them, and that makes handing out magical items something special. To stay compatible with 3.5, that simply means to me internalizing some of the stuff the "Big Six" were supposed to deliver.

 

[DaveMage]

Also approve of the increased HD for character classes because quite honestly, if a stinkin goblin or kobold has base d8 HD in the PHB... even the basic character classes should have a d8 HD despite their profession! I don't think being born a human or halfling or whatever and deciding to become a wizard should suffice losing 1/2 a hit die, so d6 for wizards is a good start d8 for everyone would be way better. If you want to reflect that your character doesn't work out and eat right because they are a so and so class (say gamer)... give the class a con penalty instead of a wimpy Hit Die (I.E. Gamer takes -4 to con because of diet of mountain dew and cheetos... Pro Football player gets +3 strength -2 Con due to (ab)use of vitamin S(teroid).

Rather than change ability scores, I'd rather everyone get base HD/hp by race (d6, d8, etc.), and then get a bonus for HP at each level based on class:

Wizard (or other class currently with a d4): +0
Rogues (or other class currently with a d6): +2
Cleric (or other class currently with a d8): +4
Fighter (or other class currently with a d10): +6
Barbarian (or other class currently with a d12): +8

So, at each level you'd get [roll racial HD] + [class bonus] + [Con bonus] = hp

 

[Nellisir]

Seriously, when did gnomes become a magical fey race? At the beginning of 3.0 in the PHB, they're listed as inventors/alchemist and great friends with dwarves and this remains the same in the 3.5 PHB.

When did gnomes start be equating with fey and NOT dwarves?

It's always been one of the variant niches for gnomes. You've got the "extra-short dwarf" gnome, the "tinker" gnome, the "non-tinker inventor" gnome, the "magical mysterious illusionist" gnome, the "cheery spy bard" gnome, the "magical fey" gnome, and, for reasons I don't understand and can't explain, the "evil imperial" gnome.

And svirfneblin.

Basically, Pathfinder is moving the "core" gnome closer to the forest gnome subrace, storywise, to carve out a more distinct niche for them. Let's face it, "great friends with dwarves" is the description of a henchrace, not a hero race.

 

[AllisterH]

Clerics exchange their domain bonus spells for domain powers, and the regular turning for a burst of positive energy that hurts undead and heals living (or vice versa with negative energy). That's all, as far as I can see. But take a look...as you can see, our discussion about the wizard has already pointed me at something I'd misunderstood before.

Hmm....Best choice to abuse is a half-elven cleric who puts the stat increase to wisdom. You can see why the WOTC designers never gave a core race that had a stat increase to a spellcasting stat.

11th level half-elven cleric using Pathfinder
+11 hp
Proficient with any one weapon of their choice
+2 to WIS which results in the same problems as the +2 to INT does for wizards.
Domain powers - Something interesting here, at first glance, they do seem to be weaker than their 3.5 counterpart (no extra spell per spell level since each domain has less powers AND no general domain bonus), however, if I'm reading this correctly, s 11th cleric with access to say Air and animal gets BOTH of the domain powers each day, unlike a 3.5 cleric that has to choose one of the two. So while a 11th level cleric in 3.5 has one extra spell per spell level every day (net number of spell = 6), the Pathforge cleric actually ends up with 8 extra spells per day (at caster level 1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th for each domain x 2 domains).
2 extra feats (you just know this is going to be abused by spellcasters)
More Healing in the form of turning. This simply blows CLW, Mass out of the water in terms of effectiveness (at 11th level, cleric does 1d8+11 using CLWMass compared to 6d6 using the PATHFORGE Turning system). So a cleric now has even less worry about having to hold back on his spells because his turning bonus now allows for group healing

Somebody was saying something about the cleric being nerfed?

I can see what Pathforge is trying to do with the turning/healing but I don't think they understand the problem.

A CR 11 monster is supposed to use up 20% of a 4 person's group's resources. For the non-spellcasters, this is easy to calculate, namely the HP. It's the spellcasters that bork up the system.

What happens when a CR 11 monster is run is that players tend to use their CR 11 equivalent spells, which for a 11th level spellcaster is his top shelf level of spells (namely, the 4th-6th level). Once a spellcaster uses up the top levels of spells, even though he has WAY more spells still available, chances are they aren't going to be effective against the target. This increases as you hit higher levels.

Ex: A 15th level spellcaster that has used his 6th -8th level spells for the day, but hasn't touched his 1-5th level spells is fundamentally weaker than the reverse, namely a 15th level spellcaster that has blown all of spells level 1-5 but hasn't touched his 6th-8th level spells. Even though the former has probably DOUBLE the number of spells, the power of the 6th-8th level spells are such that they easily are more valuable.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Hmmm, interesting post for sure. Two comments at the moment...

Domain powers sure look like the cleric gets to use both of them, but the text doesn't specify either way. The same comment about bonus spells for clerics goes here, too...especially if they get to use both domain abilities for a level.

Turning Undead's healing effect has one drawback to the Mass Cure spells (Or Healing Circle, as I remember it )...it doesn't just heal your allies, but every living creature in the area of effect. It's an interesting idea, and completely in line with the fact that positive energy doesn't just decide whom to heal and whom not, except if you direct it with a spell. Same way, rebuking undead hurts every living creature in the area of effect, not just your enemies.

The rest are power-ups that everybody gets...extra HP for favored class, extra feats, ability bonus for race, etc.

But I have to admit, spellcasters really could use a bit of toning down. The "problem" the Pathfinder designers are trying to solve is the often-belaboured "15-minute adventuring day"...a problem that, IMO, is more a matter of playstyle than of the rules, but that would be digressing. I'm definitely curious about the Beta rules..I bet they will look a lot more in line with 3.5 than what we see right now in the wildly growing ideas stage of the Alpha rules.

 

[AllisterH]

Turning Undead's healing effect has one drawback to the Mass Cure spells (Or Healing Circle, as I remember it )...it doesn't just heal your allies, but every living creature in the area of effect. It's an interesting idea, and completely in line with the fact that positive energy doesn't just decide whom to heal and whom not, except if you direct it with a spell. Same way, rebuking undead hurts every living creature in the area of effect, not just your enemies.

Reading the rebuking rules, there's something weird going on for those cleric. If a cleric and a fighter are faced with hostile undead, and the cleric wins initative, he can rebuke and control those undead since presumably they'll be at maximum HP. However, if the fighter attacks them and damages them, the cleric HEALS them but doesn't automatically control them.....Weird.

As for the "limitation" on healing/turning, all that does is make it an out-of combat spell. It also has another advantage of being able to heal a hell of a lot more people due to the targetting issue AND the one creature/level limitation. There's no such limitations on the turning version that I can see as basically it is just how many you stuff in a 30ft burst.

But I have to admit, spellcasters really could use a bit of toning down. The "problem" the Pathfinder designers are trying to solve is the often-belaboured "15-minute adventuring day"...a problem that, IMO, is more a matter of playstyle than of the rules, but that would be digressing. I'm definitely curious about the Beta rules..I bet they will look a lot more in line with 3.5 than what we see right now in the wildly growing ideas stage of the Alpha rules.

I don't think you can blame players for this playstyle.

1. A level 1 spell just isn't going to do much against the level 11 opponent. Plain and simple, if a spellcaster wants to directly affect an opponent of the same CR as their level, in 3.x, I think you basically HAVE to use a spell from among your top 3 levels.

2. It's actually in-character. In real life, I have friends that are both Scuba divers and Spleunkers. Neither of those would even attempt a dive/cave exploration with only 50% of their resources. They love the excitement but this is their life on the line and they actually want to come back and tell people about what they did.

I always saw adventurers as the same. I personally consider it metagaming to actually push on UNLESS it is time-dependant AND the situation IS important enough (BBEG is going to kill all the villagers? No. BBEG is going to blow up the world? YES) and even there, I'm somewhat think it is metagaming since IRL, I'd imagine that say a firefighter would be taught that it is dangerous to go into a fire with only 10% in their oxygen tank as potentially, they force those who come in after them to have to SAVE them.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Rather than change ability scores, I'd rather everyone get base HD/hp by race (d6, d8, etc.), and then get a bonus for HP at each level based on class:

Wizard (or other class currently with a d4): +0
Rogues (or other class currently with a d6): +2
Cleric (or other class currently with a d8): +4
Fighter (or other class currently with a d10): +6
Barbarian (or other class currently with a d12): +8

So, at each level you'd get [roll racial HD] + [class bonus] + [Con bonus] = hp

They did something like that in the Farscape d20 Implementation. It was definitely badly thought out.
Aside from Hit points, Characters also had Control Points that were used to "power" magic effects and special abilities.
A Hynerican had a lot HD. And if he picked his most appropriate class (judging from the shows primrary Hynerican character, an exiled king of the Hynerians), he would end up with low HP (due to race) and low control points (due to class). No surprise that he was a coward and typically grumpy...
On the other hand, the most effective character could be modelled after another character, a Priestess. High Hit Dice, high Control Points.

At worst, with this system you get only Orc or Dwarfen characters for everything. If you're lucky, rare characters (like Halfling Barbarians or Orc Wizards) become more prevalent, since you can at least compensate the weaknesses...

If you want a race to "generate" a lot of hit points, ensure that it has a good con and has a in-built reason to pick classes with a lot of hit points to gain.

The problem is, that does only work if the expected average and the extremes (to both sides) are not that far away from each other. Looking at 3.0, that doesn't seem to be the case. The expected average is a group not tricked out with all the "best bang for the buck" items (apparently), which seemed to be one extreme, with the other being the totally underequipped group. 3.5 tried to fix that by moving the expected average towards the more powerful extreme, powering up monsters while trying to nerf booster spells. This simply distanced the average from the other extreme (underequipped) even more, and has culminated in the playstyle getting its own name (Big Six).

That is indeed a problem. Or maybe _THE_ problem. And it is a _very_ fundamental problem of the 3E. The whole class advancement table supports the expanding gap between the specialized and non-specialist (Wizard BAB vs Fighter BAB). Feats or class abilities help further (Rage/Weapon Focus vs lower BAB, or Skill Focus vs Cross Class Skill). Buff spells enforce it further (Bull Strength to Fighter-Types vs Eagle's Splendor). Magical Weapons add again (+X Sword vs Light Crossbow?). Magical Buff Items cement the effect of Buff Spells (Gloves of Ogre Power vs Headband of Intellect)

A lot of this stuff "makes sense" on its own. Why would a wizard need more strength? Why would he need a high BAB? But added on top of each other, you get an overspecialisation effect. Adding yet another class ability that enforces this won't help at all.

And then, you combine this with "Fire & Forget" magic/spells as daily resources.
Probably starting around 5th level, a casters crossbow doesn't make a difference. His attack bonus is too low, and if he hits, he deals neglible amounts of damage. So he wants to cast spells, otherwise he is just standing around until the time he is needed. Which conceptually sounds nice, but the truth is, if the group can rest easily/with little risk, why not "go nova", cast a spell every round and have fun, and avoid any risks? (If the caster is nice, he just uses a lot of buff spells to ensure that the full party is doing it works, but since many buff spells don't stack with magical items, this might not be "wise". Or at least their acquisition wasn't )

Mayb e a solution would be to considerably change BAB/Save advancement. Instead of "increasing gaps" give "kickers". (That's what 4E appears to be doing.) But this causes imbalances at the extremes if applied to 3E. Low level monsters (unadjusted) AC is suddenly too low, High level monsters AC is suddenly to high.
Weapons or Implements are given to everyone, and they all can have an enhancement bonus that improve your attacks...

And this doesn't fully address the AC of player characters yet. In some ways, the armor system already uses a kind of "kicker" mechanic. But then, you have several "standard" bonus types (that can be acquired by core spells or core items) like shield + armor (both with their enhancement chances), and deflection and natural armor. On the other hand, you have mostly enhancement and strength/dex boost. So you have to shift around stacking rules here again.

In the end, you probably will no longer have a 3.x compatible system.

But maybe you don't need to aim for the solution for everything. I mean, that's what 4E is already doing, right? (It might not be the best, or the only, or the preferred solution, but it seems to offer at least one). In doing so, it sacrifices compatibility.
So maybe the Pathfinder RPG shouldn't aim to high in regards of "fixing" the system if they also want to keep a compatible system. There is certainly room for improvement in 3.5 without throwing compatibility out of the window. The Alpha release doesn't look to work here, but - that's what the Alpha and public playtest are for.

(And maybe I am wrong. Maybe "extremizing" the game even further without rebalancing everything else will really encourage people being a little less "min-maximized" focussed? As an example: I know that most of my 25 point buy characters had very similar basic "stat arrays", but higher point-buy characters usually were a little more varied and I felt encouraged to put points in ability scores I normally wouldn't have considered in fear of inferior characters. Like high Charisma-Barbarians and so.)

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Well, to be honest, I doubt you can "fix" this for D&D as it was up to 3.5, which is probably why they are trying to remake it into something new with 4E. It has to be seen how well that works, but that's beside the point.

The best workaround, in my opinion, is to settle the game very solidly in the "expected average" of the spectrum, and make sure both extremes are VERY far away from it. Then you try to make as sure as possible that at the very least the DMs, better every player, knows what to expect when the group deviates into that kind of extreme game, and try to give advice about what to take out respectively put in to make it kind of feasible to play in those extremes.

A few good examples are those threads here about "rare magic" or "low magic" campaigns. D&D is simply not made to play those out of the box, most especially not 3E. You have to tweak a bit, and take care about interaction with monsters. A good guide on how to do so would do a lot more than simply handing DMs a CR system and a wealth-by-level guideline and telling them to "adjust according to their campaign needs". Same goes for extremely high and common magic scenarios (Magic-Mart scenarios, for example).

In other words, make very clear what the D&D average is supposed to look like...write your assumptions out in "Designer's Notes" and "Sidebars", and don't hope the players will see them from your rules alone.

For example, I'm pretty sure the wizard as 3E has it was supposed to use Scribe Scroll a lot more in early levels to bolster its cache of ammunition. The buffer spells were supposed to make sure booster items wouldn't have to be handed out that often. Spells like Magic Weapon could help out the odd group that suddenly found itself confronted by some DR/+1 nasty. Likewise, the clerical Endure Elements and other resistances spells were good to help them over a sudden encounter with a thoqqua or a winter wolf. That's at least my impression, that there was a much greater amount of synergy assumed by the designers, while they set the item creation rules up so those few who were actually willing to spend XP on a magical item would have solid rules instead of the very obscure ones in 2E. I don't think they really imagined it would lead to this "magic item shopping" phenomenon that set in after a while.

But all that is speculation on my part, since the assumptions of 3E were not written down anywhere, sadly enough. It's like the designers' assumption that everybody knew diagonals are longer than orthogonals, and would account for that...an assumption that was wrong, since 3.5 had to write it out, resulting in the infamous 1-2-1-2 rule. I bet there's plenty more assumptions about 3E gameplay hidden in the rules, and never spelled out. In a way, I prefer Gary Gygax's verbosity...he at least told the players in (mostly) clear words how he thought D&D worked best, and what assumptions had gone into the rules. I miss that.