Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder BETA - Some Sizzle, Not Much Steak

[Stormtower]

This statement makes no sense to me. Do you mean spellcaster should get full progression in their spells AND multiclass? And then you say they are over powered? I don't understand what you are getting at. Could you please explain.

The issues are discreet and mutually exclusive of one another, only related in that they both involve casters. Issue #1 is that casters (specifically clerics, druids & wizards) outshine other base classes in 3.X. Issue #2 is that multiclassing a caster into a non-casting class puts that PC far behind the expected power curve for its level.

What I am saying is that I would like the developers to innovate and test some solutions that accomplish all of the following:

Allow multiclassing casters to not fall behind in their spell progression and thus feel unable to contribute equally in combat vs. full-progression casters. It is widely considered suboptimal for casters to even dabble in non full-progression PrCs or multiclass into other base classes. This has been well established on ENWorld and elsewhere and is not worth derailing the thread over.

Revamp the caster classes by fixing known balance issues with 3.5 magic (to Paizo's credit, they've attacked the polymorph subschool problems, which are heinously broken and easily abused) while simultaneously bringing high-level casters in line with high-level rogues, fighters and other "non-magical" characters. My preference would be to level things out by slightly nerfing casters and slightly buffing the others.

As to the specifics of how to accomplish this: I leave it to the devs. I have my own homebrew solutions to these problems, but they involve table culture management rather than deep mechanical changes to the game system. My concern is not, and never has been, home play. Any DM worth his or her salt knows how to manage table culture at home. The broken stuff comes into play in public, organized games (such as the upcoming Pathfinder Society living campaign). Credit to Paizo for fixing the polymorph cheese. That's a good start.

If I were to make a go of it myself, the first thing I'd do is put some sort of hard cap on the long-duration stacking of named bonuses (as an example, Mass Conviction from the Spell Compendium with divine metamagic: extend spell makes saving throws fairly trivial instead of tense and dangerous).

Yeah, I want to have my cake and eat it, too. Already got what I want for my home games... now I want Paizo to innovate some solutions to these issues for organized play. That is what will ultimately attract or repel me vis-a-vis Pathfinder as an RPG game system. I'm already sold on Pathfinder as a game world setting.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Just speculation at this point, but I wonder how Pathfinder would be judged if it were objectively compared solely to 3.5E D&D without any of the baggage of recent events? How does Pathfinder compare to playing 3.5E as written if you take 4E and the edition change out of the equation.

Objectively, isn't this how Pathfinder should be looked at? Shouldn't the question be what about Pathfinder makes it necessary to abandon 3.5E?

 

[Wicht]

Huh...The more I think about it, the more I wonder about the new Cleave.

Changing it does affect any feats that were derived from it....But the bigger issue is that really, PF's Cleave doesnt seem to mechanically viable.

Looking at it....
Levels 1-5 is when it shines but afterwards?

Several of the chains work this way in the current rules, meaning that as you progress in number of attacks, you need to take the next feat in the chain to continue to make the feat better than the use of the secondary and tertiary attacks. In the case of cleave, Greater Cleave would allow you to essentiall trade three or more attacks against one foe with a descending probability of hitting for multiple attacks against multiple foes with each attack having the best probability of hitting.

My wives two-handed sword fighter has made a lot of use of the overhand chop-backswing -devestating blow chain. Essentially backswing allows you to give up your secondary attack against a single foe for more damage with your primary attack and devestating blow requires you to give up the secondary and tertiary attacks for an automatic critical hit (sans any burst effects).

 

[Wicht]

Just speculation at this point, but I wonder how Pathfinder would be judged if it were objectively compared solely to 3.5E D&D without any of the baggage of recent events? How does Pathfinder compare to playing 3.5E as written if you take 4E and the edition change out of the equation.

Heh. I can answer this question for myself and my players. We are making characters for the Pathfinder Society, season 0, using the 3.5 rules as required.

We've been using the Alpha rules since their first release and its hard to go back to the old 3.5 rules for us.

 

[Sunderstone]

To be fair, it was a tad condescending.

apologies then.

Bottom line for me is D&D will always have math and/or bookkeeping. Everyone complains about math/bookkeeping but its a pen and paper rpg. Adding up damage, bonuses, tracking spells, etc has always been in the game and it always ramps up as you get higher in level.

As for the example of the Barbarian Rage pool, that really isnt alot of bookkeeping. ymmv.

 

[Sunderstone]

The issues are discreet and mutually exclusive of one another, only related in that they both involve casters. Issue #1 is that casters (specifically clerics, druids & wizards) outshine other base classes in 3.X. Issue #2 is that multiclassing a caster into a non-casting class puts that PC far behind the expected power curve for its level.

What I am saying is that I would like the developers to innovate and test some solutions that accomplish all of the following:

Allow multiclassing casters to not fall behind in their spell progression and thus feel unable to contribute equally in combat vs. full-progression casters.

The caster thing outshining martial characters is a matter of taste. This is where Vancian casting balances out, IMHO. High level casters get the showy, powerful spells but still can use them only so much before they are out of spells. This is where the "15 min workday" comes in for some folks. Martial characters do their thing all day long without having the daily limits of casting. So it balances out in the longer workday.

Some people seem to want to hurl spells with no limits (eliminating vancian casting by default and the 15 min workday). Thats a matter of personal taste. Like the guy a few pages back who pretty much stated he wouldnt like playing a rogue that couldnt sneak attack everything in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.
My own personal taste prefers a more challenging approach with limits like saving that powerful spell for that epic, somewhat cinematic moment. YMMV. If I was magic missiling every round, id get bored and go hit Ratchet and Clank on my PS3 instead. Again thats my taste.

As for multiclassing and falling behind the spell curve, almost the same argument. I make a Wizard, id possibly take a PrC much later that complimented my class choice and/or persona. Multiclassing 3 different classes at levels 7-9 is a bit too much. Dabbling should be dabbling. You shouldnt be a master of 3 types of jobs at only level 7. There should be penalties. Thats my particular taste at least and ymmv.

In the case of Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, falling behind the spell curve due to multiclassing 3 classes by levels 7-9 cost the group dearly.
Some others seem to want to master like 5 classes by mid-evel without falling behind the spell curve. That seems abit overpowered.

The multiclassing argument, falling behind the spell curve, and the folks who argue the 15 min workday just seem like the types that want to be shining all the time or they get bored. Its fine, but its not everyone's taste. Some prefer a lower powered game in a sense.
Not just one that blasting away with unlimited resources. This is where I usually start thinking the "videogamey" thing.

IMHO, These things were never broken in 3.5 (as people will always argue), its just a matter of taste.

 

[Gailbraithe]

Again, agreed. I wasn't totally sold on the changes they were making to the game when I first read the new rules. My first thought was that they were pumping up the power too much and were going to speed things along to the point where the math breaks down. Then I actually played it and saw how these changes affect play, and I really think that they're going in the right direction. In my mind, the only real challenge that they have yet to tackle is fixing high level play.

Even if they don't manage to do that by the final release, I know how I can houserule the game so that it stops being a problem -

So do I. My solution is beautiful in it's simplicity.

"Well, now you're all 10-12th level and have titles and lands. You find yourself so busy that you have no more time for adventuring. When you hear about some trouble in a small town nearby, you find it's just easier to send one of your many new aides out with a sack of gold to hire some young kids to go check out the rumored trouble. Roll up new characters, first level."

My favorite D&D is 1st to 6th level, after that the game starts becoming tedious to run thanks to wizards and clerics and their increasingly silly powers. "Oh, i cast Find Villain, then I cast Become Omnipotent, then I cast Teleport Unerringly Into Villains Lair, then I cast Him Up Good, then I cast Teleport Unerringly To Nearest Tavern With Hot Serving Girls and order a cold beer. How many XPs do I get?"

 

[Gailbraithe]

Errr, I'm a big fan of 3e. But the game bogs down at higher levels and becomes a chore to DM for. If you feel the game is fine as-is and you don't think it has any serious flaws, then why do you need PF to begin with?

Because WOTC stopped supporting 3E.

And if Paizo is going to keep 3E alive by printing a new core book to support their ongoing adventure line, then why not give the game a tune-up while you're at it? As long as it can still be used with the older material, it's a sound plan for Paizo. It makes sense to me.

Since I don't want to do 4E, and I don't want to play a game that is no longer being supported (Dungeons & Dragons 3.5), Pathfinder is great. I can still use my 3.5 adventures and monster collection with minimal conversion (all stuff I can do on the fly in my head), and I can use 3.5 sourcebooks with Pathfinder at about the same rate of success as using 3.0 stuff with 3.5, which is IME a pretty good rate.

 

[Spatula]

As for multiclassing and falling behind the spell curve, almost the same argument. I make a Wizard, id possibly take a PrC much later that complimented my class choice and/or persona. Multiclassing 3 different classes at levels 7-9 is a bit too much. Dabbling should be dabbling. You shouldnt be a master of 3 types of jobs at only level 7. There should be penalties. Thats my particular taste at least and ymmv.

That's an extreme example.

A fighter, or really, any martial character, can dip into any number of other martial characters and not really suffer for it. You get a wide range of low-level abilities instead of a narrow range of abilities related to one class, which is a perfectly fine trade-off. The thing is, your job is to hit stuff and you can still do that, because every class adds to your attack bonus.

Spellcasters don't use their attack bonus much. Pretty much all of their power comes from their caster level, but caster levels do not stack (excepting +1 caster level PrCs). As a result, spellcasters cannot multiclass at all without severely hamstringing themselves. The trade-off in this case is stick with your class, or suck (to varying degrees, depending on how much you "dabble"), which is too steep. This inflexibility is the dark spot on the otherwise very cool 3e multiclassing, and it destroys a lot of classic D&D concepts. i.e. any mutliclass combo that involves a spellcasting class. 3.5 "fixed" this with clunky Practiced Spellcaster feat, and the clunky and flavorless one-per-class-combo PrCs, where you sucked for your first 6 or so levels until you can get into the PrC and actually realize your character concept.

This problem isn't unique to spellcasters, they're just the most obviously affected by it. And the most easily fixed. Any class that depends on levels in that class alone for its combat ability can't effectively use multiclassing. The monk and the warlock, for example.

 

[Gailbraithe]

Currently, every level a spellcaster doesn't take in another class, he weakens his overall caster potential. This includes:

* # of Spells Known
* # of Spell Slots Available
* Highest Spell Level Available
* Caster-level for dependent variables (1d6 damage per level)
* Caster-level for opposed checks (Vs. SR, dispel magic)

Most people agree giving up the first three is an acceptable trade off (within reason) but the latter two (and occasionally the latter three) often gimp a caster severly. A spellcaster who multi-classes more than a few levels (3 is typically the limit) begins to see he lacks important spells needed to overcome challenges of his character level (multi-class clerics lacking restortation or raise dead), his level-dependent spells fall behind to the point of uselessness (cure spells not healing enough to keep the fighter alive), and he becomes unable to affect certain targets with his magic (unable to beat SR, unable to dispel enemy buffs, etc)

In essence, the caster trades too much for the often-times less-impressive benefits multi-classing grants (and is the reason for the eldrich-knight style multi-classing PrCs)

The feat Practiced Spellcaster adds 4 to the character's caster level up to maximum of the character's character level. Pathfinder could add a similar feat.

Arcane Discipline
You maintain a rigorous training routine to keep your arcane skills in peak form.
Prerequisites: Caster level 3rd.
Benefit: Choose a spellcasting class you have at least three levels in. Your caster level with that class is increased by 5, to a maximum equal to your character level.

Problem solved.