Pathfinder 1E PC power in Pathfinder

[enrious]

If you limit yourself to PF Core, you might be satisfied with it alone. It sounds like however, because of your interest to use your 3.5 material, that you want more variety. By the time you (if you do) purchase the APG, UM, and UC, you might find the variety available there lessens the need for 3.5 legacy stuff. If you're like me and allow 3pp Pathfinder material then definitely 3.5 belongs on a shelf to look at and not play.

I find this to be true in a lot of cases regarding Pathfinder material alleviating the desire to import older material, but I think a lot of it comes down to personal preference.

Here's what I mean:

Let's say there's something in 3.x that you like and Paizo has introduced the same element into Pathfinder. The odds are they didn't just do a simple 1 for 1 conversion; rather they likely approached the original thing from a different perspective and now you have two things to chose from.

All said, never forget that Pathfinder isn't a vastly different game from 3.x.


Now then, people are talking about Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat but let me caution you to research before you buy them - IMO, they aren't up to the quality of the APG, but you may find differently. Caveat emptor.

But we all have different preferences, and no style of playing is wrong, so there's no telling which you would prefer. In my experience of playing PF, my feelings of this has changed over time, and might change for you too.

Quite right. Know yourself and know your audience and play the game to please both - not a bunch of folks on an internet forum.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Using just the Pathfinder Core Rulebook classes, are the PCs more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts?

Out of just the core, everything but the Druid and the Barbarian are more powerful than their core-only D&D counterparts. With supplements the D&D characters pick up the advantage out of sheer mass of material.

The Druid suffers from the nerf to wild shape, and the Barbarian's "flexible" rage essentially means that they get fewer rounds of rage per day, plus the limitation on Power Attack means that they can't dish out nearly as much damage. The Bardic Performance limitation functions the same way for Bards, but Bards get so many more new options that they still come out way ahead.

Then, moving up to the Advanced Player's Guide. Is this another step up in power here, or does it just add more options?

With the exception of Human Favored Class bonuses, everything in the Advanced Player's Guide is weaker than its core counterparts. Core classes gain more power from every supplement, per usual, but Paizo is doing a better job of supporting pre-existing material in subsequent releases so that the new classes benefit from them as well.

Finally, what do the Ultimate books add in terms of relative power to the previous material?

Ultimate material is generally weaker than core material, but providing more options does allow characters to become more powerful. The Ultimate books do more for the weaker classes than they do for the stronger classes.

 

[gamerprinter]

Now then, people are talking about Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat but let me caution you to research before you buy them - IMO, they aren't up to the quality of the APG, but you may find differently. Caveat emptor.

For me, any supplement for any game is almost never something I totally accept. For Ultimate Magic, the only thing I really like in that book is the Magus, and I really love that class. The rest of UC, except for some spells and feats, is mostly meh.

Ultimate Combat fit a specific need, in that I am publishing material for an oriental setting, and having the UC rules on Samurai and Ninja are imperative to my current endeavors. And recently I've been taking a closer look at the Gunslinger and working in revolvers, rifles and shotguns into a specific gothic old west setting. If it weren't for those facts, I might not have ever looked at the UC.

Our needs and preferences are different. The Core and the APG so far, are Paizo's best books, and you may find UM and UC to your liking or not, but they do offer more variety. I found them useful to my game.

 

[ruemere]

I'm just trying to get a handle on this. Please forgive me if this has been discussed before. Just three quick questions:

In relation to 3.5--

Using just the Pathfinder Core Rulebook classes, are the PCs more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts?

Then, moving up to the Advanced Player's Guide. Is this another step up in power here, or does it just add more options?

Finally, what do the Ultimate books add in terms of relative power to the previous material?

Just trying to figure out where the power jump is made. Thanks in advance for your help.

Answering in order:
- yes, some classes got stronger than others. Still, there are power combos from 3.5 which remain unsurpassed to this day.
- yes, APG is a step up albeit only for very specific setups. Apart from this, APG is all about options, and if your players desire break from standards, let them have it. Personally, I removed from my game several metamagic feats - I find spellcasters good enough without Persistent or Perfect spells.
- Ultimate guides, IMHO, remain at APG level with several exceptions.

IMHO, the main reason to get these books lies with archetypes and alternative classes.

Regarding mixing 3.5 material and Pathfnder - try to avoid mixing player material. 3.5 stuff has some legacy rules which may play havoc with Pathfnder.
As for monsters and treasures - replace with nearest Pathfinder material and you'll do just fine.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. Converting Bonegarden right now - converting and upping power level to pose challenge for 14th level 6-PC party. It's easy apart from that beholder (replaced him with two Advanced Lich Shades and 2 grunts).

 

[enrious]

For me, any supplement for any game is almost never something I totally accept. For Ultimate Magic, the only thing I really like in that book is the Magus, and I really love that class. The rest of UC, except for some spells and feats, is mostly meh.

Ultimate Combat fit a specific need, in that I am publishing material for an oriental setting, and having the UC rules on Samurai and Ninja are imperative to my current endeavors. And recently I've been taking a closer look at the Gunslinger and working in revolvers, rifles and shotguns into a specific gothic old west setting. If it weren't for those facts, I might not have ever looked at the UC.

Our needs and preferences are different. The Core and the APG so far, are Paizo's best books, and you may find UM and UC to your liking or not, but they do offer more variety. I found them useful to my game.

My objections aren't mere flavor - I'm about to run a Pathfinder L5R game, so I may end up using some of the information introduced in UC (although based on some of your other posts, I'd rather use a more historical ninja), I personally think the Magus is an incredibly well executed class, and I'm using firearms in my current campaign (and likely all future ones will have them) so again, not flavor.

Instead, it's the mechanical issues, balance aside. Words of Power needed to be better tested, you have a monk archetype that is unusable as written, you have UC feats that let you do things already allowed by the rules, etc.

To say nothing of balance.

So yeah, IMO there are great ideas in UC and UM, but save a few exceptions, shoddily executed. And that, in all sincerity, is a shame.

 

[gamerprinter]

Yeah, words of power is just something I don't need and have no interest in, so is it balanced? I haven't even looked.

And Kaidan has own different take on Monk, or rather how it extends from the Core, not really doing much to match the UC, except for the accepted existence of 'stance' as a usable mechanic in PF, and little else.

In those specific things in the UM/UC that fit my needs they are balanced enough - the rest... nothing for my needs so I don't use the rest.

 

[enrious]

Yeah, words of power is just something I don't need and have no interest in, so is it balanced? I haven't even looked.

As balanced as piecemeal armor...or Vow of Poverty.

And Kaidan has own different take on Monk, or rather how it extends from the Core, not really doing much to match the UC, except for the accepted existence of 'stance' as a usable mechanic in PF, and little else.

In those specific things in the UM/UC that fit my needs they are balanced enough - the rest... nothing for my needs so I don't use the rest.

Thanks for your perspective and explaining how you view the books.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Yes and no - other feats got nerfed. The only universal statement you can say with any degree of truth is simply that some feats changed.

It would be interesting if you provided examples to demonstrate how your opinions compare to my examples rather than laughing at my ideas without backing your own up. What aspects of character creation got nerfed that offset the bonus hit point or skill point for leveling in a primary class, the removal of XP penalties for multiclassing, the addition of class features every level, the +2 bonus to racial ability modifiers, and the linear power increases to the feats I mentioned?

Couple of things. Just because one person doesn't believe something to be true, OP, doesn't mean that it can't be done. The key is understanding what impact the prior content will have as well as how they will compare to Pathfinder material.

I'm glad we agree. Did you read my post later detailing my amateur methods of converting 3E races and classes to PF?

I also find it laughable that it takes a "near-professional understanding of how game balance works" given that at least one of the current Pathfinder developers has said that they purposefully introduced material designed to screw with "balance".

Link please? Game balance ain't rocket-science, but it can be screwed up. Many players get frustrated if they feel their characters are less powerful than others. I know I do. But anyway, if you don't feel like you could successfully design a fairly-balanced class I wouldn't attempt to convert 3.5 classes or prestige classes to PF.

And even at that, all it takes is a little intelligence and common sense. At worst, pick up the Trailblazer RPG pdf for $5 and you'll know as much as the big boys about the fundamentals of the system.

See, clearly it ain't rocket-science to design professional-grade D20 content.

In other words, don't feel you must pray at the altar of balance to incorporate material into your Pathfinder game.

It's about what's fun and what works for you and your group.

Now if your players get upset when they feel their characters are underpowered I'd tread carefully. By far the biggest source of player griping I see derives from when players feel their characters are underpowered. Even if you do succeed at balancing characters players may complain simply because they perceive the imported content to be unbalanced. For these reason I'm very reluctant to allow players to play classes from non-Paizo material (3.5 or PF) in my game. So I find this kind of experimentation can often be detrimental to player fun, but YMMV. I prefer to reflavor existing core mechanics without introducing new mechanics that might disturb balance of PCs.

No, and it wasn't true when 3.0 went to 3.5 either. Or when 1e went to 2e for that matter.

So a 3.5 fighter or rogue or wizard is roughly equal in power to a similarly designed PF fighter or rogue or wizard? Have you looked at a PF class next to a 3.5 class? Apples to apples I don't buy that at all.

The trend is obviously much more pronounced from 2 to 3 and 3 to PF/4. Although I haven't played 1E a cursory comparison of the 1E/2E character sheets indicates that 2E characters have more explicitly defined abilities (I'd be interested to see a more informed break-down). Perhaps it would be more constructive to provide examples rather than picking apart the instances I specifically avoided (3 to 3.5) without providing evidence. But ultimately I find your assessment that levels of character power have not increased to be laughable.

 

[gamerprinter]

Power Attack got nerfed to Str modifier and not BAB, as it was in 3.5, but most things were either left alone or given a slight power up. Not everything.

 

[enrious]

It would be interesting if you provided examples to demonstrate how your opinions compare to my examples rather than laughing at my ideas without backing your own up. What aspects of character creation got nerfed that offset the bonus hit point or skill point for leveling in a primary class, the removal of XP penalties for multiclassing, the addition of class features every level, the +2 bonus to racial ability modifiers, and the linear power increases to the feats I mentioned?

Note that you're replying to a quote of mine that specifically dealt with feats, not other aspects of character creation.

I said that some feats got nerfed, just as others got buffed. I would be happy to provide you with examples, if you feel that I am wrong or that you feel your own understanding of both game systems is lacking.

I'm glad we agree. Did you read my post later detailing my amateur methods of converting 3E races and classes to PF?

I read your post, but it did not later contain your methods of converting 3E races and classes to PF.

Link please? Game balance ain't rocket-science, but it can be screwed up. Many players get frustrated if they feel their characters are less powerful than others. I know I do. But anyway, if you don't feel like you could successfully design a fairly-balanced class I wouldn't attempt to convert 3.5 classes or prestige classes to PF.

Sure, here's the link - http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3uzz?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#44

Nothing better than watching someone's defense of the God of Balance slain before their eyes, and done so by one of the god's saints. Sharper than a serpent's tooth indeed.

Here's the exchange:

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Given how much you lose from this, mechanically speaking, why should someone take the Vow of Poverty ability?


SKR wrote:

Roleplaying?

Not every game option has to be the best option. Not every game rule option has to be a good option. In fact, some game choices are guaranteed to be BAD in terms of rules consequences, and people do them anyway because they want to play interesting characters. You can play a wizard with a 12 Int (I've done it, in the very first 3E playtest campaign, in fact). You can play a fighter who maximizes Con instead of Str. You can put ranks in Profession. You can take Skill Focus (Appraise). You can play a child, or a blind character, or a pacifist.

There are huge numbers of players who make and play characters that they think would be a fun or interesting concept. Players who don't worry about "optimal builds" to maximize AC or damage, because the game is designed for PCs to win and they can play characters that aren't minmaxed and not have them die all the time (I'll point out that the default encounter is CR = APL, which is an easy encounter that only uses 20% of the party's disposable resources... that's stacking the deck in the favor of the PCs).

The game expects you to have X gp worth of gear at every level. Deliberately choosing to play a character that ignores that and has essentially nothing at high levels is a very suboptimal design choice. You're allowed to do that. I think it's admirable for the people who want to play that sort of character. But it is unrealistic to say "because you've given up all these goodies, you gain other goodies that exactly make up for that choice which deliberately makes you a fragile character." And if you did build such a thing into the rules, it's basically saying, "you, the character that's made a sacrifice? It's not really a sacrifice at all, you're just as good as someone who didn't make that sacrifice. In other words, your sacrifice is meaningless because you're not really giving up anything."

If you want a game where all builds are equally viable, you should play a different game. Pathfinder lets you make suboptimal choices, or even poor choices, and it doesn't reward you for making those poor choices. Because rewarding poor choices is dumb. I don't see anyone clamoring that there should be a feat or vow or ritual for Int 8 wizards to get access to different powers to make up for his lack of spells, whether or not you call it the "Vow of Rincewind." I don't see anyone clamoring that the low-Dex fighter should get something that makes him awesome at dodging out of trouble and accidentally killing his enemies in comedic ways, whether or not you call it the "Vow of Jar-Jar."

I like the concept of the vow of poverty. It's a noble thing. And I understand that it sucks to be the impoverished character in a game where you're supposed to have 20,000 gp worth of goodies. So the VOP in UM gives you a bone in the form of extra ki. And another bone in the form of "you can have one item of value," which lets you put all your gp cheese in one item instead of ten. But I'm not going to let the rules make your impoverished monk as good as a regular monk. If you want to play a character that's making a sacrifice, make a sacrifice--don't pretend it's a sacrifice and expect a handout for pretending.

Amen.

See, clearly it ain't rocket-science to design professional-grade D20 content.

Nor use 3.x material in Pathfinder. It's not an arcane, mystic superseekret art. It's also not srsbzns.

Now if your players get upset when they feel their characters are underpowered I'd tread carefully. By far the biggest source of player griping I see derives from when players feel their characters are underpowered. Even if you do succeed at balancing characters players may complain simply because they perceive the imported content to be unbalanced. For these reason I'm very reluctant to allow players to play classes from non-Paizo material (3.5 or PF) in my game. So I find this kind of experimentation can often be detrimental to player fun, but YMMV. I prefer to reflavor existing core mechanics without introducing new mechanics that might disturb balance of PCs.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Read the above - hell, read Paizo's Pathfinder books and you'll see they've deliberately introduced underpowered materials and and you hold them up as a panacea against underpowered materials.

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.

So a 3.5 fighter or rogue or wizard is roughly equal in power to a similarly designed PF fighter or rogue or wizard? Have you looked at a PF class next to a 3.5 class? Apples to apples I don't buy that at all.

Apples to apples, oranges to oranges, and apples to oranges can all be found within any single edition just as between editions.

The trend is obviously much more pronounced from 2 to 3 and 3 to PF/4. Although I haven't played 1E a cursory comparison of the 1E/2E character sheets indicates that 2E characters have more explicitly defined abilities (I'd be interested to see a more informed break-down).

LOL. You looked at a character sheet and feel that qualifies you to comment on the complexity level of a game. It's ok, now I know how to evaluate your 3.x/Pathfinder claims as well.

Perhaps it would be more constructive to provide examples rather than picking apart the instances I specifically avoided (3 to 3.5) without providing evidence. But ultimately I find your assessment that levels of character power have not increased to be laughable.

On the specific issues I disputed I named them. You say categorically that feats were buffed and I look at Power Attack and know you don't know what you're talking about it, so yeah, your assessment I do indeed find laughable.