Pathfinder 1E Power and Pathfinder Classes - Forked Thread: Pathfinder - sell me

[ShinHakkaider]

Here's my conversion notes, should any changes prove necessary:

In encounters with one monster, multiply its hit points by the number of PCs present.

In encounters with two monsters, double their hit points.

In encounters with groups of monsters, use half again as many of the weakest monsters (ie, the minions).

Huh, I've never thought to bump up the monster HP. I'll try this next session. However...

Now having said all that, my experience with 3pp adventures for 3e was primarily Necromancer and Goodman Games-- where the encounters were pretty darn tough to begin with. And I understand the same can be said of Paizo's typical offerings.

So I am not particularly worried about my "back catalog" of adventures.

Yeah, same with me. In fact my players are going through Age of Worms and even with Action Points they've STILL come close to dying (actually 1 person has died already...) a few times.

I was running the 1st Rise of the Runelords adventure using Pathfinder at a local meetup for a while and was running it with minimal conversions. Then again I'm not one of these people who cries like a little girl with a skinned knee behind adding some class abilities and bumping up HP on a monster or two.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Huh, I've never thought to bump up the monster HP.

Changing hit points does not make the monster any more or less likely to hit the PCs, doesn't change the amount of damage it does, doesn't change its saving throws or saving throw DCs, etc.

In other words, the monster will be on exactly the same footing it was on before, with respect to the kinds of numbers it is going to be looking to roll with respect to the core d20 mechanic.

The real test of a monster's challenge (and for that matter the PCs as well) is how many significant actions it is able to take before it is eliminated. Actions in combat are the currency of power.

Increasing hit points won't work for every creature at all times. Hit points are only a useful resource on the hit point scale-- so for example, if you haven't done anything to mitigate save-or-die/save-or-suck effects that completely bypass the hit point mechanic, increasing hit points means jack.

At low levels particularly, both the PCs and the monsters are typically competing on the hit point scale: threatening each other via hit point damage. As levels increase, they will both typically move off this scale-- this great, workable, scalable, wonderful granular scale-- and move onto other scales entirely: the saving throw scale, the "AC so high you can't hit me at all" scale, etc.

High-level play moves off a granular scale and back onto a boolean scale-- save or die, who acts first, who rolls a 1 first, and so on.

Which is why I am a strong advocate for implementing another kind of attritive resource at high levels-- ie, action points.

• At low levels you know when your PC is at high risk when your hit points are low.
  
• At high levels you know when your PC is at high risk when your action points run low.

I find this much preferable to simply forcing save-or-die mechanics onto the hit point scale, which is another approach to the same problem (and the one that Pathfinder has taken). But this approach requires a lot more careful DM guardianship over every spell from every source, etc.

 

[Roman]

You only briefly mentioned spells being toned down, but I think that's a huge issue. Wizards can have all the abilities in the world, but if you nerf their spells, you nerf them directly, in before someone makes a truly bizarro argument to try and prove me wrong. You can't seperate the wizard from the wizard's spells and say "See, he's way too powerful now."

I was going to respond to this earlier, but I forgot while writing other responses - sorry about that.

I want to say that I somewhat agree with you, but not completely. In principle, it would be possible to balance spellcasters by altering the spells. In practice, however, unless these are deemed incompatible by default (and that would be a pretty huge area of incompatibility), there are hundreds or even thousands of spells from 3.5E sources that will be used - the Pathfinder RPG will inevitably only alter the PHB spells. Hence it is probably more productive to concentrate on the inherent features of the Wizard class rather than the indefinite expandable feature: spells. Sure, some classes of spells, like the polymorph subschool, might need to be changed anyway, but I am not sure concentration on spells is the best balancing mechanism in this case.

Though not quite as severe, because spells are obviously designed with spellcasters in mind, it reminds me of the problem with polymorph and monsters. The huge and ever-expanding roster of monsters made it very difficult to keep the polymorph sub-school balanced. In principle, it could be done by balancing every monster with polymorph in mind, but in practice it is much easier and more viable to change the polymorph sub-school in itself. The comparison is obviously somewhat deficient, because spells are explicitly designed for spellcasting unlike monsters, which are not explicitly designed for polymorphing (at least so one would hope ), but the problem of sheer volume of existing spells from the 3.5E baseline applies.

It is also a question of how far Pathfinder will go with balancing through spell alteration even with the PHB spells. Consider save or die spells. Death effects from save or die spells have been converted to hit point damage (a boring way to resolve the issue, I think, but certainly workable from the balance point of view). As of the BETA, however, all the other effectively save or die spells remain as save or die, so instead of using the finger of death as a save or die spell, the spellcaster can still use turn to stone.

Another issue is how much do we really want to nerf spells. The point of magic for me is that it should be magical - nerfing magic itself to any great extent (and I am not saying Pathfinder does this - this is more of a hypothetical tangent on design issues) might indeed be productive from the balance point of view, but a great deal of 'magic' might be lost in the process (pun intended). As such, nerfing non-magical aspects of a magic-based class, such as the Wizard, in order to compensate for his magical might is something I also prefer from the flavor point of view although achieving balance may be more difficult than if the spells were changed. Nerfing magic itself might be necessary in some cases (polymorph might be an example) - I am just pointing out the danger of going too far along this direction (not that I necessarily think Pathfinder will do that).

 

[Sadrik]

It appears from the beta that save or die spells have been nerfed to basically do 10 damage/CL on a failed save rather than auto death. This does affect the lower hit die caster types more than the upper hit die warrior types. But over all I think it is a pretty nice fix to the issue, the spells are still deadly on a failed save and they actually tie into the hp attrition system rather than circumvent it.

Now as to the myriad of other spells that are out there that were not in the PHB, *hello* spell compendium, how will they be adjudicated, I am sure that their will be a fan made conversion of the spells that break some of the tenants established in PF.

 

[Roman]

You've said this twice now with explaining it, so forgive me in advance if I have misunderstood you.

When you say that increasing PC hit points prolongs fights-- this factor alone, without any other changes-- it doesn't make any sense.

Because the contrary position is that you currently prefer for fights to end sooner, via the PCs falling unconscious sooner.

And I really don't understand how that makes for a better game.

How does having the PCs lose sooner make combats better?

The hit point increases apply to both PCs and NPCs. If both PCs and NPCs are fighting each other and have twice as many hit points, everything else being equal the combat will last twice as long provided that hit points are not bypassed somehow. Obviously, the doubling of hit points does not happen in Pathfinder RPG - I just used that as an easy illustration of what I mean. Increasing the hit points by 1.5 on both sides, will increase the length of combat by 1.5 and so on.*

The hit point increases in the Pathfinder RPG are not uniform for all classes and creatures, so it is not as simple as that, but I think it shows what I meant.

*The ratio can be even greater than 1:1 depending on the supply and frequency of use of offensive abilities.

Note that even if only (or mostly) PC hit points were improved without effects on NPCs/monsters, the increased survivability does equate to increased power level in my mind and shifts the baseline.

No, but all classes should get a hit point boost at 1st level, when hit points are most important. A hit point boost (through whatever means) of 10 hit points at 1st level may double or triple the typical starting character's hit points, but by 10th level and beyond those 10 hit points will represent a relatively smaller increase.

Actually, I mostly agree with you on this one. I have explicitly chosen not to criticize the idea of a starting hit point bonus (if done right), because that is well-targeted at a real issue: low level survivability. Hit dice increases, by contrast, grant hit points over levels and are poorly targeted at helping low-level survivability.

I would change my 'mostly agree' to 'fully agree' if the hit point boost was compensated for by actually lowering the hit dice. For example, we give everybody +10 hit points at level 1, but decrease everybody's hit dice by one step. Still, even without doing that, a starting hit point bonus is something I feel generally positive towards, because it is so well targeted and does not increase with levels, thus becoming less and less significant over time. The only real objection is that a substantial number of people (myself included on occasion, though by no means in most campaigns) prefer characters to be very unsurvivable at first (level 1...). A system without bonus starting hit points supports both play styles, since those of us who prefer somewhat more survivable characters at low level can start at a slightly higher level (say level 3), but with starting hit points those who want more lethal low levels are not supported. This issue, though, is not a big one, as the starting hit points can be easily house-ruled out for those desiring increased lethality.

Indeed, luckily, a number of the changes will be easy to house rule out. I will surely get rid of the hit dice increases in my campaigns faster than you can say 'hit points', but obviously I would still prefer the hit dice increases not to happen at all. I mean depending on just how many house rules I will have to implement in other areas, a critical mass may be reached and confusion of players may ensue, so it is always best to argue for a game design that minimizes the need for house rules, though some may be inevitable.

And wizards and sorcerers get nothing from increased hit points other than survivability. Their increased survivability in combat, in the best case scenario for the player, simply means more opportunities to expend spell slot resources. This is not the case for the fighting classes (and to some extent clerics and druids) because they have good, zero-cost offensive choices.

I think it's a bit more complex than that. After all, with more hit points spellcasters also gain tactical flexibility of being able to take more hits and thus position themselves differently, the flexibility to perhaps expend more of their limited resources on firepower rather than protection, etc.

I agree with you on this, but I think you place too much emphasis on hit points being a key differentiator between the classes. Hit points make for a very bland "flavor" differentiation and really work best when they work behind the scenes, as an essential but nearly invisible mechanic. The best, most flavorful differentiators between the classes are all external and observable-- things that an NPC "inside the game" could distinguish.

If all the PCs in a combat had identical hit points-- 100, 100, 100, 100-- and I told you nothing else about them, you would have no way of telling one role from another.

However if I described these four PCs in terms of armor and weaponry, spell selection, their tactical movement and positioning, fighting styles, etc. you would have a very easy time defining their classes and roles.

Actually, I think we agree completely on this one. Basically, I think that making Fighters and say Rogues more similar, say by boosting Rogue hit points and BAB, but removing his sneak attack (example only - Pathfinder RPG BETA does boost Rogue hit points but not BAB and does not remove his sneak attack) would, in principle, promote balance - the more similar classes are the more balanced there will be. I would rather, however, have the Rogue keep his sneak attack, but his lower hit points and BAB, because that makes the classes more differentiated, even though the balancing of this is inevitably based on more assumptions (such as, how often the Rogue will be able to use his sneak attack on average) than if the classes were more similar.

Indeed, to extend this further (into the overall power level argument, rather than balance between classes), I am arguing that if we have to have increases to the base power level, these boosts should to be something that is more interesting than just a higher number (more hit points), as important as this 'number' may be to overall power level. I guess what I am trying to say is that hit point increases boost power level in a bland, boring way.

FYI-- your English is fine.

Thanks - I just couldn't find a better word than homogenization to fit the bill, though homogenization is obviously too strong.

 

[Roman]

Which is why I am a strong advocate for implementing another kind of attritive resource at high levels-- ie, action points.

• At low levels you know when your PC is at high risk when your hit points are low.
  
• At high levels you know when your PC is at high risk when your action points run low.

I find this much preferable to simply forcing save-or-die mechanics onto the hit point scale, which is another approach to the same problem (and the one that Pathfinder has taken). But this approach requires a lot more careful DM guardianship over every spell from every source, etc.

I don't know how exactly you implement Action Points, but I use what I call Luck Points in my game, which essentially enable the character to boost a roll. If that is what you mean by action points, than I agree that they are a good idea. If you mean something different, can you explain?

Anyway, I do agree about death spells. Changing them requires conversion of spells from other sources before their use in Pathfinder and besides converting them to damage spells is pretty boring. Over on Paizo boards during the playtest, we have tried to devise numerous ways of solving the issue of save or die death effects that would be more interesting than mere damage. For example, a nice approach was to have them do Constitution damage, but this has the problem of requiring recalculation of Constitution and derived statistics during gameplay, which would slow down the flow of the game. Another idea is using thresholds and depending on the number of failed saving throws, the character is is moved down the thresholds - of course failing too many means the character dies. This is workable, but again slows down the game and introduced relatively complex new mechanics.

Ultimately, therefore, you might well be right that a completely different system (Action Points, Luck Points, etc.) that is not directly tied to changing the spells themselves might be a better way to go. It also has the advantage of mitigating the various effecting save or die effects that are not death effects, such as turn to stone/petrification and so on.

 

[Roman]

This is one of the things that I think are play specific. In my group, prestige classess were always allowed. I don't think I saw a single character that stayed base class, as it just didn't make sense to do so.

I agree that the base Pathfinder classes seem to be more powerful (based upon the beta, I don't have the final version) than the WotC base classes.

But since no game I ever played in used the base classes, my experience won't change with Pathfinder in this regard. I think it will feel much different to people who used base classes on a regular basis.

But I will say, regarding "backwards compatible" that play was just fine for our group with the fairly powerful prestige classes chosen. If the new base classes are balanced against those, well then, I'd say that aspect of Pathfinder being backwards compatible is not a concern.

i.e. The game worked with overpowered characters before (compared to base), so having powerful bases shouldn't make it stop working. It may be a concern that changes the experience somewhat for those of you who did use mostly base classes.

This is a very valid point. The experience of the power boosts to the base classes will differ based on to what extent the more powerful prestige classes were used in the group already.

 

[Remathilis]

Now as to the myriad of other spells that are out there that were not in the PHB, *hello* spell compendium, how will they be adjudicated, I am sure that their will be a fan made conversion of the spells that break some of the tenants established in PF.

What I hope for (and yet fear) is a torrent of fan-done "Pathfinderized" base classes, PrCs, races, spells, feats, items, etc. Since Paizo themselves can't touch any of WotC's IP, it will fall to fans to re-create the myriad of WotC crunch in order to bring it in line.

Of course, being a fan product, there will be countless (competing) versions of the same crunch (I predict no less than four warlocks by year's end), harder projects will be neglected (whose doing Magic Item Compendium?) and quality levels will be inconsistent as everyone has a different opinion of what "balanced" is. (I know! Lets give the artificer MORE infusions!)

The alternatives, of course, is to use your WotC-derived crunch as is and let natural selection weed out the warblades from the hexblades OR abandon your WotC crunch in favor of Paizo/3pp "Pathfindered" material only (and learn to live without warlocks or warforged or convert them yourself).

None, IMHO, are exactly "win-win" situations...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, part of CODzillas being the UBER is that the other classes couldn't measure up. Why play a wizard who has to learn spells or a sorceror who has a limited number? Druids and Clerics got every spell in the game. (plus better hp, armor, and other stuff). Fighters? Bah, just buff up and start meleeing as a Druid or Cleric.

What I meant was that by balancing the other classs UP, the CODzillas would be comparatively weaker.


Now, beyond that, I'd be surprised if they hadn't limited CODzillas in other ways. This thread has several voices crying out for limitations on them:
paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / Races & Classes / CODzilla Concerns

My guess would be that the most sensible and easiest way to nerf CODzillas (but retain their power and role) would be to attack the "every spell in the game" issue and give them MORE powers to compensate (well the cleric, not sure the Druid needs it, what with its abilities).

Ok, but here is my quastion. If player A is a Cleric who uses persitant spell to put up Rightus might, Divine power, Sheild of Faith, and Greater Magic weapon... And player B is a 12th level fighter, is there a diffrence in there melee capability? What if the Cleric uses the spell that gives feats??

What I hope for (and yet fear) is a torrent of fan-done "Pathfinderized" base classes, PrCs, races, spells, feats, items, etc. Since Paizo themselves can't touch any of WotC's IP, it will fall to fans to re-create the myriad of WotC crunch in order to bring it in line.

Of course, being a fan product, there will be countless (competing) versions of the same crunch (I predict no less than four warlocks by year's end), harder projects will be neglected (whose doing Magic Item Compendium?) and quality levels will be inconsistent as everyone has a different opinion of what "balanced" is. (I know! Lets give the artificer MORE infusions!)

The alternatives, of course, is to use your WotC-derived crunch as is and let natural selection weed out the warblades from the hexblades OR abandon your WotC crunch in favor of Paizo/3pp "Pathfindered" material only (and learn to live without warlocks or warforged or convert them yourself).

None, IMHO, are exactly "win-win" situations...

AND this is what I want someone to address.
If my wizard takes a spell from a Wotc book, or heck what if they take 6 diffrent spells from 6 diffrent books...how much work will that put on me?

What abour feats, and other things??

How can anything be called backward compadable if I can't just pull out complete Mage and grab anyspell I want and add it without asking MY DM to look it over for approval.

 

[Liquidsabre]

Ok, but here is my quastion. If player A is a Cleric who uses persitant spell to put up Rightus might, Divine power, Sheild of Faith, and Greater Magic weapon... And player B is a 12th level fighter, is there a diffrence in there melee capability? What if the Cleric uses the spell that gives feats??

If my wizard takes a spell from a Wotc book, or heck what if they take 6 diffrent spells from 6 diffrent books...how much work will that put on me?

What abour feats, and other things??

No more work than when DMing a 3.Xe game. The 3e and 3.5e splat books were notorious for their quirky power level differences for feats, PrCs, and spells. If you were really, really lucky the offending OP'd feature was nerfed in an errata a year or two later after a large majority of DMs already houseruled or banned said features.

How can anything be called backward compadable if I can't just pull out complete Mage and grab any spell I want and add it without asking MY DM to look it over for approval.

So let me get this straight, you are asking a publisher (Paizo) to be responsible for the balance of literally dozens of splat books that they never even published? How can you ask that of a publisher not even responsible for the printed material when even the original publisher (WotC) wasn't even able to do so?

Besides, backwards compatibility simply refers to the *mechanics* of the game system and does not necessarily account for the balance of the myriad of splat books and 3rd party issuance in existence.

Asking the DM for approval IS in their job description. Any DM worth their salt will always make the call prior to the game via limiting or opening up what books will be available for the game and will peruse choices as characters select them to be sure they are appropriate (in power level, in character, thematic, etc.) for the campaign. No different than in any other 3.x D&D game that used the WotC splat books and/or 3rd party materials.

Any good DM that has run 3e and 3.5e for any amount of time would be able to tell you the same.