|
Zurai posted:That's a pretty poo poo analogy, even compared to other internet analogies. Remember, Pathfinder wasn't a game designed from the ground up in isolation from all other games. It's a glorified set of house rules to 3.5, which means they inherited another company's balance failures. The Core Rulebook is vastly more balanced than the 3.5 PHB, and overall Pathfinder has fewer stupidly broken things than 3.5 did. In your analogy, it's a mod to TF2, not the original design. Do you really, honestly believe that Pathfinder's designers desperately want to make things balanced, but the gosh darned inherited balance failures are holding them back from doing so? If so, what's your basis for believing that given the sorts of posts we've seen over and over from SKR and Bulmahn?
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Nihilarian posted:"Quick Study (Ex): An investigator can use his studied combat ability as swift action instead of a standard action." Is Hunter still just a bad Druid with a few not-very-good additional abilities like it was during the playtest?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
The Core Rulebook is my proof. They nerfed very nearly every problematic magical effect from the 3.5 PHB and buffed every non-caster class significantly. They did also give some small buffs to the casters as well but nothing to compare to the non-casters and nothing that compensated for overall spell power nerfs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Is Hunter still just a bad Druid with a few not-very-good additional abilities like it was during the playtest? That said, yeah, it's more or less a weaker druid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Zurai posted:The Core Rulebook is my proof. They nerfed very nearly every problematic magical effect from the 3.5 PHB and buffed every non-caster class significantly. They did also give some small buffs to the casters as well but nothing to compare to the non-casters and nothing that compensated for overall spell power nerfs. Also they worked to clarify the rules and make it easier to run in a lot of places. Pathfinder is just genuinely more fun than 3.5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Zurai posted:The Core Rulebook is my proof. They nerfed very nearly every problematic magical effect from the 3.5 PHB and buffed every non-caster class significantly. They did also give some small buffs to the casters as well but nothing to compare to the non-casters and nothing that compensated for overall spell power nerfs. And the counter example is the Advanced Combat Guide or whatever it's called - a splatbook supposedly for warriors that's full of spells for dealing with warriors. As for "Nearly every problematic magical effect" - they left enough to cause trouble. And then added classes like the Summoner and the Gunslinger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:"Quick Study (Ex): An investigator can use his studied combat ability as swift action instead of a standard action." It's a book/PDF error since the PFSRD just dumps the PDF text and formats it on Googledocs before throwing it onto the site. Andrast posted:Is Hunter still just a bad Druid with a few not-very-good additional abilities like it was during the playtest? It's basically the nature magic Inquisitor, but it doesn't have much all in the way of unique features aside from animal focus and a better empathic link. It's in the running for my least favorite class in terms of mechanical innovation. Zurai posted:That's a pretty poo poo analogy, even compared to other internet analogies. Remember, Pathfinder wasn't a game designed from the ground up in isolation from all other games. It's a glorified set of house rules to 3.5, which means they inherited another company's balance failures. The Core Rulebook is vastly more balanced than the 3.5 PHB, and overall Pathfinder has fewer stupidly broken things than 3.5 did. In your analogy, it's a mod to TF2, not the original design. I get that Pathfinder is a 3.5e hackjob that was made in a mad rush by all of a handful of people to cater to a target audience with +5 to saves vs. change and thus has inherited a ton of 3e's flaws. My concern is that there are a bunch of inherent system features to the 3e system that cause the game to break along very specific lines as people level and I'm not sure that Paizo staff actually understands what those flaws are on any deeper level. 5e already dropped the ball on several of these things and the ACG has done nothing to reassure me on this front.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:And the counter example is the Advanced Combat Guide or whatever it's called - a splatbook supposedly for warriors that's full of spells for dealing with warriors. I'm really not sure what you're referring to, and since clearly you aren't either I'm going to have to dismiss this until you provide something concrete. quote:And then added classes like the Summoner and the Gunslinger. What's the problem with the Gunslinger? LightWarden posted:I get that Pathfinder is a 3.5e hackjob that was made in a mad rush by all of a handful of people to cater to a target audience with +5 to saves vs. change and thus has inherited a ton of 3e's flaws. My concern is that there are a bunch of inherent system features to the 3e system that cause the game to break along very specific lines as people level and I'm not sure that Paizo staff actually understands what those flaws are on any deeper level. 5e already dropped the ball on several of these things and the ACG has done nothing to reassure me on this front. Now this I can agree with. 3.5 is absolutely flawed in several ways and Pathfinder is flawed in those same ways. I don't know that some of the flaws can be truly fixed, they're too deeply embedded in the system. I also agree that the later splat books havn't really addressed any of the issues inherent to the system. That said, how can they address those issues? You can't really remove options, nerf classes, or alter fundamentals of the game system with a splatbook. They at least show an awareness that some things are broken with the Unleashed book, although it remains to be seen if they understand why those things are broken and are able to fix them within the existing system. Zurai fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
I kinda like the Shaman now that they added some non-terrible universal hexes for the class and expanded the spell list. On the other hand they seem to have removed the pseudo-full-BAB feature from the Warpriest while changing fervor into a Wisdom based ability making them less MAD. Still, I don't see much of a reason to play a Warpriest instead of an inquisitor now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Its funny that you guys brought up TF2, because there is a game out there called Fortress Forever that was just a rehash of Team Fortress Classic made for people that were upset that Medic was no longer the strongest offensive class. There's your Paizo metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Zurai posted:I'm really not sure what you're referring to, and since clearly you aren't either I'm going to have to dismiss this until you provide something concrete. Ultimate Combat is, like all Paizo books, a splatbook that offers more to casters than non-casters. Ultimate Magic is a splatbook about magic. Here's the spell list in "Ultimate Combat". quote:What's the problem with the Gunslinger? It's, like most of Pathfinder's martial offerings, crap. The deeds are a cute idea - but wis modifier/day with one awkward and one very awkward recharge mechanism doesn't do a lot. If you want to be good with guns you'd be better off making a fighter. Paizo has put out a grand total of one single book that increased the power of martial characters more than it did casters. That was the core rulebook. And even that is debatable. Ever since then Paizo has been producing splat books that not only haven't tried to address the core 3.5 problems like caster supremacy, they have made them worse. I'd rather play a martial type in all-in 3.5 than I would in Pathfinder these days. And whereas 3.5 is better balanced if you simply remove all PHB classes, the same does not apply to Pathfinder where outside core you have the Summoner (there went the action economy!), the Witch (Spammety Slumber plus tier 1 caster), and the Arcanist (change any prepared spell as a full round action multiple times/day). And the Gunslinger and Brawler (Monk II: Monk Slower).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Zurai posted:The Core Rulebook is my proof. They nerfed very nearly every problematic magical effect from the 3.5 PHB and buffed every non-caster class significantly. They did also give some small buffs to the casters as well but nothing to compare to the non-casters and nothing that compensated for overall spell power nerfs. Counterpoint: Monks Also SKR is a drooling moron who once claimed that Toughness is a better feat than Natural Spell. He doesn't know poo poo from balance
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:I'd rather play a martial type in all-in 3.5 than I would in Pathfinder these days. Then you're silly and your rose-colored glasses are blinding you  quote:And whereas 3.5 is better balanced if you simply remove all PHB classes, the same does not apply to Pathfinder where outside core you have the Summoner (there went the action economy!), the Witch (Spammety Slumber plus tier 1 caster), and the Arcanist (change any prepared spell as a full round action multiple times/day). And the Gunslinger and Brawler (Monk II: Monk Slower). Yeah, 3.5 non-PHB sure didn't have the Archivist, aka The Single Most Powerful Class Ever Printed Anywhere. Or the Truenamer, which is either #2 on the Most Powerful Classes Ever Printed list or literally unplayable depending on how strictly you interpret the rules. Piell posted:Counterpoint: Monks Pathfinder Monks are still better than 3.5 Monks, and I've already said Monks are poo poo and need rewritten, thanks. Zurai fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Now this I can agree with. 3.5 is absolutely flawed in several ways and Pathfinder is flawed in those same ways. I don't know that some of the flaws can be truly fixed, they're too deeply embedded in the system. I also agree that the later splat books havn't really addressed any of the issues inherent to the system. That said, how can they address those issues? You can't really remove options, nerf classes, or alter fundamentals of the game system with a splatbook. They at least show an awareness that some things are broken with the Unleashed book, although it remains to be seen if they understand why those things are broken and are able to fix them within the existing system. You'd have to rip out and remake the entire mathematical framework just to start, though selling it back to their target audience would be a trick given the aforementioned "+5 to saves vs. change" thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Then you're silly and your rose-colored glasses are blinding you
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:3.5 has Tome of Battle. And Pathfinder has Paths of War.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Tbh, the damning thing against Paizo regarding non-casters isn't so much their books as it is their errata. Not a single spell combo has ever been touched, a half-elf oracle can spontaniously cast literally any spell in the game and become a paladin at will, but stuff like Crane Wing, which requires three feats and an empty hand, all to block a single attack, gets eviscerated. I imagine the sorta final telling point will be Pathfinder Unleashed. They've talked about pushing against Summoner power...but they've said nothing about spellcasters in general. They talk about giving monks full BAB (which wouldn't actually fix a WHOLE lot), but nothing about fixing any off the utility disparity between casters and martials. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Tbh, the damning thing against Paizo regarding non-casters isn't so much their books as it is their errata. Not a single spell combo has ever been touched, a half-elf oracle can spontaniously cast literally any spell in the game, but stuff like Crane Wing, which requires three feats and an empty hand, all to block a single attack, gets eviscerated. Yeah, I can agree with both of these as well. The erratas and FAQs have driven me batty (to the point where I generally pretend they don't exist), and Unleashed really will be a showcase of whether they actually understand and are willing and able to fix the problems with the system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Ultimate Combat is, like all Paizo books, a splatbook that offers more to casters than non-casters. Ultimate Magic is a splatbook about magic. Here's the spell list in "Ultimate Combat". Is any of this critizism going to hurt playing with friends for fun or are we playing it wrong not playing the best classes and only using the bestest spells?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Zurai posted:And Pathfinder has Paths of War. Interesting that you need to bring third party books into it given I've never seen them allowed in any 3.0, 3.5, or PF game. And yes, I was thinking of the Tome of Battle. As for the Archivist, that's very setting dependent. Archivists compare unfavourably to Clerics or Druids if there's no good source of e.g. Paladin scrolls and you aren't playing all-in with such nonsense as a divine bard (the most likely to be used hole the Archivist skips through is the Adept).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Zurai posted:That's a pretty poo poo analogy, even compared to other internet analogies. Remember, Pathfinder wasn't a game designed from the ground up in isolation from all other games. It's a glorified set of house rules to 3.5, which means they inherited another company's balance failures. The Core Rulebook is vastly more balanced than the 3.5 PHB, and overall Pathfinder has fewer stupidly broken things than 3.5 did. In your analogy, it's a mod to TF2, not the original design. Pathfinder is several years old now. "They just INHERITED the problems" doesn't really work anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Interesting that you need to bring third party books into it given I've never seen them allowed in any 3.0, 3.5, or PF game. And yes, I was thinking of the Tome of Battle. The third party stuff from Dreamscarred press seems to be in a fairly unique position in that surprisingly many GMs allow them. That has been at least my experience. I guess having quality products pays off at some point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Interesting that you need to bring third party books into it given I've never seen them allowed in any 3.0, 3.5, or PF game. Interesting that you exclude third party books since you said all-in and I've never seen them categorically disallowed in any 3.0, 3.5, or PF game I've played in. quote:As for the Archivist, that's very setting dependent. Archivists compare unfavourably to Clerics or Druids if there's no good source of e.g. Paladin scrolls and you aren't playing all-in with such nonsense as a divine bard (the most likely to be used hole the Archivist skips through is the Adept). I can't think of a setting that doesn't have Paladins. Maybe Ravenloft? And anyway, there are ways to get every single arcane spell as divine spells and by the rules all you need to do is have the money to buy the scroll. Rarity and scarcity aren't concepts in either the 3.5 or Pathfinder rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Junkie Disease posted:Is any of this critizism going to hurt playing with friends for fun or are we playing it wrong not playing the best classes and only using the bestest spells? This is where Paizo has the biiig problem. When Zurai brings up the Archivist he is technically right. But you need to set out ruthlessly to break the Archivist (and have a lenient DM) to do so. A Summoner out of the box is stronger than a fighter at fighting even if they give up the Eidolon entirely. (They are arguably stronger if they give it up when playing casually - Summon Monster is a really powerful ability that hides underneath the Eidolon). Gunslingers are not fit for purpose out of the box. Witches, taking the obviously good option for an attack hex (Slumber), are spammy and boring as well as being powerful. Some of Paizo's stuff is genuinely good. I'll point to the Inquisitor and Alchemist as interesting and somewhere in the right power region. But they keep dropping landmines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:A Summoner out of the box is stronger than a fighter at fighting even if they give up the Eidolon entirely. Absolutely untrue. Early summon monster spells summon lovely creatures for half a second and medium BAB medium armor have to spend points on Charisma doesn't compete with full BAB heavy armor can ignore mental stats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Junkie Disease posted:Is any of this critizism going to hurt playing with friends for fun or are we playing it wrong not playing the best classes and only using the bestest spells? I'm sticking with Pathfinder for the game I'm running (although we'd love to give 13th Age a try) but my take on it is, if I'm going to pay $30-$40 for a book, or $10-$15 for a PDF, the quality of writing and rules should be better than something I could come up with on my own for free. I'll take a look at Paths of War for ideas on boosting martial classes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Interesting that you exclude third party books since you said all-in and I've never seen them categorically disallowed in any 3.0, 3.5, or PF game I've played in. I think you're in a tiny minority here. quote:I can't think of a setting that doesn't have Paladins. And now you're coming up with a strawman. My point isn't about the availability of Paladins. It's about Paladin scrolls. Which aren't something Paladins do a lot of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Absolutely untrue. Early summon monster spells summon lovely creatures for half a second And with this you prove that you do not know what you are talking about. I'm talking about Summoners' Summon Monster, not the spell. For those playing along at home, Summoners get Summon Monster as an SLA that lasts for one minute/level takes a standard action (meaning that the Summoner can cast it and have their summons attack on the same turn).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:And with this you prove that you do not know what you are talking about. I'm talking about Summoners' Summon Monster, not the spell. It also scales at the Wizard rate (1st, 3rd, 5th) and not the Summoner's slowed spell progression (1st, 4th, 8th), which is a bigger deal than people realize.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Zurai posted:And Pathfinder has Paths of War. Which has already been said, but bears repeating: despite all the poo poo 3.5 (deservedly) gets, it is possible to make a martial character that is simple, fun and effective without resorting to magic or venturing into 3rd party material. This is important, because I don't think I've ever played in a 3.5/PF game that allowed 3rd party material not created by the DM himself. Not just for martials, either. There are cool, unique and relatively balanced systems in 3.5 to play around with for martial and casters. Psionics falls into the same category as ToB/PoW, and then there's Incarnum, the Invocation users, and about 1/3rd of Tome of Magic (2/3rds if you're generous and like the Shadowcaster despite it being a discount arcane caster, but as cool as an idea as truenaming is it just doesn't work right out of the box so it's not getting counted). Even the arcane/divine spellcasters introduced after the PHB tend to be weaker. A full half of the Tier 1 classes were introduced in the PHB, and all of the ones introduced later get that powerful by copying the first 3's homework. Literally. On the other hand, you have classes like the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Spirit Shaman who are more focused, less powerful and have actual class features besides magic. I don't think Paizo has done a lot of alternate systems. There's Words of Power, which is neat but sort of tacked on, and I guess the Mythic rules (which are a good bone to throw to noncasters so they feel better about their choices) and maybe the Alchemist, which uses magic but has to drink it instead of mumbling words? Anything else? Nihilarian fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:It also scales at the Wizard rate (1st, 3rd, 5th) and not the Summoner's slowed spell progression (1st, 4th, 8th), which is a bigger deal than people realize. The other point about the summoner is that their spell progression is only fake slow. They cast a lot of good spells at the same time as or before a sorcerer that focusses on conjuration - with such things as Haste and Phantom Steed as second level spells, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, and Wall of Ice at third level, and Wall of Stone and Teleport at fourth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
I'm very new to Pathfinder, and about to start gaming with friends in the system. What classes should we avoid to not just blow through challenges? If the choice is overpowered vs underpowered I'd take underpowered any day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Junkie Disease posted:I'm very new to Pathfinder, and about to start gaming with friends in the system. What classes should we avoid to not just blow through challenges? If the choice is overpowered vs underpowered I'd take underpowered any day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
DJ Dizzy posted:Im going to be running a game for a group of new-ish players. Which AP would be best to get them started on? I'm thinking either Skulls and Shackles, Kingmaker or RotRL Having just finished a Kingmaker campaign I don't think that'd be your best option. It's really rather uninteresting beyond the whole "We're stetting up a kingdom!" aspect and those rules get very bogged down very quickly and tends to end up being a ton of dull die rolls to figure out what's what. The adventure path end of it is a bunch of unrelated encounters whose only real linkage is "threats to the kingdom" culminating in an entirely out of left field twist that really isn't all that interesting either. If I were a NEW player I think it'd be a little too railroady combined with a lot of boring downtime if you are actually dealing with the kingdom itself. It's reasonably entertaining if you know what you're getting in to, but we ended up losing two players over the course of the campaign just because the mechanics were too grindy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
So it turns out that Merciless Butchery takes the already comically broken Dastardly Finish to a whole new level. Dastardly Finish allowed you to Coup De Grace someone who was stunned or Cowering. Merciless Butchery allows you to do it as a swift action if they are your studied target. Stunning someone is pretty easy in pathfinder, such as dust of sneezing and choking, so the ability to straight up kill someone as a swift action is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Junkie Disease posted:I'm very new to Pathfinder, and about to start gaming with friends in the system. What classes should we avoid to not just blow through challenges? If the choice is overpowered vs underpowered I'd take underpowered any day. If everyone is new then if you avoid Summoner and the Advanced Class Guide and your group will probably have fun without accidentally stumbling onto something that makes everything trivial. When Pathfinder starts to get stupid is when the mentality of the players starts to shift. They know enough about the system that they consciously or not start to metagame it a bit. That opens up a whole world of stuff which starts to tweak the "We are adventurers!" feel and dynamic, turning it more into "We are superheroes in a fantasy sandbox where literally nothing can stop us!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Wee Tinkle Wand posted:If everyone is new then if you avoid Summoner and the Advanced Class Guide and your group will probably have fun without accidentally stumbling onto something that makes everything trivial. I'm going to have to fight to keep people out of the advanced character guide, any in there that just going to make other classes do less and look bad?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Junkie Disease posted:I'm going to have to fight to keep people out of the advanced character guide, any in there that just going to make other classes do less and look bad? The new super-wizard should be avoided at least. It might be worth letting people use the new fighter
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Junkie Disease posted:I'm going to have to fight to keep people out of the advanced character guide, any in there that just going to make other classes do less and look bad? It's mostly ok, the problem is that people gravitate toward the Arcanist which makes every class in the entire game look bad and the Swashbuckler which when used in some ways just makes all the Martial classes look bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
There's a swashbuckler archetype for the cavalier that lets you throw away all your mount stuff for swashbuckler abilities like precise strike, and you still have Challenge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:26
|
|