Author Topic: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?  (Read 77696 times)

Offline KicktheCAN

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #20 on: March 20, 2012, 01:33:34 PM »
At which point instead of massively buffed casters and massively nerfed non casters you have massively buffed casters and unchanged non casters. That's better, but it's still not good. It certainly isn't closing the gap, else you wouldn't have the caster buffs.
You seem to be completely ignoring the many great options Pathfinder gives to non-casters. Off the top of my head, the Step Up feat gives martial characters a huge advantage against casters and they printed a lot of great options for the monk. They buffed casters as well but they just go from being able to do everything to being able to do everything. Non-casters get a proportionally higher buff (again, discounting all the nerfs) since they started out lower to begin with.

The increase in feats is a great example of this. Feats are a nice bonus for casters, letting them qualify for prestiges and power up their spells. Feats are the bread-and-butter of non-casters, defining what they are capable of doing. When you increase the number of feats characters get you power up casters a little bit without significantly altering their amount of options but you give non-casters 25% more options than they previously had. You also lessen the pain of the feat chains so common of non-caster feats (if you aren't already houseruling away those requirements).

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2012, 01:38:18 PM »
Step Up does shit nothing to casters.  The concentration DCs to cast defensively are still as easy as in 3E (slightly higher, but the bonus you have is also higher) and you get the "concentration skill" for free w/o needing to blow ranks.  What Step Up does do is fuck up reach weapon users and archers something fierce.  They don't get a "concentration check" to attack adjacent or not provoke for shooting, respectively.

And casters benefit from more feats, too.  Especially since PF added so many good ones for them.  Fadier listed a bunch.  There's also Dazing/Bouncing/Selective/Reach spell, Spell Perfection, and more.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 01:40:19 PM by StreamOfTheSky »

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2012, 02:00:31 PM »
I will note one undeniable positive from Pathfinder: The Paladin class.  While their code of conduct is still bullshit compared to cleric's, lay on hands still doesn't work when trying to fight w/ heavy shield and weapon like any iconic paladin would, and a few other minor things (like the level 20 ability actually nerfing their smite evil), I am willing to claim that PF's Paladin is an absolute success story.  They took a class that was completely worthless past level 3 (and questionable even before then) and really made it function how it's supposed to.

If that were true, they'd be a capable and competitive melee and just completely obliterate evil outsiders. They don't do that at all. In fact the 3.5 one does it better - Law Devotion, SC Spells, Battle Blessing. Still weak, but at least capable of killing evil outsiders.

Quote
Now Paladin gets good will saves and everything is cha-based, so wis is a total dump stat, which solves MAD and...honestly makes a lot of sense given how paladins tend to be roleplayed.  :p Smite Evil gives its bonuses on EVERY attack you make against the foul evil creature till it's dead, double on the 1st attack against evil outsiders and some other super evil types, AND ignores all DR of the target!  In short, Paladin is actually the guy best at turning evil into compost finally.  Later on, he gets the ability to give the entire party his smite and really destroy the BBEG.
Detect Evil for paladins now has a single target move action option to simply determine "Evil? Y/N" and facilitate smite usage.

Problem: You can just get your spellcasting from a Wis item and do that anyways, you're reliant entirely on full attacks but can't reliably get them, and DR is a gimp check (if it bothers you, you're a gimp). Move action smite detection seems fine until you remember the second point and that you're still not necessarily in front of them, and for giving the entire party a smite... somehow, I don't think a bunch of casters care.

Quote
Lay on Hands is now a many times per day ability that heals d6/ 2 levels and paladin can use on himself as a SWIFT.  This, combined w/ the saves and armor, makes paladin one hell of a tank class (whether you think that's a worthy role or not).  Paladins also get the ability to remove nasty status effects with their lay on hands.

As a swift action, they can negate half a hit. No, sorry, that doesn't cut it. Their AC is auto hit like everyone else, so not a factor, and the saves? Between the MAD nerfs and the save DC buffs they're just not able to keep up anymore. Lastly, curing minor effects is something doable with a Lesser Vigor wand and Healing Lorecall (which depending on how you read it can provide status removal with its regeneration, not just when you first cast it). Even if not though, how often do those effects come up?

Quote
CL, as with Ranger, is now Pal level -3, and thus doesn't suck.

And it isn't full level... why, again? Suppose it doesn't matter too much since you'll never see any Dispels, but... why?

Quote
Paladins who don't want a pet can now instead empower their weapon with a bunch of bonus enhancement / special properties for limited times per day.

Problem: Almost all of the good weapon properties are 3.5 non core.

Quote
It's minor, but new immunities to charms and compulsions to go with the tank theme.

So they have... a first level spell?

You seem to be completely ignoring the many great options Pathfinder gives to non-casters. Off the top of my head, the Step Up feat gives martial characters a huge advantage against casters and they printed a lot of great options for the monk. They buffed casters as well but they just go from being able to do everything to being able to do everything. Non-casters get a proportionally higher buff (again, discounting all the nerfs) since they started out lower to begin with.

I can only assume you are being sarcastic. That feat is less than worthless. Taking absolutely nothing in that slot is better. It is in no way comparable to or competitive with even a simple Mage Slayer.

If you wasted a feat on Step Up, everything is laughing at you. Hell, a 3.5 Spiked Chain user with no feats is more likely to mess with a mage than a Step Up user is... which is to say not very, but still more than zero.

They nerfed Monks almost as much as they nerfed Rogues, and that's saying something.

All other non casters are third - they only got beaten to death with the nerf bat and revived a few times. If you discount the nerfs... there's nothing left.

Quote
The increase in feats is a great example of this. Feats are a nice bonus for casters, letting them qualify for prestiges and power up their spells. Feats are the bread-and-butter of non-casters, defining what they are capable of doing. When you increase the number of feats characters get you power up casters a little bit without significantly altering their amount of options but you give non-casters 25% more options than they previously had. You also lessen the pain of the feat chains so common of non-caster feats (if you aren't already houseruling away those requirements).

And then you look at the feats and realize having about 50% more feats when feats are the same or better means +50% power or more in that regard, whereas having 50% more feats when feats are 25-50% as effective at best means substantially less power. Not to mention the diminishing returns - all you've really done is make the Fighter go from a dip class to completely worthless.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 02:07:29 PM by Basket Burner »

Offline KicktheCAN

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2012, 02:18:53 PM »
Step Up does shit nothing to casters.  The concentration DCs to cast defensively are still as easy as in 3E (slightly higher, but the bonus you have is also higher) and you get the "concentration skill" for free w/o needing to blow ranks.  What Step Up does do is fuck up reach weapon users and archers something fierce.  They don't get a "concentration check" to attack adjacent or not provoke for shooting, respectively.

And casters benefit from more feats, too.  Especially since PF added so many good ones for them.  Fadier listed a bunch.  There's also Dazing/Bouncing/Selective/Reach spell, Spell Perfection, and more.
Except that any caster-killer worth their salt is going to take Mage Slayer.

I recognize and in fact mentioned that casters get buffs. However, casters only have so much higher they can go while non-casters have plenty of headroom to expand into. Pathfinder definitely adds some caster things you should probably ban but so did 3.5.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2012, 03:02:46 PM »
Except that any caster-killer worth their salt is going to take Mage Slayer.

At which point they have fuck and all reason to take Step Up and it's in their best interest to interact with PF mechanics as little as possible. Unless you meant some cheap Taiwan PF knockoff, in which case we're back to there not being a single fuck given.

Quote
I recognize and in fact mentioned that casters get buffs. However, casters only have so much higher they can go while non-casters have plenty of headroom to expand into. Pathfinder definitely adds some caster things you should probably ban but so did 3.5.

You were right up to the last point. Yes, it's easier to improve weak things than things that are already strong. That's why 3.5 balances out over time, as more splats even things out. It's also why PF is a terrible system as they managed to massively widen the gap despite how easy it would be to narrow it down.

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2012, 04:14:34 PM »
Ok, see I assume playing PF means no 3E stuff, cause if you allow all of 3E splat material in, all of PF is pointless because surely there's some 3E thing that does it better (aside from the freebie caster buffs, of course).
If it's PF only, what's available in 3E doesn't matter.  If it's a mixed system game, yeah paladin and other martials got lots of buffs in the splats.  But the already strong casters overall had even MORE buffs in those splats, so in terms of relative power, factoring in splats is kinda self-defeating.  Anyway...

If that were true, they'd be a capable and competitive melee and just completely obliterate evil outsiders. They don't do that at all. In fact the 3.5 one does it better - Law Devotion, SC Spells, Battle Blessing. Still weak, but at least capable of killing evil outsiders.

I disagree, they do obliterate evil with smite quite well now IME.  And the key thing is they lost nothing.  PF Paladin is just across the board buffs.  Unless you'd like to point out how it's not.  Which means PF Paladin still has all the same class features to qualify for and/or swap for every single thing you just listed.  If you're trying to compare 3E only Paladin w/ PF-only Paladin... not every 3E paladin will have access to all that stuff, while as everything I noted is core for PF paladin.  Even if it is all allowed, aside from Battle Blessing and Rhino Rush (don't recall any other amazing SpC Pal-exclusive spells for them)...clerics can get that stuff and do it much better anyway.

Problem: You can just get your spellcasting from a Wis item and do that anyways, you're reliant entirely on full attacks but can't reliably get them, and DR is a gimp check (if it bothers you, you're a gimp). Move action smite detection seems fine until you remember the second point and that you're still not necessarily in front of them, and for giving the entire party a smite... somehow, I don't think a bunch of casters care.

What do you mean, get your casting from a wis item?
And you're not reliant on full attacks any more than any other melee.  Your standard action attack w/ smite is still hurting a lot, and your mounted lance charge is good.  And in PF smite works with ranged, so if you want, you don't have to giv up full attacking at all.
DR isn't just a gimp check, even if you re power attacking 2H for lots of damage, not shaving 10-15 off every hit is still nice.
You can detect + move or detect + attack once or ready an attack, it's still a vast improvement from 3E where it went like, "crap, I don't have 3 rounds to determine if I should smite, guess I'll just hope he's evil."
Not all parties are 3/4 or greater casters.  Yeah, it may not be the optimal party composition, but that doesn't mean in RL most groups don't have a bunch of people who attack physically.  Hell, ray shooting casters also benefit.

As a swift action, they can negate half a hit. No, sorry, that doesn't cut it. Their AC is auto hit like everyone else, so not a factor, and the saves? Between the MAD nerfs and the save DC buffs they're just not able to keep up anymore. Lastly, curing minor effects is something doable with a Lesser Vigor wand and Healing Lorecall (which depending on how you read it can provide status removal with its regeneration, not just when you first cast it). Even if not though, how often do those effects come up?

My play experiences are much different than yours...  AC is not "autohit" until high levels, and it still protects from iteratives / 2ndary naturals / power attack at that point IME.
And 10.5 (3d6) healed at level 6 or 21 healed at level 12 or whatever is often more than "half a hit."  In any case, you're using swift actions to undo their attacks, so surely you admit that gives at least some edge in action economy?
What MAD nerfs?  Paladin is now a solidly 3 stat class (Str-Cha-Con), and benefits from a low modifier in dex and int but doesn't need them.  In fact, he can dump int as low as he wants and due to how the min. skill points + human bonus skills + favored class bonus works, still end up with 3 skill points per level (and concentration no longer costs skill points).
Save DCs are buffed between guranteed 20 starting in casting stat and several class feature options giving more.  But that's still "only" a few more points of DC.  Paladin gets two good base saves (the worthless one is their bad save) and one of their most important stats to all saves.  They may not save as easily as in 3E, but they're better off than most and it's still not "need a 20" levels of crazy...
True on Healing Lorecall (I'd say it only applies when cast, btw, not every round), but it's still a nice additional benefit that costs no spells and can be gained w/ a swift action.  How often the conditions come up is highly DM/campaign dependent, of course.

And it isn't full level... why, again? Suppose it doesn't matter too much since you'll never see any Dispels, but... why?

Because they don't become casters till 4th level and barely get spells?  Look, it's still a buff from 3E, ultimately.

Problem: Almost all of the good weapon properties are 3.5 non core.

Almost all the good everything is 3.5 non core.  *shrug*

So they have... a first level spell?

It's a little more all encompasing than Prot. from Evil and won't waste an action to be cast.  I said it was minor...

I can only assume you are being sarcastic. That feat is less than worthless. Taking absolutely nothing in that slot is better. It is in no way comparable to or competitive with even a simple Mage Slayer.

Agreed.  The feat doing the work there is Mage Slayer.  If you're letting in 3E material, there are plenty of other ways to mess up 5 ft steps that either won't cost a feat or are less limited than Step Up.

If you wasted a feat on Step Up, everything is laughing at you. Hell, a 3.5 Spiked Chain user with no feats is more likely to mess with a mage than a Step Up user is... which is to say not very, but still more than zero.

Side note: PF nerfed the bejesus out of this thing, too.  Now it's an ineffectual exotic piercng 2d4 20/x2 finesse/trip/disarm weapon that gives NO REACH AT ALL.  Which makes it plainly inferior to most other MARTIAL weapons. :(  PF was basically written by the "spiked chain is broken" fan club, so not that surprising.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2012, 04:53:41 PM »
Anyone else reading BB's rebuttal on the Paladin as "They gave the Paladin a lot of stuff, but RAWR OMG DURP HERRR."? Like he actually went so far as to try and make a point that MAD is great and easily bypassed. >.>

Anyway. I dislike Pazio as well. Dragon is over the top powerful, like WotC Errata-nerfs DMM not to work with Arcanes Dragon says Alternate Spell Source and here have more class options like Animate Dead at first level with HD cap bypassing AFC bonuses tacked on. SotAO? Mystic Ranger does it better and for free. ToB's Snap Kick? Meh Chaos Monk still gets more attacks. Nice Hexblade/Ambush/Binder(focolar/whats-his-name) debuffer build there, Unseeli Fey does it better and for free. Etc.

When PF came out I looked at it and thought this was the noob effect in action. That is, everything was made significantly more powerful in order to make optimization to a competent level easier, tailoring to idiots and noobs alike. As things progressed their eliteism peaked, we're better than WotC and we fixed D&D. Better? Fixed? All they really did by awarding classes features to everyone, nerfing mundanes, and boycotted the very rules they are based off of. Really the discouragement of using 3.0/3.5 rules is like a Core vs Splat argument, the additional books helps those classes not seriously overpowered and reality raping to begin with.

Then of course you get threads like this. Where the company so called friendly service and advertisements are revealed as bullshit filled lies. Where a forum can produce two pages of why PF sucks in less than four hours during none-peak times. Ultimately you just need to sit down and ask if this helpful to you? You're answer will probably be "I love all the stuff I can get", which is why PF is selling. But if you look at the forums, people here don't always choose the most numbers even while asking to optimize for such, so really is it helpful to you or not? Which is where the rule mergers and ignoring PF choices come from.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2012, 05:11:40 PM »
Ok, see I assume playing PF means no 3E stuff, cause if you allow all of 3E splat material in, all of PF is pointless because surely there's some 3E thing that does it better (aside from the freebie caster buffs, of course).

I'm comparing what a 3.5 Paladin would be doing with what a PF Paladin would be doing. And yes, if 3.5 rules are in then interacting as little with PF rules as possible became easier than ever. For the PF Paladin to be better, it has to do more than the 3.5 Paladin. Well Battle Blessing casting SC spells with Law Devotion to buff his stats is beyond anything any PF melee can manage.

Quote
If it's PF only, what's available in 3E doesn't matter.  If it's a mixed system game, yeah paladin and other martials got lots of buffs in the splats.  But the already strong casters overall had even MORE buffs in those splats, so in terms of relative power, factoring in splats is kinda self-defeating.  Anyway...

Going beyond core really doesn't add that much to casters. At least 75% of your stuff will still be core. As opposed to at least 75% not being core... As it was though PF has splats too, and I was comparing whole system to whole system.

Quote
I disagree, they do obliterate evil with smite quite well now IME.  And the key thing is they lost nothing.  PF Paladin is just across the board buffs.  Unless you'd like to point out how it's not.  Which means PF Paladin still has all the same class features to qualify for and/or swap for every single thing you just listed.  If you're trying to compare 3E only Paladin w/ PF-only Paladin... not every 3E paladin will have access to all that stuff, while as everything I noted is core for PF paladin.  Even if it is all allowed, aside from Battle Blessing and Rhino Rush (don't recall any other amazing SpC Pal-exclusive spells for them)...clerics can get that stuff and do it much better anyway.

The only difference that really matters is that the smite bonus goes on more than one attack. Thing is 1 damage a level still isn't that good, and you're still relying on the full attacks you're not getting. You're not taking meta shifts into account. Leap Attack alone is worth more than Smite. Core only melee not named CoDzilla are non viable in either edition so that isn't a valid argument. Which means the difference is that 3.5 Paladins get usable with enough books and PF Paladins do not get usable with any number of books. Winner: 3.5.

Yes, Clerics do it better. The point is that 3.5 Paladins are potentially usable.

Quote
What do you mean, get your casting from a wis item?

You only need 14 Wis to cast all of your spells, and that's at level 14. Even a 10 is sufficient. 8 could be but isn't quite practical.

Quote
And you're not reliant on full attacks any more than any other melee.  Your standard action attack w/ smite is still hurting a lot, and your mounted lance charge is good.  And in PF smite works with ranged, so if you want, you don't have to giv up full attacking at all.

You do lol damage + your level. That's not hurting a lot, that's tickling things. PF beat the shit out of mounted combat and then mounted it in an entirely different sense of the word. Ranged attacks without Force and Splitting (which don't exist here) are lolworthy. You might not be reliant on full attacks any more than any other melee, but since that means you're completely nullified by walking briskly that isn't saying much.

Quote
DR isn't just a gimp check, even if you re power attacking 2H for lots of damage, not shaving 10-15 off every hit is still nice.

By the time you're actually encountering DR 10-15 your standard output needs to be 200+++ to be viable. If you care about losing 10 a hit, your numbers are too low. Sure it avoids the other problem with DR, in that trying to bypass it causes you to lose even more damage, but that just makes it a non factor instead of a negative factor.

Quote
You can detect + move or detect + attack once or ready an attack, it's still a vast improvement from 3E where it went like, "crap, I don't have 3 rounds to determine if I should smite, guess I'll just hope he's evil."

3.5: I go for the Smite and hope he's evil because it takes too long to be sure.
PF: I go for the Smite and hope he's evil because it takes too long to be sure.

It might only waste 1 round instead of 3, but that's still far too long.

Quote
Not all parties are 3/4 or greater casters.  Yeah, it may not be the optimal party composition, but that doesn't mean in RL most groups don't have a bunch of people who attack physically.  Hell, ray shooting casters also benefit.

We're talking about PF here. Where there is absolutely no reason to be a melee character, much less a melee heavy party and the same is true of ray casters (especially since the good rays, assuming they were still good weren't about damage anyways). You're not accounting for meta shifts again.

If it were 3.5, where melee focused parties could function that'd be different.

It's the same reason why Greater Maneuver feats are horrible.

Quote
My play experiences are much different than yours...  AC is not "autohit" until high levels, and it still protects from iteratives / 2ndary naturals / power attack at that point IME.

Again, I remind you that this is PF. This is the edition that altered melee mechanics in favor of enemies, which means iteratives = not a factor, and PA = still auto hits, making AC entirely useless instead of the things you described (which it does do in 3.5).

Quote
And 10.5 (3d6) healed at level 6 or 21 healed at level 12 or whatever is often more than "half a hit."  In any case, you're using swift actions to undo their attacks, so surely you admit that gives at least some edge in action economy?

At level 6, 10.5 is about half a hit. At level 12, 21 is also about half a hit. Now consider there are almost certainly multiple hits, especially at level 12. Using a Swift action, which has far more uses than minor healing to negate part of a single multi part action is called losing momentum. For you to have the edge, you'd have to be gaining momentum... such as the Swift action negating at least most of their entire full attack sequence, and then you using your actions to KO back with something. That weak little heal isn't going to manage that at all. About the only things that could are 3.5 Quickened Heals (pretty sure there's no way of managing this in PF) and 3.5 Armor Enhancement into Greater Healing at lower levels.

Quote
What MAD nerfs?  Paladin is now a solidly 3 stat class (Str-Cha-Con), and benefits from a low modifier in dex and int but doesn't need them.  In fact, he can dump int as low as he wants and due to how the min. skill points + human bonus skills + favored class bonus works, still end up with 3 skill points per level (and concentration no longer costs skill points).

Anything more than 2 is MAD. Meaning you suffer from the PB changes as well as the item changes, and that in turn means lower Cha. Also, if you're using favored class for something other than HP or spells known on a Sorcerer you're doing it wrong. Lolskills.

Quote
Save DCs are buffed between guranteed 20 starting in casting stat and several class feature options giving more.  But that's still "only" a few more points of DC.  Paladin gets two good base saves (the worthless one is their bad save) and one of their most important stats to all saves.  They may not save as easily as in 3E, but they're better off than most and it's still not "need a 20" levels of crazy...

You forget that they're casting like two casters of five levels higher than themselves and that you have lower saves. Perhaps it's not 20 only, but it's not far off either. Level 10: 7 + Cha + your likely negative Wis + resistance vs DC 25 * 2... and that's for a lower level, throwaway effect. Not to mention if you're prime stating Cha you do lol damage even by lol damage standards.

Quote
True on Healing Lorecall (I'd say it only applies when cast, btw, not every round), but it's still a nice additional benefit that costs no spells and can be gained w/ a swift action.  How often the conditions come up is highly DM/campaign dependent, of course.

Here's another thing. Unless there is something that I missed it's still Touch range. That alone defeats any advantages of it being a Swift action when used on anyone but you to remove conditions as you still have to go move up to them. As it is though removing minor uncommon effects does not a viable character make. It's not even a significant factor.

Quote
Because they don't become casters till 4th level and barely get spells?  Look, it's still a buff from 3E, ultimately.

It still reads as "Ok, fine, but we're still going to be a dick and sucker punch you just because." Much like the full BAB Monks except not really. And just giving them full CL is a common houserule, which since PF is just commercialized houserules anyways...

Quote
Almost all the good everything is 3.5 non core.  *shrug*

Except caster stuff. My point was that it isn't in PF at all.

Quote
It's a little more all encompasing than Prot. from Evil and won't waste an action to be cast.  I said it was minor...

It was more the mention of the word tank that brought out the elitist in me.

Quote
Side note: PF nerfed the bejesus out of this thing, too.  Now it's an ineffectual exotic piercng 2d4 20/x2 finesse/trip/disarm weapon that gives NO REACH AT ALL.  Which makes it plainly inferior to most other MARTIAL weapons. :(  PF was basically written by the "spiked chain is broken" fan club, so not that surprising.

One more reason it's an overcentralized and terrible meta.

Offline Mooncrow

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
  • The man who will be Pirate King
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2012, 05:24:14 PM »
PF does have a few interesting things that can be cherry picked into 3.5 - some of the new classes are kind of fun and interesting - assuming 3.5 support and a few tweaks.  I do like the summoner in particular and one of my players has a witch henchman that he's having fun with. 

But comparing PF-only to 3.5-only, yeah, I don't see a single thing that they did better. 

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2012, 05:42:29 PM »
PF biggest perk: The whole damn game is Open Game Content, and on the PFRD.

Mechanically, it just shifted the problems around, added its own wacky resource interactions(its been years and their splats had time to catch up on silly) while departing further from the 3.P pool. Some mechanics did get changed in ways I liked(CM[B/D], Afflictions, Skills, Favored Class, some of the SoDs), some arbitrary shuffling around(I figure this is the designer's personal preferences), and a bunch of stuff made more newbie friendly at the cost of optimizability. Its very clear the lead designer is writing his own preferences into the game at the cost of its mechanics.

Overall neutral change, really. But accessibility via the PFRD helps a ton.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2012, 06:02:02 PM »

I tend to play using 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder

but many people get very mad with me.


So long as your group isn't breaking the Gentlemen's Agreement
to not have T.O. material happening, in a sub C.O. game ...
the combo of 3.0 and 3.5 and 3.P is not a problem.

Sounds like you need to do some  :rolleyes handholding before anyone starts complaining.

Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline Dizco

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2012, 06:15:51 PM »

I tend to play using 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder

but many people get very mad with me.


So long as your group isn't breaking the Gentlemen's Agreement
to not have T.O. material happening, in a sub C.O. game ...
the combo of 3.0 and 3.5 and 3.P is not a problem.

Sounds like you need to do some  :rolleyes handholding before anyone starts complaining.

Gentleman's agreement? I am pretty new here, so I have no idea what you mean. Mainly the people complaining are players we wish to work into the fold.

Actually this thread alone has given me more hope in how I DM. A great deal of what has been said are thoughts that I have be in sync with.  Overall, I have a better understanding of why people are wary of what I say now.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2012, 06:24:58 PM »
^^
It generally just means you play to maximize fun for everyone. This generally involves avoiding solo grandstanding(unless said game is about doing exactly that) and also being a group liability, playing to fit the group, rather than demand the group fit your play. Its a very flexible concept, and ultimately simple.

Is everyone having fun? Y/N
Y -> Agreement maintained.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2012, 06:27:29 PM »
T.O. = Pun-pun

Compared to Weapon Focus at level 1.
+1 to one small thing or lots of Infinities (?).
Gentlemen's Agreement is to not have Pun-pun or similar show up.


I mean we have the various Tiers thread.
High level Clerics or Druids deserve the tag CoDzilla.
Same with Arty or Wiz or Archivist.
3.0 or 3.5 or PF or Combos, don't really change these possibilities at all.

But so long as  those kind of punches aren't being thrown,
a Wizard can coexist peacefully with Fighters and Aristocrats.


edit --- Veekie says it better.
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2012, 06:49:49 PM »
It started off as saying "Don't use gamebreaker cheats."

Some people warp it into the anti thesis of effective play.

Offline Dizco

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2012, 07:03:55 PM »
Got it.

Thank you for explaining.

Offline lans

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2012, 07:33:27 PM »
Now consider there are almost certainly multiple hits, especially at level 12. Using a Swift action, which has far more uses than minor healing to negate part of a single multi part action is called losing momentum.
Many monsters have to move and attack, is pounce as easily obtainable as it is in 3.5? Also, Pathfinder seems to have nerfed several monsters like earth elementals and elephants so that they seem to deal a little less damage than their 3.5 counter parts




Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #37 on: March 20, 2012, 09:01:38 PM »
Many monsters have to move and attack, is pounce as easily obtainable as it is in 3.5?
Off the top of my head? No.

In 3.5 it's either depends on race, form alterations, those gauntlets only specific weapon in CW, and a level dip into Barbarian. There is probably some more obscure ones but meh.

PF's Barbarian's Pounce is level 10+.
I don't think any weapons grant it but I don't actually know PF so don't take this at token value.
Poly effects are totally revamped so Alter Self can't do it anymore but Polymorph still can.
Racially thanks to PF's removal of LA it's should still obtainable at low levels, if your willing to play a an animal or something.

Overall, I'd say it's harder. But you should have known that, PF nerfs Mundanes is a good general rule of thumb :p

Offline Janaxstrus

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #38 on: March 20, 2012, 09:32:09 PM »
I like the PF world (Golarion) fine.  I also like some of their modules and adventure paths, but, we run them with 3.5, not PF itself.

Mainly though, I love that it's outselling 4e, because I hate that WoW-lite system with a passion.

Offline lans

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?
« Reply #39 on: March 20, 2012, 09:37:16 PM »

Overall, I'd say it's harder. But you should have known that, PF nerfs Mundanes is a good general rule of thumb :p
Well I hear monsters tended to get a boost, so I figured they might of still had decent access to it