Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[RadiantPhoenix]

"Pathfinder hasn't gotten better, the competition has just gotten worse"

[RelentlessImp]

"Pathfinder is still bad unless you trawl through three thousand character options every time you level up."

Alternately: "Pathfinder: System Mastery and MC Fellatio are the only things that matter"

[Archmage Joda]

Apparently, the Monster Summoner's Handbook has a new archetype for the cleric. And it's a really good archetype, too, handing out Augment Summons and Superior Summons as a bonus feat along with letting you spontaneously cast Summon Monster. And this is among the other things the game lets you do such as providing a metamagic feat (and thus rod) that lets you apply the Giant template to your summons at +1 level.

If there was a way for non-evil clerics to cast Summon Monster as a standard action without relying on that crack-ass Sacred Summons feat it'd be all I ever play in Pathfinder when I didn't want to sandbag.

Do you happen to know if that would be one of those archetypes that eats one of a cleric's domains? Also, what Domain(s) would you suggest then for a summoning/conjuring cleric anyway?

[Orion]

Let me put this another way: Is there any reason to this point, to try to sell people on 3.5? Or is it just as good to run Pathfinder?

[rasmuswagner]

Let me put this another way: Is there any reason to this point, to try to sell people on 3.5? Or is it just as good to run Pathfinder?

Neo-grognardism.
The aesthetic preference for dead levels over pointless fiddly abilities.
The ability to combine vaguely worded shit, and completely off the hook FR bullshit, into incredibly overpowered characters.

[OgreBattle]

Let me put this another way: Is there any reason to this point, to try to sell people on 3.5? Or is it just as good to run Pathfinder?

Non-casters have more options like rogues being able to reliably sneak attack and fighter feats haven't been fragmented further.

[tussock]

The 3.5 casters are worse and the 3.5 non-casters are better.

See also 3.0, where the casters are worse again and the non-casters are better again.

Or 2nd edition, where the casters are worse again and the non-casters are better again.

Or 1st edition, where the casters are even worse, really quite tricky to even get started, the non-casters even better, and the casters will still take all your lunch money if you're silly enough to play a Fighter at high levels, but at least you can dual-class and get level-appropriate spells for yourself in no time. Unlike d20.


Having said all that, Pathfinder is in print and will sell you books where you don't know how bad they are yet. As a first approximation, they will give huge bonuses to your Wizard for nothing and find a way to nerf your Fighter at the same time, while presenting another take on a fix for how they broke Rogues and/or another Gish class.

[souran]

If you are writting your own adventures, already own 3.5, and won't have people lose their minds if you let people play TOB:Bo9S then 3.5 is porbably better than pathfinder. The TOB classes can at least be as relevant in combat at the upper limits of play as casters, even if they still lack the ability to drive the story by inventive use of magic.

[Ice9]

I prefer 3.x, all things being equal, but Pathfinder is still in print, and more importantly has a complete SRD that's not going to get shut down by a C&D. So in practice, I end up playing PF a lot more often than 3.x these days.

The 3.5 casters are worse and the 3.5 non-casters are better.

Depends on what level of optimization you mean. 3.x casters can achieve some extreme peaks of power that just aren't possible in Pathfinder, like always going first, killing everything with thousands of no-save untyped damage, achieving physical power that would put a Tarrasque to shame, being immune to everything, and so forth. In practice, going full-out in that way is rare, but even at a moderate level there's some stuff that leaves PF in the dust. In a low-op game, PF casters are better though.

[Meikle641]

I'd heard that WotC had made new printings of various 3.5 books. Seen them in stores, in fact.

[angelfromanotherpin]

They re-released like five 3.5 books in extra shiny/costly mode. Part of the thing where they did the same to some 1e and 2e material to cover the years when 4e was dead and 5e wasn't born yet.

[souran]

They re-released like five 3.5 books in extra shiny/costly mode. Part of the thing where they did the same to some 1e and 2e material to cover the years when 4e was dead and 5e wasn't born yet.

Yeah, it was a decent money maker too. I think Hasbro probably noticed that. You would think that it would factor into their decision making. How quickly could WOTC/Hasbro drive Paizo into nothingness if they produced new 3.x content? There were no christmas layoffs last year. I wonder if it has anything to do with "sword coast legends" having shelled out real money to use 5E as the ruleset.

The real question for the future of D&D in general is will the WOTC/Hasbro hatred of the OGL ever be overcome by their desire to make real money. Some of this must certainly come from being owned by a board game company. The Hasbro suits probably cannot every ditch a mentality of "How can you make money selling a game if you give away the game for free?"

[Username17]

There were no christmas layoffs last year.

Meh. Their January layoffs left them with just 8 employees on the tabletop D&D team. And some of those people have ongoing Kickstarter projects where they are actively attempting to sell some D&D competition while still drawing down a paycheck for still "working" at WotC.

-Username17

[Avoraciopoctules]

If you are writting your own adventures, already own 3.5, and won't have people lose their minds if you let people play TOB:Bo9S then 3.5 is porbably better than pathfinder. The TOB classes can at least be as relevant in combat at the upper limits of play as casters, even if they still lack the ability to drive the story by inventive use of magic.

There's a TOB ripoff that's included in D20PFSRD, but the hyperlinks were partially messed up last time I checked. Some pretty cool options, though, and you can make a really nasty alpha-strike with physical attacks.

The catch is that maneuvers have been written in a way that lets casters dip into them for more power too.

[TiaC]

Dreamscarred Press has far better designers than Paizo and seems to actually listen to feedback. You could probably make Pathfinder a better game by only using their classes.

[OgreBattle]

Dreamscarred Press has far better designers than Paizo and seems to actually listen to feedback. You could probably make Pathfinder a better game by only using their classes.

I'm not familiar with their work 'cause it's not listed on the paizo wiki, but what are some examples of well built classes from Dreamscarred, are there any that are meant to replace Paizo's failures of class design?

[Ice9]

Nah, they seem to be going for a "fits easily into Pathfinder" thing (which sometimes hinders them, design-wise), so I doubt they'd make anything that directly calls Paizo out.

That said, the Path of War (PF Bo9S) classes are martial and (AFAIK) an improvement on the Paizo stuff, so there's that.

Other things by them:
Psionics - It's the XPH system with more content. If you like 3.5 Psionics, it's a mild improvement. If you don't, it probably won't change your mind.

Akhashic Mysteries - Based on Magic of Incarnum, but the changes are lot more significant than the Psionic ones were. I haven't looked much at it yet, so IDK to what extent they fixed Incarnum's problems.

And I think they may be planning to port other 3.x subsystems as well.

[RelentlessImp]

Let me put this another way: Is there any reason to this point, to try to sell people on 3.5? Or is it just as good to run Pathfinder?

Personally, given Paizo's shady practices during the start-up of Pathfinder, I refuse to play it on general principle and will gladly tell people that Paizo shit all over people during their "beta" test. Refusing to partake in the offerings of a company that acted in bad faith (and continues to act in bad faith - see the FAQ) is enough of a reason for me to sell people on 3.5 (and, indeed, Tome) in opposition to Pathfinder.

I'm not saying Wizards weren't shitheels with parts of 3.0 and 3.5, though. The playtest natures of Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle and selling them at full price as products springs to mind. Not to mention The Sage and CustServ. But Paizo seems intent on doubling down on all the bad bits of WotC.

[FatR]

The TOB classes can at least be as relevant in combat at the upper limits of play as casters,

That's untrue.

Assuming neither party optimizes beyond not taking obvious traps: TOB classes fall behind the damage curve by mid-level.

Assuming equal effort on optimizarion: lol no, melees in 3.5 really don't wan't to go there. And you'll probably end up playing an ubercharger again, just a somewhat more durable one.

[Slade]

The TOB classes can at least be as relevant in combat at the upper limits of play as casters,

That's untrue.

Assuming neither party optimizes beyond not taking obvious traps: TOB classes fall behind the damage curve by mid-level.

Assuming equal effort on optimizarion: lol no, melees in 3.5 really don't wan't to go there. And you'll probably end up playing an ubercharger again, just a somewhat more durable one.

True, but ToB offers more options to martials.

[Ice9]

I'd say that ToB uses a structure that would allow martials to remain relevant, if the individual maneuvers were better. Whereas with many martial classes, they don't even have a viable structure. But that's not the same as actually having achieved relevance - ToB moves martial types closer toward the same playing field as casters, but it doesn't get all the way there.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I haven't seen DP's take on ToB, but the classes in that book wouldn't be relevant as-is even if the tactical usage and out-of-combat utility of the maneuvers were increased. Due to the way that the powers are structured, the absolute best that you can hope for is that they function at the level of a... a cut-rate warlock. In that they have access to a small pool of options whose only worth is that they can theoretically be used unlimitedly.

I mean, let's say that a 10th-level Warblade had a power that let them fly, one that gave dimension door, and another one that gave them the ability to survive in extreme environments like outer-space or at the bottom of the sea. That's half of their damn maneuvers right there.

I mean, you could arrange the utility powers in such a way that they didn't interfere with their pool of combat feats, but then you might as well just staple that system onto the paladin and barbarian.

[souran]

I haven't seen DP's take on ToB, but the classes in that book wouldn't be relevant as-is even if the tactical usage and out-of-combat utility of the maneuvers were increased. Due to the way that the powers are structured, the absolute best that you can hope for is that they function at the level of a... a cut-rate warlock. In that they have access to a small pool of options whose only worth is that they can theoretically be used unlimitedly.

I mean, let's say that a 10th-level Warblade had a power that let them fly, one that gave dimension door, and another one that gave them the ability to survive in extreme environments like outer-space or at the bottom of the sea. That's half of their damn maneuvers right there.

I mean, you could arrange the utility powers in such a way that they didn't interfere with their pool of combat feats, but then you might as well just staple that system onto the paladin and barbarian.

Again, TOB does not close the gap between the utility of casters and non-casters. That cannot be done without rewritting the D&D spell system. This would require putting much firmer caps on what "Spells" can do. The only way to get everybody on similar footing for out of combat uitlity is to make sure everybody has some ability to cast spells.

However, TOB martials are much better at smacking around enemies and besting complex foes (like beholders or other monsters with loads of gimmicks or SODs). Also the damage output of people using manuevers is closer to people using magic.

If you are playing a game where eliminating monsters by reducing them to 0 hit points is a part of the game that occurs regularly, then the TOB classes remain relevant longer than fighters/rogues/monks. Thats all they do.

[Lago PARANOIA]

However, TOB martials are much better at smacking around enemies and besting complex foes (like beholders or other monsters with loads of gimmicks or SODs).

Are we talking about DP's ToB, given the thread we're in, or are we talking about 3.5E D&D's Tome of Battle?

As far as the latter goes... no, not really. The swordsage and the crusader struggle to keep up with other sword-based classes. And as far as the warblade goes, while they can do very high damage and can get some impressive save-boosters -- which can get Warblades up to around level 12 with only minor DM coddling -- they still pretty much curl up and die when they're facing any intelligently played mid-level+ enemy which they can't just run up to and use maneuvers on. A super-grappler or burrower or mongol archer or teleporter or a flying bruiser still hands even a min-maxxed Warblade their ass without magical assistance.

[ishy]

So Pathfinder online (the mmo) was released almost a week ago. I don't think anybody noticed, though.
But at least check out the video they include on their blog. The lich animations look like someone's first attempt at flash