Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Bobikus]

Were the martial class buffs substantial? I know a lot of PF talk I've seen have criticized stuff like the Tomes for bringing non-caster close to 3.5 level and promoting 'rocket tag'. Although that seems preferable to just saying 'no one can have nice things'.

[DragonChild]

Just taking a guess... the nerfs were along the lines of "As long as Wish, Gate, and Polymorph aren't abused it's fine?"

Basically. The team actually did a decent job with polymorph, but, as far as I can tell, they nerfed it into semi-uselessness by splitting it into multiple spells that are each about a level too high to make use of. I never had a chance to really try it out in the only Pathfinder game I've played it.

Polymorph in Pathfinder is terrible beyond belief from a game design perspective. In order to figure out what Polymorph Any Object does, you have to reference over 20 different spells.

[Maxus]

Were the martial class buffs substantial?

They were erratic.

Monks got worse. Paladins got better. Fighters stayed about the same despite a lot of effort and energy expended thereon (sort of Red Queen there).

But in general, a lot of effort and energy was expended for not much improvement.

[Psychic Robot]

Monks got worse.

How so?

[Maxus]

Monks got worse.

How so?

Last I checked, their powers remained -mostly- the same, except now they take points to use.

There was that one thing that lets you travel anywhere as a move action, though.

And medium BAB remains medium BAB

[Psychic Robot]

Full BAB on a flurry, though.

[Maxus]

Full BAB on a flurry, though.

I think we can file that one under 'erratic'.

[hogarth]

Monks got worse.

How so?

Last I checked, their powers remained -mostly- the same, except now they take points to use.

Having a pool of points to use Abundant Step or Wholeness of Body instead of having them as 1/day abilities is more powerful, not less. Pathfinder monks are still a hot mess, though.

[Username17]

As someone that doesn't know PF much to begin with, what all really changed to cause the large split I've seen between PF fans and other 3.X fans that I see on most boards?

Mostly it's the incompatibility. Overall, the changes are largely negative, even for martial class balance. But the big rift is because you can't really play in a 3.5 game with a PF character or vice versa.

Pathfinder giveth class features and taketh away in rules interactions. So monks get situational to-hit bonuses and some complex fungible bonus uses of powers you don't care about... and the Trip action is nerfed to high hell so the few vaguely passable monk builds are overall eve worse. Rogues get some sweet bonus class features, but the mid- and high level means of getting sneak attack have been banned, so the class is worthless. And so on.

So if you know how to make a 3.5 character or how to play a 3.5 game, you can't join a Pathfinder game. And that's the rift.

The fact that Pathfinder has better art but worse mechanics than 3.5 is why people are on whichever side of that rift they are on.

-Username17

[Roy]

As someone that doesn't know PF much to begin with, what all really changed to cause the large split I've seen between PF fans and other 3.X fans that I see on most boards?

Basically they took 3.5 and made it worse in every way, they lied about it, they lied about their intentions, and they completely failed to meet their own design goals. That's the short version. For the long version, look around.

Actually they did improve the Monk/Sorcerer/Rogue (sans sneak attack as they nerf methods to access that), not a lot but they are better.
If you undid the blink, grease, etc nerfs to sneak attack PF Rogue is better than 3.5 Rogue.
Monk isn't worse (okay TWfing is worse than Flurry since it requires two things and 3.5 flurry just increase attacks) and can now spend ki for extra goodies.
Sorcerer has no downside except you must choose a flavor.

No, they made Monk and Rogue worse. Far worse, for the Rogue. Sorcerers are better, but it's Caster Edition, so what do you expect?

What changed in regards to magic/spell lists? I tend to hear from some people that casting was reigned in somehow from being as gamebreaking, but hear other people claim the opposite.

Stealth buffs, and meaningless nerfs. For example, you will hear Paizils declare that Glitterdust now allows a save every round. So using it goes like this:

Round 1: Cast Glitterdust.
Round 2: Enemies save again, and if they pass they aren't blinded anymore.

And they claim this is a nerf, but they forgot this is D&D we're talking about. Having the enemies be dead on round 2 is the norm. In other words, they don't even get to attempt to make that second save (and if they did, since Pathfailure massively buffs DCs and nerfs saves it won't matter). So it's quite meaningless. And even if a spell actually is nerfed to unusability, you just cast something else, and as long as you have at least one save or lose at each level that works (and you do) your viability is not reduced.

Were the martial class buffs substantial? I know a lot of PF talk I've seen have criticized stuff like the Tomes for bringing non-caster close to 3.5 level and promoting 'rocket tag'. Although that seems preferable to just saying 'no one can have nice things'.

Substantially nonexistent. They only exist as an illusion, meant to divert you from the massive nerfs they actually got.

The only thing Pathfailure has going for it is pretty pictures. Except you can just watch porn for that, and the porn is free, so they still fail.

[Bobikus]

So basically casters still have plenty of stuff to kill everything with, only now it's harder to resist any of it?

[FatR]

What changed in regards to magic/spell lists? I tend to hear from some people that casting was reigned in somehow from being as gamebreaking, but hear other people claim the opposite.

Low-level SoLs and less dangerous SoDs got the nerfbat. Low- and mid-level battlefield control got the huge nerfbat. Polymorh was split into 9001 different spells. Some other gamebreakers were nerfed, don't care to check which anymore (Planar Binding still breaks the game just fine).

In return casters got even more ways to buff DC, and also access to some other goodies as part of their class chassis. So, you can't use PF casters with spells from 3.5 supplements because then spell nerfs mostly won't matter, but class buffs will. Which is a bad design for a game that claims reverse compatibility.

[Bobikus]

Planar Binding? So casters can still control things essentially higher level than they are?

[Mystic Mongol]

I admit the mechanics of it are a mystery to me, but surely the ability for arcane masters to bind forces more powerful than themselves is a grand old tradition of smoking, charred corpses.

Is there a chance of failure?

[Archmage]

Yes, but it's functionally small.

What you do is summon something with a similar alignment to your own and ask it to do something it would probably be willing to do anyway. You make a charisma check opposed by its charisma check. You get a bonus from +0 to +6 based on how reasonable the request is (or if you are bribing the creature somehow, as applicable). If you roll a 1, you auto-fail.

You must be 11th level to cast planar binding, if you're a wizard. You can call any 12 HD outsider. At 11th level, as a CG wizard, I can call a trumpet archon and buff my charisma appropriately (assuming I have 10 CHA by default, putting on a +6 cloak means I match the archon at 16 CHA). At bare minimum, with no further bonuses, I have a 50/50 shot at convincing a creature that casts spells as a 14th-level cleric to do some service for me.

If I'm a sorcerer, I get the spell later, but I realistically have a CHA mod of +10 and can make 14th level cleric-equivalent outsiders my bitch with frightening regularity.

[Bobikus]

I've always felt that Casters shouldn't be able to actually control something above the CR-2 limit that stuff like ranger companions have to fit.

[Daztur]

For me at least the biggest annoyance was the very very high ratio of "fiddly little changes that don't change much, but I have to keep track of them" to "fixes that actually fix something." As a ruleset I don't think that PF is any worse than 3.5ed, but having to relearn so many little details for so little gain is more trouble than it would be worth.

There's a gazillion little changes, but fighters still have 2 skill points a level, the fuck?

[Psychic Robot]

fighters still have 2 skill points a level, the fuck?

BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY.

At least, that's the excuse. If you've been keeping track of the new releases, they're phasing out the "old model" in favor of the "new model," where classes generally have a minimum of four skill points per level.

[Username17]

I've always felt that Casters shouldn't be able to actually control something above the CR-2 limit that stuff like ranger companions have to fit.

It's a downtime spell. Functionally you could just do it eight times. Or you can just not bargain and call things into the circle for the purposes of you killing them.

It's a very cool schtick and a vital portion of the thematic abilities of D&D demonologists, but it just isn't balanced as a per-day spell slot. And it never will be. 3.5 and then Pathfinder tweaking a few numbers and calling it good is just an insult to the intelligence of the reader. I mean, you do need it, so th 4e thing where they admitted that fixing Planar Binding was hard and they were going to print the new version later, and then never actually did it is not acceptable either. Honestly, if you can't balance the spell you should just put a HERO System-style Stop sign on it and say "Warning: This spell can be easily abused. Please don't do that."

-Username17

[Bobikus]

If not taken out, something like that should be a lot harder to do, and become really risky on monsters more powerful than the caster, with the necessary rolls being far more difficult.

Then Gate takes it to imo retarded levels, giving you full control of something up to twice as powerful as you without so much as a save needed.

[Psychic Robot]

Honestly, if you can't balance the spell you should just put a HERO System-style Stop sign on it and say "Warning: This spell can be easily abused. Please don't do that."

I'm actually okay with this. I feel it is, overall, lazy game design, but it's better than pretending that everything is fine and dandy.

[TOZ]

Something that came up in a 'WotC starting 5e' thread...

It's not going to be called 5e. It's going to fly in under the assumption that it's compatible with 4e, but still new and fresh, so they can have their restart and get rid of the old books at the same time.

This line reminds me of something I just can't put my finger on...

[FatR]

Also, are we supposed to bitch about Paizo's adventures here, or there was some other thread with discussion of their APs? Because I couldn't find said discussion in this thread, when I thought I have more lulz to add.

[Roy]

So basically casters still have plenty of stuff to kill everything with, only now it's harder to resist any of it?

Yes, that's the idea. 3.5 enemies actually can resist spells decently well if built right, and there are several right ways. So one spell will still win the fight, but it's a lot less likely that spell will land.

Meanwhile this works both ways, so you can actually get yourself somewhat resistant to Rocket Tag.

But in Pathfailure? They jack up DCs, and nerf saves. Which means you're an all caster team, spamming save or loses, because if you ever, ever let an enemy go first, you lose automatically, and that means having as many chances as possible to take them out first. And even then you're constantly replacing characters, because the enemy will go first and save or lose you.

It's better than dying the moment you get anywhere near a monster, as is the case with anything else, but Pathfailure is both a very boring game and a terribly balanced one.

[Juton]

Something that came up in a 'WotC starting 5e' thread...

It's not going to be called 5e. It's going to fly in under the assumption that it's compatible with 4e, but still new and fresh, so they can have their restart and get rid of the old books at the same time.

This line reminds me of something I just can't put my finger on...

While that is an apt comparison, isn't that kind of true for essentials? I was under the impression that the game can't support both 4e and Essentials PCs/Monsters at the same time.