Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[hogarth]

so since the Drow noble (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mons ... .html#drow) cr is based on it character classes, I can play one right out the door with no problem?

Not really. The drow noble has a +1 CR adjustment compared to the drow commoner. So somehow your DM should accommodate for that. How? Who knows, with Paizo's fucking contradictory mess of "play a monster" rules.

[Koumei]

Yet still? It's more balanced, acceptable, simple and fun than the bullshit WotC attempt at it. So I'll give them a point in that regard: they basically did what RoW says to do.

[Treantmonklvl20]

It depends on how you think Blade Barrier works, because it's frankly unclear. In previous editions it was clear that you could cast your starting point of Blade Barrier on a person and then the hole in the middle would simply follow them around. 3.5 "standardized" the nomenclature of Blade Barrier and in so doing made it unclear whether that could still be done, because there's no fucking target line in the spell. But it's still a 6th level spell, so I'm going to assume that it's still better than fireball and thus still does the thing it used to do (albeit with a nerfed killzone).

Which is to say that you determine the effect on the time of casting, which would be to make the hole in the middle 10' across and then go on a fucking rampage because there's portable cover and a 16-die brutality zone all around the Marilith.

-Username17

I'm pretty sure that when discussing rules of a game played on a grid, the word "immobile" refers to the grid.

If the grid represents a moving ship, then the effect remains immobile on the grid, so it would therefore move with the ship.

Interesting argument though, using relativity to create ambiguity in game rules. You could use that in Chess.

Player 1: "Bishop takes knight"
Player 2: "The Bishop doesn't move that way"
Player 1: "Bishops move diagonally any number of squares"
Player 2: "Diagonally relative to what? The rule is vague."

[RandomCasualty2]

Yeah, immobile is immobile. It doesn't move.

And the intent on that is really clear.

Now you can make a minor case for moving terrain like ships, but the idea that it follows the caster is just dishonest rules lawyering.

[Treantmonklvl20]

I promised a response to this a long time ago, sorry for the delay.

The game as a core pathfinder wizard. I can’t find the free plus 2 to mental stat frank was talking about..

He meant that you can take any number of main-book races and get a bonus to your casting stat, regardless of your casting class. Humans, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs all have a floating +2, so if you are a Wizard, you can put it in Int, if you are a Sorcerer, you can put it in Cha.

The remaining races all have +2 to a mental stat, though it's not floating, so in order to get it on your casting stat, you are restricted to certain classes.

I did not look at the new feats or the spells of golarian. I glanced over the class features and did notice some real gems like the illusionist’s ability to cast greater invisibility at eight level as a swift action once a day without even burning a spell slot.

Yep. Every class in Pathfinder got "swag".

I also did not talk much about the image line, which has not been nerfed and can go pretty much anywhere. I don’t do much with the high level spells, since I pretty much stopped caring once the wizard not only broke into crazy town but became their most famous citizen.

Then let's begin.

First Level Spells

Okay first level, you have all the wizard kill spells, plus you have more hp (8 base hp before con actually), some new abilities, and maybe an extra spell out of bonded object. Plus you can cast off of your forbidden skill list for some reason. Whoohoo!

Bonded objects are for suckers. One unlucky Sunder attempt and you are screwed for a week. The risk is too great for the benefit. Instead you are better off just taking a familiar, like you got in 3.5.

Not sure where the 8 base HP before Con comes from. I get 6, or 7 if you put your favored class bonus into HP (which for a Wizard seems likely).

What do you mean "all the Wizard kill spells"? The best spells from 3.5 like "Grease" got nerfed. Ray of enfeeblement got gutted, nerfed, and then gutted again for kicks. Please tell me you aren't talking about magic missile, because it's just as awesome as ever.

2nd Level Spells

This is your worse level, since they nerfed glitterdust, web, rope trick, and alter self. Web and alter self are pretty much unusable, but glitterdust is still pretty good. Rope trick is just kinda nerfed, since enemies have to come into your house one at a time and are thus easily dispatched, making this still pretty much an easy way to rest even if you can’t pull the rope up after you. You also can’t hide the rope. I don’t know how exactly you can’t hide it behind a tree or something, maybe it sings and dances.

Yep, Glitterdust is still good - maybe still your best 2nd level spell, but less powerful than it was in 3.5.

Rope trick is still a good spell. Still probably your best "resting" spell, but less powerful than it was in 3.5

Non nerfed spells include blindness and ghoul touch, which pretty much take a single target out of the game.

Not big on touch spells for Wizards, but Blindness is a single target Save or be blinded. Glitterdust used to be a mass target save or be blinded. The Glitterdust had duration - but it would last until everyone was slaughtered, so recovering from blindness after that really didn't mean much.

Not that Blindness is a bad spell, it's just no replacement for a pre-nerfed Glitterdust.

Minor Image can also be a great spell and is not harmed in anyway and invisibility means that you can still make they party rogue cry bitter tears with your sneaking prowess. So not that bad after all.

These are good utility spells, but neither wins a combat like Glitterdust did.

Like 1st level, 2nd level spell choices are weaker than 3.5, because the best spells are weaker, and they have no replacement that does the job just as well.

3rd Level Spells

The only thing that seems nerfed here is Sleet Storm, which is odd because I always though I was the only one who used that thing. Slow, stinking cloud, fly, your favorites are all still here, though flying has a skill attached..

I used sleet storm all the time. However, it's still better than...oh, let's wait until level 4 for that bombshell.

However, I agree, when it comes to your 3rd level spells, you are roughly equivalent to a 3.5 wizard when it comes to spell selection.

Except for Dispel magic, which is nerfed heavily.

4th Level Spells[/b]

My go to spells of Evard’s tentacles and Solid fog have been nerfed. Solid fog to the point that it kinda looks worse than Sleet Storm.

Ninja'd. Yep - Solid fog is worse than sleet storm. Of course, that means that the other fogs based on Solid fog also are sucking too.

I don’t really understand the new grapple rules due to a lack of interest, but I bet black tentacles can still bind up a mage into uselessness.

Absolutely. It's still a good spell, in fact, it's probably the best 4th level spell. It's just not as strong as it was in 3.5.

Polymorph is pushed back and different, but nobody casts that spell because nobody knows what it does.

It's 5th level now, it simulates the effect of some of the self-only polymorphs except you can use it on others. It's OK, but nothing special. Not worth noting here except it's worse than in 3.5, and higher level.

Still, plenty of other spells to take. Confusion is ever so slightly weaker, or at least different, but still ends a whole room of opponents. So does fear, although they seem to have nerfed fear stacking effects. Phantasmal killer is still the first true save or die. Enervation’s there as well. Animate dead let’s you start necromancing up some meat shields.

Yep, there are lots of decent choices, and the best spells have been nerfed, but not nerfed so bad that they aren't good spells.

5th level spells

And now we pretty much stand tall above everyone else and declare the game to be our bitch. Teleport and a few ways of substituting spell slots for entire new characters are here..<snip>.

Yep, the nerfs are pretty small to this level. Slightly worse than 3.5, but not substantially.

In 3.5 planar binding was limited to a max of 1 day/level too.

6th level spells

I think pathfinder has given it up at this point. I have kinda given up hope of the idea that this is going to be meaningfully balanced ever since the save or worse than dies showed up. Contingency is still here. Flesh to stone still works…so does mass suggestion, anything besides acid fog even nerfed here?

I agree - level 6 spells roughly equivalent to 3.5, those spells that are nerfed are easily replaced.

7th level spells

Looks like they nerfed finger of death and forcecage and called it a day. Forcecage still has hardness 30, so not a lot can actually get out of it before you kill them.

Read forcecage again. The HP to destroy is the least of the 3 nerfs I discovered. The primary nerf of course is that they get a saving throw to avoid the whole damn thing! Forcecage has become a horrible spell.

Banishment, insanity, mass hold person, planeshift, etc. mean they are plenty more save or dies. Greater teleport and mage’s mansion are cool utility levels.

You certainly get save or win spells at this level. While the 3.5 core wizard has spells that just win...no save.

8th level spells.

Irresistible dance was nerfed to allow some resistance. Trap the soul still works. So does maze etc. Plenty of spells that kill people.

Maze is more of a divide and conquer, or regroup kind of spell than just a win spell.

Irresistable Dance used to be save or die without the save. Now there's a save. It's still an OK spell because you get the partial effect even if they save, but it's weaker than it was.

On the defensive side, you also have clone, which totally gives you an extra life and means that you can actually survive a TPK.

That it does.

Oh yeah PaO still works. They tried to tie it to their weakass polymorph variants but it lets you change into things not covered by those rules and is still has up to permanent duration, so what the hell.

Except that you don't get the abilities beyond what Greater Polymorph provides, which isn't much. You can get darkvision and some enhancement bonuses to stats, or turn them into an animal with wings I guess for a limited fly speed.

Not nearly equivalent to the 3.5 version.

9th level spells

Gate still screws the BBEG, but costs 10 grand, which is a laughable attempt to stop you. You also only get to control creatures with HD < or equal to your caster level, but I think you can have two of them.

Its not the same. I already can have 2 (or more) 18 HD creatures with Greater Planar Binding. What Gate in 3.5 offerred was creatures beyond the 20 HD mark (bringing you into epic stuff). Pathfinder Gate is having you pay 10,000 gp for 2 creatures you probably already have working for you.

Wail of the banshee sucks due to the fact that finger of death sucks. Shapechange is nerfed. I’m not bothering beyond this, you have GATE, you won the game.

But...not. You do however still get Time Stop. So you do have a suitable replacement at this level...you didn't mention it, but it's still there.

So what does this all mean?...

What it means is that casting is still really great, and that Wizards still have lots of great spells.

Many of the spells that got nerfed, although less powerful, are still worthwhile spells. Spells like Glitterdust and Black Tentacles will still do an important job, if not quite as well as they did in 3.5.

So overall, we seem to agree that spells are weaker. They are still the best ability in the game, and the reason that Wizards are the most powerful class in the game, but they are weaker overall.

At some levels you have equivalent replacements for nerfed spells, or the best spells didn't even get nerfed. At other levels, you're best off just sticking with the nerfed version. Many of the wizards "go to" spells like Solid Fog are now just not worth memorizing.

So spells are still powerful but weaker than in 3.5. So the question is, if you weaken a Wizards spell casting, how much extra HP does he need to get to break even?

Unless of course DM's are seriously telling their players that 3.5 content is forbidden, unless of course you want to mine spells, because, "Spells are the one thing in Pathfinder that are backwards compatible"

[Kaelik]

Bonded objects are for suckers. One unlucky Sunder attempt and you are screwed for a week. The risk is too great for the benefit. Instead you are better off just taking a familiar, like you got in 3.5.

If anyone actually decides to attack your familiar, you are screwed forever. You just do exactly what you would do normally, wear four hundred 1 gp rings, one of which happens to be your bonded familiar, the other 399 happen to be Nystul's Magic Auraed.

What do you mean "all the Wizard kill spells"? The best spells from 3.5 like "Grease" got nerfed. Ray of enfeeblement got gutted, nerfed, and then gutted again for kicks. Please tell me you aren't talking about magic missile, because it's just as awesome as ever.

"All the Wizard kill spells" means the actual Wizard kill spells. IE Color Spray and Sleep and Silent Image. Grease is a terrible spell at level 1 even in 3.5 It lasts one round. Color Spray lasts "until you are dead."

See, this is where your "I debuff the enemies" line makes you blind to reality.

Turns out, under level 5, debuffing the enemy with grease requires them to fail a save, but if you can get them to fail a save, you can actually just kill them, no need to bother with debuffing.

These are good utility spells, but neither wins a combat like Glitterdust did.

Minor Image, in addition to being a utility spell. Is also a combat winner. In fact, it does exactly the same thing Glitterdust does, but better.

It makes all your enemies blind and none of your allies. The difference is that it makes them take an action to even get the save to not be blind.

Like 1st level, 2nd level spell choices are weaker than 3.5, because the best spells are weaker, and they have no replacement that does the job just as well.

As above, First level spells, actually just as good. Minor Image, still ends combats just as hardcore.

[RandomCasualty2]

Minor Image, in addition to being a utility spell. Is also a combat winner. In fact, it does exactly the same thing Glitterdust does, but better.

It makes all your enemies blind and none of your allies. The difference is that it makes them take an action to even get the save to not be blind.

How do you figure?

Best you could do is create an illusionary wall ontop of the party in which case they'd autodisbelieve. Of course the enemy party would see it as an obvious illusion and could just walk through to also autodisbelieve, so it'd only be really useful against missile weapons.

Even still its way more situational than glitter dust, and probably only lasts a single round if that.

Your DM has to let you get away with murder to make minor image better than glitterdust by allowing some kind of ridiculous illusion usage that amounts to a D&D called shot and also moves away with perfect reaction to prevent anyone from touching it. But I really don't know many DMs that would let you get away with that.

[MGuy]

Not so. I can blanket the party and make the group appear as mice and unless the enemy actively interacts with the screen then the group can waltz on by without worrying about an alarm going off. Hell you can blanket the group in darkness or (and this is a killer) make the group invisible by super imposing the back ground over the group and there are no rules against it.

[Crissa]

They still have a chance to spot it, tho.

-Crissa

[MGuy]

Indeed they can see the illusion. They don't get a save unless they interact with it.

[RandomCasualty2]

Not so. I can blanket the party and make the group appear as mice and unless the enemy actively interacts with the screen then the group can waltz on by without worrying about an alarm going off. Hell you can blanket the group in darkness or (and this is a killer) make the group invisible by super imposing the back ground over the group and there are no rules against it.

To disguise someone or make them invisible you need a glamer, not a figment.

Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like.
Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
A figment’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.

You can't disguise people with a minor image (or any figment for that matter). That includes making them appear to be not there. The most you can do is pretty much create some object in their path, and if the DM is letting casters create perfect 2D pictures that are indistinguishable from a real room, then he's giving illusions way, way too much power.

[MGuy]

You can super impose what's behind you on top of yourself. That's the bottom line. There isn't anything in the rules that prevents you from making things seem realistic. In fact to suggest that Illusions can't do this brings up a number of problems with how illusions would work. Now i didn't say it made you invisible but the fact remains that the rules don't prevent you from doing this. You can make a realistic wall, a realistic pit, or a realistic person. If you can't do this why do the spells exist?

[Username17]

Indeed, while you can glamer a door to become a wall, you can also put up a figment that covers the doorway with a wall. The only thing you can't do with a figment that you can do with a glamer is make it appear that there is space where there is stuff. But you can make a figment of opaque clouds that make it not even really matter.

-Username17

[shau]

How do you figure?
Best you could do is create an illusionary wall ontop of the party in which case they'd autodisbelieve. Of course the enemy party would see it as an obvious illusion and could just walk through to also autodisbelieve, so it'd only be really useful against missile weapons.

Even still its way more situational than glitter dust, and probably only lasts a single round if that.

Your DM has to let you get away with murder to make minor image better than glitterdust by allowing some kind of ridiculous illusion usage that amounts to a D&D called shot and also moves away with perfect reaction to prevent anyone from touching it. But I really don't know many DMs that would let you get away with that.

The traditional way to turn the images into super kill spells is to make things like poison gas. One of my best tactics when I was forced to play a bard was just to wreathe the party in a fake cloud kill or acid fog. The party would disbelieve because they would realize something is wrong when they are not dying from the gas. The enemy would have their chance to disbelieve just as soon as they decided to run into the poison gas and interact with it, which is pretty much never unless the enemy is mindless, in which case you can just fake a wall or something. Other options include things like the rainbow wall spells or darkness.

Or you can just bypass the whole thing and fake summon a balor, which will be enough to make any sane enemy run for the hills.

Now for Trentmonk,

First of all its been like 2 months man. I have pretty much forgotten doing this whole thing and I had to read a bunch of pages in the thread just to remember what the hell we were talking about. To refresh everyone’s memory, you were making statements like this.

That is the point I'm debating. I've been working on a Wizard's guide for Pathfinder to update my "Being a God" thread - and I can't make a Pathfinder wizard that compares with a 3.5 wizard. I can get more HP, I can get more skills, I can get more feats - but the spells are inferior.

This makes the Wizard inferior. Spells are what makes a wizard powerful. Extra HP mean next to nothing in comparison.

I came here to find out what I was missing, or whether you were mistaken. It has to be one of the two.

Bolding done by me for emphasis. Most of us were arguing that wizards are just as powerful as they used to be, if not stronger, especially when you consider they never nerfed noncore spells, which you are explicitly allowed to use in Pathfinder. The idea that fighters and wizards were on the same level was laughable, although to be fair I don’t think you ever went that far.

Now let's get to my response

Bonded objects are for suckers. One unlucky Sunder attempt and you are screwed for a week. The risk is too great for the benefit. Instead you are better off just taking a familiar, like you got in 3.5.

Seriously? Bonded objects aren't that important any way you shake it, but sundering doesn't really factor into it. You can just wear a bunch of rings like Kaelik said or you can just wear some gloves over your special ring. Or just invite the sunder attempt. Many times you would prefer that the enemy berzerker targets your jewelry instead of your neck.

Not sure where the 8 base HP before Con comes from. I get 6, or 7 if you put your favored class bonus into HP (which for a Wizard seems likely).

I was off on the hp. Its base 6 plus favored class for 7. That's still a very important improvement and enough to make sure you can never be killed by a single non critical crossbow bolt and its enough to make the Pathfinder wizard clearly superior at first level.

What do you mean "all the Wizard kill spells"? The best spells from 3.5 like "Grease" got nerfed. Ray of enfeeblement got gutted, nerfed, and then gutted again for kicks. Please tell me you aren't talking about magic missile, because it's just as awesome as ever.

I'll echo Kaelik on first level kill spells. I was thinking of sleep and color spray, which you know, kill people. I only ever take grease if my enemies are passed those spells hp cap and I am tired of casting silent image. Speaking of grease, it looks like it has been buffed to me. Duration has been increased but you lose the ability to make one creature make multiple saves. Considering monsters always crawled out of the grease before getting up anyway that seems like a win to me. RoE sucks now, but I never used that anyway and you certainly don't need it.

Like 1st level, 2nd level spell choices are weaker than 3.5, because the best spells are weaker, and they have no replacement that does the job just as well.

The best spells (glitterdust, web, alter self) are nerfed, but I would still say the Core wizard just barely wins out. The Pathfinder wizard has more hp, more class features, and better mental stats. Web is destroyed, but the Pathfinder glitterdust wizard is still very comparable. Glitterdust is escapeable but you also will be hitting more consistently due to your plus one bump and you can afford to burn a feat on Spell focus. If you are seriously killing your foes before the 3 round duration expired you probably won't even notice your foes can save out of it. Even if you abandon glitterdust you are still consistently taking foes out of the game with blindness and owning the rogue at stealth with invisibility.

This is the Pathfinder wizard at his worse, and his worse is still really good.

However, I agree, when it comes to your 3rd level spells, you are roughly equivalent to a 3.5 wizard when it comes to spell selection.

Except for Dispel magic, which is nerfed heavily.

So this is a win for the Pathfinder wizard, since they are taking the same spells but have extra features to go with it.

I didn't notice dispel magic, but if it got nerfed that means wizards got more powerful. Dispel magic is a wizard hurting spell, if it sucks that makes us happy like fighters are happy if rust monsters are nerfed.

4th level seems to be just the loss of solid fog which is now worthless. So let's look at our other options. Phantasmal killer is here and better than ever since our DCs are higher. Confusion fubars a whole area. Fear is still 90 percent functional and is one of the best fight enders at this level. Seriously, if you make an enemy flee for 7 rounds the last thing they want to do afterwards is come back and try to screw with you again. Scry of scry and die is back and even more hardcore if you are a diviner. There are scads of options here to the point where you won't even remember solid fog, and the Pathfinder Wizard is just better at almost all of them.

Plus, new class features come online. Again, I don't want to trawl through these but illusionists get a free quickened greater invisibility and that's worth celebrating.

At fifth level spells I don't even see how we are continuing to have this conversation. I lay out some spells which are not just good but clearly game breaking and note they have not been meaningfully changed. You seem to gloss over this and mostly agree with me. At this level wizards get the really crazy crap like chain binding, armies of mind slaves, undead hordes, scry and die, plus the option to run around as a nigh immortal disembodied wraith who steals bodies. Pathfinder ignores all of this and brings the hammer down on...finger of death. Seriously.

Again, I am not too interested in talking about the high level spells. I never play at that level and as far I can tell I broke the game last level. You agree with me on sixth. You note that forcecage is nerfed more than I noticed before but I really don't care. You also imply the existence of multiple no save just die spells at 7th level and I am curious as to what those are. On 8th you agree with me but try to quibble about the value of maze and emphasize irresistible dances modest nerf. You also note PaO is different and I will just give you this because I never want to argue polymorph mechanics again. I also think that functions more as a fighter nerf because they were the ones who really benefited from being turned into a giant or whatever.

On 9th level you are just wrong. First of all, the really Haxxor application of Gate is the fact that you can seriously pull the BBEG to your lair and order him to polish your shoes while the party stabs him in the face repeatedly. You argue that I am limited to just bringing in multiple creatures of my HD, which is really saying that you can only triple your power with a single casting of Gate. I don't know how that is supposed to be weak. Seriously, how do you fight something that can triple its power with a single action? The idea that the wizard could have already pulled that crazy shit with lower level spells just makes it worse.

So what's the overall conclusion? The spells most harshly nerfed by Pathfinder were necromantic death spells (finger of death, Banshee), no save movement stoppers (web, solid fog, walls, forcecage), and a few odds and ends(glitterdust, ray of enfeeblement). The only level this really matters is second, in which the two best combat spells are destroyed or weakend. That means the pathfinder wizard who casts a level 2 combat spell is limited to just consistently taking out a single target or taking out a group slightly less decisively with the new version of glitterdust. The only other level where an important spell is really gone is fourth, but you also get your first save or die and two good mass save or loses. With fifth level spells the game goes straight into crazy town and whatever happens does not really matter because you can officially summon a succubus army and either have them kill your enemies for you or quit the adventuring thing and make yourself rich and famous with succubus orgies.

In return for those nerfed 2nd level spells and one missing 4th level spells that you might have never used, you get plus 2 to a mental stat, extra feats, and more hp. That's honestly an awesome deal for the pathfinder wizard on every level except perhaps maybe when you have to rely on 2nd level spells. Now explain to me how you think that picture I painted for you can't compare to the power of a 3.5 wizard or concede the argument.

[Treantmonklvl20]

Now for Trentmonk,

First of all its been like 2 months man.

Yes, my apologies. I wasn't sure whether to respond anymore at this point, but then I was rereading the thread and noticed that I had promised you a response after I moved, and never did. Hate to not keep my word. I didn't even know whether to expect a response.

Better late than never?

Most of us were arguing that wizards are just as powerful as they used to be, if not stronger,

The argument in the OP is that Pathfinder makes Wizards better and pretty much everyone else worse (than in 3.5). Making the Gap between Wizards and everyone else bigger than ever.

Rereading the first post to this thread, I really think that's the main point of the position, unless he has altered it since? He doesn't appear to have on this thread.

You quoted me saying, "I can't make a Pathfinder Wizard that compares with a 3.5 wizard", I will begin by conceding that point. Probably bad wording on my part to begin with.

Maybe the rest of my point doesn't matter? Perhaps now we are in agreement? If so, you don't need to read the rest.

especially when you consider they never nerfed noncore spells, which you are explicitly allowed to use in Pathfinder.

People who are playing Pathfinder are giving up on backwards compatibility in droves. It slows down gameplay constantly. Frank mentioned this on point #1 of his OP.

If 3.5 backwards compatibility is allowed, then I agree the Gap is even bigger than before. The "swag" that other classes get becomes largely invalidated by 3.5 optimization options. The "swag" that a Wizard gets is helpful at low levels, even if 3.5 options are present, and spell nerfing becomes irrelevant if the entire 3.5 library of spells is present.

If 3.5 compatibility is not allowed, then the "swag" ends up being good for all the classes. Some classes (Pally of the top of my head) moreso than others (Fighter)

The idea that fighters and wizards were on the same level was laughable, although to be fair I don’t think you ever went that far.

Somebody is arguing that? Wow...maybe in 4th ed. I was going no where near that far, even with bad wording I didn't go near that far. Remember that Fighters and Wizards weren't nearly balanced in 3.5, nevermind core 3.5 which was likely the biggest gap of all (wait, I'm forgetting 3.0!). (perhaps in 4e, but hey, balance ain't everything)

Assuming non-compatibility with 3.5, I would question the theory in the OP that Pathfinder increases the Gap between wizards and other classes. I'm not going to stretch to the point where I make positive claim that it is wrong, only that, given what I've seen so far, I am unconvinced.

My original plan was to debate Frank on this matter, and see if he could bring forth some more convincing evidence.

Being that the first point made in the OP was that Pathfinder was not backwards compatible, I figured we were in agreeement on that point, so when he talked about Wizards simply replacing Glitterdust with another spell that was just as good, I became sceptical.

This seemed a contradiction in points, especially if he was suggesting 3.5 spells to replace the nerfed Pathfinder spells. I pointed that out.

He responded by qualifying his backwards-compatibility position, stating that "Spells are the one thing in Pathfinder that is backwards compatible"

Sounded like he was suggesting that DM's who deny all non-casters 3.5 material, but allow casters to spell mine 3.5 material will find the gap between Wizards and the other classes got bigger.

I can't argue with that point, as it seems self-evident, except to say that I don't think most DM's are that insane. Hopefully.

Seriously? Bonded objects aren't that important any way you shake it, but sundering doesn't really factor into it. You can just wear a bunch of rings like Kaelik said or you can just wear some gloves over your special ring. Or just invite the sunder attempt. Many times you would prefer that the enemy berzerker targets your jewelry instead of your neck.

I don't like the idea of adding an achilles heel to my Wizard, even if I cover it up. Much rather have the familiar, who can die without imparing my ability to cast spells.

One extra spell a day, even spontaneous isn't worth it IMO. Whether you have to worry about sundering or theft or both, when you can't have a backup, like you can with your spellbook...I dunno, I just wouldn't do it.

It is undeniably a double-edged sword. Considering that you have a choice to take it, or to take an ability that gives you no vulnerability that impares your ability to cast spells....well, I'll stick with the familiar.

I guess that's just a matter of opinion though. I certainly disagree that the Bonded Object is a significant improvement over a familiar...

That's still a very important improvement and enough to make sure you can never be killed by a single non critical crossbow bolt and its enough to make the Pathfinder wizard clearly superior at first level.

Big fan of "Toughness" in 3.5 were you? I admit I took it too - then swapped it out later.

Hardly an unacheivable feat for core 3.5 wizards though. Heck - humans could take it twice at first level if they wanted to for 10 hp at level 1 before con bonus.

I was thinking of sleep and color spray, which you know, kill people.

Those spells are great at level 1. Still great at first level in Pathfinder...still need to be replaced with something else later.

Speaking of grease, it looks like it has been buffed to me. Duration has been increased but you lose the ability to make one creature make multiple saves. Considering monsters always crawled out of the grease before getting up anyway that seems like a win to me. RoE sucks now, but I never used that anyway and you certainly don't need it.

Also does not make you flat footed unless you move, so no longer a rogue kill platform.

However I agree with your overall point, which is (correct me if I'm wrong) "if you make something weaker in one respect, then make it more powerful in another, it's going to be debatable, and possibly a matter of opinion whether it is more powerful, weaker, or equal with before."

Excellent point. Excellent point.

The best spells (glitterdust, web, alter self) are nerfed, but I would still say the Core wizard just barely wins out.

That's all I'm saying. Not suggesting Pathfinder Wizards suck, not suggesting Pathfinder Wizards aren't better than the other classes.

Just that they took something away. They got stuff in return, we absolutely agree on that, but they took something away as well, which apparently we agree on too.

Phantasmal killer is here and better than ever since our DCs are higher.

I'm really not going to say anything that advances my point here, but we are going to have to disagree on the usefulness of spells that require you to fail 2 saves in a row to have any effect. Didn't like Phantasmal Killer in 3.5, don't like it in Pathfinder. Was my favorite for illusionists in 1e though - but saving throws were harder then, and it only gave one save.

Plus, new class features come online. Again, I don't want to trawl through these but illusionists get a free quickened greater invisibility and that's worth celebrating.

The "swag" is OK, depends on the specialization school. Diviners certainly came off well. Whatever your specialization though, any extra features are better than not having those extra features at all.

Of course every class got "swag". Check out the Paladin, it's almost unrecognizable. Better smite, better mount, better spells, ability to remove status conditions, including stun and daze.

Yep, "swag" got spread everywhere in Pathfinder. Wizards are not the exception here.

At fifth level spells I don't even see how we are continuing to have this conversation. I lay out some spells which are not just good but clearly game breaking and note they have not been meaningfully changed. You seem to gloss over this and mostly agree with me.

I do agree with you. At level 5 on, although there is the occassional Nerf, we are talking about OGL rules with level 5+ spells. Wizards are on easy-street. Pathfinder or no.

Of course, at this point - the "swag" really counts for very little. The power of spells has completely obscured whatever little bonuses you were getting. Pathfinder Wizards are rocking - just like 3.5 core wizards are.

Again, I am not too interested in talking about the high level spells. I never play at that level and as far I can tell I broke the game last level.

I agree on all counts. Our campaigns usually are wrapping up by 10th-12th level. I'll only respond to parts of your post where you ask for a response.

You also imply the existence of multiple no save just die spells at 7th level and I am curious as to what those are.

3.5 forcecage is just win, no save. I agree however that it is a moot point when you are dealing with the power of spells at this level, but that's what I meant.

I don't know how that is supposed to be weak. Seriously, how do you fight something that can triple its power with a single action?

Didn't say it was weak, said it was a waste of money considering you can already triple your power (and more) with Greater Planar Binding, which is a lower level spell, except Greater Planar Binding forces you to keep all that gold. When they took away the ability to control a creature more than your HD, then Greater Planar Binding becomes the obvious choice.

It's basically irrelevant I guess, we both agree that spellcasting at this level is broken. Just pointing out that Gate isn't necessarily worth all that gold when the main selling feature of the spell is basically achievable with a lower level spell that doesn't cost gold.

Now explain to me how you think that picture I painted for you can't compare to the power of a 3.5 wizard or concede the argument.

Obviously, I've already conceded that point.

Though we may disagree on certain degrees or values of some changes, what we do agree on is this:

Pathfinder gave some stuff to Wizards, Pathfinder took away some stuff from Wizards.

Agreement on that point is enough for me.

[Midnight_v]

If 3.5 backwards compatibility is allowed, then I agree the Gap is even bigger than before. The "swag" that other classes get becomes largely invalidated by 3.5 optimization options. The "swag" that a Wizard gets is helpful at low levels, even if 3.5 options are present, and spell nerfing becomes irrelevant if the entire 3.5 library of spells is present.

If 3.5 compatibility is not allowed, then the "swag" ends up being good for all the classes. Some classes (Pally of the top of my head) moreso than others (Fighter)

Wait... I hope I dont' have to read 35 pages of this thread to get this but when I saw TmLv20 here I figured I'd drop in see what you were sayin'.

In anycase... If backwards compatability isn't allowed, then isn't one of the MAJOR draws for them selling the system thrown out the window? I mean as I recall they used "Backwards Compat" as one of the major excuses for not changing many an aspect of the game.
Back when the "playtest" was first announced.
That's .... there's something wrong with that.

[Username17]

You need to make your points in less words.

My original plan was to debate Frank on this matter, being that the first point made in the OP was that Pathfinder was not backwards compatible, and then later in the OP he suggested that nerfed spells like Glitterdust (his example) could simply be replaced with equally good non-nerfed spells.

The point is simple. The Pathfinder producers are extremely clear on this: Pathfinder is "backwards compatible" with 3.5. Meaning that, according to them, you can use whatever 3.5 material you want that happens to still work.

As it happens, while they changed monster and character writeups into unrecognizability, making the use of monster books and adventures (the materials that actually save DM time) impractical, the spell stat blocks are unchanged. There's no difference in meaning to "level" or "range" or "saving throw" so all those spells are portable just fine.

So their "backwards compatible" nonsense pretty much just means that even if they replaced every spell in the core rules with find traps, that Wizards would still dominate. And they gave them bonus ginger cookies on top of that for no reason.

-Username17

[Red Archon]

Frank, I'd like to hear a clear elaboration on this. I understand that a lot of sweetsauce comes from the PhB, which is the only spell-granting book they modified (so far,) but how much can the wizard really dominate with the changes? Especially, and this is really what I would like to hear, if the class did NOT have the core spells AT ALL.

[ggroy]

[Tshern]

The answer is simple. Even Pathfinder fixed or changed all PHB spells any smart Wizard would pick his spells from other books. Pathfinder is supposed to work with other D&D 3.5 books, so you could just take your spells from Spell Compendium, Complete Adventurer or whatever instead of using the nerfed Pathfinder versions.

[Lago PARANOIA]

If the Pathfinder people didn't expect people to plunder old 3.0E/3.5E books for material to slap onto their wizard then what was the entire point of the project?

The reason why people are sticking with 3rd Edition in the first goddamn place is because they don't want to change their revision, which means that it's almost certain that people like much of the material written for it.

So them balancing things the way they did just smacks of stupidity and arrogance, like their book is so goddamn awesome that no one will ever look at another 3E sourcebook ever again. And if they didn't think that way then why would they make the wizard class chassis stronger while nerfing key spells?

[Username17]

Frank, I'd like to hear a clear elaboration on this. I understand that a lot of sweetsauce comes from the PhB, which is the only spell-granting book they modified (so far,) but how much can the wizard really dominate with the changes? Especially, and this is really what I would like to hear, if the class did NOT have the core spells AT ALL.

Lots of sweet sauce comes from the PHB. Fine upstanding save-or-lose at every level from 1st all the way to 9th, some of them area effect. Decent buffs offered at every breakpoint. Actual game breaking loops that generate wealth well beyond the level guidelines or create armies of bad assery that are more powerful than the entire party combined. All of this is true. And it's true in Pathfinder too. You can kvetch and moan about how glitterdust gives people an escape save every round, but the fact is that Human Wizard has a Save DC that is about 2 points higher at 4th level than he did in base 3.5, so honestly whatever.

But honestly, whatever. We don't take color spray or sleep and we are sad. But then we take wall of smoke or fengut instead. A 2nd level we are denied web and glitterdust and we are totally sad until we remember that we have cloud of bewilderment and shadow spray. At 3rd level we bemoan the lack of hold person and stinking cloud only long enough to look up shivering touch and flashburst. And so on. Certain schools take it in the nuts - the entire Enchantment school is basically just two spells (sleep and charm person) with some level appropriate iterations thrown in. While you can find some non-core iterations of those concepts, they are mostly only available at stupidly high level (such as eternal slumber and mind rape). But the Wizard as a whole is in no short supply of spells that fvcking kill people.

Even the crazy crap is in some form reproduced. Sure, nothing compares to the awe inspiring crazy bullshit that is planar binding or gate, but there are a rash of specific calling spells that are significantly inferior in that they are more specific. But there's nothing overtly wrong with using a spell that calls a Dretch Horde or a Marut. And buffs exist in one form or another all over the place. Miss your mage armor? Try not to get too many tears on your greater mage armor.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Evard's Black Tentacles is weakened, I hear?

Well check out Deltane's Fiery Tentacles (a FR book)! Enjoy the original EBT, but with added fire damage, at only 1 level higher.

[Treantmonklvl20]

In anycase... If backwards compatability isn't allowed, then isn't one of the MAJOR draws for them selling the system thrown out the window?

Absolutely.

It's like the dirty little secret that everyone knows. Bring up something to do with mining 3.5 material on the Paizo boards, you'll get a ton of responses that confirm that Pathfinder players all know 3.5 isn't compatible, and play Pathfinder core only.

You need to make your points in less words.

Sorry, bad habit.

The point is simple. The Pathfinder producers are extremely clear on this: Pathfinder is "backwards compatible" with 3.5. Meaning that, according to them, you can use whatever 3.5 material you want that happens to still work.

Strangely (very strangely), I'm less convinced than you that everything the Pathfinder producers say = truth.

My experience is that backwards compatibility is a pain in the neck, and just not worth the aggravation.

When I read your first point on your OP, I thought we were in agreement on that.

Am I correct in assuming that your post here is saying that Pathfinder IS backwards compatible except with Monsters and Adventures?

If so, that is quite a turnaround from, "Pathfinder is less compatible with 3.5 rules than 3rd edition sourcebooks or d20 modern sourcebooks are. Quite a (negative) achievement for something for which compatibility was supposed to be a life goal. "

and I would be curious what brought around that turnaround.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "backwards compatibility with 3.5" rhetoric was just added in as an afterthought, without much subsequent attention paid to it..

I'm sceptical by nature, but I would go further. Consider:

If Paizo was to create a TRULY backwards compatible RPG, then how many of their subsequent splatbooks do you buy? I mean, WotC gave up on 3.5 not because "4e was going to be so much better", if they could have continued to spell splatbooks with the success of the "Complete" series - they would still be publishing them.

As it happens, it was AGAINST their interests to make Pathfinder backwards compatible. Doing so sabatages their own future. Better to create a system that is "backwards compatible with moderate to high inconvenience" so that they can still technically claim "backwards compatibility" in FULL KNOWLEDGE that in practice, it won't be.

Did they do this on purpose? I don't know, but it's certainly convenient for them either way.

I could say more, but I'll try to keep my posts at least a bit shorter than they were.

[Koumei]

The point is simple. The Pathfinder producers are extremely clear on this: Pathfinder is "backwards compatible" with 3.5. Meaning that, according to them, you can use whatever 3.5 material you want that happens to still work.

Strangely (very strangely), I'm less convinced than you that everything the Pathfinder producers say = truth.

Note the "that happens to still work". In other words, he's saying they're not telling the truth, but occasionally something might still work despite their best efforts.