Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[FatR]

How, exactly, have the rules for trip, sunder, grapple and their ilk been altered? I've heard people saying they've been weakened, but I'm not aware of the changes because the Druid I'm playing in my PF game hasn't had to do any of that stuff.

There is a unified roll. It is made against a static number. This static number is the equivalent of your opponent rolling 15 to resist a maneuver in 3.X. So, you have a lower chance of success most of the time. Moreover, feats that actually enable you to use maneuvers (read: trip) to produce significant effect got nerfer bigtime. Instead of making all such feats into double-threats, like Improved Trip (so that you can disarm and get a free attempt to stab your enemy if you're successful), they nerfed Improved Trip. Therefore combat maneuvers now are not worth taking - not only the chance of success is not great, they simply don't do anything you care about. Therefore fighty classes lost any options they had besides dealing damage, instead gaining new ones, even though one of the design goals was adding new options (and no, options that don't work don't count).

Also, modifiers to combat maneuvers roll are calculated differently. This is one of the biggest nails in the coffin of backwards compatibility, as it hinders using 3.X monsters on the fly.

[Prak]

So there's a fair amount of discussion about Paizo, because they are the only major publisher who is still putting out new 3rd edition compatible stuff, their art is good, and they are shifting everything over to "Pathfinder" which makes people wonder if they should switch their games over to Pathfinder as well.

There is a fair amount of discussion around Paizo because they make awesome products, no exceptions. For those of us who like 3.5 better than 4E, Pathfinder is a really nice supported alternative.

You mean it's the ONLY supported alternative. No one is making you give up your 3.5 books. And even then, there are other supported alternatives, True20 and Mutants and Masterminds come to mind.

Didn't Pathfinder do the biggest open RPG playtest in history? Doesn't that mean they solved all of D&D's problems?

They had 50,000 people participate in the beta playtest. As well they consulted many of the best designers in the industry for opinions.

Several people on the Paizo boards comment that their feedback made it into the final version, and I think that's cool. Paizo really listens to the fans, more than any other gaming company I've seen.

Precisely, they listen to their fans, and seem to define the word as "people who felate the captain of the rescue ship. ...that's rescuing them from a ship that's merely been abandoned, not sinking..."

Did they "fix everything". Who knows, only time will tell. After 2 years of design and 1 year of open playtest upgrade from 3.5 to Pathfinder is much more worthwhile and substantial than the upgrade from 3.0 to 3.5. A lot of thought and creativity and genuine listening to player feedback went into this product.

As did a lot of stubbornness, ignorance, and ignoring of player feedback. Both sides here, mate.

Because the Pathfinder game is going to be a beautiful and well needed facelift to 3.5. Pathfinder is what 3.5 should have been. ALL classes are very fun to play now and more balanced. Skills are more streamlined. The game is easy to play than before, with many interesting options.

"Really! The rescue ship is so nice! It's much better than that dreary wreck you're on! And the captain only wants you to suck his dick a little, there's hardly any semen at all."
"By 'dreary wreck' you mean this abandoned ship that we can now do with as we wish and has less holes, and better patch jobs, than the new rescue ship? The one we've all been patching for ten years, and have already begun making our own? The one we can stay on with out having to fellate anyone?"
"yeah, that one! It's a right mess, isn't it? Are you going to come aboard? The Captain's all out of throats..."
"..."

Also, many people are unhappy that Living Greyhawk was canceled. Pathfinder has it's own "Living Greyhawk" in the "Pathfinder Organized Play". The scenarios are high quality and it's a lot of fun if you're missing that kind of organized play experience. They use the Pathfinder rules of course.

if it's anything like Living Greyhawk, it's the same damn mess. Does it have "Time units"? Can you use Sleight of Hand however you wish? How hard is it to organize five people for a game? How hard would it be for people who'd much rather stick with 3.5 to start up their own Organized Play program?

The Answer: not very

How does Pathfinder address bookkeeping? Bookkeeping is annoying and I don't want to do it.

Bookkeeping isn't any harder than D&D 3.5, for some things it's easier.

I'd be willing to bet Paizo will create Campaign Record and Character booklets that will ease the book keeping a little, that's what they're good at, creating little accessories that enhance the playing experience. It's also what they should likely stick to.

If you're a Dread Necromancer you can cast remove disease spontaneously if you happen to worship that goddess

It's true, clerics of different gods no longer get the same skills and abilties, but this is a good thing. Clerics weren't buffed but were re-balanced in Pathfinder and cleric fans will still be happy with the results.

You're right in that it's good for characters of different gods to have different abilities. However, those abilities all still need to be balanced. Which they likely won't be, looking at who wrote them.

So in closing, Paizo makes great quality products and Pathfinder is no exception. If you're someone who misses 3.5 then you'll love Pathfinder. If you're content with 4E, that's OK too.

no, you're wrong.

Paizo makes great quality products, with the exception of Pathfinder. If you like 3.5, give it a look, but be forewarned.

If you're a frightened sheep looking for the next company to tell you what to do, and just want your game to be corporately supported by idiots who don't know what they're doing and lie about "open playtesting", then you'll love Pathfinder.

The best part is they made their Pathfinder RPG cost only $9.99 in PDF format, so if you don't like it you've sunk almost no money into it. I think most people will like it though.

This is the first good thing I've seen from Pathfinder. (Okay, that's not true, some of the ideas, namely Bloodlines, and a choice between animal, item or spirit for your physical manifestation of class abilities are good, the implementation, not so much.)

You know what kills this though? On Bittorrent the PDF will be free.

I just wanted to give some love to the Pathfinder system and the awesome people at Paizo, they've created a great new system for people who prefer the 3.5 system and should be recognized for it.

You seem to be a bit lost, then. The proper place for unconditional love and fellatio heaped upon bad product is here and here.

Happy gaming.

You too, I suppose, I wish you the best of luck with the misbegotten bastard child that will be Pathfinder.

[Zurai]

Therefore combat maneuvers now are not worth taking - not only the chance of success is not great

That actually varies. They severely nerfed sized bonuses (and penalties), so for example where a level 3 fighter with 18 strength would have to roll d20+7 vs a standard ogre's d20+12 (average 22.5) in 3.5, the same matchup would be d20+7 vs 24 (15 base + 5 str + 3 BAB + 1 size) in Pathfinder. Still less of a chance for success, but not nearly as much as some would lead you to believe.

A level 12 fighter with 26 strength (magic items and levels) vs a stone giant, on the other hand, would be the fighter's d20+20 vs the giant's d20+32 (average 42.5) in 3.5 and vs the giant's 41 (15 base + 12 BAB + 12 str + 2 size) in Pathfinder. That's actually an increased chance to success.

[Murtak]

The best part is they made their Pathfinder RPG cost only $9.99 in PDF format, so if you don't like it you've sunk almost no money into it. I think most people will like it though.

You know what kills this though? On Bittorrent the PDF will be free.

I agree with most of your rant, but not with this. That price is low enough that people will pay for it, even if they could also get it for free. That is, people who think it is actually worth purchasing. I had a pdf of the core 3rd edition books and I bought the book anyway. I would even have payed a couple of euros more to get professional pdfs to go along with them. 10 Dollars for a core book seems damn fair to me.

[FatR]

There is a fair amount of discussion around Paizo because they make awesome products, no exceptions. For those of us who like 3.5 better than 4E, Pathfinder is a really nice supported alternative.

I know, I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but: fuck this bullshit. Those who like 3.5 more than 4E don't want anything to do with Pathfinder, because it makes 3.5 more like 4E.

I played the Beta for several months now and if you know how to play 3.5 you know how to play Pathfinder. They fixed a lot of things as well as made all of the core classes extremely interesting to play.

And fuck your advertising lies. Listen up: everyone in this thread had seen PBeta and noticed that fighters and rangers have less combat options (because Imp.Trip no longer works), and monks stay the same. Whatever interesting there is in these classes, it is not there due to Pathfinder.

The spells that were changed needed changing and make the game more interesting. For example, Neutralize Poison doesn't automatically work, so poison (and disease) are still potentially a threat past level 5. All spell changes were made to make the game more fun and they did that.

And fuck your fun, until you realize that other people get fun from other things. Like, not bothering with mundane shit, like diseases and poisons, after level 7 (at level 5 you might not want to devote the resources). Also, do you fucking realize, that you're prasing PFRPG for taking the same fucking general direction as 4Fail, right after saying that PFRPG is for people that like 3.X more than 4E?

Play was not slowed down at all for my players and they loved the extra feats and re-worked classes and spells.

Great, and my players would have hated new feats and spells, because they would have made their tricks stop working. So? (I'll grant you, some class abilities are cool, but this does not compensate for the rest.)

The biggest upgrade was to class abilities, but I think these are changes that your players will want to read about. The class changes are amazing, all classes have something to look forward too. Finally the Barbarian, Bard, and Monk are good class choices.

The Barbarian is overcomplicated and does not get any power boost that can make overcomplication worth it. The Bard already was pretty well balanced, new chages make his abilities slightly stronger but more compilcated and annoying to use, so, no net improvement. The Monk still sucks balls. Its class abilities got less improvements than that of the fucking Wizard, and this alone tells you everything you need to know about PFRPG. The fact that you don't realize this makes it obvious that you either don't know what the fuck you're talking about or are lying.

I'll skip the rest of your post, as it is just a repetition of the same bullshit.

[Prak]

The best part is they made their Pathfinder RPG cost only $9.99 in PDF format, so if you don't like it you've sunk almost no money into it. I think most people will like it though.

You know what kills this though? On Bittorrent the PDF will be free.

I agree with most of your rant, but not with this. That price is low enough that people will pay for it, even if they could also get it for free. That is, people who think it is actually worth purchasing. I had a pdf of the core 3rd edition books and I bought the book anyway. I would even have payed a couple of euros more to get professional pdfs to go along with them. 10 Dollars for a core book seems damn fair to me.

Yes, it is a damn fair price for a core book. It was just something that came to mind.

[FatR]

That actually varies. They severely nerfed sized bonuses (and penalties), so for example where a level 3 fighter with 18 strength would have to roll d20+7 vs a standard ogre's d20+12 (average 22.5) in 3.5, the same matchup would be d20+7 vs 24 (15 base + 5 str + 3 BAB + 1 size) in Pathfinder. Still less of a chance for success, but not nearly as much as some would lead you to believe.

A level 12 fighter with 26 strength (magic items and levels) vs a stone giant, on the other hand, would be the fighter's d20+20 vs the giant's d20+32 (average 42.5) in 3.5 and vs the giant's 41 (15 base + 12 BAB + 12 str + 2 size) in Pathfinder. That's actually an increased chance to success.

No, they didn't. First off, and most importantly, Trip (i.e., the maneuver one usually cared about) was resolved by Strength Checks, modified by size. Second, tripfighters generally use Enlarge Person, so changes to bonuses from size do not matter, unless we talk about Huge and bigger enemies. Third, you forget that maneuver-improving feats in 3.X gave +4, and in PBeta they give +2. So, a guisarme-wielding lvl 3, Str 18 fighter in 3.5 would roll +8 to trip vs. an ogre's +9, before Enlarge Person, which will give the fighter a solid chance to succeed (more than 65%), while in PBeta he will have a much lesser chance even with Enlarge Person. And while PFigher going against a stone giant pretty much can forget about maneuvers, because they can succeed only on 19-20 (+22 vs. 41), 3.X figher from the same example would actually roll at +17 (Enlarge Person can be assumed to be on whenever it is needed, by this point) vs. stone giant's +12, actually having more than 70% chance of success. Even against a more level-appropriate cloud giant it is still +17 vs. +20, which is still better than only succeeding on 19-20.

[virgil]

That's getting on my nerves. People are going "how dare you" for declaring Pathfinder to be crap because there are unseen changes between Beta and now, and in the same post go on about how awesome Pathfinder is, despite not knowing anything about the upcoming changes. Can't use the Beta as a good basis for comparison, because that's crap.

As for combat maneuvers, Zurai, at least understand how it is now. The DC is no longer a 15 base, it's a Touch AC base (sans size modifier), that is then added to the whole CMB.

The system IS in a state of flux from the point of view all but a privileged few, as evidenced by a fanboy who can't even keep track of the new changes. And let's be honest, there are a lot of tiny changes to the system. Anyone who plays is going to be second-guessing themselves in a way that you've never seen in 3.5. How many are going to know that splash weapons can't do precision damage, without checking the specific entry on splash weapons in the Combat chapter (unless they changed it in Beta, which I doubt)? How many are going to know that grease doesn't make people flat-footed, in contradiction to the rest of the rules for the Balance skill (they added a single line to the spell itself to change it)? Even in the fanboy group I play with, they still can't remember what the grapple condition does.

[Draco_Argentum]

Yes, it is a damn fair price for a core book. It was just something that came to mind.

The PDF price is definately a good move. Thats how you stop piracy, charge a fair price.

The system IS in a state of flux from the point of view all but a privileged few, as evidenced by a fanboy who can't even keep track of the new changes. And let's be honest, there are a lot of tiny changes to the system.

This is actually what I hated about 3.5. I once went through the 3.5 spells to find every difference from 3.0. I stopped partway through B because so damn many spells had tiny changes that made no real difference. I don't want to pay for a bunch of stuff I won't notice even happened.

[Zak]

The system IS in a state of flux from the point of view all but a privileged few, as evidenced by a fanboy who can't even keep track of the new changes. And let's be honest, there are a lot of tiny changes to the system.

This is actually what I hated about 3.5. I once went through the 3.5 spells to find every difference from 3.0. I stopped partway through B because so damn many spells had tiny changes that made no real difference. I don't want to pay for a bunch of stuff I won't notice even happened.

And I bet we won't get a proper changelog.

[Falgund]

A level 12 fighter with 26 strength (magic items and levels) vs a stone giant, on the other hand, would be the fighter's d20+20 vs the giant's d20+32 (average 42.5) in 3.5 and vs the giant's 41 (15 base + 12 BAB + 12 str + 2 size) in Pathfinder. That's actually an increased chance to success.

How can 0% (d20+20 vs 41) can be an increased chance vs anything ?

[hogarth]

There is a unified roll. It is made against a static number. This static number is the equivalent of your opponent rolling 15 to resist a maneuver in 3.X.

In the final version of the rules, the target DC is not 15+Str bonus+BAB+size any more. It's something like 10+Str bonus+Dex bonus+BAB+size+(deflection,luck,etc.); that could be better or worse, depending on the target's Dex.

[Random832]

The power of the PF Fighter relative to the 3.5E Fighter is an irrelevent factor. The cross-party balance is not determined by how powerful your class was 2 years ago compared to the power of your class today. It's determined by how powerful you are compared to your other Partymembers.

Right, but given that the 3.5 Fighter was already underpowered, the 3.5 Wizard was already overpowered, and they made the fighter worse and made the wizard better, it doesn't exactly take a genius to conclude that the PF Fighter is underpowered as compared to the PF Wizard. There is therefore nothing wrong with citing these premises in support of this conclusion (Well, I guess the bit about the 3.5 Fighter being underpowered was supposed to be taken as read, but still...)

[Roy]

I apologize for drawing the attention of the Paizo forums, but they did pose the question "Why all the hate for Pathfinder?"

Oh. And here I thought the Paizils followed Roy home after he assaulted PF on forum too many.

I haven't been on their forums in months. Someone else linked them here.

Actually it appears a handwave dismissal is all he needs. He claims fighters are stronger yet admits their major damage engine has been nerfed... just not as badly as they originally screwed em over.

Power Attack hasn't been the primary Fighter damage engine since Dungeonscape was released.

Lol, no. Dungeoncrasher is 4d6 + double Str at level 2 and 8d6 + triple Str at level 6 if you find a wall to bounce them off of. Which means you need Knockback from Races of Stone, which requires Powerful Build, otherwise it's inferior to just auto attacking. Even then you need a wall, you need to PA to use it, and most importantly it's a maneuver, which is something that got heavily nerfed in PF because there Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things. Which means we're still right, and you're still wrong.

Yes, I did. We have no idea what the final feats will end up being. The reduction in feat power level was a major complaint ... during Beta. We already know that they've fixed MANY of the major feat complaints from Beta, among them the total uselessness of Power Attack and the swift action activation for combat feats (such as Dodge).

O rly? I've seen their 'fixes'.

Less substance than Frank's outright lies? At least I'm telling the truth or an opinion rather than trying to lie to people to further an agenda. You'll also note that Frank didn't even bother to deny that he was lying to you all -- probably because he knows it's pointless because half of you are currently sucking his dick. I'll also point out that I did provide actual data points (example: sorcerer bloodlines), while Frank provided literally zero data points.

You have been caught in at least one lie already. So any claim that you're telling the truth, and someone far more competent than yourself is lying is already dubious at best. Thing is, he got it all right. Is there anything you've gotten right thus far? No, not really.

If anyone is lying, it was you.

As for the fellatio bit, lol what? If he was wrong, I'd be the first to be attacking him about it and have in fact did so multiple times. However, he's right.

You've provided some babbling bullshit about... what exactly?

I'm skipping past all the bullshit where you honestly think that flailing for piddly shit is in any way comparable to doing damage that matters, keeping in mind that at the high levels you must do hundreds of damage a round every round or you will be annihilated before the enemy is. And at lower levels it might be a lower number of hundreds, or perhaps even just dozens if we're talking about level 5. And that's not hyperbole, average level 5 enemy HP is 56.24, core only. That's unbuffed as well, keeping in mind some enemies can use items and would in fact have them. And that's just a routine encounter, 40% of them are higher than that so you need to beat 1-2 hard mode encounters a day every day. It scales at a rate somewhere between linear and exponential from there.

How, exactly, have the rules for trip, sunder, grapple and their ilk been altered? I've heard people saying they've been weakened, but I'm not aware of the changes because the Druid I'm playing in my PF game hasn't had to do any of that stuff. If someone could give me a link to a mechanical overview or point out any little weird bits, I would be very happy.

Ok, in 3.5 the base success chance is 50% then it gets modified by stuff like a +20% for having the improved whatever feat (that due to the AoO, you need to have to even try) along with Str, size, BAB, etc.

In PF, the base success chance is 30%. The improved whatever feats got split into two, each only giving +10%. And the formula changed, so you're more likely to be several points behind.

Example: 3.5 Fire Giant is +14 to resist a trip due to 31 Str, and Large size (+4).

In PF it's DC 15 + 11 BAB + 10 Str + 1 Size = DC 37. And if it's level appropriate, then you have your 10 BAB and your +2 from an improved feat and you need another +5 from Str and the other half of the feat to have ANY CHANCE AT ALL of tripping the giant. And you need another +14 to have an even chance of doing so.

The 3.5 character has his Str + 4 to try, which at this level is probably around +10 total, or perhaps more. I forget the exact formula for the opposed roll math, but that's a better chance than the PF mook is getting.

Then there's Enlarge, the stereotypical thing to throw on a chain tripper. It gives +5 in 3.5 and +2 in PF, because size does less in the latter. So in the former, it's worthwhile as it boosts him from around 1 in 3, to a bit over half. In the latter, it's not worth the combat action and resources to do that instead of throwing a Win spell.

Oh and did I mention PF doesn't give you the free attack anymore if you succeed? Which was the only thing that got trip used with some regularity? It's also why Dungeoncrasher gets used with Knockback on a Goliath or something - doing it doesn't make you miss out on your auto attacks.

Therefore combat maneuvers now are not worth taking - not only the chance of success is not great

That actually varies. They severely nerfed sized bonuses (and penalties), so for example where a level 3 fighter with 18 strength would have to roll d20+7 vs a standard ogre's d20+12 (average 22.5) in 3.5, the same matchup would be d20+7 vs 24 (15 base + 5 str + 3 BAB + 1 size) in Pathfinder. Still less of a chance for success, but not nearly as much as some would lead you to believe.

A level 12 fighter with 26 strength (magic items and levels) vs a stone giant, on the other hand, would be the fighter's d20+20 vs the giant's d20+32 (average 42.5) in 3.5 and vs the giant's 41 (15 base + 12 BAB + 12 str + 2 size) in Pathfinder. That's actually an increased chance to success.

With 26 Str, +12 on the stuff that matters vs +20 from Str and size. Compare to +22 vs DC 41.

3.5: 16.5% chance to trip giant (3% chance to tie with giant so giant wins, 80.5% chance to not trip giant).
PF: 10% chance to trip giant, no free attack if they do.

Both Epic Fail pretty bad.

Throw Enlarge in and it becomes 34% vs 20% and no free attack. Note that Enlarge is required to even try, otherwise you're too small. This could be justified in 3.5, but in PF the buffed wizard will rightly tell him to go warm the bench, while he uses his actions and resources to win the fucking encounter.

Stop lying.

You can see some of the Paizil brand stealth nerfs in virg's post, where Rogues seem better until you realize that all the things that made them good (easy ability to catch enemies flat footed, easy ability to hit enemies) have been nerfed hard by the fucking over of Blink, Grease, and flasks among other things.

Prak = win by the way.

I'd like to close by asking 'Since when is turning people into dumbass mooks with bigger numbers, similar to what 4.Fail does an improvement?'

[cthulhu]

It's comedy that the system is fixed AND YET you don't know what the release version is like?

Clearly it was changing in the two months post freeze if the next version was different, just that changes hadn't be published yet.

Any Pathfinder DMs at Gencon have the final version of the game. And yes it's an awesome 576 page book.

Sure, but appanrtly the system was frozen and not being changed.. but the final version is different from the beta version right.

So it was both not changed and changed

A = NOT A

therefore this is stupid.

[cthulhu]

Double post

[Parthenon]

Super long post coming. Sorry, my hands just started typing and I couldn't stop them.

Some of Zurai's post seems to have been, well, not ignored, but handwaved over and not explained. I'm sure theres a lot of people who have no idea what is meant by rejecting playtesting for example. Explaining it better could have helped.

No. In this case, the "playtest" was a lie.

People who actually ran apples to apples comparisons, same game tests, or repeated experiments to get controlled results or regressed bugs were not only ignored, they were banned from their forums.

False, and a quick trip through the still-open Playtest Forum proves it so. I personally made quite a few posts that brought up mechanical issues and I've not even received a warning, let alone a ban.

Wait, why is the Playtest Forum still open if the rules have become solid and haven't changed in over a month? But anyway.

The playtesting that was rejected was some of the more structured playtesting done. The best example is as follows: Some members of the Gaming Den started off with the assumption that comparing the PCs against each other or against roleplaying problems is useless because it can vary so much. So, the PCs have to be compared to the only static measure possible, the monsters and encounters.

The Gaming Den's methodology

Average to well optimised PCs were made using the various Pathfinder changes and compared to the monsters with one PC against the encounter at several different EL levels, and comments were made on how well the changes work and how balanced the classes are against the challenges. Each test was repeated. Suggestions were made as to how to balance the classes better and what areas they were lacking in. Objective and numerical information was used where possible.

The wanted methodology

Subjective recall of past perceived problems in specific campaigns was raised and suggestions were made as to how to resolve each problem. No repeat of the situations were made to test if the suggested solution would actually work because it would have been impossible or at the least extremely difficult. Subjective information based on eye-witness testimony was used.

Comparing the two, can you really say that your or anyone elses playtesting was anything but the second? No repeats were done, no standardisation between posters, nothing. Mostly because it would have taken a long, long time to do which is of no fault to anyone, just a problem with the methodology. And this sort of thing can be useful. There are a lot of problems that can crop up from time to time that can't be found with standardised and more scientific methodology.

So, a huge amount of objective and useful playtesting was done, and it was all ignored. People mocked the guys for doing it, insulted them, and the various mods and people in charge told them that this form of playtesting wasn't wanted. They wanted subjective playtesting that didn't contradict them because then they could say that any issues people came across were down to their unique situation and they could ignore it until a lot of people came across it.

So yes, a lot of people suggested changes based on their experience and because they worded it right or enough people backed them up (which doesn't make them right, just a popular view) or even if it happened to be a useful change and the people could recognise it then it was changed. But that doesn't change the fact that the major useful playtesting done was ignored and the posters of it banned.

Spellcasters are less powerful; spells are weakened, spells per day are decreased, and non-spellcasting class abilities that were considered overly powerful before (ie, wild shape) are nerfed. At the same time, fighters are more powerful: they get the same number and list of bonus feats, but now they also get actual class features.
-----
... at first level. On the other hand, they [the class abilities] also have the tendency to be things like "cast metamagic spells without increasing casting time" at the higher levels.
-----
Ah, yes, the 5 first-level "at will" abilities out of 9 or 10 bloodlines that have a melee touch component. None of the bloodlines have any melee combat schticks past first level except for Aberrant, which gets extra reach with touch range spells.

So, spellcasting classes get weakened, yet get various useful and powerful class abilities such as getting free metamagic. Free metamagic is a nerf. Right. And the fact that they get fewer spells just means that the party rests more often and so isn't really a factor. Weakened spells don't mean anything when it is backwards compatible so you can just add the Spell Compendium and ignore the Pathfinder spells.

No, wait, you're obviously right. Getting extra powerful class abilities without meaningful drawbacks is a nerf. I'm done with your point.

Specialist wizards essentially don't even have spell selection limits anymore, but they still have bonuses/

Again, demonstrably false. Read the Wizard preview. While it's true that there are no TRUE banned schools, it takes two spell slots to memorize a "banned" spell. That's a spell selection limit.

Thats not really a limit. There are many ways such as scrolls to get around using spell slots and all it does is that it means that if the caster cares about that school at all then the party's resources are used up faster, meaning that the party rests more often. What it actually does is let Wizards use any spell as well as getting various extra class abilities.

I've mentioned this idea before, that using up resources faster just means resting more often. What I mean by this is that there are ways to rest without danger: Rope Trick, Teleport away and back, even a Force Wall to block off the entrance while you relax. So, unless you have a strict time limit (difficult to set up and stupid if you have one every adventure) or are being heavily railroaded then running out of resources doesn't mean much.

At the VERY least, this is misleading. We have absolutely no indication of how the feats section has changed from Beta to Release. We do know that they significantly boosted the strength of Power Attack over the Beta version, though.

This is a bad argument because they could have done anything to all the rules. They could have reduced the number of classes to 2: magic-wielder and might-wielder, and changed the resolution system to arm-wrestles with the DM. The only thing there is to base anything on is the Beta and what they have promised about specific changes in the Release. So, unless they have specifically said that they made a mistake in splitting up the feats it is entirely reasonable to assume they are keeping it very similar, in which case they have severely nerfed feats and physical combat. This has been shown by numerous people in the case of tripping.

Not only are the rules specifically in a state of flux, with Jason going in and rewriting stuff with and without blog messages to that effect all the time

And this is the point that most clearly indicates that the Trollman has a serious bias in play, here. At the time of the Trollman's post, he was telling an out-and-out lie, because the rules had been frozen for several months at that point (because the rulebook was already out to the printer and couldn't be changed even if they had wanted to).

This is the point that seems to be the best. Except that rules can always be changed: think of the years of errata added on to 3.0 and 3.5. And think of the Playtest Forum still being open and probably still open some time after publishing. The chances of an updated Pathfinder which confuses gamers even more or even just extended errata is pretty high. And all the way throughout the process it has been continuously in flux and not described well and so on and so forth.

No. Like pretty much anything else that you'd really want someone to do a giant overhaul on because the original system didn't work and no one uses it or integrates it into other subsystems, Jason pretty much ignores it.

The stated goal of PFRPG is to maintain backwards compatibility. Blasting them for not doing a giant overhaul of an original system while at the same time blasting them for not being backwards compatible enough is just more blatant bias.

I think this point was more: "If they are going to change a huge amount, then they should change this as well." and "If they are trying to fix all the broken aspects and miss this then they are doing something wrong".

[MGuy]

The conversation always seems to get better (more detailed) when someone decides to support the opposing team. It's a good thing.

I noticed that there are some people that hint at the fact that there are interesting things in Pathfinder (Bloodline Sorcerers) and though I posed the question before I'm going to throw it out there again in a different way.

Considering the price for the PDF (or if you get it free whatever) we could treat the PF as a splat book (not unlike Unearthed Arcana). If done as such and using the rules we KNOW about (not speculated changes in the unreleased version) what ideas would be salvageable? As I've said before I like the upgrade to Bards overall and the idea behind bloodline abilities.

As for the previous comments and my own feelings about PF:

-I have to say that out of all the classes Bards probably did indeed do better through pathfinder. I've always found bards to be fairly useless outside of RP shenanigans but with the updated list of abilities they actually have a use (a house rule here and there and they'd be golden) and I like the idea of bloodlines.

-I do not support arguments even from here that claim that pathfinder is a fuck up if you use 3rd ed PrCs, feats, and abilities with them because honestly that would seem like the point (or at least some of it) to make it backwards compatible. I do support claims that if the class (ability, feat, etc) as a whole is weaker than a class (ability, feat, etc) is in 3.5 then its failed (unless the nerf was made in a place that needed it). Which in a number of cases (including the undefendable nerfing of PAttack) seems to be the order of the day for PF.

-I will also support the fact that PF did scale back encounter ending spells by allowing a save each round. While the PC who falls to it does still lose at least a round to the effect at least they actually HAVE a chance to recover from it the next round as opposed to that being the end of it all. While 1v1 such a thing would be devastating in party play where you can give a quick boost to a save here and there it makes such a thing manageable without having to get a feat or ability that actually says they get another immediate save.

-Tripping bull rushing etc is dead in PF.

-I support the miniature improvements they made to poisons.

-I agree that domain abilities and bloodline abilities should be balanced.

-Allowing a wizard to cast a prohibited school spell for such a small price is a bad idea. It was already mentioned before so I'm just repeating this: There are ways to get around spell slot usage.

-There should be a heftier cost for crafting items.

-Wizards don't need more anything. Honestly they could've left the wizard class alone and try to fix everything else and it would still come out on top.

-Complaining about or supporting a campaign setting is a matter of taste and doesn't really matter when looking over PF as a whole.

-Lastly from what I've read here and after skimming over beta a few times I think that if you take some good ideas from PF (IE select feat lines, the good rage abilities, etc) and mixed them in with the stuff already in 3.5 you might actually get some use out of the product. As a whole it collectively sucks but if you treat it as a 9.99 splat book (unearthed Arcana) it may actually be worth the look over even if its just for mining purposes.

[Roy]

Some of Zurai's post seems to have been, well, not ignored, but handwaved over and not explained. I'm sure theres a lot of people who have no idea what is meant by rejecting playtesting for example. Explaining it better could have helped.

More like summarily dismissed as the usual lies that have already been disproven, and indeed the purpose of this thread was to cut off the usual suspects in that regard.

So, spellcasting classes get weakened, yet get various useful and powerful class abilities such as getting free metamagic. Free metamagic is a nerf. Right. And the fact that they get fewer spells just means that the party rests more often and so isn't really a factor. Weakened spells don't mean anything when it is backwards compatible so you can just add the Spell Compendium and ignore the Pathfinder spells.

The 'fewer spells' thing only kicks in at the very high levels, and is quite marginal even then. At the very high levels you have a hard time using all of your spells if you really fucking try, even in edge cases where you fight enough stuff to gain TWO FULL LEVELS in a single day you still likely have around 20% left when you pop a Rope Trick... so you have 15% left now. That is completely irrelevant, as you have still not only owned every encounter you were expected to, but you've owned many more you were not. So in other words, Standard Paizil Fare Type III - the illusion of change.

Similarly, nerfing some spells doesn't matter, especially when you replace them with the spells that are the same or better. So Glitterdust, got them all becomes that Hunger spell, got them all instead. Standard Paizil Fare Type II - change for the sake of change.

Even if there were fewer spells, then that just means a lower variety of win spells. It in no way impedes the fact you use win spells to do Exactly What It Says On The Tin.

And even if you actually use the spells that are supposedly nerfed to save every round or whatever, combat length is 1-3 rounds. And you've spent round 1 throwing a win spell. Therefore, either the encounter is already over and the save next round thing isn't even a factor (most likely), or they have 1 or 2 more chances left. When do these even occur? At the end of the round or the beginning? If it's like Hold Person, then saving uses up your entire turn, so that's still an absolute minimum of two rounds wasted, which is the entire combat 75% of the time and 2/3rds of it the other 25%... in other words, it's still over 90% effective.

At which point the best that can be said about it is the difference is too trivial to care about.

I've mentioned this idea before, that using up resources faster just means resting more often. What I mean by this is that there are ways to rest without danger: Rope Trick, Teleport away and back, even a Force Wall to block off the entrance while you relax. So, unless you have a strict time limit (difficult to set up and stupid if you have one every adventure) or are being heavily railroaded then running out of resources doesn't mean much.

Precisely. Spellcasters are the only contributing party members (as opposed to Red Shirts), especially in PF in spite of the 'Melee Edition' lying meme. So all them using that means is everyone stops more. But then you have so many spells later on it still doesn't matter, as you can use around 1, maybe 2 TOTAL to win the fucking combat. And there's more than one spellcaster in your party, because you're trying to be relevant right?

-Lastly from what I've read here and after skimming over beta a few times I think that if you take some good ideas from PF (IE select feat lines, the good rage abilities, etc) and mixed them in with the stuff already in 3.5 you might actually get some use out of the product. As a whole it collectively sucks but if you treat it as a 9.99 splat book (unearthed Arcana) it may actually be worth the look over even if its just for mining purposes.

Nope. The 'best' stuff there, and this is like saying a rotten apple is the best thing in a fruit bowl left out for months is... some stuff that makes the Fighter into a gimped Rogue. Anyone who wanted to focus on precision damage would be a 3.5 Rogue as you get more precision damage that way, and you can also do things besides fight ever period. You would not use such an idea in PF itself though, as Rogues are nerfed heavily there despite their illusions to the contrary. Standard Paizil Fare Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.

So to summarize, it's just more of the usual Fail. At least give us something that hasn't been thoroughly eviscerated as is.

Standard Paizil Fare (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.

[Zurai]

You have been caught in at least one lie already.

Really? Where? Maybe you're confusing me with someone else since you can't see over Frank Trollman's potbelly from where you're surgically attached to his prick.

[Zurai]

You have been caught in at least one lie already.

Really? Where? Maybe you're confusing me with someone else since you can't see over Frank Trollman's potbelly from where you're surgically attached to his prick.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Wow, resounding argument. There is no logic that will sustain a direct assertion that someone wants to perform fellatio on another man. Well played!

[Username17]

By the way, the preview characters from the "final work" show the low level Rogue with CMB of +5 and a CMD of 20 (15+ to affect themselves), and the high level Barbarian with a CMB of +24 and a CMD of 40 (16+ to affect themselves).

So superficially it appears that however the final writeup has changed to handle the combat maneuver die roll mods, the final word is still that such maneuvers don't succeed even one time in three and you don't do them.

And yeah, that's one of my "outright lies" just to put into perspective for the new people who is trustworthy and who is not out here. While we're at it, this is the Amazon product description of Gods and Magic, the book which my current detractor is adamantly insisting is not in fact a Pathfinder book:

Unlock the secrets of the gods with the first-ever, in-depth exploration of the many gods of Golarion, the popular new world of the Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting. This comprehensive guidebook provides an overview of the 20 "core" Pathfinder gods and their religions, with an emphasis on rules and information players can use at the game table, whether they're playing a zealous cleric, brave paladin, or simply a faithful member of any character class. Dozens of new spells and specialized game rules related to the faiths of Golarion enhance the gaming experience for players and GMs, and a detailed overview of philosophies, minor gods, and cults reveals the religions of the Pathfinder Chronicles in exciting detail!

Just putting that out there.

-Username17

[Roy]

Wow, resounding argument. There is no logic that will sustain a direct assertion that someone wants to perform fellatio on another man. Well played!

I know. And he completely missed the part about me attacking who is wrong, which can and has included Frank on multiple occasions. I know exactly why too.

dis⋅place⋅ment
  /dɪsˈpleɪsmənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dis-pleys-muhnt] Show IPA
Use displacement in a Sentence
–noun
1. the act of displacing.
2. the state of being displaced or the amount or degree to which something is displaced.
3. Physics.
a. the displacing in space of one mass by another.
b. the weight or the volume of fluid displaced by a floating or submerged body. Compare Archimedes' principle.
c. the linear or angular distance in a given direction between a body or point and a reference position.
d. the distance of an oscillating body from its central position or point of equilibrium at any given moment.
4. Machinery, Automotive.
a. the volume of the space through which a piston travels during a single stroke in an engine, pump, or the like.
b. the total volume of the space traversed by all the pistons.
5. Nautical. the amount of water that a vessel displaces, expressed in displacement tons.
6. Geology. the offset of rocks caused by movement along a fault.
7. Psychoanalysis. the transfer of an emotion from its original focus to another object, person, or situation.
8. electric displacement.
Origin:
1605–15; displace + -ment

Since he's too stupid to understand that, here's the direct version. He's busy sucking off Josh J Douchebag Frost, therefore anyone who agrees with anyone else must also be fellating them.

Also, lol fat jokes? Seriously? Haven't we been over that brand of Fail before? Not that I expect a Paizil to bring anything new or of value to anyone whatsoever, but you could at least pretend to try here instead of not distinguishing yourself from the nameless, faceless hordes of dumbfucks.

[hogarth]

And yeah, that's one of my "outright lies" just to put into perspective for the new people who is trustworthy and who is not out here. While we're at it, this is the Amazon product description of Gods and Magic, the book which my current detractor is adamantly insisting is not in fact a Pathfinder book:

The annoying thing is that Paizo uses Pathfinder to refer to every single one of their D&D(-ish) product lines (both 3.5 and PFRPG), so saying something is a "Pathfinder book" is almost meaningless.