Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[Zurai]

Seeker of the Song?! You're seriously suggesting that there is anything useful in the class about underwater singing!?

SO what was that theorized cheese in Combine Songs that makes level 2 worth actually taking compared to just straight bard?

We must be talking about different classes. Seeker of the Song has nothing to do with underwater singing.

Anyway, I didn't say it was a recommended choice. I said that Sublime Chord, Seeker, Lyric Thaumature, etc, are all incredibly easy to convert to PFRPG. If they require any changes at all, it's just to update the skills required. This is in contrast to the Trollman's claim that those options don't exist in PFRPG.

EDIT: And, actually, Combine Songs could be VERY useful in PFRPG, as there's a much broader selection of bardic performances, up to and including an area-effect save-or-die at level 18 or 19 (which, I might add, had a broken DC in beta -- the result of your perform check, or well over 40 by the time you got the ability -- which was fixed based on playtester comments).

[Josh_Kablack]

The Seeker of the Song in Complete Arcane is *all about* underwater singing.

Is there another class with the same name in Pathfinder?

[Zurai]

WTF, dungeonscape? I don't know anyone who even owns that book, hell, I barely heard about its existence. It came out Feb 2007. That had to be one of the last 3.5e products kicked out the door. And that is the new bar by what fighters are to be measured? Sweet Jesus.

Dungeon Crasher has obscene damage potential, more than Power Attack the last I looked at the WotC CharOp boards (though, I admit, that was well over a year ago).

At the very least, if it was taken away or diminished, then you needed something pretty good to replace it.

If pathfinder has lessened the damage that fighters can produce via power attack then hopefully they have given them something in return.

They have. There are several whole new lines of feats that do wonders for damage-dealing. For example, there's the Vital Strike line, which, in Beta (though take this with a big grain of salt, because apparantly it's gone through some major changes since Beta; no one's sure how exactly it works now, but there's a small blurb about it in the Fighter preview. The only thing I recall offhand is that it's usable as part of a charge now instead of requiring a full attack), allows you to sacrifice your worst iterative attack (which we all know won't hit anyway) to double your weapon damage with all your other iteratives (worst two attacks for triple damage with Improved, worst three attacks for quadruple with Greater, IIRC). There's also the new Critical feats that give a bunch of riders to critical strikes -- con damage, stun, nausea, etc. Only Fighters, IIRC again, can take the feat that lets them apply multiple Critical feats to a single critical hit.

There's also their class features. They get big bonuses to fear saves now -- minor, but fighters being vulnerable to fear was one of those "huhwhat?" things in 3.5. They get increased AC and max dex bonus with reduced ACP in armor, reaching +4 AC, +4 max dex, -4 ACP at level 15. They get automatic attack and damage roll bonuses with entire categories of weapons, reaching +4/+4 in one category and +3/+3, +2/+2, and +1/+1 in three other categories. The categories are very broad, such as "axes" (including everything from throwing axes to orc double axes). Their capstone abilities are DR 2/- while wearing armor (admittedly weak) and auto-crit with a +1 crit damage multiplier with any single weapon type.

Also, not directly Fighter-related, but there's a Power Attack feat for ranged weapons now, which coupled with Weapon Training helps make ranged fighters even more attractive.

[Zurai]

The Seeker of the Song in Complete Arcane is *all about* underwater singing.

No, no it isn't. It's got nothing to do with water at all. It's about seeking the perfect cosmic melody.

"Beyond magic, beyond sound, beyond good or evil, lies music so profound and powerful that even deities quake at its sound. This primal music -- of unknown origin and without limit to its power -- is incomprehensible to the mortal ear. To some who hear a fragment of this music, it becomes beauty incarnate, and they devote their lives to its discovery. These seekers wield the power of music in ways that amaze even the most skilled bards."

That's the intro paragraph to Seeker of the Song. Not a word about underwater anything.

[erik]

Perhaps Josh's confusion came from that Seekers of the Song are better off drowning themselves in order to lose a level and choose another prestige class next time?

[Zurai]

Perhaps Josh's confusion came from that Seekers of the Song are better off drowning themselves in order to lose a level and choose another prestige class next time?

Could be. Like I said, I wasn't recommending the class. Just pointing out that the bardic prestige classes are hardly removed as an option. Sublime Chord, which Frank brought up, requires exactly two changes to make compatible with PFRPG: change "Listen" to "Perception", and subtract 3 from the skill rank requirements.

[Josh_Kablack]

That's the intro paragraph to Seeker of the Song. Not a word about underwater anything.

Sorry, you just confirmed my suspicions and likely those of other regulars here. You quote flavor text as justification, you fail to read actual rules and perhaps most importantly you failed to google "Josh_Kablack seeker of the song"

At 10th level, a seeker gains these abilities and also acts as though affected by a freedom of movement spell whenever she uses her bardic music, seeker music, or a similar ability

the *mechanics* give a capstone ability of UNDERWATER SINGING.

Goodbye, and please have fun playing Pathfinder,

[Kaelik]

Dungeon Crasher has obscene damage potential, more than Power Attack the last I looked at the WotC CharOp boards (though, I admit, that was well over a year ago).

This is just stupid. Do you know what Dungeon Crasher does? It does 6d8 + 3X Str damage when you bullrush some bitch into a wall.

Since I can get 32 times my BAB as damage from Power attack on each of my attacks in a pouncing charge in addition to everything else, I'm going to go ahead and tell you no, you can't get more damage from Dungeon Crasher.

You can in fact make a Leap Attack Headless Charge bullshit Orc ability with a Frenzied Berserker Power Attack into a Knockback attack that then Dungeoncrashers.

But Dungeoncrasher does like 1/3rd the damage of that attack at the most.

[Zurai]

Sorry, you just confirmed my suspicions and likely those of other regulars here. You quote flavor text as justification, you fail to read actual rules and perhaps most importantly you failed to google "Josh_Kablack seeker of the song"

Ah yes, because freedom of movement is only useful for underwater movement. Sorry, I wasn't aware that paralysis, entanglement, grappling, and other assorted uses for FoM don't exist in Josh Kablack land. Mea culpa. You're also repeatedly and intentionally avoiding the point I continue to make -- the Trollman claimed that bardic prestige class and feat options do not exist in PFRPG, yet he's utterly wrong about that.

But Dungeoncrasher does like 1/3rd the damage of that attack at the most.

Fair enough. Like I said, it's been a loooooong time since I've visited any CharOp discussions. I'll withdraw my statement about the Power Attack nerf, then.

You state 32 * BAB, which would presumably be 20 for serious char-op discussion. In Pathfinder, that'd be 32 * 5, or 1/4 the damage. Definitely a big nerf. That's still 160 damage, though, and the PF fighter has the advantage of Weapon Training, Vital Strike, Backswing (triple strength damage on 1st hit), and the various Critical feats. It does not entirely make up for 480 missed damage, but on the other hand, did you ever really NEED to do more than 160 damage with a single hit?

Not trying to say "it's ok because you didn't need it anyway", because a nerf is a nerf; just pointing out that it's not like Power Attack was removed completely.

[Kaelik]

the Trollman claimed that bardic prestige class and feat options do not exist in PFRPG, yet he's utterly wrong about that.

Actually he's right. Sure technically you can claim that you can go back and take a 3.0 PrC for your wizard while also taking 3.5 ones. But you will get looked at funny, sniggered at, and sometimes, punched in the face. And you deserve it.

The fact that by completely ignoring all the bardic shit that Pathfinder offers you can go make a 3.5 character doesn't make Pathfinder better. It makes it a lying bitch trying to convince people to buy a book they won't even want to use once they have it.

It does not entirely make up for 480 missed damage, but on the other hand, did you ever really NEED to do more than 160 damage with a single hit?

Hmm: Well since you might be fighting one of these: 565 HP Dragon who can negate your first attack each round and kill you in a round

Or one of the 10 other True Dragons with comparable HP Totals, or the Tarrasque, yeah, you need to do 500 damage on an attack, and you need to have two of them, and if you don't, you die.[/url][/u]

[Cielingcat]

That's the intro paragraph to Seeker of the Song. Not a word about underwater anything.

Sorry, you just confirmed my suspicions and likely those of other regulars here. You quote flavor text as justification, you fail to read actual rules and perhaps most importantly you failed to google "Josh_Kablack seeker of the song"

I just did and I didn't find anything.

[Zurai]

The fact that by completely ignoring all the bardic shit that Pathfinder offers you can go make a 3.5 character doesn't make Pathfinder better. It makes it a lying bitch trying to convince people to buy a book they won't even want to use once they have it.

You don't have to ignore Paizo's bard changes to make use of Sublime Chord. There's nothing in Paizo's bard that invalidates anything in Sublime Chord, or Snowflake Wardance, or any of the other things Frank mentioned.

It's actually pretty ironic that I'm defending Paizo's bard, by the way, because I hate the fucking moronic rounds per day change. Frank is 100% right about that: it's totally fucking moronic.

Hmm: Well since you might be fighting one of these: 565 HP Dragon who can negate your first attack each round and kill you in a round

Or one of the 10 other True Dragons with comparable HP Totals, or the Tarrasque, yeah, you need to do 500 damage on an attack, and you need to have two of them, and if you don't, you die.[/url]

You stated you did that on every attack of a pouncing charge. The PF fighter can still kill that dragon in one charge -- 5 attacks * 160 damage (ignoring strength and weapon damage) = 800 damage. Even with two missed attacks, that's still 480 damage just from the power attack combo. Surely 3 attacks * strength bonus * weapon damage * assorted class ability bonuses will deal the remaining 85. Also note that the PF fighter has a higher attack bonus, so will hit more often on those later iteratives.

[TOZ]

Well, in other news, Pathfinder has sold out of its first print run already. So regardless of the varied opinions, their marketing has worked so far. I'm waiting to see if they will give out just how many were printed in the first run. Sure they say they made a big production, but selling out of a low number isn't that impressive.

[Zurai]

I seriously doubt they'll tell us how many were in the first print run. They refused to even tell us how many people bought Rise of the Runelords, beyond saying that it was way more successful than they projected.

I'd guess roughly 25,000 to 50,000, based on the beta download numbers, but that's pure SWAG.

It's not impressive compared to WotC, but no publisher sells as much RPG product as WotC does (even their shittiest books outsell the top sellers of other RPGs). Even a 25k presell sellout would be big news in the RPG business at the moment, with the way the economy is.

[IGTN]

That's the intro paragraph to Seeker of the Song. Not a word about underwater anything.

Sorry, you just confirmed my suspicions and likely those of other regulars here. You quote flavor text as justification, you fail to read actual rules and perhaps most importantly you failed to google "Josh_Kablack seeker of the song"

I just did and I didn't find anything.

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHM ... f+the+song

First hit (at least for me):
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=10611

Instead you get +2 (insight) to Saves and AC, DR 2/- and Freesom of Movement whenever you use bardic music. That's right this whole class is designed around underwater singing.

(ctrl+F Seeker should find it easily. It's in the 2nd paragraph of the section)

e: Also, Zurai, it's not that you have to revert changes they made, it's that the game isn't self-contained. If you buy Pathfinder, you're paying for an improved game that's supposed to be complete. If you have to go back and grab an older class in order to get any improvement at all, you aren't getting what you paid for.

[ggroy]

[Zurai]

If you have to go back and grab an older class in order to get any improvement at all, you aren't getting what you paid for.

Where is this coming from? Stupid as the rounds-per-day thing is, the Bard is in all other ways much improved. They lost no other functionality (well, I suppose you could say the Bardic Knowledge change is a loss, but IMO it's actually an improvement) and gained a slightly better casting progression, more hit points, easier to use performances (you can cast and perform without feats, performing is improved to move and eventually swift actions to initiate), and more different performances. House rule the one idiotic thing and you have a class that is a pure upgrade from 3.5.

It sucks that you do have to house rule the idiotic change, but it's not like there's no house rules for other classes in 3.5...

[Kaelik]

If you have to go back and grab an older class in order to get any improvement at all, you aren't getting what you paid for.

Where is this coming from? Stupid as the rounds-per-day thing is, the Bard is in all other ways much improved. They lost no other functionality (well, I suppose you could say the Bardic Knowledge change is a loss, but IMO it's actually an improvement) and gained a slightly better casting progression, more hit points, easier to use performances (you can cast and perform without feats, performing is improved to move and eventually swift actions to initiate), and more different performances. House rule the one idiotic thing and you have a class that is a pure upgrade from 3.5.

It sucks that you do have to house rule the idiotic change, but it's not like there's no house rules for other classes in 3.5...

And then, you take levels in Sublime Chord, and by extension, you set fire to that casting progression/hit points/performing

This is the point. If you make a character using 3.5 supplements, you don't have a Pathfinder character, you have a Sublime Chord that has 10 more HP than your friends sublime Chord and more 3rd level spells.

You are using the Sublime Chord class. It doesn't matter if my houserules are compatible with the Tomes, I still don't get to claim that Fighters are better characters because I gave them +1 AC every 4th level and removed feats on that level and you can totally houserule adding the feats back and then use Tome feats.

That's not an argument. That's not even sensible.

Also: Fighter.

Yes, you can do enough damage to kill it if you dip in a 3.5 supplement to get pounce, IE not play a Pathfinder Fighter, and then you dip into a non Pathfinder race, and a non Pathfinder ACF, and a Non Pathfinder PrC, and you take a bunch of non Pathfinder feats.

Then you can totally do 800 damage on four attacks, unfortunately, you still can't win here, because you don't hit his AC with those, and when you do, he just Wings of Cover that bitch. And then you end up maybe doing enough damage, except for the part where you have to charge through his AoO, and for his AoO he could totally grapple you.

All of this is relatively meaningless as relates to Pathfinder, because 95% of the character is not Pathfinder, and the 5% is the 5% that hurts him.

[Leress]

@TOZ: I have no hate for Pathfinder, to me it doesn't seem like it does anything better than what I already have.

@Zurai: When Pathfinder comes on the shelves I will give my opinion on it and that will pretty much be my final word on the game.

[Prak]

*blatant propaganda, brainwashing and marketing-speak*

Look, I'll be honest with you, when I first heard about Pathfinder in April, I had great hopes, I loved 3e, it's the D&D I know, and I had been getting increasingly more disillusioned with 4e. I wanted it to be great. I tried to help playtest, as did a lot of the people on these forums, but it was made very clear to all of us that Paizo and their disciples didn't want to play a balanced RPG, they wanted to play Cops' and Robbers' Magical Tea Party at the Yes-men and Sycophant convention. They did not want to improve on where 3e left off, they wanted to make it their own, an admirable goal, but if a monkey wants to make your favorite stuffed animal it's own, it's quite cute and adorable and all, but it still involves a lot of rape and feces.

So while many people here will be giving the final product a glance over, including me, I may well run it for my friends and see what they think (because I'm that kind of masochist), but ultimately, unless the head of the project dies tomorrow, his spell lifting from the minds and eyes of the paizils as fog before the noon sun, and Frank is hired to finish things, it's going to be the feces covered rape leavings of 3.5.

[Zurai]

snip

In other words, what you're saying is that a core rules fighter sucks compared to a fully optimized fighter using bits and pieces from every splat book known to man, and because of that, Pathfinder sucks. Gotcha.

@Zurai: When Pathfinder comes on the shelves I will give my opinion on it and that will pretty much be my final word on the game.

That's totally fair. Much as some people here want to paint me as such, I'm not so much a Paizo fanboy that I think everyone should adopt Pathfinder and love it all night long. It won't be for everyone. There's quite a few things in it I don't like, myself. I really don't mind if people don't like Pathfinder -- I just mind when people make up spurious arguments about it.

[Morzas]

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.

[GoodIdea]

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.

I heard that Pathfinder is compatible with 3rd edition rules. As such, does it really make any difference if I use pathfinder or not?

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.

Hit points are no longer rolled, it will use a standard amount of hit points per level similar to 4E. Of course, if you really want you can roll.

I've played the beta with 3.5 monsters and everything was fine. Paizo is redoing the Monster Manual and making a new bestiary, in the past they've done an excellent job so I'm very interested to see what they did here.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Doesn't Paizo's system address some of the most broken parts of D&D?

Of course it does. Melee classes are much more powerful and have many more combat options in Pathfinder.

Fighters are very interesting to play imo and have many more feat options and trees to be more effective and have better gameplay. One of the worst problems with Fighters is they had nothing to look forward in upper level gameplay, they do now.

Barbarians have had a major overhaul of their rage system and now have different rage powers they can choose and learn, so although you are a Barbarian you are also different.

Rogues no longer have sneak attack handicapped by only affecting living creatures and Rogues have many talents and ways to customize your rogue starting at level 2.

Spellcasters have more options to customize your Sorceror (amazing work here), Wizard, Bard, and Cleric.

I think all classes have something to be happy about.

How are spellcasters more powerful? Aren't a bunch of spells nerfed?

Pathfinder rebalanced the classes and spellcasters indeed have trouble casting spells under fire, as well melee classes have more options to stop spellcasting, if that matters to you.

This kind of thing doesn't matter to me because my games aren't centred around my players attacking each other at the table, but it matters to some people, so the changes will make some people happy.

Sure, spells like Charm Person still exist, but that's what makes D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder different from 4E.

Melee classes are still the main damage dealers in the game, this has not changed. Wizards still have AE spells but that's what Wizards do.

OK fine, I understand that spellcasters aren't any less powerful casting ghoulish hunger instead of finger of death, but you said they were more powerful. How can that be?

Spellcasters were slightly nerfed and some unbalancing spells were altered to make gameplay more interesting.

Races get stat bonuses and penalties that are very similar to 3.5 and 4E. So yes, Elves typically make better Wizards and Half-Orcs typically make better Fighters, but it's what you'd expect. 4E gives out more stat bonuses than Pathfinder, so balance isn't an issue here.

Spellcasters do not get any buffs to skill points.

All core classes were balanced so that they are more interesting and it's a viable alternative to play all core classes to level 20, which is a good thing. Prestige classes are still great options for flavor and even more variety of course.

Regarding Wizard banned schools, they're banned for a reason and there is still substantial penalty.

More feats? Doesn't that help warriors too?

Yes, there are many new options now including lots of feats for 2 handed weapons, feats if you fight with a shield, feats if you are a defensive tank, even more feats if you fight with two weapons. Fighters have more feats than ever before. Fighters are more customized and fun to play than ever now. No two fighters are the same.

What? Tell me more about how warriors got the bad touch? Improved Disarm sucks and it's difficult for me to imagine that being two feats.

Special attack feats have not been broken into two feats although the bonus for performing these attacks has been reduced to +2.

"Warriors" (Fighters, Barbarians) were two of the most improved classes so I'd suggest you look for yourself.

All of the special attacks (Combat Maneuvers) were streamlined for easier game play and they are still very effective combat options.

Ouch. What if I wanted to make a "does big damage Fighter" like the Sir Chargealot that you mentioned instead of one of the maneuver specialists? I mean, that is also a standard character in 3.5 and it can work OK. I heard they gave Fighters bonus damage and AC or something?

There are more options than ever to make "big damage Fighters" (and especially Barbarians finally). This is done by high level feats for Fighters and high level rage abilities for Barbarians. Both classes are very viable and exciting to play until level 20 now.

Pathfinder Power Attack is still a useful feat and it's still more powerful than Power Attack with 4th Edition.

What?

Cleave is a great low level feat and does your full damage to an adjacent opponent (not just STR). Cleave is still a great feat and it's better than the 4E power, but it's not the "must have" feat that it was in 3.5.

Archers weren't nerfed or buffed in Pathfinder. Skilled Fighters will be able to force archers to take more than a 5' step if they want to fire their bow (unlike in 3.5).

Multiclassing is as great as ever in Pathfinder and you can still create great characters you want to make.

Are things at least clearer?

Things are clearer than ever in Pathfinder, that's why some rules have been simplified (trips and other special attacks for example).

The rules of Pathfinder were in a state of flux during the playtest period because the designers were responding to player feedback, which is a good thing.

So why would I use Paizo's rules?

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.

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.

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.

So are Bards somehow more weak sauce than they were before? Is that even possible?

Bards are better than ever before and are actually good now. The have abilities now that make them desirable and viable at high levels. With streamlined skills, they are more useful than ever.

A bard can inspire someone long enough for them to take 20, just like before.

Is Polymorph Fixed Yet?

Polymorph is good but it's balanced. Polymorph does not grant you and powers or abilities of the creature. Your Str and Dex (with bonuses) and base attack bonus get used to make attacks, so although you are more effective at physical attacks, you will not surpass melee characters.

I'm glad that polymorph is in the game because it's interesting, rather than completely remove it altogether.

I hear great things about the skill system. What's up with that?

Skills are streamlined and the skills system as a whole looks a lot better. The skills you choose matter also.

Choosing skills at level 1 is no longer complicated and there are no rule loopholes to get more skills at level 1.

You mention Diplomacy, is it fixed?

Diplomacy works fine, it can only adjust a target's attitude by 2 levels, which is fixed from 3.5.

Are Sorcerers still getting it in the earhole?

Sorcerors now get "bloodlines" which further defines what kind of Sorceror they are. Powers and bonus spells are based off of the bloodline you choose. Bloodlines like Celestial, Aberrant, Destined, and Abyssal. There are many. In general, Sorcerors are more unique and interesting to play than ever. So they had a slight buff here.

Physical abilities are "ok" but they are in addition to bonus spells, bonus feats, an additional class skill, and other special abilities like breath weapons, natural armor and even flight. In general, the core classes like Sorceror are a good alternative to prestige classes.

Wizards weren't buffed so Sorcs are a little more balanced with Wizards now.

Monster Levels? Is that fixed?

Standard monsters stats have always worked and making leader type monsters couldn't be easier.

The truth is neither I nor the OP really knows what innovations the folks at Pathfinder have created because the Bestiary (Monster Manual) is released in September. Needless to say, in past bestiaries they've done award winning work, so I have high expectations.

What?

Rogues were buffed a lot in Pathfinder, starting with sneak attack affecting every target. Rogues also get special rogue talents, starting at level 2, that you can further customize your rogue. They get a new talent every 2 levels after that and there are over 22+ talents to choose from. Talents allow rogues to perform "special attacks" beyond "just doing more damage".

At high levels, Rogues will be as good or better than other classes who specialize in dealing damage.

Rogue fans will be very happy with the Pathfinder Rogue.

Many things in D&D are broken on the face of it. Like rolling for hit points or having different definitions of "day" for purposes of recovering spell slots. Is any of that addressed?

Hit points are standardized now like in 4E and are not rolled. However, the beauty of the 3.x system is that if you really wanted to roll for hit points, you could do it, it's your game afterall.

All known problems with D&D were fixed in Pathfinder and it's a more interesting game because of it. Is it perfect? Probably not, but I can still call it "D&D".

So my Cleric of Pelor still prepares spells at dawn and my Cleric of Lolth still prepares spells at dusk?

You can still play Pathfinder within any 3.5 campaign, Pathfinder was designed to be backward compatible. I actually tested my cleric of Ilmater in Forgotten Realms 3.5.

Having said that, the folks at Pathfinder have created the best world system that I've seen, more interesting than Eberron imo and with the same amount of flavor and flexibility as FR.

Golarion was created by 20+ of the best world designers in North American, and it shows. Although I love the Forgotten Realms, I also love Golarion and will be using it in the future. Of course, you don't have to use it, but once you learn more about the factions and territores, you'll want 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.



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.

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.

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.

Happy gaming.

[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.

[GoodIdea]

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.