Have any of you looked at or played with Pathfinder at all? What do you guys think of it? I'm fishing for opinions since I've been reading over it and a lot of it grows on me.
I've never looked at it really. I'd be curious at doing so if you feel like sending later. :)
I remember hearing a lot of 'bah-humbug' on it earlier though.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ - I've been reading this to get the gist of the changes.
Like I said, it's more of the same and none of the changes are earth-shattering. There were a few new interesting feats and class abilities but the difference is really negligible, and whether someone runs pathfinder or 3.5 is a non-issue when deciding if I want to play in any given game.
D&D 3.5 has evolved!
D&D 3.5 becomes Pathfinder!
Pathfinder uses Is More Fun on 4.0. It's SUPER EFFECTIVE!
...yeah. Really, I feel Pathfinder does enough right that it's worth it to favor over 3.5 -- and absolutely over 4.0, considering the antipathy for that system in my meatspace groups. In fact, the only complaint I've heard for Pathfinder was the grapple rules -- someone complaining about the fact that multilimbed enemies can grapple and keep limbs free to attack at enemies. I actually ran one of those monsters in an encounter against the players ... and it didn't really seem imbalanced at all.
Also, grapple focus tends to be jerkish anyway. It doesn't let others benefit from your awesome talent. :P
Observation: This is the topic of posting kings. Nobody without 5 stars has even said a word. Clearly Pathfinder: The Game of Kings?
...
Yeah, no got nothing.
I would like to play pathfinder someday, but I chase games more than systems.
Once I move local to you, I'll run a game and make you attend.
Imagine, Phil, a meatspace tabletop game!
But, yeah, grapple is a Does Not Play Well With Others mechanic, usually.
Really? 'cos I always thought 'you hold him, I'll hit him' was a time-honored strategy throughout the ages.
Well, sure ... but in what gaming system?
Pretty much any grapple involves putting yourself at risk of being hit instead of the actual target.... At least, as D&D and most other systems model it, being a good grappler means you tend not to be really impressive in most other ways (probably because you're a monk), so in order to be effective at all, you have to auto-win against enemies by converting a grapple to a pin and then using your strength bonus every round until they're subdued.
So, when there's a boss fight, and the grappler goes out, what does the rest of the party do?
Bah. </super bitter about that one campaign>
But, is that really a problem?
Dooooooooooes D&D actually model it? I actually can't remember, and my cursory SRD inspection yielded no results. I've always thought it actually makes both the grappler and the grapplee super vulnerable to outside attacks. Indeed, the only people I think it dicks over are ranged attackers who don't have precise shot... who should
1) take that feat
2) would be dicked over merely by you being in melee anyway
The auto-win this is something of an issue, given that grapple-spec'd dudes against non-grapple spec'd dudes tend to have an overwhelming advantage once they get into range, unlike how most people have a reasonable defence against most attacks.
To keep it relevant, I checked the PF srd! Where bull-rushing, at least, no longer entails a chance of AoO's hitting the wrong guy. Is this a victory for heroic action?
No. Bullrushing always fails. :(
Awwww. I likes 4E. I likes it a lot.
I guess my view on pathfinder is if you're gonna play 3.5E, you should be able to use all the crazy classes WotC came up with, and all the crazy ways they're broken. Pathfinder is like a GM who doesn't try to houserule the broken bits, he just bans the most broken ones so you have to try to work around it.
Quote from: Carthrat on June 16, 2011, 12:38:44 AM
Dooooooooooes D&D actually model it? I actually can't remember, and my cursory SRD inspection yielded no results. I've always thought it actually makes both the grappler and the grapplee super vulnerable to outside attacks. Indeed, the only people I think it dicks over are ranged attackers who don't have precise shot... who should
1) take that feat
2) would be dicked over merely by you being in melee anyway
Well, hold on. Being in melee imposes a -4 penalty to hit on ranged attackers firing into the melee. You miss by four, you hit the wrong guy.
Attacking into a grapple as ranged OR melee? Flip a coin, and if you win the call, you hit the right target. I don't know of any feat to overcome this.
Shifting from a grapple to a pin means that the guy who lost has to win a contested strength roll just to bring the pin back into being a grapple -- but the exact same attack modifiers apply for pinning as grappling.
Quote from: Carthrat on June 16, 2011, 12:38:44 AMThe auto-win this is something of an issue, given that grapple-spec'd dudes against non-grapple spec'd dudes tend to have an overwhelming advantage once they get into range, unlike how most people have a reasonable defence against most attacks.
Reaping Mauler was just a bad idea....
Improved Precise Shot is needed to ignore the 50% chance of hitting the wrong target when shooting into melee. It has two prerequisites, so it's pretty punishing.
I don't believe there's any chance of hitting the wrong target in a grapple with melee attacks, though. Thing is, grapple is basically like a save or die that just takes ages to resolve. At least if the wizard kills the BBEG on round one with a finger of death everyone can immediately move on. If the grappler pins the BBEG on round one then the fight is effectively over but everyone still has to sit around for a half dozen rounds while all the grapple checks and damage get rolled. The other PCs could attack the BBEG during this time to speed things up, but their contribution is still irrelevant, since the fight is inevitably won by the grappler regardless of what anyone else does.
But on topic!
I've been running Pathfinder for a bit over half a year. I find I like pretty much every change they've made, and the only selling point 3.5 retains is the diversity of stuff available for it.
Quote from: Ebiris on June 16, 2011, 01:45:57 PMI've been running Pathfinder for a bit over half a year. I find I like pretty much every change they've made, and the only selling point 3.5 retains is the diversity of stuff available for it.
I feel much the same way.
QuoteAwwww. I likes 4E. I likes it a lot.
There's one in every group.
Quote from: Ebiris on June 16, 2011, 01:45:57 PMI don't believe there's any chance of hitting the wrong target in a grapple with melee attacks, though. Thing is, grapple is basically like a save or die that just takes ages to resolve. At least if the wizard kills the BBEG on round one with a finger of death everyone can immediately move on. If the grappler pins the BBEG on round one then the fight is effectively over but everyone still has to sit around for a half dozen rounds while all the grapple checks and damage get rolled. The other PCs could attack the BBEG during this time to speed things up, but their contribution is still irrelevant, since the fight is inevitably won by the grappler regardless of what anyone else does.
Grapple works best when it's a solo player game so this is irrelevant, or when there's more to do than just beat up one bad guy. That or give your bad guys anti-grappling measures, but that can wear thin if used too often. Doubly so if your grappler is devoted to grappling and only grappling.
QuoteI've been running Pathfinder for a bit over half a year. I find I like pretty much every change they've made, and the only selling point 3.5 retains is the diversity of stuff available for it.
I personally like CMB/CMD and some of the spell changes(read as: nerfs), but I'm not really interested in moving over to an entire rule set. What about the rest of Pathfinder is an improvement from 3.5?
Quote from: AnastasiaI personally like CMB/CMD and some of the spell changes(read as: nerfs), but I'm not really interested in moving over to an entire rule set. What about the rest of Pathfinder is an improvement from 3.5?
Skills, oh God the skills. The list is condensed, class skills only give you a small bonus rather than forcing you into only taking class skills or else paying double price with a shitty cap.
Honestly, I couldn't give a shit about the spells, although I haven't noticed much difference in them in Glaring Fate. Colour Spray still wipes low level encounters, Phantasmal Killer is still certain death if you fail the saves... I'm sure there are changes but none I've really cared about that've made a difference to my fun.
The base classes are more fun and get more cool things. I honestly see no reason to PrC and haven't even looked at any Pathfinder PrCs because they're just not needed in my view (especially with the wealth of alternate class features). CMB/CMD (and not having fuckoff huge size bonuses on all the special attack rolls) is a neat simplification. Poisons applying a little drip over a consistent period rather than two big whammies a minute apart, little things like that.
I was gonna say not having alignment but then I remembered that's a houserule I made up for GF. Nevermind! The other stuff is solid.
It seems complicated at first, but I think you grow to like how every melee class basically has something nice to it? Barbarians don't just rage and that's it, they basically get the equivalent of combat maneuvers 1/rage as they level, monks get similar bonuses and so on. A rogue wouldn't need to be lvl10 to actually gain neat tricks.
Actually, that's the big thing, for me. What Corwin said. Fighters are more than just half-assed toolkits to get into PrCs, and there are a host of much more viable build options. Barbarians can actually go towards being semi-tanky, instead of just thick -- yeah. The skill simplification was also a really nice change -- to be honest, it felt a lot like converting to BAB from THAC#0 (YES, I WENT THERE) -- it feels strange at first, but the numbers work out almost the same (absolutely the same for class skills), and it's easier to use.
(Also, this thread was totally worth the 5k gp diamond drac and I dropped on it.)
Quote from: Ebiris on June 16, 2011, 02:04:26 PMSkills, oh God the skills. The list is condensed, class skills only give you a small bonus rather than forcing you into only taking class skills or else paying double price with a shitty cap.
I'm of two minds here. I find 3.5 skills to be a hassle, but I appreciate the versatility and precision in which they can represent a character's talents. So...eh. I'm okay with class skills being loosened.
QuoteThe base classes are more fun and get more cool things. I honestly see no reason to PrC and haven't even looked at any Pathfinder PrCs because they're just not needed in my view (especially with the wealth of alternate class features).
I see most of that as a failing. One of the amazing things about 3.5 is the wealth of PrC options and how you can weave them into an interesting character. Losing that loses a lot of the charm and appeal of 3.5. I don't mind the base classes being good, but conversely, some base classes having issues never bothered me in 3.5. Think taking more fighter is lame? Take a PrC to expand your focus or another class. Don't want to bother with anything more than paladin 5? There's a wealth of PrC options to further elaborate and expand on your character. Don't want to be a generic wizard for another 10 levels? Same thing as the others.
That turns me off strongly to playing pure Pathfinder, to be honest.
Quote from: Anastasia on June 16, 2011, 02:23:34 PMQuoteThe base classes are more fun and get more cool things. I honestly see no reason to PrC and haven't even looked at any Pathfinder PrCs because they're just not needed in my view (especially with the wealth of alternate class features).
I see most of that as a failing. One of the amazing things about 3.5 is the wealth of PrC options and how you can weave them into an interesting character. Losing that loses a lot of the charm and appeal of 3.5. I don't mind the base classes being good, but conversely, some base classes having issues never bothered me in 3.5. Think taking more fighter is lame? Take a PrC to expand your focus or another class. Don't want to bother with anything more than paladin 5? There's a wealth of PrC options to further elaborate and expand on your character. Don't want to be a generic wizard for another 10 levels? Same thing as the others.
That turns me off strongly to playing pure Pathfinder, to be honest.
I respect your opinion, but counter that I feel PrCs are an excuse for the game developers to throw out a dozen new PrCs instead of fixing any of the genuine core problems.
To me, it's a kind of cheap, tawdry 'variety' that comes across as them continually trying to paint over something they just couldn't get quite right. I mean, if you look at the base classes as little more than a way to provide players a vehicle to become prestige classes of some sort, then I guess I get it, but....
<utter bastard> How many PrCs are a take on 'dude in armor that casts arcane spells'? And have they nailed that down, yet? </utter bastard>
Anyway -- from my PoV, this is them just getting it right -- making the base classes competent. The new PrCs aren't worse or bad -- it's just that the new core classes have enough options and (dare I say it?)
viability (I dared!) that I haven't felt the need to start seeing new classes to try and keep the interest alive.... >.>
Edit: After thinking about it a bit, kind of, the bit before being a PrC is something that's been in games forever ... and fantasy -- or just midevil culture. It's like being a squire. So, there's a lot of justification for this that I'm finding myself strangely reluctant to acknowledge. Thinking about it, I probably have too much respect for the core types from way, WAY back when -- the era of paladins and rangers taking more exp to level, and rogues leveling fastest.
Balance was not always the concern it is today, and I would do better to remember that.
Also... PrCs do exist in Pathfinder. They're just not mandatory if you want to be competitive.
Truthfully, that sounds like a major plus. The downside of PrC setup has always been a 'well, they are simply better than non PrC setups'. Not every one, but overall. In 2nd ed, main classes were cool and PrCs were cooler/different. In 3rd ed, generally EVERYONE has a PrC in order to be cool. It sounds like it being an optional thing would be better.
Replying to the rest of this night after work, but there weren't PrCs in 2nd edition, Drac.
Sure there were -- we called them 'kits'.
Edit: Check out what I found!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alternative_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_classes#2nd_edition_kits
Dune, wanna take a look at the pathfinder srd and glance at the skills? I think you misunderstood how they work and what they represent. The mechanics are the ones simplified. The stuff you're talking about liking, focus and fluff and all that? It's still there, irritatingly so. My sorc still doesn't have any real strength-based skills in the class list, for example, and even if I do take them, I won't be as good as the fighter, much like cross-class skills in 3.5. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer
Incidentally, I've been wondering just what makes 3.5 classes incompatible to Pathfinder, anyway. I think it's only because a DM wouldn't want to convert things to use CMB/CMD and the sort. But given you're fine with using purely Pathfinder-origin houserules for a 3.5 game, the opposite can surely happen to import any fun PrC or ability from 3.5 over.
And another cool thing about Pathfinder? The traits and the hero points. Neither is really some innovation, but they're rarely used normally in 3.5 games. The first is essentially fluff feats, like the regional feats or feats that don't really make you that effective in combat, but serve to help define your character better. You get them at chargen! Hero points are... essentially a combination of 'I don't want to be oneshotted' and 'Can I please do something cool by pushing the rules a bit?' mechanic, usable once each level, roughly. It's nice in the sense that you shouldn't feel as boxed in. You can either go for your Big Damn Heroes moment or play it safe and cautious and be able to negate one mistake/bad luck with the dice to just be incapacitated instead of killed (You can still be attacked and killed for good immediately after, of course.) It gives the player, in either case, more control over the life of their character. The DM doesn't have to worry over treating people with kids gloves, and if ingenuity on the player side exists, there's a handy trick up their sleeve to save the day.
Also your beloved villains can have villain points to avoid getting turned into a pig in the first round before their turn even comes up!
In retrospect she probably should've just let it happen and she might've lived, but y'know...
(for serious, though, using Hero/Villain points to act out of turn is a pretty nice usage, especially when running one NPC against lots of PCs who would otherwise overwhelm with action economy)
Hecate could have won me over if only that worked! Anticlimatic boss fights are fine too, when they resolve in a funny way!
And yeah, definite agreement on the out of turn usage possibilities. Once or maybe twice per level, max, you can get a standard action on whatever init you want. That's nice and adds to things!
Lots of nice little things about Pathfinder that I like. I think I ranted at length about how it's dumb for low-level wizards to carry a crossbow for after they spend their magical arsenal in a couple of rounds, and how it's likewise dumb for Archmages to have more lvl9 spells than cantrips, given the latter don't rise with casting stat. Sorcs having unlimited cantrip usage lets you spam 1d3 stuff if you ever run out of normal spells or just don't want to waste the few you have left on a particular group of enemies, and you know something? To me that's cool enough I'd take it over the larger potential damage of crossbows since I don't feel like I'm clumsily pretending to be a different character archtype to remain effective in battle.
Quote from: Corwin on June 16, 2011, 05:39:46 PMIncidentally, I've been wondering just what makes 3.5 classes incompatible to Pathfinder, anyway. I think it's only because a DM wouldn't want to convert things to use CMB/CMD and the sort. But given you're fine with using purely Pathfinder-origin houserules for a 3.5 game, the opposite can surely happen to import any fun PrC or ability from 3.5 over.
I think that's it exactly, actually.
Quote from: Corwin on June 16, 2011, 05:39:46 PMAnd another cool thing about Pathfinder? The traits and the hero points. Neither is really some innovation, but they're rarely used normally in 3.5 games. The first is essentially fluff feats, like the regional feats or feats that don't really make you that effective in combat, but serve to help define your character better. You get them at chargen! Hero points are... essentially a combination of 'I don't want to be oneshotted' and 'Can I please do something cool by pushing the rules a bit?' mechanic, usable once each level, roughly. It's nice in the sense that you shouldn't feel as boxed in. You can either go for your Big Damn Heroes moment or play it safe and cautious and be able to negate one mistake/bad luck with the dice to just be incapacitated instead of killed (You can still be attacked and killed for good immediately after, of course.) It gives the player, in either case, more control over the life of their character. The DM doesn't have to worry over treating people with kids gloves, and if ingenuity on the player side exists, there's a handy trick up their sleeve to save the day.
I think traits are in 4e, too -- but hero points are a massive win for me.
I didn't take a lot away from my WoD and Storyteller gaming, but it was a love of the Willpower mechanic. Hero points bring a lot of what I liked about that back. Admittedly, we used hero points before they were standardized (houseruled) as far back as second edition, so....
Some of the earliest games I played in had similar notions.
I still like the notion of these kinds of tokens.
Honestly, I don't find the PrC thing as much a draw as I used to. It just adds this huge layer of complexity and twinkery to character design. Usually I know what sort of abilities I want to have before I even start flipping through books to find them, so assembling the character I want is more like a jigsaw puzzle than anything. And I have to do it efficiently and correctly to keep up with other people, and all that jazz. The actual use of them tends to involve people taking drops in many different classes to get certain key abilities or synergies.
It was fun once, when ideas were fresh and new! But the more I look at it, the more I appreciate a single class, or at most two classes, you know? I can't help but think all the PrC stuff should've been handled through the feat system, but instead feats are always lackluster and certain prc abilities are always better. It doesn't help that nobody seems to agree on a design standard for PRCs, and that's why you get classes of wildly different power all over the place.