Anyone played official version of Pathfinder?

[Magnus]

I noticed that Pathfinder has come out with an official hardcopy version. Generally, I liked what I read; keeps 3.5 alive for people who didn't enjoy 4.0, but as always the proof is in the pudding.

Has anyone played the official version?

Here the 10 things I saw that I liked (in no particular order):

1. The Open SRD: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/Home.
2. Wizards and Sorcerers have d6 h.p.; Rogues a d8.
3. Weapon group specialization for fighters (i.e. Axes, Swords, Bows, etc..)
4. Sorcerer Bloodlines.
5. Class abilities at the traditionally flat levels (5, 7, 11)
6. Unlimited cantrips.
7. Making ranks in cross-class skills worthwhile.
8. Consolidation of similar skills. (Search+Spot+Listen=Perception)
9. Added power and flavor to Wizards school specialization system.
10. Return to flat XP for monsters.

[Hotfoot]

I played pathfinder at Gencon and was not terribly impressed. It is basically 3.5 with numerous house rules thrown in. Several key problems with 3.5 remain, and little if anything is done to resolve them. It's not bad, but I certainly don't think it's worth spending $100 on the core rules and setting books. Personally, I think Trailblazer is a superior system, but it too has flaws.

Of course, I'm not a big fan of 3.5 to be begin with, and out of all the versions, I consider the Saga System to be the best of the 3.5 variants.

[Stofsk]

What problems do you think are key or major in 3.5 hotfoot?

[Hotfoot]

I should just make a reference list for this.

1. Multiclassing sucks, especially for spellcasters
2. Skill system sucks, too many skills, not enough points, you are only ever going to be good at a handful of things.
3. The magic system sucks. Save or die spells suck, the spell level system sucks, since later one level 1 spells are rarely used except in last ditches.
4. Martial classes fall far behind mages in overall utility later on.
5. Combat rules are insanely overcomplicated, with feats being necessary not to such at certain maneuvers. Grapple, anyone?
6. Broken Prestige Classes, look no further than the broken mage my buddy Will made.
7. The jump from level 1 to level 4 is massive and by far the biggest shift in the game, which means the game changes massively in this time period.
8. Oh yes, and because this is a particular sticking point for me, increases in INT do not give retroactive skill points, but CON increases give retroactive hitpoints. I'm tired of every justification I've heard, and yes, I've heard them all. None of them hold up, and it's just lousy game design because it means that for skills, you need to get as high an INT score from the word go as you can, or you get fucking hosed for skill points, which are already a precious resource.
9. As an addendum, D20 sucks ass for modern styled games, and I really don't understand the love some people have for D20 modern and the variations thereof. It works well for more cinematic styled games, but not grittier ones.
10. Oh yes, and while this is more the fault of WotC, but the CL and ECL system is broken-ass garbage. One look at a Pixie should confirm that, especially if you consider that as a PC rogue.

[Magnus]

Hotfoot,

All of your complaints relate to the original D&D system generally. Anything specific to Pathfinder?

Oh, and I think Pathfinder did fix combat manuevers like grapple, by giving them a single mechanic for all combat maneuvers.

Every character has a Combat Manuever Bonus (CMB) and a Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD)

CMB = BAB + Str + Size
CMD = 10 + Str + Dex + Size

Grapple, Bull Rush, Trip, Overrun, Sunder, etc... Involve the same roll; CMB against the opponents CMD. Moreover, grapple attempts made without the feat still provoke an AOO, but a successful AOO hit does not prevent the grapple attemptl; it imposes a penalty on the attempt equal tot he damage done by AOO hit.

[Hotfoot]

Hotfoot,

All of your complaints relate to the original D&D system generally. Anything specific to Pathfinder?

That is because I was asked for my general complaints to 3.5 specifically. Hence I answered what was asked, rather than what was not asked. My complaints for Pathfinder are based on these complaints, since they did not do what was needed to fix what was wrong. Baby steps, to be sure, but not enough.

Oh, and I think Pathfinder did fix combat manuevers like grapple, by giving them a single mechanic for all combat maneuvers.

Every character has a Combat Manuever Bonus (CMB) and a Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD)

CMB = BAB + Str + Size
CMD = 10 + Str + Dex + Size

Grapple, Bull Rush, Trip, Overrun, Sunder, etc... Involve the same roll; CMB against the opponents CMD. Moreover, grapple attempts made without the feat still provoke an AOO, but a successful AOO hit does not prevent the grapple attemptl; it imposes a penalty on the attempt equal tot he damage done by AOO hit.

That's fine, but like I said, Pathfinder is a collection of house rules more than a general improvement across the board, and several of the key complaints leveled against 3.5 can still be leveled against Pathfinder, though admittedly some are not as bad. Out of what I've listed, so far only the consolidation of skills (which is only half the issue) and the above changes to the archaic combat system have been altered. Just about everything else is pretty much still the same.

[Magnus]

What problems do you think are key or major in 3.5 hotfoot?

I'd like to keep this thread focused on Pathfinder.

We're all well aware of D&D 3.5 flaws.

[Hotfoot]

Pathfinder is supposed to be an attempt to update 3.5 with improvements. Since it retains many of the same flaws, it's worth mentioning that these flaws persist in the current Pathfinder system. It's also the question I was asking and it's a valid side question since I have gone on record several times as not liking 3.5 overall and that does color my opinion of Pathfinder, Trailblazer, and Saga Edition.

[SirNitram]

What amuses me to no end is a number of the ten above there were released as optional rules before Pathfinder was anywhere but local houserules.

But why keep 3.5 alive? If you liked it you like it, rock out to Saga or D&D or generic D20. Why get pretentious as Pathfinder has, and try and hock house rules and some homebrewed things into a new business? Oh right. Money money money.

3.5's issues(Which, every one of them unresolved in Pathfinder, so shut the fuck up about 'only pathfinder') are serious. I happen to like 4th because it actually resolves those, and alot of other, long-dug-in-issues(Fuck you, Vance.).

[Cynical Cat]

(Fuck you, Vance.).

The man is a great American writer and doesn't have very many years left. He didn't force the Dying Earth magic system into D&D. Credit and blame where it is due.

[Magnus]

But why keep 3.5 alive? If you liked it you like it, rock out to Saga or D&D or generic D20. Why get pretentious as Pathfinder has, and try and hock house rules and some homebrewed things into a new business? Oh right. Money money money.

3.5's issues(Which, every one of them unresolved in Pathfinder, so shut the fuck up about 'only pathfinder') are serious. I happen to like 4th because it actually resolves those, and alot of other, long-dug-in-issues(Fuck you, Vance.).

I happen to have enjoyed 4th edition... unfortunately, a few of the people I regularly game with (most importantly our DM) think 4.0 plays like a boardgame.... and I agree 4th edition strains suspension of disbelief more than even 3.5 did.

So I guess I'm looking for something that fixes as many of the flaws in 3.5 as possible, but which my DM might actually stomach running.

[frigidmagi]

I went into 4th wanting to like it, but after reading the books and playing the game... I don't. It feels to much like a damn collectible card game or world of warcraft to me. Two things I don't care to play.

The powers are kind of a neat idea, but frankly came off as rather limiting. There is no multi-classing, so that kills a part of the game I enjoied. I liked what they did with skills but their feat nerfing was painful. So all in all I decided not to play. An outside problem is their decision to jam all the campaign settings into a single narrative. Which is a ridicolous choice but has no bearing on the mechanics themselves.

In short I don't feel the characters are customizible enough, I find the game obessively focused on dungeon crawling with little rules for non-combat situations and I feel shortchanged everytime I make a character.

That's not a defense of 3.5's flaws mind you, so jumping up and listing all your problems with 3.5 won't address my point. Nor am I saying everyone should dislike 4.0. It's a game, if you like it? Play it. But I don't, so I won't.

[Slacker]

I should just make a reference list for this.
9. As an addendum, D20 sucks ass for modern styled games, and I really don't understand the love some people have for D20 modern and the variations thereof. It works well for more cinematic styled games, but not grittier ones.

This. I know it's off-topic, but I'm tired of people looking at me crossways when I say this. It applies to future/scifi games as well. I've given up running D20 anything for my campaigns and generally just use GURPS 4th-which certainly has its flaws, but house ruling them away is much less of a hassle.

[Cynical Cat]

I happen to have enjoyed 4th edition... unfortunately, a few of the people I regularly game with (most importantly our DM) think 4.0 plays like a boardgame.... and I agree 4th edition strains suspension of disbelief more than even 3.5 did.

So I guess I'm looking for something that fixes as many of the flaws in 3.5 as possible, but which my DM might actually stomach running.

Since your DM is me, let me come out and say Pathfinder isn't going to do it. Black Company and Arcana Evolved are about as close to 3.5 as I care to go.

[Magnus]

Since your DM is me, let me come out and say Pathfinder isn't going to do it. Black Company and Arcana Evolved are about as close to 3.5 as I care to go.

Well I guess that settles that!

[SirNitram]

(Fuck you, Vance.).

The man is a great American writer and doesn't have very many years left. He didn't force the Dying Earth magic system into D&D. Credit and blame where it is due.

You're right. That was stupid of me. I retract it.

[Stofsk]

What's particular about Vance anyway? What is the 'dying earth magic system'?

[SirNitram]

What's particular about Vance anyway? What is the 'dying earth magic system'?

Jack Vance's novels had the spellcasters memorize a limited number of spells. Thus, D&D spellcasting until the Sorcerer and various attempts to bolt-on point-based or recharge-based spells to D&D.

[Jason_Firewalker]

Alright this is a semi-dead thread, but since I am a huge fan of Pathfinder I had to put in my 2 cents to Hotfoot's complaints.


1. Multiclassing sucks, especially for spellcasters
Answer: Multiclassing has been fixed, considering that the XP penalty has been entirely removed and with the rework of the Favored Class system it really renders the need to multiclass almost unnessecary.

2. Skill system sucks, too many skills, not enough points, you are only ever going to be good at a handful of things.
Answer: A whole ton of skills have been grouped together. No longer do you have to put points into Spot Listen and Search, you only have: Stealth (which covers Hide and Move Silently), and Perception (which covers Spot, Listen and Search). Disable Device covers Open Lock as well. Linguistics also covers Decipher Script as well as teach you more languages. And if its a class skill and you put only 1 point into it, you get 3 bonus free ranks. Makes life a ton easier. And it does not have to be a class skill for the class you got the rank from. Say you are a Rogue/Wizard and with a rogue level you toss a rank into Know(planes), but you had no ranks there before, but since you have it as a class skill as a wizard, you get a +3 in addition to the 1 rank you put in. There is no more cross class bullspit super spending. A rank is a rank.


3. The magic system sucks. Save or die spells suck, the spell level system sucks, since later one level 1 spells are rarely used except in last ditches.
Answer: Not really any answer there, that is a personal preference. Personally I like the thrill of save or die.

4. Martial classes fall far behind mages in overall utility later on.
Answer: All the martial classes have been worked over almost entirely. Fighters become CRAZY good with one type of weapon (such as 1 handed axes or polearms) Plus the Rogue and the Bard are worked over to a point that they are actually competitive classes in the long run.

5. Combat rules are insanely overcomplicated, with feats being necessary not to such at certain maneuvers. Grapple, anyone?
Answer: Already answered. The CMB and CMD is all based on a MUCH more simple calculation.

6. Broken Prestige Classes, look no further than the broken mage my buddy Will made.
Answer: Very limited prestige class access. Right now there are less then a dozen of them. And honestly if you use them you can, if improperly applied, actually short change you over the base classes.

7. The jump from level 1 to level 4 is massive and by far the biggest shift in the game, which means the game changes massively in this time period.
Answer: I can understand that, the access to second level spells and literally in some cases over tripling your HP in 2 to 3 levels in massively life changing but really, at start your supposed to be a weak ass barely seasoned at all adventurer, are you not supposed to learn some BIG ass lessons at that time? Make some huge leaps in your power because its do that or DIE LIKE A BIZNATCH?

8. Oh yes, and because this is a particular sticking point for me, increases in INT do not give retroactive skill points, but CON increases give retroactive hitpoints. I'm tired of every justification I've heard, and yes, I've heard them all. None of them hold up, and it's just lousy game design because it means that for skills, you need to get as high an INT score from the word go as you can, or you get fucking hosed for skill points, which are already a precious resource.
Answer: Pathfinder fixed that... INT gains later add to your skills.


9. As an addendum, D20 sucks ass for modern styled games, and I really don't understand the love some people have for D20 modern and the variations thereof. It works well for more cinematic styled games, but not grittier ones.
Answer: I can understand but d20 is different then 3.5. It is also a hell of a lot different then Pathfinder. d20 product such as Spycraft and d20: Modern have their place for cinematic style of play but I tend to agree they are not suited for more common modern gaming. I prefer the gritty realism of the Battlelords system but thats my personal take.

10. Oh yes, and while this is more the fault of WotC, but the CL and ECL system is broken-ass garbage. One look at a Pixie should confirm that, especially if you consider that as a PC rogue.
Answer: WotC sat there with its thumbs up its butt on CR/ECL... But thats easily fixable. I tend to use their monster creation rules provided in MM:I to double check their CR ratings before throwing them at the players, also I tend to know the limits of my players fairly well after a few sessions and I can gauge how hard a fight will be for them. As for ECL, I throw it out the window half the time. I tend to force the use of Savage Species on the players that want to play something other then a ECL 0 character, and since 99% of my games start under level 5... it tends to take away the issue of overpowering monster characters.

[Hotfoot]

Alright this is a semi-dead thread, but since I am a huge fan of Pathfinder I had to put in my 2 cents to Hotfoot's complaints.


1. Multiclassing sucks, especially for spellcasters
Answer: Multiclassing has been fixed, considering that the XP penalty has been entirely removed and with the rework of the Favored Class system it really renders the need to multiclass almost unnessecary.

That has nothing to do with my complaint at all, actually. Favored Class and XP penalty had nothing to do with it, character effectiveness at a given level is. Special ability progressions and spellcasting progressions are still gimped by the multiclassing system. Meanwhile, Saga edition, by having smaller special ability trees, managed to resolve this issue.

2. Skill system sucks, too many skills, not enough points, you are only ever going to be good at a handful of things.
Answer: A whole ton of skills have been grouped together. No longer do you have to put points into Spot Listen and Search, you only have: Stealth (which covers Hide and Move Silently), and Perception (which covers Spot, Listen and Search). Disable Device covers Open Lock as well. Linguistics also covers Decipher Script as well as teach you more languages. And if its a class skill and you put only 1 point into it, you get 3 bonus free ranks. Makes life a ton easier. And it does not have to be a class skill for the class you got the rank from. Say you are a Rogue/Wizard and with a rogue level you toss a rank into Know(planes), but you had no ranks there before, but since you have it as a class skill as a wizard, you get a +3 in addition to the 1 rank you put in. There is no more cross class bullspit super spending. A rank is a rank.

It helps the lack of skill points, but it does far from solving the issue, there are still far too few, and it's a lousy solution to the problem overall. Moreover, there are STILL too many skills, even with their excuse at folding.

3. The magic system sucks. Save or die spells suck, the spell level system sucks, since later one level 1 spells are rarely used except in last ditches.
Answer: Not really any answer there, that is a personal preference. Personally I like the thrill of save or die.

Never mind that other classes do not have abilities that force you to make a save or die, making spellcasters unduly powerful at higher levels and completely fucking up any notion of class balance the game tries to have.

4. Martial classes fall far behind mages in overall utility later on.
Answer: All the martial classes have been worked over almost entirely. Fighters become CRAZY good with one type of weapon (such as 1 handed axes or polearms) Plus the Rogue and the Bard are worked over to a point that they are actually competitive classes in the long run.

Really? They get save or die special attacks that can bypass armor class? Because if not that's completely missing the point.

5. Combat rules are insanely overcomplicated, with feats being necessary not to such at certain maneuvers. Grapple, anyone?
Answer: Already answered. The CMB and CMD is all based on a MUCH more simple calculation.

Doesn't change that you still need feats to NOT SUCK at basic combat maneuvers. Even in Saga this bugs the hell out of me, where you need feats to do what other RPG rulesets take for granted as combat options.

6. Broken Prestige Classes, look no further than the broken mage my buddy Will made.
Answer: Very limited prestige class access. Right now there are less then a dozen of them. And honestly if you use them you can, if improperly applied, actually short change you over the base classes.

Oh no, there are prestige classes that are useless. It doesn't change the ones that are ridiculously overpowered. Remember that Pathfinder still uses stuff from 3.5, since they're basically the same rules, repainted.

7. The jump from level 1 to level 4 is massive and by far the biggest shift in the game, which means the game changes massively in this time period.
Answer: I can understand that, the access to second level spells and literally in some cases over tripling your HP in 2 to 3 levels in massively life changing but really, at start your supposed to be a weak ass barely seasoned at all adventurer, are you not supposed to learn some BIG ass lessons at that time? Make some huge leaps in your power because its do that or DIE LIKE A BIZNATCH?

Sigh, really? This is your argument?

You know what good game design is? When at the beginning of the game, you show players what sorts of cool stuff they can do, so that as they face tougher challenges, they can use their abilities to greater effect and make use of new tricks. Introduce a new player to D&D at level 1, and watch what happens. It's a lot of confusion over the mess of rules they have to learn, especially if they're a spellcaster, and frustration about their cool mage/cleric/rogue/fighter going down like a dog to, well, a dog.

Imagine Conan the Barbarian where Arnold gets gacked in his first pit fight. Not very compelling.

Now, I understand the desire to work your way up from nothing into a badass of epic proportions, hell I still love Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries when you start with nothing but a weak-ass Commando and by the end of the game you're rolling with two full lances of tricked out clan assault mechs and air support, but I also remember Baldur's Gate, and I remember the first one where you were doing such heroic feats as killing rats in the library's basement. Yeah, not compelling. Baldur's Gate 2? Escaping from a made mage's secret lair? Fucking awesome.

It's just massively disconcerting when you are a pussy one minute and superman the next. It's one thing to be tougher, but it's another thing to take dozens of blows that would be otherwise lethal to you a day ago.

8. Oh yes, and because this is a particular sticking point for me, increases in INT do not give retroactive skill points, but CON increases give retroactive hitpoints. I'm tired of every justification I've heard, and yes, I've heard them all. None of them hold up, and it's just lousy game design because it means that for skills, you need to get as high an INT score from the word go as you can, or you get fucking hosed for skill points, which are already a precious resource.
Answer: Pathfinder fixed that... INT gains later add to your skills.

No, not in the books I saw last year at Gencon it sure as hell didn't, and believe me, I looked. That was a major sticking point for me. Now maybe that's been errata'ed or something since, but I doubt they made a new printing in under a year to change that one thing.

And to clarify, I'm talking about RETROACTIVE skill point gains, not the "the next time you level you'll get more skill points". When your Con increases, you get extra hitpoints for your new level, and for every previous level. When you increase Int, you only get new skill points for every level after that one, not for every previous level.

9. As an addendum, D20 sucks ass for modern styled games, and I really don't understand the love some people have for D20 modern and the variations thereof. It works well for more cinematic styled games, but not grittier ones.
Answer: I can understand but d20 is different then 3.5. It is also a hell of a lot different then Pathfinder. d20 product such as Spycraft and d20: Modern have their place for cinematic style of play but I tend to agree they are not suited for more common modern gaming. I prefer the gritty realism of the Battlelords system but thats my personal take.

3.5 is based on the d20 architecture dude, there are some minor rules that are different, but the core mechanics are the same. They're both OGL d20, and so is Pathfinder.

10. Oh yes, and while this is more the fault of WotC, but the CL and ECL system is broken-ass garbage. One look at a Pixie should confirm that, especially if you consider that as a PC rogue.
Answer: WotC sat there with its thumbs up its butt on CR/ECL... But thats easily fixable. I tend to use their monster creation rules provided in MM:I to double check their CR ratings before throwing them at the players, also I tend to know the limits of my players fairly well after a few sessions and I can gauge how hard a fight will be for them. As for ECL, I throw it out the window half the time. I tend to force the use of Savage Species on the players that want to play something other then a ECL 0 character, and since 99% of my games start under level 5... it tends to take away the issue of overpowering monster characters.

If you HAVE to doublecheck a monster against the party's capabilities to make sure it won't end in tears, you've just proven that the system is utterly broken and useless. It's not "easily fixable" if the "fix" is to go over everything with a fine tooth comb. That's just lots of busy work. You don't mind it? Fine. Doesn't mean you should defend a waste of time as anything but.

[Jason_Firewalker]

I am sitting here with the Core book for Pathfinder and if you would like a PDF copy, just ask.


Now then to number 1: The special abilities trees in Pathfinder are much more broad then in 3.5 but no where near as lowering in power for spellcasters. A sorcerer has at start the choice of 10 bloodlines each with specific powers and flavor. The wizard gets school spec (which even as a Universalist wizard gives you nifty powers). Cleric Domains are massively played with, the powers no where NEAR as stagnant at any particular level. They grow with your character much better. Gone are the days of +1 to caster level of all good descriptor spells only and hello to Touch of Good and Holy Lance abilities. Barbarians are customizable now with different special rage powers gained at even levels, rogues are the same way with talents gained at every even level.

Paladins have the re-done smite ability and the Mercy kickers they can add onto their lay on hands uses. Rangers have a TON of new abilities that make me drool. Multi-classing has become unnecessary and now only really needed for flavor.

Number 2 is a personal preference. I like it this way a hell of a lot more then 3.5, and is a decent way of doing it, but I do not think it is the best.

I can answer 3 & 4 together: If you look at pg 38 of the Pathfinder core book, the Bard gets a Save Or Die! (and it requires no attack roll). On pg 60 the Monk has the Quivering Palm (as always), the Paladin does not really need one with the entire rework of the Smite system and the addition of Aura of Justice, the Ranger has no broad spectrum save or die but with a whole plethora of new nice in the ranger class abilities including Favored Terrains, a third combat style, the change in the Hunter's Bond so that you get either an animal companion or make your whole party bad ass against your favored enemies, the Master Hunter ability is a Save or Die but limited to Favored Enemies only and does require an attack roll, there really is no need for it to be broad spectrum.

The Rogue's new nice is overwhelming in amount of awesome. Anyone care to throw a 1d4 ranged touch attack with no save that carries ALL your sneak attack? (minor magic rogue talent which you start getting at level 2). The Rogue also gets Master Strike which is effectively the Assassin from 3.5's Death Attack but it happens any time you deal sneak attack damage and you don't have to study the target or use only a melee attack.

Number 5: Actually you don't need the feats not to suck at them anymore. They are just now major improvements on the ability to use said ability, not necessarily use it in the first place.

Number 6... ah good old number 6... Since the Prestige classes that exist so far in Pathfinder are limited to the following exclusively (as they have stated prestige classes outside these are not for use with Pathfinder till Paizo has had a chance to balance them for Pathfinder): Arcane Archer (no where near as limiting as before), Arcane Trickster, Assassin, Dragon Disciple (much more balanced then the original), Duelist, Eldritch Knight (again, balanced), Loremaster, Mystic Theurge, Pathfinder Chronicler (a Bard Prestige class, I like it personally, a lot of flavor to it) and the Shadowdancer.

Number 7: I see your point as its hard to learn DnD as a spellcaster, but thats why new players really should start with something like a martial or theif class type and not a spell caster. Let them get a feel for the game before you let them make "Aligrion Great Mage Of The Undafar Divide, High Sorcerer of the Kalipplei Tribe, Heir to the Holy Chalice of Snervelflap". Its all well and good that your new player may want to play a wizard off the bat, but I personally see it as common sense to let them learn the damn system before letting them toss around fireballs, but thats just me and every person I have gamed with in person pretty much.

Number 8: Couldn't find the passage exactly but I called my local game store, got linked to this on the Paizo offical forum

Number 9: I am agreeing with you dude... I am just saying I don't see a reason to use it for a modern setting when I have Battlelords to do that for me.

Number 10: That was 3.5, Paizo really fixed things in Pathfinder. Go look through the MM for it. Even if something is too much, a good GM will manipulate an encounter to make it easier or harder for the players as needed for storyline. I have been known to cut 10 to 30% off a monster's hit points because a critical battle was going the wrong way and I wanted to get my players through the storyline I had prepared. Its the job of the GM to be able to do things like that so that your players can go through what you have planned for them, not to be their opponent but their guide through an interactive and beautiful world you have created for them to interact with so that they can see your plot-line for your campaign.

[Hotfoot]

I am sitting here with the Core book for Pathfinder and if you would like a PDF copy, just ask.


Now then to number 1: The special abilities trees in Pathfinder are much more broad then in 3.5 but no where near as lowering in power for spellcasters. A sorcerer has at start the choice of 10 bloodlines each with specific powers and flavor. The wizard gets school spec (which even as a Universalist wizard gives you nifty powers). Cleric Domains are massively played with, the powers no where NEAR as stagnant at any particular level. They grow with your character much better. Gone are the days of +1 to caster level of all good descriptor spells only and hello to Touch of Good and Holy Lance abilities. Barbarians are customizable now with different special rage powers gained at even levels, rogues are the same way with talents gained at every even level.

Paladins have the re-done smite ability and the Mercy kickers they can add onto their lay on hands uses. Rangers have a TON of new abilities that make me drool. Multi-classing has become unnecessary and now only really needed for flavor.

Can a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 fight and stand even chances against a Fighter 20 or Wizard 20? If no, multiclassing still fails, and all the nice little window dressings you put on it don't matter.

Number 2 is a personal preference. I like it this way a hell of a lot more then 3.5, and is a decent way of doing it, but I do not think it is the best.

Folding over the skills and getting rid of the silly 4x skill points at first level helps get rid of unnecessary complexity, but there are still far too few skill points (2+ Int is silly for anyone). At the end of the day, you still end up with 20th level fighters that can't jump worth a damn, but can somehow manage to lift small mountains.

I can answer 3 & 4 together: If you look at pg 38 of the Pathfinder core book, the Bard gets a Save Or Die! (and it requires no attack roll). On pg 60 the Monk has the Quivering Palm (as always), the Paladin does not really need one with the entire rework of the Smite system and the addition of Aura of Justice, the Ranger has no broad spectrum save or die but with a whole plethora of new nice in the ranger class abilities including Favored Terrains, a third combat style, the change in the Hunter's Bond so that you get either an animal companion or make your whole party bad ass against your favored enemies, the Master Hunter ability is a Save or Die but limited to Favored Enemies only and does require an attack roll, there really is no need for it to be broad spectrum.

The Rogue's new nice is overwhelming in amount of awesome. Anyone care to throw a 1d4 ranged touch attack with no save that carries ALL your sneak attack? (minor magic rogue talent which you start getting at level 2). The Rogue also gets Master Strike which is effectively the Assassin from 3.5's Death Attack but it happens any time you deal sneak attack damage and you don't have to study the target or use only a melee attack.

Make a Fort Save or die. Make a Will Save or die. Plus, for added fun, check out all the nasty shit you can do without save or die spells at 9th level. Huge difference from 1d4 + sneak attack.

Number 5: Actually you don't need the feats not to suck at them anymore. They are just now major improvements on the ability to use said ability, not necessarily use it in the first place.

So you no longer take a penalty when trying to Sunder, Grapple, Disarm, Bull Rush, Fight Unarmed, or so on? The feats for those instead make you better, instead of removing the penalty? Because that's NOT what I played with last year.

Number 6... ah good old number 6... Since the Prestige classes that exist so far in Pathfinder are limited to the following exclusively (as they have stated prestige classes outside these are not for use with Pathfinder till Paizo has had a chance to balance them for Pathfinder): Arcane Archer (no where near as limiting as before), Arcane Trickster, Assassin, Dragon Disciple (much more balanced then the original), Duelist, Eldritch Knight (again, balanced), Loremaster, Mystic Theurge, Pathfinder Chronicler (a Bard Prestige class, I like it personally, a lot of flavor to it) and the Shadowdancer.

Barring further examination of these specific classes, I'll leave this one alone for now, but I really have no greater desire to go over high end rules for a system that I'm not exactly thrilled with.

Number 7: I see your point as its hard to learn DnD as a spellcaster, but thats why new players really should start with something like a martial or theif class type and not a spell caster. Let them get a feel for the game before you let them make "Aligrion Great Mage Of The Undafar Divide, High Sorcerer of the Kalipplei Tribe, Heir to the Holy Chalice of Snervelflap". Its all well and good that your new player may want to play a wizard off the bat, but I personally see it as common sense to let them learn the damn system before letting them toss around fireballs, but thats just me and every person I have gamed with in person pretty much.

The point of D&D has always been to be a larger than life hero, even if you have somewhat humble beginnings. It's one thing to start off life as a humble adventurer defending a small town from brigands or kobolds. Eventually, you graduate to armies and dragons and stuff, but who really wants to start off an epic story about a guy killing rats in some dingy basement? Even Luke Skywalker had a better intro than that.

Number 8: Couldn't find the passage exactly but I called my local game store, got linked to this on the Paizo offical forum

If they changed that, cool, but it sure wasn't in the copy I read at GenCon, in fact, the opposite was written there.

Number 9: I am agreeing with you dude... I am just saying I don't see a reason to use it for a modern setting when I have Battlelords to do that for me.

I prefer INTERLOCK, FUZION, or SilCORE myself, but my gripe was against the slew of people who seem to fucking LOVE it. I played one game at a con using d20 Modern for an Aliens vs. Predator homebrew and it was terrible. Stargate SG-1 using the Spycraft rules was equally bad.

Number 10: That was 3.5, Paizo really fixed things in Pathfinder. Go look through the MM for it. Even if something is too much, a good GM will manipulate an encounter to make it easier or harder for the players as needed for storyline. I have been known to cut 10 to 30% off a monster's hit points because a critical battle was going the wrong way and I wanted to get my players through the storyline I had prepared. Its the job of the GM to be able to do things like that so that your players can go through what you have planned for them, not to be their opponent but their guide through an interactive and beautiful world you have created for them to interact with so that they can see your plot-line for your campaign.

If they "fixed" it, oh well. Maybe they did, maybe not, I only saw the PHB at the con, not the MM. I know that even in Saga, CL is kind of a joke (again, this goes back to starships).

Adjusting fights to compensate for the ebb and flow of the fight is just one of the things that happens when you run a game, I know that, but I've had plenty of GMs who have used large parties and the CL system to justify TPK fights.

[Jason_Firewalker]

Number 1: Yes they can, in fact can be better if built right, but on average are par for the course.

Number 2: I can see that 2+Int is low, but frankly I can also see where its appropriate, thats a personal preference. Mind you most classes in Pathfinder possess 4+ or better.

Numbers 3&4: Read right after the Master Strike is ANY time that a rogue uses its sneak attack. So, against AC 10 (Flatfooted for the sneak plus its a touch attack is on average AC 10) and the opponent has to make a save or die.

Number 5: The only penalty for using them without the feat is the Attack of Opportunity. That is the drawback that remains but there is no longer a -4 to use those maneuvers without the proper feats.

Number 6: Ok I can understand that.

Number 7: I like those levels, those are my most cherished part of my character's history. I love eeking out survival, I love the challenge of survival, I like not knowing if I will live to slay the next gobbie. It seems more realistic (as far as fantasy RPGs can get).

Number 8: Sounds like you were playing the Beta.

Number 9: Point conceeded, but this is about a Fantasy RPG not a modern one.

Number 10: Monsters are straight up XP values per monster, with a suggested combat range. I have yet to see the system with Pathfinder fail.

[frigidmagi]

For my own part I'm very against save or die effects. It feels like a cheat. Yeah I want a bit more lethalness in the game sure, but instant kill no matter what if a player has a bad roll?

That's bad juju.

[Jason_Firewalker]

For my own part I'm very against save or die effects. It feels like a cheat. Yeah I want a bit more lethalness in the game sure, but instant kill no matter what if a player has a bad roll?

That's bad juju.

I agree, insta-jibs are a cop-out so I personally as a spellcaster and GM just dont use them