| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12211 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Oct 2011 : 14:37:43
|
Let me start this off by stating, I just literally got the pathfinder rules about 3 weeks ago after having a friend rave over them for the past 2 years. I went hole hog and bought the core ruleset, advanced player's guide, ultimate magic, ultimate combat, gamemastery guide, all 3 bestiaries, some inner sea campaign guide, and 2 faiths books discussing the gods. I've only skimmed through the core book, advanced player's guide, and ultimate magic so far. I figured if I was going to give it a chance I wanted to have all the basic resources available. I don't have a group currently (long story, job made me move states), but I felt like getting back into things, but I hate 4E. I figured though, I could adapt the pathfinder stuff to the realms (pre-spellplague).
So, after looking at some of what I've looked at, I do have some concerns about balance that I didn't think I was going to find. What I'd like to hear from some people are some of the things they've liked and not liked that they've seen put out.
Examples of things I thought were good ideas-
The raising of arcane caster and rogue hit points by a die size (d4 to d6 and d6 to d8). This truly makes sense to me. I always thought there was just a little too much of a disparity for both, especially since they were also usually the ones in light or no armor.
The addition of a fly skill. I hadn't thought about it, but it makes sense.
The various bloodline powers for sorcerors makes them more useful and more "different" without overpowering the class.
the changing of familiar rules for wizards to allow an item
The changing of wizard opposition schools to simply require more spell slots to memorize a spell of an opposition school.... this one is a personal favorite. The bonuses for specialization were just getting too steep (especially for things like red wizards). Plus, this could open up a possibility for a "more specialized" prestige class that ends up making you lose access to those if you truly wanted to go that far.
Some of the new classes are great. The summoner. The magus. The oracle seems interesting too.
I like the feats to decrease arcane spell failure percents.
Some of the things I think are a little overboard-
As much as I love the class, because I love fighter mages... I think their version of the eldritch knight goes overboard by giving d10 for hit dice PLUS 2 bonus feats beyond what the 3.5 DMG gives. I could see doing d8's for hit dice though, or d6's for the hit dice and leaving in the 2 bonus combat feats.
The mystic theurge. I don't have it in front of me, but I recall there being some extra abilities thrown into the class, and I felt that the version in the 3.5 DMG was more than balanced. I mean, you're going up in 2 casting classes very well.
Anyway, any positive feedback appreciated. Again, I'm new to this new ruleset, but steeped in 3.5 rules. However, I'm only recently getting my head back into the rules after a stint of not looking at any of it when 4e came out.
Phillip aka Sleyvas
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
Rhewtani
Senior Scribe
USA
508 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2011 : 15:13:35
|
While Theurges have amazing versatility, this has almost no bearing on balance in actual play. They can "go all day," but in a single combat encounter, they will cast no more spells than a wizard or cleric of the same level and they will not be casting spells as high a level as that wizard or cleric.
That's what, in my view of play, made the 3.5 ones sub-optimal choices. |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4494 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2011 : 16:24:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Some of the things I think are a little overboard-
As much as I love the class, because I love fighter mages... I think their version of the eldritch knight goes overboard by giving d10 for hit dice PLUS 2 bonus feats beyond what the 3.5 DMG gives. I could see doing d8's for hit dice though, or d6's for the hit dice and leaving in the 2 bonus combat feats.
True but that comparison is measured by v3.5 standard and I'd say most of the changes to class design for Pathfinder made all class and PrC choices more powerful overall. When compared to other Pathfinder Prestige Classes, it's considered a "good" PrC but not in the "Broken" category.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The mystic theurge. I don't have it in front of me, but I recall there being some extra abilities thrown into the class, and I felt that the version in the 3.5 DMG was more than balanced. I mean, you're going up in 2 casting classes very well.
Anyway, any positive feedback appreciated. Again, I'm new to this new ruleset, but steeped in 3.5 rules. However, I'm only recently getting my head back into the rules after a stint of not looking at any of it when 4e came out.
Phillip aka Sleyvas
The Mystic Theurge (v3.5) was considered a "Poor" choice in many regards. Pretty much it's designed for Wizards who take some Cleric abilities (not the other way around). The PrC offers nothing (absolutely nothing) in the way of advancment besides spells. And what's worse, it prohibits a wizard who gains spells known during level advancing (same is true in PF as well).
The poor BAB and 1 good saving throw practically force the Character be a ranged caster unless serious devotion is put forth into self-improve combat spells. And with their lowly HP...well I think that's pretty clearly out of the question.
Pathfinder's verison, while suffering from many mistakes as the v3.5 one, does give a little added bonus to spell-swaping and thus allowing you some good versatilty. And as early as 16th level, you can effectively cast two spells at once 1/day. This, while seeming powerful, really isn't. Quickend Spell works just as good and your not hampering your character who normally gets 9th level spells at 17th level instead of at 20th. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2011 : 17:22:47
|
My opinion: Pathfinder is 3e taken to its furthest functionality. So if you like 3e, then PF is 3e perfected. The processes they went through when they made each decision - creating a FREE beta version and polling the fans - was definitely 'the best case scenario'. If you weren't there through the whole process, then you can't really understand why certain decisions were made (like why they wanted a fly skill, which caused quite a lot of debate).
HOWEVER, I have decided that 3e itself is less then optimal, for me, which is why I never got on-board for Pathfinder (despite liking Golarion very much).
So if you like 3e, then you SHOULD be using Pathfinder. I convinced three gaming groups to do just that on my last trip to Kentucky (all had tried - and disliked - 4e).
As for me, I will probably be tweaking my own system and world to the end of time, and it may never see the light of day, but it keeps me busy and I enjoy it, and enjoying yourself is primarily what the hobby is all about.
*Edited because I used the wrong edition number, which changed the whole meaning of what Iwas trying to convey. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 03 Oct 2011 18:53:10 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36989 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2011 : 18:31:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
My opinion: Pathfinder is 3e taken to its furthest functionality. If you like 4e, then PF is 3e perfected. The processes they went through when they made each decision - creating a FREE beta version and polling the fans - was definitely 'the best case scenario'. If you weren't there through the whole process, then you can't really understand why certain decisions were made (like why they wanted a fly skill, which caused quite a lot of debate).
The open playtest was a brilliant maneuver. They let the end-users determine what needed to be fixed -- not only did such a large test base ensure the largest number of issues could be found, but Paizo didn't pay a thing for that very extensive playtesting. On top of that, by listening to what needed to be fixed, they generated much good PR. Total win-win for Paizo, and very good for the fans, as well.  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2011 : 19:14:16
|
My problem was I was never thrilled with D&D magic, and although I thought 3e was the best iteration of D&D, it was still based on some archaic gaming ideas. PF took this further, and it is an excellent system, but its still way too class-based for my liking.
People don't have 'classes', they have jobs. Its just all too artificial for me. For instance, Sleyvas brings up HP changes, and his like/dislike for it in two different places. IMG, I have been using a D10 for everyone since early 2e - why would a person's job determine how healthy they are? HP has gone from the early days of being 'damage', to being a measurement of motive energy - a type of fatigue points, more or less. 'Real' damage came into play when 3e came up with negative HP, and the old system of subdual damage was just too unwieldy, IMHO.
Also, casting spell after spell would not cause fatigue, even though in nearly every fantasy story we read this is the case. The system, as-is, can't emulate that.
This is why for years I have been house-ruling quite a bit, and now feel I need to keep OGL (the simple D20 aspect) and hand-tailor the rest of the system to my world. Pathfinder is a good start, but I think it didn't go far enough. On the other hand, I think 4e went too far (which is a damn shame, because it seems that most of the reasons behind the changes are the exact same reasons I have).
I doubt there is any such thing as a 'perfect' system, but if you like Vancian magic, then PF comes damn close. Monty Cook has also added some nice stuff with his Malhavoc line, which is worth looking into.
EDIT: I also want to add I am not anti-4e. I have finally come to the conclusion it has its place in the greater scheme of things. It was designed to emulate that OD&D feel, which it does admirably, in that gamers can jump right in and start killing stuff (and amassing treasure). IIRC, that's how it all started out - just a simple Hack'N'Slash that evolved into a very intricate game system. Beginners need something like that - I feel 3e was just too overwhelming for the novice (especially toward the end... it started off pretty good).
As gamers mature, they tend to want greater realism in their games, and that requires more complex systems. There is nothing wrong with that either. Aside from PF, there are plenty of choices out there.
I've yet to see the system that is modular-enough to accomplish both - to add more complex bits as it evolves. OD&D tried this, and required later rule books to re-write some of the earlier rules, which is self-defeating. The perfect system adds without having to subtract anything; even CCG's haven't been able to do that perfectly. You would have to design EVERY add-on from the get-go, and then release them over time, and no-one is capable of that. Even 3e got revamped into 3.5 because ideas evolve, and there is no way of predicting how future supplements will effect those systems already in-place.
One more thing - to get a system of rules to be as perfect as possible, it has to be designed around the setting - all the best are. D&D is just too generic to ever be perfect, because it tries to fit every niche, and nothing can do that. Ravenloft and Dark Sun were practically different games because of all the setting-specific rules. Articles such as Class Chronicles go a long way to help with this, but once again, are an imperfect solution to jack-of-all-trades style of rules that D&D is.
Better to do one thing well, then a hundred things mediocre. At least, that's IMHO. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 03 Oct 2011 19:30:46 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36989 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2011 : 19:45:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Also, casting spell after spell would not cause fatigue, even though in nearly every fantasy story we read this is the case. The system, as-is, can't emulate that.
I'm wondering what fantasy you're reading... The stuff I've read, getting fatigued is the exception, not the rule. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2011 : 23:57:04
|
Nearly every story I can think of, aside from Pulpy ('Conan') type stuff.
Mithgar is the first example that springs to mind - the Wizards there actually originate from another plane, and they are living batteries of magical energy, and they age as they use their power. The faster they use their limited supply, the quicker they age (although they still live for centuries - technically they are immortal, if they don't over do it).
And they sometimes go back to their home plane for a few decades, to re-charge (weird, that... reminds me of the modern-era Superman, who re-charges from sunlight). Ergo, the same wizard can appear in an earlier historic period with a long beard and Gandalf-esqu appearance, and in a later (timeline) story be fairly young-looking. I use something similar for my Fey concepts.
Equating magical energy to 'lifeforce' has been done so many times its practically a trope of the genre now (and I have a feeling FR was designed along those lines).
* * * * * * * * Spoiler Alert!!! * * * * * * * *
*EDIT: And I just realized, Cadderly in the Cleric Quintet is perfect FR example of this! That is... until RAS ruined the ending by sticking him in a later Drizzt book. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 04 Oct 2011 00:01:56 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12211 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 13:41:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Some of the things I think are a little overboard-
As much as I love the class, because I love fighter mages... I think their version of the eldritch knight goes overboard by giving d10 for hit dice PLUS 2 bonus feats beyond what the 3.5 DMG gives. I could see doing d8's for hit dice though, or d6's for the hit dice and leaving in the 2 bonus combat feats.
True but that comparison is measured by v3.5 standard and I'd say most of the changes to class design for Pathfinder made all class and PrC choices more powerful overall. When compared to other Pathfinder Prestige Classes, it's considered a "good" PrC but not in the "Broken" category.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The mystic theurge. I don't have it in front of me, but I recall there being some extra abilities thrown into the class, and I felt that the version in the 3.5 DMG was more than balanced. I mean, you're going up in 2 casting classes very well.
Anyway, any positive feedback appreciated. Again, I'm new to this new ruleset, but steeped in 3.5 rules. However, I'm only recently getting my head back into the rules after a stint of not looking at any of it when 4e came out.
Phillip aka Sleyvas
The Mystic Theurge (v3.5) was considered a "Poor" choice in many regards. Pretty much it's designed for Wizards who take some Cleric abilities (not the other way around). The PrC offers nothing (absolutely nothing) in the way of advancment besides spells. And what's worse, it prohibits a wizard who gains spells known during level advancing (same is true in PF as well).
The poor BAB and 1 good saving throw practically force the Character be a ranged caster unless serious devotion is put forth into self-improve combat spells. And with their lowly HP...well I think that's pretty clearly out of the question.
Pathfinder's verison, while suffering from many mistakes as the v3.5 one, does give a little added bonus to spell-swaping and thus allowing you some good versatilty. And as early as 16th level, you can effectively cast two spells at once 1/day. This, while seeming powerful, really isn't. Quickend Spell works just as good and your not hampering your character who normally gets 9th level spells at 17th level instead of at 20th.
My viewpoints stem from the fact that Pathfinder is declared to be a natural progression from the 3.5 books that we have so that you won't have to get rid of all the other material you've bought. That being said, my personal feelings are that if it were harder to get into the eldritch knight class it wouldn't be so bad. But there's several ways to get "all martial weapons" without having to take a level of fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin, even some others within pathfinder that I noted under some of the classes. So, basically, for just falling 2 levels behind in spellcasting, you gain 3 feats (instead of 2 as a wizard in 10 levels), a much better base attack, and almost double the hit points (granted if wizard were you're favored class, you could be getting the equivalent of D8's). So, for very little requirements, you get a prestige class that is significantly better than the class you were in. As I said, its not broken, but it does seem a little overboard on power. Combined with arcane archer, this could probably make for a very powerful ranged character who still has the ability to go toe to toe.
Again, I'm not looking to tear apart the system. So far, I like what I see, but as with most of us, I'm betting we've all had 30 years or more of looking at this stuff, so we know not everything printed is golden. I'm just trying to find out if there's any real gotchas I haven't run across yet.
Oh, one other thing, I also found what they did with favored class wonderful. The fact that no race is tied to one & continued progressing in it is rewarded. I thought that was a great idea, especially for some of my players (who unlike me don't like to multi-class) who wouldn't have a problem going full fighter or full paladin.... or for some of the new classes I saw that don't seem to have a lot of other options (like summoner). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 16:48:31
|
I would suggest actually playtesting some of this stuff before condemning it as "broken." I was sure that the Pathfinder monk was broken, and then my friend and I built a level 20 Monk and level 20 Fighter (respectively) and put them in battles against (appx) CR 20 critters. The first critter was a red dragon, I kept rolling nat 1s with my Fighter, so that seemed a little uneven. But then we pitted them against the Worm that Walks from Elder Evils, and that time the damage inflicted came out to be exactly the same. The Worm that Walks had DR that the Monk couldn't overcame through extra unarmed damage and the Fighter overcame through through feats that ignore some DR (up to 10 typed DR and 5 untyped DR). So if you are worried about things for your group, do some testing.  I assure you that at least the Core Rulebook was playtested the hell out of (just check out the Paizo forums from 2007-2009). |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4494 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 17:15:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
My viewpoints stem from the fact that Pathfinder is declared to be a natural progression from the 3.5 books that we have so that you won't have to get rid of all the other material you've bought. That being said, my personal feelings are that if it were harder to get into the eldritch knight class it wouldn't be so bad. But there's several ways to get "all martial weapons" without having to take a level of fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin, even some others within pathfinder that I noted under some of the classes. So, basically, for just falling 2 levels behind in spellcasting, you gain 3 feats (instead of 2 as a wizard in 10 levels), a much better base attack, and almost double the hit points (granted if wizard were you're favored class, you could be getting the equivalent of D8's). So, for very little requirements, you get a prestige class that is significantly better than the class you were in. As I said, its not broken, but it does seem a little overboard on power. Combined with arcane archer, this could probably make for a very powerful ranged character who still has the ability to go toe to toe.
Yet if it's all natural progression then why bother re-printing their own versions of classes or create varisons there of? I'd say 99% of the classes saw some revision that makes them superior to their v3.5 counterpart. A better comparison would be of these new classes with classes produced by WotC in the later stages of v3.5 (Tome of Battle classes, Dragon Fire Adept, Archivist, Dread Necromancer to name a few). These seem to be more on-par with Pathfinder classes power. Same goes for optimal choices such as Prestige Classes in v3.5 (the Abjurant Champion comes to mind) and these more or less fall into the Pathfinder power range.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Again, I'm not looking to tear apart the system. So far, I like what I see, but as with most of us, I'm betting we've all had 30 years or more of looking at this stuff, so we know not everything printed is golden. I'm just trying to find out if there's any real gotchas I haven't run across yet.
Oh, one other thing, I also found what they did with favored class wonderful. The fact that no race is tied to one & continued progressing in it is rewarded. I thought that was a great idea, especially for some of my players (who unlike me don't like to multi-class) who wouldn't have a problem going full fighter or full paladin.... or for some of the new classes I saw that don't seem to have a lot of other options (like summoner).
I agree with the favored classes. Nice to see that they made that mechanic more than what it was designed for. As for "gotcha" builds, an easy search through Google on Broken class options/builds will surely show you what problems exist within the system. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 22:09:39
|
You seem to be missing a basic premise - 3PF is sometimes called '3.75', NOT 'more 3e/OGL'.
It is the next generation, not an extension of the old generation, except that you can fairly easily use old materials with the new, simply by pumping the CR up a few levs, and maybe the major NPCs. Converting from 3.5 to 3PF should be as easy as it was to go from 3e to 3.5 (in other words, not as hard as going from 1e/2e to 3e, or from OD&D to AD&D).
They told us right up front that characters were a bit more powerful, and DMs had to adjust accordingly. Using old 3e/3.5 classes along side the PF ones isn't really recommended, but is entirely possible. I would only use the older classes for NPcs, myself, but if a player insists, let him (so long as he knows right up front he's nerfed a bit).
Its no big deal - even within 3e/3.5, many 3rd-party OGL products were not cross-compatible, and some cases we had several different versions of the same thing by different companies. I can think of a few 3rd party PrCs that were way over-powered. And how many broken races/PrCs did we have in the official D&D rules?
At least Paizo keeps things consistent within its own rules-system. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 01:11:03
|
There are still things that are broken and basically unchanged from 3.5.
Casters are still much more powerful then mundanes, in PF even more so then in 3.5.
I don't know if it's actually true, but it is said that Paizo didn't really listen to their playtesters. Many experienced 3.5 edition players where trying to point out that PF has all the flaws that where in 3.5, but their opinions where ignored and the users where banned.
Some relevant threads:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216691 (Warning: This one degenerated into a flamewar) |
Edited by - Imp on 05 Oct 2011 01:19:17 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36989 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 05:06:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
There are still things that are broken and basically unchanged from 3.5.
Casters are still much more powerful then mundanes, in PF even more so then in 3.5.
I don't know if it's actually true, but it is said that Paizo didn't really listen to their playtesters. Many experienced 3.5 edition players where trying to point out that PF has all the flaws that where in 3.5, but their opinions where ignored and the users where banned.
Some relevant threads:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216691 (Warning: This one degenerated into a flamewar)
I've never heard that they didn't listen to their playtesters -- quite the opposite, in fact. Besides, it doesn't make sense to use the general public as your playtest group and then ignore them.
It's also been my personal experience that Paizo's customer service goes way above and beyond -- and I think it unlikely that a company that does that would ignore their target audience.
I've also never understood the complaint about spellslingers being more powerful than swordswingers... Anyone can pick up a sword and wave it about, but it takes a lot to master even simple spells. And a 20th level fighter might be able to chop thru 100 orcs in 3 minutes, but he's still just one guy with a sword -- it makes sense that the guy who is able to act like arcane artillery is going to be more effective against those same 100 orcs. But no matter how powerful the wizard is, if he's got even a 3rd level fighter with a sword pressed to his throat, he's in trouble.
Spellslingers being more powerful is logical and balanced, considering their roles, training, and limitations. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 05 Oct 2011 05:14:28 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4494 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 13:38:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've also never understood the complaint about spellslingers being more powerful than swordswingers... Anyone can pick up a sword and wave it about, but it takes a lot to master even simple spells.
Since it's quite impossible to compare the two with any quantifiable means, I can only really attest to swordplay. While I guess the basics are simple (swing a piece of steel) it's quite more involved than that. There's a reason they made Simple and Martial categories with weapons. That reason being it takes in-born strength, speed, and hours of work to hone one's skills in it's usages. To create the sort of muscle memory required to have the reflexes of wielding a sword with any sort of proficiency takes a lot of time and practice.
So I think it's a bit disingenuous to write off this difficult practice as something anyone with an arm can perform and then say how hard it is or how masterful someon has to be to grasp magic. For all we know, Magic could be as easy to grasp as Mathematics. Once you have the core foundation of math, everything else seems to fall into place rather easily*. In all honesty, it's a simple as Incantation + Component + Hand Signal = Spell Effect. Once you have the information on how to do all 3 theres really little else stopping you (if you believe magic works like science which I don't).
NOTE*: I understand math can be seriously difficult for many to understand and the different theories out there are debated and that there is a lot involved with it. What I said is a gross simplification of the subject and meant to show that swordplay and magic require masters to fully exhibit their potential and neither are easy to perform.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And a 20th level fighter might be able to chop thru 100 orcs in 3 minutes, but he's still just one guy with a sword -- it makes sense that the guy who is able to act like arcane artillery is going to be more effective against those same 100 orcs. But no matter how powerful the wizard is, if he's got even a 3rd level fighter with a sword pressed to his throat, he's in trouble.
Spellslingers being more powerful is logical and balanced, considering their roles, training, and limitations.
I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that a 20th level wizard acting as magic artillery should be able to accomplish slaughtering 100 orcs in less time than one 20th level fighter chopping through orc ranks. However, and this is where we start to disagree, is that this disparity between the fighter and wizard is really the main problem in RPGs because of later levels the wizard can accomplish pretty much anything the fighter can do AND still get out of situations that threaten them. From spells such as Stone Skin to Contigent Spells and quick teleportation spells (Dimension Hop = Swift Action, 20ft. + 5 ft/level teleport) there's little a high level wizard can't do.
It basically comes down to the old saying "Anything you can do, I can do better with magic." syndrome. At later levels, Clerics can easily act as "Tanks" and thus taking up the front ranks and do so FAR better than fighters (Divine Power + Righteous Might combo). Wizards often surpass obsticles that the rogue was trained for like Knock for those pesky doors and Find Traps. The Fly spell pretty much standard procedure for wizards who have any inclination of adventuring and negate any sort of distance or physical terrain obsticle put forth by the DM.
So aside from a RP aspect, I can't for the life of me see any benefits of playing non-spellcasting classes past an 8th level game. If so, then that campaign should involve HEAVY usages of magical items. That's pretty much the only way to compensate for spellcasters in mid-to high-levels. And when you start dishing out +3, +4, +5 magical gear to non-spellcasters then the others start complaining that they don't get anything and it's just a whole mess.
Just not for me. When I DM v3.5 or PF it'll be exclusively an E6 or E8 game where everyone can participate and help in the adventure instead of a magic-wins catch all. This imbalance between magical and non-magical is one of the main reasons we have the "nerfing" of wizards in 4E and the "boosting" of fighters, mainly because spellcasters have always been considered "World-Changing characters, fighting on different planes" where as the fighter is lucky to get a nice Castle and retire an old man. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
Edited by - Diffan on 05 Oct 2011 13:52:46 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12211 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 15:08:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You seem to be missing a basic premise - 3PF is sometimes called '3.75', NOT 'more 3e/OGL'.
It is the next generation, not an extension of the old generation, except that you can fairly easily use old materials with the new, simply by pumping the CR up a few levs, and maybe the major NPCs. Converting from 3.5 to 3PF should be as easy as it was to go from 3e to 3.5 (in other words, not as hard as going from 1e/2e to 3e, or from OD&D to AD&D).
They told us right up front that characters were a bit more powerful, and DMs had to adjust accordingly. Using old 3e/3.5 classes along side the PF ones isn't really recommended, but is entirely possible. I would only use the older classes for NPcs, myself, but if a player insists, let him (so long as he knows right up front he's nerfed a bit).
Its no big deal - even within 3e/3.5, many 3rd-party OGL products were not cross-compatible, and some cases we had several different versions of the same thing by different companies. I can think of a few 3rd party PrCs that were way over-powered. And how many broken races/PrCs did we have in the official D&D rules?
At least Paizo keeps things consistent within its own rules-system.
ah, you're correct then. I had read something where they stated that their intent was to make something that wouldn't put your old books out the window, so I read that as they were trying to keep it relatively in line.
Oh, and yeah, how much was just blatantly broken (or in the reverse, so underpowered as to be useless) under the "official" flagship? Enormous. Have no doubt. There were things in complete mage that gave me shivers (reserve feats were a neat idea, but I felt they needed work... in complete mage there was some class that just out and out gave you the effects of illusion specialization with just a single level dip. Truename magic didn't take into account how easy it was according to rules to make +skill items.
Still, like I originally said, I was just looking for a feel from people who had messed with the system so far. It does look like for the most part the intent of the rules are more balanced. I do see certain feats were specifically not ported over, such as the persistent spell feat (which they created another "persistent spell" feat to even take the name slot of the other). It does look like though that some classes don't have many options so far other than going straight up as said class (not a problem, just something I noted). Also, does anyone get the feel that the witch class is definitely intended to be an NPC class? I can't see a player wanting it, but it definitely has ties to a lot of the classic fairy tale witches. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12211 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 15:25:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
From spells such as Stone Skin to Contigent Spells and quick teleportation spells (Dimension Hop = Swift Action, 20ft. + 5 ft/level teleport) there's little a high level wizard can't do.
It basically comes down to the old saying "Anything you can do, I can do better with magic." syndrome. At later levels, Clerics can easily act as "Tanks" and thus taking up the front ranks and do so FAR better than fighters (Divine Power + Righteous Might combo). Wizards often surpass obsticles that the rogue was trained for like Knock for those pesky doors and Find Traps. The Fly spell pretty much standard procedure for wizards who have any inclination of adventuring and negate any sort of distance or physical terrain obsticle put forth by the DM.
In 2E, I'd definitely agree here. However, in 3E, I feel like they went a long way towards balancing these. For instance, stoneskin's pretty much useless for a wizard at high level against a fighter. Why? That fighter is going to have an adamantine weapon. Sure, it sucks that at upper levels fighters are having to tote 3 or 4 weapons, but they end up doing it. At the same time, it sucks that wizards have to tote a bunch of staves or wands or scrolls... and those are not reusable like the weapons.
Ironguard's another spell that in 2E was just amazing for a wizard, but its definitely toned down. As to contingent spell effects that maybe bring up a lot of wards? Simple answer for that fighter... leave via some method (granted, this may involve some magic), wait 2 or 3 minutes, and then come back. Or get some kind of magic dispelling item. The fighters still going to have all his protections, but most everything that wizard had up is probably now gone. The fighter has the advantage of time to wear down the mage because theoretically he has the hit points to absorb the damage or the general protections to lessen it somewhat. Also, with the new rules and the mage's low AC, things like power attack in combo with a full attack can just devastate a mage, while possibly provoking attacks of opportunity as well.
This kind of thing is why I specifically enjoy playing fighter mages. I like to see the flip side of both coins here. There's a lot of fighter feats that I wished I could have taken with some of my NPC's that would have just made them amazing, but you've got such a limited pool and if you want to develop both sides you've got to be very careful.
Anyway, back to the original conversation. Thank you to the folks who have provided me some links to look at. I'll be sure to take a look tonight. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4494 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 16:18:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
In 2E, I'd definitely agree here. However, in 3E, I feel like they went a long way towards balancing these. For instance, stoneskin's pretty much useless for a wizard at high level against a fighter. Why? That fighter is going to have an adamantine weapon. Sure, it sucks that at upper levels fighters are having to tote 3 or 4 weapons, but they end up doing it. At the same time, it sucks that wizards have to tote a bunch of staves or wands or scrolls... and those are not reusable like the weapons.
Hmmmm, I guess this is true if a wizard is going up against a weapon-wielding foe...but against monsters with claws and bite attacks...or monsters commonly fought at higher levels? They usually don't have adamantine weapons easily at their disposal. As for toting items, a few wands and scrolls are a pittance to weight and give them a ton of versatility. Frankly I don't know too many people who play spellcasters that don't revel in the fact that they have all sorts of options ON TOP OF their spell selections. Not to mention that Wizard, specifically, can make most of the things they use.
Fighters, however, are usually locked into a specific weapon (longsword, flail, great-axe) and it's good luck or a lot of time at the smithy to find a magic weapon that fits the feats you've chosen let along multiple weapons with specific materials (Adamantine, Mithral, etc..). And most of these weight 3 to 5 times the amount 1 wand does. Besides those weapon changes are pretty much a requirment to be competant at later levels where as it's just handy and helpful for spellcasters.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Ironguard's another spell that in 2E was just amazing for a wizard, but its definitely toned down. As to contingent spell effects that maybe bring up a lot of wards? Simple answer for that fighter... leave via some method (granted, this may involve some magic), wait 2 or 3 minutes, and then come back. Or get some kind of magic dispelling item. The fighters still going to have all his protections, but most everything that wizard had up is probably now gone. The fighter has the advantage of time to wear down the mage because theoretically he has the hit points to absorb the damage or the general protections to lessen it somewhat. Also, with the new rules and the mage's low AC, things like power attack in combo with a full attack can just devastate a mage, while possibly provoking attacks of opportunity as well.
I see your going for the Fighter vs. Mage route but I should remind you of about 10 different spells that pretty much neutralize any sort of melee offensive:
Grease (Ref save or fall prone)
Ray of Enfeeblement (no save, instand Str damage)
Glitterdust (Will save or blinded)
Black Tenticles (no save, instant grapple and damage)
Solid Fog (no save, reduce to 5ft movement, penalties to melee attacks)
Crushing Despair (Will save or penalities to all rolls)
Bestow Curse (Will save or some very bad things)
Enervation (no save, level loss.....yea)
Wall of Iron (no save, can fall a target dealing....lots of damage, again with no save)
Forcecage (no save, instant immobilization)
Reverse Gravity (Reflex save if the target is lucky enought to be near something stable to grab)
Irresistible Dance (no save, considered helpless)
Any Summon Spell
Shadow Conjuration
What I've listed above are simple and easy ways for a Mage to disable any melee threat (in this case a Fighter) by target his bad saving throws OR using spells with no Saving throw required. At every instance the Fighter really has to roll well NOT to be effected. Do you now see the disparity? These are things that can completly and effectively remove these types of threats from mages and they STILL have loads of power to pour all sorts of arcane destruction to boot. Sorry but there is very little in the way of actual threats to a wizard aside form anti-magic fields and Spell Resistance....both effectes that straight Fighters can never reproduce without STRONG magical aid.
All that being said, even if a Fighter did break through all that and attacked the wizard, do you realize how many spells there are to protect them from harm? I'm not going to do another list but it's quite extensive. Basically a Fighter has to attack the wizard suprised, hope he doesn't have Contigent spells active, and hope he scores a critical hit to at least deal 50 some damage and hope for a Fort save or die effect. Problem is, even at higher levels unless specific measures are met, a fighter doesn't have much help dealing 50+ damage a swing unless he's pre-buffed, Power Attacks, Two-Handed weapon......those are pretty strict conditions if you ask me.
|
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
896 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 17:32:43
|
You forgot Fly
Yeah, I think everyone can agree that a wizard of high level, with access to all spells from PH1 and SC is pretty set against a regular fighter. Of course, it is not impossible for a fighter to win, but it is not a 5/5 out of 10 match-up. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36989 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 17:36:11
|
| It comes down to what every X vs. Y debate comes down to: specific scenarios that favor one side or the other. In situation A, Bahb the Fighter will run Tahm the Wizard thru with 17 different swords and a mace before Tahm has time to think of a cantrip. In situation B, Tahm will blast Bahb to tiny, tiny little bits, raise those bits as an undead, and then do it again, all before Bahb even knows Tahm is around. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4494 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 18:15:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It comes down to what every X vs. Y debate comes down to: specific scenarios that favor one side or the other. In situation A, Bahb the Fighter will run Tahm the Wizard thru with 17 different swords and a mace before Tahm has time to think of a cantrip. In situation B, Tahm will blast Bahb to tiny, tiny little bits, raise those bits as an undead, and then do it again, all before Bahb even knows Tahm is around.
Well sure there are variables, such as level and what magical items the characters have at the time of any sort of fight between the two. With NO magical items, even at mid levels (8 to 12) the wizard wins hands down. We'll even go so far to say that the fighter wins Initiative. It comes down to potent attacks. The fighter just can't dish out enough damage on a standard action attack (even power attack with leap attack and charging) that will do enough damage to drop a wizard to 0 hit poits. Then when it's the wizard's turn.....game over. Sorry but the situation has to be under ideal circumstances for the fighter to succeed in dropping the wizard regardless except at the most lower level where the wizard HP is under 40 or so. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36989 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 18:40:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It comes down to what every X vs. Y debate comes down to: specific scenarios that favor one side or the other. In situation A, Bahb the Fighter will run Tahm the Wizard thru with 17 different swords and a mace before Tahm has time to think of a cantrip. In situation B, Tahm will blast Bahb to tiny, tiny little bits, raise those bits as an undead, and then do it again, all before Bahb even knows Tahm is around.
Well sure there are variables, such as level and what magical items the characters have at the time of any sort of fight between the two. With NO magical items, even at mid levels (8 to 12) the wizard wins hands down. We'll even go so far to say that the fighter wins Initiative. It comes down to potent attacks. The fighter just can't dish out enough damage on a standard action attack (even power attack with leap attack and charging) that will do enough damage to drop a wizard to 0 hit poits. Then when it's the wizard's turn.....game over. Sorry but the situation has to be under ideal circumstances for the fighter to succeed in dropping the wizard regardless except at the most lower level where the wizard HP is under 40 or so.
Ah, but if they start toe to toe, the fighter wins. If the wizard winds up in a dead magic area, the fighter wins. Heck, magical silence or just a good gag would doom a lot of wizards.
So there is no inherent superiority of one class over the other -- it's all situational. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Marc
Senior Scribe
662 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 18:48:08
|
| Wizards, druids, archivists, artificers and others are powerful later on but nothing except the rules lawyers stops the GM to change their leveling up, kind of like in 2E, or give the non-spellcasting classes free Tomb of Battle abilities and better artifacts. What matters is that 3E and Pathfinder give so many options. |
. |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
896 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 19:01:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Ah, but if they start toe to toe, the fighter wins. If the wizard winds up in a dead magic area, the fighter wins. Heck, magical silence or just a good gag would doom a lot of wizards.
So there is no inherent superiority of one class over the other -- it's all situational.
I have a feeling that a fighter needs many 'ifs' if he hopes to win against a wizard at high level. Start a regular fight, with a reasonable distance between them (30ft), no pre-buffs and no exceptional terrain characteristics (like a wild/dead magic zone), and my money is on the wizard. The fighter does have a better chance if they start toe to toe, but even then it is not a clear win.
|
Edited by - Kilvan on 05 Oct 2011 19:03:16 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36989 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 19:59:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Ah, but if they start toe to toe, the fighter wins. If the wizard winds up in a dead magic area, the fighter wins. Heck, magical silence or just a good gag would doom a lot of wizards.
So there is no inherent superiority of one class over the other -- it's all situational.
I have a feeling that a fighter needs many 'ifs' if he hopes to win against a wizard at high level. Start a regular fight, with a reasonable distance between them (30ft), no pre-buffs and no exceptional terrain characteristics (like a wild/dead magic zone), and my money is on the wizard. The fighter does have a better chance if they start toe to toe, but even then it is not a clear win.
I don't think there's a need for all that many ifs... No distance, done deal. Silenced wizard, done deal. Etc.
Wizards may be way sexy powerful, but can easily be nerfed. Fighters don't have the same raw power, but it's a lot more difficult to nerf them. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12211 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 23:25:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
In 2E, I'd definitely agree here. However, in 3E, I feel like they went a long way towards balancing these. For instance, stoneskin's pretty much useless for a wizard at high level against a fighter. Why? That fighter is going to have an adamantine weapon. Sure, it sucks that at upper levels fighters are having to tote 3 or 4 weapons, but they end up doing it. At the same time, it sucks that wizards have to tote a bunch of staves or wands or scrolls... and those are not reusable like the weapons.
Hmmmm, I guess this is true if a wizard is going up against a weapon-wielding foe...but against monsters with claws and bite attacks...or monsters commonly fought at higher levels? They usually don't have adamantine weapons easily at their disposal. As for toting items, a few wands and scrolls are a pittance to weight and give them a ton of versatility. Frankly I don't know too many people who play spellcasters that don't revel in the fact that they have all sorts of options ON TOP OF their spell selections. Not to mention that Wizard, specifically, can make most of the things they use.
Fighters, however, are usually locked into a specific weapon (longsword, flail, great-axe) and it's good luck or a lot of time at the smithy to find a magic weapon that fits the feats you've chosen let along multiple weapons with specific materials (Adamantine, Mithral, etc..). And most of these weight 3 to 5 times the amount 1 wand does. Besides those weapon changes are pretty much a requirment to be competant at later levels where as it's just handy and helpful for spellcasters.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Ironguard's another spell that in 2E was just amazing for a wizard, but its definitely toned down. As to contingent spell effects that maybe bring up a lot of wards? Simple answer for that fighter... leave via some method (granted, this may involve some magic), wait 2 or 3 minutes, and then come back. Or get some kind of magic dispelling item. The fighters still going to have all his protections, but most everything that wizard had up is probably now gone. The fighter has the advantage of time to wear down the mage because theoretically he has the hit points to absorb the damage or the general protections to lessen it somewhat. Also, with the new rules and the mage's low AC, things like power attack in combo with a full attack can just devastate a mage, while possibly provoking attacks of opportunity as well.
I see your going for the Fighter vs. Mage route but I should remind you of about 10 different spells that pretty much neutralize any sort of melee offensive:
Grease (Ref save or fall prone)
Ray of Enfeeblement (no save, instand Str damage)
Glitterdust (Will save or blinded)
Black Tenticles (no save, instant grapple and damage)
Solid Fog (no save, reduce to 5ft movement, penalties to melee attacks)
Crushing Despair (Will save or penalities to all rolls)
Bestow Curse (Will save or some very bad things)
Enervation (no save, level loss.....yea)
Wall of Iron (no save, can fall a target dealing....lots of damage, again with no save)
Forcecage (no save, instant immobilization)
Reverse Gravity (Reflex save if the target is lucky enought to be near something stable to grab)
Irresistible Dance (no save, considered helpless)
Any Summon Spell
Shadow Conjuration
What I've listed above are simple and easy ways for a Mage to disable any melee threat (in this case a Fighter) by target his bad saving throws OR using spells with no Saving throw required. At every instance the Fighter really has to roll well NOT to be effected. Do you now see the disparity? These are things that can completly and effectively remove these types of threats from mages and they STILL have loads of power to pour all sorts of arcane destruction to boot. Sorry but there is very little in the way of actual threats to a wizard aside form anti-magic fields and Spell Resistance....both effectes that straight Fighters can never reproduce without STRONG magical aid.
All that being said, even if a Fighter did break through all that and attacked the wizard, do you realize how many spells there are to protect them from harm? I'm not going to do another list but it's quite extensive. Basically a Fighter has to attack the wizard suprised, hope he doesn't have Contigent spells active, and hope he scores a critical hit to at least deal 50 some damage and hope for a Fort save or die effect. Problem is, even at higher levels unless specific measures are met, a fighter doesn't have much help dealing 50+ damage a swing unless he's pre-buffed, Power Attacks, Two-Handed weapon......those are pretty strict conditions if you ask me.
Since this is getting WAAYYY off the original topic I was originally asking about, I'll just state that in my games, defense was one of the main considerations for most of my players (whether wizard or warrior). As a result, getting things to buff your saves against the things you were weak on was more important to the players than getting a +5 sword (or a +2 sword with flame, frost, shock, and acid dmg, etc...). A lot of the spells you list above have pitiful save DC's and a wizard's only going to have so many powerful high level spells to heighten. As to monsters not having those magic items, mages also aren't going to be able to bust out a stoneskin after every fight unless they're resting after every 3rd combat. If they're sinking money into charged staves of stoneskin, then they won't be sinking it into other things.
Anyway, this kind of argument leads in circles. I'll grant you, wizards have a more likelihood of surviving if they're prepared, but its not so unbalanced as to make it a no brainer. So far though, I've learned very little about my initial hopes and this seems to be deteriorating to just a rant (except for what Markustay <think it was him> said about Pathfinder stating that they intended for the play to be a bit more powerful, that does indeed put a new spin on things that I had not realized and I'll take that into account when reading). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2011 : 02:16:33
|
| Yes, when you use a 3.x monster against a PFRPG party, you should treat the monster's CR as if it were one less. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2011 : 16:49:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Yes, when you use a 3.x monster against a PFRPG party, you should treat the monster's CR as if it were one less.
Unless it's an ogre.
Flippin' ogres always mess up the CR's. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2011 : 16:50:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Yes, when you use a 3.x monster against a PFRPG party, you should treat the monster's CR as if it were one less.
Unless it's an ogre.
Flippin' ogres always mess up the CR's.
There are ogres in PF. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2011 : 16:53:10
|
| I know there are. My concern is the fact that I've had waaaaaay too many character deaths at the hands of ogres. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2011 : 17:10:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I know there are. My concern is the fact that I've had waaaaaay too many character deaths at the hands of ogres.
In the case of Pathfinder ogres, that's at least better than being taken alive.  |
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Pathfinder v/s 3.5 rules - trying for comparisons
