Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


Pathfinder: Pathfinder vs D&D 3.5

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuriel View Post
Are we really comparing rogues to spellcasting classes? Has anyone claimed that rogues are equal in power to spellcasters?
I thought Pathfinder was a more balanced version of 3.5e, which would entail that a spellcasting class doesn't get to overshadow a rogue at his area of expertise.

Quote:
How did that debate turn out in regards to 3.5e? Was it brought to an agreeable conclusion?
No points for guessing how it turned out.

Ya really when you compare 3.5 to Pathfinder. It's really kind of unfair, Pathfinder is a marked improvement in almost every way. The problem is that 3.5 just have a VAST amount of content, but sense 4th (Special) Edition has come out, Wizards really dose not care about 3.5 any more.

And the fact of the matter is that you can get most the pathfinder info on the SRD website. And you can use almost anything from 3.5 or really 3.0 in Pathfinder with a little DM leg work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aftershock View Post
"Breathe?" Weird, had the same thing happen with Xcodes, where he seemed to think I was bothered or angry, when I was simply stating logical facts. I'm curious what you might think if you re-read my words imagining a normal, non-emotional tone of voice.
My apologies.

Quote:
Anyway, skills are about equal in Pathfinder, though slightly boosted in power by combining some that you usually rolled together (like turning Hide and Move Silently into Stealth, since generally in 3.5, you would always roll both, and if one failed, it was like both failed), or rolling little-used skills into other related skills (like making Acrobatics roll Tumble, a more-often-used skill, in with Balance, a less-used skill).
That's great to hear, but it doesn't seem enough to compensate for the fact that Gather Information seems to be less useful at gathering information than Contact Other Plane or Commune, especially when you can get around the XP cost.

(Forgive me if that specific example turns out to be wrong.)

Quote:
They're also improved by the fact that class skills you have a rank in simply adds 3 to your roll, instead of having to spend 2 skill points to get 1 increase in a non-class skill, and having non-class skills restricted to half the skills of a class skill... therefore, you can spread your skills around without as much worry about "wasting" a skill point, and have a character have a decent chance in a non-class skill that utilizes a stat they have a decent score in, yet still allowing those skill-classes like Rogues and Bards to have an advantage in many skills that non-skill classes do not.
Speaking of Bards, I hear that Bards with Versatile Performance are actually better at skills than the Rogue. Thoughts on that one?

On a vaguely related note, I also hear that Ninjas are a more solid class than the Rogue. Again, thoughts?

Quote:
Ya really when you compare 3.5 to Pathfinder. It's really kind of unfair, Pathfinder is a marked improvement in almost every way. The problem is that 3.5 just have a VAST amount of content, but sense 4th (Special) Edition has come out, Wizards really dose not care about 3.5 any more.

And the fact of the matter is that you can get most the pathfinder info on the SRD website. And you can use almost anything from 3.5 or really 3.0 in Pathfinder with a little DM leg work.
Two things come to mind.

1. Pathfinder had 10+ years of 3rd edition experience and material to draw upon. They could have taken the best of 3rd edition and run with it. I don't think they did, which makes me disappoint.
2. This has been bugging me for quite a while. How would you get Lyric Spell to work in Pathfinder?

Honestly, I'm surprised this thread has lasted 6 pages without getting closed by a mod. Usually the super-militant supporters come out by now and start throwing around insults and conspiracy theories, it gets completely derailed, and the mods have to step in and separate the squalling children. :P

As for spellcasters vs. rogues in terms of skills, yeah, rogues do better at skills than spellcasters, or at least in terms of non-knowledge skills (which a spellcaster still does, and logically should, excel at more than a base rogue). Sure, a spellcaster can still boost their skill-related stats with spells, or use Enchantment spells (if they have them) to bypass social skill checks, but in a non-prepped situation (like a sudden need to talk down an offended king with Diplomacy or balance across a narrow ledge to escape a charging horde of orcs), the rogue will usually come out on top, with the standard deviation due to poor dice rolls on the rogue's part or great dice rolls on the spellcaster's part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
I thought Pathfinder was a more balanced version of 3.5e, which would entail that a spellcasting class doesn't get to overshadow a rogue at his area of expertise.
I appreciate your sarcasm. It's what brightens up an otherwise boring day, but the idea that Pathfinder brings about balance between a mundane class like a rogue, and a class with access to spellcasting is a myth. For the record, anyone who still believes that: It's a myth.

That said, I maintain that no one here was making that claim.


Quote:
No points for guessing how it turned out.
That's ok. I wasn't hoping for points. I'll answer it for you though. It turned out the same way it is turning out here. The two don't compare (mundanes and spellcasters). They didn't compare in 3.5e. They don't compare in Pathfinder. Thus, the idea has no place in a thread meant to highlight the differences between the two systems. In that regard, the two systems are identical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aftershock View Post
Honestly, I'm surprised this thread has lasted 6 pages without getting closed by a mod. Usually the super-militant supporters come out by now and start throwing around insults and conspiracy theories, it gets completely derailed, and the mods have to step in and separate the squalling children. :P
I have to point something out here. A lot of us "super-militant" supporters of 3.5e do not in fact like 3.5e. Come on, we're pointing out problems with 3.5e balance left and right. I myself joined the Legend project to try and build a better RPG than 3.5e largely because of the many systemic flaws in 3.5e. I would appreciate it very much if you would stop calling me a 3.5e supporter.

The reason I do not like Pathfinder is because Pathfinder has several failures. It disappoints for not living up to the hype, it did not deliver on many promises, and the end product is ultimately only a small improvement on its predecessor from what I can tell.

Just because I dislike Pathfinder does not mean I like 3.5e.

Thank you for your time.

Quote:
As for spellcasters vs. rogues in terms of skills, yeah, rogues do better at skills than spellcasters, or at least in terms of non-knowledge skills (which a spellcaster still does, and logically should, excel at more than a base rogue). Sure, a spellcaster can still boost their skill-related stats with spells, or use Enchantment spells (if they have them) to bypass social skill checks, but in a non-prepped situation (like a sudden need to talk down an offended king with Diplomacy or balance across a narrow ledge to escape a charging horde of orcs), the rogue will usually come out on top, with the standard deviation due to poor dice rolls on the rogue's part or great dice rolls on the spellcaster's part.
Correct me if I am misunderstanding this, but is a Rogue specializing in Diplomacy weaker than a Wizard casting Enchantments when both are setting out to do it?

Quote:
I appreciate your sarcasm. It's what brightens up an otherwise boring day, but the idea that Pathfinder brings about balance between a mundane class like a rogue, and a class with access to spellcasting is a myth. For the record, anyone who still believes that: It's a myth.

That said, I maintain that no one here was making that claim.
I apologize for the sarcasm, but the fact that dozens of spells have been rebalanced to be less disruptive or "game-breaking." was what initially drew me to Pathfinder.

No apology necessary. I was being sincere. A good dose of levity is what a thread like this needs.

And for the most part it seems we agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
My apologies.


That's great to hear, but it doesn't seem enough to compensate for the fact that Gather Information seems to be less useful at gathering information than Contact Other Plane or Commune, especially when you can get around the XP cost.

(Forgive me if that specific example turns out to be wrong.)
No problem, it just confused me, is all. Seems to happen with me a lot, where people think I'm angry or bothered when I type something, when I'm not in the slightest. *shrug* Anyway...

Actually, Gather Information was rolled into Diplomacy (which makes sense). The reason it can be just as useful (and more useful in some situations) is that, as you already mentioned, RAW it doesn't have an XP cost, as well as the fact that you're more likely to get information directly related to your situation with using Diplomacy to gather information if the option is even there (a.k.a. you're in somewhere with crowds, not in a dungeon or the wilderness). Also, you can get more than a one-word answer (in regards to contact other plane) and avoid possible Int/Cha damage, and can get answers to things other than simple yes or no questions (in regards to commune). Also, as mentioned, it has to do with what information you're getting... an agent of your deity or an outsider from another plane wouldn't be likely to know how to contact the crime lord of the city you're in, for example.


Quote:
Speaking of Bards, I hear that Bards with Versatile Performance are actually better at skills than the Rogue. Thoughts on that one?

On a vaguely related note, I also hear that Ninjas are a more solid class than the Rogue. Again, thoughts?
With Versatile Performance, bards can be better at some skills, but the skills are pretty limited, and usually things the bard already has as class skills (and are Charisma based, just like Perform is, so no different than using the skill by itself if you have ranks it in, which a standard bard might anyway for many of the skills covered by Versatile Performance). Those skills that fall outside that (Handle Animal isn't something most bards would have, Sense Motive is Wisdom-based, and Acrobatics/Fly are Dexterity-based) aren't exactly game-breakers, and take a certain kind of bard to get, anyway (unless you take the 3.5 feat that allows you to treat all Perform skills as having equal ranks, which would be DM discretion).

As for Ninjas, they're pretty much rogues with some monk flavoring... they're equal, just different. They swap trapfinding for poison use, trap sense for no trace, base evasion for light steps, and get ninja tricks that use ki (making them a more efficient cross-class choice for monk) instead of rogue talents that don't generally require anything to use, as well as swapping master strike for hidden master. They're pretty much just a more extreme version of a rogue archetype... not more powerful, just a different focus.



Quote:
Two things come to mind.

1. Pathfinder had 10+ years of 3rd edition experience and material to draw upon. They could have taken the best of 3rd edition and run with it. I don't think they did, which makes me disappoint.
2. This has been bugging me for quite a while. How would you get Lyric Spell to work in Pathfinder?
1. I think they did take some of the best of 3.x, while removing a lot of the bloat. It's nice being able to make a viable character in Pathfinder without having to have 6 separate books open just to make sure I'm not missing anything that would make my character fall far behind the characters of those players who did choose to use all the expanded content. For now, at least, Pathfinder is easier to play a more basic game with, which I prefer, instead of running calculators and figuring out scenarios in an attempt to make a game-breaking character with combinations of feats and other rules from the dozens of splatbooks that 3.5 had. Again, depends on your playstyle.

2. Beyond adjusting the Perform ranks prereq for the change in ranks/max ranks in skills in Pathfinder (so 6 instead of 9 ranks required), and perhaps adjusting the number of uses of bardic music each spell needs (to compensate for the change in how many bardic music uses Pathfinder bards get vs. 3.5 bards), it seems to me to be a pretty straightforward conversion from 3.5 to Pathfinder.

Quote:
Also, you can get more than a one-word answer (in regards to contact other plane) and avoid possible Int/Cha damage, and can get answers to things other than simple yes or no questions (in regards to commune).
A sufficiently intelligent person in game can avoid the drawbacks of COP; it has been argued that you can simply take 10 on the Int check to avoid ability damage.

As for Commune, I suppose that depends on how good you are at Twenty Questions.

Quote:
Also, as mentioned, it has to do with what information you're getting... an agent of your deity or an outsider from another plane wouldn't be likely to know how to contact the crime lord of the city you're in, for example.
Really? I'd think they might due to things like nigh-omnipotence and precognition.

Quote:
1. I think they did take some of the best of 3.x, while removing a lot of the bloat. It's nice being able to make a viable character in Pathfinder without having to have 6 separate books open just to make sure I'm not missing anything that would make my character fall far behind the characters of those players who did choose to use all the expanded content.
Forgive the tangent, but I think it's a little inaccurate to portray the situation as such when a core only Druid can outmuscle a splatbook enabled Fighter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
I would appreciate it very much if you would stop calling me a 3.5e supporter.
At what point did I do that? I don't believe I've called you anything this entire thread, or any other thread, that I remember/am aware of.


Quote:
Correct me if I am misunderstanding this, but is a Rogue specializing in Diplomacy weaker than a Wizard casting Enchantments when both are setting out to do it?
Directly, yes, since a charm person immediately allows the target to be treated with an attitude of friendly, no roll required (beyond the saving throw of the target). So, prepared, a spellcaster with access to that spell (or similar spells) can do what a rogue specialized in Diplomacy can do, except they require their target to make a roll instead of themselves. However, long-term the Diplomacy rogue is better, since after the spell is over (or if the target makes their save), they have a chance of realizing they were manipulated against their will and might turn on the group/start working against the spellcaster's goals, while a successful Diplomacy check doesn't "stop working" unless the rogue directly does something to negate the good will they garnered, and has the potential to create long-term allies.


Quote:
I apologize for the sarcasm, but the fact that dozens of spells have been rebalanced to be less disruptive or "game-breaking." was what initially drew me to Pathfinder.
In my opinion/experiences, Pathfinder has balanced a lot of spells RAW to make them less powerful, though a lot of examples I've read in regards to the overpowered-ness of certain spells from 3.5 had more to do with group/DM interpretation than actual straight lack of balance in the spell itself. As in, it was overpowered because the DM allowed it to be overpowered, which is less a problem with the spell and more a problem with the DM/player. With the pump in power to many of the non-spellcaster classes, a properly prepared DM with his full toolbox can control a spellcaster just as easily as a non-spellcaster, if necessary, while not letting the spellcasters always outshine the non-spellcasters outside of those situations (mechanically, at least).





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status