Notices


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


Pathfinder: Pathfinder vs D&D 3.5

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
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.
That all depends on your DM... personally, I don't think it would make sense for some elemental, no matter how powerful, to know information falling outside their purview as outsiders... you're simply asking them questions, not being their buddy. From the spell itself,
Quote:
The powers reply in a language you understand, but they resent such contact and give only brief answers to your questions. All questions are answered with “yes,” “no,” “maybe,” “never,” “irrelevant,” or some other one-word answer.
Same for commune: It wouldn't make any sense for them to give you information outside their purview. Again, from the spell:
Quote:
The spell, at best, provides information to aid character decisions. The entities contacted structure their answers to further their own purposes. If you lag, discuss the answers, or go off to do anything else, the spell ends.
So, if the DM houserules it to make the spell more powerful or utilitarian than intended, then that's the DM, not the ruleset.


Quote:
Really? I'd think they might due to things like nigh-omnipotence and precognition.
Again, see above: Depends on the DM's interpretations of the gods and their servants, as well as the setting of the world you're playing in. The spell, as written, is designed to not overshadow a gather information skill check in all situations.


Quote:
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.
You seemed to have missed the end of that paragraph, where I said, "Again, depends on your playstyle." In your particular example, it would require defining what "outmuscle" means specifically in that situation, and so whether it's true or not depends on your interpretation or what part of the game experience you focus on.

Not that this will convince Gavin but I'm a rules knob, have played both systems extensively and can offer a little to this discussion.

2a.) Let's start with the rogue.
- They are about the same as before with better skills overall, a couple new tricks and an extra HP/level but with nerfed tumbling. I had never heard of using splash weapons to sneak attack and probably wouldn't have allowed it in my game because I can't imagine a vial of acid being used to do precision damage. That'd be up to the individual DM though but I'd have Rule 0'd that one.

2b.) Fighters
- In my estimation, fully optimized PF fighters are actually better at tripping than 3.5 (after the first handful of levels) because CMB gets every bonus that the tripping weapon gets, including, but not limited to, the bonus on the weapon, weapon focus, weapon training, morale, luck etc. etc. There are a couple of weird cases where 3.5 trippers can do a better job (against flying creatures and when using the arguably overpowered polymorph mechanics to change into very specific creatures) but their chance to trip is better against CR-appropriate targets than in 3.5 for every level except the first 2 or 3 (when the strength check bonus is better). That it costs an extra feat is inconsequential because there are more feats in PF so they are all a little cheaper to get.

- Regarding Power Attack, there is a fallacy there because a PF power-attack optimized fighter gets a better to hit to damage exchange rate (-1/+3) and gets more to hit and damage bonuses through weapon training. Accordingly, while the PF fighter doesn't do as much per hit, he hits much more often against CR-appropriate targets and does the same or more damage per round.

- Armour training means full speed fighters in full plate.

- Anecdotal I know, but the straight up sword and board fighter in my face to face PF group is the strongest PC by far. At level 10, his AC is just now dipping into hit-able range, does way more damage than anyone else and has been this way since the beginning.

2c.) Monks.
- Flurry of blows has a better BAB, more attacks, more dangerous stunning fist at higher level.

2d.) Melee monsters stronger.
- I haven't really seen what you describe to be all that important. The flip side of the grapple nerfing is PCs aren't out of the fight as soon as they are grappled either.

3.) Lots of the more powerful classes were buffed.
- Pretty much all of the buffs are for colour or lower-powered than the spells whose action they replace.
- Sorcerers are a little better than they were because quicken spell works and there are a few interesting options. In my mind, this is a good thing because I always felt sorcs were behind the curve compared to wizards.
- Wizards are about the same because in practise, they do the same things they did before - cast a spell every round. The class abilities aren't much to write home about and either replace a crossbow bolt or are largely non-combat abilities.
- Cleric spells are about the same as or worse than before. Some nerfing in the domain abilities and armour proficiencies have made uber-melee cleric builds less viable than before. Channelling energy makes the cleric more fun to play but doesn't really affect balance because it's a whole-party affecting ability.
- I haven't played much with the APG classes but regarding the witch slumber hex, I suspect it would be not quite so overpowered in actual play. Its major downside is it still only affects one target per round and if the target makes its save it cannot be targeted again. If we look at SOS/SOD spells, at 1st level, sleep is better because of more targets. At 5th level, Stinking cloud hits more targets and is just as bad in terms of taking them out of the fight and Hold Person is pretty similar with the target being unable to be roused. At 10th level, Dominate Person/Hold Monster/Feeblemind are about the same or better. At higher levels, there's just so much better you could do with your time than invoke a single SOS/SOD saving throw.

In my now 10th level PF group:
- The fighter is the strongest PC (but he suffers now that higher level enemies are gaining mobility advantages)
- The bow ranger is the second-strongest (less damage per hit, a lot more hits per combat)
- The cleric, wizard and sorcerer are about equal (but admittedly, they aren't being played to full potential)
- The shadowdancer rogue is the least combat effective and maybe the most non-combat effective underground/at night

We had a bard who was great at support but sucked at direct combat because of his build. He's been replaced by a barbarian who has ludicrous HP and does loads of damage. I'd say the bard was on the rogue tier and the barbarian is somewhere in the fighter/ranger tier but time will tell on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aftershock View Post
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.
"It could just be me, but it seems like every single time a 3.5 vs. Pathfinder thread comes up, the ultra-militant 3.5 enthusiasts always seem to bring up arguments involving combat potential, and list specific situations that Pathfinder doesn't support RAW as strongly as 3.5 did, usually (but not always) invoking splatbooks."
Who were you talking to?

Quote:
I can't imagine a vial of acid being used to do precision damage. That'd be up to the individual DM though but I'd have Rule 0'd that one.
Actually, if I may chime in...

Acids that we are familiar with, like hydrochloric acid, burn the surfaces they are exposed to. However, other acids, like hydroflouric acid, get carried throught the skin and can burn you down to the bone even if it only splashes on your skin, without having to eat through the stuff in between. You could be splashing hydroflouric acid onto a target's vitals (organs) and damaging them directly with acid.

SCIENCE!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
"It could just be me, but it seems like every single time a 3.5 vs. Pathfinder thread comes up, the ultra-militant 3.5 enthusiasts always seem to bring up arguments involving combat potential, and list specific situations that Pathfinder doesn't support RAW as strongly as 3.5 did, usually (but not always) invoking splatbooks."
Who were you talking to?
Not you in particular? If you feel like having that statement apply directly to you, and feel like being offended because of it, I suppose I can't really do anything about it.

Reading how this thread has gone along hasn't surprised me at all. You post just 1 thing on the internet that's interesting in some way and people get all fussed up over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImperatorK View Post
Solo isn't a 3.5 supporter. He's just a Pathfinder hater.
In a related note, I'm not a liberal, I just dislike conservatism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Acids that we are familiar with, like hydrochloric acid, burn the surfaces they are exposed to. However, other acids, like hydroflouric acid, get carried throught the skin and can burn you down to the bone even if it only splashes on your skin, without having to eat through the stuff in between. You could be splashing hydroflouric acid onto a target's vitals (organs) and damaging them directly with acid.

SCIENCE!
What you are talking about speaks to there being a need for something more powerful than just a 1d6 acid as much as it does anything else.

Imagine a 20th level fighter and a 20th level rogue. Attacking with the flask, the fighter could do a maximum of 2d6 damage with a critical hit, no matter how many individual attacks he got. The rogue would have a maximum of 12d6. To me, this damage scaling doesn't make sense and the damage is inherently imprecise, running against what I see as sneak attack damage. For those two reasons, I wouldn't allow it.

It's not a 3.5/PF thing.

A level 20 Fighter who wanted to specialize in throwing would have Quick Draw, Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Brutal Throw, Power Attack, Power Throw, Improved Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, etc.

He would be adding his strength to damage, he would be able to Power Throw (power attack with thrown weapons), he would have many many many more attacks than the rogue, his precision would be higher, he wouldn't need to rely on the wizard Greasing the enemies to do his damage, etc. etc.

His damage would be okay. The rogue, on the other hand, would only be able to get some of those feats, and would be making fewer attacks. The Rogue, on the other hand, has to wait for the Wizard to Grease enemies, doesn't get as many throws, can't power attack with thrown weapons, doesn't have as much strength to add to damage with the thrown weapons, and has to do his sneak attack damage to deal damage.

What's the problem?





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