I want to CHEAT like a motherfucker at Pathfinder.

[Kajhera]

Pricing on frikkin' Birth Control.

Forgotten realms had this years ago.

Where, may I ask? And why hasn't Eberron discovered it?  

In the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, page somewhere around 96. Both are herbs.

And Eberron is a completely different feel of game, which is why they don't have any officially named ones. It has to do with the high-fantasy noir feeling.

Edit: Correction, Eberron has it, too. It's called a Dagger. It deals 1d4 damage.

Neat, found it. Thanks.

[Sunic_Flames]

Making a fail character will not properly demonstrate the point, as you will not live long enough to show them.

[veekie]

The difficult part of demonstrating significant detriments is probably that A) 3.5 and Pathfinder are practically identical for most purposes, B) Many of the nerfed areas are in places considered 'broken' by those unfamiliar with optimization, such as ubercharging or reach tripping, C) Some of the changes like the skill system or Polymorph changes actually improve the system. D) Thus, see A, some places better, some places worse, averages out.

[Unbeliever]

The difficult part of demonstrating significant detriments is probably that A) 3.5 and Pathfinder are practically identical for most purposes, B) Many of the nerfed areas are in places considered 'broken' by those unfamiliar with optimization, such as ubercharging or reach tripping, C) Some of the changes like the skill system or Polymorph changes actually improve the system. D) Thus, see A, some places better, some places worse, averages out.

(D) strikes me as a very big leap.  Hammering out a few proud nails (Polymorph), giving people some more incentive to stay in base classes (which is fine by me) all seem decent additions.  But, the nerfing and modifications have the effect of removing Power Attack as a major damage dealer, taking away one of the few nice things melee'ers could even look forward to and making combat maneuvers very difficult to use seems to me to detract more than helping. 

PF also takes away a huge amount of character options, namely b/c it doesn't have the library that 3.5 has, and is unclear whether it ever will.  So, there are fewer toys to play with, which makes people like me said.

Now, there is the possibility that by getting rid of a lot of the aforementioned toys PF adds a bit of balance into the universe on the back-end.  There are no Incantatrixes in PF, though Wizards can do the same sort of thing if they take the generalist specialization, and there is no Persistent Spell, I believe.  So, maybe there's something there.  But, that's not much of a fix, imho, and it's still at the cost of taking away a lot of fun of the classes that were supposed to be balanced.

Don't get me wrong, it's not all bad.  I'm intrigued by what they did with Paladin, though I don't think they went nearly far enough -- really, I think Paladin's healing and condition removal needs to be, like a Crusader's, something they do in the midst of combat -- but some of the fundamental changes like the CMB system and the nerfs to feats like Power Attack and the combat maneuver feats strike me as really big, ill-thought out changes.  I could be wrong, I haven't crunched the numbers of PF monsters to see, but that's my sense. 

The idea that it all "balances out" strikes me as kind of lazy.  It assumes that if there's some good and there's some bad then it will be ok. But, if the bad effectively wipes out a whole genre of concepts in the name of simplicity, then I think it needs to be reexamined. 

[veekie]

Its a masterpiece of marketing, see, the bad is all in places only people who know optimisation will ever find out.
This is a smaller portion of the market than the people easily led by the nice sparkly candy.

[Sunic_Flames]

And thus, is an exercise in lying to the ignorant. That is why Pathfailure is ab abomination.

For example. Pathfailure DOES have a Persistent Spell. Just instead of making buffs last 24 hours (thereby allowing you to do such things as "IP Proof" and "help others") it effectively raises save or lose DCs by 5.

So you flat out can't play a character that helps others, because they go out of their way to Johnson Stomp anything but the One True Way of playing. Spam save or loses. Over and over and over. Everything else will automatically fail.

And that's before considering Pathfailure mobs are the same or buffed vs beatsticks, but the same or nerfed vs casters, which just makes it even more clear there is only one way to play it, and everything else will result in your automatic annihilation. It isn't make a full team of save or lose spammers though, it's make Pathfailure die in a fire, and play a real game instead.

[McPoyo]

Yeah, Undead got a boost nearly across the board, except for the very lowest stuff.

[AleksanderTheGreat]

Pathfinder is cool. They made some fixes that I like and the fails aren't that troublesome, at least to me. 3.5 should be compatible with PF. I understand that it's not necessarily the case but it's nothing major because I'm moderating what is taken by my players and I'm "converting" material.
My policy is that: 3.5 is allowed but under observation () and anything from PF that was nerfed is taken from 3.5 (like Power Attack or CMB feats).

[juton]

And that's before considering Pathfailure mobs are the same or buffed vs beatsticks, but the same or nerfed vs casters, which just makes it even more clear there is only one way to play it, and everything else will result in your automatic annihilation. It isn't make a full team of save or lose spammers though, it's make Pathfailure die in a fire, and play a real game instead.

That's wrong and you know it. I did the math a while back, the average monster statistics haven't really changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, and Pathfinder seems to have narrowed the gap between the best monster and the average monsters at a given CR. You just have your head so far up your ass when it comes to Paizo over how meanly they treated you during the playtest you can't look at things objectively.

[AleksanderTheGreat]

And that's before considering Pathfailure mobs are the same or buffed vs beatsticks, but the same or nerfed vs casters, which just makes it even more clear there is only one way to play it, and everything else will result in your automatic annihilation. It isn't make a full team of save or lose spammers though, it's make Pathfailure die in a fire, and play a real game instead.

That's wrong and you know it. I did the math a while back, the average monster statistics haven't really changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, and Pathfinder seems to have narrowed the gap between the best monster and the average monsters at a given CR. You just have your head so far up your ass when it comes to Paizo over how meanly they treated you during the playtest you can't look at things objectively.

Now, to be fair to Sunic, I'm certain that he did his research before geting to the conclusion "PF = Fail".
I personally treat PF as 3.75 and cherry peak everything that I like. It's the best way, IMO.

[Unbeliever]

And that's before considering Pathfailure mobs are the same or buffed vs beatsticks, but the same or nerfed vs casters, which just makes it even more clear there is only one way to play it, and everything else will result in your automatic annihilation. It isn't make a full team of save or lose spammers though, it's make Pathfailure die in a fire, and play a real game instead.

That's wrong and you know it. I did the math a while back, the average monster statistics haven't really changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, and Pathfinder seems to have narrowed the gap between the best monster and the average monsters at a given CR. You just have your head so far up your ass when it comes to Paizo over how meanly they treated you during the playtest you can't look at things objectively.

Now, to be fair to Sunic, I'm certain that he did his research before geting to the conclusion "PF = Fail".
I personally treat PF as 3.75 and cherry peak everything that I like. It's the best way, IMO.

If you're going to use PF as 3.75, may I suggest also looking into Trailblazer.  It's cheap, like $5.  Although there is a lot of redundancy between it and PF, they have some nice analysis of some of the statistics behind the game. 

[veekie]

And that's before considering Pathfailure mobs are the same or buffed vs beatsticks, but the same or nerfed vs casters, which just makes it even more clear there is only one way to play it, and everything else will result in your automatic annihilation. It isn't make a full team of save or lose spammers though, it's make Pathfailure die in a fire, and play a real game instead.

That's wrong and you know it. I did the math a while back, the average monster statistics haven't really changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, and Pathfinder seems to have narrowed the gap between the best monster and the average monsters at a given CR. You just have your head so far up your ass when it comes to Paizo over how meanly they treated you during the playtest you can't look at things objectively.

Now, to be fair to Sunic, I'm certain that he did his research before geting to the conclusion "PF = Fail".
I personally treat PF as 3.75 and cherry peak everything that I like. It's the best way, IMO.

Hes still severely myopic on the matter.
Fair Comparisons would be 3.5 core standard 4 man party lineups vs level appropriate monsters against PF core 4 man party lineups vs level appropriate monsters. Certain archetypes are better supported(just about anything caster, due to acquiring Class Features, ), some are worse(high to hit 2H melee beatsticks can't translate the excess to damage so easily anymore and trip-like control builds are screwed by the feat tax on their strategy, but gaining more control type abilities via later feats).

They can't match the combined levels of fail/win in splatbooks because there aren't that many splats yet. Remember the 90% of godawful PrCs and feats that keep spawning? Or that 1% of gold gleaned through how many books? They don't have that yet.

[AleksanderTheGreat]

Sure they do. It's called 3.5.

[juton]

Hes still severely myopic on the matter.
Fair Comparisons would be 3.5 core standard 4 man party lineups vs level appropriate monsters against PF core 4 man party lineups vs level appropriate monsters. Certain archetypes are better supported(just about anything caster, due to acquiring Class Features, ), some are worse(high to hit 2H melee beatsticks can't translate the excess to damage so easily anymore and trip-like control builds are screwed by the feat tax on their strategy, but gaining more control type abilities via later feats).

They can't match the combined levels of fail/win in splatbooks because there aren't that many splats yet. Remember the 90% of godawful PrCs and feats that keep spawning? Or that 1% of gold gleaned through how many books? They don't have that yet.

That's generally true.

For casters I think losing 3.5 alterself/polymorph/shapechange doesn't make up for the boost in HP, especially when you factor in all the other spells that have been nerfed. Clerics are now better heal bots but are worse against undead, some of their domain powers are useful though. Druids now get elemental wildshape a lot earlier, but one the whole wildshape isn't as good as in 3.5. Sorcerers still have a stilted progression which is hair-pullingly frustrating. I don't think you can say definitively that one edition's casters are better than another's, I'm fine with either opinion, as long as it's presented as such and not as indisputable fact.

The thing is, in core power attack just doesn't generate that much damage, unless you manage to get some large bonus to-hit, a one level dip in Sorcerer/Wizard for true strike would do it. I have a spreadsheet floating around that shows a core non-caster in Pathfinder gets a bit more out of power attack than a 3.5 character, because against most enemies you don't want a penalty larger than 3-5 on attack rolls. So there instances where PF power attack is better, no one should universally say that it is without some merit.

Similarly with Pathfinder's CMB you're more likely to actually execute a trip than in 3.5, you'll need to invest another feat to get a similar effect and you won't benefit from a spiked chain so you'll need a reach weapon and gauntlets. You won't get that free attack on a prone opponent until level 6, but when you do your team mates will get to make attacks as well. You can easily make the argument that 3.5 trip is better, but no one should say that PF trip is without merits.

[AleksanderTheGreat]

Well, in PF you get more feats (1/2 lvls) so my guess would be that they made some tactics cost more feats to balance that out. :/

[Solo]

Which makes me wonder what the point of having more feats was.

"We're going to give you more feats! Also, you're going to have to spend more feats to do what you did in 3.5!"

[veekie]

Well, in PF you get more feats (1/2 lvls) so my guess would be that they made some tactics cost more feats to balance that out. :/

Naw, that PARTICULAR issue was due to some extremely vocal people denigrating spiked chain tripping as broken.

[AleksanderTheGreat]

Well, in PF you get more feats (1/2 lvls) so my guess would be that they made some tactics cost more feats to balance that out. :/

Naw, that PARTICULAR issue was due to some extremely vocal people denigrating spiked chain tripping as broken.

Well, that too.

Which makes me wonder what the point of having more feats was.

"We're going to give you more feats! Also, you're going to have to spend more feats to do what you did in 3.5!"

Same here. That's why I'm mixing PF and 3.5.

[Sobolev]

I can say Wild Shape does seem a lot worse, and some Cleric spells are nerfed or not present (Divine Power jumps to mind).  There's also no DMM: Persist going on.  That being said, Wizards and Sorcs feel exactly the same, and i wrecked a game to become King of Puerto Rico and King of England.  the only thing that was lame was Glitterdust getting a save every turn against the blind.  On the whole, everything else was basically the same.  The DM even made us fight every battle in high winds so my clouds would go away in like 2 rounds, and it was still fine.

[Sunic_Flames]

And that's before considering Pathfailure mobs are the same or buffed vs beatsticks, but the same or nerfed vs casters, which just makes it even more clear there is only one way to play it, and everything else will result in your automatic annihilation. It isn't make a full team of save or lose spammers though, it's make Pathfailure die in a fire, and play a real game instead.

That's wrong and you know it. I did the math a while back, the average monster statistics haven't really changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, and Pathfinder seems to have narrowed the gap between the best monster and the average monsters at a given CR. You just have your head so far up your ass when it comes to Paizo over how meanly they treated you during the playtest you can't look at things objectively.

Hi Welcome

I'm right and you know it. You want examples, here's a fucking classic:

Ice Devil.

The Pathfailure Ice Devil has the same or better defenses against melee, and the same other abilities, but worse saves. Significantly worse. So it's a little bitch to any caster, but automatically annihilates beatsticks.

Or how about White Dragons, the CR 15 one? Much better vs beatsticks, easier vs casters.

Ignoring more Paizil Fallacy.

As for beatsticking, everyone here knows, or should know that any DPS beatstick without one of several things from a short list is a complete waste of space. And all of those things mean you are PAing for full, all the time, and still hitting, most likely on a 2. Because you are absolutely required to do so in order to justify yourself and your existence. Which means the Pathfailure Power Attack, in which you cannot do relevant DPS, and therefore cannot be a worthwhile party member or worthwhile choice of character from the player perspective does in fact mean that you Fail. Completely and utterly. That is what being a DPS class that can't DPS means.

The Pathfailure change to Power Attack does do all of the following though:

Make enemy beatsticks tear beatsticks apart even more, as they probably are doing more damage now.
Make AC completely worthless, instead of just mostly so, since you're going to get auto hit and full PAed anyways, whereas in 3.5 it at least turned some one round KOs into two, by virtue of only being able to PA for 10 or something and still auto hit.

Meanwhile, things like fucking with caster's auto attacks have all of the following effects:

It removes something not that good, that they were basically fucking around with for the lulz.
It encourages them to find another valid option.

And since there is only one of those, that means every mother fucking caster is spamming save or loses, because it's the only choice, which means the whole "caster nerf" thing was just a goddamned illusion, because the thing they all gravitated too was made better than ever before.

Hi Welcome

Oh and feats wise, that's another example of a smokescreen. See, when you get about a third more feats, but need 2-4 times the feats to do what you were doing before, and you probably aren't doing it as well even then, you effectively have less feats, and not more. Just like if I stole a Benjamin from you, and gave you 500 dollars in Monopoly money, you'd be a fucking retard to react with anything other than anger. It only takes more feats if you're a beatstick though. Casters actually do get more feats, and sometimes better feats as well, so they're laughing at you even as they hold your face against the pillows so you can't enjoy it.

This has been a Mass Smite Imbecile, courtesy of your not so friendly neighborhood Kitsune.