I want to CHEAT like a motherfucker at Pathfinder.

[Kajhera]

... Isn't that what most of us are acknowledging anyway? 

[Sunic_Flames]

... Isn't that what most of us are acknowledging anyway? 

You and me =/= most of us. Most of those here are trying to defend the undefendable.

[Kajhera]

... Isn't that what most of us are acknowledging anyway? 

You and me =/= most of us. Most of those here are trying to defend the undefendable.

They mentioned core beatsticks, I think... well...

[AleksanderTheGreat]

Well. I'm not sharing your gaming philosophy but I can't say that it's not true what you're writing (at least the theories).

[Sunic_Flames]

... Isn't that what most of us are acknowledging anyway? 

You and me =/= most of us. Most of those here are trying to defend the undefendable.

They mentioned core beatsticks, I think... well...

Precisely. Core 3.5 at least offers a few beatstick builds. They're CoDzillas, but if you're expecting balance from core you're doing it wrong.

In Pathfailure though? It's like Dragon Age - mages wtfpwn all, and beatsticks feebly flail to take the last 5% off the mob before it kills everyone.

[juton]

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.

On the face of it those are good examples, but lets dig a little deeper. The Ice Devil in 3.5 and Pathfinder both have the same AC, Fortitude and Reflex saves, the Pathfinder Ice Devil has 14 more hitpoints and a Will save 3 points lower. I think a SoD based caster will have an easier time against this enemy, both versions of the Ice Devil have below average HP as an aside. What about melee characters then? Well they all have a higher wealth by level, so that should help a little with attack and defense along with two extra feats and their class level in extra HP, at least. The Ice Devil only gains one more HP in the conversion than any single classed character.

Lets look at the CR 15 White Dragon, in 3.5 it's a very old Dragon, in Pathfinder it's ancient. The HP increase from 3.5 to Pathfinder is paltry, a mere 7 hit points but it receives a rather sizeable 6 point increase to armour class. Extra feats and WBL can only do so much, I think a melee character will have a harder time. The Pathfinder Dragon also sees his Will save increased by one point and his SR increase by 3 points. Humans and half-humans get a +2 ability modifier that's going to go into the casting stat cancelling out that will save increase but the difference in WBL probably won't afford them a way to negate that increase in SR. So this encounter has gotten more difficult for both melee and caster, especially when you consider the dragon gets access to more powerful abilities with its age category increase.

I could start flipping through monster manuals looking for counter examples, but I won't waste people's time. If you look at the averages from levels 1-20, Pathfinder increased HP about 1 point per level (1.17 to be exact), which is about what a Pathfinder character gets from their favoured class bonus. The outliers have less hitpoints than in Pathfinder, the average difference between average and max hitpoints in Pathfinder is 22 hit points, in 3.5 it's 95 hit points. Pathfinder increases the average AC by 1.38 on average, that's not a huge leap. Pathfinder simple doesn't nerf melee characters, the numbers show it.

tl;dr?
Hi Welcome,
lrn 2 math newb

[Sobolev]

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.

On the face of it those are good examples, but lets dig a little deeper. The Ice Devil in 3.5 and Pathfinder both have the same AC, Fortitude and Reflex saves, the Pathfinder Ice Devil has 14 more hitpoints and a Will save 3 points lower. I think a SoD based caster will have an easier time against this enemy, both versions of the Ice Devil have below average HP as an aside. What about melee characters then? Well they all have a higher wealth by level, so that should help a little with attack and defense along with two extra feats and their class level in extra HP, at least. The Ice Devil only gains one more HP in the conversion than any single classed character.

Lets look at the CR 15 White Dragon, in 3.5 it's a very old Dragon, in Pathfinder it's ancient. The HP increase from 3.5 to Pathfinder is paltry, a mere 7 hit points but it receives a rather sizeable 6 point increase to armour class. Extra feats and WBL can only do so much, I think a melee character will have a harder time. The Pathfinder Dragon also sees his Will save increased by one point and his SR increase by 3 points. Humans and half-humans get a +2 ability modifier that's going to go into the casting stat cancelling out that will save increase but the difference in WBL probably won't afford them a way to negate that increase in SR. So this encounter has gotten more difficult for both melee and caster, especially when you consider the dragon gets access to more powerful abilities with its age category increase.

I could start flipping through monster manuals looking for counter examples, but I won't waste people's time. If you look at the averages from levels 1-20, Pathfinder increased HP about 1 point per level (1.17 to be exact), which is about what a Pathfinder character gets from their favoured class bonus. The outliers have less hitpoints than in Pathfinder, the average difference between average and max hitpoints in Pathfinder is 22 hit points, in 3.5 it's 95 hit points. Pathfinder increases the average AC by 1.38 on average, that's not a huge leap. Pathfinder simple doesn't nerf melee characters, the numbers show it.

tl;dr?
Hi Welcome,
lrn 2 math newb

I guess my question is "Did any of that fix anything?"  Because even you seem to be arguing that everything turned out basically the same.

[veekie]

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.

On the face of it those are good examples, but lets dig a little deeper. The Ice Devil in 3.5 and Pathfinder both have the same AC, Fortitude and Reflex saves, the Pathfinder Ice Devil has 14 more hitpoints and a Will save 3 points lower. I think a SoD based caster will have an easier time against this enemy, both versions of the Ice Devil have below average HP as an aside. What about melee characters then? Well they all have a higher wealth by level, so that should help a little with attack and defense along with two extra feats and their class level in extra HP, at least. The Ice Devil only gains one more HP in the conversion than any single classed character.

Lets look at the CR 15 White Dragon, in 3.5 it's a very old Dragon, in Pathfinder it's ancient. The HP increase from 3.5 to Pathfinder is paltry, a mere 7 hit points but it receives a rather sizeable 6 point increase to armour class. Extra feats and WBL can only do so much, I think a melee character will have a harder time. The Pathfinder Dragon also sees his Will save increased by one point and his SR increase by 3 points. Humans and half-humans get a +2 ability modifier that's going to go into the casting stat cancelling out that will save increase but the difference in WBL probably won't afford them a way to negate that increase in SR. So this encounter has gotten more difficult for both melee and caster, especially when you consider the dragon gets access to more powerful abilities with its age category increase.

I could start flipping through monster manuals looking for counter examples, but I won't waste people's time. If you look at the averages from levels 1-20, Pathfinder increased HP about 1 point per level (1.17 to be exact), which is about what a Pathfinder character gets from their favoured class bonus. The outliers have less hitpoints than in Pathfinder, the average difference between average and max hitpoints in Pathfinder is 22 hit points, in 3.5 it's 95 hit points. Pathfinder increases the average AC by 1.38 on average, that's not a huge leap. Pathfinder simple doesn't nerf melee characters, the numbers show it.

tl;dr?
Hi Welcome,
lrn 2 math newb

I guess my question is "Did any of that fix anything?"  Because even you seem to be arguing that everything turned out basically the same.

That IS the argument.
Not that its better except in specific items.
Not that its worse except in specific items.

Note also that the Fighter would be getting another +1/4 level to hit and damage, and knowing the doofs they'd use him as a benchmark and forget the others.
And if its a paladin, one full attack later and its a dragon-like crater.

[juton]

I'm not arguing that Pathfinder made the game better, I'm arguing that it didn't make the game worse, which is an important distinction. If someone wants play a game of Pathfinder, that's fine, having them switch to a game of 3.5 won't really improve most peoples game experiences. 3.5 isn't a glorious zenith of game design, neither is Pathfinder the gloomy nadir, once you move past hyperbole you can look at what each system actually does well and get around to the business of using or making the system right for your group.
 

[Kuroimaken]

Question: why does the SR matter at all? Unless Pathfinder changed how it works, there are still ways around it (namely Conjuration spells, as one example). The casters can still control the battlefield better than anyone else. The beatsticks lost what little BC they had (or became less effective at it).

We all know there are three basic ways to wtfpwn an encounter:

- Battlefield Control. You basically disable your enemy as a threat, then mow it down (or have someone else mow it down) until its HP becomes nonexistent.
- Extreme Debuffing. Pretty much the same, though depending on the debuffs chosen, a single CdG can handle the enemy from that point.
-Rocket Tag. Win initiative, SoD or deal enough damage for an enemy-sized crater.

Most beatsticks only even have Rocket Tag as an option, with REALLY weak BC as a secondary option. The second has been taken away, the former has been weakened for beatsticks.

So, again. How has Pathfinder actually improved upon 3.5 on that subject?

[AleksanderTheGreat]

Please delete.

[Solo]

By all means, contribute constructively to the discussion.

[AleksanderTheGreat]

By all means, contribute constructively to the discussion.

And right back at ya.
Yeah, that post earlier was unnecessary. Can someone delete it? And this to, please.

[Kuroimaken]

No, seriously. Think about it for a second.

In 3.5, you basically had two directions to go if you wanted to be effective as a beatstick: battlefield control (albeit weaker than a spellcaster's) and direct damage. The first, they pretty much took away. The second got weaker.

How is this an improvement?

[juton]

No, seriously. Think about it for a second.

In 3.5, you basically had two directions to go if you wanted to be effective as a beatstick: battlefield control (albeit weaker than a spellcaster's) and direct damage. The first, they pretty much took away. The second got weaker.

How is this an improvement?

I'm not going to argue that it's an improvement, just that by and large beatsticks break even. As for battlefield control, beatsticks actually do it a bit better than in 3.5, a core PF Barbarian or Fighter could probably put any of their opponents on their ass more reliably than their 3.5 counterpart. They don't get the follow up attack without the feat tax, which is unfortunate.

When I say beatstick, I mean mundane beatstick, in core 3.5 power attack is rarely worth taking. In Pathfinder it's a little bit more useful, all though in both systems I think there will be levels where taking weapon focus will boost your average damage more than power attack which is sad.

[X-Codes]

No, seriously. Think about it for a second.

In 3.5, you basically had two directions to go if you wanted to be effective as a beatstick: battlefield control (albeit weaker than a spellcaster's) and direct damage. The first, they pretty much took away. The second got weaker.

How is this an improvement?

I'd like to think that the first wasn't taken away, it's just different.  It works marginally better against enemies that are predominantly class-oriented and marginally worse against enemies that are big, bad monsters with a bucket of HD, with the differences being relatively small at low levels and much more noticeable at higher ones.

The second only got weaker so far as using Power Attack.  You just have to get your damage fix somewhere else.

[AleksanderTheGreat]

The second only got weaker so far as using Power Attack.  You just have to get your damage fix somewhere else.

Or just use the 3.5 version, like me.

[juton]

The second only got weaker so far as using Power Attack.  You just have to get your damage fix somewhere else.

Or just use the 3.5 version, like me.

People call this the Oberoni fallacy, it's the idea that a system works if you houserule it. Well it's the houserule that works, and not the system. If you are swapping parts of Pathfinder out for 3.5 that's definitely a black mark against Pathfinder.

[AleksanderTheGreat]

The second only got weaker so far as using Power Attack.  You just have to get your damage fix somewhere else.

Or just use the 3.5 version, like me.

People call this the Oberoni fallacy, it's the idea that a system works if you houserule it. Well it's the houserule that works, and not the system. If you are swapping parts of Pathfinder out for 3.5 that's definitely a black mark against Pathfinder.

I don't care how it's called. If it works then it's good.

[veekie]

No, seriously. Think about it for a second.

In 3.5, you basically had two directions to go if you wanted to be effective as a beatstick: battlefield control (albeit weaker than a spellcaster's) and direct damage. The first, they pretty much took away. The second got weaker.

How is this an improvement?

I'd like to think that the first wasn't taken away, it's just different.  It works marginally better against enemies that are predominantly class-oriented and marginally worse against enemies that are big, bad monsters with a bucket of HD, with the differences being relatively small at low levels and much more noticeable at higher ones.

The second only got weaker so far as using Power Attack.  You just have to get your damage fix somewhere else.

Power Attack is actually core-stronger because you require less optimization to use it to effect. And it actually works at all with light weapons. Unless you are using Shock Trooper or some other way to dump it all to hit AND still connect, you profit from PF PA.

The first though, they mostly reintroduced differently. And I might add the whole CMB/CMD business favors PCs somewhat more than the old ability checks.
Trip went from Str(expected +4 to +6)+Size(usually 0)+Feat vs Str(+5 to +10)+Size(which adds +4 to +8),
to
Str/Dex(expected +5 to +7 due to easier stat boosts from human)+BAB+Size(still +0)+Feat vs Str(+6 to +11)+Dex(usually 0 to +2 on a strong monster)+BAB(often 3/4 but about equivalent thanks to monstrous HD numbers)+Size(+1 to +2).
So it becomes a problem at later levels, because monsters have absurd stats(which they have in either version).

Again, no real improvement, the points shifted around a bit but the good and bad don't fundamentally alter the game.