Yay necro'd threads!
TheWyrmDude:
I also like the flavor of the inquisitor. I see its role as basically a divine bard - the class has 6 skills/level, a nifty skills list, an eclectic spell list with the bard progression, and a vaguely cool grab-bag of abilities like Track and more teamwork feats than you'll ever want. Definitely not up there in power with the cleric, but if you wanted a lower-powered game it would make a decent substitute.
You just summed up the problem with Paizo material right there.
The designers have even gone on record that they make classes based on quantity of abilities as their primary factor. Classes that get few, but strong abilities are not something they want to make because they are "boring". Seems reasonable at a glance. It's not so reasonable when you count a 3.5 Wizard as only having two class features.
In case that was too subtle for you, know what the "lots of abilities, even if they suck" approach gets you?
MONKS.My thoughts on Pathfinder are a bit long.
First off, "Paizil" is the dumbest fucking thing ever. Come on, if you can't make a creative insult, don't bother. It's the equivilant of using dollar signs to spell "Microsoft," only possibly even nerdier. It doesn't make them look bad, it just declares to the world that you're shitty at trying to make fun of people. It's also hilariously grognardy.
Uncreative insults for uncreative people. Actually, I take that back. They made
MONKS suck worse. That takes major skills. Skills of the entirely wrong type granted, but skills nonetheless.
And lol grognards.
Now, for Pathfinder itself.
I think the base mechanical chassis for Pathfinder is better then the base mechanical chassis for 3.5. For example, the class skill system is a lot better and more versatile, and done in a way that at rewards martial classes more then others. The same goes with feats; more feats generally works out better for non-casters, as there's significantly fewer feats that drastically improve wizards then there are those that improve non-wizards. Favored Class in 3e was a fucking wreck, so changing that is a good thing, although I think their changes were poorly planned out.
Class skills fused together = blatantly stolen from Saga. Also, the Fly skill exists. Obvious Caster Bias is Obvious.
More feats mean nothing if those feats are individually weaker... which they are for beatsticks, but not casters. Funny, that.
Here are a few examples:
Improved Trip > 2 Paizils feats for tripping.
Mage Slayer > multiple Paizil feats for anti caster beatsticks.
Stand Still > multiple Paizil feats to try and tank.
Favored class was changed... to give spellcasters more HP for no fucking reason, and to shove it to beatsticks yet again. This is not an improvement. Here is what is an improvement:
Favored class mechanics do not exist.
Overall, Pathfinder is better balanced then 3.5 core was.
I think you already spot the problem.
Pathfinder is not better balanced then 3.5 outside of Core was. This is, I think, Pathfinder's biggest failing. Oh, sure, they learned from some of the mistakes in 3.5 core. But who the fuck wouldn't? That they failed to learn from materials after 3.5 is just sad. One of the problems is the nature of "backwards compatibility." The issue there is that this was confused for "Must be almost identical to 3.5." Just look at the monk. There were so many things added and changed, not just in homebrew, but in official books, be it Tashalatora or swordsage. The monk was pretty obviously a terrible class, and yet barely anything was done to give it a leg up. Why? They were afraid of making it "too different." Certainly, the PF Fighter is better then the 3.5 Core fighter, but it's nowhere near as good as the fighter once other 3.5 books are taken into account. There's so many places to get influence from, and they just ignored it all. Not even 3.5 - there's good ideas in 4e too that could've been taken into account, such as the SSSoD changes or inherent bonuses. But again, ignored.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
I think the core of these issues from from a somewhat toxic philosophy - that ol' double standard of magic vs mundane. They've sadly subscribed fully to the idea that classes have to be divided between "magical" and "mundane" rather then having all classes be "protagonists." Martial class ineptness and obsoleteness is built in. I forget where it was - might've even been here - but I was reading a thread on monks, and someone mentioned that they always pictured monks in a sort of "Indian guru" manner - with one ability being levitation. So the mechanic was bandied around, until several people stomped down on it with "Ok but he can't be better then the wizard at this." Fuck you. That's the dumbest statement ever. Worse, it seems to be one shared by Paizo. That isn't the only philosophical problem, either. One lesson they haven't learned from WotC's blunders in both editions is that you can't balance combat and non-combat choices. It works a bit better in games like Shadowrun or WoD where you're fully expected to be doing things other then combat, but D&D at it's core is still a game about killing things and taking their stuff. When you make a person choose between an ability that helps you kill things and take their stuff, and an ability that gives a shitty bonus to skill, what do you think people will choose?
Someone, I think it was James has gone on record to say that casters are supposed to be superior. This was in response to either the trademark Pathfinder = Caster Edition, or one of the many Fighter vs Wizard threads. Explains a lot. At least they've succeeded at something, even if it is failure.
As for skills, well generally those come out of different resource pools. It's only when you crossover you have that problem.
And you know what? I can't really blame Paizo for it. By all accounts they're making out like bank robbers here. The sad fact is, "not changing things" is what makes them the money. Part of it is simply because a good dose of their fans don't care about the system, they just want "Not-4e." Pathfinder has become a sort of citadel of solitude for some of the more reactionary WotC haters, the kind of folks who think THAC0 was a brilliant move that should've never been killed and buried like the shambling monstrosity it was. People who hate Tome of Battle because "it just makes fighters wizards!"
I think a good part of the Paizils just flat out aren't playing D&D, despite their claims. They are playing freeform. Magical Tea Party, if you will. In such an environment the beatstick need only describe himself being viable, and it happens. Must be nice, but these people have no relevance to any real discussions.
And the Paizils do love to bitch about ToB. Heaven forbid beatsticks are allowed to be relevant.
I guess when you stare into the grognard, the grognard stares back.
Me, personally? When I play or DM 3.5, I like using the Pathfinder core ruleset with "Whatever 3.x materials you want, though I retain the right to say no to them."
It seems that many of the few non Paizils over on Paizo agree with this.
