Quote from: Hobo;254651No, psionics was mentioned at varous other sections in the setting; it was only specifically given a header on pages 234 and 235.

And the rule mechanics for psionics in Pathfinder are where?

Wait! That's right! They haven't been published yet, so according to you, they must nerf the psionicist!

Quote from: Hobo;254651And that's my confusion; who cares?  You're talking about a stand alone game that hasn't yet released the psionics module; I'm talking about a game where the stated design goal was backwards compatability wherein you wouldn't need to release a psionics module because you've already got one.

If there was an issue with class balance, and backwards compatability is the goal, the fixed classes should have been balanced to a 3.5 default level, not some new level that's obviously higher on the power scale.


 I'm not even addressing that position, because my complaint (and my only real complaint) was that Pathfinder was sold (at least I was sold on this idea) as the backwards compatible game that fixed stuff the way 3.5 supposedly fixed issues with 3e.  The Pathfinder we got wasn't that.  But that's what I wanted it to be.  Hence I complained that it didn't meet what I needed nor what I understood the design goals to be.

Clearly if you don't care about freely integrating Pathfinder and 3.5 material, then that complaint is irrelevent to you.  That doesn't, however, mean that it's an invalid complaint.  Just that it's not relevent for you.

Now you are misrepresenting me.

I'm trying to understand your position because I don't see all these backwards compatibility problems that you claim.

Quote from: Hobo;254651:confused:  Are you always this dense?  Proof?  That's absurd.

Well, if the point you are trying to make is valid, then providing some proof for your point wouldn't be so taxing on your brain that you'd call the request absurd, now would it? Unless, you are simply full of shit.

Quote from: Hobo;254651:Complete Warrior.  Has several new core classes that would be incredibly dumb to play in a Pathfinder game, because they are incredibly low on the power scale.  Complete Adventurer too.  Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic.

If you want to run an Eberron game with Pathfinder, you can't have shifters, kalashtar, changelings or warforged as races, without redesigning the stats yourself, since Pathfinder races are all more or less equivalent to LA +1 or even 2 compared to 3.5 races.  Same thing for any of the alternate races in the environmental or Races of... series.

Is that enough specific examples for you?  I've got plenty more.

I understand your point now, but it isn't valid because from your perspective it wouldn't be sensible to play any of the NPC classes either since they are all low on the power scale. Nothing in the Pathfinder rules say that you cannot play a non-standard class or race, you alone think it wouldn't be sensible because they are now not powerful enough for your tastes in comparison to the Pathfinder core races and classes that have been released.

And again, your complaint about psionics is bullshit since Pathfinder has yet to produce rules for psionics which could then be compared and contrasted with 3.5. The conclusions you are drawing about psionics in Pathfinder are merely wishful thinking on your part.

Quote from: Hobo;254651OK.  I said I have a problem with this aspect of the game because it doesn't meet my expectations.  You got all defensive.  Who's being dramatic again?

You.

Quote from: Hobo;254651That's more like it.  But honestly; you think I don't know what I'm talking about because I hadn't actually enough specific examples for you?  I think you're being wilfully obtuse here, or unforgively stupid if you couldn't put two and two together and figure out that, for example, that a goliath hexblade is way underpowered compared to a Pathfinder dwarf fighter, and that means that backwards compatability between Pathfinder and 3.5 material is limited.  Seriously?  I have to spell that out for you and you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about?

Yes, because your examples of underpowered non-standard races and classes aren't in the SRD which Paizo has to work with to remain legal.

Not to mention that there is still nothing mechanically rules-wise preventing you from using Pathfinder to play your preferred non-standard races or classes. You, Hobo, just do not want to because you now consider those non-standard races and classes to be underpowered in comparison to the base races and classes in Pathfinder.

It appears you don't like Pathfinder because you feel you cannot get your munchkin on in the game like you have become accustomed to. That's understandible as a complaint, but it is only a problem for your personal application of the rules and not the Pathfinder rules backwards compatibility themselves. You can still play splatbook races and classes with Pathfinder, they just aren't the special snowflakes you prefer anymore.

Bah.  That's a ridiculous argument, and I refuse to believe that you don't know it.  Of course I can choose to play a nerfed class, just as I can choose to play an NPC class in 3.5, but with very rare exceptions, who would want to?  And what kind of idiot do you have to be to claim that it's ridiculous for me to want to play a 3.5 class in a Pathfinder game in the exact same thread that you said they were perfectly compatible?

And I want to play munchkined out character, huh?  This coming from the guy who's literally having an orgasm thinking about the twinked out Pathfinder races and classes as he's typing?

You are a complete asshat who clearly has no interest in discussion on this topic.

Quote from: Hobo;254680Bah.  That's a ridiculous argument, and I refuse to believe that you don't know it.  Of course I can choose to play a nerfed class, just as I can choose to play an NPC class in 3.5, but with very rare exceptions, who would want to?  And what kind of idiot do you have to be to claim that it's ridiculous for me to want to play a 3.5 class in a Pathfinder game in the exact same thread that you said they were perfectly compatible?

And I want to play munchkined out character, huh?  This coming from the guy who's literally having an orgasm thinking about the twinked out Pathfinder races and classes as he's typing?

You are a complete asshat who clearly has no interest in discussion on this topic.

See, there you go again Hobo. Being wrong.

I am interested in having a discussion on Pathfinder and its percieved problems. Unfortunately for you, I'm only interested in having the discussion with people who have read the material, crafted informed opinions, and have valid arguements to bring into the discussion. I'm not interested in phantom complaints about psionic rules that haven't been written yet or compatibility problems with material that works mechanically but doesn't make the player feel "special" enough about their character or race choice.

As to your claim that I'm an asshat, I've been called worse by better.

I'm off now to enjoy my multiple orgasms over Pathfinder. I only wish more could be as lucky as I in that level of enjoyment of a game still in playtest.

Huh, what about the spells, kids?

Quote from: Settembrini;254689Huh, what about the spells, kids?

What do you want to know specifically?

Some spells remain the same, some have changed. No spells require xp to cast anymore and magic items no longer require xp to create (spells with xp cost now have a material component cost equal to 5 times the old xp cost). All of the polymorph spells have been overhauled and made much clearer. Find The Path has been nerfed to allow the detection of routes to locations, but not specific objects or creaturers.

Oh, how sad.
But still, all of the SRD ones are included with their name? Just a little different sometimes?

Quote from: jeff37923;254682See, there you go again Hobo. Being wrong.

No I'm not wrong.  No one who can say with a straight face that I'm a munchkined out powergamer because I'm complaining that Pathfinder reset the power level of all core races and classes at an obviously higher level than 3.5 is interested in having a discussion.  Hence; not wrong.

Plus, anyone who can say with a straight face that Pathfinder and 3.5 are perfectly compatible, because hey!  Playing a 3.5 class or race in a Pathfinder game is no different than playing a commoner or a warrior in a 3.5 game would have been, right? isn't interested in having a serious discussion.  That's just inane.

Well... maybe I shouldn't be so quick to jump on the "nobody" train.  But nobody who's capable of having intelligent discussion about the issue, regardless of willingness, would make these absurd claims that you've made so far.  To say nothing of continually bringing up the red herring of psionics not being released yet for Pathfinder (so frigging what?  That's completely irrelevent to my point about psionics) or of coming to the bizarre conclusion that I don't even know anything about the rules... because I was able to spot obvious power level discrepancies?

I've got news for you; if you're interested in having a reasonable discussion about this issue, quit being the stumbling block to reasonable discussion about the issue.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;254604I think that the goal of making interesting choices/abilities at every level is the central goal (and a laudable one), with the power consequences an afterthought.

Same here.  Power balance has never been a primary concern of D&D, nor should it be.  It's enough to rein in the excess, everything doesn't have to be perfectly balanced.

QuoteI disagree with commonly held assertion that fighters got the shaft and suck arse compared to wizards in 3.x, except outside of combat.

So do I!  I am a huge fan of the Fighter, have been since Basic, and I think people regularly discount the Fighter's dominance in actual play, viewing him only through the warped lens of "testing."   Under laboratory conditions, the Fighter seems sub-par compared to the Wizard.

But in the field?  Fuck Wizards.  Infinite tools, but never the right one for the job.  A good, solid dependable sword solves more problems than any spell.  

But I was comparing the Fighter to the Warblade, which is a Fighter who trades feats for D12 hit dice and access to massive damage boosting special attacks that make Power Attack look like chump change.  It's the "replacement Fighter" class basically.

QuoteDruids and clerics I agree need the nerf stick as their over-poweredness pretty much makes them "better fighters".

A fix as simple as changing most of the buff spells so they can't be cast on one's self.  Clerics need to accept their role as SUPPORT character.  I get really tired of having my fighters die because the fucking cleric player built a CODzilla and wasted all of his fucking healing spells turning himself into a nominally better fighter than me for ONE battle, and is now spent for the day.

QuoteI think there need to be two major corrections to the fighter, and it's not more power:
1) make more options viable than two weapon power attack.

Pathfinder hasn't done this that I can see, depending on how you define "two weapon power attack."  There are certainly many other viable tactics, but every Fighter still needs to be able to fall back on either a two weapon combo, a double-weapon, or the classic Sword & Board.

I don't really expect that to change, as they would have to ridiculously nerf two-weapon fighting to make single weapon styles as effective.

They have made some real improvements though.  Sundering is now worthwhile, as they've added the "broken" condition so it's no longer all-or-nothing.  Combine Improved Sunder with Intimidating Attack and you can -- with a single blow - give your opponent a -4 to all attacks and -2 to damage for the fight.  

Quote2) give the fighter more to do out of combat. That means lean heavier on the skill system.

This is one area where Pathfinder has made some real improvements.  Humans who choose Fighter as their Favored Class and choose the Favored bonus skill point over the bonus hit point get 4 skill points per level in pathfinder.  Since non-class skills now cost 1 point for 1 rank, Fighters can diversify much more than they previously could.  Finally, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) and Knowledge (Engineering) have been added to their class skills list, helping them fulfill their role as "generic dungeon explorer guy."

Rolling Tumble and Balance in with Jump into Acrobatics and making the whole thing an Untrained skill also really boosts the fighter's potential.

QuoteConsidering that in the first Alpha was ready to kick the skill system in the nuts the same way 4e does, I'm not holding my breath for #2. #1, on the other hand, seems to be in striking distance.

They backtracked mightily on the skill system changes from Alpha.  It's still much more simplified -- a "Class Skill" gets a +3 bonus if you put a rank into it, you get the same number of skill points at 1st level as you do every other level, no more "half ranks," the skill list is condensed -- but I think they've actually accomplished this goal, of giving the Fighter stuff to do out of combat.

Quote from: Settembrini;254603The real improtant part is whether a PF PHB will have the unchanged 3.5 spells in it or not.

The Beta already has all the spells from the PHB, whether they've been altered or not -- though many of them are found in a web supplement.  The final version will include ALL the spells from the PHB, unchanged or not, and possibly some new ones.

The final PRPG book will be a complete replacement for the DMG and PHB.  Originally it was also to include monsters, but rather fervent demand on the board has resulted in the decision to release a separate Pathfinder Bestiary to replace the Monster Manual.  

It will feature most of the creatures from the Monster Manual, minus the creatures that are WOTC Product Identity and few lame monsters introduced in 3.5 (Erik Mona has all but said the tojanida will get the axe).  It will probably alter some of the core monster to reflect their new role in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting -- Intellect Devourers are getting a promotion and will now occupy the spot vacated by Mind Flayers for example -- and may include some of the many monsters introduced in the Pathfinder adventure series.

Also, James Jacobs is fucking insane about dinosaurs, so it will likely include too many of those.

Quote from: Settembrini;254702Oh, how sad.
But still, all of the SRD ones are included with their name? Just a little different sometimes?

Yes, though the "named spells" have all had their name's change to be more generic.  So Bigby's Grasping Hand is now Grasping Hand, and Mordekainen's Disjunction is now "Mage's Disjunction."

Quote from: Seanchai;254652Personally, I'm concerned with balance in terms of backwards compatibility but rather the basic building blocks of character. If Pathfinder barbarians all have Rage Points, I've got to all Rage Points to any 3.5 barbarian. If Pathfinder creates a new must have Feat for fighters, then I've got to rework the Feats of at least some of the fighter I bring from 3.5 into a Pathfinder campaign. And the same is true in reverse, using Pathfinder materials with bog standard 3.5.

I'm currently running a Pathfinder playtest game, and I can promise you that you're wrong.  I'm using Goodman Games Castle Whiterock for the playtest, and running it completely unmodified.

You do not have to make many changes to run 3.5 adventures in Pathfinder.  Recalculating the Grapple of many creatures -- particularly creatures with Improved Grapple or non-Medium sized creatures -- is the only change I have to make consistently, and it's easy enough that I can do it on the fly.  

Many of the encounters in Whiterock feature barbarians.  I do not give them Rage Points, and I do not track their rage that way.  I simply run them using the 3.5 rules for rage.  Works fine.

One of my players is playing a Hexblade.  We upped the power of the Hexblade using the guidelines provided in Dragon magazine by the creator, as he's admitted that the Hexblade as published was nerfed to the point of being too weak.  He works fine alongside the Pathfinder Fighter and Pathfinder Cleric.

Quote from: Hobo;254731No I'm not wrong.  No one who can say with a straight face that I'm a munchkined out powergamer because I'm complaining that Pathfinder reset the power level of all core races and classes at an obviously higher level than 3.5 is interested in having a discussion.  Hence; not wrong.

Plus, anyone who can say with a straight face that Pathfinder and 3.5 are perfectly compatible, because hey!  Playing a 3.5 class or race in a Pathfinder game is no different than playing a commoner or a warrior in a 3.5 game would have been, right? isn't interested in having a serious discussion.  That's just inane.

Well... maybe I shouldn't be so quick to jump on the "nobody" train.  But nobody who's capable of having intelligent discussion about the issue, regardless of willingness, would make these absurd claims that you've made so far.  To say nothing of continually bringing up the red herring of psionics not being released yet for Pathfinder (so frigging what?  That's completely irrelevent to my point about psionics) or of coming to the bizarre conclusion that I don't even know anything about the rules... because I was able to spot obvious power level discrepancies?

I've got news for you; if you're interested in having a reasonable discussion about this issue, quit being the stumbling block to reasonable discussion about the issue.

[BUZZ] [CLICK] [ANSWERING MACHINE VOICE]

We're sorry, but the person you are trying to reach is too busy enjoying  multiple orgasms brought on by the Pathfinder playtest to take your call at this time. Please hang up and try your call again later.

And have a nice day...

[BUZZ] [CLICK] [/ANSWERING MACHINE VOICE]

Quote from: Settembrini;254702But still, all of the SRD ones are included with their name? Just a little different sometimes?

Yes. Only some have been modified beyond the no xp cost.

If I can take a different approach towards Pathfinder for a minute:

No, Pathfinder won't be the cure-all for all ailments 3.5 had.  And I'm not sure its the "dream" system for anyone in my group.  But hey, no system is perfect, and the older we get and less time we have, the less time we'll spend chasing something like that.  We all have divergent tastes in gaming.  But we've found enough common cause and more than enough to like in Pathfinder with where we've been (and what we've bought) and what we want to do to consider it as a lingua franca, so to speak, a great middle meeting ground where we don't need to spend precious game time learning new rules.  We've also put in about, what 8 years now each finding out our likes and dislikes for d20 and its spinoffs.  Not only are we open to a system that allows us to build on that experience, but takes our feedback on it (even if they don't necessarily implement it in the final product).

And here's the other thing:  as a group, we have a high regard for Paizo and the products they've been putting out over the last couple of years.  We like how they've been running things, we like (overall) their personnel decisions, we liked their magazine work, we LOVE their Gamemastery line and overall art direction--in short, its a company that we genuinely like, that we feel listens to us and makes things we want, and that makes it easier to jump aboard with support for Pathfinder.

We still have other games we love--TFT, Epic, our old bastardized, crazy houseruled Rolemaster hybrid, Amber, and some crazy bastards still shouting for AD&D 2e--but we're also pretty happy with the opportunities Pathfinder looks to present.

Quote from: Jackalope;254756They backtracked mightily on the skill system changes from Alpha.  It's still much more simplified -- a "Class Skill" gets a +3 bonus if you put a rank into it, you get the same number of skill points at 1st level as you do every other level, no more "half ranks," the skill list is condensed -- but I think they've actually accomplished this goal, of giving the Fighter stuff to do out of combat.

Oh, I know. And I am sure glad they did. And it's a start.

But really, it's not quite enough to do what I envisage to make the fighter less than boring out of combat.