Because people are dumb.

Because people want to hate Pathfinder.

>>6633830
Because it's shit that did nothing to fix 3.5.

I've never seen anyone talk about this until right now.

>>6633868

Really? I saw people crying about this all the time, this and trip. Whether trip got nerfed or not is debatable, this isn't.

>>6633863
Did you... did you just not read the OP?

Apes should be a core race.

>>6633935
Technically, since an ape is a tailless primate, humans (and demihumans) are apes.c

>>6633807
Because it's still shit- 3e fighter powerattacking was made good by feats that increased the tradeoff ratio. Pathfinder does away with that and replaces it with a better to-hit, which is entirely useless as fighters always hit anyway.

>>6633807
You forgot to mention that the bonus damage is also affected by the 1.5 multiplier when being used with a two-handed weapon as well.

>>6633892
>>6633868

People bitched about it on the pathfinder forums for awhile.

On /tg/ people don't really complaining about any specific change because the fa/tg/uys who hate pathfinder don't actually play or read it.

>>6633960

But the ratio is better without having to get feats! Geez.

>Why do people cry about this?
Because Fighters used to abuse power attack with stuff like Shock Trooper so they could power attack for values like "-20 AB, +40 damage".

Also, because Pathfinder hasn't fixed the issue of two-handed weapons being the only worthwhile ones, it's only exacerbated it.

Pathfinder: EASY MODE D&D

>>6633972
The total damage is less than the total damage with the ratio-increasing feats. That is the problem.

>>6633988
>2e onwards: EASY MODE

>>6633960
>>6633960

This is how I know you don't actually play at high levels.

The higher hit chances on his second, third and fourth attacks equate to a huge boost in DPR.

A 3.5 fighter with non-core PA feats was just an underpowered class taking overpowered feats. A pathfinder fighter doesn't HAVE to take Power Attack to be good.

>>6633997
>The higher hit chances on his second, third and fourth attacks equate to a huge boost in DPR.
Not compares to shock trooping, etc.

>>6633997
>The higher hit chances on his second, third and fourth attacks equate to a huge boost in DPR.
>implying that the Fighter will get a full attack, ever.

'cause they are 4rries

>>6633975
Which is funny because if it made anything that even approached to sense, every two-handed weapon that didn't have reach would much, much rarer.

>>6633975

No. Stop. You are dumb and wrong. Improved Shield Bash dominates in pathfinder; it was a broken feat in 3.5 (escalating wealth means that the price of a +5 shield eventually becomes trivial, meaning that you are essentially spending one feat for +7 AC over a normal dual-wielder) and it's even better thanks to the new shield feats in Pathfinder.

And for the record, they DID scale back two-handed weapon by making Power attack a 2-for-3 tradeoff, rather than 1-for-2.

Leap Attack/Shock Trooper was never that good either. One attack at 80-something damage was never as good as a full attack anyway; it's just better than what you can usually do with a charge, and you completely drop your defenses to do it.

You don't know what you're talking about. Stop posting shit.

>>6634037
Considering that this can be done with ranged attacks as well as melee attacks, it's entirely possible for a fighter to get full attacks at range and still do this sort of damage. It costs one feat - Deadly Aim, which does for ranged attacks what Power attack does for melee attacks. They won't get the two-handed weapon damage, but they'll manage just fine.

The thing that helps Pathfinder fighters is they are not one trick ponies. they can learn several optimization paths, and by 20th level can get excellent at 2 of them and pretty good at a third at the very LEAST.

>>6633975
>Also, because Pathfinder hasn't fixed the issue of two-handed weapons being the only worthwhile ones, it's only exacerbated it.

Well, the increased the damage from Power Attack to 2, so it's 2/3 as strong as a two-handed weapon now instead of being 1/2 as strong. They also made some feats that make shields better, which sounds pretty good to me.

>>6634037
I was going to say "not that it matters, LOL DEVASTATING BLOW", but it looks like they took that out. Heh.
After the forums bitched and whined forever about how it's TOTALLY NOT OVERPOWERED, BAWW, too.

>>6634060
>Leap Attack/Shock Trooper was never that good either. One attack at 80-something damage was never as good as a full attack anyway; it's just better than what you can usually do with a charge, and you completely drop your defenses to do it.
Heh. Bitches don't know about my full attack on a charge (Pounce), or about my Karmic Strike/Combat Reflexes/Knockback/etc.

>>6634087
Which doesn't mean shit, because a broken caster in 3.5>broken fighter in 3.5.

>>6634100
Actually, regular core-only caster in 3.5 > broken fighter in 3.5.

>>6634100
>Which doesn't mean shit
Yes, it does. It contributes to the festering shitheap that is 3.5 and every single one of its derivatives. Fighters have to do shit like that to stay viable... which in turn means that "melee-only monsters" join the ranks of "humanoid monsters", "low-INT monsters", "non-flying monsters" and others which are absolutely pointless to throw at PCs. It makes the game a lopsided shitfest.

>>6634070

Now there's vital strike, which just adds your weapon's base die (so 2d12+x instead of 1d12 for a greatax. Or 3d12 or 4d12 with the higher feats).

Not nearly AS good, but still pretty sweet if you can increase your size enough (turning 4d8+x into 16d8+x is fun).

>>6634138
>>6634121
>>6634100

go play 4e and die.

>>6634067
Fun Fact: If a fighter takes weapon focus for a ranged weapon, a melee weapon, and a reach weapon, then takes power attack and deadly aim, he still qualifies for Improved Crit on all three, uses his Weapon Mastery to cover his lack of further specialization and focus in them, and can then use crit mastery to do terrible , terrible things to things along with the power attack damage. He uses three more feats for Lunge, Combat Expertise, and Imprived Trip, and you have an AOO trip fighter who can do power attack and deadly aim attacks with interesting crit effects that don't necessarily have saving throws.

BTW, his trip attacks get all those bonuses from weapon specialization, weapon mastery, and any other attack bonuses (including any weapon enhancement bonuses).

>>6634138
>Yes, it does. It contributes to the festering shitheap that is 3.5

And you're complaining that they removed it?

Charge/move-and-hit tactics + pounce has always been cheesy. I don't miss it.

>>6634145
Careful, kid. You're getting butthurt all over me.

>>6634138
Fighters don't have to be melee only. But that wouldn't interest you.

>>6634156
>And you're complaining that they removed it?
Pathfinder is even more lopsided. The guy who said "EASY MODO" was right.

>>6634141
>Not nearly AS good, but still pretty sweet if you can increase your size enough (turning 4d8+x into 16d8+x is fun).
All melee fighters magically increasing themselves to the size of giants: it's TOTALLY ARCHETYPICAL GUYS WE SWEAR

Pathfinder fans are such bitches. Every time somebody points out how mediocre the 3.5 houserules they paid someone to make for them are they starting crying about how no one understands the transcendent genius that is Pathfinder. Give me a break.

>>6634121

Even in vanilla 3.0, a high-level fighter does more damage per round than a high-level wizard. In fact, a fighter of prettymuch any level does more damage than a wizard of the same.

>>6634162
>Fighters don't have to be melee only. But that wouldn't interest you.
Archers have always had far fewer problems than melee fighters. However, at that point, you might as well just be an archer.

I wasn't talking about Fighters, though. I was talking about what kinds of enemies you can throw at a party.

>>6634156
Removed it?
Every single bit of splatbooked 3.5 cheese is still in Pathfinder. It's "backwards-compatible", remember? You're SUPPOSED to use Complete Warrior with it.

>>6634170

I'm sorry, I'm getting mixed signals. Do you or do you not want fighters to have to jump through hoops and use cheesy tactics in order to compete?

>>6634170
They can, actually. Use Magic Device is something anyone can learn, and anyone can get pretty good at it.

A Monk with a ring of Greater Spell Storing and Giant Size II grappled an Ancient Gold Dragon during playtest. that was fun.

>>6634190
>Do you or do you not want fighters to have to jump through hoops and use cheesy tactics in order to compete?
I want them to not have to jump through hoops an use cheesy tactics.

I also want the game to be less lopsided, not more.

>>6634192
>They can, actually. Use Magic Device is something anyone can learn, and anyone can get pretty good at it.
Yeah, it's mandatory now. Good job, Pathfinder!

>>6634189

You have a point, the books are still there. I could say "Inclusion is optional", but the fact is that that was also the case in 3.5. No one ever had to allow that shit. In fact, in the real world, most of us probably didn't.

Which in turn makes it retarded to say "FIGHTERS ARE UNDERPOWERED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T USE SPLATBOOK X". If you want to use splatbook X, Pathfinder is compatible with it.

What 3.P DOES do is allow fighter to kick ass without HAVING to do any of that bullshit.

And in this case, the changes to the core rules actually do make the splatbooks more balance (for instance, when Shock Trooper amounted to +20 attack and -20 AC it was ridiculous. But if used with pathfinder, it amounts to (at most) +5 attack and -5 AC).

>>6634179
Funny, that's what people said about 4e.

BTW checked the sales on Pathfinder recently?

>>6634189
They are compatible, yes. If you want to take the minimal effort of making sure it won't break the game by looking at a few paragraphs of a conversion suggestion list, it's pretty easily done. If you introduce them whole cloth, of course it will be broken still, because you aren't moving forward - you're stepping backwards, which is a retarded argument against minor conversions no matter how you word it.

>>6634180
>because direct damge was the reason casters are good guyz

>>6634235
>What 3.P DOES do is allow fighter to kick ass without HAVING to do any of that bullshit.
What 3.P DOES do is make the game even more lopsided than it was before, and more EASY MODO.

>>6634243
>minimal effort of fixing every problematic feat and spell in 3.5
If I'm doing that, I don't need Shittyhouserulefinder in the first place, brah.

>>6634230

Pathfinder is not nearly as lopsided as the old core rules. Fighters, paladins, and monks are much, much better. Rogues and barbarians are kind of better. Melee clerics are considerably worse. Druids aren't really better or worse in normal play, but they are much harder to break because polymorph isn't open-ended anymore.

>>6634262

What does EASY MODO mean here?

>>6634230
Mandatory? No. Possible? Yes.

Casters usurping all other classes in 3.5 mandatory? No. Possible? Yes.

Casters Usurping all other classes using Pathfinder rules? No. Possible? No.

Reasoning? Read the damn rules. I have better things to do with my time than trying to convince people who argue without factual knowledge.

>>6634273
>Pathfinder is not nearly as lopsided as the old core rules.
That's not what I mean by "lopsided".
By that I mean things like the way that will-save-or-lose spells totally own almost all humanoid enemies, but are useless against mind-immune enemies. Or how Fear Aura completely ruins PCs without huge Will saves... unless they had Heroes' Feast.

Pathfinder contributes to that sort of thing. How did they contribute to the Fighter? It wasn't by addressing his weaknesses. It was through MORE AB MORE DAMAGE MORE CRITICALS LOLOLOL. So the fighter owns in melee... and then he has to make a Will save and he sits the game out. Etc.

>>6634230

It's only +50-something damage over what you would be doing WITHOUT investing those 3 feats in Vital Strike. Again, with a full attack you would be dealing much more (not to mention crit effects), it's just fun to be able to deal respectable damage while moving and attacking.

Also, the fact that you seem surprised and impressed by the 16d8 enormous greatsword leads me to believe that your first real encounter with the pathfinder rules is taking place in this thread.

The only thing you know about Pathfinder is that you hate it.

>>6634273
Rogues are considerably better. Sneak attack working on constructs and undead is serious shit. The rogue abilities they start gettign at 1st level are serious shit (possbile to autodetect traps within 30' at 2nd level, possible charm person spell by 4th level, piossible dispel Magic with a Sneak attack+sneak attack damage at 10th level).

>>6634262
Ain't easy-modo if you're using the bestiary and the rules presented in the Pathfinder core book for the traps, poisons, encounters, etc. In fact it's more interesting.

>>6634332
Ah, I see. You want all classes to be the same, rather than having to cover for eachother's weakness and adjust their tactics to meet new challenges.

That's okay. D&D isn't for everyone.

>>6634341

You're right, SA working on everyone is a big boost that I tend to overlook.

As for rogue talents, though, keep in mind that they've always gotten them and they've always been pretty good. It's just that now they kick in at level 2 rather than level 10.

>>6634335
I'm not surprised and impressed by that.

I'm disgusted by LOL UMD!!!! being the answer to everything. Apparently everyone in Pathfinder plays like a Rogue/Bard with too much money. If you're going to make it a mandatory skill, don't make it a skill at all. And what happens if I want to play a character who *isn't* an Item Wizard?

>>6634351
.....yeaaahhh......

What we want was different classes that have the same capability of being good in and out of combat without resorting to an entirely new ruleset that doesn't have access to the 130 published books and adventured already made.

You don't have to buy Pathfinder to fix the game you know. You just download their 3.5-to-Pathfinder conversion guide, and it's got 10 pages of "here's how you can fix some of this crap without resorting to buying one book OR learning an entire new system".

>>6634341
>Rogues are considerably better. Sneak attack working on constructs and undead is serious shit.
Any worthwhile 3.5 rogue wound up doing this anyway. Weapon crystal of sneak-attack undead, swap it out for the construct one (or use a wand of gravestrike/golemstrike as a swift action--you can even have it in your weapon, no need to draw it).

>Bestiary
I've looked through the bestiary. Maybe I'm missing something, but monsters are *weaker* if anything (Fear Aura removed, for example). Meanwhile, MORE classes of monsters are pointless speed bumps.

>>6634377

No, you see, you ARE impressed by that. You seem to think that it's actually better than what a high-level fighter can do normally in Pathfinder.

The SRD is available for free on Paizo's website. If you're not going to read the rules, close your godamn mouth.

>>6634351
>Ah, I see. You want all classes to be the same
Right, right. because if classes aren't all "overpowering aspect, gaping flaw", they're all the same.


>rather than having to cover for eachother's weakness and adjust their tactics to meet new challenges.
I want classes not to be Superman with different kryptonites. "I explode anything that gets within melee range of me but can't make a Will save even with a +5 bonus" is retarded game design.

>>6634413
>No, you see, you ARE impressed by that.
Keep telling me what I think! It really makes you look like you have a point.

I'm objecting to UMD being brought up in every fucking thread about melee characters, like it's a basic assumption that everyone will have it, not to fighters enlarging themselves for bigger weapon dice.

Now, do you want to keep getting up in your saddle to tilt at strawmen, showing the crowd you forgot your pants, or do you want to address actual points?

The biggest boost to rogues is that they can actually take fighter feats instead of talents now. Which is fucking awesome.

>>6634438
>I want pieces not to be Superman with different kryptonites. "I can leap right over three pieces, two over and one down, but I can't take a pawn who's sitting right next to me" is retarded game design.

>>6634332

Well, the Fighter does get Bravery which increases his Will Saves quite a bit.

>>6634480

Okay, I lol'd.

>>6634457

What ARE your actual points, again?

Your point used to be "Fighters have to take UMD to be good in Pathfinder and that's dumb." Now that you've been spanked for that (and, indeed, have revealed that the only thing you know about 3.P is what we tell you), you've resorted to bluster and hand-waving.

>>6634377
Nothing. He doesn't NEED those specific magical items to be good. That's the whole point. He CAN use those abilities. He CAN make Wonderous Items and Magic Arms and Armor himself. He CAN take UMD if he wants. He CAN multispread his combat techniques if he wants. He CAN uberoptimize if he wants. He'll still be awesome to play and useful in and out of combat.

3.5 does not allow a fighter to do anything except hyperoptimize to be useful in combat only. And that's it. He still can't be a cool as a wizard.

Pathfinder wizards aren't easy mode. They're what you play when you want to cast cool spells and have awesome fluff and background. Pathfinder Clerics are what you want to play when you want to heal the whole damn party at range, blast undead to dust at range, and turn your allies and yourself into holy warriors who can put the smackdown on the enemies of the faith. Bards are what you play when you want to look, sound, and act utterly amazing on the battlefield and still be USEFUL in combat as well as out of it. Rogues are what you play when you want to outsmart and outmanuver every motherfucker on the plane with your slick style and talented hands. Barbarians are what you play when you want to FUCK SHIT UP so well you scvare your allies more than you scare your enemies because your enemies have no fucking clue. Monks are what you play when you want to do weeaboofitan stuff without being utterly useless.

3.5 is what you play if you like breaking the game or how to have fun without being a 'tard.

4e is what you play if you like optimizing and/or new toys.

>>6634121
This I seriously doubt. Are you aware of how far one can break a melee type?

>>6634511
I'm not sure how I feel about Pathfinder monks.

I like that you get full BAB when making a flurry of blows. I like that you get your full BAB when performing a combat maneuver. What I don't like is what that leaves us with: basically, flying kicks are now the only think monks are BAD at. They are just as good as a fighter except when moving and attacking.

Why not just give them full BAB all the time?

>>6634511

I object to that. 4e is actually pretty hard to optimize compared to 3.X. It's also pretty hard to subop. Fourth edition is good, fun beer-and-pretzels gaming, and that's not a bad thing.

The complaints about monsters begin weaker are unfounded for a very simple reason.

The CR's of the monsters have been fixed. A CR 10 monster is the same as a level 10 character. No ifs ands or buts. They're the same effective level.

That means if you pit a CR 10 monster against a party of 4 level 10 characters, the monster WILL DIE. Period. What the monster will do to the party is hurt them, quite possible a hell of a lot depending on the monster and the party.

A set of encounters durign an adventure is not fixed at the same CR as the party., It SHOULD BE -2 for warmup, -1 for introductions, CR=Party Level or +1 twice for fun stuff and making them sweat just a little, and then up to CR+2 to make them sweat bullets for an endboss or BBEG. And those differences qare significant when you consider that CR=level.

This is aside from having minions etc, which adjusts effective CR for the encounter. A CR 8 critter with 4 CR 2 minions (effective CR 3 for a total of CR 11) is going to cause trouble for a 10th level party if they're not careful.

YOU GODDAMN KIDS DON'T KNOW A THING ABOUT ROLEPLAYIN'!

WHY BACK IN MY DAY WE MADE CHARACTERS WITH FLAWS ON PURPOSE! BECAUSE IT WAS INTERESTING! AND OUR FIGHTERS MISSED ALMOST AS MUCH AS THEY HIT! AND WE WERE GRATEFUL!

>>6634562
Because they don't get full BAB when using single attacks, that means with improved Vital Strike they're less likely to hit with a kick that does 6d10+ str+magic damage at 20th level than a fighter is going. Monks can't fight better than fighters any more than clerics can - but they can fuck shit up in the ways they are designed to, which is combat manuvers and flurry of blows.

And that 20th level monk can in fact make a standing leap for 60' without rolling a skill check, by the way.

>>6634624
AND WE HAD TO WALK TO THE BATTLEFIELD IN THE SNOW UPHILL BOTH WAYS WITH ONE BOOT ON! AND WE LIKED IT!

>>6634619

NPCs in Pathfinder have a CR equal to their level -1. The "CRX = levelX" thing has always been a bit off and Pathfinder recognizes this rather than trying to fix it.

>>6634587
I did not say it was bad. I am biased against it, admittedly, because an optimizer I am not.

Pathfinder makes optimization useful, but by no means necessary, so I deal with less retarded silliness than i did in 3.5 and I don't have to try to be a math major like I do to enjoy 4e with my friends (which is solely a personal problem, I admit freely).

>>6634652

I don't like that. I really never have (since monks have always been best at flurrying) and like it even less now that 3.P has cranked it up with the full bab thing.

Monk SHOULD be good at flying kicks. They SHOULD be good at Vital Strike or Spring Attack. They should be good at the single, perfect strike.

>>6634667
NPC classes have CR-1. In the Bestiary, they explain that CR=level. You can literally take a Cr 10 critter, and stand up with a party of 10th level characters and expect to be useful in the capacity your monster is designed for (mileage will vary of course, but you don't have to worry about LA retardation).

>>6634699

>The single, perfect strike

Quivering palm, lulz.

>>6634718
No, it's PC classes too now.

NPC classes are generally -2. This is why an orc with one warrior level is CR 1/3rd. If it were a fighter level, he would be CR 1/2.

>>6634722

That's just it! He's going to have a shitty attack bonus when delivering his Quivering Palm, UNLESS he does so as the first of five or six attacks.

>>6634699
They are. That stunning fist thing is not the same for them as it is for everyone else. A class ability gives them upgrades by level to their stunning fist. Fatiguing, sickening, staggering, blinding/deafening, and paralysis as they go up in levels. This is not any better than a crit fighter, but this is a free ability for a monk. they can only use it once per round, of course.

the key is, a monk is designed to be as good at fighting in a very specific set of ways as a fighter is in all ways. Those specific ways are why you would play a monk rather than a fighter. Monks and fighters are pretty close in combat effectiveness, but their flavor is uttely different. you can actually duplicate a monk with a fighter to a certain extent.

The miajn difference is monks are self sufficient in many ways that no other character class is. They're actually more similar to clerics than any other class as a result - they just have very specific spells and effects chosen for them instead of all access to a spell list.

because 5 extra damage does not fix the fighter.

>>6634806

Yes, but of all the ways that someone can be good or bad at fighting, why should charge attacks be the ONE thing that monks aren't as good as fighters at?

Have these people never watched a kung fu movie?

>>6634797
Quivering palm is a once-per-week death attack and it's a standard action (as all supernatural abilities are). His single perfect strikes are his stunning fist augmentations.

>>6634810
....please proclaim your stupidity much louder. They didn't hear you in back.

>>6634810

It's actually +4 attack, +4 damage, +4 to armor class and the ability to employ two crit feats rather than one.

And yes, it does. I didn't think so either until I actually did the math vs. a paladin (whom I used to think were terribly broken in Pathfinder). As long as he isn't evil aligned, high-level fighter beats the PISS out of the paladin, even if paladin uses his divine weapon bond to get a brilliant energy sword and ignore 20-something points of the fighter's AC.

>>6634851
>a standard action (as all supernatural abilities are)

I don't know if I buy that. It's an SU without a listed action cost, sure, but it's also an effect which augments an action that the monk is already taking.

Do you also think that Diamond Body requires a standard action to use?

>>6634831
Because monks are "get into the thick of it as fast as possible and render the enemy helpless as fast as possible" warriors. Their talent is for getting to where he can render the most enemies helpless as fast as possible, even if it's only one enemy. A single attack is useful for delivering a hefty amount of damage or a stunning attack, but the mian idea is to get in, render them helpless and prone, and make sure they stay that way and don't bother your friends. Perhaps it's that whole lawful thing - take prisoners or kill them quick. not much in the way of shades of grey there.

Fighters are "I will kill you dead as fast as possible in any number of ways I choose".

That's my take on it, of course.

>>6634860
that +4 to AC also includes a dex increase in armor and the ability to move at full speed in heavy armor.

No, you CAN'T outrun the fighter in full plate. Unless you're a monk, of course.

>>6634900
Diamond body is an 'always on effect'. An ability that is a (su) takes a standard action to activate. This includes the special abilities wizards, clerics, sorcerers and druids get, the paladin's Smite Evil (which is very cool now), and the monks Quivering Palm. Always on supernatural abilities like DR, Diamond Soul, Ki Strike Augmentations, etc. are still always on.

>>6634968
Sorry, that should be Diamond Body, not Diamond Soul.

>>6634946

It's now just the dex increase, actually. They no longer get the flat bonus to AC. It's really easy to have a dex of 20 by the endgame however (which is all that you need to take advantage of the improved max dex on a fullplate), so it it still amounts to +4 AC for nine characters out of ten.

When they got the flat bonus AND the higher max dex it amounted to +8 ac, which was way too much.

>>6634856
>>6634860
Balanced compared to the Paladin? I think everyone agrees that even in 3.5 Paladin and fighter are the same tier.

How about balanced compared to the sorcerer? Wizard? Cleric? Druid? etc.

I wasn't expecting pathfinder to make the martial classes suddenly post 7th level gods, but if anything gap has widened.

Now, I wouldn't know because I've never played 4E or Pathfinder--in fact I didn't play much of 3.5 because I'm a 2nd Ed. kinda guy--but it seems that there's far too much calculatan goin' on.

Whenever I play D&D the only thing we worry about is if you're close enough to engage in Melee or not--things like movement speed are mitigated by the DM and not any rulebook. We just use common sense.

Can a man wearing full plate outrun a guy in loose clothing? Fuck no he can't, I don't care how strong he is.

>>6634860

And don't forget the fact that they can actually use some of their class skills while wearing armor, now.

>>6635050
>2nd ed. kinda guy
>Too much math going on

Want to go to THACO Bell after the thread?

As a matter of fact, when I DM I almost never refer to any books during play. I have a couple of combat tables memorized, and I have the amazing ability to SUBTRACT so THAC0 doesn't give me any trouble. I just wing the rest of it, based on the situation, what the players are trying to accomplish, and the state of my bowels during the day.

Lemme tell you, if I haven't had a healthy dose of prunes that day then somebody's not going to make that leap from one rooftop to the other.

>>6634968

The actual text for SU abilities doesn't make a distinction between "always on" effects and "activated" effects. That's just your interpretation. I think it's kind of a shoddy one.

The text for SU abilities states that, unless otherwise listed, SU effects take a standard action to activate. But that's implying that any action at all should be required to activate it. Effects which are activated as part of another action (which also includes the monk's speed at high levels, by the way, along with many cleric domain powers which grant circumstantial bonuses) don't require any special action to use.

>>6635064
What's wrong with THAC0? Roll a d20, subtract from THAC0...voila. I hit AC whatever. Done.

>>6635048
>Balanced compared to the Paladin? I think everyone agrees that even in 3.5 Paladin and fighter are the same tier.

Yes, but the 3.P paladin is outrageously more powerful. Smite Evil affects every attack he makes for the whole encounter, applies his CHA to armor class, ignores all DR and deals double damage to evil dragons, undead and outsiders. He can also grant an extra +5 worth of special abilities to his weapon and healing himself of 10d6 points of damage per round as a swift action.

I thought this would make him much better than the fighter, but as it turns out, the fighter's always-on numerical bonuses make a big fucking difference.

>I wasn't expecting pathfinder to make the martial classes suddenly post 7th level gods, but if anything gap has widened.

Why do you think that?

>>6635048

They nerfed the druid by gimping wildshape somewhat and they nerfed the cleric by taking away fullplate and gimped turned undead.

They also fixed a LOT of broken spells like Grease, Glitterdust, Ray of Enfeeblement etc.

>>6635121
Maybe they could take a page out of the Deadlands combat system and simply say that if a target's damage reduction is greater than your strength/dex bonus you simply cannot pierce through the armor without supernatural bonuses.

I.E. Dragon's Claw.

>>6635182
Spells are only broken if you're clever enough to figure out how to break them. That's why the best spells are the ones that don't feature mechanical stats. Like Grease!

>>6635182

Turn undead was an awful ability which was very powerful in some games but, in most, nearly useless. Most clerics took divine feats as soon as they possibly could just so they had something useful to do with that resource.

Channel Energy is much, MUCH more powerful than Turn Undead. Further, heavy armor is only +3 AC (assuming your dex sucks), and you can still buy it back. At worst, clerics are set back by a matter of two feats (Heavy Armor Proficiency and Turn Undead), and the new powers they have are well worth those two feats.

Where clerics have really seen the nerf is in their self-buffs. Clerics are still good at being clerics, but they can no longer become better fighters than the fighter is.

>>6635048
No character deals as much damage as fast as a fighter, with the close follow up of the Barbarian.

The spells that made casters overwhelming in 3.5 were nerfed in Pathfinder. Knock sucks compared to a 6th level rogue's ability to disable device. Invisiblity and flight are powerful, not if the enemy is prepared for it at all (and some enemies won't care about either). Instant wins are hard to push through; the saving throws of a monster with the same CR as the caster will be effective 60% of the time, even with an optimized caster (and if the creature is a spellcaster and has any preptime, that number drops significantly). Even then, the number of spells that automatically end the fight are severely limited - there are three that are not simply massive damage inflicts (which is adjucated by level) and two of those have 2 saving throws (Phantasmal Killer at 3rd level and uses will AND fort as saves to negate, the other is Baleful Polymorph at 5th level) while the other is Flesh to Stone, which is 6th level and won't work on a fourth of the enemies you'll be facing at 11th level. The lowest level instant win spell is blind/deafen at 3rd level; beyond that hit dice make most of the others fairly irrelevant in my experience, and 3rd level fighter will be killing most anythign you're fighting in 3 or 4 hits anyways without it being blind.

>>6635248

And that's the trick - casters instant win spells will HELP win the fight for the most part, but they don't KILL, and the ones that DO instant win the fight you get at levels where the fighter can be inflicting save-or-lose and save-or-suck crit effects on 20% of his attacks anyways if he ISN'T specified for crit fighting, and he'll be dealing in large amounts of damage constantly with only a few feats.

Since anyone can make wonders and magic arms and armor if they like, there isn't caster dependency on items, and anyone who wants to take UMD can play healbot with a wand, making it no longer necessary for clerics and bards to accompany the party (though both are incredibly helpful and not useless if they do accompany since they both do it better than wands do).

Casters don't make the other classes obsolete - they simply do cool shit as well as everyone else in a different style.

>>6635243

Once you throw in a +6 dex item (which is hella-cheap by level 10 or 11), fullplate isn't actually better than breastplate anyway.

>>6635207
Sorry, mechanical effects now. Just like Knock. CL check+10 vrs the DC of the lock to open. Rogues do it so much better past 5th level that it's a pointless spell after that.

>>6635256
+9 armor bonus vrs. +6 armor bonus. That's a hefty difference.

>>6635248
...that barely made sense. I'm going to bed now.

suffice it to say, I appreciate actual discussion as opposed to "YOU LIE" and thank /tg/ for it's patience.

>>6635283

Well, it DOES let the wizard pick locks as if he had max ranks and a 24 DEX. For not spending a single skillpoint, that's not fucking bad.

Occorse, the rogue can do it all day.

>>6635332
Lock quality: simple (DC 20), average (DC 25), good (DC 30), or superior (DC 40).

>>6635299
It's +9 armor/+1 max dex verses +6 armor/+3 max dex.

At high levels everyone has a +6 enhancement bonus to every stat, so the max dex might as well be armor bonus. Except that it's better because it counts against touch and brilliant energy attacks.

YOu're right, though, in that fullplate totals +10 while breastplate only totals +9 (I'd forgotten that).

>>6635352
Sorry, my sentence got cut off.

Lock: simple (DC 20), average (DC 25), good (DC 30), or superior (DC 40).
Knock: CL check + 10.
Rogue: Skill check+3 for class skill+dex + 1/2 rogue level.

No contest after 6th in rogues favor if he has a dex of 16+

So, wait, Pathfinder "fixes" the game by making everyone ridiculously overpowered instead of nerfing the classes that were overpowered?

I'll be over there playing Fantasy Craft if anyone needs me.

>>6635468
Overpowered compared to what? That's like saying 4e makes everyone overpowered. Without a comparison, it's useless.

>>6635489
GIANT LONGSWORD 48D8 DAMAGE ZOMGIAMSOAWSUMLOLZ!

>>6635468

Bringing up the straddlers is much better, easier and more fun than nerfing the pointment. Pathfinder does nerf clerics some (though it also gives them new domain powers, which are more fun if less powerful than just turning yourself into a 12-foot tall divine killing machine). For the most part though, it grants minor, fun boosts to the classes that were good in 3.5 and major, game-chaning boosts to the classes that weren't.

>>6635468
Pathfinder philosophy was "add, not subract" which was smart, because if you completely nerfed the overpowered classes, people would immediately lose interest - more than the few people who claim it made everyone overpowered without comparing the overpowering to anything like yourself.

this also allows for easy conversion of other copre classes to Pathfinder since all you really need to do is add more stuff to make it reasonably powered compared to the core classes in Pathfinder itself.

>>6635535

Most of the time you don't even need to do that. In fact. some of the late-3.5 supplements are still overpowered even if used with Pathfinder.

All 3.P did is take the options in the core rules (you know, the ones which were written in 2000 and insufficiently updated in 2003) and bring them up to speed with the lion's share of 3.5.

ITT: Pathfinder.

>>6635604

Now now, whatever gave you that idea?

>>6635604
You're doing it wrong. What you should have said:

ITT: Overpriced houserules.

>>6635704
ITT: Corrections