Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[MGuy]

No I'm going in my own direction. I'm not remaking Tome I used it as an example in how drastic my redesign will be.

[TavishArtair]

No I'm going in my own direction. I'm not remaking Tome I used it as an example in how drastic my redesign will be.

By "direction" I don't mean "your specific design goals" because frankly, I don't give a damn about your specific design goals. I mean design directions. You can either design something by working with the smallest pieces first (individual rules, etc., houseruling, "bottom up") or by working with the largest pieces first ("top-down", setting design, concepts, answering how many classes are there, etc.). Eventually you wind up going back and forth between the top and the bottom, however there is a drastic shift in thinking between the two.

You are intent on doing bottom-up game design, like the Tomes and such. This is the antithesis of top-down game design, like TNE and such. While you may want to contribute, you can't as long as you insist on doing the opposite kind of design work.

[MGuy]

So you are saying I can't contribute my ideas and opinions because of what I'm doing with my own project?

[violence in the media]

So you are saying I can't contribute my ideas and opinions because of what I'm doing with my own project?

He's saying don't clog up every design thread on the board with Elennsar-style bullshit.

[MGuy]

That is bullshit. The thread covers the SAME fucking idea I've been wrestling with here. Fighters that can keep up via non magical means. IT'S the fucking title of the thread!

So there have been a number of threads about how Fighters aren't allowed nice things. I personally don't believe that, and when I was working on the Tome Fighter and Barbarian it seemed possible to give fighting guys equivalent things. I mean, I never believed that Batman was about the gadgets.... he was about awesome tactics that happened to be enhanced by the fact that he had high-quality equipment (I mean, is Batman going to lose a car chase because he only has a sportcar and not the Batmobile.... I think not).

So here is the premise: we accept that fighters CAN equal a magical character.

Just to get it in K's own words. Now please tell me what about this is actually different from what I've been saying and how is it Elensarr bullshit?

-Edit for post: Indeed but the case is that they are bad in both. Seeing as though I've proposed a huge change in the balancing of the system and have promoted improving fighters so that they are as good but still different from casters, how is a thread started under these very same terms different from what I've been spouting about this whole time?

[Korwin]

That is bullshit. The thread covers the SAME fucking idea I've been wrestling with here. Fighters that can keep up via non magical means. IT'S the fucking title of the thread!

Nitpick: Its similiar but not the same.

Similiar as in Fighters are bad in DSA - Fighters are bad in D&D
Same as in bad, but the reasons are different.
(Bad example, in DSA Fighters arent as bad as in D&D)

[FatR]

I hope that the theoretical wank has died down enough and we can return to bashing discussing Pathfinder. Their SRD is out:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/index.html

On the first glance:

- Monk... I guess it is better now. Still not really good, thanks to Flurry of Blows being unsynergistic with high mobility and the rest of the old problems, but at least he can nova by spamming (slightly more accurate) attacks like mad, if he gets access to pounce somehow. It is rather poorly written: abilities like stunning fist and quivering palm are not based on his new Ki pool.

- Fighter: No significant changes since Beta.

- Paladin: Got good Will save, a free weapon upgrade that stacks with existing plusses on their weapon and a crapton of minor abilities. Smite evil lasts until the target is dead, gives Cha to AC against its target and double damage against evil dragons and outsiders. Decent, I guess.

So, out of three weakest classes, one was made significantly better and two got useful, but rather minor, improvements to their basic chassis (not considering the feats so far). Not very good

- Cleric: Channel energy isn't really useful. Saves some money on wands of CLW, I guess, but turning undead was better, even if only at low-mid levels. If GM allows it to replace turn undead for purposes of fueling feats and whatever, to maintain backwards compatibility (heh), there is no reason to ever use it normally. They get slightly less spells, which you won't notice until levels where it won't matter. Domains give domain spells as in 3.X, but more abilities. Overall, the class is still strong-to-godly, unless spells were nerfed to oblivion

- Druid: Animal companions are nerfed big-time. Their statistics are almost entirely determined by your level, and you don't get access to stronger companions at high levels - instead your old ones just magically evolve like pokemons at certain points. Your bear seriously starts Small and turns Medium when you hit 4th level. Uh, and those who liked riding their polar bears, or whatever, get the shaft. Overall: weaker, unless changes to Wild Shape actually stealth-buff them.

- Wizard: Specialists got less restrictions and some tasty abilities, like auto-lowering enemies's saves for Enchanters, and universalists still get free metamagic.

So, out of the three strongest classes, one remains mostly the same, one is weaker and one even gets quite significant buffs. (Well, as far as I can tell without looking at spells, but remember, this is supposed to be backwards compatible, and if spells from 3.X supplements are in play, then at least clerics and wizards still own.) Also, all of them benefit quite a lot more than the weakest classes from getting once per two levels and this alone might compensate for the effect of any improvements in the latter. Bad work, Paizo.

[hogarth]

I hope that the theoretical wank has died down enough and we can return to bashing discussing Pathfinder. Their SRD is out:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/index.html

You can just use paizo.com/prd for the URL.

[Leress]

The barbarian loses the rage points system and now gets power that activate while raging. Many of them are just insulting (gain low light vision, being a better swimmer, or night vision). Some are good (mighty swing,[auto crit], and Superstition [Bonus vs spells, SU, and SLAs]) and some are just plain asinine (Moment of Clarity[Don't gain the benefits or penalties of rage]).

Overall: Improved but still not enough.

Rogue: It was improved so now there are cherries on the sundae. (Now you must qualify for the feat to get it via talent)

[MGuy]

Thanks for the URL.

[virgil]

A paladin's 11th level buff that grants smite evil to everyone in the party is good (which makes the melee-types competent).

I'm just not seeing how the barbarian is a credible threat at the mid+ levels. The only thing I'm seeing worth anything in a fight is that 1/rage ability that gives him a +level to a single CMB check. The rest just don't do enough and he can't truly threaten anything unless he's getting buffed by a ranger or paladin.

The bard, monk, ranger, & rogue all get true save-or-die powers. It's weird that they went out of their way to get rid of the true SoD spells, only to turn around and hand them out to those three. Granted, these SoDs aren't available until 20th level ('cept the monk, which is at 15th).

Fascinating ability for the Undead bloodline for sorcerer. If a corporeal undead used to be humanoid, they're treated as humanoid against the sorcerer's spells. I don't even know how charm person works against them.

Judging by all of the times I've seen mention of Pathfinder conversion notes to account for the new rules, and how apparently it's enough that people actually consider it an appreciable hurdle, the backwards compatability is definitely shot a whole lot more than 3.5 ever did

[Ganbare Gincun]

And if this in fact the final version of Pathfinder, it doesn't look like Frank's original assertions were very far off the mark. Where do I sign up to play my Wizard?

[MGuy]

Well now that we can look at the final copy does anybody see anything worth mining out of it? I like the littel sneak attack tricks the rogue gets myself.

[virgil]

The rogue's sneak attack tricks are very similar to a line of feats WotC made awhile back, and is quite likely where they were lifted from.

They helped spellcasters in that now magic item identification is now under the purview of Spellcraft instead of Appraise, helping their skills. I still feel for them as far as casting defensively is concerned. Their version of Diplomacy is improved, but still flawed in that it's a fixed DC without any defense. Sleight of Hand had its quick draw trick removed.

Catch Off-Guard - All unarmed opponents are considered flat-footed against your improvised weapon attacks (of which you suffer no penalty for). Handy for the rogue if he's fighting humanoid wizards and sorcerers, as they're the only ones who will reliably have this condition. Combat reflexes was buffed to allow the person to make AoOs while flat-footed.

Please tell me if I'm wrong here, but Vital Strike seems the unintentional stealth buff to fighters. It's worded as follows: "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that..." Seeing as how a full-attack gives you multiple attack actions, you can apply the Vital Strike feat to each individual attack, utterly removing iterative penalties as well as dealing an extra die or two of damage. Seeing as how Jason explicitly included the use of Vital Strike with a charge, I'm not sure how else it's supposed to be interpreted without the RAW being wrong.

EDIT: I can't believe my DM actually thought the old version of Vital Strike (give up lowest attack to boost all others) was ridiculous/overpowered. He obviously is running by what Jason likely intended (Fighters Can't Have Nice Things), or 'common sense' as he calls it.

[FatR]

- Favored classes rule (+1HP or skill point per level in favored class) strongly encourages staying in a single class. Three guesses, who doesn't really care about multiclassing and gets only benefits from this and who is screwed.

- Humans no longer are the ultimate race. An extra feat is not as important now, and dwarves, elves, gnomes and halflings all get +2s to spellcasting-governing abilities, besides their piles of minor and not-so-minor bonuses. You might even want to choose half-orc over human, if your GM is strict about visibility rules (for darkvision) and the game starts at level 1.

- Power Attack. I wouldn't say, that it is actually nerfed for non-Shock Trooper characters. You have no choice about amount devoted to powerattacking (1 point initially and +1 more for every 4 points of BAB), but returns are 2 points of damage for normal weapon and 3 for two-handed. Uh, and this still shafts single-handed weapons users, although not as much.

- Improved Trip. Sucks, as do other maneuver feats - they all grant only +2 and don't enable any extra effects if you succeed. Greater Trip, which finally gives you full benefits, isn't available until BAB +6, i.e, you miss the spot where trip is most useful.

[hogarth]

Please tell me if I'm wrong here, but Vital Strike seems the unintentional stealth buff to fighters. It's worded as follows: "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that..." Seeing as how a full-attack gives you multiple attack actions, you can apply the Vital Strike feat to each individual attack, utterly removing iterative penalties as well as dealing an extra die or two of damage.

As far as I know "attack action" isn't really defined anywhere in the rules. The closest I can see is a standard action called "Attack". But in that case it wouldn't work during a charge. So it's a big sloppy mess, as usual.

Likewise, "precision damage" isn't defined anywhere either, and yet they toss the phrase around as if it meant something.

[PhoneLobster]

Hmmm.

Five seconds into a skim of "getting started" I see...
[b]Ability/Points[/b] 7 –4 8 –2 9 –1 10 0 11 1 12 2 13 3 14 5 15 7 16 10 17 13 18 17 [b]Ability Score Points [/b] Campaign Type/Points Low Fantasy 10 Standard Fantasy 15 High Fantasy 20 Epic Fantasy 25 [/td][/tr]
Yay! Low Fantasy, you just KNOW every second Pathfinder DM with a railroad to wank is going to be picking that. Hurray for one 16 on my attributes and all tens! (lowering my attributes and getting some 12s/18s would be munchkiny, of course) The monsters are weaker too right?

Right?

[Korwin]

Likewise, "precision damage" isn't defined anywhere either, and yet they toss the phrase around as if it meant something.

Its backward (they say...) compatible, so if its definied anywhere in 3.5.... use that
Or do they make the claim, that Pfadfinder is a stand alone product?

[Roy]

Funny how 'epic fantasy' is inferior to 28 PB eh?

[Kobajagrande]

Yay! Low Fantasy, you just KNOW every second Pathfinder DM with a railroad to wank is going to be picking that. Hurray for one 16 on my attributes and all tens! (lowering my attributes and getting some 12s/18s would be munchkiny, of course) The monsters are weaker too right?

Right?

Well, if its Low Fantasy, that should mean very little monsters and no D&D magic. That is, practically ignoring like 75-80% of entire D&D core. And no one should doubt that all GMs who run such games do exactly that, and not just not hand out magic items to players and ban item creation.

[Koumei]

Doesn't Low Fantasy MEAN "you will suck and you will like it" though? Saying "You have shit ability scores and will never get nice things. Oh look, a monster, it appears the party died." is basically the epitome of Low Fantasy, so maybe they got that one right.

[TOZ]

From the brief comparison I've done of the bestiary preview to 3.5 MM, there does seem to be a lessening of the numbers. Most stats seem 2 or 3 points lower on the huge fire elemental and dire tiger. Have to check deeper to see if this is a trend.

[Kobajagrande]

Doesn't Low Fantasy MEAN "you will suck and you will like it" though? Saying "You have shit ability scores and will never get nice things. Oh look, a monster, it appears the party died." is basically the epitome of Low Fantasy, so maybe they got that one right.

Nah, that's "I'm playing D&D low fantasy done wrong".

[PhoneLobster]

Most stats seem 2 or 3 points lower on the huge fire elemental and dire tiger.

Er. That only works if the stats are lower when playing "Low Fantasy" and higher when playing epic or whatever.

Similarly making wizards rarer won't help significantly if they aren't also made weaker, and so on.

And then there are all the weird implications of tying low fantasy to crippling your attribute point buy. So that the low fantasy world actually greatly rewards classes that can rely on maxing out fewer stats and dumping more of the others.

So the low fantasy world makes wizards and druids comparatively more powerful than fighters, paladins, rogues, monks, etc...

Of course I haven't looked at the class rules yet (and might never) but that's a safe bet...

[TOZ]

I didn't mean to have it in reference to the low fantasy option. Just that it seems like maybe they reigned in the ridiculous numbers monster had over the PCs. So maybe fighters can stand up in melee a bit better. Probably not enough however.