Pathfinder: the Lowdown

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:54 pm

I will trust even most Denners I disagree with on a regular basis to do a better job than the intellectual amoebas that created Pathfinder (or 3.5 and 4th for that matter).

And what makes it infuriating like hell is that the last big improvement to DnD came with extensive playtesting. Levels 1 to 10 of 3rd edition were playtested and, generally speaking, work fine (ok, 5th level spells is stretching it). So when Paizo announced open playtesting I was pretty psyched. Given even a measly 100 playtesters you are pretty much guaranteed to get pointed to any obvious flaws, right? I figured the signal to noise ratio might be hard to deal with, but hey, even 1 in 5 obvious flaws fixed would be great. And then you see the moderators actively discouraging negative feedback and any sort of controlled testing.

So, yes, Bulmahn and anyone else responsible for Pathfinder definitely are idiots. They had a chance to get the most comprehensive RPG playtest ever. People were lining up just to be allowed to work for free. All they had to do was some mild forum moderation, perhaps a couple different boards for flavor, world and mechanics and then listen. We are talking about getting the feedback of a serious percentage of their target audience and they sabotaged it for the sake of not having to do any actual thinking and possibly to not look like bad game designers. Let me repeat that: Bulmahn was willing to hit himself in the nuts in an attempt to build credibility as a great designer.

Arijkos · Post by **Arijkos** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:31 pm

He also wrote Dungeonscape, so what did you expect?

Ok, seriously, I agree with you, even while I missed the whole PF open testing thing and crawled through a lot forum postings and links afterwards, it seems pretty stupid what the made out of it. Even without all these examples, ideas and usggestions from the community, the designers of 3rd edition themselves told some things about what is wrong with the system... balls.
Oh, and I found Dungeonscape to be not that bad, after all I salvaged a handfull ideas from it.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:49 pm

Dungeonscape came out with Precision Strike for Rogues. No that doesn't address the rest of the book but of everything that should have been in the original PHB, this is it.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:07 pm

mean_liar wrote:Dungeonscape came out with Precision Strike for Rogues. No that doesn't address the rest of the book but of everything that should have been in the original PHB, this is it.

Dungeonscape has Dungeoncrasher. Really, that's the only reason I care about it. It does have a few other things, but those should really be basic... I mean, do you need a special item just to make your weapon have a hollow hilt for holding wands and such?

Does fit neatly into the 'should have been in the PHB' category though.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:03 am

The next set of new base classes came out for playtesting. One of the new classes is the Summoner, who gets Haste as a 2nd level spell, Teleport as a 4th level spell and Maze/Summon Monster IX as 6th level spells. And he gets a pet that's likely just as good as the party fighter.

Hegemonic · Post by **Hegemonic** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:10 am

Well, although I think this forum might trend a bit towards perfectionism in game systems (laudable, if unrealistic), I am glad to have trudged through this thread, because it confirmed for me that I should not bother with Pathfinder as an alternative to my own homebrew ruleset.

I sincerely look forward to being excoriated once I've finished it.

imperialspectre · Post by **imperialspectre** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:44 am

The Summoner's on the bard casting schedule, so the spell level thing isn't really that bad. The problem is when its pet is demonstrably better than a Pathfighter at just about every level (it starts to even out at higher levels, but there's still a definite gap).

The Witch is the real joke class of the Advanced Player's Guide material so far. Prepared INT caster, Wizard spells per day, a selection of fairly strong wizard and cleric spells to choose from, and a bunch of (Su) at-wills that are actually really good. The power creep is just insane.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:50 am

My local gaming group wants to play Pathfinder despite the fact that they know damned well that it hasn't fixed any of the class balance issues in 3.5. And they all want to play Fighters and Monks. *sigh*

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:32 am

imperialspectre wrote:The Summoner's on the bard casting schedule, so the spell level thing isn't really that bad.

I don't care about the summoner's casting. I'm thinking about the various prestige classes and feats that allow you to cherry-pick a spell from another spell list, not to mention the ability to get cheaper wands/scrolls/potions of spells.

sake · Post by **sake** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:26 pm

imperialspectre wrote:
The Witch is the real joke class of the Advanced Player's Guide material so far. Prepared INT caster, Wizard spells per day, a selection of fairly strong wizard and cleric spells to choose from, and a bunch of (Su) at-wills that are actually really good. The power creep is just insane.

*shrug* The witch just seems like the 3.5 warlock done right to me. It's a flexible, balanced (by PF standards) caster with lots of fun fluff crap connected to it.

Granted, I'm biased as all hell here because I've wanted an Int based arcane caster with healing spells since bloody third edition came out, but the spell list looks like a nice mix of useless blaster spells, decent save or suck's, handy utility stuff, and healing spells. The most broken stuff from the wizard or cleric's lists simply aren't there.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:38 pm

Ganbare Gincun wrote:My local gaming group wants to play Pathfinder despite the fact that they know damned well that it hasn't fixed any of the class balance issues in 3.5. And they all want to play Fighters and Monks. *sigh*

Why are you complaining? They're giving you the easiest game to prepare for. Throw mook squads at them so they can wade through hordes to feel badass and when you want a real challenge just put an appropriate CR against them.

Seriously, they will have nothing up their sleeves to surprise you with. No caster, autoattacks only, Final Destination. The few tricks they have will give them the illusion of versatility, and you can throw healbot clerics and blaster wizards at them to make them feel level appropriate.

I say this having been a 3.5 monk player in a game just like that. We fought mooks and felt badass, and when a freakin' bard showed up we were in trouble. Knowing what you're going in for will make prep a dream and let you have a better time storycrafting.

Guyr Adamantine · Post by **Guyr Adamantine** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:45 pm

Another Pathfinder rant. Its more about individual portions of the game than the general bullshit, though.

It seems the DDO forums are swarmed by ''paizils''

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:50 pm

Guyr Adamantine wrote:Another Pathfinder rant. Its more about individual portions of the game than the general bullshit, though.

It seems the DDO forums are swarmed by ''paizils''

I disagree with the OP on an important point: 3e and 3.5 Rogues are totally able to find and disable magic glyphs. It's in their trapfinding class feature. The DC isn't even that bad. A Symbol of Facerape is only DC 33, you should be able to do it easily by 9th level (when it's a major encounter), and by the time it's a toss-off, it should be a toss-off for you as well.

-Username17

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:03 pm

TOZ wrote:
Ganbare Gincun wrote:My local gaming group wants to play Pathfinder despite the fact that they know damned well that it hasn't fixed any of the class balance issues in 3.5. And they all want to play Fighters and Monks. *sigh*
Why are you complaining? They're giving you the easiest game to prepare for. Throw mook squads at them so they can wade through hordes to feel badass and when you want a real challenge just put an appropriate CR against them.

Seriously, they will have nothing up their sleeves to surprise you with. No caster, autoattacks only, Final Destination. The few tricks they have will give them the illusion of versatility, and you can throw healbot clerics and blaster wizards at them to make them feel level appropriate.

I say this having been a 3.5 monk player in a game just like that. We fought mooks and felt badass, and when a freakin' bard showed up we were in trouble. Knowing what you're going in for will make prep a dream and let you have a better time storycrafting.

They actually aren't though, because even the deliberately weakened encounters can seriously fuck them up.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:28 pm

The witch is hardly overpowered. She gets a bunch of (fairly weak) at-will abilities, most of which can't be used on a target more than once per day. Her spell list is okay, but it's not spectacular.

The summoner, on the other hand, gets a free fighter as a class feature.

koz · Post by **koz** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:33 pm

Psychic Robot wrote: The summoner, on the other hand, gets a free fighter as a class feature.

Which is different to the druid... how again?

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:33 pm

Roy wrote:They actually aren't though, because even the deliberately weakened encounters can seriously fuck them up.

I'm not sure what you're disputing Roy. I'm saying you make gimped little warriors for them to kill, and hordes of minions and shit, and that will keep them happy. I know full and well you pull something out of the manual, it will wreck their shit.

And thank you PR, I was finding it amusing they stripped the Druid down to make the Summoner.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:40 pm

TOZ wrote:
Roy wrote:They actually aren't though, because even the deliberately weakened encounters can seriously fuck them up.
I'm not sure what you're disputing Roy. I'm saying you make gimped little warriors for them to kill, and hordes of minions and shit, and that will keep them happy. I know full and well you pull something out of the manual, it will wreck their shit.

And thank you PR, I was finding it amusing they stripped the Druid down to make the Summoner.

I'm saying even the gimped little warriors sometimes end up killing them. They're that bad. Especially if we're talking Paizil stuff here, which we are.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:43 pm

Which is different to the druid... how again?

The summoner's pet is better than an animal companion.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:26 pm

Fully acknowledged Roy, but hey, you can't control the dice all the time.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:51 am

In response to a criticism that the summoner might have economy of action problems (and then force everyone to wait an hour during his turn):

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:Part of his schtick is that the summoner can do adventures solo because he CAN conjure an army. As in, "my GM is going to run a solo campaign for me, I'm going to play a summoner because he's especially suited for it."

Yes, in a standard group the summoner can go overboard with all of his summoned creatures' actions... and a courteous player won't dominate the game that way. Just as another character with summonings, animal companions, and cohorts should give the other players time to play.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:41 am

Psychic Robot wrote:In response to a criticism that the summoner might have economy of action problems (and then force everyone to wait an hour during his turn):
Sean K. Reynolds wrote:Part of his schtick is that the summoner can do adventures solo because he CAN conjure an army. As in, "my GM is going to run a solo campaign for me, I'm going to play a summoner because he's especially suited for it."

Yes, in a standard group the summoner can go overboard with all of his summoned creatures' actions... and a courteous player won't dominate the game that way. Just as another character with summonings, animal companions, and cohorts should give the other players time to play.

So, the answer is "that's the point, if the summoner isn't a dick, the rest of the party isn't made obsolete/banished to play Smash out of boredom."

At least they're honest about it.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:49 am

Mask_De_H wrote:
At least they're honest about it.

Saying "they" have an opinion about something is meaningless. On the Paizo board, the various writers drop their opinions seemingly without any co-ordination or discussion between them. James Jacobs is particularly bad at that.

Poster: "XYZ is a dumb rule."
JJ: "It's supposed to work exactly like that, and it's not dumb!"
Poster: "No, it really is dumb. [detailed explanation follows]"
JJ: "Wha-? Well, I'd never allow that in my campaign but there's still nothing wrong with the rule."
Poster: "*facepalm*"
JJ: "I just talked to Jason and he said we're both wrong. So there!"