Pathfinder: the Lowdown

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:18 pm

Psychic Robot wrote: Sleep, deep slumber, and so on don't allow coup-de-graces against the target creatures.

Wait, what? Where did you get this from? This sounds like a rule James Jacobs might make off the top of his head.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:40 pm

Hmm, it seems that I was incorrect. I distinctly recall this being discussed, or at least I thought I did. Perhaps James Jacobs did make it up.

NineInchNall · Post by **NineInchNall** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:09 pm

THIS is the way to do playtests. Remember, if you find a mathematical problem with a rule or rules, that's not possible, 'cause we have talented people who would have already gotten rid of such things.

And a single play through where you happened to roll all nat 20s shows that a particular class at level x is fine.

More seriously, though, is this really the way most gamers think? Really? That makes me a sad panda.

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:18 pm

/me sobs into hands

That thread just killed braincells. I...

Jilocasin · Post by **Jilocasin** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:20 pm

David Foster Wallace (Kenyon Commencement Speech) wrote:There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"

Eh, being in default mode and reacting to things without thinking about them critically is a lot easier than actually figuring out what water is.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:21 pm

Bulmahn wrote:The alchemist was designed with the intent of helping himself first. I know this is a different sort of concept than what you normally see in a "spellcaster". So, I would love to get some feedback on it before we throw the idea under a bus... or a tarrasque.. or wherever ideas get thrown to be crushed.

Jilocasin · Post by **Jilocasin** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:25 pm

I haven't read the alchemist, but from reading just that little snippet, what the hell does he think a spellcaster is?

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:27 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:
Bulmahn wrote:The alchemist was designed with the intent of helping himself first. I know this is a different sort of concept than what you normally see in a "spellcaster". So, I would love to get some feedback on it before we throw the idea under a bus... or a tarrasque.. or wherever ideas get thrown to be crushed.

So? The Alchemist is working along the same principles as the Warlock (another sort-of-but-not-really spellcaster who can't cast buffs on others). I don't have a problem with that (but note that I don't really care about what happens at level 10+, which some folks tend to get worked up about).

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:29 pm

Bulmahn was arguing against allowing the alchemist to hand out his potions to everyone.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:30 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:Bulmahn was arguing against allowing the alchemist to hand out his potions to everyone.

Again -- so? Is it the Alchemist flavour you don't like, or the actual mechanics (which are really not much different from the Warlock in practice)?

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:58 pm

NineInchNall wrote:THIS is the way to do playtests. Remember, if you find a mathematical problem with a rule or rules, that's not possible, 'cause we have talented people who would have already gotten rid of such things.

And a single play through where you happened to roll all nat 20s shows that a particular class at level x is fine.

More seriously, though, is this really the way most gamers think? Really? That makes me a sad panda.

Wow. To think I was actually expecting to find some playtest posts there.

God. It's just a bunch of claims that theory is useless and people being jerk asses. I guess potentially contrived scenarios combined with heavy random number generation trumps math and probability.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:55 pm

hogarth wrote:
Psychic Robot wrote:Bulmahn was arguing against allowing the alchemist to hand out his potions to everyone.
Again -- so? Is it the Alchemist flavour you don't like, or the actual mechanics (which are really not much different from the Warlock in practice)?

To be fair, the established fact is that an Alchemist who buffs themself is not as powerful as an unbuffed fighter.

So if he isn't contributing group buffs to the party like a shitty bard, what the fuck is he doing?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:07 pm

hogarth wrote:Again -- so? Is it the Alchemist flavour you don't like, or the actual mechanics (which are really not much different from the Warlock in practice)?

Mostly the flavor. If I make potions, I should be able to hand them out to the party.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:11 pm

Kaelik wrote: To be fair, the established fact is that an Alchemist who buffs themself is not as powerful as an unbuffed fighter.

(a) What do you mean by "powerful"? Does that refer to damage per round?

(b) What particular level range are you talking about?

(c) What are your thoughts on the Warlock class?

Psychic Robot wrote:Mostly the flavor. If I make potions, I should be able to hand them out to the party.

Fair enough, but it would really take a psychic (of the robot or non-robot variety) to get that message from the quote you posted above.

NineInchNall · Post by **NineInchNall** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:16 pm

RobbyPants wrote:Wow. To think I was actually expecting to find some playtest posts there.

God. It's just a bunch of claims that theory is useless and people being jerk asses. I guess potentially contrived scenarios combined with heavy random number generation trumps math and probability.

The best part is that's a sticky thread.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:28 am

Amusing.

The wizard's player in my Pathfinder game that started last Sunday has decided that his wizard wants to make a fire version of polar ray. Is there a procedure somewhere in the book for doing something like this?

To which someone replied.

Spell research should cover this.

Still waiting on an answer to my questioning if he really charges 1k/per spell level to change the damage type on spells. Just found it amusing that there are people out there that use Polar Ray. And want to make it worse.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:49 pm

TOZ wrote:Amusing.

The wizard's player in my Pathfinder game that started last Sunday has decided that his wizard wants to make a fire version of polar ray. Is there a procedure somewhere in the book for doing something like this?
To which someone replied.

Spell research should cover this.
Still waiting on an answer to my questioning if he really charges 1k/per spell level to change the damage type on spells. Just found it amusing that there are people out there that use Polar Ray. And want to make it worse.

...Paizils...

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:59 pm

Luckily, he was just answering the question asked, and said no he would not charge them. But yeah.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:11 pm

TOZ wrote:Luckily, he was just answering the question asked, and said no he would not charge them. But yeah.

What does this have to do with Pathfinder?

Archmage · Post by **Archmage** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:47 pm

hogarth wrote:What does this have to do with Pathfinder?

Illustration of their design mentality and understanding of the game?

If you think polar ray is a good spell, you clearly don't understand D&D. If you think a player should be charged actual character resources to change a spell that normally deals cold damage to one that deals fire (which is a more commonly-resisted energy type) you're an idiot.

Et cetera.

DragonChild · Post by **DragonChild** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:19 pm

Actually, I believe cold damage is the most resisted energy type... but only barely. In any case, it's seriously not a big balance issue between those two types either way.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:31 pm

Archmage wrote:
hogarth wrote:What does this have to do with Pathfinder?
Illustration of their design mentality and understanding of the game?

Just to clarify, none of the stuff quoted above is coming from anyone associated with Paizo. It's just some random poster making a random comment that would be equally dumb if it was posted on the WotC message boards.

So where does Pathfinder come in again?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:10 am

So, super delayed but:

hogarth wrote:(a) What do you mean by "powerful"? Does that refer to damage per round?

It refers to the following fact like things that if you disagree with, you can correct me, because I'm taking the word of others:

1) The Alchemist cannot buff other people besides himself.
2) The Alchemist has no serious battle control/debuffing that even remotely rivals a net fighter who can trip.
3) The Alchemist, as a character, is most optimal when downing potions and then attacking things with it's sword for damage.
4) The Alchemist has daily use abilities in his buffing. IE he cannot be as buffed for his 12000th fight as his first assuming he was at optimum in between.
5) The Alchemist, when fully buffed, still does less damage than a fighter. Basically any competent fighter build.

Based on that, I feel it's safe to say that the Alchemist lacks any power outside one fake stone trick that was nerfed anyway, and UMD to rival the fighter.

hogarth wrote:(b) What particular level range are you talking about?

As far as I know, the entire level range. I have not heard mention of the Alchemist ever getting to play with the big boys.

hogarth wrote:(c) What are your thoughts on the Warlock class?

You mean the Complete Arcane Warlock? Great Concept, terrible application. Made by people with no fucking brains.

It can still sort of roll with the big boys later on better than a Fighter, and it's always about there with the fighter in awesome. But basically, shitty because it takes like 3 changes to make it a much much much better class.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:37 am

Well, this is a Pathfinder discussion thread.

-Crissa

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:46 am

Trying to fit in any constructive criticism on the Pathfinder forums is...a frustrating task. I would liken it to a statistics professor attempting to teach a family of drooling hillfolk.