Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[TOZ]

So where does Pathfinder come in again?

We don't do threads that make us cry anymore and it wasn't worth starting a new thread for.

[cthulhu]

We don't do that because the board owner told us to stop... so restarting it in another thread is what you call a Shit Idea.

[TOZ]

Linking to them was the problem, and starting them elsewhere just to link to them. Quoting specific items for discussion wasn't a problem to my knowledge, and in moderation shouldn't be.

[Avoraciopoctules]

I'm considering running through a modified version of the Rise of the Runelords modules. I'd be using Tome rules for the PCs at least, and I may feel inclined to rewrite significant swathes of material in the modules if it seems necessary. So far, I've skimmed a few pages of the first one and have heard that the second has some very impressive traps.

It seems very probable that I'm going to have 2 PCs for this, so I'm going to start them as level 2 characters and advance levels when they do significant training, get a magical power-up (say, if one eats a dragon heart), or complete an important mission. Also, because it amuses Akula and I, both PCs are going to start out almost identical (as Monk 1 / Fire Mage 1 "Fire Warriors" from the hobgoblin Empire as depicted in the Tomes, with a base of 14 in every stat) and have the opportunity to diverge in abilities as they advance. The PCs will be encouraged to pick up NPC allies, some of which the players will directly control as long as the allies have reason to trust the PCs.

Is there anything about the Pathfinder rules I should keep in mind when adapting a Pathfinder module for a Tome game? Or about these modules in particular, when aimed at a party of 2 slightly overleveled PCs with allies?

[hogarth]

Is there anything about the Pathfinder rules I should keep in mind when adapting a Pathfinder module for a Tome game?

Rise of the Runelords is a 3.5 adventure path, not PFRPG.

[Roy]

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.

Now, now PR. Don't insult the drooling hillfolk by comparing them to that.

[hogarth]

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.

That's exactly my opinion of the alchemist -- just a few changes would make it a much much much better class.

[Kaelik]

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.

That's exactly my opinion of the alchemist -- just a few changes would make it a much much much better class.

I agree. But one of my "minor changes" to both the Warlock and Alchemist is to redesign all their abilities to be level appropriate.

As far as minor changes go, it's not very minor.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Is there anything about the Pathfinder rules I should keep in mind when adapting a Pathfinder module for a Tome game?

Rise of the Runelords is a 3.5 adventure path, not PFRPG.

Oh. Well, that explains why all the mechanical stuff was so much more intuitive than I expected. Thanks.

[Maxus]

Hah. Good on, Av.

What's bad is how true it is...

A DM buddy of mine asked me about Pathfinder, and the verdict I came up with was "There's no benefit in learning this if you could be playing 3.5 instead."

After a couple of demonstrations of how things work out (I think the Combat Maneuver's bias towards the defender is what did it), he concurred.

[hogarth]

After a couple of demonstrations of how things work out (I think the Combat Maneuver's bias towards the defender is what did it), he concurred.

There are plenty of things about Combat Maneuvers to complain about, but "they're impossible to do" is not true. In fact, in many cases Combat Maneuvers are easier to perform (e.g. because the attacker can add a magic weapon's enhancement bonus, and because size bonuses give less of an advantage).

[Roy]

After a couple of demonstrations of how things work out (I think the Combat Maneuver's bias towards the defender is what did it), he concurred.

There are plenty of things about Combat Maneuvers to complain about, but "they're impossible to do" is not true. In fact, in many cases Combat Maneuvers are easier to perform (e.g. because the attacker can add a magic weapon's enhancement bonus, and because size bonuses give less of an advantage).

Base chance of success being lower and enemy BAB being invariably higher than yours is what does it. The smaller size modifier is really just a smokescreen.

Do I really need to post the fire giant comparison AGAIN?

[hogarth]

Do I really need to post the fire giant comparison AGAIN?

What, the one you last posted during the Beta playtest when the rules were different?

If you want to look up the new rules, go right ahead. I'd like to hear what you consider an acceptable result beforehand, however, so you don't do any goalpost-moving after you do the actual calculations.

[Roy]

Do I really need to post the fire giant comparison AGAIN?

What, the one you last posted during the Beta playtest when the rules were different?

If you want to look up the new rules, go right ahead. I'd like to hear what you consider an acceptable result beforehand, however, so you don't do any goalpost-moving after you do the actual calculations.

Given you no longer get a free attack, 80%-90%.

It was 50%-60% in 3.5, close to 0% in PF.

[Doom]

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.

Hmm, followed a discussion I had in another forum...or just a strange coinkidink.

[Psychic Robot]

I rescind my earlier comparison. Hillfolk would undoubtedly enjoy a calculator for its existence and the ingenuity of being able to push buttons and see numbers. The Paizo forum regulars would argue with the statistics professor and claim that the calculator's numbers were just his opinion.

[Username17]

Let's go by humanoid outsiders at various CRs and compare their ability to affect themselves:

• Janni (CR 4): CMB: +9, CMD: 22; 40%
  Bralani (CR 6): CMB: +12, CMD: 26; 35%
  Erinyes (CR 8): CMB: +14, CMD: 31; 20%
  Rakshasa (CR 10): CMB: +13, CMD: 29; 25%
  Barbed Devil (CR 11): CMB: +18, CMD: 36; 15%
  Gelugon (CR 13): CMB: +21, CMD: 36; 30%

Even before we get into the fact that most of the combat maneuvers have been nerfed to fuck by like getting turned into Standard Actions from Attack Actions or just having the teeth ripped out of the conditions that they cause - the fact is that the apparent number spread is that even if you drop the three feats required to get a +4 on Disarm, that this is generally not expected to get you to a 50% chance of successfully doing that.

-Username17

[A Man In Black]

Let's go by humanoid outsiders at various CRs and compare their ability to affect themselves:

But that isn't an illustration that combat maneuver attempts usually fail. It's an illustration that the combat maneuver rules give humanoid outsiders really high combat maneuver defenses for no good reason.

It's about as hard to grapple/trip/disarm a barbed devil as it is to grapple a cloud giant. That's a goofy system, but it's goofy for a different reason.

[Username17]

Let's go by humanoid outsiders at various CRs and compare their ability to affect themselves:

But that isn't an illustration that combat maneuver attempts usually fail. It's an illustration that the combat maneuver rules give humanoid outsiders really high combat maneuver defenses for no good reason.

It's about as hard to grapple/trip/disarm a barbed devil as it is to grapple a cloud giant. That's a goofy system, but it's goofy for a different reason.

Well... we already showed that the sample characters can't accomplish shit with Combat Maneuvers. But then people complained "The sample characters are badly made!" Well, no shit. So I just checked the Combat Maneuver possibilities of the adventurer-like monsters. And they can't do it either.

So... what the fuck is left? What data points do you think we should fucking look at to show that this subsystem is fucking garbage? Personally, I am done with it. I find the raw numeric data very persuasive that CMB is fucking hosed from the get-go and does not function as advertised or as written.

And we never really had to check that shit in the first place. The CMB vs. CMD system was obviously fucked from the start. Every time they've fiddled with it, they've still kept the same basic concept where you're adding the same things to your CMD as you are to your CMB, except that the defense adds two stats instead of only one. So at the limit of infinite levels, CMDs are always going to be pushed off the RNG in the direction of failure. That's just how it really obviously works. And if you can't figure out that it works, or rather does not work in that fashion, I have a very dim view of your basic math skills. It's just a growth series where the two numbers don't grow at the same rate, and the one that by definition grows faster is the one where you fail.

-Username17

[A Man In Black]

So... what the fuck is left? What data points do you think we should fucking look at to show that this subsystem is fucking garbage? Personally, I am done with it. I find the raw numeric data very persuasive that CMB is fucking hosed from the get-go and does not function as advertised or as written.

Oh, I don't disagree with that at all; I just disagree that it's fucked because maneuvers always fail. It's fucked because it's a needlessly complex, vague system where the defense numbers would make no less sense if they were randomly generated. With one interpretation of the vague rules, you're right that CMD just outscales CMB, but that problem is swamped by the fact that none of the system makes any goddamn sense.

Bonuses are either way too low to ever get things done, or you get to add all of your to-hit bonuses to CMB (because of the very vague "Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects") and always succeed on every maneuver always. Once you're adding all of your to-hit bonuses, you've made a really complicated system that just boils down to your normal to-hit plus your size mod. Why do we need CMB at all if that's what CMB is meant to be? And if it's not meant to be your full to-hit plus size mod, what the hell modifiers are applicable and what aren't?

And CMD is completely screwed because too many things that have no business being masters of combat maneuvers get huge defensive bonuses, while things that are logically difficult to affect with maneuvers are oddly easy to affect. Why the hell is just as hard to disarm or grapple a kyton or babau as it is a hill giant? It's easier to pin an elephant or a stone giant than an erinyes. Dex is just too valuable, and size is just too weak. Even if CMDs didn't outscale CMBs, the bigger they are the easier they are to pin, and that's moronic.

Plus, pretty much everything at high levels is completely immune to trip. Even the things that don't fly are immune. Not because of high CMDs, but just Immune To Trip. So no amount of being good at tripping foes is going to be useful against anything from the Bestiary after level 12, unless tripping the tarrasque is super important to you. This inexplicably includes ropers, mariliths, and salamanders, all of which have obvious ways in which they could be knocked sprawling.

PF's combat maneuvers are completely fucked. They have scaling issues, but those are the least of their problems because the system doesn't make a bit of sense anyway. CMB amounts to GM fiat, CMD overrates a stat that hasn't had anything to do with grappling in 3e ever while underrating size, and a bunch of things are just plain immune to maneuvers for no good reason. When you have a system so badly written that it can be interpreted to mean that you always succeed on combat maneuvers or always fail on combat maneuvers, scaling is the least of your issues.

[TOZ]

In other news, James Jacobs stated that removing dice caps on direct damage spells would let spellcasters dominate the game. I had to laugh.

[Psychic Robot]

Dropping a 20d6 fireball is a total gamebreaker.

[TOZ]

I kno, rite? Totally gotta cap that shit so PCs have to use their 9th level spells to get that many dice.

[Username17]

Let's go by humanoid outsiders at various CRs and compare their ability to affect themselves:

Are you suggesting that a creature should be able to trip itself half the time?

With the use of an actual combat action, I would say that only tripping yourself half the time is actually kind of sad.

-Username17

[hogarth]

Well... we already showed that the sample characters can't accomplish shit with Combat Maneuvers.

Again, note that the current rules are different from the Beta rules that you used in your example.