Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[Psychic Robot]

I think it's totally fair to call Roy a sociopath. Or at least the persona he displays online.

Am I the only one to see the irony?

[ubernoob]

I think it's totally fair to call Roy a sociopath. Or at least the persona he displays online.

Am I the only one to see the irony?

Elaborate. Odds are I'll agree with your assessment, but not see it as ironic.

[virgil]

Paizo: Screw fighters!

Ride (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)

Bolded for emphasis.

[RobbyPants]

Paizo: Screw fighters!

Ride (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)

Bolded for emphasis.

So an armored knight with MW full plate and a MW heavy shield needs 6 ranks just to ride as effectively as an untrained rider? Awesome, Paizo!

That's actually ridiculously stupid given the base use of Mounted Combat, unless they changed how it works.

Player: What's this feat do?

DM: It lets you replace your mount's AC with a Ride check at a -6 penalty!

[Roy]

If you hang around here long enough, you'll realize any optimizers that venture into the Tea Party headquarters are being very nice compared to us. Both in terms of actually being nice, and in terms of conservative optimization.

does not seem to me that, say, K had such condiscending behaviour when posting on paizo board. Is not a matter of being optimizer, IMO.

If you say so.

This, and thank you all for a certain "millions of" Thread. I want to be buried with the printed version of it. AHAHAHATITANIUMDRAGON. AHah.

Interesting you would choose that thread of all the threads you could have possibly mentioned.

And PR is obviously calling you a sociopath uber. Which I'd say is dead on. As opposed to what the fucktards are saying about me which basically boils down to herp derp he's enjoying watching stupid people do stupid shit so he must be a sociopath!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111

Newsflash: Everyone likes watching trainwrecks.

[hogarth]

Paizo: Screw fighters!

Ride (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)

Bolded for emphasis.

And then they specifically introduced a new class (the Cavalier) in order to remove that penalty. Dumb.

[Xur]

Paizo: Screw fighters!

Ride (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)

Bolded for emphasis.

And then they specifically introduced a new class (the Cavalier) in order to remove that penalty. Dumb.

I'd guess from their viewpoint its not - now they have something the Cavalier gets more spotlight in than any other class and can contribute to the party and...
But seriously, this has been in PF since Alpha 2 (looked it up) - either no one really uses Ride (would be my guess) or people overlooked/houseruled it since the beginning.

[Roy]

Well, have you seen the combat maneuver section? Making mundane things full of fail, and then introducing ways to make them suck less, but still fail is SOP for them.

[hogarth]

But seriously, this has been in PF since Alpha 2 (looked it up) - either no one really uses Ride (would be my guess) or people overlooked/houseruled it since the beginning.

No, lots of people complained. The official response: "tough cookies".

[Koumei]

...I would have guessed it was a case of "Another fucking stupid (and small) change is made, without actually telling anyone in a big statement for 'People used to real D&D, read here for a list of changes' so nobody even knows it was actually made."

[Kaiyanwang]

And PR is obviously calling you a sociopath uber.

Is this supposed to somewhat unnerve me?

I agree on the ride thing. Well actually on the long road does not affect fighters because of armor training and mithral, but it affects paladins, as an example, unless you use a specific ACF Making the point expressed above about "specific fixes").

[Username17]

I don't understand why "armored guy on a horse" should be a 6th level character concept. 6th level monsters have wings and crossbows built into their tails.

-Username17

[Roy]

And PR is obviously calling you a sociopath uber.

Is this supposed to somewhat unnerve me?

I agree on the ride thing. Well actually on the long road does not affect fighters because of armor training and mithral, but it affects paladins, as an example, unless you use a specific ACF Making the point expressed above about "specific fixes").

Should you care that a poster thinks another poster is crazy?

Mounted combat is a low level concept. Unless you are a Druid or maybe a Paladin your mount just isn't going to keep up. If it doesn't work at low levels, that's an epic fail.

Wasn't there some SGT where a Paladin needed a store bought mount instead of his class features and to go nova to win anything?

[Kaiyanwang]

Several people think that I'm quite insane - but more on the Psychotic side (see my avatar name, is referred to the manga 3x3 eyes). Eh, nevermind


Yeah, I think you are right. Or at least, barring the fact that one could or could not think that mounted combat is low or high level, this is arbitrary.

(furthermore, the mere amount of skill point spent on ride was enough to scale the feat.. so, yeah).

[Roy]

Several people think that I'm quite insane - but more on the Psychotic side (see my avatar name, is referred to the manga 3x3 eyes). Eh, nevermind


Yeah, I think you are right. Or at least, barring the fact that one could or could not think that mounted combat is low or high level, this is arbitrary.

(furthermore, the mere amount of skill point spent on ride was enough to scale the feat.. so, yeah).

well, I wasn't suggesting larger and larger weapons as the whole fix, but rather getting virtually bigger and bigger as part of the fix which would allow D&D fighters to do shit we see in video games and comics.

Having a 20' space and 10' reach beyond that is a lot of flexibility, especially if we give the characters the ability to, say, make one attack miss or nullified, because they're actually over there. Larger and larger improvised weapons is a way to allow fighters and barbarians to rip out tree trunks and throw them, sure, it's not a lot of damage, but the actual ability is pretty impressive, especially when you're still only ~6' tall.

However, I agree that we need to add a lot of actual powers that are flavoured correctly, like barbarians tracking by scent, but that's specifically, what, a third level power? A 20th level barbarian should be doing shit like calling legendary bears to come help fuck up their opponent, and throwing down fear effects like they're candy (as frightful presence is, what, maybe 8th level?)

That's exactly the problem though. Bears, even legendary bears, are things that can be dealt with by 5th level adventurers. Summon a legendary bear against a Beholder and it is a fucking liability. Tracking by scent is something that a 1st level character can do with the right feat, and literally any first level character can do by "getting a dog". The first fear effect comes online at... 1st level. And the only reason we don't wank to it like we do to the heavy hitters like fear and charm monster is because it has a fucking hit die cap.

But again and still, "use your first level abilities on monsters of your current level" is something that you were literally and specifically doing at first level. It's nothing special. It's not even different. Basically when it comes down to it, every single thing you were talking about for the 20th level Barbarian was something that 1st level characters could already do, except presumably you intended to scale the actual damage bonuses and save DCs to the level.

When you make higher level abilities, it is not enough to assure the audience that the little white numbers coming up every time the characters act are larger than they were before. They have to be qualitatively more epic in some fashion. Palette swapping animal companions or raising the save DC on your fearsome shout are not abilities, they are accounting.

-Username17

I'm just going to leave this here.

[souran]

I don't understand why "armored guy on a horse" should be a 6th level character concept. 6th level monsters have wings and crossbows built into their tails.

-Username17

Why is armored guy on a horse an accept able concept for a game that includes the words "dungeon" in its name?

Seriously, every edition of D&D tries to have cavilers and mounted heroes and even after 30 years of experimentation, they all still suck because eventuallly you are going to have to fight inside.

D&D (or or off-the-pathfinder) try to have lots of character options based on being mounted. Here is a whole slew of feats, and a class, and a prestige class.

Its all a waste of space. Mounts should be fancy pieces of equipment that give you a bonus you care about (and want to use) without being a bigger deal than alchemical items.

Frank is correct, mounts become mostly obsolete due to magical travel and flight long before you can really develop a strong case for a mounted fighter to pan out.

[Maj]

Why is armored guy on a horse an accept able concept for a game that includes the words "dungeon" in its name?

Because a knight is the standard response to the other word in the game's title - "dragon."

[Maxus]

Why is armored guy on a horse an accept able concept for a game that includes the words "dungeon" in its name?

Because a knight is the standard response to the other word in the game's title - "dragon."

And not all games happen entirely in dungeons

[souran]

That B.S.

Gawain does not face the Green Knight on horseback ever.

St. George is depicted off his horse as much as he is on it.

The weapon most commonly associated with the Knight is the cruciform sword.

So while the knight is a mounted warrior the concept of knight exists even without a bunch of fight from horseback stuff.

However, in D&D a character who is a cavalry man, a lancer, a cavilier, a dragoon or whose concept is derived for soldiering from horseback alone is a terrible idea.

Similarly artiliary spooter, mess cook and latrine digger are also important military roles that have been filled proudly for literally centuries. However, they would all be terribly stupid ideas for a D&D class.

[souran]

Why is armored guy on a horse an accept able concept for a game that includes the words "dungeon" in its name?

Because a knight is the standard response to the other word in the game's title - "dragon."

And not all games happen entirely in dungeons

But all games will involve fights in doors.

[ubernoob]

Off topic.

And PR is obviously calling you a sociopath uber.

Is this supposed to somewhat unnerve me?

Should you care that a poster thinks another poster is crazy?

Yeah, that's what I'd guessed. Being called a sociopath on this board is not automatically an insult since two of the more productive posters on here (Kaelik and I) could be reasonably argued to be sociopaths. So yeah, no irony at all.

Note: When I call Roy a sociopath, it isn't an insult. When I call him stupid, (and I have done on more than one occasion) it IS.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Paizo: Screw fighters!

Ride (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)

Bolded for emphasis.

I... I hate Paizo so much right now. That is one of the most retarded fucking thing to come out of that botched abortion of a revisionist ruleset. I'd rather fucking play WoW then Pathfinder now, thanks.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Paizo: Screw fighters!

Ride (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)

Bolded for emphasis.

I... I hate Paizo so much right now. That is one of the most retarded fucking thing to come out of that botched abortion of a revisionist ruleset. I'd rather fucking play WoW then Pathfinder now, thanks.

[Juton]

Paizo: Screw fighters!

Ride (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)

Bolded for emphasis.

I... I hate Paizo so much right now. That is one of the most retarded fucking thing to come out of that botched abortion of a revisionist ruleset. I'd rather fucking play WoW then Pathfinder now, thanks.

The immensity of that fail is still sinking in. How could they fuck up so royally?

[Ganbare Gincun]

Paizo: Screw fighters!
Bolded for emphasis.

I... I hate Paizo so much right now. That is one of the most retarded fucking thing to come out of that botched abortion of a revisionist ruleset. I'd rather fucking play WoW then Pathfinder now, thanks.

The immensity of that fail is still sinking in. How could they fuck up so royally?

More importantly: why the fuck do otherwise responsible players accept these incomprehensible rules changes as if they were gospel from on high? Almost all of my friends IRL are playing Pathfinder and will defend it to the death from *any* criticism despite the fact that 1) they know that they playtest was a sham and 2) they bandy about so many house rules that they aren't even really playing Pathfinder anymore. For god's sake, they banned Tieflings and Aasimar from their games because they are "too powerful" because of their elemental resistances! But somehow it's a "Core Only" game regardless. /facepalm