Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[Koumei]

More importantly: why the fuck do otherwise responsible players accept these incomprehensible rules changes as if they were gospel from on high?

I know, I'm trying to cure some friends, pointing out they paid money for some dude's houserules when they've been okay with their own houserules before that. And if I point out how, say, Light can now make the ocean glow, or the planet or whatever, the response was:

"Pathfinder, unlike D&D, assumes people will use common sense regarding the intent of things as opposed to claiming the rules are unbreakable and god."

Which is wrong in so many points they could have instead just said "Lars finger pebble hat" and made as valid a point.

At least they're having more fun in my Disgaea game than the Pathfailure one though.

[Maxus]

So, what's the specific bit of wording on that one?

I mean, I once got the stink-eye from a DM for jokingly suggesting someone cast Daylight on the castle wall, which was somehow defined as an object and it DOES say one object and WOULD have screwed the vampires that were going to be scaling it...

So it might be nice to be, you know, official.

[virgil]

The stupid change to Ride got me checking a few others. Disable Device is now Dex-based AND suffers from AC, & technically Open Lock too, since it was folded into Disable. Interestingly, Swim doesn't suffer from double ACP like in 3.5

[magnuskn]

So, what's the specific bit of wording on that one?

I mean, I once got the stink-eye from a DM for jokingly suggesting someone cast Daylight on the castle wall, which was somehow defined as an object and it DOES say one object and WOULD have screwed the vampires that were going to be scaling it...

Uh, no, it wouldn't. Unless you mean by screwing up their stealth checks...

[Roy]

Uh, no, it wouldn't. Unless you mean by screwing up their stealth checks...

Speaking of stealth checks, there's a thread around there that illustrates in great detail how a level 5 Rogue is completely unable to steal chickens from a completely ordinary farmer and his equally completely ordinary dog. He can rob them by shooting the fools in the face and taking his chickens, but he will fail to steal from them 100% of the time.

[cthulhu]

I have a lot of sympathy for people houseruling up games and then calling them core only.

People want to play to high levels without the emergent complexity that is a cleric's spell list. They are not going about the right way (or even a way that makes sense), but I have sympathy for the objective.

Whatever it is that makes combat grind to a halt at that sort of level 10-12 bracket is a major problem with 3.5, and while I like the tomes they actually make that problem worse.

It's also why I love frank's fire mage because it doesn't have that problem. I suspect the game would be better if more classes worked like that.

[Maxus]

So, what's the specific bit of wording on that one?

I mean, I once got the stink-eye from a DM for jokingly suggesting someone cast Daylight on the castle wall, which was somehow defined as an object and it DOES say one object and WOULD have screwed the vampires that were going to be scaling it...

Uh, no, it wouldn't. Unless you mean by screwing up their stealth checks...

Daylight had been used before in that particular game to do 1d6 per round to vamps and all.

So using it to do, oh, 5d6 or thereabouts per round by the time the spawn had gotten to the top of the wall...

[Psychic Robot]

Speaking of stealth checks, there's a thread around there that illustrates in great detail how a level 5 Rogue is completely unable to steal chickens from a completely ordinary farmer and his equally completely ordinary dog. He can rob them by shooting the fools in the face and taking his chickens, but he will fail to steal from them 100% of the time.

A link.

[hogarth]

Speaking of stealth checks, there's a thread around there that illustrates in great detail how a level 5 Rogue is completely unable to steal chickens from a completely ordinary farmer and his equally completely ordinary dog. He can rob them by shooting the fools in the face and taking his chickens, but he will fail to steal from them 100% of the time.

A link.

Note that most of those criticisms apply to 3.5 as well; it's not just a Pathfinder thing. The only stupid innovation that Pathfinder added was combining Listen+Spot and Hide+Move Silently, so that bright light makes you easier to hear and Eyes of the Eagle should now be named Eyes, Ears, Nose, Tongue and Touch Receptors of the Eagle (for instance).

[Juton]

There is a counter example for stealth. Basically the first test takes place in broad daylight while the farmer and his hound are awake, the second takes place at night while they are asleep. When they are asleep the Thief succeeds in stealing the chicken.

[Ganbare Gincun]

There is a counter example for stealth. Basically the first test takes place in broad daylight while the farmer and his hound are awake, the second takes place at night while they are asleep. When they are asleep the Thief succeeds in stealing the chicken.

Well, to be fair, whenever the 3.0 rules had been written "sneaking up on people" hadn't been invented yet!

[A Man In Black]

Man, I remember that thread. It is a testament to rabidly defending the status quo, even when nobody actually uses it.

[Sashi]

Note that most of those criticisms apply to 3.5 as well; it's not just a Pathfinder thing. The only stupid innovation that Pathfinder added was combining Listen+Spot and Hide+Move Silently, so that bright light makes you easier to hear and Eyes of the Eagle should now be named Eyes, Ears, Nose, Tongue and Touch Receptors of the Eagle (for instance).

Combining listen+spot and hide+move silently is a good thing. Separating the skills out means that the rogue has to succeed on hide AND move silently while the farmer has to succeed on spot OR listen.

[virgil]

If they were more clear in how that worked, sure. As it stands in the RaW, it creates odd situations; like how invisibility makes you completely silent, or the fact that Stealth only helps with audio/visual senses, while Perception can find you without a problem with any of its other senses (smell, vibration, etc).

[RobbyPants]

Yeah, having one set of skills for each and one check for each is good. Universally applying modifiers for both to the singular check is bad.

And it wouldn't be that hard to have "sight only" and "sound only" modifiers. If you're applying two at once, use the largest. If one grants a bonus and another a penalty, subtract the two. They just failed to do that last part and that's sad.

[hogarth]

Note that most of those criticisms apply to 3.5 as well; it's not just a Pathfinder thing. The only stupid innovation that Pathfinder added was combining Listen+Spot and Hide+Move Silently, so that bright light makes you easier to hear and Eyes of the Eagle should now be named Eyes, Ears, Nose, Tongue and Touch Receptors of the Eagle (for instance).

Combining listen+spot and hide+move silently is a good thing. Separating the skills out means that the rogue has to succeed on hide AND move silently while the farmer has to succeed on spot OR listen.

I don't give a shit about farmers and chickens and whatever. What I do care about is trying to pinpoint invisible creatures, which has gone from a decent strategy in 3.5 to mostly pointless in Pathfinder because invisible creatures get a +20 bonus on Stealth checks. So Invisibility has suddenly become Inaudibility as well. That's just stupid.

[Roy]

Note that most of those criticisms apply to 3.5 as well; it's not just a Pathfinder thing. The only stupid innovation that Pathfinder added was combining Listen+Spot and Hide+Move Silently, so that bright light makes you easier to hear and Eyes of the Eagle should now be named Eyes, Ears, Nose, Tongue and Touch Receptors of the Eagle (for instance).

Combining listen+spot and hide+move silently is a good thing. Separating the skills out means that the rogue has to succeed on hide AND move silently while the farmer has to succeed on spot OR listen.

I don't give a shit about farmers and chickens and whatever. What I do care about is trying to pinpoint invisible creatures, which has gone from a decent strategy in 3.5 to mostly pointless in Pathfinder because invisible creatures get a +20 bonus on Stealth checks. So Invisibility has suddenly become Inaudibility as well. That's just stupid.

But Wizards have 1/2 BAB!

[Sashi]

Admittedly I'm not an expert at the Pathfinder rules, but I really don't give a fuck if the Pathfinder skill rules don't tickle your Verisimilitude boner by having a different skill for not being noisy than not being seen. It's much worse to have the game force players to spend 3 skill points/level on being able to spot/listen/search and 2 more on being able to hide/move silently than it is to have the DM decide if the current perception check is based on audio or visual information. Both systems are pretty retarded, but at least the Pathfinder one isn't retarded and expensive.

And 3.5 is easily the most retarded treatment of invisibility I've ever seen. There are flat spot DC's to "detect the presence of" invisible things based on what they're doing and what they are (invisible zombie standing still? DC 40 please, 60 to pinpoint) which means that in 3.5 being invisible prevents you from hiding. Seriously, I don't even know why there's that line in the Hide skill about being invisible giving you a +20 bonus since it's a flat DC. If a creature moving half it's speed gets a 41 on it's hide check, you're actually better off turning off your see invisibility at that point because the spot DC to figure out where the hell they are is lower (If the creature's only cover/concealment comes from invisibility then you can totally see them but there's no point in hiding using the concealment granted by Invisibility because you can't do that).

In 3.5 you need a 10+ on your Listen check to pinpoint an invisible fighting creature (beat a DC -10 by 20). In Pathfinder you automatically pinpoint an invisible fighting creature who isn't sniping (can't use Stealth while fighting). In 3.5 you need a 20 to pinpoint an invisible creature that's talking, in Pathfinder ... you need a 20 to pinpoint an invisible creature that's talking.

Both systems are still totally stupid because they make it impossible to sneak up behind someone without invisibility or carrying a tower shield around with you but at least Pathfinder achieves it's stupidity cheaply and without further boning the person hiding by giving two detection checks.

[virgil]

I'm pretty certain those flat DCs to detect invisible things are examples or of things that aren't trying to hide (+30 Hide if not moving while invisible). By that same argument in PF, an invisible archer with max Stealth has a flat DC 45 to hear his bow being drawn (DC 65 to pinpoint). That's close to the invisible zombie.

EDIT: Yeah, PF kept the rule of it being a DC 20 to notice that there's an invisible creature within 30', regardless of its own natural ability. In 3.5, those flat DCs are for only Spot, and pinpoint is not an option against invisible creatures unless you use Listen.

So, your complaint, if it's true at all, only applies to PF because the pinpoint rules apply to a skill (Perception) that gets a flat DC. In all likelihood, it doesn't apply because it included the Stealth check as a DC for such, which brings us back to 3.5's system.

[Sashi]

It says nothing of the sort. In 3.5 it is very clearly a flat DC to detect an invisible creature depending on what it's doing and what it is, and you have to beat that DC by 20 to figure out what space it's occupying. Not even size modifiers apply to this, so a 40 detects an invisible pixie as easily as an invisible cloud giant.

Like I said I'm not completely up on Pathfinder (I see no point in purchasing someone else's house rules) so I'm totally fine with missing that pathfinder kept the flat DCs. I'm completely not surprised that the Pathfinder system is still totally stupid, since it's based on the 3.5 system which is also stupid. My point is that Pathfinder has exactly two advantages:

1) It at least costs fewer skill points to be a part of the stupid system in PF.
2) Someone trying to hide AND move silently doesn't get boned by having someone looking for them win if they succeed on spot OR listen.

[Username17]

The DC to spot invisible things is for invisible things you can see. You don't get to spot invisible things in th dark, you don't get to spot invisible things behind a curtain. You just get to spot invisible things that you are otherwise able to see.

So in 3.5, an invisible hiding character is two Spot checks. One to be able to notice their hiding place, and another to spot their predator shimmer in their hiding place. Pathfinder reduces the amount of rolling by lumping it into one roll. Where before Invisibility was pretty much meaningless at high levels, in Pathfailure Invisibility neatly and exactly pushes you off the RNG at all levels.

-Username17

[Strung Nether]

I cant remember if there are any magic items that actually make you harder to hear in 3.5. I remember there being tons of ways to be hard to see, but I cant remember one way to hide from someone who uses echolocation to fight.

[Wyzzard]

Silence, Zone of Silence, Superior Invisibility, Ghostform/Permeable Form/other incorporeality etc.

So if you're not a caster, you need a custom Silence geegaw or some such.

[Xur]

EDIT: I failed to notice the link was already given. My bad.

[hogarth]

Someone noted on the Paizo boards that Pathfinder tied with D&D in the ICv2 sales rankings for the last quarter.

Of course, that's only because WotC decimated their production schedule to ramp up for Essentials (etc.), but still...