Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[Starmaker]

One of those three (I won't say which one) has a part early on in which you're basically godmoded into making everything you did in that entire section completely fucking pointless by a monster you have effectively no chance of beating at that point. Naturally, this sort of thing will tend to tick players and characters alike off and make them want revenge. The module conveniently forgets about this guy and he's supposedly disappeared and unfindable for a very long time. As in up to several levels after the point where you can track said monster down and fuck up his shit. Which parties will almost certainly do if they remember the number in their level box but that the module makes absolutely no attempt to address and plays as if you'll never see him until well after the point that defeating him is trivial. And it's not even the same then.

They give a lot of different things suggestive and very obvious names and expect players not to notice the obvious puns.

Also: pointless murderization of an actually interesting npc. WTF just happened? No explanation given. Sure, I can forgive the writers completely forgetting two secondary npcs they'd said the party will be able to rescue from the monster's lair back in the first adventure, but when otherwise healthy characters spontaneously drop dead, the players want some explanation, if only not to drop dead themselves. There was another npc conveniently forgotten - so much foreshadowing wasted pointlessly.

[hogarth]

One of those three (I won't say which one) has a part early on in which you're basically godmoded into making everything you did in that entire section completely fucking pointless by a monster you have effectively no chance of beating at that point. Naturally, this sort of thing will tend to tick players and characters alike off and make them want revenge. The module conveniently forgets about this guy and he's supposedly disappeared and unfindable for a very long time. As in up to several levels after the point where you can track said monster down and fuck up his shit. Which parties will almost certainly do if they remember the number in their level box but that the module makes absolutely no attempt to address and plays as if you'll never see him until well after the point that defeating him is trivial. And it's not even the same then.

They give a lot of different things suggestive and very obvious names and expect players not to notice the obvious puns.

Also: pointless murderization of an actually interesting npc. WTF just happened? No explanation given. Sure, I can forgive the writers completely forgetting two secondary npcs they'd said the party will be able to rescue from the monster's lair back in the first adventure, but when otherwise healthy characters spontaneously drop dead, the players want some explanation, if only not to drop dead themselves. There was another npc conveniently forgotten - so much foreshadowing wasted pointlessly.

I think you and Roy are talking about two different adventures. Roy is clearly talking about the first Shackled City adventure, but I don't know what you're referring to.

[Roy]

One of those three (I won't say which one) has a part early on in which you're basically godmoded into making everything you did in that entire section completely fucking pointless by a monster you have effectively no chance of beating at that point. Naturally, this sort of thing will tend to tick players and characters alike off and make them want revenge. The module conveniently forgets about this guy and he's supposedly disappeared and unfindable for a very long time. As in up to several levels after the point where you can track said monster down and fuck up his shit. Which parties will almost certainly do if they remember the number in their level box but that the module makes absolutely no attempt to address and plays as if you'll never see him until well after the point that defeating him is trivial. And it's not even the same then.

They give a lot of different things suggestive and very obvious names and expect players not to notice the obvious puns.

Also: pointless murderization of an actually interesting npc. WTF just happened? No explanation given. Sure, I can forgive the writers completely forgetting two secondary npcs they'd said the party will be able to rescue from the monster's lair back in the first adventure, but when otherwise healthy characters spontaneously drop dead, the players want some explanation, if only not to drop dead themselves. There was another npc conveniently forgotten - so much foreshadowing wasted pointlessly.

I think you and Roy are talking about two different adventures. Roy is clearly talking about the first Shackled City adventure, but I don't know what you're referring to.

Doesn't matter, it's still an example of incoherent writing and bad pacing at work.

[hogarth]

Doesn't matter, it's still an example of incoherent writing and bad pacing at work.

If I knew what the hell Starmaker was talking about, I could either agree or disagree with that sentiment.

I'll certainly agree that Paizo's adventure paths suffer from being written on the fly by different authors, insofar as NPCs or events are set up as being important in issue #1 and then are never heard from again (for example).

[Starmaker]

I think you and Roy are talking about two different adventures. Roy is clearly talking about the first Shackled City adventure, but I don't know what you're referring to.

Same thing.
1. After the glabrezu battle: "If the paladin dude is not dead for some reason, he says some bullshit and drops dead, lol."
2. The neutral celestial dude from the next adventure. Buildup-buildup-poof! nothing.
3. The first module says one kid's parents were once famous adventurers and now decorate the villain's lair. Naturally, umpteen modules after the writers don't remember.
Bonus! Omg, a live spell weaver! Actually, I'm not sure whether to categorize it as a bug or as a feature. Still a plot bomb.

[hogarth]

I think you and Roy are talking about two different adventures. Roy is clearly talking about the first Shackled City adventure, but I don't know what you're referring to.

Same thing.

Same adventure path, different adventure.

1. After the glabrezu battle: "If the paladin dude is not dead for some reason, he says some bullshit and drops dead, lol."
2. The neutral celestial dude from the next adventure. Buildup-buildup-poof! nothing.
3. The first module says one kid's parents were once famous adventurers and now decorate the villain's lair. Naturally, umpteen modules after the writers don't remember.
Bonus! Omg, a live spell weaver! Actually, I'm not sure whether to categorize it as a bug or as a feature. Still a plot bomb.

1. Yes, that's a dumb attempt at building up drama by forcing in some dying words (even though dying is totally not a big deal by the time you reach that level).
2. The fallen angel guy? So what? I'm not sure what you expected -- a postscript where you find out what happened to every single NPC by the end of the adventure, like in the movie "Animal House"? I didn't think the build up was particularly huge, either.
3. I'm not sure what kid you're talking about. The orphan?

I certainly agree that the way the adventure paths are written results in a bunch of continuity errors and dropped threads.

[TOZ]

Yeah, he's talking about the dwarven orphan from the first module. Supposedly his parents are statues in the beholders lair. Looking through the hardcover, I see they DID forget to mention the parents being there. However, there is an entry of unspecified statues in one room that can be them.

[virgil]

I never really noticed this before, but the concentration check to cast while grappled is a 'little' hard side...10+CMB+spell level. There goes the 'just use dimension door' line to get out of grapples, making freedom of movement even more important as a preemptive measure.

[K]

I never really noticed this before, but the concentration check to cast while grappled is a 'little' hard side...10+CMB+spell level. There goes the 'just use dimension door' line to get out of grapples, making freedom of movement even more important as a preemptive measure.

It's even harder considering that there is no Concentration skill in Pathfinder.

[Ice9]

Yeah, casting defensively in Pathfinder is actually pretty difficult. It starts at ~45%, and doesn't get easier that quickly. You're not in safe territory until around level 16 or so.

[Roy]

I never really noticed this before, but the concentration check to cast while grappled is a 'little' hard side...10+CMB+spell level. There goes the 'just use dimension door' line to get out of grapples, making freedom of movement even more important as a preemptive measure.

It's even harder considering that there is no Concentration skill in Pathfinder.

Instead you use your CL and... your primary stat. The former of which will be, at most 3 lower than your skill ranks and the latter will be quite a bit higher than your Con.

But you can still just use FoM and laugh at their 'you fail at maneuvers' system. Or 5 foot step. Spiked Chains got nerfed hard, and so did Enlarge, so you'll see Reach less often.

[magnuskn]

Yep, Pathfinder actually made squishy Wizards somewhat afraid of getting in range of melee. Step Up and it's subsequent feats even make the good ol' 5 foot step not the ultimate remedy anymore.

[K]

I never really noticed this before, but the concentration check to cast while grappled is a 'little' hard side...10+CMB+spell level. There goes the 'just use dimension door' line to get out of grapples, making freedom of movement even more important as a preemptive measure.

It's even harder considering that there is no Concentration skill in Pathfinder.

Instead you use your CL and... your primary stat. The former of which will be, at most 3 lower than your skill ranks and the latter will be quite a bit higher than your Con.

The point I was making is that since there is no Concentration skill and you aren't using a skill, it is a lot harder to get boosters to the check. Skill check boosts are quite easy to get if you think you need them, but primary stat boosts are almost impossible to get beyond the few base items.

I mean, the base mods on the check in Pathfinder is roughly the same as someone in DnD. I mean, your CL + primary mod is roughly the same as someone's skill + Con ([CL + 3-7] vs. [(CL + 3) + 2-4]).

The difference is that checks are much harder in Pathfinder with higher DCs AND you can't do things like get a +3 with Skill Focus or a +2 with a Crazy Hook-up feat or boost your Con with shapeshifting magic or get bonuses from skill-boosting magic and things like Bard songs.

Basically, someone at Paizo thinks that they powered-up warriors, but really they just made it more annoying to do gishes and combat healing clerics.

[Ganbare Gincun]

I never really noticed this before, but the concentration check to cast while grappled is a 'little' hard side...10+CMB+spell level. There goes the 'just use dimension door' line to get out of grapples, making freedom of movement even more important as a preemptive measure.

It's even harder considering that there is no Concentration skill in Pathfinder.

You can't use Spellcraft to that end in the PF rules?

[K]

I never really noticed this before, but the concentration check to cast while grappled is a 'little' hard side...10+CMB+spell level. There goes the 'just use dimension door' line to get out of grapples, making freedom of movement even more important as a preemptive measure.

It's even harder considering that there is no Concentration skill in Pathfinder.

You can't use Spellcraft to that end in the PF rules?

Nope.

[Roy]

It's even harder considering that there is no Concentration skill in Pathfinder.

Instead you use your CL and... your primary stat. The former of which will be, at most 3 lower than your skill ranks and the latter will be quite a bit higher than your Con.

The point I was making is that since there is no Concentration skill and you aren't using a skill, it is a lot harder to get boosters to the check. Skill check boosts are quite easy to get if you think you need them, but primary stat boosts are almost impossible to get beyond the few base items.

I mean, the base mods on the check in Pathfinder is roughly the same as someone in DnD. I mean, your CL + primary mod is roughly the same as someone's skill + Con ([CL + 3-7] vs. [(CL + 3) + 2-4]).

The difference is that checks are much harder in Pathfinder with higher DCs AND you can't do things like get a +3 with Skill Focus or a +2 with a Crazy Hook-up feat or boost your Con with shapeshifting magic or get bonuses from skill-boosting magic and things like Bard songs.

Basically, someone at Paizo thinks that they powered-up warriors, but really they just made it more annoying to do gishes and combat healing clerics.

For casting defensively, all they've done is mess with low level casters, who while strong, and easily capable of one moving an encounter are not over the top yet simply because everyone else has save or dies also. But since you can 5 foot step, and still have all the defenses you still had it's not a problem.

Mid and high level casters still have no problems, and this is probably intended as Jason has gone on record admitting he was aiming for Caster Edition.

For grappling, well see the bits about defensive spells.

[Sarandosil]

intended as Jason has gone on record admitting he was aiming for Caster Edition.

Link?

[Roy]

intended as Jason has gone on record admitting he was aiming for Caster Edition.

Link?

Don't have it, but someone pointed out that casting defensively was automatic at mid and high levels (when casters actually take over, and might actually justify a nerf) to which Jason replied that casters are supposed to rule the game at this level.

...It was around this time they adopted a policy that anything any dev says on their forums is not actually official, and should be taken as just their opinion and thus completely irrelevant. Which makes you wonder what the fucking point of them posting is, if you can't take their words as official about their own stuff.

Of course all they'd have to do is not make beatsticks full of fail, and they might actually have a workable game. But then, they think full BAB is worthwhile, so good luck with that.

[magnuskn]

Uh, no? Casting defensively definitely is not automatic for most of a Wizards career. You will always succeed with the lower level spells, yes, but not with the high level spells.

Examples:

9th Level Wizard casts a 5th level spell defensively:
DC: 25 ; Check Bonus 9+7+4 ( CL + INT + Combat Casting ).

Caster must roll 5 or higher to succeed.

13th Level Wizard casts a 7th level spell defensively:
DC: 29 ; Check Bonus 13+8+4 ( CL + INT + Combat Casting ).

Caster must roll 4 or higher to succeed.

17th Level Wizard casts a 9th level spell defensively;
DC: 33 ; Check Bonus 17+12+4 ( CL + INT + Combat Casting ).

Caster must roll a 1 to succeed.

---

That means that a maxed out Wizard will always succeed at their concentration checks at the highest levels ( which already happened in 3.5 ), but will still fail a good number of times at up until you reach the highest levels of the game.

And there are actual answers in Pathfinder for melee to the "5 foot step and cast" combo: Step Up, Improved Step Up, Disruptive.

[Username17]

9th Level Wizard casts a 5th level spell defensively:
DC: 25 ; Check Bonus 9+7+4 ( CL + INT + Combat Casting

How did you manage to get an Int bonus of only +7 at 9th level in Pathfinder?

You get a +2 "being born" bonus to your casting stat in Pathfinder, meaning that a first level Int of 20 is standard. By 9th level you have a 22 just from level bonuses. And you can personally make a +4 Int Headband with your bonus feats. Failing that, you can cast fox's cunning whenever you want, and that also gives a +4 Int Enhancement Bonus.

Before you delve into any peculiarities of cheesemongering at all, a 9th level Wizard has an Intelligence bonus of +8. Seriously, that is an absolute floor under Pathfinder rules. +9 and higher is totally possible, but +7 or less basically isn't unless the player is deliberately sand bagging.

-Username17

[magnuskn]

Well, of course you can start with an INT of 20, but unless your GM let's you roll stats or gives you more than the standard 15 points for attributes, that means you are either playing a paraplegic, someone who suffers from tourette ( or both at the same time ) or you are really Jonny Q. Average in every stat beside intelligence. An 18 costs 17 points, which takes up the whole budget for normal characters and then some.

I am simply thinking of a more rounded character. And, besides, having INT two points higher also just means that you are looking at rolling over a four, which still is a 15% spell failure chance while being threatened and having the appropiate feat and the opponent not being a sixth level fighter with Disruptive.

[Red_Rob]

Well, of course you can start with an INT of 20, but unless your GM let's you roll stats or gives you more than the standard 15 points for attributes, that means you are either playing a paraplegic, someone who suffers from tourette ( or both at the same time ) or you are really Jonny Q. Average in every stat beside intelligence. An 18 costs 17 points, which takes up the whole budget for normal characters and then some.

This is the problem with a SAD system. Int is all that really matters to Wizards, so its imperative they start as high as possible.

It seems like you could balance this by making high stats more expensive so the player is incentivised to pick a few lower stats but this does not work. What happens is the player still needs that high stat, so he simply cripples himself in other areas to get it.

Making something the player needs more expensive doesn't stop the player from needing it, it simply means he loses other things he needs less to make up the difference, encouraging min-maxed characters.

[hogarth]

You get a +2 "being born" bonus to your casting stat in Pathfinder, meaning that a first level Int of 20 is standard.

Can you try to be consistent with your bitching, Frank? Earlier in this same thread I mentioned that Pathfinder gives a wizard a +2 bonus to Int compared to 3.5, and you flipped out talking about how nothing was different because of 3.5 grey elves.

[erik]

You get a +2 "being born" bonus to your casting stat in Pathfinder, meaning that a first level Int of 20 is standard.

Can you try to be consistent with your bitching, Frank? Earlier in this same thread I mentioned that Pathfinder gives a wizard a +2 bonus to Int compared to 3.5, and you flipped out talking about how nothing was different because of 3.5 grey elves.

I do not see how that is inconsistent with noting that now every wizard is going to be like that in Pathfinder. I don't think he was bitching about the "being born" bonus, just using it as a lead-in noting that obviously a wizard is going to have a +2 int (and if playing point buy, then 20 int is a lock).

It may be fair to say that one cannot always expect to start with an 18 stat pre-bonuses if rolling stats, however Magnuskin was claiming his examples were of a "Maxed-out wizard", so then it is not disingenuous to assume a starting casting stat of 20 (and thus 26 by the time you hit 8th level with proper gear).

[magnuskn]

This is the problem with a SAD system. Int is all that really matters to Wizards, so its imperative they start as high as possible.

It seems like you could balance this by making high stats more expensive so the player is incentivised to pick a few lower stats but this does not work. What happens is the player still needs that high stat, so he simply cripples himself in other areas to get it.

Making something the player needs more expensive doesn't stop the player from needing it, it simply means he loses other things he needs less to make up the difference, encouraging min-maxed characters.

Or you could live with "only" having an 18 in INT and actually have at least one or two other decent stats.