Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Kaelik]

Except that a whole host of things are immune to Nausea and/or fort saves.

[Archmage]

Also "no one cares what you can do at level 20."

[Pseudo Stupidity]

Also "no one cares what you can do at level 20."

I was just explaining what I was asked to explain. The game breaks much, much earlier. See divination wizards.

@Kaelik, you got me, I forgot about nausea and fort save immunity. The same combo works with flesh to stone and pumps it up to DC 37, but you can't quicken it for free then. Stinking cloud is hilarious because you can force 4 fort saves a round on anybody who is vulnerable to the trick.

In an effort to continue my editing success:

The prehensile hair is both a bad spell and highlights one of pathfinder's massive problems. It makes you a strictly better grappler than even a dedicated maneuver character assuming moderate optimization. You get to use your CL as your BAB (so yes, your BAB for the grapple will likely be above your level) and your obviously maxed INT/CHA/WIS as the stat you use.

Sure, CMD outstrips CMB pretty quickly (add an extra stat to CMD to make sure maneuvers are worthless? Great idea!), but a caster who really, really likes killing things with his hair gets to the point where strangling solars is trivial.

[hogarth]

Paizo has updated their Product Reference Document to include stuff from Ultimate Combat. I'm impressed that they're updating the web site on a fairly regular basis. I'm not sure I'm as impressed by their makeover of the site, though; it's prettier, but the sidebar is less useful, for one thing.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

[CapnTthePirateG]

Anyone took a hard look at the sorceror bloodlines? I found them all to be somewhat underpowered and uninspiring.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

You missed it when they got pissy because they put up most of the UC stuff and had an "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" warning and then people linked to it (because they put it up) which apparently made it harder for them to update it.

Oh, that was the d20pfsrd, that's the actual prd. Yeah, the non-paizo one did it first and much earlier. They're very good about giving their rules away for free, unfortunately UC is even worse than their other stuff.

UC: Useless Content.

There is nothing good in that book. They spend pages and pages making bad feats for the monk, then take a break to add bad ACFs for the Wizard. At least they have a feat that lets cleric's use Wisdom for their diety's preferred weapon because fuck you clerics aren't good enough. Cleric archers are back, bitches (Erathis gives bow as his favored weapon, his domains kind of suck though).

So the book contains:

Trap options for classes that are already bad
A new power build for clerics
The ninja (a rogue who is denerfed)
Some trap options for clases that used to be good (gunmage or whatever the hell it's called)
The gunslinger, who is literally unplayable unless your DM decides to make firearms common. Even then, you can only fire a certain number of times at level one and pray your gun doesn't explode in your fucking face because you can't afford a replacement.


Sorcerer Bloodlines:
As a sorcerer player I have some knowledge of this.

The arcane bloodline is the best (breaks the game completely at 16, is still good up until then and it gives you bonus spells known)

The fey bloodline is silly broken at low levels because it gives you a +2 on compulsion save DCs, which suck at high levels but will give you a charm person at a respectable DC 19 right out of the gate. A human with the fey bloodline can do DC 21 charms at level 1. That's pretty high.

You can take an ACF with the fey bloodline to gain a gimpy druid animal companion, but you can make it a buffed druid animal companion with an item, which ultimately makes it a druid companion +1 level. All in all, not that great.

Most other bloodlines are traps, though there are a few that make blasting not suck as much.

[hogarth]

Anyone took a hard look at the sorceror bloodlines? I found them all to be somewhat underpowered and uninspiring.

Some are better than others (e.g. Fey or Arcane), but many of them are pretty blah. Then again, sorcerers are (almost) full spellcasters, so I don't pity them too much.

[Juton]

I'm starting a new Pathfinder game today. I was leaning towards a fightery-type, but then I tried to pick through their feats to become better at swording. Weapon focus, followed by power attack are literally the best options at low levels, which is just unacceptable. It doesn't get better at mid levels. So I was going to take Skill Focus:Perception, so I could at least have an easier time avoiding ambushes.

Then I got wise and rolled up a caster. People bash Pathfinder's backwards compatibility all the time, but they kept the feature that Clerics and Druids are better Fighters than Fighters.

[hogarth]

Then I got wise and rolled up a caster. People bash Pathfinder's backwards compatibility all the time, but they kept the feature that Clerics and Druids are better Fighters than Fighters.

And as a bonus, now there are Alchemists and Magi that are better than Fighters, too!

[Mask_De_H]

Then I got wise and rolled up a caster. People bash Pathfinder's backwards compatibility all the time, but they kept the feature that Clerics and Druids are better Fighters than Fighters.

And as a bonus, now there are Alchemists and Magi that are better than Fighters, too!

And Oracles (one of the Battle mystery perks is "be a fighter, but with spells")! After level 4, the Rogue is a better chargestar than a fighter could hope to be (with the Scout ACF that makes people flat-footed on a charge). If you convince your DM to put that on a Ninja, then the Cuisinart Rogue is well and truly back.

But when a Witch gets what makes Enchanters win (constantly level-appropriate Sleep and Charm Person as SLAs) by level 3, Oracles choose between "being a Fighter, but better" at level 1 or "can Tekken juggle monsters up to my Cha bonus with Color Spray" by level 2, and an Arcane Bond Wizard/Arcane bloodline Sorcerer can just say "My arcane bond is a Ring of Three Wishes/Luckblade with Three Wishes lol" then damage seems kind of pointless.

This isn't including Druids still being amazing and Cleric Archers coming back in style if you want to hit stuff. I think Magi are somebody's idea of a joke, though (although the Kensai is like a bootleg Races of War Samurai).

[ishy]

Talking about bloodlines and animal companions made me wonder, can't you as a paladin just take a) your standard animal companion b) the feat that grants you a sorc bloodline feature (the animal companion of your level -3) c) the oracle ring that grants you an animal companion of your lvl -3

Seeing as druid and other class animal companion lvls stack for a really high level animal companion?
So that if it smites evil or uses power attack it can make all other melee feel small in their pants?

[RadiantPhoenix]

I ...

I can no longer comprehend the words I am reading on this thread.

[rasmuswagner]

and an Arcane Bond Wizard/Arcane bloodline Sorcerer can just say "My arcane bond is a Ring of Three Wishes/Luckblade with Three Wishes lol" then damage seems kind of pointless.

At what level can he do this? Because it reads like you're just high.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

You are only assumed to have the appropriate crafting feat for your arcane bond object, it doesn't become magic for free.

It does become magic for half price, but that's just pathfinder thinking casters want a half-price amulet (or robe, sorcs should always choose the fucking robe). Silly pathfinder, they can already craft everything because your DCs are laughably low. A tenth level wizard with high int and no ranks in spellcraft (let's assume he's retarded) can craft pretty much any item if he's taking ten. Of course, if you actually put ranks into it you craft them twice as fast and without the feats/spells you would normally need. Mundane characters can't do this because fuck them, they have full BAB. Burn two feats on crafting you dirty, dirty peasants.

Arcane bloodline sorcerers get infinite spells by stripping if they own the right robe though. That's kind of sexy I guess.

Edit: I mean spells known, not spells per day. Read the arcane bloodline shit, you just "gain a bonus spell at sorcerer level 9, 13 and 17." Since an item lets you get sorc level 9 multiple times (assuming you remove it after gaining your spell) and there is absolutely no "if you lose this level you lose the spell known" clause you just gain infinite spells by constantly regaining sorc level 9. Sure it's an easy fix, but what an obvious oversight when you include an item that just makes your sorc level your level +4.

[Kaelik]

It does become magic for half price.

Did they change the part where you can add additional effects for 1.5 times the price to the same item?

Because if not, it sounds like Wizards should just craft Arcane Bonds of +everything and get it all for 3/4ths price, except the most expensive thing, which they get at half price.

[Mask_De_H]

and an Arcane Bond Wizard/Arcane bloodline Sorcerer can just say "My arcane bond is a Ring of Three Wishes/Luckblade with Three Wishes lol" then damage seems kind of pointless.

At what level can he do this? Because it reads like you're just high.

Level 1, it looks like.

Wizards who select a bonded object begin play with one at no cost. Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. These objects are always masterwork quality. Weapons acquired at 1st level are not made of any special material.

An enhancement to a weapon is a special quality, not a special material. A magic weapon is always masterwork, because you can't put enhancements on a non-masterwork weapon. Rings have their own item category, staffs and wands have to have powers. You can't even have a fucking masterwork wand or staff, so that's meaningless. So you can't have an adamantine dagger, but you can have a Luckblade, since it's not made of any special material, but is only a masterwork short sword...that has three Wishes in it.

I'm not even talking about upgrading an item into a Luckblade like Psuedo thinks; it's a blank check at 1st. If that offends your sensibilities too much, then just get one of the better staffs, or put points in UMD and fish for a Level 4 Paladin/Ranger spell wand. Or get a talking sword.

It's poorly worded but not at all ambiguous, really. If they didn't want you to have magic shit at level 1, they would have either put in a GP cost or said "At level 1 you can only choose a normal masterwork ring, amulet, or weapon". The fact that wands and staffs count without any rider (possibly because of 4e and wizard implements) gives a reasonable idea of intent, and that intent is for a Wizard to get magic shit in exchange for having to hold it all the time in able to cast effectively. They probably thought Sunder/Disarm would ruin the Wizard's day or something.

The FAQ/errata right beside it in the SRD says nothing. It's probably a rules oversight like the Sorcerer Striptease Pseudo Stupidity is talking about, but it also allows for somebody to play the "hero with a talking sword" archetype at Level 1.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

You're right, the wand thing does kind of mean you just start with a fucking magic item. Holy shit... the devs are that inept? The bonded object is already the best low level option, why make it even BETTER by being free swag? At high levels it's still good, but wtf are they doing giving blank checks to wizards?

It's trivial to protect your items anyways (unless you roll a natural 1 on a damage spell save in which case any item may just spontaneously combust because aren't critical failures fun) by covering them with a glove or something. Just wear a glove over your magic ring or a scarf over your magic amulet.

So did 3.5 have a rule where rolling a natural 1 on a save meant all of your items were subject to the spell that hit you? I hope the good folks at Pathfinder didn't add that garbage in.

[Leress]

So did 3.5 have a rule where rolling a natural 1 on a save meant all of your items were subject to the spell that hit you? I hope the good folks at Pathfinder didn't add that garbage in.

Yeah it had the rule.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview ... avingThrow

[rasmuswagner]

and an Arcane Bond Wizard/Arcane bloodline Sorcerer can just say "My arcane bond is a Ring of Three Wishes/Luckblade with Three Wishes lol" then damage seems kind of pointless.

At what level can he do this? Because it reads like you're just high.

Level 1, it looks like.

Wizards who select a bonded object begin play with one at no cost. Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. These objects are always masterwork quality. Weapons acquired at 1st level are not made of any special material.

An enhancement to a weapon is a special quality, not a special material. A magic weapon is always masterwork, because you can't put enhancements on a non-masterwork weapon. Rings have their own item category, staffs and wands have to have powers. You can't even have a fucking masterwork wand or staff, so that's meaningless. So you can't have an adamantine dagger, but you can have a Luckblade, since it's not made of any special material, but is only a masterwork short sword...that has three Wishes in it.

I'm not even talking about upgrading an item into a Luckblade like Psuedo thinks; it's a blank check at 1st. If that offends your sensibilities too much, then just get one of the better staffs, or put points in UMD and fish for a Level 4 Paladin/Ranger spell wand. Or get a talking sword.

It's poorly worded but not at all ambiguous, really.

Yeah, I thought so. Your reading of the text is obviously bullshit. I'm not going to go into a semantics fight with you, but when one interpretation meshes with the game design and produces playable results, while the other ...doesn't, then the intended (and useful) reading of the text becomes pretty. Fucking. Clear.

[GâtFromKI]

And as a bonus, now there are Alchemists and Magi that are better than Fighters, too!

Since the Fighter is a NPC class, I don't see this as a problem.

Seriously, the Fighter is a mook class: "you can't do anything relevant except hitting things, but you have high numbers when doing so". There is not any fucking difference between fighters and warriors, except fighters have higher numbers: a level N fighter is totally interchangeable with a level N+something warrior (according to the CR system, by a level N+2 warrior).

Alchemists and magi are not the most powerful classes, but at least they are playable class; they can do something relevant outside of combat, and they can do something in combat without being babysitted by a full caster.

Pathfinder didn't make non-caster useful, but at least there are playable options other than full-caster.

Did they change the part where you can add additional effects for 1.5 times the price to the same item?

You can.

And it's not only possible, it's commendatory for a monk with vow of poverty; look at this post from SKR.

I like the concept of the vow of poverty. It's a noble thing. And I understand that it sucks to be the impoverished character in a game where you're supposed to have 20,000 gp worth of goodies. So the VOP in UM gives you a bone in the form of extra ki. And another bone in the form of "you can have one item of value," which lets you put all your gp cheese in one item instead of ten. But I'm not going to let the rules make your impoverished monk as good as a regular monk. If you want to play a character that's making a sacrifice, make a sacrifice--don't pretend it's a sacrifice and expect a handout for pretending.

Yes, yes.

SKR is saying that the whole concept of vow of poverty is to have 1 item worth 20 000 gp instead of 10 items worth 20 000 gp. "My character is poor, he only owns a rolex whose value is the same as your whole equipment".

And thus, the begining of his post means that a character with the +everything rolex worth 20 000 gp is more interesting than the character with 10 items doing +everything and worth 20 000 gp. So yes, not only your wizard can have a bonded item of +everything for 3/4 price, but he's actually more interesting than another character.

...It's completely retarded, but hey, it's SKR's words, he is retarded.


...Actually, I fail to understand: the vow of poverty doesn't even have the weak excuse of "trading efficiency for flavor", since it doesn't add any flavor : a regular character has 20 000gp, a poor monk has 20 000 gp also. How is it possible to screw the design this much? Or did I fail at English reading?

...

A wizard can have a wand with no power:

If the bonded object is a wand, it loses its wand abilities when its last charge is consumed, but it is not destroyed and it retains all of its bonded object properties and can be used to craft a new wand.

That's not because they didn't write "the wizard can't have a magical item" that you can have one; if the wizard chose a wand or a staff, he just has a regular staff or wand without any magical power. The regular wand or staff happens to be masterwork quality, the fact it has no effect doesn't prevent them to be masterwork.

[Mask_De_H]

...

A wizard can have a wand with no power:

If the bonded object is a wand, it loses its wand abilities when its last charge is consumed, but it is not destroyed and it retains all of its bonded object properties and can be used to craft a new wand.

That's not because they didn't write "the wizard can't have a magical item" that you can have one; if the wizard chose a wand or a staff, he just has a regular staff or wand without any magical power. The regular wand or staff happens to be masterwork quality, the fact it has no effect doesn't prevent them to be masterwork.

Nothing cited in that rule invalidates starting with a magical item. A wand/staff is still classified as a magical item before you burn it; a quarterstaff does not equal the Staff category of item. If you're that Staff Polisher Magus ACF, a Staff qualifies as a quarterstaff though.

The rule cited is what happens when you blow the charges on a bonded wand; which is getting into stuff that happens after the fact, like what Pseudo argued. I don't think you can buy a burnt-out wand or staff, but I know there are rules in the Magic Items section of the book that talk about players starting out with magic items at Level 1.

They let you be a race with SR fuck you, bennies to Dex and all casting stats and at will Faerie Fire at Level 1 (or 2, if the MC feels that's too powerful). I don't think Paizo gives a toss about balance at this point.

[Psychic Robot]

the bonded weapon rules make no sense, stop arguing about them.

[CapnTthePirateG]

...

A wizard can have a wand with no power:

If the bonded object is a wand, it loses its wand abilities when its last charge is consumed, but it is not destroyed and it retains all of its bonded object properties and can be used to craft a new wand.

That's not because they didn't write "the wizard can't have a magical item" that you can have one; if the wizard chose a wand or a staff, he just has a regular staff or wand without any magical power. The regular wand or staff happens to be masterwork quality, the fact it has no effect doesn't prevent them to be masterwork.

Nothing cited in that rule invalidates starting with a magical item. A wand/staff is still classified as a magical item before you burn it; a quarterstaff does not equal the Staff category of item. If you're that Staff Polisher Magus ACF, a Staff qualifies as a quarterstaff though.

The rule cited is what happens when you blow the charges on a bonded wand; which is getting into stuff that happens after the fact, like what Pseudo argued. I don't think you can buy a burnt-out wand or staff, but I know there are rules in the Magic Items section of the book that talk about players starting out with magic items at Level 1.

They let you be a race with SR fuck you, bennies to Dex and all casting stats and at will Faerie Fire at Level 1 (or 2, if the MC feels that's too powerful). I don't think Paizo gives a toss about balance at this point.

Is that the drow noble? Because I can't figure out why the hell it's in the player races when it gets levitate and suggestion at level 1. Seriously, what the crap?

[rasmuswagner]

Nothing cited in that rule invalidates starting with a magical item. A wand/staff is still classified as a magical item before you burn it; a quarterstaff does not equal the Staff category of item. If you're that Staff Polisher Magus ACF, a Staff qualifies as a quarterstaff though.

The rule cited is what happens when you blow the charges on a bonded wand; which is getting into stuff that happens after the fact, like what Pseudo argued. I don't think you can buy a burnt-out wand or staff, but I know there are rules in the Magic Items section of the book that talk about players starting out with magic items at Level 1.

Semantics aside, you're still obviously wrong. And being able to ram your (throbbing) point of view through the semantic orifices of PF rules text is about as impressive as making a fat kid with Downs cry.

[icyshadowlord]

Seems like we've found another stupid Pathfinder fanboy in the form of rasmus here.
Now, instead of just SAYING something is wrong, maybe you could explain what really IS true...which I doubt you can do with your level of intelligence.