Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Juton]

@Leper

Why do you keep responding to Shadow Balls? He is either a troll or a moron, possibly both, no rational argument will stop him from being either.

[GâtFromKI]

What I want to know is why the fuck is it taking so long to level up?

Write down a few more HP, your save boosts if any, your BAB changes if any, pick a spell or two, possibly pick a feat, possibly write down a class feature and you're done. It might take a full minute if playing a complex class. You probably spend more time waiting for someone to select an action in combat.

Uh... did you play 3E at all? Do you know how many feats are there, how many spells, how many prestige classes you might want to get into? What skills, and what skill tricks you want to pick?

In order:

Not that many worth taking.
Not so many that it would be that hard to select one or two of them.
Not so many that the decision making process is being made now, as opposed to a long time ago.
Those don't matter at all, but if you care, how hard is it to +1 the stuff you were already taking, and if you want Swift Concentration or Collector of Stories or one of the other three or so skill tricks worth taking, then you +1 every skill but 2, and then you take that.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

Now, now, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Shadow clearly thinks that when people level up in session they just...level up in session and have pre-plotted builds. That's ok, and something a lot of people do. I mean, he does seem to think you won't alter your course once you've started (like, you'll pick stinking cloud even if you've been facing a fuckton of undead lately), and won't ever get buyer's remorse or have decision paralysis due to the massive number of options.

I'm pretty sure everyone here levels up in session at the appropriate time, such as the end of an adventure or something like that. You know, times when you've just gotten a bunch of crap and need to split loot up, figure out how much cash you've got, buy some magic items AND level up. I can't think of a time I've just leveled up in the middle of a fucking dungeon because that's retarded.

Again, if you had a pre-plotted build right down to the order you'll purchase items (let's say you're a league of legends player) this isn't a problem (though your inflexibility is fucking ridiculous), but for those of us who haven't put quite that much planning in levels will take some time. Time we'd rather spend playing the damn game.




Also, fuck pathfinder in the ear.

[virgil]

On a note closer to topic, this is related to one of the frustrating elements of Pathfinder. While 3.5 is bad with the volume of options and decision points, especially with the lack of organization (you have to sift/identify Barbarian-friendly feats through Fighter-friendly feats), Pathfinder is so much worse.

Most of their classes have a list of abilities to choose from, also with trap options that bog you down. And then they throw in some fiddly resource management on top of it all (rage, ki, whatfvckever bards get, etc), forcing extra math and decision-making even after going through the hassle of making your character.

Combat resolution was slow enough amongst the fighters when they had a choice of two or three options that were simple attack/save effects. Now they have more abilities to choose from each round, which also have resource costs to take into consideration, and work drastically better if you use other abilities in synergy, requiring even more system mastery.

[GâtFromKI]

Shadow clearly thinks that when people level up in session they just...level up in session and have pre-plotted builds.

That's what do peoples who have enough understanding of Pathfinder to bitch about the game on internet.

That's obviously my case. That's yours. That's Shadzar's Ball case also. Some of my friend are in this case.

Not everyone is in this case. Some peoples are playing a wizard for the first time, and need to read every single spell at level up. Some people don't want the most efficient option at level up, they just want to be able to overcome level-appropriate challenges (and therefore, can use other spells than glitterdust and invisibility: blindness is less powerful than glitterdust, but it's still sufficient to beat level-appropriate monsters).

And obviously, knowing that 95% of options are shit implies that you've read them beforehand. The vast majority of peoples didn't read the books (as I said before, that's how Pathfinder works: they think UM and UC are good because they didn't read those books).


----
If Shadzar's Balls isn't trolling, he's just as stupid as SKR. SKR make awful game-design because he thinks that everyone should be playing like him. He think that a monk with wow of poverty is retarded and nobody should play it, and therefore he created an awful option; he thinks that Hyoga and Camu are great characters and everyone should play them, and therefore he created Ice tomb.

Shadzar's Ball do the same: he and his friend are playing a certain way, therefore he thinks that everyone should be playing the same. Which means: having all the books in your memory, knowing every relevant option, using only the most powerful options, creating your entire 20-level build at level 1...

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I used retraining options in my game. I banned it because one of the players retrained his feats every session and it got on my nerves.

To be very specific, he kept retraining Open-Minded over and over and over again, to the point where I couldn't keep track of his skill points anymore (he would take away 5 skill points, give them somewhere else, take them away for another feat). After the 5th or 6th week of that, I told him to retrain once permanently, because he was getting on my nerves.

Yeah, he was definitely abusing the intent, there. The idea is to help you either get out of trap options you didn't realize were traps, or to pick a useful low level feat that you can swap out later.

Heck, if he had been using it in a way that made sense, I might have cut him some slack. If he had (for example) played a fighter who retrained all his feats every couple of sessions and called himself "XX the Multifaceted!" or something like that where it was his schtick to do something different all the time? That would be interesting enough to allow.

This player in particular insists that powergaming is wrong, but being a rules lawyer isn't. For example, he loudly sniffed at my dwarf cleric with the strength and luck domains a while back as being abusive, but he started a long argument where he claimed he could use Chill Touch six times a round because you can use a touch spell on up to six willing targets a round, except that the "willing" portion somehow didn't count for chill touch. No seriously, that was his argument, and kept pulling out the books that explains you can touch 6 willing targets in a round.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

I think Virgil makes a good point about Pathfinder being really fucking complex for no good reason.

Prime example: the goddamn Magus.

Now, the Magus is a wizard-lite who prepares spells. Ok, that's as complicated as being a wizard.

He also has an arcane pool, which he can use to enchant his sword or do any number of things based on the different types of magus arcanas (these are different from feats and are gained at certain levels) he picked.

He may also pick an archetype that adds ANOTHER arcane pool for his weapon, and his weapon gains other abilities that are listed on a table because tables fucking rule and the option list isn't overly long already.

On top of this he can pick fighter feats as a bonus feat every 5 levels, but Magus levels only count as half-fighter levels so have fun dealing with that, especially because you get your fighter feats on odd levels half the time (SKR is a fucking idiot).

He then has a completely new option in combat called spell combat, which lets him attack and cast a spell at the same time, and the spell can be an extra attack if you use his sword to deliver it, and you end up rolling 3 D20s, two of which are against AC (and with a -2 OR MORE IF YOU WANT A BONUS ON A DIFFERENT D20 ROLL) and one of which is a concentration check (that you can subtract points of attack to boost). If the concentration check fails you don't get the spell, which means the third D20 you threw is irrelevant.

So, on any given round the magus can select from a bushel of spells (that he had to prepare ahead of time, yay bookkeeping), use a magus arcana (actions vary, usually a buff to casting/attacking/defense though), power up his sword, have his sword power itself up (or siphon its power to him), use a feat or do spell combat. Most of these things can be done together, and it results in a massive amount of bookkeeping and decision making that would absolutely CRIPPLE your average player who says "I want to be a swordy magic guy!"

If you don't exercise all these options effectively (and properly build your character, you absolutely need to optimize the shit out of it) the Magus is fucking terrible. If done right the Magus is better than other melee classes by a small amount (but has limited gas that ends up becoming unlimited later on). If played as a wizard-lite the Magus is as effective as a Wizard-lite (super effective).

[GâtFromKI]

Actually, the best way to play a magus is to play it like a witch (with the hexcrafter archetype). It's not even a witch-lite, since you have the same hex...

[Pseudo Stupidity]

Actually, he is a witch-lite. The magus gets better hexes slower, and gains hexes once every 3 levels instead of once every 2 levels.

Plus, not a full caster and the Magus has a worse list.

[GâtFromKI]

I have to admit I was a bit extreme. But once you've written "ice tomb, accursed hex" on your sheet, there's really little differences between having 6 other funny hex or having only 4 other funny hex and a medium BAB.

[Psychic Robot]

Since when does Fuchaduck = everyone else? Now I get it, you're just trolling as you always do, and you didn't really mean what you say, but trolling is supposed to be funny, and as you might expect from a robot, you have failed to produce humor.

So you've proved that multiple people are stupid. Um, so? That doesn't change that not stupid people can increment a few numbers and write down a class feature quickly. I mean what the fuck are you doing, writing the changes one pixel at a time?

Perhaps the intelligent people are driven away from this board by the faux elitists who get butthurt when a real elitist shows them how it's done?

shut up, roy.

can we please take further discussion about leveling up in 3e to this thread? some of us read this thread for critiques of pathfinder, not to watch shadow balls masturbate over his sense of self worth

[hogarth]

In other news, Pathfinder beat D&D in the ICv2 poll again. Of course, that says more about the state of D&D (poor) than the state of Pathfinder.

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/21403.html

[Swordslinger]

Given 4E's continually diminishing release schedule and the abundance of "What would you like us to do for 5E?" articles, I'm not really surprised to hear that 4E is doing poorly.

The only real interesting thing that's been proven is that spoonfeeding people fixes to a flawed system sells better than designing a new one from the ground up.

Another interesting thing I've learned (which kind of surprised me) from both Pathfinder and 4E essentials is that a great deal of fighter players like just being the mindless basic attacker. Many do not in fact like having special moves or strikes, and just want to be doing basic swings at crap. While the basic 4E fighter was actually a very good class, he did not seem to mesh much with the general community at all.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Continuing whining:

Why the fuck are there "core classes" then "base classes" then "alternate classes"? I can see the core/noncore distinction, but we could merge "base classes" and "alternate classes" into "splatbook classes" and no one would care.

[rasmuswagner]

Complaining about rude language on the Den. That's a new one. What next, will you get butthurt and ragequit for a few years because someone said the word [EDITED]?

Nobody gives a dick about your profanity. You are not being repressed because you're too cool and edgy (and SMART!) for us all. What are you, fucking 13?

No, everybody hates you because you suck. You contribute nothing. Nothing you write is funny or insightful.

[Josh_Kablack]

Edit moved discussion of actual data based on number of level-based changes on own character sheet and time to do chart lookups to other thread.

I'm still curious to see link to actual Pathfinder Charsheet with changes made at levelup highlighted. Anyone got a sheet they'd like to post?

[Pseudo Stupidity]

I know that whenever I level up there's always a few choices to be made that are worth considering (spells, because I can't stand mundanes) and feats happen every other levels for all characters, so usually that too.

Then you have to adjust BAB, skills, saves, stats, class features (even though they're generally worthless in PF). The best part is in PF you have to dive through a book to look at the options you get (hint: Most of them are fucking terrible) and then pick one.

[hogarth]

Continuing whining:

Why the fuck are there "core classes" then "base classes" then "alternate classes"? I can see the core/noncore distinction, but we could merge "base classes" and "alternate classes" into "splatbook classes" and no one would care.

I think the idea is that you can't multi-class with an "alternate class" and its corresponding "base class" to cherry-pick the same starting ability twice (e.g. you can't have a rogue 1/alternate-rogue 1 with +2d6 sneak attack or a fighter 2/alternate-fighter 2 with four fighter bonus feats).

Personally, I think it would make more sense to merge the ideas of "archetype" and "alternate class".

[virgil]

I think that would be awesome, being a multiclassed Fighter/Fighter or something. It would be like one of those heavy one-level dip builds from 3.0, only sillier looking.

[Seerow]

Continuing whining:

Why the fuck are there "core classes" then "base classes" then "alternate classes"? I can see the core/noncore distinction, but we could merge "base classes" and "alternate classes" into "splatbook classes" and no one would care.

I think the idea is that you can't multi-class with an "alternate class" and its corresponding "base class" to cherry-pick the same starting ability twice (e.g. you can't have a rogue 1/alternate-rogue 1 with +2d6 sneak attack or a fighter 2/alternate-fighter 2 with four fighter bonus feats).

Personally, I think it would make more sense to merge the ideas of "archetype" and "alternate class".

Agreed. Also merge 3.5 ACFs in there as well.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I think that would be awesome, being a multiclassed Fighter/Fighter or something. It would be like one of those heavy one-level dip builds from 3.0, only sillier looking.

That's Ranger from 8-bit theater. Full name: Generic Half-Elven Dual-Class Ranger. His other 'half' is half-Human half-Half-orc. His other class is also Ranger. This allows him to dual-wield his dual-wield so he can quad-wield. Bows. And he has some kind of improved rapid/multi shot deal where each bow fires three arrows at a time. It's very silly and also a lot of arrows.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Continuing whining:

Why the fuck are there "core classes" then "base classes" then "alternate classes"? I can see the core/noncore distinction, but we could merge "base classes" and "alternate classes" into "splatbook classes" and no one would care.

I think the idea is that you can't multi-class with an "alternate class" and its corresponding "base class" to cherry-pick the same starting ability twice (e.g. you can't have a rogue 1/alternate-rogue 1 with +2d6 sneak attack or a fighter 2/alternate-fighter 2 with four fighter bonus feats).

Personally, I think it would make more sense to merge the ideas of "archetype" and "alternate class".

Does that even matter though? Fighters and rogues could use the boost in the land of "go first" and "free skeletons" (aka wizard buffs).

[ModelCitizen]

Personally, I think it would make more sense to merge the ideas of "archetype" and "alternate class".

It kinda makes sense for Anti-Paladin not to be a paladin archetype. There's a lot of goodness-and-light themed crap that's keyed to the paladin class by name. If Anti-Paladin is a kind of paladin then they can use Holy Avengers and gain LG-themed spells from splats.

[Seerow]

Personally, I think it would make more sense to merge the ideas of "archetype" and "alternate class".

It kinda makes sense for Anti-Paladin not to be a paladin archetype. There's a lot of goodness-and-light themed crap that's keyed to the paladin class by name. If Anti-Paladin is a kind of paladin then they can use Holy Avengers and gain LG-themed spells from splats.

tbh alignment themed classes are something that should have gone a long time ago. Alignment in general is a roleplaying guideline that should have no correlation with game mechanics except in very extreme cases. Instead of a Paladin/Blackguard, you should have something like a Crusader, that is alignment neutral, with ACFs that tune the features to something flavored to a specific alignment.

[A Man In Black]

Does that even matter though? Fighters and rogues could use the boost in the land of "go first" and "free skeletons" (aka wizard buffs).

For one, there isn't any fighter alternate class, just rogue and cavalier. If you want multiple shittty little smites as a career path, you can already multiclass paladin and cavalier, so there's really no reason you'd want to combine cavalier and samurai (plus cavalier and samurai are both stone cold terrible).

For another, multiclassing rogue and ninja is obscure and awkward as shit, in a 3e revision that is already full of obscure and shit-awkward options. If you want to buff rogues, just do that. Don't allow some godawful weirdass combination just because it makes rogues better. Just make rogues better!