Pathfinder Is Still Bad

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Thu May 10, 2012 1:19 pm

I'm going to start a kickstarter that will provide money "to help me think of a tech demo I will fund with kickstater."

Judging by how well this one is doing, I'll set my goal at a modest $10,000.

Aside from that, man those $5,000 and $2,000 rewards blow. Seriously, if I donate $5,000 you can damn well afford to fly my ass from <distance limit> to your HQ. Fuck, $5,000 is one tenth of the amount they were looking for and all you get is a 5 hour session of pathfinder and a meal with your celebrity (I see they're using the term loosely here) MC! So I get to spend hundreds of dollars more to fly out and get my reward? If I spend $5,000 I get to do that shit TWICE (you get the $2,000 reward as well).

They're seriously wasting the funding money you sent them on a meal for themselves and you, none of that shit goes to you and only you.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu May 10, 2012 3:31 pm

paizo forums wrote: You have to admire Paizo for their consistency and attention to detail. In keeping with the Pathfinder brand identity of re-publishing content that WotC had to pay for, the photo of Rich Baker on that Kickstarter page is hosted on images.wizards.com.

I do like that someone pointed this out to them.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Fri May 11, 2012 1:06 pm

WoTC needs to be awesome and change that image to a pile of dicks while they still can!

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp · Fri May 11, 2012 2:04 pm

Quite honestly it might be worth it to have a kick starter to get frank to get the $5000 prize for Paizo's kickstarter. That way Frank can tell Buhlman and the other execs a thing or two! That would be worth the money!

Antariuk · Post by **Antariuk** » Fri May 11, 2012 2:06 pm

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/167 ... demo/posts

Did you guys see this? Wow.... just wow.

On a sitenote, I read the Skull & Shackles Player's Guide because I heard they included options for peg legs and the kind of mutilations you see on pirates every now and then. The Peg Leg trait is surprisingly good, as in it doesn't screw non-spellcasters over:

Peg Leg : One of your legs was bitten off below the knee
by a shark when you were just a child, and was replaced
with a wooden peg leg (Pathfinder Player Companion:
Pirates of the Inner Sea 20). You’ve long since gotten used
to your prosthesis, however, and take none of the normal
penalties from having a peg leg. You’ve had to learn to deal
with the pain of your injury as well, and you gain a
+1 trait bonus on Fortitude saves. Ever since your accident
you’ve hated sharks, and you also gain a +1 trait bonus on
damage rolls against sharks and other animals with the
aquatic subtype.
Your balance always gets a bit shaky after a few drinks,
and last night at the Formidably Maid—a tavern in Port
Peril—was no exception. That must be why you fell to the
f loor as soon as you tried to stand up. What happened
next is hazy, but you’re pretty sure you were dragged out
of the bar and onto a ship at the docks. At least they didn’t
throw you to the sharks...

The table with optional rules for scars and amputations however shows yet again that it is a very bad idea to incorporate damage to specific body parts in a system that uses abstract hp damage:

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri May 11, 2012 2:50 pm

Antariuk wrote:The table with optional rules for scars and amputations however shows yet again that it is a very bad idea to incorporate damage to specific body parts in a system that uses abstract hp damage:

I'd rather have that than the 3.5 massive damage system. At least it gives the Regenerate spell something to do.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Fri May 11, 2012 8:29 pm

What does "interesting but otherwise cosmetic" even mean?

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri May 11, 2012 8:40 pm

ishy wrote:What does "interesting but otherwise cosmetic" even mean?

I'm not sure what your question is. "Otherwise cosmetic" clearly means that it has no in-game impact. So are you wondering how a scar can be interesting?

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat May 12, 2012 12:52 am

Wait-did I read that right?

Losing an arm or hand doesn't affect spellcasting somatic components?

But of course, your one-armed fighter can't sword-and-board. Or TWF. Or two-hand his weapons.

Fucking.

Hell.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sat May 12, 2012 1:41 am

You've been able to one-hand spells with somatic components for ages.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Sat May 12, 2012 12:48 pm

hogarth wrote:
ishy wrote:What does "interesting but otherwise cosmetic" even mean?
I'm not sure what your question is. "Otherwise cosmetic" clearly means that it has no in-game impact. So are you wondering how a scar can be interesting?

No. The sentence is saying otherwise cosmetic, thus the interesting part isn't cosmetic.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon May 14, 2012 9:59 am

Yeah, by saying it is "otherwise cosmetic", they are saying that there is a game effect for the cosmetic portion to be otherwise to. I am damned if I can figure out what they intend the game effects to be of having a peg leg there. Can you charge? I don't know.

-Username17

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:29 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Yeah, by saying it is "otherwise cosmetic", they are saying that there is a game effect for the cosmetic portion to be otherwise to.

FrankTrollman wrote: I am damned if I can figure out what they intend the game effects to be of having a peg leg there. Can you charge? I don't know.

If you have the trait mentioned above, there are no negative effects to having a peg leg, only the positive effects listed.

If you don't have the trait, you use the rules on page 20 of Pirates of the Inner Sea for peg legs.

I have no idea why you found it confusing.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon May 14, 2012 12:12 pm

hogarth wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Yeah, by saying it is "otherwise cosmetic", they are saying that there is a game effect for the cosmetic portion to be otherwise to.

FrankTrollman wrote: I am damned if I can figure out what they intend the game effects to be of having a peg leg there. Can you charge? I don't know.
If you have the trait mentioned above, there are no negative effects to having a peg leg, only the positive effects listed.

If you don't have the trait, you use the rules on page 20 of Pirates of the Inner Sea for peg legs.

I have no idea why you found it confusing.

Two things: "Penalties" are a game term for negative modifiers. Having a condition where you can't charge is unfortunate, but it's not a penalty. Secondly, the restriction on not being allowed to charge is a restriction from having a missing leg, not from having a peg leg. A peg leg is an item that you can use if you have a missing leg that makes the missing leg restrictions less bad.

So you interpreted the statement "You’ve long since gotten used to your prosthesis, however, and take none of the normal penalties from having a peg leg." to mean that you don't suffer any of the drawbacks of the total package of missing leg plus peg leg. And it's entirely possible that that is what they meant. But that's not what they said.

It would be like saying that you didn't suffer the normal penalties of the Blind Fighting Feat. Maybe they meant that you didn't have to make miss chance tests at all, but then again maybe they didn't. The Blind Fighting Feat doesn't really have any penalties, it reduces the drawbacks of not being able to see, but all the penalties come from not being able to see, not from the Blind Fighting Feat per se.

-Username17

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon May 14, 2012 2:38 pm

Oh for Christ's sake.

This may shock you, but sometimes words are used in a technical sense and sometimes they're used in an everyday sense (cf. enchantment). Only a moron, a robot or a moronic robot would fail to distinguish between the two in most cases.

Considering there's a zillion things in Pathfinder that are legitimately worth complaining about, zeroing in on lame shit like this makes Pathfinder look better than it actually is. I.e., "If this is the only thing you can find to complain about, it must be really good!"

GâtFromKI · Post by **GâtFromKI** » Mon May 14, 2012 2:54 pm

hogarth wrote:Considering there's a zillion things in Pathfinder that are legitimately worth complaining about, zeroing in on lame shit like this makes Pathfinder look better than it actually is. I.e., "If this is the only thing you can find to complain about, it must be really good!"

That's what I wanted to respond to Frank: he complains about the peg-leg trait because he's not used to read Pathfinder's splatbook.

When you get used to this, poorly-written abilities like this trait become some kind of annoying back-noise, as you have more important questions, like "how the hell is this fucking synthesist supposed to work?" or "what is the DC of the concentration check for casting defensively any of those fucking wizard's spell-like?"

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon May 14, 2012 3:13 pm

Dude, Ishy asked what a piece of text meant. Hogarth got all up in his grill because it was "obvious" what that piece of text meant. The literal reading of the text is that the text doesn't apply to anything and wouldn't do anything if it applied to the thing it's probably actually supposed to apply to. Would you stop doubling down for a minute and just accept that Ishy's original confusion was 100% justified by the sloppy text?

-Username17

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon May 14, 2012 3:23 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Would you stop doubling down for a minute and just accept that Ishy's original confusion was 100% justified by the sloppy text?

I don't think he was confused (I'm assuming he's not a moron who really believes that "interesting" has an in-game definition); I think he just thought it was a clunky way to phrase things. I guess I agree, but complaining about clunky writing where the meaning is obvious is pretty dull stuff.

You added the stuff about peg legs all by your lonesome. Again, name space collisions aren't great, but there's bigger fish to fry than that.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Mon May 14, 2012 3:36 pm

you could be a warforged with a peg leg

GâtFromKI · Post by **GâtFromKI** » Mon May 14, 2012 5:24 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Would you stop doubling down for a minute and just accept that Ishy's original confusion was 100% justified by the sloppy text?

Yes, I accept that.

Anyway, I stand on my position: you can respond to Ishy's question without bitching about Pathfinder, and reserve your rant for real Pathfinder-nonsenses such as the recent monk's nerf.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon May 14, 2012 5:39 pm

Sean K Reynolds (Developer) Mar 8, 2012

Sorry, I can't read GâtFromKI's link any further. I'm just convulsing from a weird combination of hysterical laughter and unstoppable rage.

ED: Then again, Bruce Cordell and Mike Mearls are the top two guys of D&D 5E D&D, so maybe I should be inured to this kind of thing. Oh, well.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon May 14, 2012 5:43 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
Sean K Reynolds (Developer) Mar 8, 2012
Sorry, I can't read GâtFromKI's link any further. I'm just convulsing from a weird combination of hysterical laughter and unstoppable rage.

Because Sean K Reynolds's job title is "Developer"? That's nothing new.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon May 14, 2012 5:53 pm

I know, I still can't get over that.

You know, back in the service, I worked in the Nuclear department. As you might have expected, people in this department were held to higher standards than your typical brainless high-school grad -- precisely because the work was so demanding and politically sensitive. Furthermore, we had a lot of collateral tasks that needed doing like record keeping and fire fighting maintenance that were easier and cushier than the core work of our division. So as it happens, people who weren't the 'Right Stuff' but didn't fuck up badly enough to be kicked out of our program got cycled into these cushier jobs while the more competent and hard-working people got stuck with the crappier jobs. So it created a perverse incentive to underperform but in a visible way so that you'll have a better job after people yelling at you.

We had a phrase for this effect, too: Hook-ups for Fuckups.

That's what's going on with D&D right now! Write Psionics Handbook or Iron Heroes or Magic of Faerun? You don't get fired, you get friggin' promoted. Hook-ups for Fuckups! Holy shit, tabletop gaming.

GâtFromKI · Post by **GâtFromKI** » Mon May 14, 2012 6:04 pm

Oh, you already talked about this nerf in this thread, page 80.

I stopped Pathfinder during only two months, and when I come back there's a bunch of new stupid rules...

@Lago: you can't read SKR because you're not a trollophage like me (trollophage: someone who enjoy reading internet trolls; is there an English word for this?). Believe me, SKR is one of the best. troll. ever. He is condescending, obtuse, sometimes insulting, and he always comes up with new ideas to create new trolls!

I though I was good at trolling (at least in my native language), but compared to SKR, I'm nothing.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon May 14, 2012 7:01 pm

GâtFromKI wrote:Oh, you already talked about this nerf in this thread, page 80.

I stopped Pathfinder during only two months, and when I come back there's a bunch of new stupid rules...

What do you mean? It's not a new stupid rule, it was the same stupid rule the whole time! (Pay no attention to all of the published examples that use the old rule and the lack of any published example that uses the new rule.).