Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[ishy]

They have actually printed Ghost Touch arrows in an adventure path though.

[rasmuswagner]

They have actually printed Ghost Touch arrows in an adventure path though.

Oh, that's just a mistake. Just like every single published monk ever, using FoB with a single melee weapon instead of the way the rules were intended to work from day 1. Paizo employees don't make stupid rule changes, they just politely remind you that the rules were always meant to be interpreted this way, and all the previously published stuff that interpreted it differently was just errors and typoes.

[John Magnum]

How is that particular explanation LESS embarrassing than "We wrote a bad rule / ignored a big problem, here's what it should be instead"? From the perspective of pretending like you never make mistakes, at least.

[hogarth]

How is that particular explanation LESS embarrassing than "We wrote a bad rule / ignored a big problem, here's what it should be instead"? From the perspective of pretending like you never make mistakes, at least.

Because it means that you're never changing the rules. You're just explaining the ultra-secret interpretation that's been the truth all along; no errata needed!

[OgreBattle]

They're the no.1 dungeoncrawl RPG though right? So does this make our angst frivolous?

Does bad writing hurt sales, or not matter at all?

[CapnTthePirateG]

I will direct you to the legion of people fapping over D&D Next and allow you to draw your own conclusions.

[infected slut princess]

Does bad writing hurt sales, or not matter at all?

I hate to interrupt your hyperbolic bitching, but really -- don't be stupid. Did you buy a Pathfinder book regardless of "bad writing", or did you abstain from buying a Pathfinder book because of "bad writing"? There are actually many people in the latter category. You might even be one. Mind-blowing, I know.

I am anti-Pathfinder, but you people talk about it like it's impossible for anything flawed or even profoundly flawed to add value to some consumers' lives. That's just dumb.

Reality check: Real products in real life are flawed but they can still lead to profits for business, and customers who are generally happy. An amazing, perfect game with zero execution (i.e. it never gets produced) does nothing for anybody except fuel frivolous fantasies of tryhard game designer wannabes. A so-so game with decent execution that actually makes money is better than a game that doesn't exist and makes no money.

[MGuy]

Pathfinder coming along is what led me to these forums and a friend of mine bought me the core rule book so it hasn't treated me bad thus far and I haven't had to personally spend a dime to play it.

[Duke Flauros]

Pathfinder coming along is what led me to these forums and a friend of mine bought me the core rule book so it hasn't treated me bad thus far and I haven't had to personally spend a dime to play it.

I've never actually played pathfinder. Is it as broken as the rules as written would suggest?

[Koumei]

I've never actually played pathfinder. Is it as broken as the rules as written would suggest?

I have played it. Mostly it's as broken, but with only four players just doing their thing at low levels you don't notice it as much as we point out on here. Then there's the fact that most people who run PF will declare it to be a PF-only (or indeed core-PF-only) rules-as-written thing, then actually on-the-spot nerf anything they don't like.

[hogarth]

I've never actually played pathfinder. Is it as broken as the rules as written would suggest?

Have you played 3.5 D&D? It's basically the same thing, just with slightly different mega-combos.

[Username17]

I've never actually played pathfinder. Is it as broken as the rules as written would suggest?

Have you played 3.5 D&D? It's basically the same thing, just with slightly different mega-combos.

Also: different useless bullshit. Pathfinder's "Prone Shooter" is 3.5's "Eagle Claw Attack" (in both cases a feat that "allows" you to perform a questionable combat action that is already perfectly legal for people who don't have the feat to take). You have to go separate the wheat from the chaff all over again, because the bullshit that is useless is different.

The main differences are two:

• Combat Maneuvers are worse. The CMB vs. CMD system makes it very hard to be a tripstar or grappler.
• Classes in general have a bunch of minor abilities. These are a lot more customizable for spellcasters, and as such a lot better. The barbarian gets some fairly weak "rage powers" while Raging. The Wizard gets to select from a bewildering array of "schools" that give them huge benefits to things you actually want to do if you pick the right ones.
• Everyone gets a mental stat bonus in addition to a physical stat bonus, thereby making spellcasters better at almost no change to the warriors. For example: Dwarves are +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha instead of +2 Con, -2 Cha. This is a huge powerup to Dwarven Clerics and Druids, and virtually no change to Dwarven Fighters and Barbarians.

So yeah, a modest kick in the nuts to the already underperforming full BAB types, and a modest powerup to spellcasters. Pretty much the opposite of what the general agreement was of what kind of balance changes 3.5 needed.

-Username17

[Juton]

• Combat Maneuvers are worse. The CMB vs. CMD system makes it very hard to be a tripstar or grappler.

Pathfinder has many actual flaws, you don't need to invent any more to criticize it.

[violence in the media]

• Combat Maneuvers are worse. The CMB vs. CMD system makes it very hard to be a tripstar or grappler.

Pathfinder has many actual flaws, you don't need to invent any more to criticize it.

But didn't one of the Pathfinder guys say something to the effect that Combat Maneuvers shouldn't work reliably on level-appropriate opposition? Or am I imagining that?

[hogarth]

But didn't one of the Pathfinder guys say something to the effect that Combat Maneuvers shouldn't work reliably on level-appropriate opposition? Or am I imagining that?

I think it was more along the lines of saying a non-specialist shouldn't necessarily be able to perform maneuvers on all types of opponents.

Everyone gets a mental stat bonus in addition to a physical stat bonus, thereby making spellcasters better at almost no change to the warriors. For example: Dwarves are +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha instead of +2 Con, -2 Cha. This is a huge powerup to Dwarven Clerics and Druids, and virtually no change to Dwarven Fighters and Barbarians.

This is a dumb way to put it. In 3.5, there already existed races with any primary stat bonus you want (e.g. gray elf, spellscale), so in practice this means that a Pathfinder PC will have a +2 bonus to some secondary stat (e.g. a Pathfinder elf has a +2 Str bonus vs. a 3.5 gray elf) which, as you note, is "virtually no change" in most cases.

[deaddmwalking]

• Combat Maneuvers are worse. The CMB vs. CMD system makes it very hard to be a tripstar or grappler.

Pathfinder has many actual flaws, you don't need to invent any more to criticize it.

If the CMD is still 15 + Combat Maneuver Bonus, against an equal opponent, you succeed 25% of the time; rather than 50%.

An opposed roll (like 3.5) with equal bonuses, averages to 50% success.

Therefore, combat maneuvers are less effective than in 3.5.

[Wrathzog]

From what I've seen, Maneuver Specialists are no different between 3.5 and PF. Which is to say that if a character is focused on that being their schtick, they will almost never fail.
Thinking about it, I want to say it's easier for PCs since PF Size Modifiers aren't as overwhelming.

[hogarth]

If the CMD is still 15 + Combat Maneuver Bonus, against an equal opponent, you succeed 25% of the time; rather than 50%.

An opposed roll (like 3.5) with equal bonuses, averages to 50% success.

Therefore, combat maneuvers are less effective than in 3.5.

CMD is 10 + Str bonus + Dex bonus + BAB (and some other stuff) and CMB is 10 + Str bonus + BAB + miscellaneous attack bonuses (and some other stuff). So if your BAB + miscellaneous attack bonuses are bigger than your opponent's BAB + Dex bonus, you're better off. If they're smaller, you're worse off.

So far, so good, but an apples-to-apples complicated even more by the fact that there's a million different tiny differences between 3.5 and PFRPG.

[Ice9]

Slightly incorrect - CMB is BAB + Strength + Misc, and there's a feat that lets you use Dex instead of Strength. So between equal foes, the attacker is usually at a small disadvantage, probably cancelled out by the bonus from feats. The big difference is that the size bonus is much smaller.

So, compared to 3E:
* Grapple: Weaker, but mainly because they can escape as a move-action. Numerically weaker against other humans, but grappling an Ogre is more plausible.
* Trip, Bull-Rush: Weaker against other humans, stronger against large+ monsters.
* Disarm: About the same, I guess?
* The new Paizo combat manuevers: Most of them suck, or at least aren't worth a feat, so who cares?

[hogarth]

Slightly incorrect - CMB is BAB + Strength + Misc, and there's a feat that lets you use Dex instead of Strength.

That +Dex in CMB was a typo. Oops.

So, compared to 3E:
* Grapple: Weaker, but mainly because they can escape as a move-action. Numerically weaker against other humans, but grappling an Ogre is more plausible.
* Trip, Bull-Rush: Weaker against other humans, stronger against large+ monsters.
* Disarm: About the same, I guess?

Again, it's hard to compare apples-to-apples.

For instance, in 3.5 a Small character can't grapple a Large creature, but in PFRPG he can. Is that an advantage? Maybe. But on the other hand, a PFRPG character doesn't get as many grapple checks per round unless he invests in a bunch of feats. But on the other other hand, a PFRPG character gets more feats, so maybe it's a wash.

With regards to tripping, you have to factor in that a PFRPG character could potentially have a bunch of attack bonuses from a magic weapon, flanking, buff spells, etc. that a 3.5 character wouldn't, but then you also have to factor that a PFRPG character's BAB is probably smaller than his enemy's BAB (at least at higher levels).

[Juton]

In pathfinder CMB checks get nearly the same bonuses as regular attacks. So weapon focus, a weapons enhancement modifier and even things like Heroism's morale bonus on attacks all allow you to trip more reliably. Optimizing maneuvers is basically the same as optimizing your to-hit roll.

EDIT: I did the calculations a long time ago on the old BG board. Here's a brief repost. I don't know why I made them both Goliaths though.

How does this stack up to 3.5? Lets say we have two fighters at level 10, both with 30 str and weapons that give +2 to trip. The Pathfinder fighter also has +2 from weapon training, the second trip feat and +3 from weapon enhancements. Both are Goliaths with powerful build.

The Maths:

Versus the ever popular Fire Giant, the 3.5 fighter makes a check of +18 vs the Giants +14. The Fighter has a 66% chance of putting the giant on his ass. The Pathfinder Fighter has +30 to get the the Giants 31 CMB, an 95% success rate.

Against something with a higher CR say a Cloud Giant:
3.5 Fighter : +20 vs +20, 47.5% chance of success.
Pathfinder Fighter : + 32 vs 35 CMD, 90% chance of success.
Young adult Red Dragon:
3.5 Fighter : +20 vs +22, 38.25% chance of success.
Pathfinder Fighter : + 32 vs 45 CMD, 40% chance of success.

Against things that should be easier, CR 10 Dex based monk:
3.5 Fighter, touch attack vs AC ~27 (75%), +20 vs +2, 99% chance after that, total probability 74%.
Pathfinder Fighter, +32 vs 39 CMD, 70% chance of success.
CR 10 commoner:
3.5 Fighter, +20 vs +2, 95% chance of success. (Capped at 95% do to attack roll)
Pathfinder fighter, +32 vs ~20, 95% chance of success.

[Wrathzog]

In pathfinder CMB checks get nearly the same bonuses as regular attacks. So weapon focus, a weapons enhancement modifier and even things like Heroism's morale bonus on attacks all allow you to trip more reliably. Optimizing maneuvers is basically the same as optimizing your to-hit roll.

That reminds me. Optimizing your CMD works the same way. So some, but not all, of your bonuses to AC also apply to CMD.

[Slade]

Yeah, and average Fire giant has 10K gear.
So the 31 CMD becomes higher for cheap.
Ring of Pro +1, Glove of Dex, Belt of Str +2 work.

That alone made him: CMD 34. PF Fighter's chance lowered by 15%. So he has 80% chance.

It would be cheaper to do potions, but we can't assume it will have the time.

Choose a low Dex creature like most Giants hurts CMD.

How did you compute Monk's AC?
Remember they add Wis to CMD twice.
"When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD. "
Remember you add anything that enhances AC but armor/NA bonuses. So Raw you add it twice to CMD (once as AC bonus and second because it adds directly to CMD).
Most people assume PF didn't mean what they wrote. I mean why did they write that? If you read the CMD rules it gets added, but they made it added again.

[FatR]

Combat maneuvers bullshit exemplifies one of the main reasons why I have a personal grudge against PF.

Fixing combat maneuvers in 3.X was a really simple and obvious matter. Just make them work off a fucking normal melee attack roll. Except opposed, when necessary. The most common maneuver (the only one monsters spammed), grapple, already worked just like that except with a totally special size modfier meant primarily to fuck PCs over at high levels. An easy fix. Both streamlines things and throws fightan mans a bone. Can be used with old statblocks with no effort. And if you really hate fightan mans, at least make everything work like grapple.

And instead of this simple unification, PF invented its own complicated subsystem that is not at all compatible with the old material. Which, I suspect, was fully intentional.

[Wrathzog]

Remember they add Wis to CMD twice.
"When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD. "

This is not how bonus stacking works. At all.