Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Mask_De_H]

(I'm not going to, short of being offered cash, and if you're going to pay someone to join your game, might I recommend just hiring a prostitute instead? Indeed, you can even dispense with the game entirely at that point, you have a prostitute)

Can I sig this? I really want to sig this.

And yeah, I agree that the Summoner is pretty fucked against teleporting enemies and those with better movement, even with the extended spell duration on SM[X]. It's also a nice thing to pilfer from if you're an arcane caster and take Pathfinder Savant.

[Darth Rabbitt]

Last time I checked, you didn't have to ask permission to sig something here.

Then again, it just might be that you're a more decent human being than I am.

[Koumei]

Can I sig this? I really want to sig this.

Sure, fill your boots.

And yeah, you needn't ask permission. But I'm delighted at another of my off-the-cuff snide remarks being sigged.

[MfA]

So pretty much we're back in Bard land. "He knows Charm Monster, which is a totally rad spell (even with its modest nerf in Pathfinder that gives enemies a +5 Save bonus on the second round of combat), but he has a lower Save DC and less spells per day because of the shitty casting system he labors under." That's almost enough to justify your existence at level 7. Almost.

Point taken, I should think my replies through better ... but nonetheless ... it's more than nothing.

He has single turn damage potential at low/mid level normal casters can't generally touch (ignoring the known loopholes such as explosive runes and telekinesis, which are much more likely to get a DMG thrown at you than just decently building and equipping your Eidolon) and reasonable spell casting.

[ishy]

So I have questions about how the Same Game Test works for pathfinder.
What is allowed and what isn't? I get the fact that something like leadership shouldn't be allowed, but to completely ignore spells like Magic Jar doesn't feel right either.

And since pathfinder lowered the CR of creatures with class levels by 1, shouldn't the Same Game Test be Class level vs CR-1?

[Juton]

So I have questions about how the Same Game Test works for pathfinder.
What is allowed and what isn't? I get the fact that something like leadership shouldn't be allowed, but to completely ignore spells like Magic Jar doesn't feel right either.

I wonder this too. I get banning leadership, if you allow it then for the price of a feat you can get a cohort that can probably pass the SGT. An interesting side problem is that some characters in Pathfinder get Leadership as a class feature, a Cleric with the Nobility domain gets one for instance. Would such a Cleric be allowed to use it in the SGT?

And since pathfinder lowered the CR of creatures with class levels by 1, shouldn't the Same Game Test be Class level vs CR-1?

A PC is going to be facing CR equivalent challenges in game, and since those challenges change qualitatively as CR increases you kind of need to do equal CR.

[ishy]

A PC is going to be facing CR equivalent challenges in game, and since those challenges change qualitatively as CR increases you kind of need to do equal CR.

But then you get weird fights, that a lvl 10 PC is going to have to fight a lvl 11(=CR 10) cleric for example.

[virgil]

And since pathfinder lowered the CR of creatures with class levels by 1, shouldn't the Same Game Test be Class level vs CR-1?

A PC is going to be facing CR equivalent challenges in game, and since those challenges change qualitatively as CR increases you kind of need to do equal CR.

In addition, that CR modifier takes into account that NPCs don't have the amount of gear that a PC does.

[virgil]

Gah, stupid Pathfinder and their retcon. They released material concerning other planets in the setting's solar system, which is cool. They also add interplanetary teleport as a 9th level spell, which acts as greater teleport but is able to go to other planets; which of course means they retcon'd "infinite range" to only go so far as the planet you cast it on.

Please note, you can still cast plane shift ten levels earlier to go to these other planets, and there's nothing stopping you; unless you take James Jacobs's actual goddamn advice, and have the spell shove you 5d100 miles into the planetary crust or the depths of space and DIE.

And hey, at 13th level, you are fully capable of making your own dimension! So, like, whatever...

[Juton]

Off the top of my head their is now three ways for a Sorcerer to either cast spells from a spellbook or just add random spells to his list. I'm sure this number will grow as more splats are released. I'm curious at what point a Sorcerer will become as good as a Wizard if being one level behind doesn't bork that for them.

[Ted the Flayer]

If I were to play a Pathfinder game (I'm not going to, short of being offered cash, and if you're going to pay someone to join your game, might I recommend just hiring a prostitute instead? Indeed, you can even dispense with the game entirely at that point, you have a prostitute)

Why would I have sex with a woman when she already wants to have game with me? Finding women to have sex with is fairly easy, I'm a passable male who gets regular exercise and I have a talent for making people laugh. However, I have only had one woman play DnD with me. Priorities, people!

[koz]

If I were to play a Pathfinder game (I'm not going to, short of being offered cash, and if you're going to pay someone to join your game, might I recommend just hiring a prostitute instead? Indeed, you can even dispense with the game entirely at that point, you have a prostitute)

Why would I have sex with a woman when she already wants to have game with me? Finding women to have sex with is fairly easy, I'm a passable male who gets regular exercise and I have a talent for making people laugh. However, I have only had one woman play DnD with me. Priorities, people!

So much this it's not even funny.

[tussock]

One might imagine there's more women who like having sex than their are who like playing RPGs, eh. There's probably a whole bunch of gamer women out there who can't find anyone to game with at all, on account of the vast majority of men are also into sex and not into D&D. Pardon the hetero normative bias.

[...You Lost Me]

So much this it's not even funny.

This, however, made me snort and spill my drink.

[Aryxbez]

What I've wondered, is why that people on this very forum, have defended Pathfinder in general as not being that bad. Sure, there's some good it did, like with more treasure, reorganizing of skills, and apparently did something with Polymorph. However as been shown, the bunches of little changes, have created an inferior game, ones which if the game is now far more boring for the level appropriate classes, why some people here would actually want to defend the game itself? I'm not against defending good ideas, even if it's wrapped in a trash of a game, but it's not going to get me to speak positively of the game as a whole, nor is it likely to fix said trash of a game. If the facts are there, I don't really see people noting the games dislike as an "exaggeration" or "opinion" if it holds to be true as an inferior game.

[Dean]

I think 3.E DnD is the best RPG I've ever read. Pathfinder is a slightly worse version of 3.E. Being a slightly worse derivative version of a great RPG means that Pathfinder is a great RPG but a terrible modification to an RPG. Essentially it is very good if considered in a vacuum but since it is totally unreasonable to consider it in a vacuum it is also very bad.

This is why it's totally understandable for me for someone to say "Pathfinder is very good" and also "Pathfinder is terrible".

[John Magnum]

To the extent that Pathfinder is Pathfinder at all and is not WotC's 3.x verbatim, Pathfinder is terrible.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm just going to quote DSM from another thread, because his explanation is dead-on accurate.

I don't see any reason to respect treading water. 3.5 made its mistakes in the dark, and it managed to be an improvement on its predeccessors. But pathfinder is repeating those mistakes, 10 years later, after everyone knows exactly what they are. Repeating 3.5's problems 10 years later is unforgivably stupid, like writing a medical diagnosis and treatment guide for typical diseases and not mentioning antibiotics. Except not that serious, because at least you aren't killing people, you're just giving them a product that is not as good as it invariably should be if you had a half a brain.

Now, there's also the thing where half of Pathfinder's advertising direction was "3.5 fixed! HELL YEAH" (and the other half was "4e sucks! Boo!"). And that turned out to be a flat-out fucking lie from day one on. So yes, the antics of the people who made pathfinder are deeply offensive and dishonest (or just super idiotic). But that has nothing to do with Pathfinder as a game, I admit. That's just context. Pathfinder is exactly as good or bad as 3.5 is; but contextually for 3.5 that was a good thing and a step forward, and for Pathfinder, contextually, it was running in place and outright deceit. In terms of choosing which to play, pick one. But you should be pissed that Pathfinder isn't better, because it was made later and with access to better knowledge.

Now, I personally like Pathfinder (or rather, appreciate it) because the extremely generous OGL policy allows me to just point to the fucking database rather than diddle around with Character Builders and whatever. That alone is enough of a reason for me to use it despite my serious misgivings.

I also like Pathfinder because despite their terrible design decisions the cheese loops are less cheesy than in 3.5E. This is a self-interested, nay, self-aggrandizing criteria for me evaluating whether I like TTRPGs but I'll just say it: I like systems where I can get a clear benefit from min-maxing but doesn't make me feel like a jerk kicking over other peoples' sand castles for doing so.

Which is incidentally why I like 3.0E better than 3.5E D&D and why I have such a vehement hatred of Magic of Faerun.

[virgil]

Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes - Because FVCK monks.

Oh, and don't forget...

BRAWLING
+1 BONUS
The wearer of brawling armor gains a +2 bonus on unarmed attack and damage rolls, including combat maneuver checks made to grapple. Her unarmed strikes count as magic weapons for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction.
These bonuses do not apply to natural weapons. This special ability does not prevent the wearer’s unarmed strikes from provoking attacks of opportunity or make the wearer’s unarmed strikes count as armed attacks. The brawling ability can be applied only to light armor.

[icyshadowlord]

Oh, didn't they tell you that they hate Monks with a passion?

[virgil]

Just noticed something else, horseshoes of crushing blows. It works like the amulet of mighty fists, but only for hoof attacks (so, same number of weapons as a monk gets), except CHEAPER. Oh, and they can made out of special materials too, for the price of a single weapon rather than two.

Because now horses can be better at unarmed combat than a monk.

[Aryxbez]

This is why it's totally understandable for me for someone to say "Pathfinder is very good" and also "Pathfinder is terrible".

Except even idiotic Paizils know that the prior edition EXISTS, and does so being as free as Pathfinder. Not only that, they likely already have content from 3rd edition in the first place, which was probably even cheaper, given it's not being continued any more, save by Paizo's own products. So I'm not sure how they can consider it a Good within a vacuum, since there's no vacuum, when it's the direct descendant of 3rd edition, and thus is going to be compared to every time they make a remark how it's better, or whatever. So perhaps I'm missing something in the Paizil thought process, do they just ignore 3rd edition exists now, due to Paizo's false advertising schemes?

I'm just going to quote DSM from another thread, because his explanation is dead-on accurate.

So yes, the antics of the people who made pathfinder are deeply offensive and dishonest (or just super idiotic). But that has nothing to do with Pathfinder as a game, I admit. That's just context. Pathfinder is exactly as good or bad as 3.5 is

the cheese loops are less cheesy than in 3.5E.

I like systems where I can get a clear benefit from min-maxing but doesn't make me feel like a jerk kicking over other peoples' sand castles for doing so.

Which is incidentally why I like 3.0E better than 3.5E D&D and why I have such a vehement hatred of Magic of Faerun.

DSMatticus's quote is what I'm talking about here, members of Gaming Den speaking of how just as, a good/bad game as 3rd edition. I would very much so appreciate seeing some evidence that brings contrary to the horde of small changes that made the game inferior, somehow overall make the game an equivalent to 3rd edition. As it's like saying the only reason to dislike Pathfinder, is because the company is a bunch of liars, when on this very thread, they even are just pounding upon Monks out of their hate (ironic it's the worst class of the game too). I could care less for context, even if it helps fuel my rage for Pathfinder's cult-like ways of converting new people with their lies. The game all the same is still been shown to be inferior, that "context" aside even.

As for "Cheese-Loops", imagine the game's inferior design would speak for itself with this question, but was wondering how so they are "Less cheesy". Though it might be less overpowered, if it is still "cheesy" then I'm also wondering how it would make one feel less like they're toppling ones figurative sandcastle. For if you're still superior to someone's else character, even in their niche, then I'd imagine you're still performing said toppling no?

A possible aside, but since you mentioned it, got a link to the post/thread as to why you hate "Magic of Faerun"?

Because now horses can be better at unarmed combat than a monk.

So tragic, yet Hilarious, so why do these guys like continually picking on the equivalent of Aquaman from the Super Friends?

[ishy]

Because they don't know what they want the monk to do. They have stated they don't want a monk to be as good at fighting as for example the fighter. But if you ask them what the monk is supposed to be good at then, you won't get an answer.

[sabs]

they don't want the monk tobe as good at fighting, as the worse fighting class in the game


awesome

[Juton]

Didn't WotC hate the Monk too? I mean Barbarians got Whirling Frenzy, Fighters got Dungeon Crasher, Monks didn't get anything. If you wanted, you could make the argument that Paizo making Monks suck is propagating backwards compatibility.