Pathfinder Is Still Bad

Covent · Post by **Covent** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:47 am

Well, the annual "Can you TWF with a Two-hander and armor spikes/UAS/Boot-Blade/Anything that does not take a physical hand?" thread is up and it has a twin.

This makes me sad because it reminds me of the unwritten rules post and the fact that the FAQ that came out of that was not based on math or common sense but a knee jerk reaction.

*Sigh*

I wish they would go over their FAQ and do some math + logic so as to address shit like this.

When the book says one thing or is ambiguous and the designers have to reference "unwritten rules" and then make an FAQ to back themselves up that is not really in line with the book...

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:31 pm

That was the FAQ that said for two-weapon fighting you need a free hand to use armour spikes and other non-associated weapons.
But only for two-weapon fighting, for example you don't need a free hand to use armour spikes with AoOs right?

Covent · Post by **Covent** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:55 am

ishy wrote:That was the FAQ that said for two-weapon fighting you need a free hand to use armour spikes and other non-associated weapons.
But only for two-weapon fighting, for example you don't need a free hand to use armour spikes with AoOs right?

Yep, and you can TWF with armour spikes and kicks while carrying a heavy box that uses both hands as long as you do not attack with your hands...

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 12:38 pm

The rule they're trying to write, AFAICT, is you get 1x Str for your primary attack and 0.5x Str for your off-hand attack unless you're using a shield, and using it with a separate weapon brings penalties where using it as one attack on a two-handed weapon is fine.

But off-hand is just an abstraction. it can be a foot or elbow or knee-spike or whatever, it's just that PCs only ever get one of them and it doesn't stack with a shield. Not that they've ever gotten around to actually writing that into their rules, because reasons.

Monks then don't get off-hand attacks at all. They get flurry of blows instead, any and all combos you're trying to build with a Monk strike and another weapon with an off-hand addition will get a "wut? fuck no" from Paizo (and formerly WotC) every time.

Covent · Post by **Covent** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:18 am

*facepalm*

Now the argument "The sorcerer is weaker than the wizard and the arcanist will make both obsolete." has taken root in the paizo forums.

There are people seriously espousing the idea that sorcerers are so weak they are unplayable and need a rewrite.

I honestly do not know what to say.

Yes I admit late spell access sucks compared to wizard, however I am of the opinion wizard should not be the pathfinder balance point.

Multiple threads of this...

Just *ARGHHH*

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:32 am

The text you have in quotes is quite true. Paizils can still make it into fail though.

Ferret · Post by **Ferret** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 1:15 pm

yeah, I mean there's approximately zero reason to play a sorcerer or wizard if Arcanist is on the table. So that's not wrong, really.

Covent · Post by **Covent** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:14 pm

I just cannot see where anyone would say "Sorcerer is weak and needs a buff."

It's still a full arcane caster and can do most if not all of the shenanigans available to the arcane spell list.

Now are a wizard and perhaps an arcanist (I have not seen the final version so am withholding judgement, due to my recent overreaction and humiliation in another thread.) stronger? Yes, but I would argue that points more towards lowering the power of those classes than raising sorcerers.

I do admit though that perhaps my desired power level is not everyones.

I can see letting a sorcerer get access to spells at the same level as a wizard, I can even see eliminating the meta-magic casting speed penalty.

Aside from those however I would argue that most sorcerer's are fine regardless of bloodline due to being full arcane casters.

I know that the above are massive buffs, but most of the tables where I have seen them implemented did not see much difference in sorcerer play except the elimination of some frustration.

Antariuk · Post by **Antariuk** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:20 pm

Yeah, putting the sorcerer on the list of classes to be "unleashed" was a major WTF to me. There are still problems with that class but it's nowhere as bland as the 3.5 version, and even if the arcanist cruhes both sorcerers and wizards upon his arrival it's still just infighting between some of the top tier classes. Now I need to was my hands because I invoked JaronK.

What I find hilarious is that the thread asking to "unleash" the fighter hasn't seen a single response from any developer so far, but a lot of usual weird/bad proposals on how to fix it. However, I quite liked the idea to make the fighter some kind of prepared feat-caster, so to speak. Especially with the amount of situational, crappy feats PF has given us, you would at least get to use some of them.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:44 pm

The Sorcerer is obsolete. Completely and totally. The original Sorcerer is basically a playtest document on spontaneous casting with a bunch of extra weaknesses thrown in to make sure it doesn't overshadow everyone. The playtest was a success, people like spontaneous casting as a model.

But... people also want more flavor in their casters. So the next stage of the playtest was the Warmage, and that came back positive as well. With the feedback from that, even more finely tuned casters were made: Dread Necromancer and Beguiler, for example. And those were also a hit.

The Sorcerer is just a historical curiosity. It was an experiment, the experiment was a success, but there's no reason to play fucking prototypes anymore. We can play real classes, like the Dread Necromancer.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:55 pm

The Sorcerer casting progression is kind of handy for "spellcasting monsters" though. They don't quite have the same complexity or power as if they'd had Wizard casting, and it gets to be based off Charisma, which is the "Monster power" ability score (exception: Con is used for the Save DC when you attack people with bits of you or your digestive system). But it still lets MC choose some stuff off lists when they want to customise it, and still has an easy way to scale upwards.

That's pretty useful, and obviously benefits from being a bland thing without flavour or restriction (the Aranea is not dragon-blooded and did not make devil pacts, it just weaves spells as well as it weaves webs), and without having class features.

Honestly, they'd do well to have "The monster spellcasting progression" (hi, Sorcerer!), which does not have an attached class chassis, and then to have a bunch of specialist spontaneous casters like the War Mage, Dread Necro and so on.

zugschef · Post by **zugschef** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:14 pm

Koumei wrote:The Sorcerer casting progression is kind of handy for "spellcasting monsters" though.

This. And the sorcerer is a nice class for intelligent items (see tome). Maybe the sorcerer should simply be reduced to NPC class status. Real PC classes need more style.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:16 pm

Koumei wrote:
Honestly, they'd do well to have "The monster spellcasting progression" (hi, Sorcerer!), which does not have an attached class chassis, and then to have a bunch of specialist spontaneous casters like the War Mage, Dread Necro and so on.

It could replace (or augment) the spell casting NPC class. What was it?.. the adept. If you want to give more (or higher level) spells.

Covent wrote:I just cannot see where anyone would say "Sorcerer is weak and needs a buff."

Because while they gave the sorcerer more things, they also gave the wizard more (and nicer) things. So instead of closing the gap, and treating it as a serious thing in its own right, they sprinkled some flavor on it (and the number of things that give temporary use claws is frankly insulting) and called it a day. They once again missed the boat on turning it into a themed based or metamagic based specialist.

animea90 · Post by **animea90** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 5:53 pm

Covent wrote:*facepalm*

Now the argument "The sorcerer is weaker than the wizard and the arcanist will make both obsolete." has taken root in the paizo forums.

There are people seriously espousing the idea that sorcerers are so weak they are unplayable and need a rewrite.

I honestly do not know what to say.

Yes I admit late spell access sucks compared to wizard, however I am of the opinion wizard should not be the pathfinder balance point.

Multiple threads of this...

Just *ARGHHH*

The issue is wizard and sorcerer fulfil the same niche. Yeah wizards are better fighters, but it's less obvious as they have completely different roles.

Cyberzombie · Post by **Cyberzombie** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:05 am

Koumei wrote:The Sorcerer casting progression is kind of handy for "spellcasting monsters" though. They don't quite have the same complexity or power as if they'd had Wizard casting, and it gets to be based off Charisma, which is the "Monster power" ability score (exception: Con is used for the Save DC when you attack people with bits of you or your digestive system). But it still lets MC choose some stuff off lists when they want to customise it, and still has an easy way to scale upwards.

I think the beguiler style would be better for that as well, since you don't have to write out a spell list of spells known, your class already picks that for you. If you really wanted, you could make a note to add a few spells to the normal class list, so you could hand out variant spells as well.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:15 am

Nah, it's dead easy to just have the MM entry say "Spells Known: Cantrips (Acid Splash, Ghost Sound, Prestidig, Mage Hand), 1st Level (Magic Missile, Sleep)" and then if the MC wants that specific thing to be different he can swap them around. That means a limited spell list so the MC needn't keep track of too many options there, and also means it's not locked into a specific casting style.

The main creatures that actually are thematically a certain type don't actually get spellcasting, they're just handed SLAs (the Succubus would be a Beguiler, for instance, but doesn't get any spellcasting levels as is, she just casts Charm Person and Suggestion).

Rawbeard · Post by **Rawbeard** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:31 am

From my experience 3.5 players shit bricks at the mention of beguiler or dread necro. It's been a while since I got to express my hatred for the "human, elf, dwarf only" community I have access to. Fucking idiots.

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:43 am

I'm about to play a Gunslinger/Paladin in a level 5 PF game. All paladins in the setting a musketeers, so being a Gunslinger is required. Any advice on what I should and shouldn't do with this build? Mysterious Stranger 1/Divine Hunter 4 seems to be the way to go.

Count Arioch the 28th · Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:04 am

If the DM hasn't already done this, try to get him/her to adopt one of the alternate rules in Complete Warrior that makes firearms more common. If guns were simple weapons and guns/ammo cost 1/10 (and having access to advanced firearms through mid-levels is also handy), then they aren't THAT bad (still a bit overpriced, but 800g for a shotgun is better than 8,000g. And paying 1.5g per bullet is less bad than 15g per bullet)

Also convince the DM to allow modern firearms from Reign of Winter, they have automatic settings and deal even more damage.

Anything that gives negatives for good stuff is something you should look into, as negatives on touch attacks mean less. You should get a pepperbox or a revolver, and you should get rapid shot, and you are getting deadly aim. If it is feasible, grab some way of adding your dex to firearm attacks, the quickest way is 3 levels of the Trench Fighter archetype. Normally three levels of fighter is stupid, but two feats then adding your dex to damage isn't a bad tradeoff if you want to shoot people in the fucking face.

Edit: Obligatory link: http://gunshowcomic.com/30

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:13 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:You should get a pepperbox or a revolver

Can't do, has to be a musket.
Well, what I'm getting from this is that I shouldn't bother, and should just make a cleric. It's a one-shot, and gun rules sound like a lot of effort.

Count Arioch the 28th · Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:16 am

Longes wrote:
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:You should get a pepperbox or a revolver
Can't do, has to be a musket.
Well, what I'm getting from this is that I shouldn't bother, and should just make a cleric. It's a one-shot, and gun rules sound like a lot of effort.

You can make a half-assed character that can contribute with gun rules, but it's a lot of effort for something that can be beaten by, say, "playing a single-classed cleric" to give an example.

Krusk · Post by **Krusk** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:30 pm

Going near the pf gun rules is like begging the gm to fuck you. Even if they wouldn't normally you might just convince them.

Unless you get an awesome Gm who will go out of their way no to fuck you, you should not use those rules.

Axebird · Post by **Axebird** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:33 pm

Even with a kind GM that won't fuck you, until you're high enough level and rich enough to ditch the godawful misfire mechanic the dice just might.

Plus, without a way to add an ability score to damage (such as the Gunslinger's Gun Training, or just using a composite bow), you're going to find your damage lags behind a bit (Mysterious Stranger helps a bit, but limited Grit for it sucks). And you're forced to stand uncomfortably close to the thing you're shooting with a range increment of 40 feet.

And on top of that, feat taxes to get a free action reload speed and actually be able to full attack.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:24 am

Well, there is a "faux gunslinger" paladin archetype called Holy Gun, but personally, I would just try to convince the GM to run 3.5 Greyhawk, what with the fact that there is literally a gun wielding order of cowboy paladins in Greyhawk:

LeadPal · Post by **LeadPal** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:14 am

Prak_Anima wrote:Well, there is a "faux gunslinger" paladin archetype called Holy Gun

A terrible archetype that no one should ever play. Its smite evil equivalent is a single attack as a standard action, and is thus worthless shit.

I have a player running a multiclass gunslinger/paladin. It's effective, but that's at least partly because I'm a munificent GM. The gun rules are so annoying that I wouldn't play one myself unless I was getting at least a few concessions, like lower prices or modern weapons.