Pathfinder Is Still Bad

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

Fwib wrote:
momothefiddler wrote:...the party stumbled upon a... cultist, probably, I don't recall, and needed to take him out before he could alert his friends.

...it was 4e...
Shouldn't he have been a minion?
No. That is a really common doublethink defense from the 4e crowd, but there is no support for the "nameless mooks are always minions" line of thinking anywhere in 4e. It's not in the DMG or the MM and the official adventures absolutely do not follow any such design. Minions are just a way to turn one nameless mook into more nameless mooks who each individually die faster. That's the entire extent of the mechanic as intended and as used. Some generic sentries really do have fuck-off huge amounts of HP and some die in one-hit and it depends entirely on what the DM/module author felt like at the moment.

There is probably some DMG advice somewhere that boils down to "the DM can retcon NPC's into minions if he feels like and tell you to get fucked if he doesn't," but if you tried to stealthmurder nameless mooks in published adventures it would fail a fuckton of the time because they were not written with stealthmurder in mind.
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

4e's structure is 'standard-difficulty battles' and 'skill challenges.' Silencing a single guard is not a standard-difficulty battle, so it would be part of a skill challenge. Not that that's less of a train wreck, but it would camouflage the complete lack of being able to OHKO ordinary mooks from surprise.
User avatar
Dogbert
Duke
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:17 am
Contact:

Post by Dogbert »

The question is... why would anyone even try to play Solid Snake in d&d when that trope has never been supported by the game? Hell, 3E is the only edition that actually supports executing helpless foes.

People has yet to come to terms with the fact that d&d was not made to make sense, it's only purpose is to be the hobby's gateway drug.
Last edited by Dogbert on Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
maglag
Duke
Posts: 1912
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:17 am

Post by maglag »

Dogbert wrote:The question is... why would anyone even try to play Solid Snake in d&d when that trope has never been supported by the game? Hell, 3E is the only edition that actually supports executing helpless foes.

People has yet to come to terms with the fact that d&d was not made to make sense, it's only purpose is to be the hobby's gateway drug.
It's not a matter of making sense, it's a matter of modern trends.

Games with stealth elements are all the rage nowadays, from Assassin's Creed 671 to Batman Arkham Something to Metal Gear Plasma.

Similarly everybody nowadays seems to want super detailed crafting and market systems, that seem present in every bloody modern video game over the last few years, where originally in D&D your main source of bling was picking it up from the dead cold finders from your enemies.

Even freaking Zelda games have refined crafting and trading systems nowadays GGAAAHHH!!! In the recent years I finish RPGs with just "basic" gear and a metric ton of crafting components on my backpack/storage because I'm an hoarder at heart.
Last edited by maglag on Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Lurky Lurkpants
1st Level
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:37 pm

Post by Lurky Lurkpants »

There is a second version of the Vigilante playtest. I'm not going to even recommend downloading it for taunting, there is nothing there.

They took most of the abilities you got with level and stuck them into "Social Talents," but they still don't do anything you would generally want. You can upgrade "imitate a farmer" to "imitate a King" at level 17, but overall it is barely more choices than slots and a big chunk of them won't work for a campaign where "hiding from authorities" isn't the main focus.

You don't become a Commoner in your Social Identity anymore, but that isn't much. Also, inexplicably, it says if you use your Vigilante abilities in your Social Identity people can use Perception to tell you are more than you seem. I'm not sure how that works in a world where the herbalist is probably also a bomb throwing Alchemist and the Baker is a retired adventurer, but that is kind of par for the course as to how tone deaf this design is.
Orca
Knight-Baron
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:31 am

Post by Orca »

For the most part the PF team has taken the feedback, decided that 'a few more fiddly bits' is the answer and continued with the plan basically unchanged.

The vigilante is weak at combat and for some reason they've been so conservative with the out of combat abilities that there's little reason to play one in an intrigue-based game either as far as I can see.
Last edited by Orca on Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Antariuk
Knight
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:25 am

Post by Antariuk »

You forgot to mention the most insulting detail: the official playtest ends at July the 20th, and after that you can post one comment in a special afterthought thread until August the 17th. At the same time, they still prefer people to make "real" playtests in ongoing campaigns instead of deconstructing the math of the actual class abilities, so this seems legit. Oh wait, it doesn't.
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." - Steven Brust
User avatar
TOZ
Duke
Posts: 1160
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:19 pm

Post by TOZ »

The latest blog post tells me that the devs looked at all those creatures that are strong or immune to mind-effecting effects and said "we need to give spell casters a way to bypass that".
Antariuk
Knight
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:25 am

Post by Antariuk »

To be fair, they just made it easier - you already have options to inflict vulnerability to mind-affecting shenanigans on creatures that would normally be immune to that, such as Threnodic Spell for example.
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." - Steven Brust
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

TOZ wrote:The latest blog post tells me that the devs looked at all those creatures that are strong or immune to mind-effecting effects and said "we need to give spell casters a way to bypass that".
Does Pathfinder give an option for sword & arrow guys to bypass physical attack immunity (such as from ghosts and massive /DR)?
Orca
Knight-Baron
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:31 am

Post by Orca »

OgreBattle wrote:
TOZ wrote:The latest blog post tells me that the devs looked at all those creatures that are strong or immune to mind-effecting effects and said "we need to give spell casters a way to bypass that".
Does Pathfinder give an option for sword & arrow guys to bypass physical attack immunity (such as from ghosts and massive /DR)?
Kind of. +3 & better enhancement bypasses material type DRs, +4 & up beats alignment DRs. Ghost touch is a weapon enchantment which does what the name says. Cyclonic is a weapon enchantment which lets arrows bypass those pesky wind walls. Clustered shots is a feat which lets all of your ranged weapon attacks in a round stack before applying DR.

That said it sounds like a boost to Casterfinder is coming.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Wait, DR works like that now? Goddammit, Pathfinder...
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User avatar
Prak
Serious Badass
Posts: 17350
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Prak »

Orca wrote:
OgreBattle wrote:
TOZ wrote:The latest blog post tells me that the devs looked at all those creatures that are strong or immune to mind-effecting effects and said "we need to give spell casters a way to bypass that".
Does Pathfinder give an option for sword & arrow guys to bypass physical attack immunity (such as from ghosts and massive /DR)?
Kind of. +3 & better enhancement bypasses material type DRs, +4 & up beats alignment DRs. Ghost touch is a weapon enchantment which does what the name says. Cyclonic is a weapon enchantment which lets arrows bypass those pesky wind walls. Clustered shots is a feat which lets all of your ranged weapon attacks in a round stack before applying DR.

That said it sounds like a boost to Casterfinder is coming.
Ok, so the feat is nice. But everything else relies on charitable DMs/Ye Olde Magick Item Shoppe/caster buddy.

It'd be really nice if martials could just get a way to bypass DR without a magic item, or could just make basic magic items on their own.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.

You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
User avatar
Orion
Prince
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Orion »

Why even have DR at that point?
User avatar
Archmage Joda
Knight
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:30 pm

Post by Archmage Joda »

So, a while back (I mean so many pages I don't even begin to remember precisely where), someone mentioned something about being able to make the bard a good arcane gish-in-a-can. How in Pathfinder would one make a good fighting bard (the actual bard class, not a skald or anything like that), preferrably with a sword of some sort. I know everything eventually loses to full casters, but my group never plays anything past level 8-10, so high level crap isn't a concern.
User avatar
Prak
Serious Badass
Posts: 17350
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Prak »

Orion wrote:Why even have DR at that point?
Why have DR if magical enhancements are going to cut through anything given enough pluses?

Fluff-wise, DR is supposed to represent monsters being resistant to weapons but weak to one specific thing. Usually this is to emulate myth- werewolves and vampires being harmed by silver, demons and fae being harmed by iron, etc. So it's a flavor thing that happens to have a mechanical impact. With fae and demons, it should really be just fluff, with a side of "put away the quarterstaves and clubs" because cold iron is stupid and goes completely against the idea of the myth it's trying to emulate. Werewolves should probably just get regeneration so that it's entirely possible to beat them down with whatever's on hand, but they won't stay down unless you're using silver. I could see doing something similar with vampires, giving them a weakness to silver and fire and perhaps making explicit reference to the whole "stake it, decapitate it, and burn the whole fucking thing" method of vampire destruction as a way to kill it once you've beaten it into submission.

In fact, I'd almost say that regeneration shouldn't even get a number, that it should just be "all damage from sources that aren't X is nonlethal" and then Fast Healing should be written as #/(time unit) rather than being specifically X/round. So Trolls would have Regeneration (Fire, Acid) and FH 5/round and Werewolves can have Regeneration (Silver, magic, energy attacks) and FH Con Mod/Hour or something.

Monsters that take extra damage from a sort of weapon should have Vulnerability rather than DR. So Fae and Demons have Iron Vulnerability and take double damage from iron weapons, and demons and vampires have Blessed Vulnerability and take double damage from weapons which have been ritually blessed by a god opposed to them. And if you smack a demon with a blessed iron weapon, yes, it takes four times as much damage (or three times if you want to stick with D&D's weird math).

DR should be reserved for things that are actually resistant to damage in general, but not unkillably so, with some attack forms that get through that. Something wrapped in a hard shell should probably have DR X/Bludgeoning, and maybe a trait where if you deal enough damage, they lose their DR because you've smashed through their shell. Skeletons having the same deal because of all the empty space is cool too, but there might be a better way to model it. Maybe piercing weapons have a miss chance against skeletons.

I could even get behind sparing use of something like "Indomitable: The monster cannot be damaged at all, even nonlethally, except by specific weapons noted parenthetically" so the Nemean Lion is a huge fuck all lion with Indomitable (bludgeoning, internal damage) to say that it's skin can't be broken and you have to attack it's insides to kill it. So a club is fine, you're trying to break bones and inflict internal trauma, and grappling it and choking it to death is cool too. And of course you explain that it in it's stat block. And then you have some very rare boss monsters who have shit like Indomitable (mortal forged weapons) who boast about how no weapon forged by mortal hands can kill them, and the PCs have to go find a divine weapon or realize that the "forged" part is very important and lay about him with clubs, stone-headed arrows and weapons made of pure magical force.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.

You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Orca
Knight-Baron
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:31 am

Post by Orca »

If you have a GM who doesn't allow you to buy the weapons you need, doesn't give them to you as treasure, who uses monsters which are immune to normal attacks and you've decided to play a non-casting character in Pathfinder anyway I'd say you've made your bed of nails, now lie in it.

That said there's usually a way to get what you want if you're willing to pay the feat tax. In this case you take the master craftsman feat then craft magic arms and armor. It still hurts because you're sacrificing feats at the same time you hit +6 BAB - which is when a martial character generally wants to get manyshot or improved TWF or lunge or greater {combat maneuver} or something. If possible it's cheaper/better to get some PC with actual casting to just get craft MA&A but the option is there.

The way Prak describes regeneration is about the same way it was handled in AD&D. I think it was changed because it was a bookkeeping PITA. Greater use of vulnerabilities wouldn't be a bad idea though in my opinion.
User avatar
rasmuswagner
Knight-Baron
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 9:37 am
Location: Danmark

Post by rasmuswagner »

Archmage Joda wrote:So, a while back (I mean so many pages I don't even begin to remember precisely where), someone mentioned something about being able to make the bard a good arcane gish-in-a-can. How in Pathfinder would one make a good fighting bard (the actual bard class, not a skald or anything like that), preferrably with a sword of some sort. I know everything eventually loses to full casters, but my group never plays anything past level 8-10, so high level crap isn't a concern.
Easiest way is probably the Dawnflower Dervish ("Dervish of Dawn"). Play the Dex/Cha Aasimar, and use your FCB to boost Inspire Courage. You're using Dex to hit and damage, and your move-action self-only inspire courage provides +2 to hit and damage, +4 from level 4, and +6 from level 8.

The Archaeologist is pretty decent too: As an Aasimar, you will need to invest in Lingering Performance or other ways to get enough juice out of the Luck ability, but you're getting swift-action +2 to attack, damage and saves from level 1 (with the trait), +3 at level 4, +4 at level 8.

The Arcane Duelist is pretty much a trap.
Every time you play in a "low magic world" with D&D rules (or derivates), a unicorn steps on a kitten and an orphan drops his ice cream cone.
User avatar
Prak
Serious Badass
Posts: 17350
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Prak »

Orca wrote:If you have a GM who doesn't allow you to buy the weapons you need, doesn't give them to you as treasure, who uses monsters which are immune to normal attacks and you've decided to play a non-casting character in Pathfinder anyway I'd say you've made your bed of nails, now lie in it.

That said there's usually a way to get what you want if you're willing to pay the feat tax. In this case you take the master craftsman feat then craft magic arms and armor. It still hurts because you're sacrificing feats at the same time you hit +6 BAB - which is when a martial character generally wants to get manyshot or improved TWF or lunge or greater {combat maneuver} or something. If possible it's cheaper/better to get some PC with actual casting to just get craft MA&A but the option is there.

The way Prak describes regeneration is about the same way it was handled in AD&D. I think it was changed because it was a bookkeeping PITA. Greater use of vulnerabilities wouldn't be a bad idea though in my opinion.
Well, I'm glad to hear there is a way. In the D&D game I'm running right now I decided Item Creations feats could fuck right off and casters just get to craft items when they're the appropriate levels. If someone who wasn't a caster wanted to forge a basic magic sword I'd let them, with maybe a little* hurdle like "ok, buy some magic reagents. Yes you can just find them instead." I think I'm going to go that direction for magic gear in Midgard when I get back to writing that- anyone with magic can make swords that burn or crackle with with electricity or whatever, and even people who choose to not get any magic at all can do it with the right resources, like a fire giant's left nut or a svartalf forge or whatever.

I think I'm going to do damage resistant monsters the way I suggested D&D should too. Is Regeneration (Silver) really any more bookkeeping than DR 5/Silver? DR requires remembering it's there when the party wails on the thing without silver, while Regen (Silver) means they're just doing damage that can only knock it out without silver. And the fact that silver makes for a crappy knife means it's actually probably better to wail on the thing with real iron and then just cut it's heart out with a silver dagger when it's passed out. But I'm honestly asking, because I never played AD&D.

*little as in the smallest possible hurdle
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.

You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
ishy
Duke
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:59 pm

Post by ishy »

so Paizo's latest FAQ:
Wild armor and other transforming armor: When I use a wild armor and gain the armor’s benefits, what restrictions, if any, apply to me? In general, when I transform with a polymorph effect and some of my gear melds into the form, what restrictions do I have for melding with large amounts of heavy gear? What about other types of transforming armor?
If you were in medium or heavy load from encumbrance before transforming, you continue to take those penalties in your melded form. Otherwise, ignore the weight of melded items and calculate your encumbrance in your polymorphed form entirely based on non-melded items. When wearing melded armor and shields, if you gain no benefit from the melded armor, you still count as wearing an armor of that type, but you do not suffer its armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, or arcane spell failure chance. If you do gain any benefits (as with the wild property), then you do suffer the armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, and arcane spell failure chance. This also applies to all other situations where you or an armor transform: you always count as wearing an armor of that type, and if you gain any benefit at all from the armor (such as mistmail), you apply the armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, and arcane spell failure chance.
Specifically:
If you were in medium or heavy load from encumbrance before transforming, you continue to take those penalties in your melded form. Otherwise, ignore the weight of melded items and calculate your encumbrance in your polymorphed form entirely based on non-melded items.
Why the fuck would you pick the insane option? Why not pick between you always/never count the weight of melded items?

((side note: there are technically no rules that state you lose your armour bonus while wild shaping. It is heavily implied by the wild armour ability though))
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

It actually does, but in a extremely circuitous fashion. Wild Shape works as Beast Shape with a few exceptions (none of which mention armor), Beast Shape is a spell with the Polymorph Descriptor, and Polymorph spells specify you lose all armor and shield bonuses when you change into animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin forms. Although a very literal reading could lead one to thinking that since armor isn't a magic item giving you a constant bonus then you don't lose it (but you lose armor from Bracers of Armor for some reason).
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
ishy
Duke
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:59 pm

Post by ishy »

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:It actually does, but in a extremely circuitous fashion. Wild Shape works as Beast Shape with a few exceptions (none of which mention armor), Beast Shape is a spell with the Polymorph Descriptor, and Polymorph spells specify you lose all armor and shield bonuses when you change into animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin forms. Although a very literal reading could lead one to thinking that since armor isn't a magic item giving you a constant bonus then you don't lose it (but you lose armor from Bracers of Armor for some reason).
Wild Shape functions as the Beast Shape spell, but is still a SU ability and not actually a spell. Also the polymorph rules are oddly specific.
prd wrote:When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function).
[ . . . ]
You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.
Note how the melding rules only apply when you cast a polymorph spell on yourself. Also note how they specifically call out Wild Shape being different from a polymorph spell that is cast on you.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

I'm thinking my brain is refusing to understand that... Not saying your interpretation is wrong, but I am saying that the rules are stupid as hell...
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
karpik777
1st Level
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:24 pm

Post by karpik777 »

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Not saying your interpretation is wrong, but I am saying that the rules are stupid as hell...
Isn't it to be expected when talking about Pathfinder?
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

Dogbert wrote:Hell, 3E is the only edition that actually supports executing helpless foes.
How do you figure? In 1E AD&D, you could certainly kill sleeping or paralyzed enemies. You even had the assassin class and its stupid assassination table that had a flat percentage chance to kill enemies.
Post Reply