Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

What do you expect from other Paizils and sheep who believe everything that is fed to them?

[TOZ]

Sheep shit?

Oh, you were being rhetorical.

[virgil]

Also.

If a weapon doesn't have the trip special quality listed on the chart of weapons on pages 142–143, you can't use it to trip foes. Whether or not we should have given this quality to things like spears or quarterstaffs or nets is a different topic—in order to trip a foe with a weapon, the weapon HAS to have the trip special quality. As to why we didn't give more weapons this quality, it all has to do with the way we decided to balance the rules for each weapon. Giving a weapon the trip special quality makes it better, which means it either has to become more expensive or less effective in other areas.

I was double checking the SRD, and wasn't it already the case that only weapons that specifically say they can be used to trip could be used to trip in place of an unarmed melee attack?

[Username17]

I was double checking the SRD, and wasn't it already the case that only weapons that specifically say they can be used to trip could be used to trip in place of an unarmed melee attack?

It's frankly unclear and no one really cares. The deal is that in the basic rules the only effect of being a "trip weapon" is that you can drop it to avoid a counter trip if you were being subjected to one. But since 95% of trips are made by Tripstars or wolves, who don't get counter tripped in any case - it doesn't matter and no one cares. There is some discussion as to whether you can use your weapon bonuses for the initial trip touch attack. But it's a touch attack, so no one gives a fuck (by the time you have a big enough enhancement bonus on your glaive for it to matter, you won't be missing a melee touch attack anyway).

About the only place it actually makes any difference is whether you can use a reach weapon to trip a fool. And honestly, Tripstars use Spiked Chains anyhow, so whatever.

-Username17

[A Man In Black]

Except that this is PF, and there is no touch attack any more, and your weapon bonuses apply directly to the CAB/CAD roll.

[TOZ]

Which doesn't matter cause no one trips in PF anyway.

[Roy]

Which doesn't matter cause no one trips in PF anyway.

Lies. They trip all the fucking time. Except instead of using it as an offensive and support measure against their enemies, they do it to their own feet.

'It hurt itself in its confusion!' indeed.

[Psychic Robot]

I thought trip weapons only allowed you to make trip attempts without provoking an attack of opportunity. Saying that you can't trip with a dagger? Well, okay, since that doesn't make much sense. Saying that you can't trip with a quarterstaff? That's pretty lame.

[schpeelah]

That ruling also implies you can't trip with your legs, since otherwise it has no effect for non-reach weapons.

[TOZ]

An arcane bonded weapon must be wielded in order for it to have effect. This, unfortunately, does mean that two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components. Carrying a 2-handed weapon in one hand isn't "wielding" it... you're just carrying it. You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object.

A feat or class ability that lets you use a 2H weapon's swings and stabs and motions as your somatic component would be pretty interesting... but nothing in the core currently lets you do that. Your best bet in this case is to only cast Still spells or spells without somatic components.

Pathfinder hates Arcane Archers too.

[A Man In Black]

Wait, doesn't that lead to retarded results for staffs, which are two-handed weapons?

Staves are only 2H weaopns when you hit folks on the head with them. A magic staff is not a weapon. It's a magic staff; it's different than a quarterstaff (although some magic staffs can be USED as quarterstaves). You can use a staff and shoot spells from it with one hand (see Lord of the Rings or any other movie/story/picture of a wizard with a staff, pretty much), or cast spells, PROVIDED you're not wielding said staff like Little John (aka: Wielding the staff as a weapon).

I can't sigh hard enough.

[hogarth]

I was double checking the SRD, and wasn't it already the case that only weapons that specifically say they can be used to trip could be used to trip in place of an unarmed melee attack?

Yes, it was clear in the SRD combat section that you could trip with "an unarmed melee attack" or "ome weapons" (i.e. specific types of weapons).

And then they changed the wording in Pathfinder, just mentioning "melee attack" in the combat section and saying "you can trip with a trip weapon" in the equipment section. And now James Jacobs (ptui) is claiming that it means the same thing as it used to. Yet another example of de-clarifying the rules.

[Wyzzard]

Wait, doesn't that lead to retarded results for staffs, which are two-handed weapons?

Staves are only 2H weaopns when you hit folks on the head with them. A magic staff is not a weapon. It's a magic staff; it's different than a quarterstaff (although some magic staffs can be USED as quarterstaves). You can use a staff and shoot spells from it with one hand (see Lord of the Rings or any other movie/story/picture of a wizard with a staff, pretty much), or cast spells, PROVIDED you're not wielding said staff like Little John (aka: Wielding the staff as a weapon).

I can't sigh hard enough.

I know what you mean, reading that quote made me feel 10 years older.

In the end I had to go through it again and replace every instance of "staff" with "cock" to cheer myself up.

Cocks are only 2H weaopns when you hit folks on the head with them. A magic cock is not a weapon. It's a magic cock; it's different than a quartercock (although some magic cocks can be USED as quartercocks). You can use a cock and shoot spells from it with one hand (see Lord of the Rings or any other movie/story/picture of a wizard with a cock, pretty much), or cast spells, PROVIDED you're not wielding said cock like Little John (aka: Wielding the cock as a weapon).

Funny thing, it almost makes more sense like that..

[Roy]

[Crissa]

Pathfinder is breaking into the nearby gamestore and infecting the people I play with (yes, I know people ask why I play with them...)

So, what /is/ the final result on some of this stuff? I can't seem to make heads or tails of what they think they're doing.

-Crissa

[Username17]

Pathfinder is breaking into the nearby gamestore and infecting the people I play with (yes, I know people ask why I play with them...)

So, what /is/ the final result on some of this stuff? I can't seem to make heads or tails of what they think they're doing.

-Crissa

The final countdown is this:

• You're not allowed to use the monster as a player rules because they are over powered, instead of the other way around.
• Special combat maneuvers don't work at all, and there are even less worthwhile melee builds. The San Diego Supercharger still works.
• Don't play a Rogue.
• Many (but not all) spells have been nerfed in exchange for spellcasters having their DCs increased by 1-2. Since spellcasters choose their own damn spells, this is basically just a powerup.
• You have to look up fucking everything, because even the basic Fire Giant has like a +1 here and there that requires you to read it over when using it.

-Username17

[DeadlyReed]

Monsters have been made MORE powerful? Egads.

[Kaelik]

Monsters have been made MORE powerful? Egads.

No. The Monster as player rules are "too powerful."

So basically...

Paizo looked at a level 6 character with 6HD, a +10AB, and no SLAs besides Greater Teleport. And decided that was too powerful, instead of a piece of shit. Because you know, teh Greater Teleport breaks the game because they can't railroad.

[A Man In Black]

The upshot is that the PF monster-as-player rules are even MORE sketchy and even LESS useful, if that's possible. They're not much more than "You can play a monster as a player character if you want, I guess."

The rules in entirety:

Using one of the monsters presented in this book as a character can be very rewarding, but weighing such a character against others is challenging. Monsters are not designed with the rules for players in mind, and as such can be very unbalancing if not handled carefully.

There are a number of monsters in this book that do not possess racial Hit Dice. Such creatures are the best options for player characters, but a few of them are so powerful that they count as having 1 class level, even without a racial Hit Die. Such characters should only be allowed in a group that is 2nd-level or higher.

For monsters with racial Hit Dice, the best way to allow monster PCs is to pick a CR and allow all of the players to make characters using monsters of that CR. Treat the monster's CR as its total class levels and allow the characters to multiclass into the core classes. Do not advance such monsters by adding Hit Dice. Monster PCs should only advance through classes.

If you are including a single monster character in a group of standard characters, make sure the group is of a level that is at least as high as the monster's CR. Treat the monster's CR as class levels when determining the monster PC's overall levels. For example, in a group of 6th-level characters, a minotaur (CR 4) would possess 2 levels of a core class, such as barbarian.

Note that in a mixed group, the value of racial Hit Dice and abilities diminish as a character gains levels. It is recommended that for every 3 levels gained by the group, the monster character should gain an extra level, received halfway between the 2nd and 3rd levels. Repeat this process a number of times equal to half the monster's CR, rounded down. Using the minotaur example, when the group is at a point between 6th and 7th level, the minotaur gains a level, and then again at 7th, making him a minotaur barbarian 4. This process repeats at 10th level, making him a minotaur barbarian 8 when the group reaches 10th level. From that point onward, he gains levels normally.

GMs should carefully consider any monster PCs in their groups. Some creatures are simply not suitable for play as PCs, due to their powers or role in the game. As monster characters progress, GMs should closely monitor whether such characters are disruptive or abusive to the rules and modify them as needed to improve play.

[FatR]

These rules actually make monster charactes hell of a lot more powerful, compared to 3.X.

[mean_liar]

[*] Special combat maneuvers don't work at all, and there are even less worthwhile melee builds. The San Diego Supercharger still works.

The last iteration I saw of this was that you actually can trip giants with a reliable, 75% or so chance if you were spec'd to it.

What, the one you last posted during the Beta playtest when the rules were different?

If you want to look up the new rules, go right ahead. I'd like to hear what you consider an acceptable result beforehand, however, so you don't do any goalpost-moving after you do the actual calculations.

Given you no longer get a free attack, 80%-90%.

It was 50%-60% in 3.5, close to 0% in PF.

Note that in Pathfinder you do get a free attack (well, an attack of opportunity) but it takes three feats (Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Greater Trip) instead of two.

A fire giant in Pathfinder has a CMD of 31.

Let's say our level 10 tripping fighter has Improved Trip and Greater Trip and generally uses a tripping weapon. His CMB is (conservatively):
10 (BAB)
+ 7 (Str)
+ 4 (feats)
+ 2 (weapon enhancement)
+ 2 (weapon training)
----
+25

So he succeeds only 75% of the time, unless he can squeeze some more bonuses in there (like Weapon Focus, Haste, bard song, etc.). But note that that's better than the 50%-60% quoted for 3.5.

A Man in Black had the right answer -- the combat maneuver system is worse than 3.5 because now it takes a bunch of fiddly bonus stacking to succeed, and combat maneuvers eventually become pointless anyways. That's not the same as saying it's impossible to succeed.

So how has that been refuted? It looks like it ultimately works.

[Username17]

So how has that been refuted? It looks like it ultimately works.

The refutation is simple:

• That's more feats than the 3.x character spent.
• The actual effects aren't as good, because you get stripped of your bonus attack, so even if it "worked" it wouldn't be any good.
• The CMB numbers rely upon an interpretation of the CMB rules that is not backed up in the stat lines of the sample characters. Which doesn't mean it's wrong, but does mean that I am skeptical.

Speccing for special combat maneuvers doesn't work. Yes, there is a non-negligible chance of attempting and succeeding on one, but it doesn't work as a character to try to do it. Your chances of succeeding are less and the actual effects of succeeding are much less.

-Username17

[hogarth]

So how has that been refuted? It looks like it ultimately works.

The refutation is simple:

• That's more feats than the 3.x character spent.
• The actual effects aren't as good, because you get stripped of your bonus attack, so even if it "worked" it wouldn't be any good.

Note that either the first complaint applies or the second one does -- PFRPG Improved Trip + Greater Trip is actually better than 3.5 Improved Trip (everyone gets an attack of opportunity with Greater Trip, not just the tripper).

Crissa, the main criticism I have is that PFRPG changed a thousand different things from 3.5 and you have to pore through the rules to figure out what they are. Some are mild improvements, some make the game worse, but most are just change for change's sake.

[Rathe]

Seriously, 3 feats instead of 2? You lost me right there.

Feats are those things that are supposed to make you special, stuff that you would highlight on your resume as it were. You only get a couple of bullet points, having to waste them even moreso than in 3.5 should be a crime.

[hogarth]

Monsters have been made MORE powerful? Egads.

Some are more powerful for their CR (e.g. golems). Some are less powerful for their CR (e.g. dragons). There was a bunch of tweaking. Again you have to pore through the rules to figure out what the difference is.