Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Koumei]

Well yes, Szatany's stuff did actually look interesting - and I have no qualms with making one class that has several key paths to choose from at level one rather than making several very similar classes. It's just that the two seem very similar, but Paizo did a shit job.

[Shadow Balls]

Now that you mention it, I think you are onto something.

[...You Lost Me]

On another note, I'm enjoying this thread. Two weapon fighting is just totally balanced, 'cause you're using up two feats to double your favored enemy, smite, and weapon spec. damage, right? That's worth 4+ feats, right?

[ModelCitizen]

That actually sounds reasonable for Smite. PF Smite Evil is a big enough per-attack damage bonus to maybe justify dualwielding. It might be wrong, I don't feel like doing the math right now, but it's at least not stupid.

However optimization based on Weapon Spec or Favored Enemy means you got some paint chips in your breakfast cereal.

[Fuchs]

That actually sounds reasonable for Smite. PF Smite Evil is a big enough per-attack damage bonus to maybe justify dualwielding. It might be wrong, I don't feel like doing the math right now, but it's at least not stupid.

However optimization based on Weapon Spec or Favored Enemy means you got some paint chips in your breakfast cereal.

Unless of course you're doing a PF adventure path and know you'll fight type X a lot.

[A Man In Black]

That actually sounds reasonable for Smite. PF Smite Evil is a big enough per-attack damage bonus to maybe justify dualwielding. It might be wrong, I don't feel like doing the math right now, but it's at least not stupid.

However optimization based on Weapon Spec or Favored Enemy means you got some paint chips in your breakfast cereal.

It works better for a fighter than a paladin. Fighters can afford take all of the bullshit PF feats that prop up TWFing like Double Slice (full STR on the offhand) and are getting their generic PF +X bonuses to damage on each attack. They can just about break even with a 2h fighter who doesn't have to trade off str for dex for TWFing feats.

Paladins, on the other hand, are strapped for feats and are the only non-spellcasting class in PF that don't have to lock themselves in a single weapon style. Trading off str and setting all your feats on fire just puts you behind on damage and wastes all your feats.

[Shadow Balls]

That actually sounds reasonable for Smite. PF Smite Evil is a big enough per-attack damage bonus to maybe justify dualwielding. It might be wrong, I don't feel like doing the math right now, but it's at least not stupid.

However optimization based on Weapon Spec or Favored Enemy means you got some paint chips in your breakfast cereal.

Unless of course you're doing a PF adventure path and know you'll fight type X a lot.

Even then, Favored Enemy is not an especially high bonus. 3.5 Bardsong is better, and affects the entire party against everything, and also boosts to hit. PF Bardsong is a lot weaker, but that still doesn't change the fact that favored enemy bonuses are low.

[fbmf]

To all of you above, my comment was just a refute to shadzar's post about how casters were the implied hotfix for fighters, because they are not. Not at low levels, and not at high levels. Not in a box. Not with a fox. When, as a player, I want my fighter archetype, I will ignore people who tell me to be a caster. However, as a player, when I want my rogue archetype, I will follow through with the ninja because it has the same damn flavor.

I am also game-illiterate, so please take it easy...

Die in a fire.

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
I warned you before about wishing death on someone. The first instance occured here:

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=237567#237567

You are the weakest link. Good bye.
[/The Great Fence Builder Speaks]

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
I was away for the weekend, but I tried to clean up some of crap out of this thread (Not just Shadow Balls. You know who you are.).

As you were.
[/TGFBS]

[Josh_Kablack]

Well yes, Szatany's stuff did actually look interesting - and I have no qualms with making one class that has several key paths to choose from at level one rather than making several very similar classes.

Well with a 3e-style open multiclassing system in place, you're probably better off going with a bunch of similar classes, just because Fighter / Barbarian / Ranger / Paladin multiclass is slightly more concise and informative than Juggernaut-Style Fighter / Two-Weapon Style Ranger when describing your character.

But in a 4e-style system where everyone is more-or-less on the rails from level one, and multiclassing isn't actually something that's suppose to happen, it's probably better to have a bunch of similar subclasses under one umbrella - because even if people don't know what the Juggernaut style does, they still know the basics of the class and what some of your ability options are.

[GâtFromKI]

Two weapon fighting is just totally balanced, 'cause you're using up two feats to double your favored enemy, smite, and weapon spec. damage, right? That's worth 4+ feats, right?

Actually, that's pathfinder's game-design: the two-handed fighter can deals more damages than anyone else, if he use all the two-handed feats (double slice, two-weapon rend, proficiency with a double weapon - to make your standard attacks and your AoO two-handed - , the weap. spe. tree, etc).

... And now you have a boring character who deals 10% or 20% more damages than a bard, and who can't do anything else. Personally, I'll always choose the character who deals 20% less damages (which is still in the field of "relevant damages") but can dispel, charm, DimDoor, terrorize, haste, bluff with a +20 bonus, etc. But SKR thinks it's a cool option to have a boring character with a few more damages, so it exist in Pathfinder.

[icyshadowlord]

SKR being an idiot when it comes to game design is as obvious a statement by now as saying human blood is red (unless you're a smartass, an idiot or a troll).

And I find it funny that the ONLY thing I like about Pathfinder nowadays is the fluff, but even then it suddenly starts to try and make me hate it with all the tasteless, pointless "grimdark" bullshit (rapist ogres, anyone?) and the whole "you can't kill demon lords, you're just player characters!!" fuckery (seen it at the Paizo forums a lot) that reminds me of Elminster while also making me think that the dev team loves their own monsters too much to let the heroes actually win. (I am looking at you, Second Darkness.)

Edit: I now wonder in retrospect, why did I even bother posting my opinion on the fluff here? It's not like anyone is going to give a shit.

[Fuchs]

Fluff respectively adventure hooks and ideas is all I take from PF.

[GâtFromKI]

On the paizo's forum, there are topics to create new and more balanced version of the monk and the rogue.

The general idea is "since those class are weak, let's give them new abilities. And let's add some trade-off for those abilities, since if there's no trade-off, the new class will be more powerful than formerly".

I can't think of any more retarded idea.

[icyshadowlord]

So instead of actually fixing anything, they're running circles around the actual problem?

I wish they'd forget how to breathe as well, because I refuse to share a planet with idiots of that magnitude.

[ishy]

Two weapon fighting is just totally balanced, 'cause you're using up two feats to double your favored enemy, smite, and weapon spec. damage, right? That's worth 4+ feats, right?

Actually, that's pathfinder's game-design: the two-handed fighter can deals more damages than anyone else, if he use all the two-handed feats (double slice, two-weapon rend, proficiency with a double weapon - to make your standard attacks and your AoO two-handed - , the weap. spe. tree, etc).

... And now you have a boring character who deals 10% or 20% more damages than a bard, and who can't do anything else. Personally, I'll always choose the character who deals 20% less damages (which is still in the field of "relevant damages") but can dispel, charm, DimDoor, terrorize, haste, bluff with a +20 bonus, etc. But SKR thinks it's a cool option to have a boring character with a few more damages, so it exist in Pathfinder.

Thing is some people actually like playing characters with few options. The fact that just dealing dmg is not a viable char after lvl ~7 makes it a trap option though.
But why I hate this particular design is because the paizo solution for if you want to do anything is, pay a feat. Which leads to a lot of shitty feats to do flavour things.
Needing so many feats for twf to become good is terrible, but if you have no other good feats to select than it doesn't matter.

[GâtFromKI]

So instead of actually fixing anything, they're running circles around the actual problem?

They are now arguing that the monk shouldn't be able to full-attack after moving, because it would allow a monk to kill an unprotected wizard sometimes.

[Josh_Kablack]

SKR being an idiot when it comes to game design is as obvious a statement by now as saying human blood is red (unless you're a smartass,

[smartass]
Human blood is only red in the presence of oxygen. However SKR has only committed idiot design when he has been in the presence of oxygen, so your analogy still holds. [/smartass]

[Leper]

[smartass]
Human blood is only red in the presence of oxygen. However SKR has only committed idiot design when he has been in the presence of oxygen, so your analogy still holds. [/smartass]

[pedant]Human blood is red regardless of oxygenation. It is simply a much brighter red while oxygenated. The common misconception that blood is blue when unoxygenated surmised by observation of the coloration of the veins is due to the color of the tissue, rather than the color of the blood that the vessels contain.[/pedant]

[Juton]

SKR being an idiot when it comes to game design is as obvious a statement by now as saying human blood is red (unless you're a smartass,

[smartass]
Human blood is only red in the presence of oxygen. However SKR has only committed idiot design when he has been in the presence of oxygen, so your analogy still holds. [/smartass]

[smartass]

Blood is always red, it can be dark red without oxygen or bright red with oxygen. SKR is an idiot without oxygen or with oxygen.

Sources:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/z ... o00624.htm
http://www.globalclassroom.org/blublud.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood

[GâtFromKI]

I agree with icyshadowlord, it's useless to state that SKR is an idiot and a troll.

Except I feel better each times I state it.

[Josh_Kablack]

Oh, we're going to play that game.

Well then, let's play that game:

Blood Pic 1

Blood Pic 2

HTML color chart

If we're talking about HTML colors, venous blood seems a lot closer to "firebrick" or "maroon" than to "red" to my eyeballs.

What about, the other type of color scheme most likely to be familiar to D&D players? There's this handy tool on the Reaper site: http://www.reapermini.com/PowerPalette/ where you can track each section of pixels from the blood bags....and when I do that "Nightshade Purple + Brown Liner" seems to be the most common color combo, and even when I specifically click on the reddest parts,"Burgandy Wine" still shows up far more often than "Red Brick"


However, none of this changes my desire to see SKR launched into deep space in the hopes it may improve his game design work.

[Winnah]

Sulphemoglobinemia will make human blood turn dark green. Long before it kills you.

Some morefacts and theories here. Interesting if a synthetic analogue for haemoglobin is developed, as the molecules responsible for gas exchanges can come in a variety of colours (theoretical).

[Username17]

Carbon Monoxide poisoning turns your blood bright orange.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

Summary of findings: there are numerous edge cases which cause blood to change colors. If you poison yourself with a bunch of specific chemicals, your autopsy will be pretty and festive. SKR is an idiot.