Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[hogarth]

robbypants shared this link on bg (thanks man):

An older thread on the subject:
Sean K Reynolds: Feat Point System: Does it work?(DND, 3.5E)

[Otakusensei]

robbypants shared this link on bg (thanks man): http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/m ... ystem.html

hilarious.

Oh my fuck, has this man ever played Pathfinder? He has to be trolling with those numbers because they make no fucking sense.

Glancing over the list I see him making Combat Casting a 10 point feat and Combat Reflexes a 7? Well, fuck yes I wanna play by that rule because I can make that "marginally useful" increase in the number of AoOs sing louder and more often than a +4 to the free Concentration check casters already get. I've been playing a caster for months and had to make a concentration check once. My tripstar wouldn't work without Combat Reflexes.

I would be excited about abusing such a broken system but the this is so deeply flawed that it turns me off the whole system. What's the point of min-maxing if the system it's is unplayable?

Or is that the point?

Also, I'm sure he'll find new and creative ways to screw fighters with this change.

[hogarth]

Oh my fuck, has this man ever played Pathfinder? He has to be trolling with those numbers because they make no fucking sense.

The article in question long predates Pathfinder.

[Kaelik]

Also, I'm sure he'll find new and creative ways to screw fighters with this change.

Oh it does.

Here are some points for you:

1) Extend Spell 5 points.
2) Spell Focus 8 points.
3) Natural Spell 5 points.
4) Weapon Focus 11 points.
5) Weapon Specialization 10 points.
6) Anything in the archery tree 10 points.

Fuck fighters, buff Druids. The usual.

[nockermensch]

robbypants shared this link on bg (thanks man):

An older thread on the subject:
Sean K Reynolds: Feat Point System: Does it work?(DND, 3.5E)

Back when I first found about this link (here in TGD) I got convinced SKR is a troll. Those points seem to be backwards most of the time.

[nockermensch]

EDIT: Double post

[ishy]

Looking through the cleric list quickly for part the veil, it would appear that debilitating portent would make the target confused, with no initial save.

Wrong.

Part the Veil requires a spell which has a Will save to reduce or negate. Debiliating Portent doesn't. The effect has requirements of Will saves, but the spell itself doesn't.

In what way is the effect not part of the spell?

[Archmage Joda]

Travel + Artifice: Construct and taking levels in Veiled Illusionist gets you a nice chunk of wizard spells. You may consider not taking levels in VI at all with certain domains (like the aforementioned Artifice: Construct) as domain abilities like Construct and Flotsam are berserkly powerful. If you have feats to burn, taking Eldritch Heritage: Arcane and Improved Eldritch Heritage: Arcane gets you Arcane Bond (which fucking rules for clerics) and lets you cherry pick a wizard spell. There's tjeese that you can do with with prepared spell slots, pearls of power, and Robes of Arcane Heritage and/or Ampoules of False Blood to snag whatever wizard spell you want, too.

Good domains for your cleric are Charm, Darkness, Void, Luck (Imagination), Animal/Scalykind. There's also the druid domain of Eagle (for a familiar) which you can tjeese out with Familiar Spell and Magician Hats. If you have absolutely no shame and don't mind completely forgoing a prestige class -- not a bad idea in Pathfinder -- the Flotsam subdomain is your huckleberry. If you're really high level (like 15+) the Madness: Nightmare domain is a smorgasbord of goodness.

Clerics really made out like bandits in Pathfinder. The nerfs they got were very tiny and the buffs they got were pretty huge. The only things you'll really miss are divine power and heavy armor proficiency, along with some (very tiny) domain nerfs like to Trickery. The only class that did better in powerups in Pathfinder than the cleric is the sorcerer.

Going back to this cleric fuckery, how would I best be able to squeeze some swordery into that as well, assuming a Cleric with the Void and Travel Domains? Or would I be better served not bothering with a sword at all and just focusing feats and such on purely magic?

[Lago PARANOIA]

What kind of resource expenditure were/are you willing to sacrifice and what level ranges were you planning on playing at?

If you're starting at low level and don't plan to get past level 8, two of Charm, Darkness, and Travel will serve you better than Void.

At any case you should be a cleric of the Samsaran race and plunder spells from the ranger and paladin list.

[Archmage Joda]

well, I'm just working on a build skeleton at the moment, but were I to play this cleric, it'd likely be at lower levels, something like 5-10. As for resource expenditure, I would be ok with expending some money and/or a couple feats, but nothing that hurts my ability to lay down the awesome with magic.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Go cleric archer, then.

L10 Samsaran Cleric, favored Weapon Bow.
Feats:
1: Point Blank Shot
3: Rapid Shot
5: Eldritch Heritage: Arcane
7: Craft Wondrous Item
9: Manyshot

Suggested Magic Items: Prayer Bead of Karma, Boots of Speed, +1 Courageous Longbow, Greater Bracers of Archery, Alternate-slotted http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/won ... lcon-s-aim, Wayfinder with an Orange Prism Ioun stone (cracked version), and of course gloves of archery and headbands of wisdom and cloaks of resistance and all that happy horseshit.

[Archmage Joda]

Still recommending swapping Void for Charm or Darkness then? (Honestly, more likely Darkness, Charm just doesn't really seem my thing)

Edit: On a related note, which pathfinder cleric domains tend to be good for the largest level ranges?

[Lago PARANOIA]

If your DM isn't going to let you use Planar Binding as-written then yes.

[NineInchNall]

In what way is the effect not part of the spell?

In the same way that a stunning screech used by a vrock conjured via summon monster is part of the effect of the summon but not part of the summon spell, which is defined by a list of characteristics including level, school, spell resistance, and saves.

That said, debilitating portent really should have a different Saving Throw line. It should probably read "None; Will negates, see text" or something.

[ishy]

In what way is the effect not part of the spell?

In the same way that a stunning screech used by a vrock conjured via summon monster is part of the effect of the summon but not part of the summon spell, which is defined by a list of characteristics including level, school, spell resistance, and saves.

That said, debilitating portent really should have a different Saving Throw line. It should probably read "None; Will negates, see text" or something.

That is not the same at all, a summon spell summons a creature. Then that using screech is a creature using a super natural ability.

Debilitating portent is a spell that allows you a will save to ignore its effect every round.

Spells don't need to have any text on that specific line to allow people to save against the spell. See for example disguise self.

- Edit:

L10 Samsaran Cleric, favored Weapon Bow.
Feats:

Would you skip precise shot? And don't you need skill focus before you can take eldritch heritage?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Would you skip precise shot? And don't you need skill focus before you can take eldritch heritage?

I would skip precise shot, yes. Attack bonuses are easier to get for Pathfinder clerics than 3.5E clerics.

Good catch on Skill Focus, though. I copy-pasted that feat progression from a human character and forgot all about why I had that and other skill focus feats in the first place. Replace Manyshot with Eldritch Heritage then and put Skill Focus where it used to be. And just take Manyshot at level 11.

[DSMatticus]

There is absolutely no save against the effect of debilitating portent, which is what the line "Saving Throw none" means. It is incredibly unambiguous. Now, while under the effects of debilitating portent, you may trigger saving throws because the effect of debilitating portent calls for saving throws. If you fail at the saving throw, you are under the effects of debilitating portent and the triggering action is modified in a particular way. If you succeed at the saving throw, you are under the effects of debilitating portent and the triggering action is not modified. There is absolutely no series of events where you ever save to resist the effect of debilitating portent, and the fact that the effect itself has variable outputs based on the outcome of saving throws it generates does not change that. Part the Veil even makes it painstakingly clear that it thinks the rules work that way and wants you to think that they work that way too:

allows a Will saving throw to negate or reduce the spell’s primary effect.

[NineInchNall]

That is not the same at all, a summon spell summons a creature. Then that using screech is a creature using a super natural ability.

Debilitating portent is a spell that allows you a will save to ignore its effect every round.

Spells don't need to have any text on that specific line to allow people to save against the spell. See for example disguise self.

Disguise self doesn't allow a save to negate or reduce its primary effect, which is to change the appearance of the caster.

Debilitating portent doesn't allow a save to negate or reduce its primary effect, which is to surround the target with a glowing green aura of fate that forces the target to make subsequent Will saves when certain conditions are met. If it did, the target could make a save and then not have to make further saves.

[...You Lost Me]

Just a personal tidbit: I was visiting my local used bookstore, and I'm now seeing Pathfinder material there for the first time. The 3.0 content has been sitting there with an Earthdawn core book since ever, and a huge influx of 4e books (by huge I mean 10-15, most games have 3 or so) came about a year and a half ago. But this is the first time Pathfinder has hit the shelf. I finally got to look at the point-buy races from the ARG and man are they funny.

[Sigil]

Yeah, the point buy races you can generate really point out how shitty some of the races they made actually are. Heck, given the fact that they show the point values of their extant races, and they're often below the maximum, you could take them, add points to them, call them the same thing and play them.

[...You Lost Me]

I was thinking of the power disparities. I think you can get +6 to a mental stat and SR 11+lvl at 10 points if you take a vulnerability. Da hell.

[Whatever]

The point values are nonsensical, so you shouldn't use them to evaluate whether a given race is balanced or not. I mean, the chart says "small human" should cost as much as "medium human" and that's crazy.

Edit. Goblin is a 10 point race, but here's a 4 point race that's also much better:
+2 int, +2 dex, -2 cha (free)
small (free)
speed 30' (free)
bonus feat: improved initiative (2 points)
darkvision (2 points)

[GâtFromKI]

The race book isn't about creating balanced races, it's all about arithmetic exercises. You create a race, then you make some additions and obtain a number. That number has nothing to do with anything, it doesn't represent the power of your race or anything useful: it's just a number you obtained using arithmetic operations.

If you have a child who doesn't like arithmetic but like RPG, you may find it useful.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So it's like combining Math Rabbit Deluxe with the Pokemon trading cards?

[ishy]

helpless prisoner looks like an interesting feat