Pathfinder Is Still Bad

Orca · Post by **Orca** » Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:32 pm

Nebuchadnezzar wrote:Out of the idlest curiosity I'm asking the people who have paid more attention to PF than me if they know of any combinations that allow a character to adopt more than 2 archetypes within one class. I'd imagine that multiclassing would do so, as would the 3rd party multiclass archetypes, which I had not heard of before this thread. Thanks.

It doesn't cover all sources, but there's a list of possible combos here - http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthre ... st12555815

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:02 am

Out of morbid curiosity I've kept reading Mythic Adventures. In a (very abstract) way it reminds me of Bo9S. Not mechanically mind you. It seems like an attempt to see what the fan base will tolerate mechanics wise.

A rather timid and ill conceived attempt, but an attempt none-the-less. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Pathfinder 2.0,or at least 1.5, will be announced in the next two years, and it will use some of the tepid parts of Mythic Adventures.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:47 am

My guess is they'll wait and see what people react to with 5e. They know it will fail, because their buddies that bailed, like Monte & co, will have mentioned over a pint or two why it sucks so hard, but they'll want to see the public reaction so they know what memes to ride, and which to make a big deal about never doing themselves.

Antariuk · Post by **Antariuk** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:24 am

Juton wrote:[...] I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Pathfinder 2.0,or at least 1.5, will be announced in the next two years, and it will use some of the tepid parts of Mythic Adventures.

Do they really need a revision? It seems that sales are good, and even though they started to diversify with comics, card game, and PF:Online, I don't think Pathfinder 2.0 will be a topic unless the current iteration really has run its course.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:56 am

Antariuk wrote:
Juton wrote:[...] I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Pathfinder 2.0,or at least 1.5, will be announced in the next two years, and it will use some of the tepid parts of Mythic Adventures.
Do they really need a revision? It seems that sales are good, and even though they started to diversify with comics, card game, and PF:Online, I don't think Pathfinder 2.0 will be a topic unless the current iteration really has run its course.

Ultimately, yes.

They've increased their content, but it's not very well managed. The splat bloat alone will create some issues. But more importantly, the 3.x core that they used needed some updating. They've bolted on and repainted a few things here and there, but they haven't made any significant changes to the chassis. Pathfinder has the same 'problems' that 3.x had.

Eventually, Paizo will have enough people asking for Paizo's 'fix' and they'll release a new edition. Timing seems about right.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Juton wrote:A rather timid and ill conceived attempt, but an attempt none-the-less. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Pathfinder 2.0,or at least 1.5, will be announced in the next two years, and it will use some of the tepid parts of Mythic Adventures.

I also believe a new edition of Pathfinder is inevitable, but I thought it was interesting that Erik Mona claimed "we've sold more Core Rulebooks than the year before every single year since the Core Rulebook came out [..] This was not the case the year after the launch, for obvious reasons, but has held true since then."

So at least they haven't reached "peak Pathfinder" quite yet, if you believe his claims.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:19 pm

Antariuk wrote:
Juton wrote:[...] I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Pathfinder 2.0,or at least 1.5, will be announced in the next two years, and it will use some of the tepid parts of Mythic Adventures.
Do they really need a revision? It seems that sales are good, and even though they started to diversify with comics, card game, and PF:Online, I don't think Pathfinder 2.0 will be a topic unless the current iteration really has run its course.

Fuck, yes. There are pages and pages of pure shit, and every additional book has been of the 'shit thrown at walls' variety. And they still pull crap out of their ass about 'secret unwritten rules' that affect how they errata weapons and the monk and then talk about how the errata version was 'how it worked all along.'

And that doesn't even get to the base mechanic stuff that was sort of kind of kept partially unaltered from the 3e base. Ultimately the half-assed compromises that they made for their not-particularly-compatible compatibility act as a lodestone around the neck of the game.

They are pretty much incapable of having a good game until they sit down with actual design objectives and rehash the whole thing. Because the current mishmash is a poorly functioning morass. You can play games with it, but mostly it exists because it is the only currently supported version of D&D, not because the resulting mishmash is all that fantastic.

I suspect the 'Book of 10 Terrible Hybrid Mashups' is essentially the testbed for what gets to be the base classes of PF2. They'll probably mix things up and rename class so it looks like there is continuity with the D&D roots (either by incorporating elements of the successful hybrids into 'fighters' and 'rangers', or they'll just scratch the new name off the top and write in the old name).

Personally, I can't even create PF characters. I'll start looking things over, immediately drift to the casters (because the alternative doesn't even pretend to be viable) then get bored whilst buried hip deep in shoddily designed archetype variations and stop.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:10 pm

Given their design choices so far, I'm not at all convinced that a revision would be an improvement. I think they'd take the game down the road to sucktown. In this case, while 3E "compatibility" is an anchor dragging them back, it happens to be dragging them back from an even worse direction.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:26 pm

Ice9 wrote:Given their design choices so far, I'm not at all convinced that a revision would be an improvement. I think they'd take the game down the road to sucktown. In this case, while 3E "compatibility" is an anchor dragging them back, it happens to be dragging them back from an even worse direction.

I disagree, since it isn't keeping them from suck at all (nor is it real- just an excuse). Pathfinder is shit. While Pathfinder 2 could be even more shit, there is a chance that it could not be shit, while there is no chance that one day Pathfinder 1 will spontaneously not be shit.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:41 pm

PF is bad, but it's at least tolerable, and the supposed 3E compatibility often lets you make a case for pulling in 3E material to patch some of the holes. PF2 could easily be 4E levels of suck.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:44 pm

A PF2 will not preclude the continued existence of Pathfinder. The next release will likely focus on adventures with the understanding that conversion will be relatively easy. Paizo has a rather solid reputation for additional web content, so without too much difficulty they could provide PF1 statted monsters for some time after the conversion (and possibly PF2 conversion for PF1 adventures).

I seriously doubt that they'll achieve 4th edition levels of fail. The fact that they at least consider 'how will this fit into an adventure' for most of what they do precludes much of the failure to impact the environnment.

I just expect that they'll have seriously unbalanced options.

Rawbeard · Post by **Rawbeard** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:22 pm

I can see them making a Pathfinder 2.0 based on their MMO, should that actually not be still born. That would be hilarious.

Antariuk · Post by **Antariuk** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:30 pm

Rawbeard wrote:I can see them making a Pathfinder 2.0 based on their MMO, should that actually not be still born. That would be hilarious.

That would be something worth watching... from a safe distance.

I don't keep tabs on the progress of PF:Online, but given that Ryan Dancey is involved ("the Steve Jobs of MMO marketing"), I can only look back to EVE Online's vanity item fiasco and shake my head in disbelief.

The thing is that the MMO has mechanically nothing to do with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game because of restrictions in the OGL (I think?). So any game based on the MMO would by definition be something very different from Pathfinder's current form. Why should Paizo risk that if they can stay with d20?

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:26 pm

deaddmwalking wrote:I seriously doubt that they'll achieve 4th edition levels of fail. The fact that they at least consider 'how will this fit into an adventure' for most of what they do precludes much of the failure to impact the environnment.

I'd think the reverse actually. 4E's combat-locked powers were a bad idea, but not at all done by mistake. It really is a lot easier to make an adventure when you get rid of things like teleportation or divinations and tell everyone to color inside the lines only. Freed of "compatibility", I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo did just that. Of course they'd try to be less obvious about it than WotC was.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:52 pm

Ice9 wrote:PF is bad, but it's at least tolerable, and the supposed 3E compatibility often lets you make a case for pulling in 3E material to patch some of the holes. PF2 could easily be 4E levels of suck.

It isn't a matter of holes. Its the slightly different mechanics that interlock in a different way to 3e mechanics, and the wave after wave of shit that they've piled on.

If PF2 turns into another 4e than so be it. Nothing of value will be lost.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:27 am

Voss wrote:If PF2 turns into another 4e than so be it. Nothing of value will be lost.

Player base. An RPG is only as good as the ability to find players / MCs for it. Aka: the reason I'm running PF with 3E material instead of just 3E, and the reason I'm playing in a PF game instead of a 3E one.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:30 am

Voss wrote:
Antariuk wrote:Do they really need a revision? It seems that sales are good, and even though they started to diversify with comics, card game, and PF:Online, I don't think Pathfinder 2.0 will be a topic unless the current iteration really has run its course.
Fuck, yes. There are pages and pages of pure shit, and every additional book has been of the 'shit thrown at walls' variety. And they still pull crap out of their ass about 'secret unwritten rules' that affect how they errata weapons and the monk and then talk about how the errata version was 'how it worked all along.'

If you think they're going to come up with 2nd edition Pathfinder because some guy on the internet says it sucks, I think you'll be sorely disappointed.

They'll come up with a 2nd edition when they think they'll make more money that way, Angry Internet Guy be damned.

Slade · Post by **Slade** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:02 am

The new issue over at the PF forums:

Temp bonuses/penalties are permanent if they last 24 hours till then they follow their own rules.

So RoE lowers Str bonus but not carrying capacity (unlike in 3.5).

Meaning Dual wielders prefer Bull's Str over the guantlets/belt of Str. Why? Because Temp bonuses aren't 1/2 because 1/2 hand weapons: only permanent bonuses do.

And Bull's Str boosts a Weapon Finesse users hit rate (Temp Str boosts always boost dam and hit).

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:09 am

You have placed these words in a syntactically correct arrangement and yet I am not enlightened.

Temporary bonuses have different rules for how they interact with dual-wielding? Why?

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:44 am

Slade wrote:The new issue over at the PF forums:

Temp bonuses/penalties are permanent if they last 24 hours till then they follow their own rules.

So RoE lowers Str bonus but not carrying capacity (unlike in 3.5).

Meaning Dual wielders prefer Bull's Str over the guantlets/belt of Str. Why? Because Temp bonuses aren't 1/2 because 1/2 hand weapons: only permanent bonuses do.

And Bull's Str boosts a Weapon Finesse users hit rate (Temp Str boosts always boost dam and hit).

How the fuck did they break that?! Was it really so hard to leave it at "if you can keep it up all day then you can use it as a prereq."

So they added needless complexity to it. Why am I not surprised?

Cyberzombie · Post by **Cyberzombie** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:08 am

name_here wrote:You have placed these words in a syntactically correct arrangement and yet I am not enlightened.

Temporary bonuses have different rules for how they interact with dual-wielding? Why?

In an effort to simplify temporary bonuses in Pathfinder, they don't actually add to your ability score as you'd expect. Instead every 2 full points of temporary bonus add +1 to all rolls relevant to that stat. So strength would grant you bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls. It doesn't actually change your strength bonus, but rather creates another unnamed bonus on top of it. Which means that if you've got a two handed weapon, you're not getting the 1.5x strength bonus, and if you're dual wielding you don't get your strength modifier halved, because it behaves like any other unnamed bonus to melee damage.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:17 am

The idea is if you have a spell-effect or poison or whatever that temporarily futzes with your stats, you just follow the rules in the spell itself, not recalculate your entire character from first principles.

Of course, how a +6 Spell stacks with a +4 Belt becomes an issue then. It's a fair idea, 3e's just not built to handle it. Doing away with all those 1/2 modifiers and things would be a good start, and that's where you get a 2nd edition of Pathfinder.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:51 am

Antariuk wrote:I don't keep tabs on the progress of PF:Online, but given that Ryan Dancey is involved ("the Steve Jobs of MMO marketing"), I can only look back to EVE Online's vanity item fiasco and shake my head in disbelief.

The thing is that the MMO has mechanically nothing to do with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game because of restrictions in the OGL (I think?). So any game based on the MMO would by definition be something very different from Pathfinder's current form. Why should Paizo risk that if they can stay with d20?

I just find it hilarious that Ryan Dancey claimed ttrpgs were dead in 2009 and thus jumped ship to EVE. But after that fiasco had to crawl back to pathfinder.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:28 pm

hogarth wrote:
Voss wrote:
Antariuk wrote:Do they really need a revision? It seems that sales are good, and even though they started to diversify with comics, card game, and PF:Online, I don't think Pathfinder 2.0 will be a topic unless the current iteration really has run its course.
Fuck, yes. There are pages and pages of pure shit, and every additional book has been of the 'shit thrown at walls' variety. And they still pull crap out of their ass about 'secret unwritten rules' that affect how they errata weapons and the monk and then talk about how the errata version was 'how it worked all along.'
If you think they're going to come up with 2nd edition Pathfinder because some guy on the internet says it sucks, I think you'll be sorely disappointed.

They'll come up with a 2nd edition when they think they'll make more money that way, Angry Internet Guy be damned.

Wow, Hogarth, you have completely shattered my illusions, disrupted my system of belief and completely changed how I think about the world.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:03 pm

Slade wrote:The new issue over at the PF forums:

Temp bonuses/penalties are permanent if they last 24 hours till then they follow their own rules.

Same thing they did with ability damage. It doesn't actually lower the ability score, only ability drain does that. Now you just get a -1 for every 2 points of damage.