Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[TOZ]

Pathfinder is not better than 3.5, it's just different. A lot of little changes that make some things better and others worse.

[DSMatticus]

This seems like " a lot of little things" maybe...does Pathfinder actually improve on 3.5 anywhere? Where are the most noteworthy, major places where it fails to?

The difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder is minimal, despite what people may claim here.

That's weird, because that is exactly what people claim here - that it's a slightly different game in which fighters suck and there are a bajillion and one options you don't care about but have to sort through in order to master the system.

Though, you do need to give the Pathfinder team some credit; their errata/FAQ work is a very significant level of stupid all on its own.

[Koumei]

(3)Not doing anything to the skill system. Certainly not anything that could improve it.

Actually, I'd call the skill system the least bad change, probably, seeing as:
1. IIRC, they decided "fuck synergy bonuses". If you have 5 ranks in Bluff it's because you want 5 ranks in Bluffit's to qualify for some weird feat, not because it adds +2 to Intimidate and Diplomancy.

Note: plenty of other things add +1, +2 or +7 to both Intimidate and Diplomancy, so they took a step forward, turned 360 degrees and moonwalked a few steps back with that one.

2. Skill consolidation. Okay, I try to avoid consolidating them when I run Tome games because just having "Knowledge" as one skill would trigger like five Tome [Skill] Feats, but if you're making a game fresh from the ground up or not starting with the assumption of Tome stuff, then it's a good move. Stealth, Perception, Acrobatics. Shame they didn't fold Perform back into one, Knowledge into one (mind you the main characters who want all the knowledges are Wizards who have so many skill points from Int that it barely matters) and maybe a few others. But they moved in the right step.

And then shat all over it by adding Fly as a skill. At least they didn't bring back Scry, Animal Empathy, Intuit Direction (or whatever the fuck it was) and Innuendo I guess.

3. Class and Cross-Class skills. The skill rank cap equals your level, whether it's a Class skill or not. Any skill rank costs one skill point, Class skill or otherwise. This is not only simpler to understand, it makes less of a catastrophic mess when multiclassing and such. This is such a good thing that I am willing to forgive the inclusion of the Fly skill. It isn't quite "Every skill is a class skill for everyone" though: if you have one or more ranks in a skill and it is a class skill, you get a +3 bonus to it.

Note that most of the traits end up being "you gain a +1 Trait bonus to X and Y skills. Choose one to become a Class Skill" (thus it actually becomes +1 and +4), and there is at least one that simply makes one skill of choice a Class Skill (so "gain +3 to this skill").

So they made a bunch of good changes, marred by bad changes as well, to one of the less-used parts of the game (though a part that typically takes enough time in character creation to be a bit annoying). But over all, the skill system improved. But not to the extent where people should ever be allowed to base a magic system on it.

[Sam]

3.x skills: characters have arbitrary numbers that don't correspond to level or to resources invested.

Pathfinder skills: characters have arbitrary numbers that don't correspond to level or to resources invested.

[Jeff W]

Pathfinder added way too much fiddly shit. Traits, Alternate Racial Traits, Favored Class Bonuses, Archetypes, etc. Their "FAQ"/stealth errata are labyrinthine and retarded, too.

They didn't really fix anything major like class balance, but at least all the material is free and it's a living version of d20 rules to serve as an alternative to D&D 5th Ed.

[Slade]

2. Skill consolidation. Okay, I try to avoid consolidating them when I run Tome games because just having "Knowledge" as one skill would trigger like five Tome [Skill] Feats, but if you're making a game fresh from the ground up or not starting with the assumption of Tome stuff, then it's a good move. Stealth, Perception, Acrobatics. Shame they didn't fold Perform back into one, Knowledge into one (mind you the main characters who want all the knowledges are Wizards who have so many skill points from Int that it barely matters) and maybe a few others. But they moved in the right step.

And then shat all over it by adding Fly as a skill. At least they didn't bring back Scry, Animal Empathy, Intuit Direction (or whatever the fuck it was) and Innuendo I guess.

Intuit direction was always knowing compass directions innately.
Survival does it know.

But perception is silly because being invisible makes you more quiet now. Because the spell improves Stealth not Stealth related to sight, but all stealth as it gives a flat bonus to stealth checks.

[Koumei]

Yes, and now either a dog can always see you because it can smell you and it perceives you so whatever, or turning invisible also means you have no scent. I am well aware that every time they patch something up, they create a new leak of their own, but the general idea of not having to put ranks into both "Don't get noticed because of ears" and "Don't get noticed because of eyes" is a good one.

[hogarth]

Pathfinder added way too much fiddly shit.

Pathfinder has exactly as much fiddly shit as 3.5E, plus or minus epsilon.

[virgil]

Pathfinder added way too much fiddly shit.

Pathfinder has exactly as much fiddly shit as 3.5E, plus or minus epsilon.

I am dead certain that the epsilon is not a tiny number. Yes, both Pathfinder and 3.5 changed rules & spells here and there, and I don't care to verify which changed more stuff. BUT, 3.5 didn't add traits, archetypes, & talent lists.

[Koumei]

BUT, 3.5 didn't add traits, archetypes, & talent lists.

Now I hate Pathfinder as much asmore than the next person, but let's see:

• Traits: I think they had the same actual name. Optional, they had a plus and a minus, most were boring and/or shit. Unearthed Arcana (same book that added Flaws, Racial Variants, LA Buyoff, Generic Classes, Magic-Touched Feats...)
• Archetypes: so "like X class but change some class features"? Totally a thing. Whether it's the UA stuff again, or the various "Elf Wizard" and "Eberron Bard" and such.
• Talent Lists: this is fair enough. Rogues used to be almost on rails until tenth level where there were a few options (or if you took Bonus Feat, a lot of options) and by then you knew what you were doing anyway. Monks had a couple of choices to make. Rangers had one choice at level one or two. And so on. Not every class had to treat every second level like they were a Sorcerer.

[virgil]

I forgot about the traits & class variants in 3.5, though I'll argue that they weren't as prevalent/expected as they are in Pathfinder.

I myself am amongst the majority here in that I feel the quality of 3.P to be a sidegrade. Many (including myself) do seem to be more bitter with the people in charge with 3.P than 3.5.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Pathfinder added way too much fiddly shit. Traits, Alternate Racial Traits, Favored Class Bonuses, Archetypes, etc.

In my very humble opinion, I don't think that a lot of the fiddly CharGen shit was a bad idea. People don't get enough stuff in d20 at first level so people often just blow past through it or end up resenting the low levels. On the other hand, a lot of the gimcrack Pathfinder added just sucks. Let's go down the list, shall we?

Traits: Meh idea. The bonuses tend to be pretty puny except for some OMG big ones. They should've been taken out of the game and just gave everyone more feats at first level. However, a lot of Pathfinder DMs have given our characters traits for free so the minor fail of traits has been counterbalanced by the minor win of extra first-level shit. Of course, Pathfinder spits on your puny tactical feats and ended up splitting a lot of the good feats into long chains (RIP Improved Trip) so W/E.
Archetypes: An excellent idea. Seriously, this is the best innovation of Pathfinder. I love prestige classes and all, but the problem with them is that I don't want to wait 5-7 levels to become an investigator or sacred fist. Archetypes (theoretically) do what prestige classes are supposed to do but does it at first level.
Alternate Racial Traits: A mildly good idea. Not only does this stereotype the races less but Pathfinder has avoided the useless race bloat that plagued 3E and 4E D&D. Pathfinder has fewer races than those editions AND the ones they have are more meaningful. Granted, it encourages min-maxxing but Pathfinder has shown a surprising amount of discipline not making certain racial traits 'must haves'.
Talent Lists: Good idea. What Koumei said. They work great in conjunction with archetypes.
Favored Class Bonuses: Terrible idea. It punches people in the nuts for multiclassing or taking prestige classes. Also it enforces racial segregation even more hardcore than the lopsided stat distribution of Pathfinder.

[TiaC]

PF is about the same for fiddlyness in character building, but worse in play. Every character has pools of stuff and 1/day abilities all over the place.

[Archmage Joda]

So, I like the idea of being able to be a caster and also good with a sword, namely, the gish type.

Unless you're abusing the spell-like ability prerequisite rules to get into Eldritch Knight, give up on the idea entirely.

Coming back to this, what about if you are using spell-like ability early entry? Does the eldritch knight route outclass the magus route to gishdom then?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Past a certain point, yes and by quite a bit. If you're two-weapon fighting with Improved Critical'd 18-20x weapons (get gloves of storing), you have a very high chance of proccing Spell Critical per full attack. If you go Hellknight Enforcer thereafter you can have a 16-17 BAB class, depending on what you took to get martial weapon proficiency, and be behind only two CL by level 20.

However, the first few levels are pretty brutal. You can't afford anything to get around the arcane spell failure chance penalty and thanks to motherfucking Pathfinder FAQ you won't get your spells/level if you go into it as a wizard or a witch. Fortunately, Pathfinder lets you craft magic items, including scrolls, without knowing the prerequisite spell so you don't have to suck the DM's or a party member's cock to fill up your spellbook like in 3.5E. It's still a pretty big hit to your finances.

The Magus will moderately outshine you for levels 1-7, have parity with you for levels 8-11 assuming both of you are min-maxxed, then you completely outclass it for the rest of the game. You could ease the transitional pain by doing something like playing a straight caster who is behind by two spell levels. You'll be as good as the Magus during the rough levels despite you being a cut-rate full caster, which goes to show you how crippled the idea really is to begin with.

[hogarth]

Archetypes: An excellent idea. Seriously, this is the best innovation of Pathfinder.

It's not even a Pathfinder innovation. Alternate class features were introduced partway through 3.5. The only difference in Pathfinder is that it's shorter on prestige classes and longer on ACFs. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[Jeff W]

Fortunately, Pathfinder lets you craft magic items, including scrolls, without knowing the prerequisite spell so you don't have to suck the DM's or a party member's cock to fill up your spellbook like in 3.5E. It's still a pretty big hit to your finances.

Hmm, are you sure about this? Scribe Scroll says "You can create a scroll of any spell that you know."

Also, in Magic Item Creation it says "In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting its prerequisites."

So, I don't think this is allowed RAW.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Whoops, you're right. Back to sucking DM and party member cock it is.

[Axebird]

Filling up your spellbook is a super cheap non-issue. Renting access to another caster's book to copy their spells is 50% of the cost of copying the spell, and that price is (Spell Level^2)*10, which is dirt cheap at every level. You're losing out on a very small amount of effective wealth.

Plus, the level of spellcasting available in settlements is pretty generous. Metropolis' go up to 8th level spells, so you're only ever going to really struggle to find 9th level spells.

[Slade]

So in other news, melee characters can do exponential damage now.

Pummeling Stance: full attack or flurry, the second attack deals 1st attack + its own damage, this continues till third, etc.

It counts as one hit as it is all pooled together. If one Crits they all share multiplier crit bonus.
Raw is any weapon, but some argue intent is unarmed.
Even a 10 Str monk is decent with it:
1st 3* damage
2nd 1$ damage + 3*
3rd 2 damage +1$ but a Crit

Means: 6 + 8 + 6= 20 damage.

I low balled damage to show good this thing is. Even a low damage dealing is dealing major damage with it.

[ishy]

Well if you're sucking cock anyway, SKR said that it is unclear whether you can teach a wizard a spell directly. So you could ask your DM if that is possible in her game, then learn the spell from another caster (bypassing the scroll cost) and write it in your spellbook with secret page (bypassing most of the scribing costs)

---

So in other news, melee characters can do exponential damage now.

Pummeling Stance: full attack or flurry, the second attack deals 1st attack + its own damage, this continues till third, etc.

It counts as one hit as it is all pooled together. If one Crits they all share multiplier crit bonus.
Raw is any weapon, but some argue intent is unarmed.
Even a 10 Str monk is decent with it:
1st 3* damage
2nd 1$ damage + 3*
3rd 2 damage +1$ but a Crit

Means: 6 + 8 + 6= 20 damage.

I low balled damage to show good this thing is. Even a low damage dealing is dealing major damage with it.

Uhhh, what is so good about it?
DR only counts once for your full attack and if you roll a crit, you get one crit conformation for all your attacks.
The feat table does describe it as: "Pool all unarmed strikes into a single powerful blow".
Great for an eidolon that focusses on unarmed strikes I guess.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Pummeling style seems like a decent feat (although I can't imagine taking the third part of the chain, but two feats for pounce is... nice, I guess? Seems like there are easier ways to get that).

Find a way to flurry with a heavy pick or a scythe is where my mind goes.

[Archmage Joda]

So, now that we have even more 2/3s casters in the hunter and the warpriest, how do the various 2/3s casters that aren't the summoner stack up against each other? Like, which is better between Magus and Alchemist? And inquisitor and bard are there too.

[Aryxbez]

This seems like " a lot of little things" maybe...does Pathfinder actually improve on 3.5 anywhere? Where are the most noteworthy, major places where it fails to?

The difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder is minimal, despite what people may claim here.

Like others, I also think you're probably underplaying the flaws of pathfinder. Course, also looks like your biased, but these are all also claims ye would probably make against me as well. I must've missed the post(s) where you refuted the prior mentions of Pathfinders flaws, otherwise beyond this post I'm not seeing it. A game that makes everything worse, doesn't solve the problems it claimed, relying on art & lies to sell itself is rather despicable (and I wasn't part of the playtest, but can see why Paizo deserves demise for it).

Even IF Pathfinder was the same game...there'd still be no point to it, when the same game exists already.

[Rawbeard]

The Investigator makes me sad, it's basically an expert with alchemy. He still makes people cry how much more awesome his combat prowess is compared to a rogue. Because Sneak Attack is so hard to get and does nothing, so there is that.

I still play one in a full campaign (till he bites the dust and gets replaced by a real class), because I am a moron, evidently.