Heya, looking for serious answers to help inform a friend

[Damocles]

Need some reasons why pathfinder is bad. I mean, we know it is, but I dont have the books and need to give him informed reasons on why not to bother with it. Also in specific, how rogues in PF are weaker than 3.5.

Thanks =D

[OgreBattle]

Need some reasons why pathfinder is bad. I mean, we know it is, but I dont have the books and need to give him informed reasons on why not to bother with it. Also in specific, how rogues in PF are weaker than 3.5.

Thanks =D

Well first off, is he already having fun with Pathfinder? If so, it's kind of in poor spirits to try to force him to not have fun.

But really, there's a gigantic thread called "why pathfinder is still bad" that goes into detail about EVERYTHING. If you have time, just read through it.

[GhostRock]

I'm moreover looking for specifics and major points that are present in the system that legitimately makes it a bad system in general. I've heard the story about the company's past, but I'm trying to examine the system as specifically as I can from a rules standpoint.

I understand that there are some who still feel hurt on this subject of what Paizo may or may not have done to ostracize testers and former fans of the system itself but I'd like to examine the rules in spite of this.

Mind you, I've been condemned for standing by how I like the system. This is mainly due to the fact that I have not seen any blatant examples of horrifically overpowered and unbalanced material that may or may not be present in this system when comparing the rules to the similar 3.5 system. For this fact, I'm looking as many specific examples of problems that can be found within the system itself when compared with 3.5 or in general.

[koz]

You clearly haven't pushed hard enough. It took me five minutes to figure out the Feat Ninja, and that's an exploit that's made several PF-lovers scream in denial. Worst part is - it's barely what I consider passable.

[GhostRock]

What is this and where can I find information about it?

[Wrathzog]

Honestly, Pathfinder ain't bad per se. It's really not any better or worse than 3.5E. I think it's more like it didn't go as far as it could have to meet its full potential and a bunch of changes weren't necessarily improvements.

Regardless,
I like what they did with Skills
I like the concept of Class Archetypes.
I like how they handled polymorph effects.

and also:
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51845

[shadzar]

its bad because it is built off of 3.x edition, meant to replace 3.x edition, and like 4th.. just didnt set out to make a new game but tried to keep 3.x alive.

of course this is because they wanted to look like 3.x to compete with 4th so that 3.x players could closely keep playing their games and have them supported.

otherwise if you like 3.x and want a few changes, PF should work for you.

is really like AD&D <=> Hackmaster in its differences to 3.x

[koz]

What is this and where can I find information about it?

Go here. Read the exact wording on Combat Trick. Then read the exact wording on Forgotten Trick. Then realise what this actually means. Go nuts.

[Seerow]

What is this and where can I find information about it?

Go here. Read the exact wording on Combat Trick. Then read the exact wording on Forgotten Trick. Then realise what this actually means. Go nuts.

Wow there's not even an action cost associated with that. That's hilarious.

[Leress]

What is this and where can I find information about it?

Go here. Read the exact wording on Combat Trick. Then read the exact wording on Forgotten Trick. Then realise what this actually means. Go nuts.

Since I don't have the Pathfinder book, and before saying how good this is: Is there a clause in the rule book that states that if an ability gives you a feat that you must meet the requirements?

If No: This is very good.
If Yes: It's okay.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Wait, you...

Oh wow.

Combat trick should really say, "you have a bonus combat feat."

[TheFlatline]

What is this and where can I find information about it?

Go here. Read the exact wording on Combat Trick. Then read the exact wording on Forgotten Trick. Then realise what this actually means. Go nuts.

Since I don't have the Pathfinder book, and before saying how good this is: Is there a clause in the rule book that states that if an ability gives you a feat that you must meet the requirements?

If No: This is very good.
If Yes: It's okay.

Isn't it usually the other way around? Class abilities bypass the feat requirements.

So a ranger gains Two Weapon Fighting even if he doesn't have the dex score to buy it as a feat.

[Mask_De_H]

What is this and where can I find information about it?

Go here. Read the exact wording on Combat Trick. Then read the exact wording on Forgotten Trick. Then realise what this actually means. Go nuts.

I always assumed that worked like the RoW Fighter's Combat Specialist trick.

Huh.

[JonSetanta]

As I learned recently, magic weapon enhancements are usually "command word activated", which means you can only have one special bonus active at a time.

And it takes a standard action to activate it.

WOOOOOOOOO! Let's punish noncasters some more!

Say good bye to those +1d6 Fire +1d6 Acid +1d6 Cold weapons!

[erik]

Yeah, the command word standard action is almost universally ignored. I really don't know why they weren't just use activated, which is what we did in just about any group I ever played in and I've played with probably a couple hundred different people and scores of different DMs.

To answer the original post. It's just as Wrathzog said. It's just another 3rd edition game. Just like 3.5 was mostly 3e with a bundle of changes and some minor improvements and disimprovements, Pathfinder is much the same. There's 3e, 3.5 and 3.P. Just different flavors of the same soup.

[GhostRock]

Go here. Read the exact wording on Combat Trick. Then read the exact wording on Forgotten Trick. Then realise what this actually means. Go nuts.

Since I don't have the Pathfinder book, and before saying how good this is: Is there a clause in the rule book that states that if an ability gives you a feat that you must meet the requirements?

If No: This is very good.
If Yes: It's okay.

Isn't it usually the other way around? Class abilities bypass the feat requirements.

So a ranger gains Two Weapon Fighting even if he doesn't have the dex score to buy it as a feat.

There's usually a clause in the ability that says you can ignore the prerequisites for the ability being gained in the class description.

Since there's nothing like that here, I'm assuming that prerequisites must be met in order to gain any combat feat from this trick.

The versatility is nice but I'm not seeing any real problems if there's still a safety net of prerequisites and for the fact that there is still a cost and time limit on how long the newly gained feat can be kept.

[ishy]

If you're looking for exploits, look at the jumping. In 3.5 it was part of a move action, in pathfinder as part of an action. So if you talk in someone elses turn, you can make a jump check

[GhostRock]

Can you please link me to where this is stated?

[Red_Rob]

The versatility is nice but I'm not seeing any real problems if there's still a safety net of prerequisites and for the fact that there is still a cost and time limit on how long the newly gained feat can be kept.

There's a time limit on the Combat Feat?

Sure looks like there's a time limit on the Ninja trick to me. If you choose Combat Trick as a Ninja Trick then you gain a Combat Feat permanently. It doesn't say anything about only being able to use the Feat whilst you have the Trick, or losing the feat if you lose the trick that gave you it.

Basically, its clear their intention was for you to only be able to use the Feat for a few rounds using Forgotten Trick, but due to poor wording that's not how it plays. As per the RAW you get a Feat forever by spending 2 Ki points.

[koz]

I would also add that nowhere does it say that reqs have to be met. So frankly, you can dumpster-dive for epic feats if you feel like it and the GM drinks the backwards-compatibility Kool-Aid.

[koz]

I would also add that nowhere does it say that reqs have to be met. So frankly, you can dumpster-dive for epic feats if you feel like it and the GM drinks the backwards-compatibility Kool-Aid.

@GhostRock: You have it backwards. Reqs don't have to be met unless the ability granting the feat states otherwise. This was true in 3.5, and it's still true in PF unless they wrote a rule that states otherwise. Which they didn't, AFAIK.

[GhostRock]

The versatility is nice but I'm not seeing any real problems if there's still a safety net of prerequisites and for the fact that there is still a cost and time limit on how long the newly gained feat can be kept.

There's a time limit on the Combat Feat?

Sure looks like there's a time limit on the Ninja trick to me. If you choose Combat Trick as a Ninja Trick then you gain a Combat Feat permanently. It doesn't say anything about only being able to use the Feat whilst you have the Trick, or losing the feat if you lose the trick that gave you it.

Basically, its clear their intention was for you to only be able to use the Feat for a few rounds using Forgotten Trick, but due to poor wording that's not how it plays. As per the RAW you get a Feat forever by spending 2 Ki points.

One would assume that since the ability itself granted the feat when the ability ended, so would the feat. The feat would take the place of the ability while the ability was active as a type of proxy.

@Mister_Sinister
Here's an example where the wording of the bonus feats that are granted by the monk class say that you can gain the feats through the class even though the requirements are not met in the first place. Since this is in 3.5 I can assume by the logic that you've permitted that the same holds true in Pathfinder.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#bonusFeat

[LR]

The SRD rules are here. Pathfinder says that bonus feats are marked with a superscript B, but doesn't actually say that bonus feats don't require prerequisites. Of course, Pathfinder monsters are written as if that line is still there.

[koz]

Ghost: Absence of text stating reqs must be met can only be understood one way - that reqs don't have to be met. This is basic logic here, and as there's no value between 'must be' and 'musn't be', we have to work under that assumption. The monk is pretty much the only thing that has this wording, so lacking further examples, I have to fall back to logic to sustain it and treat this as an exception. For comparison's sake, look at the rogue's bonus feat in 3.5.

[Red_Rob]

One would assume that since the ability itself granted the feat when the ability ended, so would the feat. The feat would take the place of the ability while the ability was active as a type of proxy.

One would assume that someone designing a class explicitly intended to gain abilities for short term periods would have wording such as "You count as having any one Combat Feat you meet the prerequisites for, chosen when this Trick is gained, as long as you know this trick."

But, they didn't, and as "gaining" an ability doesn't provide any reference to losing it at any point, that's not how it works.