The Gaming Den

I'm trying to win an argument. Can people give me their 5 most egregious, most straightforward, most simple pieces of Pathfinder stupidity. Stuff like the Power Attack nerf.

I got to page 7 of the "Pathfinder is still bad" thread, but...it got progressively messier as it went.

Prone Shot or whatever it is for using a Crossbow prone.

The whole animal companion system.

The Combat Maneuvers system making maneuvers irrelevant

Frank smites PF: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083

EDIT: Also, Sean K Reynolds.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Frank smites PF: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083

EDIT: Also, Sean K Reynolds.

Here, have that in conveniently printable PDF:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1010547/Frank_ ... r-2009.pdf

I don't resent the things they changed so much as the things they didn't fix. Such as:

Monks
High level divinations
High level play in general
Caster/Non-Caster disparity
Spontaneous Casters getting slower progression

Two of those things are hard to fix. Not impossible, and it's not like there was less than a dozen potential fixes on the web as 3.5 was winding down. The other three I take as a direct 'Fuck You' to the player base.

"Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards" still exists, and is getting worse with the release of more supplements. Even Ultimate Combat, which was sold on the premise of "no spells, just martial awesomeness," had spells. There's not as much love mechanics-wise for noncasters.

Prone Shooter ain't the only one. There are options in Pathfinder which either don't do anything, or actually make you weaker (see their new VoP Monk).

Sean K Reynolds hates Monks, and never misses an opportunity to nerf them into Oblivion. He even tried to make Flurry of Blows count as Two-Weapon Fighting, penalizing Flurrying even further! There was a flame war about it on the Paizo forums.

FATAL & Friends did a very good job analyzing the game's flaws. A good point is in the Magic section, which summarizes a list of spells which completely invalidate entire skills. It also shows how many melee options got nerfed, effectively widening the caster/noncaster gap.

Prone shooter got errata'd in their faq to do something: basically +2 ac if you're prone. So still terrible, but at least does something now.

Monks also got the flurry errata'd reverted.
And it is not SKR who made that change in the first place Libertad.

But for me, the worst part in pathfinder is what they did to reach. A medium creature with a reach weapon, has a 10 ft reach. This means the creature can't attack adjacent squares, nor any diagonal squares.
Yet SKR clarified that the creature can take AoO if you approach it diagonally, you just can't attack diagonally.

ishy wrote:Prone shooter got errata'd in their faq to do something: basically +2 ac if you're prone. So still terrible, but at least does something now.

Monks also got the flurry errata'd reverted.
And it is not SKR who made that change in the first place Libertad.

But for me, the worst part in pathfinder is what they did to reach. A medium creature with a reach weapon, has a 10 ft reach. This means the creature can't attack adjacent squares, nor any diagonal squares.
Yet SKR clarified that the creature can take AoO if you approach it diagonally, you just can't attack diagonally.

So in synopsis SKR is just a gift that keeps giving (bad rulings).

The thing that hit me square in the face with Pathfinder was that their Mirror Image spell makes it impossible for archers and melee folk to hurt you like always, but they made it so targeted spells ignore the effect entirely.

Like, the key defensive ability of half the high level fiends is Mirror Image. Because it saved them being targeted with spells for a round or two. And now it doesn't. Because Wizards just weren't good enough. Seriously, they powered up Wizards and Clerics, deliberately.

Juton wrote:I don't resent the things they changed so much as the things they didn't fix.

This basically summarizes the one big complaint about Pathfinder -- it's like 3.5E, but with lots of random changes to confuse 3.5E players and which don't particularly improve the game.

Ikeren wrote:Can people give me their 5 most egregious, most straightforward, most simple pieces of Pathfinder stupidity.

There are a lot of instances of Pathfinder stupidity, but because Pathfinder obtains its legitimacy from doing the whole 'the gap between wizards and fighters is smaller!' we'll attack it from those grounds.

1.) Cleric domain super-buffing, especially ridiculous ones like Void and Artifice (Construct).

2.) Magical item creation is stupidly overpowered in Pathfinder.

3.) Pathfinder makes it much easier to engage in cross-list spell plundering.

4.) Pathfinder wanks to hell and back about the intricacies of planar binding. While it is more flavorful, it doesn't actually really change anything because the old methods of crushing the wills of your call still work and negotiates cost too much damn money.

5.) Wizard domain specialization is even more overpowered than in 3.5E.

hogarth wrote:This basically summarizes the one big complaint about Pathfinder -- it's like 3.5E, but with lots of random changes to confuse 3.5E players and which don't particularly improve the game.

The real problem with Pathfinder is that while it is definitely a step down from 3E D&D, it's not so much of a step down that you can ignore it. The simple fact is that Pathfinder production values rule and they have a production schedule that exists at all.

What makes wizard specialization more overpowered? Is it being able to use spell trigger items from other schools, is it classes like Thassilonian Specialist, or is it both?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:The real problem with Pathfinder is that while it is definitely a step down from 3E D&D, it's not so much of a step down that you can ignore it.

Pathfinder is no better and no worse than 3.5E D&D; they both have some decent stuff and a lot of garbage, and they have exactly the same issues with spellcasters being unbalanced compared to non-spellcasters. As I said, the most irritating thing is that they made a bunch of minor changes that just serve to confuse people who were familiar with 3.5.

Korgan0 wrote:What makes wizard specialization more overpowered? Is it being able to use spell trigger items from other schools, is it classes like Thassilonian Specialist, or is it both?

In 3.5, Specialization is just two things:

• A couple of schools are taken off your spell list.
• You get an extra spell per day of every level

There are some other things involving spell identification DCs and free spell selection and shit, but they don't matter. In Pathfinder, you still get the extra spell per day. In addition:

• The spells aren't completely removed from your spell list, and you can still use or even write scrolls of the spells in question. The "banned" schools just cost more to cast, so "downtime" spells like Planar Binding or Contingency aren't even affected by being on your "banned" list. And rainy day backup spells that you're going to put on a scroll but not actually prepare like Protection From Elements isn't affected meaningfully either.
• You get bonuses for your favored schools. Many of these bonuses are fairly dumb (like a bunch of extra Acid Splashes per day), but the fact that there is at least one of them that's fairly boss (and indeed there are several) means that the system is a considerable powerup.

It's not going to make the moon crash into the ocean or anything, but it's a raw powerup. Being a 3.5 Conjuration Specialist with banned access to Abjuration and Evocation is pretty awesome. As a Pathfinder Conjuration Specialist, you:

• Can still set up Contingencies even though you banned Evocation.
• Can still hook yourself up with Explosive Runes traps and shit even though you banned Abjuration.
• You get a bunch of free teleportation every day on top of your bonus spells.

It's all good. And that's for specialist wizards, who were already the most powerful characters in 3.5 D&D.

-Username17

Late in 3.5 when they were putting monkeys at typewriters*, WotC made a whole heap of stuff to make Specialist Wizards better - Double Specialisation (at this stage you're severely limited in Schools, but can probably find weird spells in your School that imitate those from others, so w/e), trade-your-familiar-for-Immediate-teleports and such. Oh, and feats that were largely worthless.

So it's not that surprising that Paizo did the same. And indeed, a lot of people like that low level Wizards get a bunch of piddly spell-likes to plink away with so that they're not using crossbows. And if it had stopped there, it'd be okay.

Anyway, as to the OP I would say that your mistake was in trying to win an argument. It's not going to work.

*Sadly, not bonobos.

Their decisions on 'balancing' things like Power Attack spoke volumes.

FrankTrollman wrote:Being a 3.5 Conjuration Specialist with banned access to Abjuration and Evocation is pretty awesome. As a Pathfinder Conjuration Specialist, you:

• Can still set up Contingencies even though you banned Evocation.

It's not like it made that much of a difference in the long run, a 3.5 Conjuration Specialist could already just use Shadow Evocation, assuming the DM wasn't the sort of fucknut that tried to pull the "Using the Shadow line of spells to cast buffs doesn't work because you'd autodisbelieve the effect" crap. God knows that was the only purpose that spell ever had anyway.

codeGlaze wrote:Their decisions on 'balancing' things like Power Attack spoke volumes.

Pathfinder slogan on FATAL & Friends:

"Because fuck Fighters, that's why!"

codeGlaze wrote:Their decisions on 'balancing' things like Power Attack spoke volumes.

I rankle when I read things like this, or that Fighters can't trip like they used to. Unless you had a trick in 3.5 to boost your attack bonus really high, then power attack was very nearly a waste of a feat. A shitty Fighter will do more damage using Pathfinder power attack than 3.5 power attack. What PF power attack really nerfs is gishes or some specific melee builds like Frenzied Berserker which aren't in PF anyways.

Hate on Pathfinder, it deserves it, just use valid criticisms. Goodness knows there are a whole metric fuckton of them.

I wonder when they'll get tired of pumping out caster splat books and finally release their own Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic knock-off... and how badly they'll make those classes suck. 'Course that would require that they actually admit that the PF fighter and Monk are still worthless... which is unlikely, but not impossible I guess, since their Ninja class might as well been named "Yeah, We've Given Up on Fixing the Rogue, Just Use This Instead"

sake wrote:I wonder when they'll get tired of pumping out caster splat books and finally release their own Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic knock-off... and how badly they'll make those classes suck. 'Course that would require that they actually admit that the PF fighter and Monk are still worthless... which is unlikely, but not impossible I guess, since their Ninja class might as well been named "Yeah, We've Given Up on Fixing the Rogue, Just Use This Instead"

If they include any type of limited use mechanic like ToB, spellcasting or Psionics those classes may still suck but will out perform the regular martials. They have shown time and again they don't know how to balance limited use vs. unlimited use powers. They will perform at the Bard level at the very least.

sake wrote:I wonder when they'll get tired of pumping out caster splat books and finally release their own Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic knock-off... and how badly they'll make those classes suck. 'Course that would require that they actually admit that the PF fighter and Monk are still worthless... which is unlikely, but not impossible I guess, since their Ninja class might as well been named "Yeah, We've Given Up on Fixing the Rogue, Just Use This Instead"

Holy shit, it's ADnD all over again!

Juton wrote:

codeGlaze wrote:Their decisions on 'balancing' things like Power Attack spoke volumes.

I rankle when I read things like this, or that Fighters can't trip like they used to. Unless you had a trick in 3.5 to boost your attack bonus really high, then power attack was very nearly a waste of a feat. A shitty Fighter will do more damage using Pathfinder power attack than 3.5 power attack. What PF power attack really nerfs is gishes or some specific melee builds like Frenzied Berserker which aren't in PF anyways.

Hate on Pathfinder, it deserves it, just use valid criticisms. Goodness knows there are a whole metric fuckton of them.

People complain trip is nerfed, because it is nerfed in pf.
I complain about the PA nerf, because now if you buff / debuff the enemies, + use basic tactics like flanking, higher ground etc. melee often hit on a 2.
Which causes some DMs to give creatures higher AC, thus summoned monsters and stuff now can often only hit on a 20.