Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[violence in the media]

@MGuy--25% may be "even" but if it is less effective than stabbing your opponent with a sword, as Roy said, no one will do it. The point is that you want people to be able to be effective at the things that the game allows and that they wish to do. 25% against an evenly-matched opponent isn't effective.

[MGuy]

@VITM-addressed this. (ninja'd)

[hogarth]

I understand what you mean. I don't like the changes to the conditions bull rushing/grappling/tripping now give you. So i'd just keep the 3.5 way. Even then I'd add in the ability to throw around a guy if you're strong enough to lift him off the ground.

I think grappling was nerfed too much in the Pathfinder Beta. Bull rushing, I don't care about other than to say it should be possible to push someone off a cliff somehow. Tripping in 3.5 I found a bit tedious because it would get spammed over and over again, and having monsters constantly flopping down like the Italian soccer team doesn't appeal to my sense of aesthetics.

@MGuy--25% may be "even" but if it is less effective than stabbing your opponent with a sword, as Roy said, no one will do it. The point is that you want people to be able to be effective at the things that the game allows and that they wish to do. 25% against an evenly-matched opponent isn't effective.

Sure, but I like to have at least a nod to reality. For instance, if an 8th level wizard wants to jump over a 100' wide canyon, it's O.K. to make that (almost) impossible to do and force him to cast Fly instead.

[RandomCasualty2]

@MGuy--25% may be "even" but if it is less effective than stabbing your opponent with a sword, as Roy said, no one will do it. The point is that you want people to be able to be effective at the things that the game allows and that they wish to do. 25% against an evenly-matched opponent isn't effective.

Well, it can be effective depending on circumstances. While simply dropping the sword on the floor, isn't so great, if you can use an open handed disarm to snatch the sword away (which as far as I can tell is the way to go), then you've basically taken away the offensive potential of most warriors.

Though honestly disarm seems to be more the sort of thing that a fighter would use on someone less combat experienced, like a rogue or a wizard with a metamagic rod.

I mean I really think that manuevers should be highly situational like that. Though there shouldn't be a feat like "Improved Disarm" it should just be "Improved Maneuvers" and give you a bonus to everything. That way you can select from a wide variety of options in battle. I hate the way 3.5 handles maneuver specialists where they just fucking spam the same maneuver over and over again.

"All I do is trip people." So lame.

Be nice if the maneuver guy could trip, disarm, sunder or whatever based on his need.

[Username17]

I mean I really think that manuevers should be highly situational like that. Though there shouldn't be a feat like "Improved Disarm" it should just be "Improved Maneuvers" and give you a bonus to everything. That way you can select from a wide variety of options in battle. I hate the way 3.5 handles maneuver specialists where they just fucking spam the same maneuver over and over again.

+1. This is a huge problem in the way 3e and 4e both do combat maneuvers. Using the same combat maneuvers in the same order every combat is mind numbing.

Sure, but I like to have at least a nod to reality. For instance, if an 8th level wizard wants to jump over a 100' wide canyon, it's O.K. to make that (almost) impossible to do and force him to cast Fly instead.

Damnit. Is this thread devolving into "Fighters can't have Nice Things (Volume 28)?"

-Username17

[hogarth]

Sure, but I like to have at least a nod to reality. For instance, if an 8th level wizard wants to jump over a 100' wide canyon, it's O.K. to make that (almost) impossible to do and force him to cast Fly instead.

Damnit. Is this thread devolving into "Fighters can't have Nice Things (Volume 28 )?"

If a wizard can't jump over a canyon, then fighters can't have nice things?

My point is: It's O.K. to have rules in the rulebook for "not-nice things" (i.e. maneuvers that aren't generally useful). Bull rushing an opponent doesn't need to make him explode like a barrel of nitroglycerin, because every once in a while someone's going to be standing next to a cliff and a PC will want to push him off.

[MGuy]

I mean I really think that manuevers should be highly situational like that. Though there shouldn't be a feat like "Improved Disarm" it should just be "Improved Maneuvers" and give you a bonus to everything. That way you can select from a wide variety of options in battle. I hate the way 3.5 handles maneuver specialists where they just fucking spam the same maneuver over and over again.

+1. This is a huge problem in the way 3e and 4e both do combat maneuvers. Using the same combat maneuvers in the same order every combat is mind numbing.

+2 Since combat maneuver have been boiled down to one static defense I can definitely get behind a one for all combat maneuver feat.

Sure, but I like to have at least a nod to reality. For instance, if an 8th level wizard wants to jump over a 100' wide canyon, it's O.K. to make that (almost) impossible to do and force him to cast Fly instead.

Damnit. Is this thread devolving into "Fighters can't have Nice Things (Volume 28)?"

-Username17

I don't want to say that a fighter can't use his ultimate move (A Full Nelson) on a giant. I would just like it that the fighter has to at least make an effort to gain competence in doing so before he goes at it with any regularity.

[virgil]

Except that the only thing the fighter has going for him is stabbing people in the face with a sword, and he has to devote effort to even stay competent at that. Meanwhile, our wizard friend isn't having devote any more than his memorized spells for doing more than blasting monsters in the face.

As an aside, where are casters getting fewer spells per day? From what I saw in the Beta and even the preview, it looked like wizards had just as many as before.

[hogarth]

As an aside, where are casters getting fewer spells per day? From what I saw in the Beta and even the preview, it looked like wizards had just as many as before.

In the Beta they changed the druid's and cleric's spells per day to match the wizard's (i.e. it maxes out at 4/level); that's not much of a change, though. The Beta cleric's domains also worked differently, but they'll be changed yet again in the final rules, I believe.

[virgil]

I think I remember the preview cleric getting a mention that the domain lists were coming back and were going to be much closer to how they were in original 3.5

[Voss]

Damnit. Is this thread devolving into "Fighters can't have Nice Things (Volume 28)?"

-Username17

Of course it is. It certainly was one of the primary design tenets of the PF Beta: spellcasters get more options, fighters get some +1 bonuses.

[MGuy]

Except that the only thing the fighter has going for him is stabbing people in the face with a sword, and he has to devote effort to even stay competent at that. Meanwhile, our wizard friend isn't having devote any more than his memorized spells for doing more than blasting monsters in the face.

By this thought process grappling at all has no point. You're just not gonna get the damaging returns you do through grappling as you do with stabbing someone. That's not so much a problem with pathfinder (though pathfinder hasn't helped thus far) as it is with grappling/bull rushing/tripping rules as a whole. To make these options any better you'd have to add on feat chains that make these maneuvers matter. Tripping you can do as part of an attack and you get an extra attack if it succeeds which makes it the primary maneuver of choice. Bull rushing is usable if the situation warrants it and you have Dungeon Crasher. Grappling has its uses at certain times but is far better for monsters to use then PCs because monsters can do more with a grapple.

As I said before I'm not opposed to fighters getting nice things but god damn it they still should have to expend one of their million feats to get bonuses on doing things. Besides TOME fighters can use any feat they want to anyway with their Array ability. Fighters are built to fight. They're range of feats are going to make them better fighters. Lets not forget that a major thing that makes wizards more powerful than the other classes is its versatility. That is a feature virtually exclusive to that class. If every class could do everything any time they felt like it as the Cleric/Druid/Wizard can than you'd get 4e's blandification.

[Kaelik]

You don't get to tell people not to criticize Pathfinder rules we do have just because they might have super rules that unlike all their shitty ones are awesome, but hidden from us.

I completely agree that it's your god-given right to discuss rules without knowing what they are, just like it's my god-given right to call you a moron when your wild-ass guesses turn out to be incorrect.

Now, do you have anything intelligent to actually contribute about the Pathfinder rules (either Beta, final, or otherwise)?

Why the fuck are you asking if I have anything to add to the discussion? Your official position is that we aren't allowed to talk about this at all.

That's your actual argument.

For all we know every monster in the "bestiary" gets a +200 deflection bonus to AC.

So You aren't allowed to say that Fighters can ever succeed, because you might be wrong.

It might be that even the most optimized Fighter in the universe is physically incapable of grappling a CR 1/4th Kobold. We don't know because they could change the Kobolds stats!

Shove it up your ass and die, either admit that we can talk about the fucking rules we have and treat them like the actual rules because they are actual rules, or you shut the fuck up right now and don't post in this thread again until you've read the entire fucking Pathfinder book and made absolutely damn sure that they don't have any errata.

[Neeeek]

If a wizard can't jump over a canyon, then fighters can't have nice things?

I'll put this as simply as possible, because you're a fucking moron, as you have proved with each and every post I've read.

By forcing fantasy characters to adhere to reality, you make the non-magic classes suck, because you limit them to what is "believable", while allowing the magic classes to do whatever they want, because them doing non-believable stuff is part of the price of admission.

[virgil]

It's good to be a wizard in Pathfinder. Specialists aren't barred from choosing divination as a prohibited school, and they can now use magic items out of their school without penalty, so scrolls of their prohibited school are the way to go. Also...

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory.

Hey look, wizards can get any spell they want without leaving their room. Don't have web? Just make a scroll of it, make the DC 13 Spellcraft check (DC 5 + 3 for caster level + 5 for not having the spell); and the rules for copying a scroll into your spellbook remain. And since they got rid of XP costs in item creation, money is your only limit; and I've yet to hear them ever dealing with fabricate or wall of iron.

[JonSetanta]

I mean I really think that manuevers should be highly situational like that. Though there shouldn't be a feat like "Improved Disarm" it should just be "Improved Maneuvers" and give you a bonus to everything. That way you can select from a wide variety of options in battle. I hate the way 3.5 handles maneuver specialists where they just fucking spam the same maneuver over and over again.

+1. This is a huge problem in the way 3e and 4e both do combat maneuvers. Using the same combat maneuvers in the same order every combat is mind numbing.

+2 Since combat maneuver have been boiled down to one static defense I can definitely get behind a one for all combat maneuver feat.

+3.
Samurai/Dynasty Warrior combos are fun in video games. The degree of control over effect, direction, and chaining is interesting and there are many ways to keep it fresh.

For RPGs, they are not fun to announce every round with your mouth.

Shorthand doesn't help; "I perform Combo Number 5!"

Que crappy 90s pop song.

[Kaelik]

It's good to be a wizard in Pathfinder. Specialists aren't barred from choosing divination as a prohibited school, and they can now use magic items out of their school without penalty, so scrolls of their prohibited school are the way to go. Also...

And if you want to, "Backwards compatibility means that all my characters can use stuff from obscure 3.5 books and not be even remotely compatible with Pathfinder but whatever."

You can ban Divination as one of your schools, then take the Spontaneous Divination sub level, and still cast Divinations from a single slot spontaneously, and all Wizard 5s are basically spending a feat to limit banned schools to 1, and spontaneously cast from Divination.

EDIT: and while I'm at it, fucking backward compatibility does not mean you can be a 3.5 character and pretend you have anything to do with Pathfinder, we went over this before but:

I saw a campaign journal of some Pathfinder adventure path. They started off as gestalt 3.5 characters, but the DM decided it was too much power, so he downgraded, and when they did, they decided to switch over to Pathfinder.

Here are some example characters:

Warlock//Favored Sould Gestalt:
Pathfinder version: Warlock/Favored Soul/Eldritch Disciple.

What fucking part of that is even remotely Pathfinder realted? They took two classes that don't exist in Pathfinder, then a combo PrC that blends the two and also doesn't exist in Pathfinder. It's a 3.5 character houseruled to have more feats. Fuck you.

Warblade/Artificer Gestalt:

Pathfinder version: Rogue 1/Warblade 10.

Fuck you again. That's not a Pathfinder character, it's a fucking Warblade with more feats.

[hogarth]

By forcing fantasy characters to adhere to reality, you make the non-magic classes suck, because you limit them to what is "believable", while allowing the magic classes to do whatever they want, because them doing non-believable stuff is part of the price of admission.

What do you think should be the probability of a level 8 wizard (with 8 Str, say) succeeding in jumping over a 100' canyon? I'm curious.

[TavishArtair]

100% unless he has banned Transmutation.

In which case he can't cast fly.

[Roy]

I'll put this as simply as possible, because you're a fucking moron, as you have proved with each and every post I've read.

Plus Fucking One.

Also, good find on the 'casters get even better, beatsticks are made of more Fail'.

[NineInchNall]

If we're going to have a nod to reality, what should be the probability of a level 8 wizard (with 8 Str, say) succeeding in waving his hands and flying over a 100' chasm?

The fundamental problem is that Fighter-types have options that are all based in reality; magic users have, ya know, magic, which is not bounded by any constraints of reality.

[MGuy]

I think he's not saying just that a wizard shouldn't have the physical ability to, without magic, jump over the chasm. I think its more of a suggestion to make a nod towards consistency than realism. A wizard doesn't get physical abilities they get magic. A rogue can flip, climb, etc anywhere, and a fighter should be the best sword technician, while a barbarian should hit things the hardest.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

The problem is that the wizard has a way around the chasm while the fighter doesn't. Not to mention the fact that the wizard has more effective ways than swords to hurt the opposition.

[MGuy]

We all know wizards can do everything more effectively than anybody. This has been covered time and again. However that's no reason to be inconsistent. Magic can do anything, its the phlebotonum of the fantasy world. I'm fine with not adhering to reality as long as such things are consistent. I don't want my wizards jumping over canyons because he shouldn't physically be able to without magic. However I am fine with fighters being able to jump over the same canyon as long as he doesn't suddenly gain magical powers to do so (aid from magic items and such being excusable). I'm a supporter of giving fighters super abilities that seem appropriate to its fighting style.

[Crissa]

That's awesome. Saying that a Fighter's supernatural jump over a canyon isn't game-term supernatural.

I'm all for that.

-Crissa