Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[hogarth]

If I read the text right you can intimidate someone in a social situation with antagonize and the target will have to attack you with a melee attack.

Or you can give the finger to a sniper 200' away and he has to sprint towards you in order to punch you in the nose. It's definitely in the lead as the worst thing I've seen so far in Ultimate Magic.

[Juton]

If I read the text right you can intimidate someone in a social situation with antagonize and the target will have to attack you with a melee attack.

Or you can give the finger to a sniper 200' away and he has to sprint towards you in order to punch you in the nose. It's definitely in the lead as the worst thing I've seen so far in Ultimate Magic.

Won't work because the sniper can't reach you. It will work in situations where the sniper is within running/charging distance though, so it is moderately useful, especially if you can't see the sniper yet.

[hogarth]

If I read the text right you can intimidate someone in a social situation with antagonize and the target will have to attack you with a melee attack.

Or you can give the finger to a sniper 200' away and he has to sprint towards you in order to punch you in the nose. It's definitely in the lead as the worst thing I've seen so far in Ultimate Magic.

Won't work because the sniper can't reach you. It will work in situations where the sniper is within running/charging distance though, so it is moderately useful, especially if you can't see the sniper yet.

A character with 30' move can sprint 200' in two rounds (the upper limit of the taunting effect).

Now you could argue that the taunting effect doesn't require you to sprint towards the taunter because the feat is too vague. Hooray for vagueness!

[Juton]

Antagonize
...
Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot reach you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a melee attack against you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

The sniper is 200 feet away, you successful antagonize. The sniper is prevented from reaching you, because the distance is too great so ostensibly it can make another attack. You can extend the effect for another round and sprint towards the sniper. Only now, since the sniper can reach you by sprinting will it move up. If you just double moved then the sniper gets to stay still.

This interpretation hinges on what it means when it says 'The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you'. If you think the creature has to make its best effort to reach you, even if it knows it can't then your interpretation is correct. If a creature knows it can't reach you, then it is prevented from reaching you then you interpretation is incorrect. There is an annoying degree of vagueness to this rule.

Edit(s): Formatting

[Lago PARANOIA]

What the crippity-crap? Is Sean K. Reynolds writing for Pathfinder?

Who gave that idjit a job writing RPG materials? He is like seriously the second-worst writer in the entire business. We're talking about a guy who offered to write overpowered feats in order to raise money for his motherfucking kitty cat.

[TOZ]

Hooray for vagueness!

I swear this is Paizo's main design goal.

Like the VoP line about the heirloom item that can be of 'some value'. When asked if that means the VoP Monk can have one super expensive magic item, JB answered with a definitive 'maybe'.

They just publish shit and say 'your DM will tell you how it works!'

[tzor]

I guess I have to come to the aid of Sean, after all, he did give me a dead greek (mini) at GenCon once (when I purchased his relatively crappy greek adventure thing, which he signed).

Clearly he is not the "second-worst writer in the entire business." You have whole product lines whose writers are piles of disgusting crap way beyond anything seen in D&D. There's the World of Darkness writers, the Shadowrun writers and they don't even compare to the total crap that is churned out by that stupid wargame company.

I'd say he was probably in the top twenty of "worst D&D writers" and probably in the top ten of "worst D&D rule writers" but even then, it's so har to say. I mean there is 4E and ...

[Fuchs]

Antagonize sounds like tailor-made to get enemy mages into melee range and make them waste an action at the same time.

[Xur]

If I read the text right you can intimidate someone in a social situation with antagonize and the target will have to attack you with a melee attack.

Antagonize

[...]
Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot reach you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a melee attack against you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

Yep, pretty much. I doubt they really thought this through... btw, can someone explain the reason for this feat in Ultimate Magic to me? I'm all for some extra bits of content, but why this little gem exists in there is beyond me.

Speaking of social stuff and d20 mechanics, two things that don't go well together, someone from the Den familiar with Dynasties & Demagogues from Atlas Games' Penumbra line? Its old, early 3rd edition era, but I heard some praise for it and was curious to check it out.

[A Man In Black]

What the crippity-crap? Is Sean K. Reynolds writing for Pathfinder?

As I understand it, SKR, Eric Mona, and James Jacobs are the core of Paizo's creative.

[Fuchs]

Speaking of social stuff and d20 mechanics, two things that don't go well together, someone from the Den familiar with Dynasties & Demagogues from Atlas Games' Penumbra line? Its old, early 3rd edition era, but I heard some praise for it and was curious to check it out.

I think I have it, but haven't read it in years.

[hogarth]

What the crippity-crap? Is Sean K. Reynolds writing for Pathfinder?

As I understand it, SKR, Eric Mona, and James Jacobs are the core of Paizo's creative.

Erik Mona is the Publisher; he's more on the business side, generally (planning various product lines including Planet Stories, etc.).

James Jacobs is the Creative Director; my understanding is that the "fluff" books and adventure paths are his babies (in terms of plot lines, editing, etc.).

SKR is a Developer; he and Jason Bulmahn and Stephen Radley-Boo work on the "crunch" splatbooks.

[TOZ]

Antagonize
Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making creatures angry with you.

Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier. You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimitade checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect.
Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.
Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot reach you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a melee attack against you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

Taunt

(Enchantment)

Range: 60 yds.
Components: V, S, M

Duration: 1 rd
Casting Time: 1

Area of Effect: 30-ft. radius
Saving Throw: Neg.

A taunt spell enables the caster to jape and jeer effectively at a single type of creature with an Intelligence of 2 or greater. The caster need not speak the language of the creatures. His words and sounds have real meaning for the subject creature or creatures, challenging, insulting, and generally irritating and angering the listeners. Those failing to save vs. spell rush forth in fury to do battle with the spellcaster. All affected creatures attack the spellcaster in melee if physically capable of doing so, seeking to use body or hand-held weapons rather than missile weapons or spells.

Separation of the caster from the victim by an impenetrable or uncrossable boundary (a wall of fire, a deep chasm, a formation of set pikemen) causes the spell to break. If the caster taunts a mixed group, he must choose the type of creature to be affected. Creatures commanded by a strong leader (i.e., with a Charisma bonus, with higher Hit Dice, etc.) might gain a saving throw bonus of +1 to +4, at the DM's discretion. If used in conjunction with a ventriloquism spell, the creatures may attack the apparent source, depending upon their Intelligence, a leader's presence, and so on.

The material component is a slug, which is hurled at the creatures to be taunted.

Also, SKR hates monks.

Is it really that terrible to want an iconic character concept to be good enough for normal play?

I think it's terrible to want a deliberately crippled character concept to be "good enough" that he's effectively not crippled.

Strangely, I don't see this sort of hubbub about the lack of options in the game to make the "blind warrior" iconic character concept "good enough for normal play."

Yet the blind seer(oracle), is not only playable but gets a pretty nice bonus for giving up their sight, as do all the disabled options for the oracle.

Power of the gods > ascetic serenity

Clerics worshiping a concept or idea get the same power as clerics worshiping a god, presumably because of the strength of their own will/faith/devotion. Wouldn't ascetic serenity be something like that level of devotion?

When a 20th-level monk is throwing about the equivalent of 3 9th-level cleric spells per day, that may be a valid comparison.

Also, referring back to idilippy's comment about the blind oracle: an oracle with the clouded vision curse isn't really blind in the sense that the "blind warrior" iconic character concept is blind. The oracle is super-nearsighted, the blind warrior is actually blind, can't see at all.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Is it really that terrible to want an iconic character concept to be good enough for normal play?

I think it's terrible to want a deliberately crippled character concept to be "good enough" that he's effectively not crippled.

Strangely, I don't see this sort of hubbub about the lack of options in the game to make the "blind warrior" iconic character concept "good enough for normal play."

Yet the blind seer(oracle), is not only playable but gets a pretty nice bonus for giving up their sight, as do all the disabled options for the oracle.

Power of the gods > ascetic serenity

Clerics worshiping a concept or idea get the same power as clerics worshiping a god, presumably because of the strength of their own will/faith/devotion. Wouldn't ascetic serenity be something like that level of devotion?

When a 20th-level monk is throwing about the equivalent of 3 9th-level cleric spells per day, that may be a valid comparison.

Also, referring back to idilippy's comment about the blind oracle: an oracle with the clouded vision curse isn't really blind in the sense that the "blind warrior" iconic character concept is blind. The oracle is super-nearsighted, the blind warrior is actually blind, can't see at all.

Why the fuck does this guy get hired? Why is it a good design decision to make cleric>monk? Doesn't this lead to the same wizard>fighter shenanigans which turn people off 3.5?

Oh wait, pathfinder's balanced.

[hogarth]

Why the fuck does this guy get hired? Why is it a good design decision to make cleric>monk? Doesn't this lead to the same wizard>fighter shenanigans which turn people off 3.5?

I actually have sympathy for SKR's comments most of the time (once I figure out what he's actually trying to say). For instance, I don't have a problem with players who want to play the game on "hard mode" (e.g. playing a blind character without getting a big boost in return). And he's right that the "blind" oracle is just near-sighted.

The problem I have is that his material (the books he writes and the comments he makes) tends to be ultra-conservative in terms of power levels. That would be fine if he were making his own game system from scratch, but it doesn't mesh very well with the average D&D power level.

So you end up with books like Savage Species, where you have the interesting idea of turning monsters into PC classes but the resulting classes are mostly weak to the point of unplayability. Or you end up with a module like Encounter at Blackwall Keep where level 5 PCs fight zillions of CR 1 lizardfolk that provide no challenge whatsoever. And since he can't come right out and say "clerics are overpowered and should be nerfed to the level of monks" (after all, that's not likely to happen any time soon), his ultra-conservative defense of the monk's power level makes no sense.

[Username17]

It's not ultraconservativism, it really is just magician fapping. He was primary author on Magic of Faerun for fuck's sake. Spelldancers, Spellfire, the whole thing.

-Username17

[hogarth]

It's not ultraconservativism, it really is just magician fapping. He was primary author on Magic of Faerun for fuck's sake. Spelldancers, Spellfire, the whole thing.

-Username17

Oh, sometimes he comes up with something powerful by accident like the Spelldancer, just because he hasn't fully thought through the implications. Spellfire predates 3E, so I'm not sure how he's supposed to be responsible for it.

[Username17]

It's not ultraconservativism, it really is just magician fapping. He was primary author on Magic of Faerun for fuck's sake. Spelldancers, Spellfire, the whole thing.

-Username17

Oh, sometimes he comes up with something powerful by accident like the Spelldancer, just because he hasn't fully thought through the implications. Spellfire predates 3E, so I'm not sure how he's supposed to be responsible for it.

Spellfire also predates Magic of Faerun. He made a bunch of Spellfire expansion options in Magic of Faerun that powered it up to "stupid".

The reality is that SKR makes caster fapping material all the time. And he seriously comes out and says that casters are and should be better than monks. Seriously.

Yes, when he made monster classes he made them intentionally and explicitly underpowered. But he makes caster shit that is at least as overpowered as any crap anyone else shits out. And he comes right out and says that it is supposed to be that way. SKR is a huge part of the Casters >> You problem, and he is totally unapologetic about it.

-Username17

[hogarth]

Spellfire also predates Magic of Faerun. He made a bunch of Spellfire expansion options in Magic of Faerun that powered it up to "stupid".

What was it like before and what was it like afterwards? (Note: I may check to see if what you're saying is actually accurate.)

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'd say he was probably in the top twenty of "worst D&D writers" and probably in the top ten of "worst D&D rule writers" but even then, it's so har to say. I mean there is 4E and ...

No, he is really the second-worst writer I've seen, next to Bruce Cordell. He has not only written a huge volume of crap but has never written anything redeeming. Which would put him on the level of Andy Collins, except that he refuses to even acknowledge that there's any problems with what he writes. Guys like Mike Mearls suck but at least he pretends to care about what's going on.

I would ask my grandma to write a D&D sourcebook before I asked SKR.

[talozin]

What was it like before and what was it like afterwards? (Note: I may check to see if what you're saying is actually accurate.)

Spellfire mechanics for 2E were in one of the Volo books, catalog number TSR9535. It was something you got or didn't get by DM fiat, and it used the old-style split-class system with a few modifications. So you were a Rogue/Spellfire Wielder (for instance) and split your XP between the two. You could handle up to Con x 5 spell levels without trouble, up to Con x 10 was possible but troublesome.

It was also awesome in some pretty sweet ways. Pretty early on -- 3rd level -- you got immunity to natural fire, automatic absorption of magical fire even if you were asleep, at-will detect magic at perception range, immunity to disintegration, and the ability to purge effects that altered your body's "normal state" (whatever that means -- paralyzation and petrification are both given as examples). There was no need to take any action to absorb spells, and at 1st level you didn't even get the choice not to absorb cure spells. By 4th level you could drain magic items at range, by 5th you could heal, and at 8th level you could even do energy drain attacks by touch, eventually with no saving throw allowed.

The amount of damage you did was, as far as I can figure out, set by your Con, not your level, so a 1st-level guy with an 18 Constitution could throw out an 18d6 spellfire bolt with line-of-sight range, if he happened to have that much charge. Unless you were entirely nonmagical (as in, had no magical items or spells on you at all), you didn't even get to save for half. Also, just for added fun, you only had to roll to hit if the target was farther than 10 feet away. Higher levels allowed you to shoot around corners, deflect missile weapons, and some other nonsense.

In game terms it was entirely made of awesome sauce, but you weren't going to get it unless either the DM was 12 or the DM wanted to get into your pants.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Spellfire also predates Magic of Faerun. He made a bunch of Spellfire expansion options in Magic of Faerun that powered it up to "stupid".

What was it like before and what was it like afterwards? (Note: I may check to see if what you're saying is actually accurate.)

Pretty sure you couldn't actually get it as a player in the 3.0 FRCS. I could be wrong.

[Koumei]

I only know of the 3.0 MoF one. You take it as a feat, then you can spend a Standard action to go into "Absorb" mode until your next turn. Any spell that just targets you (not AoE that only has you in it) then gets absorbed and, IIRC, converted into a number of SF points equal to its level.

Ideally, you'd get the casters to blow their load on you at the end of the workday before sleeping and resetting.

If you are powered up, you glow. Which isn't the important bit. You can hold a number of SF points equal to... your Con score, and can either:

A) Heal yourself for (SF points spent)*(some small number, 2 or 3) HP
or B) Launch a ranged touch attack that deals (SF points spent)d6 damage

So as a level 1, Con 14 whatever, you get filled up on Magic Missiles at the end of the day. Then next day, when you meet the boss, or purposefully seek out a CR 3 monster or whatever, you suddenly smack it for 14d6 damage and it fucking dies.

[Leress]

SKR also wrote New Argonauts which takes away a lot of classes (only the fighter, rogue, and barbarian remain) and then puts in a very overpowered casting class.

Then there is his feat point system which beyond terrible.

Just look at his site 90% is garbage.

[Ice9]

Oh right, the feat-point system. The one that claimed Natural Spell was worth much less than Weapon Focus.

Now I'm wondering - is SKR to blame for the over-expensive, under-effective firearm rules too, or is Paizo full of people in that mold?