Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Juton]

So I've been wondering.

What are exactly the design goals of Pathfinder? Aside from a few odd quirks to the game engine (no technically empty levels, we have prestige classes, swift actions out the ass etc.) I don't actually see an overarching design philosophy to the game. Unlike, say, 4E D&D. Granted, 4E D&D's design goals were retarded, but you couldn't say that it was lacking in vision.

What exactly is Pathfinder's endgame? Like, if for some reason the USSC ruled the d20 SRD unconstitutional and the game designers were forced at gunpoint to shit out another game with the Pathfinder brand, what would the game look like?

I think their design goals are to pander to what they perceive as 3.5's fanbase as hard as possible. That is why you see all those classes with no dead levels, with abilities with really flashy names. They look cool which is what Paizo thinks its fanbase wants, and they might have a point.

From what I saw in my brief foray into the PFS, most pathfinder players don't know how to play a wizard at god tier. Their classes remain balanced through level 10 because they don't take advantage of proper battlefield control and save or sucks. I think Paizo knows this on some level so they don't try and shake things up by printing powerful fighters or weak wizards. That's why you get things like the summoner having a bard's BAB and spellcasting despite the fact that it gets ninth level spells, and in this case gets them 2 levels earlier.

[andreww]

Actually, the main Arcane blood line is one of the two worst in the core rules (Abyssal being the other one). However, the Sage variant looks a little better, since it gives you a damage dealing 1st-level power instead of Arcane Bond. Not much better, because it's not a lot of damage and your bloodline arcana doesn't become useful until you get to higher levels. Still an improvement in your usefulness at low levels, though.

I've never tried to emulate prepared casting with a sorcerer in Pathfinder, so I can't help you with that.

You are an idiot, the Arcane Bloodline is one of the few ones worth bothering with out of all of them. Bonus DC's on metamagic, free familiar (most likely +4 initiative), extra spells known, being able to move and persistent/dazing spell stuff and then another random +2 DC to a whole school of spells.

None of the abilities Arcane gives are bad unlike most of the others which are littered with shite like claws or piddly ranged attacks which become irrelevant after about level 3.

It doesn't hurt that the bonus spell list mostly contains spells you would be taking anyway.

[MisterDee]

What are exactly the design goals of Pathfinder?

As I recall, there were no design goals beyond "we don't want to port Golarion to 4e, and we know that if our base game isn't supported anymore we'll eventually lose our customers, let's make something just different enough from 3.5 that we can stay in business."

[Red_Rob]

let's make something just different enough from 3.5 that we can stay in business.

Pathfinder is basically "D&D 2: The search for more money!"

[tussock]

Paizo was happily making Dragon and Dungeon magazine, and asking politely to do a little more support for the wildly popular adventure paths therein. Then WotC said no more mags.

Paizo was dead in the water, so they had to start making the "Pathfinder adventure paths" magazine out of nothing, clawing for survival, hooking a few people through the old magazine subscriptions. Turned out well enough for them, supporting 3e players in another way through the ogl. Then WotC said no more 3e.

Paizo was dead in the water again. Not to worry, just port to 4e, can't be that bad. Then WotC said signing up for 4e means WotC can kill your company whenever it wants to. The GSL was insane, especially at the start.

Paizo said no, been fooled twice, shame on us. OGL 4 life. That's Pathfinder. Staying alive as an rpg company in tough times with hostile IP owners.


Plus, changing everything anyone complained about in 3e, various feats and spells and dead levels and core classes going nowhere and various monster issues and endless complaints about everything. Not to change how the game played (after all, they'd probably just make things worse), but to be seen to be doing something, to justify the purchase.

Like how 3.5 changed a bunch of crap for no reason, looking busy for the boss/customers. Various specific problems fixed, no systematic ones.

[sabs]

Pathfinder might well be terrible. But it's way way better than 4E, or 5E wll be.

[hogarth]

Paizo was happily making Dragon and Dungeon magazine, and asking politely to do a little more support for the wildly popular adventure paths therein. Then WotC said no more mags.

Paizo was dead in the water, so they had to start making the "Pathfinder adventure paths" magazine out of nothing, clawing for survival, hooking a few people through the old magazine subscriptions. Turned out well enough for them, supporting 3e players in another way through the ogl. Then WotC said no more 3e.

Paizo was dead in the water again. Not to worry, just port to 4e, can't be that bad. Then WotC said signing up for 4e means WotC can kill your company whenever it wants to. The GSL was insane, especially at the start.

Paizo said no, been fooled twice, shame on us. OGL 4 life. That's Pathfinder. Staying alive as an rpg company in tough times with hostile IP owners.

You missed one fun part of the story:

Before WotC yanked the license for Dungeon and Dragon, Paizo used to run the official Star Wars Fan Club and they published Star Wars Insider magazine. And guess what happened? Yup, you guessed it -- Lucasfilm yanked the license for the Star Wars stuff.

Yet another cautionary tale for Paizo about the dangers of relying on another company's IP!

[Lago PARANOIA]

Best Pathfinder feat ever. All you need is a way to make or get a metamagic wand of this effect (which Pathfinder provides), a familiar, and a way to cast spells without interacting with spell slots -- which is unfortunately difficult and/or expensive fuck.

Or it would be, if they didn't print this feat. Even if Familiar Spell wasn't in the game, every cleric and druid (and any class whose spell list is 'all of the spells') should have this feat anyway for Arcane Bloodline and Arcane Bond.

Clerics and Druids have a bit more work ahead of them if they want to use this combo. Not a lot more work, but a bit more. They can either take the Eagle Nature domain (if they want to give up a domain) or take the Companion Figurine feat. In either case you'll probably want to stick a Greater Hat of Disguise on the little bastard.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Sounds like a pretty cool combo. But how do you deal with the proviso at the end of the sorcerer version of arcane bond?

Arcane Bond (Su): At 1st level, you gain an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to your sorcerer level. Your sorcerer levels stack with any wizard levels you possess when determining the powers of your familiar or bonded object. Once per day, your bonded item allows you to cast any one of your spells known (unlike a wizard’s bonded item, which allows him to cast any one spell in his spellbook). This ability does not allow you to have both a familiar and a bonded item.

Also, from the wizard page:

A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities. The bonded object cannot be used to cast spells from the wizard's opposition schools (see arcane school below).

Or is there some other way of getting slotless spells out of Arcane Bond that I'm missing?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, the first one is debatable. Does it mean whether that ability can't let you have both a familiar and a bonded item from the same ability -- or does it mean that having Arcane bond forever bars you from getting both at the same time? I'm almost sure it's the former, because there are abilities in Pathfinder that let you have familiars without Arcane Bond. But again, see rule Negative Two.

It's a moot point, anyway. I fucked up on the reading of Arcane Bond. Pity. I'm sure there are some other ways to cast spells without dipping into your spell slots, but all that come to mind right now are optional rules (Hero Points), overly expensive shit (rings of spell storing), too high level (spellstaff for druids and certain clerics; summon monster stupid pet tricks), require interacting with the calling rules, or require complicated magical item tomfoolery (staves). Something will come to mind; let me just trawl the wiki for a bit.

[CapnTthePirateG]

There a way to get the bloodline arcana on a non-sorc? Some of those are really, really good...

[Avoraciopoctules]

There a way to get the bloodline arcana on a non-sorc? Some of those are really, really good...

Arcana specifically? Then Greater Eldritch Heritage won't help. Hmm.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestig ... /bloatmage
There's a PRC with a capstone that would arguably work, but you're level 15 by then and probably don't really care.

[Roog]

There a way to get the bloodline arcana on a non-sorc? Some of those are really, really good...

Ampoule of False Blood + UMD?

[Username17]

There a way to get the bloodline arcana on a non-sorc? Some of those are really, really good...

Ampoule of False Blood + UMD?

Wearing it gets you the "Bloodline Powers" of a Sorcerer with a class level equal to your UMD check minus 20 each day. So if you can roll a 40, you get the bloodline capstone. It doesn't give you the Arcana or Bonus Feats though.

Drinking it gets you ??? Depending on your reading, it gives you a one-time full conversion to getting the Arcana and the Powers based on your single roll of UMD minus twenty. Or possibly gives you nothing because it changes your actual class features and is then gone. My reading is that it would permanently give you the powers equal to the levels of the powers you emulated when you drank it, but the MC might bone you. See rule negative two. In any case, you don't get or lose any feats because those don't kick in until the next time you gain a level of Sorcerer, which you will not do.

-Username17

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Paizo was happily making Dragon and Dungeon magazine, and asking politely to do a little more support for the wildly popular adventure paths therein. Then WotC said no more mags.

Paizo was dead in the water, so they had to start making the "Pathfinder adventure paths" magazine out of nothing, clawing for survival, hooking a few people through the old magazine subscriptions. Turned out well enough for them, supporting 3e players in another way through the ogl. Then WotC said no more 3e.

Paizo was dead in the water again. Not to worry, just port to 4e, can't be that bad. Then WotC said signing up for 4e means WotC can kill your company whenever it wants to. The GSL was insane, especially at the start.

Paizo said no, been fooled twice, shame on us. OGL 4 life. That's Pathfinder. Staying alive as an rpg company in tough times with hostile IP owners.

Actually, Paizo originally decided to make Pathfinder because WotC was dragging its feet about revealing the 4e licensing terms. But I'm sure they felt vindicated when the GSL came out and was so horrible that no sane 3pp would sign it.

[Antariuk]

So, errata for the Core Rulebook's 6th printing is out. Remember that Stealth Playtest Paizo did a while ago? Seems it resulted in two actual additions to the skill description text:

• Page 106—In the Stealth skill, in the Check section,
in the first paragraph, add the following sentence after
the first sentence:

Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware
of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.

• Page 106—In the Stealth skill, in the Check section,
change the second paragraph to read as follows:

Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks
based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8,
Small +4, Medium +0, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan
–12, Colossal –16.

• Page 106—In the Stealth skill, in the Check section,
add the following paragraph after the third paragraph:

Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth,
you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved
as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn
in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends
after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is
successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Funny thing: they didn't update the concealment text in the combat section, which still says you need concealment to actually make stealth checks in the first place. I'd not be surprised if several heated if entertaining arguments will be had about this.

Also, being grappled no longer prevents spellcasters from doing spells with somatic components, they just removed that paragraph. But hey, it's ok because monks now can use weapons with Flurry of Blows and can punch through DR/cold iron or silver at 7th level.

[Ice9]

The grappled spellcaster thing doesn't really make much difference, because casting while grappled is already a very high-DC check on something that's not a skill and thus fairly difficult to boost. If a mage gets grappled in PF, they actually do have a problem. Well, they would except for contingent spells, Freedom of Movement, and so forth.

[Voss]

So, errata for the Core Rulebook's 6th printing is out. Remember that Stealth Playtest Paizo did a while ago? Seems it resulted in two actual additions to the skill description text:

• Page 106—In the Stealth skill, in the Check section,
in the first paragraph, add the following sentence after
the first sentence:

Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware
of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.

• Page 106—In the Stealth skill, in the Check section,
change the second paragraph to read as follows:

Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks
based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8,
Small +4, Medium +0, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan
–12, Colossal –16.

• Page 106—In the Stealth skill, in the Check section,
add the following paragraph after the third paragraph:

Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth,
you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved
as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn
in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends
after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is
successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Funny thing: they didn't update the concealment text in the combat section, which still says you need concealment to actually make stealth checks in the first place. I'd not be surprised if several heated if entertaining arguments will be had about this.

I'm not sure why. The stealth skill still says that as well (4th paragraph- if people are observing you using any of their senses, then no.) There doesn't seem to be any room for an argument. It makes for some oddly fucked situations, however- if a dog is outside following your scent trail, you auto-fail at hiding upstair's in the baron's study.

Huh, actually the rules text is _even dumber than that_. You don't autofail, you simply can't use stealth. But it doesn't matter if a dog can smell you, because only 'people' observing you cause the 'can't use stealth' situation. I guess if it is a dog-person you can't, but if it is just a normal war dog staring right at you, you're fine.

I am impressed (and horrified) that it took 6 printings and however many years to decide that hiding actually made people unaware of you. I don't doubt that most people normally just assumed that, but the fact that they had to spell it out and add it suggests that it didn't.

[virgil]

Ostentatious Display offends me on so many levels.

[Voss]

Gilgamesh Wulfenbach is obviously awesome on guitar.

http://girlgenius.wikia.com/wiki/Magnificent_Hat

[Previn]

Actually, Paizo originally decided to make Pathfinder because WotC was dragging its feet about revealing the 4e licensing terms. But I'm sure they felt vindicated when the GSL came out and was so horrible that no sane 3pp would sign it.

Linky.

You are correct, sir. This set of revisions to the GSL falls squarely into the categories of both "too little" and "too late" as far as addressing Paizo's concerns.

Incidentally, other fun GSL facts:
- You must officially sign to the GSL, notifying WotC that you have done so
- WotC can unilaterally terminate your license at any time
- WotC can change the GSL at any time and need not notify users
- You must help WotC in any IP suites it files in relation to the GSL if it so chooses
- If WotC goes against a GSL user, that user gives up jury and venue rights
- WotC can lift your product to make their own official version
- WotC gets to dictate the content you can produce for the game
- You can't modify things that are part of the GSL 'srd' so saying dwarves were taller than in the PHB was off limits

Things that were in but got changed:
- Giving up any use of the OGL when you signed the GSL; scaled that back to basically 'no combo 3.x and 4e products.'
- Not able to sell product if the GSL was terminated; scaled back to give 6 more months after termination to sell

[Sigil]

The stealth entry is fucked pretty bad, it's just not written coherently. My group ended up interpreting that if-people-are-observing-you bit to mean that, as long as you weren't being observed using an actual sense that was sight equivalent you could stealth, no concealment needed. And once you were in stealth, you could move around as you please in stealth cover be damned. It worked pretty well, and I think it would be a good basis for making an actual usable stealth skill.

That said, a large part of the murkiness is due to "sense" not really being defined. A one page entry could easily give a list, and the rules for, all the important kinds of senses, and such a thing should probably exist but doesn't. You could even have all your special senses be "works like [sense] but [exceptions]".

[Antariuk]

The stealth entry is fucked pretty bad, it's just not written coherently. My group ended up interpreting that if-people-are-observing-you bit to mean that, as long as you weren't being observed using an actual sense that was sight equivalent you could stealth, no concealment needed. And once you were in stealth, you could move around as you please in stealth cover be damned. It worked pretty well, and I think it would be a good basis for making an actual usable stealth skill.

That said, a large part of the murkiness is due to "sense" not really being defined. A one page entry could easily give a list, and the rules for, all the important kinds of senses, and such a thing should probably exist but doesn't. You could even have all your special senses be "works like [sense] but [exceptions]".

This is what I (kinda) feared when I first encountered the Stealth and Perceptions skills. It's nice that they folded often-rollen and obviously linked skills together, but now you have situations where you need to separate and re-calculate that shit afterwards because you want to refer to a single sense only. This is retarded and doesn't make a GM's job any easier.

That aside, "sense" is a really blurry term. Maybe they should link and intertwine the Perception and Stealth skills, since they are rolled against (or with) each other most of the time.

[Username17]

I'm not sure there's a really good system for stealth that can be made for an RPG. There are a lot of edge cases. But Pathfinder's unified Stealth system is a catastrofuck. The interactions it has with special senses (like a Grimlock's tremor sense) and special concealment (like invisibility) is simply gobbledygook.

For fuck's sake, you get a bonus to not being heard while sneaking around in the dark or while behind a wall while invisible. And while that doesn't make any fucking sense, it's also a really big deal, because the stealth category you count as being in for purposes of Invisibility change your stealth bonus by twenty, which is literally the entire RNG.

You get 20 points of stealth for being invisible, with 20 more points of stealth for being motionless, and 20 less points for running, charging, attacking, or speaking. And you get 15 extra points for being behind a stone fucking wall. Which means that you definitely can't stab a guard without another guard noticing (-20 to Stealth), but if you were behind a stone wall you might be able to do it (-5 to stealth), and if you were invisible you could very plausibly pull it off (+0 to stealth), and if you were behind a stone wall and invisible, success would be virtually guaranteed (+15 to stealth). What. The. Fuck?

Having only a single stealth/perception number really requires some fiddling if you want to include invisibility, magical silence, or supernatural senses. And Pathfinder has all of those things and no rules infrastructure to support any of it. They need to scrap all that shit and start over.

-Username17

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Previn, thank you for the reminder on just how awful the GSL was.

Now, having something as nice as the OGL wouldn't have saved 4E D&D's bacon. The edition was so bad that crashing and burning in only a few years wouldn't have created the incestuous reciprocal altruism needed to prop up both the main game and spinoff products. But if 4E D&D did NOT suck all that was ass that GSL would've been an albatross.

Seriously, did the execs just let the power go to their head with the GSL? That what they made was soooooo awesome and compelling that people would essentially design products for the game for negative money?