Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Longes]

I want to make a custom deity for an archer cleric planning to dip into necromancy. Are there any good starting points in Earth mythology?

... I seem to recall that in Aztec myth, one of the demigods of the underworld was an owl-headed archer. But I'm not sure of the details, and a basic google search didn't give me anything useful.

You can start with Persephone - she was the goddess of the dead (by the virtue of being Hades's wife) and goddess of harvest. Harvest easily mutates into hunting, which is done with the bow.

[Grek]

You totally want the Blind God Hodr, son of Odin, who killed Baldr with an arrow of mistletoe and then was slain in revenge by the giant Vali. He meets all the checks: uses a bow and arrow, is a murderer, lives in the realm of the dead and is a God.

[GâtFromKI]

Except that the developers of Pathfinder never fail to remind everyone that godless clerics are cheesy misinterpretations and have no place in Pathfinder despite being specifically called out as an option in the book they wrote.

Then it seems that developers of Pathfinder are stupid peoples who are even less able to write English than me; the rules they actually write seems to be often the exact opposite of the rules they wanted to write. I think any secondary school student is able write what he actually wants to write.

Anyway, in every game I heard of, MC is far more likely to accept stuff from core than stuff from splat. Which mean, he's far more likely to accept godless cleric than separatist cleric. This simple fact means the separatist cleric is a complete waste of space.

[A Man In Black]

You can start with Persephone - she was the goddess of the dead (by the virtue of being Hades's wife) and goddess of harvest. Harvest easily mutates into hunting, which is done with the bow.

Or it just translates into the sickle, scythe, or maul, which are actual tools you use to harvest things. It's not like it's unclaimed territory, either. Orion and Artemis are already gods of the hunt.

Anyway, in every game I heard of, MC is far more likely to accept stuff from core than stuff from splat. Which mean, he's far more likely to accept godless cleric than separatist cleric. This simple fact means the separatist cleric is a complete waste of space.

It's even worse than that. The Separatist cleric "archetype" is nothing more than "Maybe you could talk to the GM and ask if a cleric of a non-mainstream sect has different domains from the mainstream followers." This apparently needs a half-page to explain, and completely pointless power nerfs that are offset by absolutely nothing. It's pagechewing useless garbage in the extreme.

[Longes]

You can start with Persephone - she was the goddess of the dead (by the virtue of being Hades's wife) and goddess of harvest. Harvest easily mutates into hunting, which is done with the bow.

Or it just translates into the sickle, scythe, or maul, which are actual tools you use to harvest things. It's not like it's unclaimed territory, either. Orion and Artemis are already gods of the hunt.

He wanted a starting point - I gave a starting point. I never said "harvest" = "hunting".

[zend0g]

We discussed the trait 4 or 5 pages ago.

The history of trapfinding rogues from 1E to Pathfinder goes:
(a) only rogues (thieves) get a find/remove traps skill (1E)
(b) everyone gets a find/remove traps skill, but only a PC with one level of rogue can find/remove magical traps (3E)
(c) everyone gets a find/remove traps skill, but only a PC with one level of rogue (or several levels of certain non-rogue archetypes) can remove magical traps (Pathfinder)
(d) everyone gets a find/remove traps skill, but only a PC with one level of rogue (or several levels of certain non-rogue archetypes) can remove magical traps without taking a particular trait (Pathfinder with this new trait)

Going from (a) to (b) is a huge kick in the nuts to the rogue, going from (b) to (c) is a smaller kick in the nuts, and going from (c) to (d) is even smaller to the point where it barely even registers. So I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

Good ol' Old School Revisionism. Actually back in the 0e to 2e games, many traps you could just RP your past. A trapped a chest? Poke it poles, summon monsters to open it, open it from a safe angle, shrink it down and throw it in a bag of holding for later, remove the sides with a crowbar, etc. Your imagination was the limit. If anything the new change is more of a return to old school play. What are you guys really worried about? You are just going to mock anyone that took that ability as being a garbage build and you will never take it yourself. So, you're just complaining for the sake of complaining.

[fectin]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herne_the_Hunter

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arawn

[hogarth]

It's even worse than that. The Separatist cleric "archetype" is nothing more than "Maybe you could talk to the GM and ask if a cleric of a non-mainstream sect has different domains from the mainstream followers."

Every archetype boils down to "maybe you could talk to the GM and ask to exchange one class feature for another one". That isn't anything new.

I'm reminded of that scintillating discussion where one dude was arguing that the monk doesn't need any power-ups because you ca nconvince your GM to give you an amulet that turns you into a tiger.

This apparently needs a half-page to explain, and completely pointless power nerfs that are offset by absolutely nothing

The option to cherry-pick any two abilities you like is superior to the option to choose from a limited list of paired abilities for obvious reasons.

[GâtFromKI]

This apparently needs a half-page to explain, and completely pointless power nerfs that are offset by absolutely nothing

The option to cherry-pick any two abilities you like is superior to the option to choose from a limited list of paired abilities for obvious reasons.

The rules already acknowledges the existence of clerics who can cherry-pick any two domain. Actually, there are no deity described in the SRD: any SRD-only-cleric can pick any domain (and has no code of conduct to follow).

[Lago PARANOIA]

And even if your DM insists on you sticking to a particular deity, you have a good back-up option: The Separatist Cleric archetype. Granted, it puts one of your domains two levels behind (and makes the DC weaker), you lose out on favored weapon bonus, and it all but bars you from taking other cleric archetypes. But it's a way of grabbing a combination of domains not normally available and/or dodging church polity you don't like.

[Longes]

And even if your DM insists on you sticking to a particular deity, you have a good back-up option: The Separatist Cleric archetype. Granted, it puts one of your domains two levels behind (and makes the DC weaker), you lose out on favored weapon bonus, and it all but bars you from taking other cleric archetypes. But it's a way of grabbing a combination of domains not normally available and/or dodging church polity you don't like.

1. That's exactly what we are talking about.
2. Meh. The penalties outweigh the lossess.

Plus, with Lovecraftian gods, and Empyreal Lords - there are plenty of options in Golarion. The only problem might be with Domain-Domain-F.Weapon trio.

[A Man In Black]

Every archetype boils down to "maybe you could talk to the GM and ask to exchange one class feature for another one". That isn't anything new.

The other archetypes at least do the work of choosing which class features to exchange, so they're useful if you're terminally uncreative. They could also theoretically be useful as a list of balanced exchanges, but it's Pathfinder so fuck that.

The problem with the separatist is that it isn't even that much. It's literally just "You could probably ask the GM to make something up for you I guess."

[rasmuswagner]

The problem with the separatist is that it isn't even that much. It's literally just "You could probably ask the GM to make something up for you I guess."

No, the archetype is literally "exchange one domain from the sharply limitied list for any one domain you want, but at a slight penalty, and you don't get favored weapon". How you get to your interpretation from that, I have no idea.

It's a perfectly reasonable archetype, given a situation where you're not allowed to just pick any 2 domains you want. Yes, the archetype should technically have been in a setting book like Inner Sea Magic instead of a rule book like Ultimate Magic, but that's hardly an oversight to throw such a bitch-fit over.

[Seerow]

The problem with the separatist is that it isn't even that much. It's literally just "You could probably ask the GM to make something up for you I guess."

No, the archetype is literally "exchange one domain from the sharply limitied list for any one domain you want, but at a slight penalty, and you don't get favored weapon". How you get to your interpretation from that, I have no idea.

It's a perfectly reasonable archetype, given a situation where you're not allowed to just pick any 2 domains you want. Yes, the archetype should technically have been in a setting book like Inner Sea Magic instead of a rule book like Ultimate Magic, but that's hardly an oversight to throw such a bitch-fit over.

And of course, being in a generic rulebook gives the advantage of it being a legit thing in every campaign setting, even if the authors wouldn't be inclined to write such a thing into their settings.

[Koumei]

They could also theoretically be useful as a list of balanced exchanges, but it's Pathfinder so fuck that.

A 3PP (which has their stuff on the SRD) introduced another type of Archetype thing as well, Archetype Packages.

They're sort-of universal. Essentially, you take something which isn't the primary feature of your class but still gives you something noteworthy over your career, and trade that for something else. So Clerics can choose to give up their Domains, but not their spellcasting. And in return you could get a set of things that might be useful. Note that generally, multiple classes can all trade out for the same Archetype Packages, so they're trying to make it a bit more balanced and universal (good luck!) and also trying to move it towards a build-your-own-class thing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I've played quite a few Pathfinder games and I've never had 3rd Party material allowed in games, though. Not even psionics.

[sake]

I've played quite a few Pathfinder games and I've never had 3rd Party material allowed in games, though. Not even psionics.

To be fair, 3rd Party pathfinder is pretty bad. As bad as 3rd party D20 was only it lacks those rare high budget licensed d20 books that almost made you forget that 95% of 3rd party stuff was horrible low rent crap.

And aside from Psionics and that crazy fuck huge list of hybrid classes someone made, it's not even very fun for dumpster diving, as most of the publishers/writers are terrified of making anything that's objectively stronger than paizo's own material (or even 3.5). Hell, there was one book that had a PF version of the warlock, but they actually made it weaker than the D&D Warlock

[Seerow]

So I'm kind of curious.

The general meme is that Pathfinder hates rogues. This has become especially common since Trapfinder started being given away for free.

What makes PF Rogues significantly weaker than 3.5 rogues? I remember hearing some grumbling about dropping flask bombs not working as well, but that was a pretty niche thing anyway. It seems like they've taken away crit immunity from a bunch of enemy types, which would be a big boon in general circumstances, and the skill list consolidation should have helped more than it hurt.

So without digging into things closely, it seems like a net gain. I'm guessing the nerfs then come from specific rulings, or items/feats being removed/nerfed. What specifically is it that makes the rogue so shit?

[Longes]

So I'm kind of curious.

The general meme is that Pathfinder hates rogues. This has become especially common since Trapfinder started being given away for free.

What makes PF Rogues significantly weaker than 3.5 rogues? I remember hearing some grumbling about dropping flask bombs not working as well, but that was a pretty niche thing anyway. It seems like they've taken away crit immunity from a bunch of enemy types, which would be a big boon in general circumstances, and the skill list consolidation should have helped more than it hurt.

So without digging into things closely, it seems like a net gain. I'm guessing the nerfs then come from specific rulings, or items/feats being removed/nerfed. What specifically is it that makes the rogue so shit?

It's less "rogues are bad" and more "bard/ranger/alchemist are better".

[A Man In Black]

What makes PF Rogues significantly weaker than 3.5 rogues? I remember hearing some grumbling about dropping flask bombs not working as well, but that was a pretty niche thing anyway. It seems like they've taken away crit immunity from a bunch of enemy types, which would be a big boon in general circumstances, and the skill list consolidation should have helped more than it hurt.

Giving other classes the option to sneak attack while still having more other things than the rogue, giving other martial classes more damage, making combat schticks cost more feats to get the same results as before, the new rules for cross-class skills, giving other martial classes more fungible resources that can infringe on rogue schticks (including more skill points), the ninja (which is rogue++).

Rogue damage isn't very good any more because of the absolute dominance of the bow over other fighting styles. The bow is so much better than every other fighting style that you are stupid to not use it. It is better than every other fighting style is because it gets seventeen million extra attacks on a full attack routine, in addition to all the usual advantages of ranged combat over melee. Everyone else can combine this with their large bonuses to damage per hit to sort of keep up with CR HP/AC scaling. Rogues can't, because every single possible effect that could allow them to sneak attack with a full attack before Greater Invisibility has been nerfed.

It has nothing to do with flask rogues per se. (Although Paizo turned the flask rogue into a whole class, the Alchemist.) It's just that every cool thing about being a rogue is available to at least three other classes now. The ninja, ranger, alchemist, inquisitor, and bard all step directly on the rogue's toes while also getting fantastic schticks, while participating in combat or challenges that can't be solved with a skill check are still a major problem for the rogue. Rogues, since they are Realistic, do not get nice things.

[Username17]

Actually it has a lot to do with flask rogues. Specifically, they systematically searched out and destroyed everything that would give you sneak attack or do decent sneak attack damage at medium to high level. You can't sneak attack with touch attacks, you don't get sneak attack from blink, and so on. The basic sneak attack ability is just slightly better than its 3.5 equivalent (you don't need to haul wands of gravestrike around), but they went through the same game test rogues for 10th level and nerfed all of their equipment so that they don't benefit Rogues anymore.

That's not an exaggeration. Back when I was trying to show Paizo how to actually do testing, I wrote up some Same Game Tests to show how a 10th level Rogue could participate at his level and a Paladin could not. Jason was so offended by my Rogue offering that he offered up a spot nerf to literally every single piece of equipment I had written down for a Rogue to use. Every. Single. One.

The Pathfinder Rogue at 3rd level is if anything a minor improvement over his 3.5 counterpart. But there's nowhere to go. The 3.5 Rogue could participate all the way to the double digit levels by playing like Batgirl and throwing custom bombs off the utility belt. The Pathfinder Rogue fucking can't. As soon as enemies get enough hit points and damage reduction and armor class that dual wielding short swords from a flanking position is no longer viable (so, around 6th level for the most part), the Pathfinder Rogue is fucking dead.

The 3.5 Rogue is the go-to example of a "mundane" character who could actually fight level appropriate opposition at medium and high level with careful expenditures within the wealth by level allotment. The Pathfinder Rogue fucking isn't and goes obsolete at about the same time as a Barbarian. You actually need high level Rogue equipment to participate in high level adventures as a Rogue. Jason specifically will not allow such equipment to exist because "fuck rogues."

-Username17

[TiaC]

Skill changes make the wizard a far better skillmonkey and just generally remove all niche protection.

Tumble no longer works, so rogues have no mobility and can't leave combat when they get hurt. This also makes flanking difficult.

Some other common methods of enabling sneak attack were weakened, e.g. grease no longer causes people to be flat-footed.

[A Man In Black]

Actually it has a lot to do with flask rogues. [...] they went through the same game test rogues for 10th level and nerfed all of their equipment so that they don't benefit Rogues anymore.

That doesn't explain why people say Paizo hates rogues in places where the flask rogue is considered impractical CO faff, though. Most people were not playing flask rogues. I doubt many people are even aware of how PF changed Blink or splash weapons.

Whether or not Jason Buhlmann has a personal grudge against you or your personal rogue build, Pathfinder already took a lot of specialness away from rogues by giving everyone else greater access to their main two schticks: high-feeling damage (even if it wasn't really that high) and skills. The addition of many character options to make a sneaky, stabby, skilled guy who also gets superpowers are just salt in that wound.

[magnuskn]

Tumble no longer works,

How so? Or do you mean "is not piss-poor easy anymore"?

[Username17]

Tumble no longer works,

How so? Or do you mean "is not piss-poor easy anymore"?

The Pathfinder DC is the CMD of each opponent passed +2 for each additional opponent. So the DC of moving past a Troll is 22. To move through the threatened areas of three Ogres, you need to make three tests at DC 18, 20, and 32. And that's if you want to move at half speed. If you want to move more than 15 feet (like, for example you want to move behind the Troll so you get a flanking bonus), the DC goes up by 10. That is a DC 32 check to move into a flanking position on a troll. Kord help you if you're on gravel or a boat trying to do this shit. These are fifth level encounters. And the DC 32 isn't to win, it's to be allowed to use your fucking character attack shtick without taking an attack of opportunity.

A character with max ranks and a dex of 20 needs to roll a natural 19+ to flank a fucking level appropriate Giant. Which means that tumbling doesn't work. It is equivalent to a very tiny bonus to your AC against attacks of opportunity. Fuck that.

-Username17