Pathfinder Is Still Bad
Moderator: Moderators
- OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
- rasmuswagner
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 9:37 am
- Location: Danmark
No, no, that is not the Paizo way. They're just going to slap a level 14 requirement on it (so that by the time you can choose this class ability, the Wizard can just fucking memorize it if he needs it). In two years.OgreBattle wrote:Watch empty body get nerfed like crane wing in errata
Every time you play in a "low magic world" with D&D rules (or derivates), a unicorn steps on a kitten and an orphan drops his ice cream cone.
- momothefiddler
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:55 am
- Location: United States
In the mean time, though, we'll have to just rely on a FAQ that redefines ethereal and breaks every instance where the word has been used in the rules so far.rasmuswagner wrote:No, no, that is not the Paizo way. They're just going to slap a level 14 requirement on it (so that by the time you can choose this class ability, the Wizard can just fucking memorize it if he needs it). In two years.OgreBattle wrote:Watch empty body get nerfed like crane wing in errata
-
- 1st Level
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:37 pm
I was amazed by the Simplified Spellcasting option. You get to keep your top 3 levels of spells while the rest become a fairly small "spell pool" (1-5 points that scale incomprehensibly plus 1/4 casting stat modifier) that you can use to cast any spell out of your spellbook (or list for divine casters) of the lost levels.
What is amazing is that the author seems to only think this is "simple," not a change in versatility or a huge reduction in your number of spells. They say:
I only hope there was a dramatic change during editing and this was legacy text they didn't remove and not a tacit admission the author didn't just not bother to playtest, didn't just not bother to make a character, but didn't even bother to particularly think about the implications of what they were doing.
What is amazing is that the author seems to only think this is "simple," not a change in versatility or a huge reduction in your number of spells. They say:
Again, a full caster's pool is going to be around 2 to 8 spells total. It is unlikely your spell pool will cover even the top level of spells you lost.Though spontaneous casters can use this system, they gain relatively little, since they already don’t need to select which spells to prepare in advance, and their spell slots are comparable in number to those they would have if they used a spell pool.
I only hope there was a dramatic change during editing and this was legacy text they didn't remove and not a tacit admission the author didn't just not bother to playtest, didn't just not bother to make a character, but didn't even bother to particularly think about the implications of what they were doing.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 701
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:03 am
Lurky Lurkpants wrote:...Simplified Spellcasting...
Last edited by RelentlessImp on Tue May 26, 2015 11:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
No access to ninja tricks as a Rogue? Fuck that noise, Forgotten Trick Rogue is the only incentive I could ever have to play something other than a wizard.
Last edited by Dogbert on Wed May 27, 2015 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- 1st Level
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:37 pm
I don't think that is true? Ninja Trick is listed under "Unmodified Rogue Talents," so you can take it. However Paizo's editing seems to have gone to shit recently (was SKR carrying them?), and it could be contradicted elsewhere.
Unless people mean they can't be an "Unchained Ninja?" That could be a thing, although the rules say you can use old archetypes so Ninja would seem to work fine. But then this is an edition where people argue being unseen behind smoke isn't the same as invisible and doesn't allow Sneak Attack, so at a given table who knows.
Unless people mean they can't be an "Unchained Ninja?" That could be a thing, although the rules say you can use old archetypes so Ninja would seem to work fine. But then this is an edition where people argue being unseen behind smoke isn't the same as invisible and doesn't allow Sneak Attack, so at a given table who knows.
It's not "recent". Shit like synthesist (longer errata than the original archetype !) or sound striker (30 roll per turn !) or monkey lunge are older than D&D 5.Lurky Lurkpants wrote:However Paizo's editing seems to have gone to shit recently (was SKR carrying them?)
Paizo stopped caring about Pathfinder a long while ago: they use automatic writing and people buy it anyway, so why bother about editing ?
Close, but the level requirement is:rasmuswagner wrote:No, no, that is not the Paizo way. They're just going to slap a level 14 requirement on it (so that by the time you can choose this class ability, the Wizard can just fucking memorize it if he needs it). In two years.OgreBattle wrote:Watch empty body get nerfed like crane wing in errata
Mark Seifter wrote:This was mentioned earlier. Jason has confirmed its supposed to be 18.
You can take ninja tricks, but you can't get a ki pool (thus can't use forgotten trick). They also excluded all possible talents not from the 'main RPG line' (basically everything they'll put on the prd themselves), because those were written by a different team of people and they feel they can't refer to it or something. And they removed some other rogue talents, because the unchained rogue got a worse version build in, some were combined in new ones and some probably because they were better than other rogue talents.Dogbert wrote:No access to ninja tricks as a Rogue? Fuck that noise, Forgotten Trick Rogue is the only incentive I could ever have to play something other than a wizard.
Also ninja is an alternate class, not an archetype. ((And yes they are going to errata the text that says alternate classes are basically archetypes))
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
Wait, what FAQ on Ethereal? They changed it?momothefiddler wrote:In the mean time, though, we'll have to just rely on a FAQ that redefines ethereal and breaks every instance where the word has been used in the rules so far.rasmuswagner wrote:No, no, that is not the Paizo way. They're just going to slap a level 14 requirement on it (so that by the time you can choose this class ability, the Wizard can just fucking memorize it if he needs it). In two years.OgreBattle wrote:Watch empty body get nerfed like crane wing in errata
- deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3587
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
No. He's just joking that they will. Rather than 'fixing' the ability that causes a rules interaction they don't like, they seem to like just changing the larger rule and saying 'it always worked like this'.Slade wrote:Wait, what FAQ on Ethereal? They changed it?momothefiddler wrote:In the mean time, though, we'll have to just rely on a FAQ that redefines ethereal and breaks every instance where the word has been used in the rules so far.rasmuswagner wrote:
No, no, that is not the Paizo way. They're just going to slap a level 14 requirement on it (so that by the time you can choose this class ability, the Wizard can just fucking memorize it if he needs it). In two years.
But as of yet, they have not. Jokes aside about how they're going to nerf Empty Body, they announced that it was supposed to be an 18th level ability. So it's only in the game long after everyone stopped playing.
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
Damn. They really should've made Empty Body a low-level ability. It would've given monks an important niche and a huge number of new combat and storytelling options if they were allowed to go ethereal for an escalating amount of time a day.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 701
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:03 am
Famously, they did this for the Fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies which means the Fighter doesn't qualify for a lot of feats requiring proficiencies because their proficiencies aren't feats.deaddmwalking wrote:No. He's just joking that they will. Rather than 'fixing' the ability that causes a rules interaction they don't like, they seem to like just changing the larger rule and saying 'it always worked like this'.Slade wrote:Wait, what FAQ on Ethereal? They changed it?momothefiddler wrote:
In the mean time, though, we'll have to just rely on a FAQ that redefines ethereal and breaks every instance where the word has been used in the rules so far.
- momothefiddler
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:55 am
- Location: United States
Exactly (Thanks for the clarification, guys.)RelentlessImp wrote:Famously, they did this for the Fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies which means the Fighter doesn't qualify for a lot of feats requiring proficiencies because their proficiencies aren't feats.deaddmwalking wrote:No. He's just joking that they will. Rather than 'fixing' the ability that causes a rules interaction they don't like, they seem to like just changing the larger rule and saying 'it always worked like this'.
Last edited by momothefiddler on Wed May 27, 2015 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It stinks that sound strikers have to give up Suggestion but the tradeoff is 1d8 damage plus Charisma modifier damage up to 10 times.The only reason not to do it is the sheer tedium of it all. 10 ranged tough attacks, then 10 different rolls for damage, then 10 separate Fortitude saves for half.,Damn. that really is at least 18 rolls at the minimum level you get it, 6th, and 30 by level 10.
They issued stealth errata in the FAQ. It sucks now.Insomniac wrote:It stinks that sound strikers have to give up Suggestion but the tradeoff is 1d8 damage plus Charisma modifier damage up to 10 times.The only reason not to do it is the sheer tedium of it all. 10 ranged tough attacks, then 10 different rolls for damage, then 10 separate Fortitude saves for half.,Damn. that really is at least 18 rolls at the minimum level you get it, 6th, and 30 by level 10.
If not for the bolded line, an Assimar bard might be able to make use of it.Change the text of weird words to the following “At 6th level the bard can start a performance that is always a standard action to speak up to one word per 4 bard levels laden with sonic energy. Each word deals 4d6 points of sonic damage as a ranged touch attack with a range of 30 feet. The bard adds his charisma modifier on damage rolls with weird words. Multiple words that strike the same target stack into a single powerful attack, applying energy resistance and bonuses on damage rolls only once. The bard can target all words at the same or different targets, but he unleashes all words simultaneously. Each word costs 1 round of bardic performance.” This change will be reflected in future errata.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 701
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:03 am
Really, if the shit they released in Dragon for years wasn't a big indicator that Paizo cannot into design, then their FAQ is just proving it all over again.
So, the real question is who's worse for answering gameplay questions/clearing up rules quirks/issuing errata? Paizo, WotC CustServ, or Skip fucking Williams as the Sage?
So, the real question is who's worse for answering gameplay questions/clearing up rules quirks/issuing errata? Paizo, WotC CustServ, or Skip fucking Williams as the Sage?
I'm going to say Paizo, because they double down on every shitty decision and make it official. CustServ and Skip could be ignored far more easily.
virgil wrote:Lovecraft didn't later add a love triangle between Dagon, Chtulhu, & the Colour-Out-of-Space; only to have it broken up through cyber-bullying by the King in Yellow.
FrankTrollman wrote:If your enemy is fucking Gravity, are you helping or hindering it by putting things on high shelves? I don't fucking know! That's not even a thing. Your enemy can't be Gravity, because that's stupid.
- rasmuswagner
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 9:37 am
- Location: Danmark
Credit where credit is due (because at paizo, it so rarely is), making package deal proficiencies not feats is better design. Writing all the feats to require feat-based proficiency is where they show their true ineptitude.RelentlessImp wrote: Famously, they did this for the Fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies which means the Fighter doesn't qualify for a lot of feats requiring proficiencies because their proficiencies aren't feats.
Every time you play in a "low magic world" with D&D rules (or derivates), a unicorn steps on a kitten and an orphan drops his ice cream cone.
I'd like to nominate Gygax. Here is one exampleRelentlessImp wrote:Really, if the shit they released in Dragon for years wasn't a big indicator that Paizo cannot into design, then their FAQ is just proving it all over again.
So, the real question is who's worse for answering gameplay questions/clearing up rules quirks/issuing errata? Paizo, WotC CustServ, or Skip fucking Williams as the Sage?
Gygax wrote: Another point to remember is that you should keep a strict account of time. The wizard who spends six months writing scrolls and enchanting items is OUT of the campaign for six months, he cannot play during these six game months, and if the time system is anywhere reflective of the proper scale that means a period of actual time in the neighborhood of three months. That will pretty well eliminate all that sort of foolishness. Ingredients for scroll writing and potion making should also be stipulated so that it is no easy task to prepare scrolls or duplicate potions.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
@ishy, game time events sucking up real time is a core rule in AD&D and ignoring it is a big gain in favour of casters, who are already very strong but had a lot of associated downtime at higher levels. Gary expected people to have a small fleet of characters at their disposal if they wanted to play, and was happy to run for any number of any level at any time.
Of course that's bullshit in terms of the eventual market desires, with regular games for the same PC for each player (who even appear when the player doesn't), but it's a self-consistent and functional balance tool for the genre-appropriate item creation and spell research rules. 3e's item creation rules are much friendlier to casters, for instance, but also bad for the game as a whole.
Now, the AD&D Surprise and Initiative rules, and the "clarifications" in the DMG, those are incomprehensible to everyone. There's a dozen interpretations floating around and Gygax said he never even used most of it. So you're right, your example is just a thing that gets to me, with the randomly limitless or useless casters of modern editions.
Of course that's bullshit in terms of the eventual market desires, with regular games for the same PC for each player (who even appear when the player doesn't), but it's a self-consistent and functional balance tool for the genre-appropriate item creation and spell research rules. 3e's item creation rules are much friendlier to casters, for instance, but also bad for the game as a whole.
Now, the AD&D Surprise and Initiative rules, and the "clarifications" in the DMG, those are incomprehensible to everyone. There's a dozen interpretations floating around and Gygax said he never even used most of it. So you're right, your example is just a thing that gets to me, with the randomly limitless or useless casters of modern editions.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
First things first, Tussock is always wrong. Gygax is actually talking about OD&D not AD&D.
Also, the point is that the advice is horrid.
Also, the point is that the advice is horrid.
If, when confronted with flaws in your game, your advice is to kick players out of the game for 3 months, so they'll stop using that part of the game, your advice is obviously bad.if the time system is anywhere reflective of the proper scale that means a period of actual time in the neighborhood of three months. That will pretty well eliminate all that sort of foolishness. "
Last edited by ishy on Fri May 29, 2015 7:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
Well remember, you were expected to have a running stable of characters - so saying 'My wizard is busy making wands for half a year' actually isn't unreasonable if the expectation is 'The player will pull out another character while his wizard is busy.'
Obviously, that isn't the expectation in modern games, where you have a single dude and play him every session, so for modern games, yes, that advice is fucking horrid.
Obviously, that isn't the expectation in modern games, where you have a single dude and play him every session, so for modern games, yes, that advice is fucking horrid.
Then, once you have absorbed the lesson, that your so-called "friends" are nothing but meat sacks flopping around in the fashion of an outgassing corpse, pile all of your dice and pencils and graph-paper in the corner and SET THEM ON FIRE. Weep meaningless tears.
-DrPraetor
-DrPraetor
Jesus fucking christ. No, that was not the expectation at all.vagrant wrote:Well remember, you were expected to have a running stable of characters - so saying 'My wizard is busy making wands for half a year' actually isn't unreasonable if the expectation is 'The player will pull out another character while his wizard is busy.'
Obviously, that isn't the expectation in modern games, where you have a single dude and play him every session, so for modern games, yes, that advice is fucking horrid.
Notice how Gygax says the player can't play for 3 months. Also note how that punishment is meant to stop the player from taking those actions in the future.
This was meant as a quick aside, you assholes make me want to start a thread about all the horrible shit Gygax wrote.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.