Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[saidoro]

Is it that complicated making a good level 1 wizard? As much Int and Con as you can afford, learn/prepare Color Spray or Sleep, make sure you've got an arcane school which lets you prepare another spell and the Improved Initiative feat and, well, you're set.

Blatant Hyperbole

While making a completely optimal pathfinder wizard is hard, making a pretty good one is fairly easy. Grab Divination(foresight) or something similarly obviously good as your school, grab either a ring arcane bond or a familiar which boosts initiative, and then do whatever you would have done in 3.5.

[Username17]

Is it that complicated making a good level 1 wizard? As much Int and Con as you can afford, learn/prepare Color Spray or Sleep, make sure you've got an arcane school which lets you prepare another spell and the Improved Initiative feat and, well, you're set.

Blatant Hyperbole

While making a completely optimal pathfinder wizard is hard, making a pretty good one is fairly easy. Grab Divination(foresight) or something similarly obviously good as your school, grab either a ring arcane bond or a familiar which boosts initiative, and then do whatever you would have done in 3.5.

The question was about optimizing a Pathfailure Wizard. I don't know how to do that and neither do you. Playing a Wizard that is "good enough" to outshine the Fighters and beat level appropriate threats isn't difficult. But optimization is hard. And beyond that, I don't even know what optimization means considering that so many Wizard abilities come online at weird levels and scale weirdly or not at all.

Beguiling Touch wasn't pulled out of my ass for no reason. It's a significant upgrade to Dazing Touch if you are playing at level 4 or higher. Level 4 isn't even a Wizard special ability level, that's just arbitrarily the level that its duration starts scaling while Dazing Touch's doesn't. The list is fucking full of that shit.

Optimizing a Wizard in Pathfinder is an NPHard problem. Getting it past an arbitrary power minimum is simple, but finding a point of local optimization is very very difficult.

But yes, if you have charm monster or animate dead as a thing you can cast by 7th level, you can probably be powerful enough that the DM will ask you to dial it back some. But that doesn't mean you're optimized.

-Username17

[virgil]

I'm not 100% certain that Beguiling Touch is all that good. It explicitly can't be used in combat nor be used against hostile targets. At which point, it interacts based on how your DM thinks charm works. At its worst, this is a +10 or +5 to Diplomacy for a couple rounds, and they've removed the option to change someone's attitude in less than a minute. At its best, you can force an opposed Charisma test to have it perform anything not "obviously harmful."

[Username17]

I'm not 100% certain that Beguiling Touch is all that good. It explicitly can't be used in combat nor be used against hostile targets. At which point, it interacts based on how your DM thinks charm works. At its worst, this is a +10 or +5 to Diplomacy for a couple rounds, and they've removed the option to change someone's attitude in less than a minute. At its best, you can force an opposed Charisma test to have it perform anything not "obviously harmful."

Beguiling Touch is totally pimp even though Paizo's attempts to clarify what exactly the fuck it is that charm monster actually does have been negatively helpful and I have no idea what your DM thinks the spell does. Because whatever the fuck it is that the charmed state does, so long as it lasts two turns or longer it's enough time for you to ask for your victim to let you cast a spell on them. So it's like a long lasting daze effect that ends with you getting to force them to auto-fail a save on a save or lose spell effect.

Reading James Jacobs trying to explain how charm person isn't really as totally game changingly powerful as it obviously is makes my head hurt. His explanations and counter explanations to different questions are gibberish and self contradictory. The simple reality is that the thing Charm Monster does is in fact extremely powerful, and James Jacobs is totes on board with that unless and until people actually show him how powerful it is by asking about edge cases and then he starts sputtering nonsense.

But you don't have to do any edge case stuff with Beguiling Touch, because it doesn't last long enough to really do anything edge casey with in any case. But having a creature not fight you and then stand there like a practice dummy while you whallop them with a save or lose spell is actually way better than the vast majority of those 1st level bad touch effects that Pathfailure loves handing out.

-Username17

[Orca]

The question was about optimizing a Pathfailure Wizard.

I don't think it was, really.

Is there a guide to building a level 1 wizard in Pathfinder somewhere in this nearly 300 page thread? I want to give advice to someone who's being told that being an elf with magic missile is optimized.

Optimizing is mentioned but it's about giving good advice to someone who's received some very bad advice I think. In that situation I'd keep it simple and not mention stuff 3 function calls away from the base wizard.

BTW - Instructor gives you a commoner cohort with the 13 to 8 stat array and a useless feat at first level, not another wizard. If you were starting at 5th level or so I'd consider it, but starting at first level you risk racking up a number of cohort deaths and not actually getting a decent cohort when that becomes possible.

[Antariuk]

Frank isn't wrong here, it's really super-complicated if your GM says that all Paizo materials are open for character creation. Not only because of the ever increasing amount of interacting options, but also because a number of those - namely a few recent Player's Companions - contained surprisingly good options for once. Adding the fact that you can use several archetypes at once, as long as they don't replace the same original class features, and that wizards have even more shit to choose from like the arcane discoveries that can replace the standard bonus feat every 5 levels, and it gets messy.

[Ice9]

Also, the complexity is very front-loaded, with deciding your archetype, school, subschool, familiar, familiar archetype, etc. So while I'd say it's no worse making a 10th level Wizard, it's a lot more work making a 1st level one - if you care about being optimal. Unfortunately, I do, not in the "must be the strongest char possible" sense, but in the sense that I don't like to leave "free" power laying on the ground; it feels like a waste and it'll irk me later on.

If the GM is amenable to it, what I'd rather do is make a character very quick and sloppy to start, and then fine-tune the feats/archetypes/etc between sessions as we play. People aren't always on board with that though.

[Antariuk]

If the GM is amenable to it, what I'd rather do is make a character very quick and sloppy to start, and then fine-tune the feats/archetypes/etc between sessions as we play. People aren't always on board with that though.

This is pretty much how I run my games, since I don't expect anyone to know all the fiddly details for an 'optimal' character they might not have planned beforehand, and to save time for actual adventuring because browsing the PRD as a group endeavor is only funny for so long.


On another note, I recently found the Disease and Poison rules from Pathfinder Unchained, and I kinda like them. Instead of messing with ability damage that is a pain to calculate at low levels until lesser restoration becomes available, at which point most poisons cease to have any real impact on gameplay, you have diseases and poison tracks (physical and mental for disease, and six ability tracks for poison). Healing is also harder to do than with the standard rules, so this looks pretty lethal at low levels and might even fvck with mid-level parties that are not sufficiently prepared. Any thoughts?

[ishy]

I'm not 100% certain that Beguiling Touch is all that good. It explicitly can't be used in combat nor be used against hostile targets. At which point, it interacts based on how your DM thinks charm works. At its worst, this is a +10 or +5 to Diplomacy for a couple rounds, and they've removed the option to change someone's attitude in less than a minute. At its best, you can force an opposed Charisma test to have it perform anything not "obviously harmful."

Beguiling Touch is totally pimp even though Paizo's attempts to clarify what exactly the fuck it is that charm monster actually does have been negatively helpful and I have no idea what your DM thinks the spell does. Because whatever the fuck it is that the charmed state does, so long as it lasts two turns or longer it's enough time for you to ask for your victim to let you cast a spell on them. So it's like a long lasting daze effect that ends with you getting to force them to auto-fail a save on a save or lose spell effect.

Reading James Jacobs trying to explain how charm person isn't really as totally game changingly powerful as it obviously is makes my head hurt. His explanations and counter explanations to different questions are gibberish and self contradictory. The simple reality is that the thing Charm Monster does is in fact extremely powerful, and James Jacobs is totes on board with that unless and until people actually show him how powerful it is by asking about edge cases and then he starts sputtering nonsense.

But you don't have to do any edge case stuff with Beguiling Touch, because it doesn't last long enough to really do anything edge casey with in any case. But having a creature not fight you and then stand there like a practice dummy while you whallop them with a save or lose spell is actually way better than the vast majority of those 1st level bad touch effects that Pathfailure loves handing out.

-Username17

Uhmm. Beguiling touch -> charm monster -> charm person

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

I don't know about you, but if my my trusted friends and allies cast a hostile spell on me, I'll try to resist it. And probably wonder if they were mindcontrolled or something.

[rasmuswagner]

I don't know about you, but if my my trusted friends and allies cast a hostile spell on me, I'll try to resist it. And probably wonder if they were mindcontrolled or something.

If my trusted friends and allies cast a spell on me that I have no idea what is, because I'm not a smart PC and my Spellcraft modifier is "fuck no", I'm probably not going to resist it.

[maglag]

I don't know about you, but if my my trusted friends and allies cast a hostile spell on me, I'll try to resist it. And probably wonder if they were mindcontrolled or something.

If my trusted friends and allies cast a spell on me that I have no idea what is, because I'm not a smart PC and my Spellcraft modifier is "fuck no", I'm probably not going to resist it.

Talking is a free action. They have no excuse to don't tell you what they're tryint to cast.

Besides, if you consider that charmed condition already gives full blind confidence, then what would be the point of the dominated condition?

[Kaelik]

Talking is a free action. They have no excuse to don't tell you what they're tryint to cast.

"A Buff" But of course, you can totally also just not fucking tell people every time you cast a spell.

Besides, if you consider that charmed condition already gives full blind confidence, then what would be the point of the dominated condition?

Because you want him to turn around and knife his friend in the eye?

Surprise, Charm and Dominate do different things, almost like Dominate is not a spell to make friends or something.

[ishy]

If my trusted friends and allies cast a spell on me that I have no idea what is, because I'm not a smart PC and my Spellcraft modifier is "fuck no", I'm probably not going to resist it.

You'll forgo the save on a hostile spell if you don't know what it is? I sure wouldn't. Also just telling someone it is a beneficial spell or something doesn't really work in pathfinder. See this faq for example:

Potions: If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?

No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

If my trusted friends and allies cast a spell on me that I have no idea what is, because I'm not a smart PC and my Spellcraft modifier is "fuck no", I'm probably not going to resist it.

Thank you. I find that behavior beyond irritating.

[violence in the media]

I don't know about you, but if my my trusted friends and allies cast a hostile spell on me, I'll try to resist it. And probably wonder if they were mindcontrolled or something.

I hope you roll to resist every spell cast on you by the other players sitting at the table all the time as well.

[Kaelik]

If my trusted friends and allies cast a spell on me that I have no idea what is, because I'm not a smart PC and my Spellcraft modifier is "fuck no", I'm probably not going to resist it.

You'll forgo the save on a hostile spell if you don't know what it is? I sure wouldn't. Also just telling someone it is a beneficial spell or something doesn't really work in pathfinder. See this faq for example:

Potions: If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?

No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.

Okay, but the problem there is that you are, for some dumb reason, thinking that Pathfinder devs are not idiots, and ignoring reality. Here is reality:

Cure Serious Wounds: Saving Throw: Will half (harmless); see text.

So you totally get to save against the healing done by Cure Serious Wounds. Unless you say, forego the saving throw.

"The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires."

So yes, when someone casts a spell, you don't know it's hostile. When someone casts Enlarge Person, that's a Fort Negates spell. It doesn't even have the harmless tag. When the Cleric casts Enlarge Person on me, I don't make a saving throw, I willingly fail the saving throw.

Same for Haste, Heal, or Heroism too.

[virgil]

See what I mean about my concern with Beguiling Touch? You can't even argue for the minor advantage of forcing a Will save in place of a different save under restricted circumstances without the potential for DMs to make up excuses for it to not work.

[SlyJohnny]

If my trusted friends and allies cast a spell on me that I have no idea what is, because I'm not a smart PC and my Spellcraft modifier is "fuck no", I'm probably not going to resist it.

You'll forgo the save on a hostile spell if you don't know what it is? I sure wouldn't. Also just telling someone it is a beneficial spell or something doesn't really work in pathfinder. See this faq for example:

Potions: If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?

No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.

Okay, but the problem there is that you are, for some dumb reason, thinking that Pathfinder devs are not idiots, and ignoring reality. Here is reality:

Cure Serious Wounds: Saving Throw: Will half (harmless); see text.

So you totally get to save against the healing done by Cure Serious Wounds. Unless you say, forego the saving throw.

"The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires."

So yes, when someone casts a spell, you don't know it's hostile. When someone casts Enlarge Person, that's a Fort Negates spell. It doesn't even have the harmless tag. When the Cleric casts Enlarge Person on me, I don't make a saving throw, I willingly fail the saving throw.

Same for Haste, Heal, or Heroism too.

That's how I understand it to work too, but I can see an argument for spells with the (Harmless) tag passing unopposed unless the subject actively, consciously resists, while harmful spells grant a Will (or whatever) save for the person to figure out what's happening to you and fight it off, even if the subject is under the impression it's a beneficial spell. Therefore, there's no reason a friend would ever ask you to "deliberately fail your save", because healing spells are a thing that kind of just happens unless you actively shake off the tingling feeling, and it feels different to someone trying to touch you with negative energy (which you resist instinctively unless you suppress the automatic urge to do so).

If they're phrasing it in terms of "it's always been this way, once and future perfect forever!" rather than "we're changing the rules for saves to make a better game", than that's lame, but it makes sense as a rule and it makes sense in terms of game balance.

[ishy]

If my trusted friends and allies cast a spell on me that I have no idea what is, because I'm not a smart PC and my Spellcraft modifier is "fuck no", I'm probably not going to resist it.

You'll forgo the save on a hostile spell if you don't know what it is? I sure wouldn't. Also just telling someone it is a beneficial spell or something doesn't really work in pathfinder. See this faq for example:

Potions: If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?

No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.

Okay, but the problem there is that you are, for some dumb reason, thinking that Pathfinder devs are not idiots, and ignoring reality. Here is reality:

Cure Serious Wounds: Saving Throw: Will half (harmless); see text.

So you totally get to save against the healing done by Cure Serious Wounds. Unless you say, forego the saving throw.

"The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires."

So yes, when someone casts a spell, you don't know it's hostile. When someone casts Enlarge Person, that's a Fort Negates spell. It doesn't even have the harmless tag. When the Cleric casts Enlarge Person on me, I don't make a saving throw, I willingly fail the saving throw.

Same for Haste, Heal, or Heroism too.

Actually, here are the rules for saving throws

Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect.

So you do know whether a spell is harmful or not. If it is not you don't get a saving throw. Spells with the harmless tag are an exception.

[Username17]

If they're phrasing it in terms of "it's always been this way, once and future perfect forever!" rather than "we're changing the rules for saves to make a better game", than that's lame, but it makes sense as a rule and it makes sense in terms of game balance.

It definitely doesn't make sense in terms of rules or game balance. When was the last time anyone was asked to make a Saving Throw against a casting or potion of Enlarge Person?

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Actually, here are the rules for saving throws

Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect.

So you do know whether a spell is harmful or not. If it is not you don't get a saving throw. Spells with the harmless tag are an exception.

That... what? Are you delusional? If someone casts Enlarge Person on you, do you get a saving throw? Well, gee, when I look at the fucking spell, it says there is a fucking saving throw to negate the effect.

Arguing that the general rules that spells with harmful effects offer saves, therefore implicitly harmless spells don't, therefore enlarge person doesn't because it's harmless for some vague nonsense definition you just made up so the general rule overrides the spell entry is so far ass backwards that I'm lost.

Look, if you go through all the buff spells in the PHB, you will find that most of them offer saving throws. If not all. So when someone wants to cast a buff, you have to fail a saving throw to get that buff Usually by deliberately failing it.

Whether the spell is Bless, Endure Elements, Hide From Undead, Magic Weapon, Protection from Evil, Remove Fear, Sanctuary, or Shield of Faith, if a level 1 Cleric casts a buff spell on you, there is a saving throw. So yes if your friends wants to buff you, there is a saving throw.

[DSMatticus]

Harmful spells often allow saving throws. Harmless spells often allow saving throws. Spells in general often allow saving throws. The question is whether or not you can tell if a spell is harmful or harmless (aside from identifying the spell through an ability such as spellcraft) before choosing to fail your saving throw. If the answer is "no, you can't tell," then when your trusted friend tells you he's going to cast good magic on you, your response is "yes, because good magic is good, and I trust you." If the answer is "yes, you can tell," then when your trusted friend tells you he's going to cast good magic on you, your response is "yes, because good magic is go- hey wait a second, this isn't good magic at all! No!"

I've never seen anything in the rules that says a character can intrinsically distinguish a harmful effect from a harmless one. The simplest interpretation is that characters are making their decisions based on things they know, like who cast the spell (enemy magic is bad magic) and whatever visible effects the spell has (explosion magic is bad magic). But outside of an ability like spellcraft, how does some random dude know that the pretty colors shooting out of your fingers are going to fuck him right up?

[Fwib]

What things in Pathfinder interact with the (harmless) tag?

[Username17]

What things in Pathfinder interact with the (harmless) tag?

Literally nothing. The Harmless tag does nothing. You still have to choose to fail a save (a non-action) or drop your spell resistance (a fucking standard action) if you want them to go through.

There's even spells with the Ruse descriptor in ultimate intrigue that have the harmless tag despite not actually being harmless and that still does not do anything.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

Literally nothing. The Harmless tag does nothing. You still have to choose to fail a save (a non-action) or drop your spell resistance (a fucking standard action) if you want them to go through.

There's even spells with the Ruse descriptor in ultimate intrigue that have the harmless tag despite not actually being harmless and that still does not do anything.

Don't worry. They'll change the rules in a few months and say that it's always done something.