Pathfinder Is Still Bad

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Antariuk
Knight
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:25 am

Post by Antariuk »

OgreBattle wrote:Given a similar level of optimization, is a Fighter significantly superior to a Barbarian that's not raging? Against better judgement I had wandered onto the pathfinder reddit and found some upvoted comment on how once the barbarian is out of rages because having a dozen fights in one day is totally how OP runs games, the fighter shines.
Absolutely. All those CAGM builds with Beast Totem and Superstition gain no bonuses whatsoever once rage runs out, and many of the popular barbarian feats also revolve around rage. Compared to a fighter, especially one build with options from the current Player's Companions such as the Armor/Weapon Master's Handbook, that's pretty bad. Some barbarian archetypes, such as Invulnerable Rager, grant bonuses that work all the time, but that's not going to cut it.
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." - Steven Brust
User avatar
Aryxbez
Duke
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:41 pm

Post by Aryxbez »

FatR wrote:If your audience is not going to notice then the game is balanced enough.

Disparity between casters and martials is in general overstated as a problem, particularly compared to the problem of excessive complexity and fiddliness in PF, which kicks in earlier and cannot be mitigated.
Not Quite, it's moreso the logic of them trusting the designers more than their own senses and understanding of the game. Where they simply assume that is the intended play experience, and how the game works. Those kind of games will also buckle the moment a caster brings in any-non blaster spell, like Detect [Alignment], Spider Climb, or even Web. In Reality, the fighter will still be going underpar against level appropriate threats as the game goes on, even I was noticing something like this when I was like 14-ish, just I figured it was the intended play experience.
What I find wrong w/ 4th edition: "I want to stab dragons the size of a small keep with skin like supple adamantine and command over time and space to death with my longsword in head to head combat, but I want to be totally within realistic capabilities of a real human being!" --Caedrus mocking 4rries

"the thing about being Mister Cavern [DM], you don't blame players for how they play. That's like blaming the weather. Weather just is. You adapt to it. -Ancient History
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

FatR wrote:
hogarth wrote: I think it's fair to claim that publishing an item/feat/class feature/whatever and then saying "whoopsies! I didn't mean to do that" shows a certain lack of knowing what they're doing.
If your standard of "knowing what they're doing" excludes pretty much everyone, including MMOs with vastly greater budget and bigger development teams than PF, never mind actual testers, then maybe your standard is too strict.

Errata/nerf patches/whatever are pretty much unavoidable once a project exceeds a certain degree of complexity, while still at least pretending mechanical balance.
I'm not talking about cases where something sounded like a good idea at the time but it turned out to be too good or too bad. I'm talking about cases where James Jacobs literally said "if I had been paying attention in the first place, that never would have been published".
GâtFromKI
Knight-Baron
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:14 am

Post by GâtFromKI »

OgreBattle wrote:Given a similar level of optimization, is a Fighter significantly superior to a Barbarian that's not raging? Against better judgement I had wandered onto the pathfinder reddit and found some upvoted comment on how once the barbarian is out of rages because having a dozen fights in one day is totally how OP runs games, the fighter shines.
An optimized Pathfinder fighter is comparable to an optimized Pathfinder raging barbarian. Therefore he is "far better" than an unraging barbarian. I mean, he can't do anything except hitting things 5 feet away with a pointy stick, but he does that far better than an unraging barbarian.

Anyway, after a dozen of combats, real classes don't have spells anymore; so no buff and no heal for the fighter or the other comic relief classes: he has to win the fights alone. And since the game isn't balanced around fighters winning fights alone... He dies.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

hogarth wrote:I'm not talking about cases where something sounded like a good idea at the time but it turned out to be too good or too bad. I'm talking about cases where James Jacobs literally said "if I had been paying attention in the first place, that never would have been published".
The design itself is done in a distributed and incredibly myopic fashion. Each freelance writer is told to pretty much go do their thing. And their thing is to sit around thinking up various extra feats and class features that make you better at doing a thing. And that "thing" could be, well, anything. A character concept ripped from a media source, a battle tactic used in a movie, the utilization of an experimental resource schedule, fucking anything. And most of that is a priori a waste of time because most concepts and actions are not conceptually meaningful at all levels of play. It doesn't really matter what the sixth feat in a chain about disarming opponents or being good at horse breeding do, because those things don't mean dick at the level where you'd actually have 6 feats to sink into a chain.

But with all these pieces of content being shat out, there is inevitably going to be combo potential. Sure it doesn't inherently make much difference to be able to breed a new horse in five minutes or whatever past the levels where having a horse or not ceases to mean jack diddly shit; but if you have some sort of horse sacrificing power that actually matters you just managed to turn what was supposed to be a once per adventure power into an every encounter power. So you have that going for you.

Paizo's gut reaction is to throw a temper tantrum every time they realize there's combo potential they hadn't thought of. Which is sort of understandable when you realize how very much crap they put out and how very much they don't want to do the incredible amount of procedural work of figuring out whether combos are actually meaningful.

-Username17
Slade
Knight
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:23 pm

Post by Slade »

FrankTrollman wrote:
Paizo's gut reaction is to throw a temper tantrum every time they realize there's combo potential they hadn't thought of. Which is sort of understandable when you realize how very much crap they put out and how very much they don't want to do the incredible amount of procedural work of figuring out whether combos are actually meaningful.

-Username17
Speaking of that: they banned DR Rage power from being taken by Barbarian Invulnerable Rager archetype. Funny thing: it mentions in the books that are suggested to be taken.

So they throw a tantrum even when they realize the combo can be taken...
User avatar
rasmuswagner
Knight-Baron
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 9:37 am
Location: Danmark

Post by rasmuswagner »

If they were just lazy and incompetent, I could live with it. Just throw shit at the wall, scrape of what sticks too well. But they have to be such enormously dishonest shitweasels about it and call everything "FAQ" and "clarification".

Take Ultimate Intrigue, for example. They came up with two goals:
1) Scry-and-fry needs to go.
2) Stealthily casting Suggestion completely wrecks fucking around with social skills and doing chains of fetch-quests to finally get to the kings piss-boy.

Those are valid goals. I mean, fucking hobbit fondlers, scry-teleport-kill is more iconic of actual D&D play than anything that made it into 4th or 5th edition, but it's a valid goal if you're a stupid asshole who likes dumb shit.

But in Ultimate Intrigue, they helpfully "clarify" that scrying isn't enough information to Teleport by. Despite the Teleport spell telling you "this is the value you use if you've only scried the location", and the relatively recent Skulls & Shackles player's guide telling you "this is how scry-and-fry works differently when the target is a ship".

And stealthy casters...they just decided that all casting has "visible manifestations", in complete violation og probably hundreds of their own scenarios and every single shitty novel printed under their label. And it was, of course, always this way. Of course it fucking was.
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.
Heaven's Thunder Hammer
Master
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:01 am

Post by Heaven's Thunder Hammer »

Antariuk wrote:
OgreBattle wrote:Given a similar level of optimization, is a Fighter significantly superior to a Barbarian that's not raging? Against better judgement I had wandered onto the pathfinder reddit and found some upvoted comment on how once the barbarian is out of rages because having a dozen fights in one day is totally how OP runs games, the fighter shines.
Absolutely. All those CAGM builds with Beast Totem and Superstition gain no bonuses whatsoever once rage runs out, and many of the popular barbarian feats also revolve around rage. Compared to a fighter, especially one build with options from the current Player's Companions such as the Armor/Weapon Master's Handbook, that's pretty bad. Some barbarian archetypes, such as Invulnerable Rager, grant bonuses that work all the time, but that's not going to cut it.
I play a CAGM in my game in the Giant Slayer. With a moderate amount of optimization, my damage is 33+3d6, per hit, and I usually land 3 hits with haste. The Wizard is a blaster of some kind, but she's not a very good optimizer, does lousy damage - in the 30s to 60s. We have a ranger who can land some good hits here and there 80 to 100s.... And a Slayer? He sometimes does about 60-70 damage.

I've been wondering how different my damage would be as a Fighter. I don't think that much.

I think the Slayer would be better as a Fighter, and I think the Ranger would be better as a Fighter - IMO. Maybe they need better optimization, I'm not sure.
Last edited by Heaven's Thunder Hammer on Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Antariuk
Knight
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:25 am

Post by Antariuk »

Heaven's Thunder Hammer wrote:I play a CAGM in my game in the Giant Slayer. With a moderate amount of optimization, my damage is 33+3d6, per hit, and I usually land 3 hits with haste.
What level are you guys at?
Heaven's Thunder Hammer wrote: I think the Slayer would be better as a Fighter, and I think the Ranger would be better as a Fighter - IMO. Maybe they need better optimization, I'm not sure.
Slayers can put out pretty obscene amounts of damage (for Pathfinder) with only moderate optimization, same as rangers, especially in ranged combat. And a ranger build for melee who utilizes teamwork feats with his animal companion can be quite effective against land-based monsters.
Heaven's Thunder Hammer wrote:I've been wondering how different my damage would be as a Fighter. I don't think that much.
Depends on the encounter/day ration, really. With 4 encounters/day a barbarian might use up all his available rage rounds, but unless your GM is fond of attrition battles with rounds in the double digits, I'd put barbarians still ahead. Especially around 10th level.
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." - Steven Brust
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

rasmuswagner wrote:If they were just lazy and incompetent, I could live with it. Just throw shit at the wall, scrape of what sticks too well. But they have to be such enormously dishonest shitweasels about it and call everything "FAQ" and "clarification".
OK, I take my words back, looks like I was just not up to date on their practices.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14758
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

An Actual Monster Someone Actually Wrote wrote:Petrify (Ex): A petrifern can petrify itself as a standard action in order to defend itself from predators. When it does so, the petrifern's natural armor bonus to AC increases by 5, it gains resistance 10 to cold and fire, and it can take 20 on Stealth checks to appear as a sprout or fallen tree branch.

While petrified, the petrifern can't move or take any actions. A petrifern can remain petrified indefinitely, and can cease its petrification as a standard action.
THOSE SENTENCES ARE ADJACENT.

YOU LITERALLY WROTE THE NO ACTIONS SENTENCE RIGHT NEXT TO THE USE AN ACTION TO UN PETRIFY SENTENCE.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Heaven's Thunder Hammer
Master
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:01 am

Post by Heaven's Thunder Hammer »

Antariuk wrote:
Heaven's Thunder Hammer wrote:I play a CAGM in my game in the Giant Slayer. With a moderate amount of optimization, my damage is 33+3d6, per hit, and I usually land 3 hits with haste.
What level are you guys at?
Heaven's Thunder Hammer wrote: I think the Slayer would be better as a Fighter, and I think the Ranger would be better as a Fighter - IMO. Maybe they need better optimization, I'm not sure.
Slayers can put out pretty obscene amounts of damage (for Pathfinder) with only moderate optimization, same as rangers, especially in ranged combat. And a ranger build for melee who utilizes teamwork feats with his animal companion can be quite effective against land-based monsters.
Heaven's Thunder Hammer wrote:I've been wondering how different my damage would be as a Fighter. I don't think that much.
Depends on the encounter/day ration, really. With 4 encounters/day a barbarian might use up all his available rage rounds, but unless your GM is fond of attrition battles with rounds in the double digits, I'd put barbarians still ahead. Especially around 10th level.
We have about 4 or 5 encounters per day (level 13 now going to book 5 of the giant slayer AP). They are generally over extremely fast as ive never run out of rage. Our slayer player just isn't that good I think... lately his damage has been craptastic.
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

An Actual Monster Someone Actually Wrote wrote: While petrified, the petrifern can't move or take any actions. A petrifern can remain petrified indefinitely, and can cease its petrification as a standard action.
That's beautiful. I've been stabbed with a pencil for less than that.
User avatar
Covent
Master
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:30 pm

Post by Covent »

Kaelik wrote:
An Actual Monster Someone Actually Wrote wrote:Petrify (Ex): A petrifern can petrify itself as a standard action in order to defend itself from predators. When it does so, the petrifern's natural armor bonus to AC increases by 5, it gains resistance 10 to cold and fire, and it can take 20 on Stealth checks to appear as a sprout or fallen tree branch.

While petrified, the petrifern can't move or take any actions. A petrifern can remain petrified indefinitely, and can cease its petrification as a standard action.
THOSE SENTENCES ARE ADJACENT.

YOU LITERALLY WROTE THE NO ACTIONS SENTENCE RIGHT NEXT TO THE USE AN ACTION TO UN PETRIFY SENTENCE.
Wow, and I thought I was the second lowest rung of game design, FATAL does exist after all and I do not think I am that bad, but now I see there is at least one other person capable of worse design then me.

*Golf Clap*
Maxus wrote:Being wrong is something that rightly should be celebrated, because now you have a chance to correct and then you'll be better than you were five minutes ago. Perfection is a hollow shell, but perfectibility is something that is to be treasured.
User avatar
SlyJohnny
Duke
Posts: 1418
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:35 pm

Post by SlyJohnny »

The second rule is obviously an exception to the first, don't be such fucking autists. You really need an FAQ to tell you what that is supposed to mean?
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14758
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

SlyJohnny wrote:The second rule is obviously an exception to the first, don't be such fucking autists. You really need an FAQ to tell you what that is supposed to mean?
No, the second rule is obviously in contradiction to the first, but not an exception, or else it would say "except they can take an action to unpetrify themselves."

Don't be such a fucking idiot that you apologize for bad rules . . . for literally no good reason.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
MGuy
Prince
Posts: 4774
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Indiana

Post by MGuy »

SlyJohnny wrote:The second rule is obviously an exception to the first, don't be such fucking autists. You really need an FAQ to tell you what that is supposed to mean?
Yea! Just because they wrote a retarded rule doesn't mean anyone should point it out. OF COURSE people are just going to ignore it.
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

SlyJohnny wrote:The second rule is obviously an exception to the first, don't be such fucking autists. You really need an FAQ to tell you what that is supposed to mean?
Goddamn, did the DSM-6 come out and change autism to mean a person who can tell the difference between exception and contradiction?

Just because you can figure out what they probably meant doesn't mean that it isn't a fuckup. In fact it means it is a very obvious fuckup because even a shithead like slyjohnny can tell that requiring an action to end a state that precludes actions is an error.
Mechalich
Knight-Baron
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:16 am

Post by Mechalich »

It's still more of a copy editing failure than a design failure. The fact that a person did not write 'except to' into the ability description does not mean the monster was designed such that it petrifies itself forever, it means whoever was responsible for editing failed to be sufficiently diligent.

Needing better editing to maintain consistency and prevent slippery rules contradictions that produce unintended exploits - this situation is blatantly obvious but a similar error could actually impact game balance in an appreciable way - is different from having bad design principles. Not that Paizo isn't bad at both those things.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

If you were to pick out 8-12 pathfinder classes that are good enough for a 'core players handbook' selection, what would they be? They only have to be good up to level 6-10.

---

Or 8-12 classes that are roughly at the same power level as one another, so if you didn't have wizards in there perhaps some BAB1/1 classes could make the list.
Last edited by OgreBattle on Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14758
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

OgreBattle wrote:If you were to pick out 8-12 pathfinder classes that are good enough for a 'core players handbook' selection, what would they be? They only have to be good up to level 6-10.
Wizard, Cleric, Druid....... oh shit, I think I'm out. Maybe Sorcerer?
Last edited by Kaelik on Mon Jul 04, 2016 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
User avatar
Covent
Master
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:30 pm

Post by Covent »

OgreBattle wrote:If you were to pick out 8-12 pathfinder classes that are good enough for a 'core players handbook' selection, what would they be? They only have to be good up to level 6-10.
Arcanist, Alchemist, Cleric, Druid, Magus, Inquisitor, Shaman, Wizard, Witch, Bard.

Maybe Sorcerer and Oracle with some work to even out the choices.

Honorable mention goes to Hunter with some serious work.

Problem is lack of a martial option for those who enjoy non-spell casters, but you would need something like Bo9S or PoW for that.
Maxus wrote:Being wrong is something that rightly should be celebrated, because now you have a chance to correct and then you'll be better than you were five minutes ago. Perfection is a hollow shell, but perfectibility is something that is to be treasured.
Antariuk
Knight
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:25 am

Post by Antariuk »

Covent wrote: Maybe Sorcerer and Oracle with some work to even out the choices.
Oracles do not need "work" in the level range of 6-10. Really, no. Between the incredible SADness, the favored class bonuses and a lot of generally useful revelations, this class can more than hold its own. Sorcerers on the other hand definitely need a push because the way bloodlines are set up.
Covent wrote:Problem is lack of a martial option for those who enjoy non-spell casters, but you would need something like Bo9S or PoW for that.
Didn't Dreamscarred Press release a Bo9S for Pathfinder? Path of War, or something?
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." - Steven Brust
Mask_De_H
Duke
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:17 pm

Post by Mask_De_H »

Antariuk wrote: Didn't Dreamscarred Press release a Bo9S for Pathfinder? Path of War, or something?
That is what PoW stands for, yes.

Also, what are we defining as good here? Has spells? Can contribute meaningfully to all aspects of adventuring? Doesn't require DM pity item? Because at 6-10, the Slayer, the Barbarian/Bloodrager, the Paladin and the Vigilante can pretend they're relevant in medium optimization games. Also the Chained Summoner, just to make those classes feel bad.

High Op, it's full caster or bust, unless you want to make Kaelik cry tiny tears at a Gunslinger obviating anything it can reliably shoot, then proceed to do less than fuck all else in any other situation.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
Captain_Karzak
Journeyman
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 10:19 am

Post by Captain_Karzak »

What are the best ways to minimize the cost of scribing spells into my wizard's spellbook? (The old secret page trick doesn't seem to work quite as well in PF as it did in 3.5)

Also, I want to use the spell Snapdragon Fireworks with the Dazing spell metamagic. It would be really great if I could change the energy type from fire to .... something fewer targets are resistant to. How do I do that without taking Evocation as my arcane school specialization or re-rolling as a sorcerer for Havoc of the Society trait?

I've found one feat called Elemental Spell. It kinda sucks though because it has a +1 spell level adjustment and you can only choose 1 element (and that element cannot be sonic). If this is my only option what's the best choice of element? I was thinking maybe cold, since the snapdragon fireworks normally does fire damage, and I can can choose to have it do both cold and fire damage if I take this feat. I am guessing the number of creatures that are simultaneously resistant to fire and cold is less than the number of creatures resistant to fire and .... say acid. Am I wrong?
Last edited by Captain_Karzak on Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply