Pathfinder Is Still Bad

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:28 pm

Casters aren't a fix though, they are their own classes. You can't say "don't be a fighter, be a class with completely different mechanics," but you can say "don't be a rogue, be a ninja which plays the exact same way but is better."

How stupid are you, Shadow?

Ishy, the ninja is free and on the SRD. While there will be people who insist on using the rogue (and there are, and it is very unfortunate) the rogue being ignored would ultimately be what's best for the game. The differences between the rogue and ninja are so incredibly small that you could replace every instance of ninja with "rogue" on the ninja page, delete the old "rogue" page and people wouldn't notice the old rogue was gone. They fill the exact same conceptual space, the ninja is just better.

I'm pretty sure I explicitly mention that Paizo was stupid for calling the ninja the ninja instead of just replacing the rogue with it. Ninja means nobody who wants to be a rogue will play it unless they can get over refluffing. As a matter of fact, I submit that because the ninja was released Paizo will never even try to fix the rogue.

Why the PF rogue sucks has been rehashed over and over again (in the old thread where Frank lists out what's wrong with the whole system). PF rogue can't get sneak attack from grease, blink got worse, twf is still hard, rogues don't have enough hp and lack real defenses (ninjas get mirror image as a swift action), a lot of shit is outright immune to SA, they have to invest in two weapons, and stealth isn't that useful in game.

Ninja solves a few of those problems by generating their own SA, getting even more attacks to make up for sucking, getting real defenses and having neat out of combat utility.

Shadow Balls · Post by **Shadow Balls** » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:57 pm

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Casters aren't a fix though, they are their own classes. You can't say "don't be a fighter, be a class with completely different mechanics," but you can say "don't be a rogue, be a ninja which plays the exact same way but is better."

Option A is invalidated by nerfs, take Option B instead.
Option A is invalidated by nerfs, take Option B instead.

In one case B is flat out better than A, and in one B is flat out better than A and also similar. But either way, you are mentally scratching off non viable options and regarding the playspace in terms of only what is viable.

Apparently being similar does not matter to them either, if it did then you would not say the things that you are saying.

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:07 am

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Ninja solves a few of those problems by generating their own SA, getting even more attacks to make up for sucking, getting real defenses and having neat out of combat utility.

Also, in the event that rogues have some sort of overlooked great ability or get some awesome ability in the future, ninjas have abilities which are just "Take a rogue ability as if you were a rogue."

So rogues are entirely pointless except for Trapfinding. Which, given how badly traps are nerfed in Pathfinder, makes them superfluous.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:56 am

Shadow Balls wrote:
Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Casters aren't a fix though, they are their own classes. You can't say "don't be a fighter, be a class with completely different mechanics," but you can say "don't be a rogue, be a ninja which plays the exact same way but is better."
Option A is invalidated by nerfs, take Option B instead.
Option A is invalidated by nerfs, take Option B instead.

In one case B is flat out better than A, and in one B is flat out better than A and also similar. But either way, you are mentally scratching off non viable options and regarding the playspace in terms of only what is viable.

Apparently being similar does not matter to them either, if it did then you would not say the things that you are saying.

You are so dumb.

I want to play a guy that just stabs things hard, not a caster. Telling me to play a caster and not a guy that just stabs things hard makes you an asshole.

I want to play a stealthy damage-dealer. Telling me not to play one stealthy damage-dealer and to play a better stealthy damage-dealer is totally OK, because I'm doing what I want.

Shadow Balls · Post by **Shadow Balls** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:13 pm

You are playing Pathfinder. Guy who stabs things hard isn't on the table, unless the things in question are himself.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:41 pm

...You Lost Me wrote:You are so dumb.

I want to play a guy that just stabs things hard, not a caster. Telling me to play a caster and not a guy that just stabs things hard makes you an asshole.

I want to play a stealthy damage-dealer. Telling me not to play one stealthy damage-dealer and to play a better stealthy damage-dealer is totally OK, because I'm doing what I want.

"Guy who just stabs things harder" is not an acceptable character beyond low levels.

"Guy who stabs things smarter" is an acceptable character.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:11 pm

...You Lost Me wrote: I want to play a guy that just stabs things hard, not a caster. Telling me to play a caster and not a guy that just stabs things hard makes you an asshole.

I want to play a stealthy damage-dealer. Telling me not to play one stealthy damage-dealer and to play a better stealthy damage-dealer is totally OK, because I'm doing what I want.

Welcome to 3E/Pathfinder, the edition where the regardless of archetype you want to play, people will tell you to play a caster.

Shadow Balls · Post by **Shadow Balls** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:33 pm

Swordslinger wrote:
...You Lost Me wrote: I want to play a guy that just stabs things hard, not a caster. Telling me to play a caster and not a guy that just stabs things hard makes you an asshole.

I want to play a stealthy damage-dealer. Telling me not to play one stealthy damage-dealer and to play a better stealthy damage-dealer is totally OK, because I'm doing what I want.
Welcome to 3E/Pathfinder, the edition where the regardless of archetype you want to play, people will tell you to play a caster.

That's not too far off, but there are ways of somewhat salvaging characters without spells in 3.5.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:58 pm

To all of you above, my comment was just a refute to shadzar's post about how casters were the implied hotfix for fighters, because they are not. Not at low levels, and not at high levels. Not in a box. Not with a fox. When, as a player, I want my fighter archetype, I will ignore people who tell me to be a caster. However, as a player, when I want my rogue archetype, I will follow through with the ninja because it has the same damn flavor.

So please, don't go on tangents. If you want, we can all pretend it's based only on player desire in relation to the class and only at low levels and whatever you want so you don't try to nitpick the arguments of a guy who couldn't give two fucks about you.

Shadow Balls · Post by **Shadow Balls** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:18 pm

...You Lost Me wrote:To all of you above, my comment was just a refute to shadzar's post about how casters were the implied hotfix for fighters, because they are not. Not at low levels, and not at high levels. Not in a box. Not with a fox. When, as a player, I want my fighter archetype, I will ignore people who tell me to be a caster. However, as a player, when I want my rogue archetype, I will follow through with the ninja because it has the same damn flavor.

I am also game-illiterate, so please take it easy...

Die in a fire.

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:47 am

Shadow Balls wrote:Die in a fire.

I'm curious, Shadow Balls. Do you accept that there is any reason to play D&D (or any other RPG, for that matter) other than to exact the most perfectly efficient victories possible?

I'm curious if this is some sort of rhetorical front, or how you actually play.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:03 am

I wish I hadn't copypasta'd the Asspie National Anthem to Shadzar, because it'd be funnier to post it to Shadow Balls. Man, I dropped the ball on this one.

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:06 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I wish I hadn't copypasta'd the Asspie National Anthem to Shadzar, because it'd be funnier to post it to Shadow Balls. Man, I dropped the ball on this one.

I wish you'd knock that shit off, because it's not funny any way you slice it.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:21 am

A Man In Black wrote:
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I wish I hadn't copypasta'd the Asspie National Anthem to Shadzar, because it'd be funnier to post it to Shadow Balls. Man, I dropped the ball on this one.
I wish you'd knock that shit off, because it's not funny any way you slice it.

I wish you'd make me some nachos. Looks like we're both going to be disappointed tonight.

darkmaster · Post by **darkmaster** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:36 am

I have a couple of those symptoms.... Oh no. Could I be a secret asspie?

But to say something that's actually on topic, if pathfinder sucks so badly, does anyone here know if there have been any attempts to try and make homebrew to patch things up? Like the tomes did with 3.5.

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:03 am

darkmaster wrote:But to say something that's actually on topic, if pathfinder sucks so badly, does anyone here know if there have been any attempts to try and make homebrew to patch things up? Like the tomes did with 3.5.

Yeah, but you'd probably be better off checking out the Paizo forums, and bear in mind they have a fairly different set of goals and priorities. Searching for "Kirthfinder" might get you started, though. No promises.

K · Post by K » Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:09 am

PR thinks everyone who can form a coherent argument or has an education also has Aspergers. It's kind of sad that his self-esteem is so poor.

It's damn ironic considering his own social difficulties.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:49 am

A while back someone asked me what the definition of irony was and off the top of my head I was a little flummoxed.

PR posting copypasta about aspergers is a pretty good definition of irony I think.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:01 am

Juton wrote:A while back someone asked me what the definition of irony was and off the top of my head I was a little flummoxed.

PR posting copypasta about aspergers is a pretty good definition of irony I think.

The definition of Irony is that there is not a single ironic thing in the Allanis Morissette song "Ironic". Every single thing in that song is merely unfortunate, and that fact actually is ironic.

-Username17

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:00 am

The main reason not to play a ninja is because it doesn't say "Rogue" on the character sheet. For many people that is an incredibly important part of character identity. And perhaps they hate anime too.

Shadow Balls · Post by **Shadow Balls** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 12:50 pm

A Man In Black wrote:
Shadow Balls wrote:Die in a fire.
I'm curious, Shadow Balls. Do you accept that there is any reason to play D&D (or any other RPG, for that matter) other than to exact the most perfectly efficient victories possible?

I'm curious if this is some sort of rhetorical front, or how you actually play.

This is Pathfinder. And that means you have about 3 or so options. And all of those options are amazingly good. And then there's some hundred odd things that suck a barrel of cocks.

So my predilections towards powergaming are immaterial, as your options are to play a caster, or to die repeatedly until you play a caster. As most people, regardless of their stances regarding character death would rather not be the party joke, that means that either people will start off playing casters, they will learn the hard way they should be playing a caster, or they will play a game with a better, less centralized meta. The third option is the best one, but assuming that they stick with it saying that everyone is a caster is a fair summary.

K wrote:PR thinks everyone who can form a coherent argument or has an education also has Aspergers. It's kind of sad that his self-esteem is so poor.

It's damn ironic considering his own social difficulties.

Juton wrote:A while back someone asked me what the definition of irony was and off the top of my head I was a little flummoxed.

PR posting copypasta about aspergers is a pretty good definition of irony I think.

This. He can't even find the shift key, and at least half of those describe himself (possibly more, but I don't really know him). Now he was obviously directing that at me, except that I haven't actually done the things he claims I have done. It's all in his head.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:45 pm

darkmaster wrote: But to say something that's actually on topic, if pathfinder sucks so badly, does anyone here know if there have been any attempts to try and make homebrew to patch things up? Like the tomes did with 3.5.

You can find Kirthfinder and accompanying discussions here.

There are plenty of homebrew 'fixes' posted to the forum just as there were in 3.5, but this is the closest to a Tomes-style collection.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:40 pm

Psychic Robot wrote: ant haul for the fighter? pretty overpowered, guess this must be "kick around the cleric" edition, next thing you know you'll be letting rogues get multiple sneak attacks per round.

ROGUE IS COWARD!

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:56 pm

In keeping with "Paizo just rifle through other people's trash", I realised what Pathfinder reminds me of:

Anybody remember Sztany (spelling likely wrong) from the old WotC boards? He had an avatar of a demonic monkey (not the gorilla demon, just a monkey that looks highly demonic) and had this massive "redoing all the classes, more balanced and with options" project.

The PF Sorcerer is basically his Sorcerer. Its non-spellcasting bit was basically "Maybe you're descended from ___, or are a new race of innately spellcasting creature, or went out and infused yourself with magic". The Wizard had more relevance from specialist school (and could choose thematic groups/descriptors instead). And so on.

There is a huge similarity I'm seeing, especially with how basically every class gets this big level 1 "Choose some defining thing about the class, this shapes it over the next 20 levels so we don't have to make 15 near-identical classes" thing.

koz · Post by **koz** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:30 pm

Koumei wrote:In keeping with "Paizo just rifle through other people's trash", I realised what Pathfinder reminds me of:

Anybody remember Sztany (spelling likely wrong) from the old WotC boards? He had an avatar of a demonic monkey (not the gorilla demon, just a monkey that looks highly demonic) and had this massive "redoing all the classes, more balanced and with options" project.

The PF Sorcerer is basically his Sorcerer. Its non-spellcasting bit was basically "Maybe you're descended from ___, or are a new race of innately spellcasting creature, or went out and infused yourself with magic". The Wizard had more relevance from specialist school (and could choose thematic groups/descriptors instead). And so on.

There is a huge similarity I'm seeing, especially with how basically every class gets this big level 1 "Choose some defining thing about the class, this shapes it over the next 20 levels so we don't have to make 15 near-identical classes" thing.

It was Szatany (Polish for 'Satan'), I believe, and yes, I also got that vibe. The difference lies in the fact that Szatany's work was actually a hell of a lot more interesting, and dare I say, had far fewer trap options than anything I've seen made by the Paizils.