Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[angelfromanotherpin]

Let's talk about your example, Grendel. Let's say Grendel is an outsider with a standard action teleport. Grendel's arm does not have a standard action teleport. Should Grendel be able to teleport? Does his arm fall off if he does? How the fuck do I make fiendish Big Bosses if all the components aren't one creature for the purposes of teleport?

What results when an outsider tries to teleport while carrying more than its weight limit is not AFAIK explicit. Whether they leave the excess behind or just fail to 'port isn't clear. In your specific example, I think the obvious solution is a failure to 'port to avoid leaving however many limbs behind. And the way to build a boss that doesn't have that issue is either to make sure each part has its own teleport, or to make sure one part has access to something like the non-Fiendish teleport effects which actually do carry multiple people.

[DrPraetor]

The latest version of Avernum (the indie RPG) actually has that engine. If you hit a debuff-immune-boss with a debuff spell, it is sickened from the effort of resisting the spell and gets poisoned instead.

It worked okay; at a certain point in the game you focus on blasting things into their component atoms exclusively anyway, but that's just how avernum works.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Just a short blurb, but Pathfinder has made Monks that turn into Tigers core. Druid/monks have a lot of ways to boost unarmed strike damage and use it during wild shape... I think that's hilarious. Catfolk monks can turn into tigers at 7th level by setting ki points on fire.

[Insomniac]

So they are admitting the class still isn't anywhere close to a power/flavor level that it should be so the Artifact of Pity example of Amulet of Dire Tiger is LITERALLY a thing in Pathfinder.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

To specify what I'm talking about, here are some things:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-rac ... nk-catfolk

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/adva ... ngJaw.html

(Note: Strong jaw works on a monk's unarmed strike specifically because it counts as both a manufactured and a natural weapon)

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-fe ... ing-combat

That is of course the basic gist of things. There are a LOT of variations on the tiger monk now in Pathfinder using templates and feats and styles and whatnot, depending on how much druid you want to throw in.

[OgreBattle]

What if you played a straight druid that turns into a tiger

[rasmuswagner]

Paizils are currently losing their shit over the Songbird of Doom, a build dumpster-diving for "being small and fighting big dudes" and "enter your opponents square", then combining it with a cheap polymorph effect to turn into a songbird.

[Schleiermacher]

There are a LOT of variations on the tiger monk now in Pathfinder using templates and feats and styles and whatnot, depending on how much druid you want to throw in.

Of course, once you start doing it by means of the character's own innate abilities, it's not GM pity anymore and is, in fact, actually pretty cool in my opinon.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Paizils are currently losing their shit over the Songbird of Doom, a build dumpster-diving for "being small and fighting big dudes" and "enter your opponents square", then combining it with a cheap polymorph effect to turn into a songbird.

I'm intrigued, actually. I'm looking that up.

Of course, once you start doing it by means of the character's own innate abilities, it's not GM pity anymore and is, in fact, actually pretty cool in my opinon.

I can't deny that I'm tweaking my next character that's supposed to be an unarmed mauler to be a similar build to a tiger monk.

What if you played a straight druid that turns into a tiger

I won't deny that would be more powerful, but I don't feel like I need to prove that I can break Pathfinder over my knee since it's a forgone conclusion. I'm playing a monk that turns into an Allosaurus just because I'll be a monk that turns into a dinosaur, and power level aside you can't deny that is cool as all motherfuck.


Edit: Fixed my fucking tags.

[OgreBattle]

Paizils are currently losing their shit over the Songbird of Doom, a build dumpster-diving for "being small and fighting big dudes" and "enter your opponents square", then combining it with a cheap polymorph effect to turn into a songbird.

Just caught up on that thread, entertaining build and lulzy discussion.

[Insomniac]

Paizils are currently losing their shit over the Songbird of Doom, a build dumpster-diving for "being small and fighting big dudes" and "enter your opponents square", then combining it with a cheap polymorph effect to turn into a songbird.

This is another case of a martial combatant doing good things in martial combat. He's got 6 attacks to hit for about 20 damage a hit and in turn he's hard to hit and provokes a lot of attacks of opportunity.

If you said, "Hey, isn't that what a freaking 12TH LEVEL COMBATANT IS SUPPOSED TO DO?!?!



It isn't even close to broken. It does nothing to advance a plot and just kills one guy a turn in melee combat. Big effin' deal. You're already supposed to do that at level 12.

Edit: The same people who complain about this would almost certainly allow Divine Intervention, Divine Protection, Paragon Surge, Samsarans, Exploiter Wizards, Ecclesitheurges, Pit-Blooded Scarred Witch Doctors, Human Sage Sorcerers, Dazing Spell and Metamagic cost reduction, Veiled Illusionists, etc.

[ishy]

If someone has such good saves and AC that they're off the RNG the build does become a problem.

Since melee characters in pathfinder can't do anything, but interact with the RNG, the DM has to cheat or build encounters that can challenge either that build or the rest of the party.

Imho it is no fun for the DM nor the players if the DM can't challenge players nor if the players feel they better sit it out, because they'd get murdered if they pretended they could be relevant.
- Edit: unless you don't care about combat I guess.

[Schleiermacher]

If you don't care even a tiny little bit about combat, D&D is the wrong system for you.

[Insomniac]

Except a buffed caster or even something as mundane as "Druid Velociraptor, Pounce, Go!" or a Synthesist Summoner basically does about as good in combat and still has a shitzillion spells and abilities outside of combat.

All I see is a guy doing about 100 damage a round at level 12. You're supposed to do that, aren't you?

[Dean]

If someone has such good saves and AC that they're off the RNG the build does become a problem.

Since melee characters in pathfinder can't do anything, but interact with the RNG, the DM has to cheat or build encounters that can challenge either that build or the rest of the party.

I disagree. This is common DMing wisdom but I've been on both sides of this equation and it's untrue. D&D has so many attack and defense options, pretending that performing a numerical arms race is the only way to compete with high numbers is just wrong. It is completely possible to make challenging encounters for two characters at different points on the RNG in combat. If the fighter has +100 to every stat and the ranger doesn't a wall of stone is equally problematic for both of them. Displacement affects both of them equally. Solid Fog affects the fighter more even with his increased numbers. Numbers alone affect combat much less than abilities so even with large numerical differences between characters you can look at the abilities they possess build combats around those.

The greatest campaign I've ever been in had me playing a character that was immune to hp damage and most status effects. Another member of my party was a wand wielding incantatrix that could output 4 figures of damage on nova rounds. The last member is perfectly apropo because he was a Psion with an AC of 53 amongst many other features. We still lost fights. The plethora of options in D&D is simply so massive that interesting challenges can be brought to bear against almost any party imaginable. The common wisdom that one player with bigger numbers than others is a roadblock to a good game is just untrue for combat. For skills absolutely, the noncombat game just isn't well developed enough to handle two party members off the RNG in a stealth or diplomacy challenge, sure. But for combat there are thousands of monsters and tens of thousands of spells and abilities for the DM to craft with and that's enough ingredients with which to satisfy any palette.

[OgreBattle]

I'm no expert but that level 11-12 songbird of doom can't do much if it's fighting a CR2 swarm of bees, right?

[Orca]

I think the problem is less that it's an effective martial, it's that it cuts at some people's suspension of disbelief. I'm not sure why a bird cutting up a human is more offensive to them than a human cutting up a dragon, but it is.

Edit: The same people who complain about this would almost certainly allow Divine Intervention, Divine Protection, Paragon Surge, Samsarans, Exploiter Wizards, Ecclesitheurges, Pit-Blooded Scarred Witch Doctors, Human Sage Sorcerers, Dazing Spell and Metamagic cost reduction, Veiled Illusionists, etc.

You're behind the times. PF grognards now chant 'Core Book Only' as their solution to everything they don't like. I've read that the Pathfinder Society (PF's organised gaming) has a significant number of gaming tables devoted to characters created using only PF's core rulebook.

I'm no expert but that level 11-12 songbird of doom can't do much if it's fighting a CR2 swarm of bees, right?

Whatever, by that level it's trivial to equip a character to deal with a swarm of bees, and even if you forgot to do so it can fly circles around them.

[DSMatticus]

Yeah, core only is a brilliant idea. That's exactly what Pathfinder needs. You can either play a cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, or one of seven different steaming piles of shit.

[Dogbert]

PF grognards now chant 'Core Book Only' as their solution to everything they don't like.

Say, that has always been paizombies' mantra, ever since the Beta.

[Judging__Eagle]

If the fighter has +100 to every stat and the ranger doesn't a wall of stone is equally problematic for both of them. Displacement affects both of them equally. Solid Fog affects the fighter more even with his increased numbers. Numbers alone affect combat much less than abilities so even with large numerical differences between characters you can look at the abilities they possess build combats around those.

To be fair, the fighter has a +40 strength modifier, and can easily punch apart the 1-inch thick results of Wall of Stone, which only has:

" Each 5-foot square of the wall has 15 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 8."

One punch will clear out a 5-foot section of wall on the Strength modifier alone, even a double or triple thickness might not stand up

Hopefully the ranger has adamantine arrows or dagger.

The greatest campaign I've ever been in had me playing a character that was immune to hp damage and most status effects. Another member of my party was a wand wielding incantatrix that could output 4 figures of damage on nova rounds. The last member is perfectly apropo because he was a Psion with an AC of 53 amongst many other features. We still lost fights. The plethora of options in D&D is simply so massive that interesting challenges can be brought to bear against almost any party imaginable. The common wisdom that one player with bigger numbers than others is a roadblock to a good game is just untrue for combat. For skills absolutely, the noncombat game just isn't well developed enough to handle two party members off the RNG in a stealth or diplomacy challenge, sure. But for combat there are thousands of monsters and tens of thousands of spells and abilities for the DM to craft with and that's enough ingredients with which to satisfy any palette.

Mostly this has to do with MCs who can't actually read a player's character sheet and instantly understand even a "problematic, and campaign ending, RoW Fighter build" will have massive combat shortcomings.

The other side is that I regularly treat D&D as the tactical puzzle game that it is, has often allowed for my characters to successfully take on armies of enemies at level 1-5 with careful planning (and often much flammable fuel).

I also regularly play D&D as the wargame that it is, and my characters prefer to not kill all enemies. Instead I prefer to conscript defeated enemies over psychotically executing them in the fashion most MCs I've met seem to insist is the "one true way" to play the game.

The result being MCs who play NPCs as mindless killbots, or instantly turn suicidal without any reason aside from MC fiat.

Although, to be fair, I am totally attacking their plans when I build an army. However, why would I play a wargame pretending to be an rpg, unless I was able to build an army for the eventual massive war that will happen as a result of our parties destabilization of the status quo?

[Kaelik]

Although, to be fair, I am totally attacking their plans when I build an army. However, why would I play a wargame pretending to be an rpg, unless I was able to build an army for the eventual massive war that will happen as a result of our parties destabilization of the status quo?

Probably because you don't want to make four million rolls to resolve one combat.

[Antariuk]

PF grognards now chant 'Core Book Only' as their solution to everything they don't like.

Say, that has always been paizombies' mantra, ever since the Beta.

But the chant has become considerably louder ever since they anncounced that Core Only PFS thing. There are plenty of new postings about squeezing the most out of the CRB or something like that, and I'm kinda wondering if there really are players who've never played anything from the CRB or of people are just suffering from amnesia. Maybe both.

[Aryxbez]

But the chant has become considerably louder ever since they anncounced that Core Only PFS thing.

That seems like a foolish move,what with their gallons of material they'd want used. Since now it means people will play very set characters, likely exacerbating the limited Fighter-level balance state of play that people will eventually get tired of. Least with them pumping out new material, they can make people try to forget it for awhile (sorta how tech guide served to bring back wonder into swag or such).

[Ice9]

Part of Paizo's "design philosophy", insofar as they even have one, is that you can't compare classes that do different things. A Fighter and a Wizard are like apples and oranges (a stupid phrase in itself), and so the question of which is stronger is impossible to answer.

And that attitude has rubbed off on some of their fanbase (or alternately, they attracted that kind of fanbase). That's why things like the Synthesist or the Songbird of Doom get so much hate. Because they are directly comparable to the Fighter, even by Paizo standards, and the comparison makes it clear how anemic Fighter is.

[Insomniac]

The more magical the usurpation is, the stronger the backlash. There is supposed to be "niche protection." That is why Sythesist Summoner is such a flash point. From a balance standpoint, it heavily lags a 3.5 druid and arguably isn't even stronger than a core Summoner, much less a summoning-pumping archetype like Master Summoner.

But since it is so clearly a class that is supposed to be straight summoning and ranged magic taking a nice big magical dump on the Fighers, Monks and Rogues, people lose their mind and ban it.

The same thing happens when you compare a Beastmorph Vivisectionist Skinwalker Alchemist to something like a Halfling Rogue.

Of course, the twinked out Alchemist isn't even doing something that is objectively broken in the system. It is casting magic on itself instead of battlefields and enemies, no-no number 1, and furthermore, it is trying to get in melee combat, a fool's game in Pathfinder when ranged combat is so clearly the creme de la creme martial combat action.

But since it is a magical class initially set up as a ranged combatant that is taking a nice big Cleveland Steamer on Fighters and Rogues in melee combat, people lose their minds.

The fallacy here isn't assuming that those classes are broken, even though they are intuitively very strong in their niches and have very high "floors" of combat ability, the fallacy is using the 3 worst classes, vanilla Fighter, Monk and Rogue, that are so weak they are bordering on NPC territory, as your balance point.