Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[CapnTthePirateG]

I still don't get how people haven't figured out how the summoner's eidolon isn't better then the fighter. It gets pounce at all unlike the crap tier classes, a stack of attacks, and comes with a free buffer. It can fly around and you can use your summoner abilities to switch out it's abilities.

Heck, animate dead is probably better than the PF fighting classes, and wizards just get that.

[Insomniac]

It gets better skills, more skills, Evasion and Improved Evasion, Multi-Attack, Share Spells and Devotion (objectively better than Bravery), inherent Reach, Large and Huge size as a monster without spells and a +Whatever Amulet of Natural Armor up to +16, untyped +x Strength and Dexterity, up to +8.

An Eidolon could very comfortably go toe to toe with most Fighters, Monks and Rogues and very likely win. And its one aspect of playing a Summoner and probably not even the strongest aspect of the Summoner.

[MGuy]

People don't like being told that they have been 'doing it wrong'. So when you tell them that fighters, rogues, and monks are weak they feel as though you're saying they've done it wrong because they (probably) thought those classes were awesome and have played them and had fun.

[OgreBattle]

Would Ninja 2 (to get scout archtype to apply sneak attack damage to charging) then Vivisectionist/Beast Alchemist be a decent build? The idea is to power up then charge things for a pile of d6's.

Are there any good builds for a barrage of ranged attacks? Being a straight ninja with ranged attack related feats seems like a good choice but wondering if there's multiclass shenanigans I can get into, or is being a bomb-chucking alchemist the better option?

[Insomniac]

I really would not want to slow down my casting progression for a Vivisectionist and there has to be a way to get Pounce or Quasi-Pounce somehow without dipping into 2 levels of Garbage Class.

[OgreBattle]

Looking at the regular alchemist's bomb attack I now see that it has twice the range of shuriken, progresses in damage much faster than the ki charged shuriken, doesn't need to rely on sneak attacks, and has double the use (level+int) of what ninja does with their ki pool (level/2+cha).

...and the alchemist has his self-buffing spells as an entirely separate resource. AND there's an archtype for the alchemist to disarm traps and all that:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-cl ... -archetype

Alchemist seems like the ideal rogue and ninja replacement class.
----

There's a conceptually neat set of 3rd party rules that turns every base class into an "Archtype package", such as the fighter's weapon specialization, barbarian's rage or rogue's sneak attack progression, which can be swapped out for entirely new archtype packages or each other's.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www ... VetTouKPGw

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/class-a ... nius-games

So you could take a wizard, drop his archtype package that grants arcane bond and arcane school, and pick up a sorcerer bloodline to replace it. Or something simple like a fighter that trades weapon specialization for sneak attack progression. Some classes have two archtype packages, so you can trade a bard's bardic knowledge stuff for sneak attacks while keeping his spellcasting for a partial caster functional rogue. Reminds me of that heartbreaker project where every class has 3 ability tracts to trade around

[Insomniac]

You don't even have to go Crypt-Breaker. If your DM/GM allows this trait, originally a campaign specific one, Trap-Finder, you get +1 to Disable Device, DD is a class skill for you and you can DD magical traps as a rogue.

At 10th level, a Beastmorph Vivisectionist may choose 3 abilities from Beast Shape II and become Large size when using a mutagen.

This answers the question, "How do I get Pounce without dips?" You're a 10th level Beastmorph Vivisectionist Alchemist, that's how.

You can choose abilities from Beast Shape 2. Fly 60 Feet (Good), Pounce and Grab/Or Trip are good ones.

10th level Rogues can go cry in their soup compared to Beastmorph Vivisectionist Alchemists.

Pathfinder has been promoting the Alchemist for a while. Its should at this point be called PLAY THIS INSTEAD OF A ROGUE, YOU DOPE.

[/i]

[Dean]

Ogre your version of those rules is actually extremely cool but that is not what those rules are.

What those rules actually say is that they've given each class an archetype or two that they can trade away for one a the Rogue Genius Archetypes. You can't trade Alchemist Bombs for Summoner Spellcasting, you can trade Alchemist Bombs or Summoner Spellcasting for the Rogue Genius Archetype "Harrier" which lets you deal +1d4 damage on an attack if you moved last round.



Your idea of letting classes trade features back and forth, Unearthed Arcana style, is an awesome idea and would be tons of fun. Their idea is to let Summoners trade their spellcasting to be a "Weapon Champion" for +1 to attacks and CMB checks with a favored weapon. Seriously if you wrote an archetype called "Dick Cancer Haver" who's only power was having dick cancer that archetype wouldn't be noticeably less powerful than the ones they wrote.

[Insomniac]

Yeah but don't you know that deliberately gimping your characters can lead to rich roleplaying opportunities? Come on, who wouldn't want to light several hundred spell levels on fire to play as Archibald Fleming, the Scourge of Demons, who after contracting dick cancer from an especially unsavory dalliance with a Succubus has vowed to kill all Succubi?

[Username17]

The thing I find very strange about the Alchemist is that one of the few real deliberate changes from 3.5 was a set of nerfs to mid level Rogues preventing them from doing the things I presented in my SGT Rogue on their forum. Specifically that meant getting sneak attack with a ring of blink and ranged weaponry and delivering that sneak attack damage with a thrown chemical bomb. It was never established that these things were overpowered or anything, but Jason Bulmahn said that the flavor of it was anathema and every part of that sample character had to be ripped out of the game, root and branch.

And yet... when they made a Rogue replacement class to backhandedly acknowledge that they'd nerfed the Rogue into being quite useless in the 6-12 level bracket... they made a class based entirely around sneak attacking with thrown chemical bombs. They could have made the Rogue replacement class do anything. It could have been a crossbow sniper like the Tome Assassin. It could have been a teleport pouncer like the Shadowdancer was suposed to be (but without the suck). It could have been an exotic weapon master like the Tome Jester. It could have had any flavor or tactics they wanted, but they happened to choose the one and only flavor package that Pathfinder had actually launched by explicitly banhammering for having undesirable flavor.

What the fuck?

-Username17

[Insomniac]

It could simply be a case of, "You can't reload a weapon that quick because I'm a game designer and I can't do it!" thinking. You know, Fighters Can't Have Nice Things, RAELIZM etc.

Of course Alchemists thoroughly show up Rogues at the Rogue's own games. Alchemists are MAGIC!

[OgreBattle]

And yet... when they made a Rogue replacement class to backhandedly acknowledge that they'd nerfed the Rogue into being quite useless in the 6-12 level bracket... they made a class based entirely around sneak attacking with thrown chemical bombs. They could have made the Rogue replacement class do anything. It could have been a crossbow sniper like the Tome Assassin. It could have been a teleport pouncer like the Shadowdancer was suposed to be (but without the suck). It could have been an exotic weapon master like the Tome Jester. It could have had any flavor or tactics they wanted, but they happened to choose the one and only flavor package that Pathfinder had actually launched by explicitly banhammering for having undesirable flavor.

What the fuck?

-Username17

it's because your flask rogue was not a magic user. PF fixed that terrible affront to roleplaying by making the alchemist a magic user, thus justifying his usefulness.

---

Seems like a quick sloppy bandaid to pathfinder would be to make non-casters get their abilities twice as fast, so a level 5 ninja would have all of the class abilities and chi pool of level 10 so you can use your master ninja tricks against level appropriate challenges like chimeras and dinosaurs. This also means 1 level dips in ranger and rogue(ninja) comes back online.

[Axebird]

To be fair, it's not exactly sneak attacking with chemical bombs.

They do full damage with rider effects in broad daylight.

[OgreBattle]

To be fair, it's not exactly sneak attacking with chemical bombs.

They do full damage with rider effects in broad daylight.

But you see an alchemist is limited by level+int number of bombs per day while a rogue can sneak attack 14,400 times IN ONE DAY.

That's a difference in THOUSANDS of damage inflicted!

[ishy]

To be fair, it's not exactly sneak attacking with chemical bombs.

They do full damage with rider effects in broad daylight.

Well, rogues can only sneak attack with enough light. No sneak attack in dark alleys for you (unless you have dark vision).

[Insomniac]

People think Pathfinder just took away Flasked Avengers and Rings of Blink.

They also took away "Tumble to set up Flank or Flat-footed."

This is pretty well known, but Tumble DCs are outrageous.

To Tumble through an occupied square you have to make a DC 5+CMD which is calculated as 10+BAB+Strength AND Dexterity modifer+Size+Miscellaneous. Every 5+CMD is just going to accidentally be in the high 20s to low 30s on up at about 7 to 8th level.

Good luck. 16 Dex with a positive Dex modifier from race, +2 from Levels +4 item at level 8, 24 Dexterity, max ranks Acrobatics...

18. Good luck failing 50, 60, 70 percent of the time and eating attacks. Because when you fail, you fall prone and they get to attack you. And then you stand up, and they attack you again. And then they get to attack you AGAIN. Just normally. And then you get to sneak attack a few times for like, 20 or 30 damage.

:/

[MisterDee]

What the fuck?

-Username17

I'm convinced that the Paizo crew creates classes solely based on whatever one dude in their corporate gaming group wants to play. When they wrote core they wanted only classic takes on classes, so they banned everything that didn't fit the OD&D model.

Then, when ACG came up, someone wanted to play a flask rogue, someone wanted to be a mystic theurge, and someone wanted some sort of hard-ass paladin without the feelgood kitten-and-puppy code. So they created the alchemist, the witch (healing hex just screams "turn all my level-1 wizard spells into cure light wound" to me) and the inquisitor.

[Dean]

Yeah but don't you know that deliberately gimping your characters can lead to rich roleplaying opportunities? Come on, who wouldn't want to light several hundred spell levels on fire to play as Archibald Fleming, the Scourge of Demons, who after contracting dick cancer from an especially unsavory dalliance with a Succubus has vowed to kill all Succubi?

[ScottS]

Good luck failing 50, 60, 70 percent of the time and eating attacks.

"Tumble around" rather than "Tumble through" isn't so bad though? (esp. since you can bail out of the move without provoking if you roll bad and/or discover that the DC is totally ridiculous)

[Insomniac]

Yeah, it is easier, but not substantially so, and you get no benefits for being small as a Tumbler the way you would for Stealth or the way being Large or bigger helps out other CMBs and CMDs.

A 50 pound Halfing gets tagged tumbling past a 1200 pound giant with some pretty surprising regularity.

Tumble-Into-Sneak-Attack Rogue is the "Iconic" Rogue build for Pathfinder. It is just too bad that it eats a cock meat sandwich minus the bread.

I wonder what the justification for not giving Monks and Rogues Full BAB is. So far as I can tell, every other class that can't cast spells and a good deal of partial casters have Full BAB.

[tussock]

I wonder what the justification for not giving Monks and Rogues Full BAB is. So far as I can tell, every other class that can't cast spells and a good deal of partial casters have Full BAB.

They're "compatible with 3.5". The inside cover bit says "3.5 survives THRIVES", so in effect they are 3.7.5 or whatever.

PF Monks have full BAB for all sorts of things, but they still have 3/4 BAB in their progression, like Rogues, because that's what being compatible means. The save and BAB and the spell progressions and feats and skills and spells (and monsters) are essentially compatible. Unlike 4e or 5e.

[ishy]

I wonder what the justification for not giving Monks and Rogues Full BAB is. So far as I can tell, every other class that can't cast spells and a good deal of partial casters have Full BAB.

Jason Bulmahn[/url]]Changing a monk's BAB is not in the cards, just like it is not for any other class. Changing BAB monkey's with a lot of statistics (especially for the monk with flurry). Truth be told, the monk is not a class that is designed specifically to stand up toe-to-toe with a fighter. They serve slightly different roles.

Jason Buhlman[/url]]

What do you see that role being, Jason, if I might ask?

Monks are support and mobility combatants, generally speaking, useful in moving around the battlefield to assist with problems. In this regard, they gain a number of abilities that allow them to work without the aid of others, which many of the other, straight fighter classes, lack to one degree or another.

Telling me that this is just a band aid, without any playtesting, because they do not get a full BAB, is not very helpful to my development. They might not be perfect for the role that I see them in (at least not yet), but I am looking to work within the system as opposed to just demanding a redesign of some of their core statistics.

Jason Buhlman[/url]]So, I am thinking a lot about the monk as of late. The monk, as I stated before, fills a different role than a fighter. They hit more like a rogue, with a different sort of damage potential. For some reason, and I am wondering why, there seems to be an opinion that the monk does not work, but the rogue, who is based off the same progression, does. The monk has access to some of the same bonuses as a rogue (to hit at any rate), but the monk has quite a bit more defenses (good saves, some immunities, and, in the right build, a better AC).

So, to help me understand the arguments being thrown about here. I am wondering. Where is the flaw with the monk? And, as a secondary question, why are these not the same problems with the rogue?

I have seen a large number of monks played over the past few years, and every one of them has been pretty solid at their role in the party. They are great at harrassing spellcasters (clerics, bards, wizards, and sorcerers) and other, equally classed, combatants (rogues and other monks). They do not stand up as well in a straight up fight with fighters, barbarians, and paladins. But this limitation is more about their niche than their shortcomings.

Once again, I am trying not to come off antagonistic here, but I am not sure I undersand the beef. Help me see the point.

[Username17]

It was always very weird to me that Jason Bulmahn seemed genuinely to not understand why doing level appropriate damage made the Rogue able to pull his weight while the Monk not doing level appropriate damage meant that he did not. Basically every single statement and change he suggested and statement he made in justification of those changes only makes sense in that light.

The fact that a Rogue could kill a troll by doing enough damage to remove it from combat gave him a combat role. That fact that the Monk couldn't meant he did not have one.

Jason Bulmahn seemed to not understand that the goal of combat was removing enemies and that everything a character did was just supposed to add up to that.

-Username17

[Gnorman]

Well, in Buhlman's defense (sort of), the way he has defined the role of the Monk has resulted in a self-fulfilling prophecy. The monk isn't supposed to be good at combat, ergo complaints about that fact are irrelevant. The monk is supposed to be good at... moving around, I guess?

I think the real problem here is that the monks he has seen over the years have gone up against piss-poorly optimized spellcasters. Yes, if you somehow don't make use of your vast array of spells that make melee threats negligible at best, the monk fulfills its promises. But then, if you bring up a counterpoint of "well a better-designed wizard wouldn't give two shits about a monk," the response is "yes but people don't build wizards like that," because Buhlman is incapable of comprehending the Stormwind Fallacy.

[FatR]

For some reason, and I am wondering why, there seems to be an opinion that the monk does not work, but the rogue, who is based off the same progression, does.

Funny that now the rogue is probably the class that is most obviously complained about on Paizo forums. More than the monk. You probably can open their general discussion at random time and find at least one thread complaining about the rogue. Might have something to do with the fact, that whenever you generate a rogue there is a ninja over there singing "everything you can do, I can do better", AND that ninja has to hear the same tune from a vivisectionist alchemist.