The Gaming Den

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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*

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?