Pathfinder is still bad, summary
Moderator: Moderators
Pathfinder is still bad, summary
I'm trying to win an argument. Can people give me their 5 most egregious, most straightforward, most simple pieces of Pathfinder stupidity. Stuff like the Power Attack nerf.
I got to page 7 of the "Pathfinder is still bad" thread, but...it got progressively messier as it went.
I got to page 7 of the "Pathfinder is still bad" thread, but...it got progressively messier as it went.
The Combat Maneuvers system making maneuvers irrelevant
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am
Last edited by CapnTthePirateG on Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- RadiantPhoenix
- Prince
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
- Location: Trudging up the Hill
Here, have that in conveniently printable PDF:CapnTthePirateG wrote:Frank smites PF: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083
EDIT: Also, Sean K Reynolds.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1010547/Frank_ ... r-2009.pdf
I don't resent the things they changed so much as the things they didn't fix. Such as:
Monks
High level divinations
High level play in general
Caster/Non-Caster disparity
Spontaneous Casters getting slower progression
Two of those things are hard to fix. Not impossible, and it's not like there was less than a dozen potential fixes on the web as 3.5 was winding down. The other three I take as a direct 'Fuck You' to the player base.
Monks
High level divinations
High level play in general
Caster/Non-Caster disparity
Spontaneous Casters getting slower progression
Two of those things are hard to fix. Not impossible, and it's not like there was less than a dozen potential fixes on the web as 3.5 was winding down. The other three I take as a direct 'Fuck You' to the player base.
Oh thank God, finally a thread about how Fighters in D&D suck. This was a long time coming. - Schwarzkopf
"Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards" still exists, and is getting worse with the release of more supplements. Even Ultimate Combat, which was sold on the premise of "no spells, just martial awesomeness," had spells. There's not as much love mechanics-wise for noncasters.
Prone Shooter ain't the only one. There are options in Pathfinder which either don't do anything, or actually make you weaker (see their new VoP Monk).
Sean K Reynolds hates Monks, and never misses an opportunity to nerf them into Oblivion. He even tried to make Flurry of Blows count as Two-Weapon Fighting, penalizing Flurrying even further! There was a flame war about it on the Paizo forums.
FATAL & Friends did a very good job analyzing the game's flaws. A good point is in the Magic section, which summarizes a list of spells which completely invalidate entire skills. It also shows how many melee options got nerfed, effectively widening the caster/noncaster gap.
Prone Shooter ain't the only one. There are options in Pathfinder which either don't do anything, or actually make you weaker (see their new VoP Monk).
Sean K Reynolds hates Monks, and never misses an opportunity to nerf them into Oblivion. He even tried to make Flurry of Blows count as Two-Weapon Fighting, penalizing Flurrying even further! There was a flame war about it on the Paizo forums.
FATAL & Friends did a very good job analyzing the game's flaws. A good point is in the Magic section, which summarizes a list of spells which completely invalidate entire skills. It also shows how many melee options got nerfed, effectively widening the caster/noncaster gap.
Last edited by Libertad on Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Prone shooter got errata'd in their faq to do something: basically +2 ac if you're prone. So still terrible, but at least does something now.
Monks also got the flurry errata'd reverted.
And it is not SKR who made that change in the first place Libertad.
But for me, the worst part in pathfinder is what they did to reach. A medium creature with a reach weapon, has a 10 ft reach. This means the creature can't attack adjacent squares, nor any diagonal squares.
Yet SKR clarified that the creature can take AoO if you approach it diagonally, you just can't attack diagonally.
Monks also got the flurry errata'd reverted.
And it is not SKR who made that change in the first place Libertad.
But for me, the worst part in pathfinder is what they did to reach. A medium creature with a reach weapon, has a 10 ft reach. This means the creature can't attack adjacent squares, nor any diagonal squares.
Yet SKR clarified that the creature can take AoO if you approach it diagonally, you just can't attack diagonally.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
So in synopsis SKR is just a gift that keeps giving (bad rulings).ishy wrote:Prone shooter got errata'd in their faq to do something: basically +2 ac if you're prone. So still terrible, but at least does something now.
Monks also got the flurry errata'd reverted.
And it is not SKR who made that change in the first place Libertad.
But for me, the worst part in pathfinder is what they did to reach. A medium creature with a reach weapon, has a 10 ft reach. This means the creature can't attack adjacent squares, nor any diagonal squares.
Yet SKR clarified that the creature can take AoO if you approach it diagonally, you just can't attack diagonally.
Oh thank God, finally a thread about how Fighters in D&D suck. This was a long time coming. - Schwarzkopf
The thing that hit me square in the face with Pathfinder was that their Mirror Image spell makes it impossible for archers and melee folk to hurt you like always, but they made it so targeted spells ignore the effect entirely.
Like, the key defensive ability of half the high level fiends is Mirror Image. Because it saved them being targeted with spells for a round or two. And now it doesn't. Because Wizards just weren't good enough. Seriously, they powered up Wizards and Clerics, deliberately.
Like, the key defensive ability of half the high level fiends is Mirror Image. Because it saved them being targeted with spells for a round or two. And now it doesn't. Because Wizards just weren't good enough. Seriously, they powered up Wizards and Clerics, deliberately.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
There are a lot of instances of Pathfinder stupidity, but because Pathfinder obtains its legitimacy from doing the whole 'the gap between wizards and fighters is smaller!' we'll attack it from those grounds.Ikeren wrote:Can people give me their 5 most egregious, most straightforward, most simple pieces of Pathfinder stupidity.
1.) Cleric domain super-buffing, especially ridiculous ones like Void and Artifice (Construct).
2.) Magical item creation is stupidly overpowered in Pathfinder.
3.) Pathfinder makes it much easier to engage in cross-list spell plundering.
4.) Pathfinder wanks to hell and back about the intricacies of planar binding. While it is more flavorful, it doesn't actually really change anything because the old methods of crushing the wills of your call still work and negotiates cost too much damn money.
5.) Wizard domain specialization is even more overpowered than in 3.5E.
The real problem with Pathfinder is that while it is definitely a step down from 3E D&D, it's not so much of a step down that you can ignore it. The simple fact is that Pathfinder production values rule and they have a production schedule that exists at all.hogarth wrote:This basically summarizes the one big complaint about Pathfinder -- it's like 3.5E, but with lots of random changes to confuse 3.5E players and which don't particularly improve the game.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Pathfinder is no better and no worse than 3.5E D&D; they both have some decent stuff and a lot of garbage, and they have exactly the same issues with spellcasters being unbalanced compared to non-spellcasters. As I said, the most irritating thing is that they made a bunch of minor changes that just serve to confuse people who were familiar with 3.5.Lago PARANOIA wrote:The real problem with Pathfinder is that while it is definitely a step down from 3E D&D, it's not so much of a step down that you can ignore it.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
In 3.5, Specialization is just two things:Korgan0 wrote:What makes wizard specialization more overpowered? Is it being able to use spell trigger items from other schools, is it classes like Thassilonian Specialist, or is it both?
- A couple of schools are taken off your spell list.
- You get an extra spell per day of every level
- The spells aren't completely removed from your spell list, and you can still use or even write scrolls of the spells in question. The "banned" schools just cost more to cast, so "downtime" spells like Planar Binding or Contingency aren't even affected by being on your "banned" list. And rainy day backup spells that you're going to put on a scroll but not actually prepare like Protection From Elements isn't affected meaningfully either.
- You get bonuses for your favored schools. Many of these bonuses are fairly dumb (like a bunch of extra Acid Splashes per day), but the fact that there is at least one of them that's fairly boss (and indeed there are several) means that the system is a considerable powerup.
- Can still set up Contingencies even though you banned Evocation.
- Can still hook yourself up with Explosive Runes traps and shit even though you banned Abjuration.
- You get a bunch of free teleportation every day on top of your bonus spells.
-Username17
Late in 3.5 when they were putting monkeys at typewriters*, WotC made a whole heap of stuff to make Specialist Wizards better - Double Specialisation (at this stage you're severely limited in Schools, but can probably find weird spells in your School that imitate those from others, so w/e), trade-your-familiar-for-Immediate-teleports and such. Oh, and feats that were largely worthless.
So it's not that surprising that Paizo did the same. And indeed, a lot of people like that low level Wizards get a bunch of piddly spell-likes to plink away with so that they're not using crossbows. And if it had stopped there, it'd be okay.
Anyway, as to the OP I would say that your mistake was in trying to win an argument. It's not going to work.
*Sadly, not bonobos.
So it's not that surprising that Paizo did the same. And indeed, a lot of people like that low level Wizards get a bunch of piddly spell-likes to plink away with so that they're not using crossbows. And if it had stopped there, it'd be okay.
Anyway, as to the OP I would say that your mistake was in trying to win an argument. It's not going to work.
*Sadly, not bonobos.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Their decisions on 'balancing' things like Power Attack spoke volumes.
Phlebotinum : fleh-bot-ih-nuhm • A glossary of RPG/Dennizen terminology • Favorite replies: [1]
nockermensch wrote:Advantage will lead to dicepools in D&D. Remember, you read this here first!
It's not like it made that much of a difference in the long run, a 3.5 Conjuration Specialist could already just use Shadow Evocation, assuming the DM wasn't the sort of fucknut that tried to pull the "Using the Shadow line of spells to cast buffs doesn't work because you'd autodisbelieve the effect" crap. God knows that was the only purpose that spell ever had anyway.FrankTrollman wrote:Being a 3.5 Conjuration Specialist with banned access to Abjuration and Evocation is pretty awesome. As a Pathfinder Conjuration Specialist, you:
- Can still set up Contingencies even though you banned Evocation.
Last edited by sake on Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
I rankle when I read things like this, or that Fighters can't trip like they used to. Unless you had a trick in 3.5 to boost your attack bonus really high, then power attack was very nearly a waste of a feat. A shitty Fighter will do more damage using Pathfinder power attack than 3.5 power attack. What PF power attack really nerfs is gishes or some specific melee builds like Frenzied Berserker which aren't in PF anyways.codeGlaze wrote:Their decisions on 'balancing' things like Power Attack spoke volumes.
Hate on Pathfinder, it deserves it, just use valid criticisms. Goodness knows there are a whole metric fuckton of them.
Oh thank God, finally a thread about how Fighters in D&D suck. This was a long time coming. - Schwarzkopf
I wonder when they'll get tired of pumping out caster splat books and finally release their own Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic knock-off... and how badly they'll make those classes suck. 'Course that would require that they actually admit that the PF fighter and Monk are still worthless... which is unlikely, but not impossible I guess, since their Ninja class might as well been named "Yeah, We've Given Up on Fixing the Rogue, Just Use This Instead"
If they include any type of limited use mechanic like ToB, spellcasting or Psionics those classes may still suck but will out perform the regular martials. They have shown time and again they don't know how to balance limited use vs. unlimited use powers. They will perform at the Bard level at the very least.sake wrote:I wonder when they'll get tired of pumping out caster splat books and finally release their own Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic knock-off... and how badly they'll make those classes suck. 'Course that would require that they actually admit that the PF fighter and Monk are still worthless... which is unlikely, but not impossible I guess, since their Ninja class might as well been named "Yeah, We've Given Up on Fixing the Rogue, Just Use This Instead"
Oh thank God, finally a thread about how Fighters in D&D suck. This was a long time coming. - Schwarzkopf
Holy shit, it's ADnD all over again!sake wrote:I wonder when they'll get tired of pumping out caster splat books and finally release their own Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic knock-off... and how badly they'll make those classes suck. 'Course that would require that they actually admit that the PF fighter and Monk are still worthless... which is unlikely, but not impossible I guess, since their Ninja class might as well been named "Yeah, We've Given Up on Fixing the Rogue, Just Use This Instead"
People complain trip is nerfed, because it is nerfed in pf.Juton wrote:I rankle when I read things like this, or that Fighters can't trip like they used to. Unless you had a trick in 3.5 to boost your attack bonus really high, then power attack was very nearly a waste of a feat. A shitty Fighter will do more damage using Pathfinder power attack than 3.5 power attack. What PF power attack really nerfs is gishes or some specific melee builds like Frenzied Berserker which aren't in PF anyways.codeGlaze wrote:Their decisions on 'balancing' things like Power Attack spoke volumes.
Hate on Pathfinder, it deserves it, just use valid criticisms. Goodness knows there are a whole metric fuckton of them.
I complain about the PA nerf, because now if you buff / debuff the enemies, + use basic tactics like flanking, higher ground etc. melee often hit on a 2.
Which causes some DMs to give creatures higher AC, thus summoned monsters and stuff now can often only hit on a 20.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.