Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[RadiantPhoenix]

So, I just noticed this spell. Somehow the heavier water makes you sink? Add middle school physics to the list of things PF devs don't understand.

I'm not sure. The spell description 'higher viscosity' water. But I don't know that 'Increased Viscosity Water' would be a good spell-name.

Sticky Water might have been better, but you throw 'sticky' in a spell name and you get all kinds of juvenile reactions.

So, it's a spell that works pretty much like people intend for it to, but it has a stupid name. That's pretty common.

Viscosity still won't do it. You can swim in Jell-O like stuff just fine.

(Source: Ed Cussler, of the University of Minnesota did a test back in 2004, "Will humans swim faster or slower in syrup?")

[Rawbeard]

It's poorly named magic. It does stuff to water and that water makes you slower. As far as I am concerned Grease should increase your speed when moving through, but nooooooo, it's the slow people down spell.

[fectin]

Because the problem runners face is too much traction?

[Rawbeard]

What can I say, I prefer Loony Toons physics.

[Archmage Joda]

I was braingstorming an idea I had for a character; essentially, the ultimate creator mage (that is, a spellcaster who specializes in using magic to will things into existence, not necessarily a crafter), but am torn as to which to use for the base class chassis: a conjurer wizard or a cleric with the artifice domain. Which base would be better to make such a mage with?

[Koumei]

What can I say, I prefer Loony Toons physics.

They should totally be allowed to move faster over Grease, but they can't take any action with their hands, due to wheeling them about comically in an effort to maintain balance. And then two men will carry a pane of glass...

[icyshadowlord]

I was braingstorming an idea I had for a character; essentially, the ultimate creator mage (that is, a spellcaster who specializes in using magic to will things into existence, not necessarily a crafter), but am torn as to which to use for the base class chassis: a conjurer wizard or a cleric with the artifice domain. Which base would be better to make such a mage with?

Depends on the campaign, I'd think. However, the Wizard generally works better for that purpose from what I've seen.

[Archmage Joda]

Simple quick question: Which oracle mysteries are the best ones?

[OgreBattle]

Simple quick question: Which oracle mysteries are the best ones?

The colorspray mystery, Heaven.

[Orca]

Battle is the best for melee, heavens for control, nature or lunar gives you a pet (potentially one based off 1.5*your level if you're playing a sylph or ifrit), bones lets you mess with necromancy, life lets you play a living band-aid... It depends on exactly what you want.

[rasmuswagner]

Simple quick question: Which oracle mysteries are the best ones?

They do different things, but if I had to pick one, I'd go with Lunar. Companion AND Cha to AC AND shapeshifting AND blinding blast AND limited True Seeing and etc.

[Avoraciopoctules]

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-f ... al-monster

This is a relatively recent addition to the summoning feat list. Definitely adds some utility. Thoqua let you make tunnels wherever you want and there's a level 4 psychopomp you can call in to rewrite memories. Any other good options I'm missing?

[Grek]

I: Summon a Sprite and have it cast Colour Spray to get around an Illusions ban.
II: Atomie can speak with animals and cast Shrink Item 1/day.
III: the Arbiter, Paracletus and Voidworm all cast Commune. Nosoi can Speak with Dead.
IV: The Shae has Lesser Shadow Evocation at will. An Earth Mephit can soften earth and stone.
V: Fuck all.
VI: Chaos Beast kills anything that can be polymorphed without access to polymorph spells. A Naunet can change shape and look like whatever you want it to. The Theletos can gaes things.
VII: The Zelekhut has Mark of Justice and constant True Seeing.
VIII: The Imentesh can polymorph any object.
IX: Morrigna has the spellcasting of a cohort's cohort's cohort?

[ishy]

Spells that summons cast, expire when the duration of the summon spell is over though. So don't see much use in geas.

[Insomniac]

Pathfinder still is full caster dominated, right?
That is the fundamental failing of the system. It is still 3.5 at heart.
"If You Ain't Casting, You Ain't Shit."

It is the edition where Wizards get 80 percent more base HP and cast from prohibited schools and Concentration isn't a skill and they can take traits to let them use their Intelligence modifer on skills and and and...

Oh. But the Fighter gets +2 to his saves against Fear.

:/

Every Pathfinder game I've ever been in was dominated by full casters with 3/4 caster support and some damage output from half-casters (Rangers and Paladins) and maybe the one twinked out viable Barbarian or Monk build.

That is why Pathfinder "sucks" to me. The meme that "Pathfinder balanced full-casting and martial combat" is so FALSE. I don't even know how anybody could say that.

[Cyberzombie]

Pathfinder still is full caster dominated, right?
That is the fundamental failing of the system. It is still 3.5 at heart.
"If You Ain't Casting, You Ain't Shit."

That about sums it up.

[Koumei]

That is why Pathfinder "sucks" to me. The meme that "Pathfinder balanced full-casting and martial combat" is so FALSE. I don't even know how anybody could say that.

Because they were told to say it and aren't capable of critical thinking of their own :|

In all seriousness, quite a lot of the fans don't bother pretending it's balanced, they just make sure to only play casters (and encourage the whole team to do the same so they rock the most face - or encourage others to play fighters because they want to laugh at them). Basically they play PF because they liked 3.5 and this gives them new books to buy and games to join. Plenty actually are critical of its flaws (some even on the boards, incurring the wrath with which we are familiar). I can understand that approach. The "Yeah, this game has flaws but I have a game to play at all, and it's not Four Ed, more like Snore Ed" crowd.

[tussock]

I think people play Pathfinder because you can build the latest and greatest characters off the SRD, the forums are active, and the DM can buy any of about a thousand and one modules full of crap to throw at them that works about like you'd expect for a reasonable price. With nice enough artwork and culturally appropriate icons. And tons of third party support if you want psionic dragon-furries with lasers or whatever.

And if that AP doesn't work out, there's another three the DM has heard good things about and can pick up online for next week, and here's a short module with a neat climax in the meantime. What else are you going to do, play Red Hand of Doom again?

Really, it's pretty fucking easy to get into considering how much content they've put out.


Then because people are playing, they get to sell setting books and monster books and character books with more story and art than the SRD. And novels and tie ins and test lines for 2.0 material.

[Rawbeard]

Martials get enough shiny bullshit of the kind that made people think 3.0 Monk was overpowered, that the usual crowed doesn't really notice how useless they become over time. And of course there is multiclassing! Of course they don't really aknowledge that they multiclass into druid or cleric most of the time for "martial" characters that still punch shit with great success at higher level.

You need something meaty for the first few levels though, since casters run out of goop fast and clerics and druids rarely manage to hit something. I guess that makes them fighters feel all better. They still are best if they just carry the wizards bags.

[TOZ]

You need something meaty for the first few levels though, since casters run out of goop fast and clerics and druids rarely manage to hit something. I guess that makes them fighters feel all better. They still are best if they just carry the wizards bags.

With properly built clerics and druids and inquisitors and what the fuck ever you don't need a fighter even at 1st level. They can be nice, but not needed.

[Rawbeard]

That is very true. But people who don't know what the issues with martials are rarely manage to get a druid, cleric or even inquisitor going, that can fill that role. For christs sake, a druid's (or sorcerer's or oracle's or whathaveyou) animal companion can replace a fighter no problem!

This is so sad, I don't even.

[Whipstitch]

Also, from a 3.x grognard perspective switching to pathfinder is kinda like having someone rearrange your medicine cabinet--nothing super important has changed, but there's no real benefit either, and it's kind of annoying when your old routine is interrupted by a search for the toothpaste. For new gamers however, it's a much different experience--there isn't much reason to rebel against Pathfinder if you're learning a new system either way.

[ishy]

Martials get enough shiny bullshit of the kind that made people think 3.0 Monk was overpowered, that the usual crowed doesn't really notice how useless they become over time.

Lets go back to 2008, pathfinder alpha.

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.

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.

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.

[Rawbeard]

I want to slap Jason Bulmahn for no reason.

[Whipstitch]

It's like he missed that part where the rogue throw a fistful of d6s at people and they die.