Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[hogarth]

And yes, MT and EK have become useless (again), which is a shame because both offered something not easily emulated by existing classes or archetypes.

You may have a point with the Mystic Theurge, although the Witch class scratches my itch for a class that has some wizard spells and some cleric spells and some other stuff on the side.

But as far as the Eldritch Knight goes, you have tons of classes that allow you to cast spells and swing a sword, more or less.

[Antariuk]

But as far as the Eldritch Knight goes, you have tons of classes that allow you to cast spells and swing a sword, more or less.

Are there really tons of arcane sword-casters? I am aware of bard, magus, bloodrager, that's it (unless you count the alchemist and investigator in for some reason). That's neither "tons", nor does any of those classes have full spellcasting progression. With the EK you at least get the chance to cast spells beyond 6th levels eventually if you base it on wizard.

[hogarth]

But as far as the Eldritch Knight goes, you have tons of classes that allow you to cast spells and swing a sword, more or less.

Are there really tons of arcane sword-casters? I am aware of bard, magus, bloodrager, that's it (unless you count the alchemist and investigator in for some reason).

Summoners and skalds also have 3/4 BAB, and there's the Dragon Disciple and Arcane Archer PrCs as well. Not to mention divine sword-casters like clerics, druids, oracles, warpriests, etc.

That's neither "tons", nor does any of those classes have full spellcasting progression.

An Eldritch Knight doesn't have full spellcasting progression either.

[Antariuk]

Sure, lots of divine sword-casters, but most of them just don't have the same kind of vibe you get from an arcane mage, especially if you want to do some blasting. Those classes are also not really affected by that new FAQ because early entry to AA and EK is what people where talking about.

Forgot about the Skald, to be honest. And are you kidding me with the EK and spellcasting progression? Losing one level of spellcasting progression is not the same as only getting 6 levels of spells alltogether.

[Schleiermacher]

Well, in practice you lose at least two, since you have to qualify for the class and that requires you to take at least one level of a martial class to do in a sensible manner.

[hogarth]

Well, in practice you lose at least two, since you have to qualify for the class and that requires you to take at least one level of a martial class to do in a sensible manner.

Indeed. A Fighter 1/Wizard 1/Eldritch Knight 10 would be casting level 5 wizard spells with +11 BAB and a level 12 Magus would be casting level 4 Magus spells with +9 BAB (but with other class features on the side). That seems to be pretty much falling into the same niche in my book.

[Antariuk]

One of those guys gets teleport, polymorph, and hold monster, and the other one doesn't. Even within the same niche I'd say that is a difference, especially since level 12 is a point where lots of games seem to fizzle out. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying EK is great as-is, but if I were to make an arcane sword-caster I'd be tempted to consider EK since you are so much more flexible in terms of spellcasting, and not being able to enter this otherwise unremarkable PrC at 3rd level sucks.

The problem with the Magus is that every time you can't hit something with your sword you have a problem. Maybe there are archetypes to fix that or maybe the spell list has grown since the release of UM, but the Magus character I saw in my own game was screwed every time the enemy was out of melee range and the player stopped even trying after a while.

[Judging__Eagle]

RE: Stealth Checks in 3.X D&D

An other aspect that seems to be ignored in the discussion on Stealth and Perception is how distance modifiers, and distraction modifiers do not seem to be actually known by most people, let alone used properly, even by members from The Gaming Den.

The existing rule of "Loud background noise -5 to Listen Checks" as well as "-1 per 10 Feet" for Spot & Listen Checks is an omission that I've seen made by members of this very forum in forum games. Making it a mistake that is likely repeated among many gaming groups.

Avoiding even 1,000 Hobgoblin sentries or 1,000,000,000 Beholders is totally feasible for a level 1 or level 10 character; so long as they have the benefit of distance (200 feet is good enough to erase 20's, and punish everything below a 20) for the sort of external surveillance 1k Hobs or 1M Beholders in a single location would entail (i.e. the more creatures in a locale; the larger the distance to maneuver around them will be, because the locale will be commensurately larger).

With a bit of a distraction, the distance wouldn't have to be as far either.

Pathfinder's Stealth/Perception skills seem to take the d20 modifiers exactly as they are.

[Schleiermacher]

But the "-1 for every 10 feet" rule makes no sense when applied to Spot checks. It works for Listen checks, but someone who's 200 feet away, even if he has light concealment and is able to actively hide, isn't completely impossible to see. In fact, nowhere close. And technically you use Spot mechanics to notice things in plain sight, as well -it's just that the DC to see them is 0. That makes things even more absurd.

I guess all D&D settings are covered in Fog of War?

[Username17]

The -1 for every 10 feet is unusable because it doesn't tell you what the zero point is. Or rather, it implies that the zero point is the point where the sentry is standing in the PHB and it implies that the zero point is the terrain modified limit of vision in the DMG. These are extremely different numbers, to the point where if the sentry is in a grassland (spotting distance 420 feet) and the sneaking scout is 210 feet away, you don't know whether the sentry is supposed to get a -21 penalty (as per the PHB) or a +21 bonus (as per the DMG). I mean, the modifier is larger than the entire RNG, but depending on which page citation you go to the sign will be different. It's super fucked.

And since we're talking about Pathfinder, they didn't clear this up at all. The limits of perception distance are redefined in different ways in each terrain description. I have no idea what the numbers are supposed to be, and neither does anyone else. It isn't like the 3.5 issue where it's either +P or -P and you could plausibly take one side or the other. It's seriously just all over the place and I don't have any idea how to even begin having that conversation.

-Username17

[schpeelah]

The zero point being zero distance is pretty crazy by the Listen table. It's DC 10 to hear a normal conversation well enough to understand it, and DC 25 to understand whispering.

[tussock]

3.0 PHB listen skill specifies DC is "+1 .. Per 10 ft. from the listener." Spot checks are "Per 10 ft. distance .. -1". Yay for consistency, but it's fairly clearly per 10 feet from the character making the check.

3.0 DMG adds the DC 20 Spot check to see creatures which are in plain view, for setting encounter distance, at a range set randomly by terrain. It specifies that at half that distance you spot creatures in plain sight automatically, or can start making "normal spot checks" against hidden creatures. Thus the DC 20 thing is not a normal spot check.

3.5 PHB changes both skills to "Per 10 feet distance." 3.5 DMG mostly removes the special DC 20 check and instead limits the maximum range for making spot checks (but not listen checks, which vary their range DC modifier according to terrain). Oddly, the rule for spotting avalanches uses the old 3.0 rule.

Pathfinder perception DC is "Distance to source, object, or creature .. +1/10 feet", with the wilderness stuff copied directly from the 3.5 DMG and merely limiting distance.


So the zero distance is always from the critter making a perception check to the thing which is using stealth of some kind. If the thing is not using stealth then you just see it and hear it. 3.0 had a different rule where you also had to make spot checks to see things in plain sight at those outdoor ranges, but 3.5 and Pathfinder do not.

--

@schpeelah -- Perception checks in pathfinder are to avoid being surprised, or to oppose stealth checks (mostly). You get to understand a conversation of some Drow about to wander through the door over there (or they understand the PCs) by giving it a base DC, but stealth and perception of any kind does not happen once critters are in direct sensory perception of each other.

So understanding whispering is when there's something obscuring the sound, like the whisperer (or speaker at some distance) is cupping their hand to stop you easily hearing. But it's not a check at all if someone just whispers in your ear.

[Insomniac]

Pathfinder is Casterfinder. That is what I find to be the real betrayal of the system. I thought there would be something equivalent to Tome of Battle and this place's Tome books where non-magical classes wouldn't feel like midgets in a land of giants.

Pathfinder makes concentration checks easier, gives a big HP bonuses to characters, bloats monster HP so status condition spells are really the only way to go, boils prestige class level abilities into core casters, for every piece of 3.5 cheese it took away it added its own caster cheese and the proliferation of 3/4 casters and full caster classes is nuts.

3/4 casting is the edition's "You must be this tall to ride." I couldn't even imagine trying to play non-casters now in this mess.

Every non-magical class they put out is not even close to the magical version of it, not by a long shot. Every fully martial character is stuck in the Tier 4 or below ghetto, even the most hardcore Barbarians are High Tier 4 in the ghetto, maybe tier 3 on the low end, stuck in the pits. Some of the classes they've put out for non-casters, ooftah. Cavalier, stinks. Swashbuckler, stinks. Without Archetype dumpster-diving, Fighter would be a Tier 5 or Tier 6 joke in comparison to the full casters they've put out. Brawler and Slayer, mediocre at best. Rogue is an NPC class, basically. The Ninja, a strictly better Rogue in every way possible, is the most MAD class I've ever seen in d20 and sucks an absolute dick. Monks got a full book of splatbook cheese and they are still terrible.

This is the most spell-worshipping "If You Ain't Castin' Then You Ain't Shit" thing I've ever seen.

I agree with the sentiment in this thread. Pathfinder shouldn't even bother with mundane classes in Pathfinder 2.0. Give everybody at least 1-6 casting. Fuck it.

[Orca]

Even monks can work in PF if you're willing to sacrifice everything else for your one narrow trick - tetori monks for grappling, zen archer monks for being emplaced machineguns, maneuver master monks for standing in one place performing their favorite combat maneuver, and it's possible to put together a sohei monk that does some useful damage.

It's just that if you want to play the game for any length of time and not be bored to tears a caster is the only way.

[Kaelik]

Every non-magical class they put out is not even close to the magical version of it, not by a long shot. Every fully martial character is stuck in the Tier 4 or below ghetto, even the most hardcore Barbarians are High Tier 4 in the ghetto, maybe tier 3 on the low end, stuck in the pits. Some of the classes they've put out for non-casters, ooftah. Cavalier, stinks. Swashbuckler, stinks. Without Archetype dumpster-diving, Fighter would be a Tier 5 or Tier 6 joke in comparison to the full casters they've put out. Brawler and Slayer, mediocre at best. Rogue is an NPC class, basically. The Ninja, a strictly better Rogue in every way possible, is the most MAD class I've ever seen in d20 and sucks an absolute dick. Monks got a full book of splatbook cheese and they are still terrible.

Stop stop please. I'm sorry about raping your dog, just please stop.

[Antariuk]

I have no idea what the numbers are supposed to be, and neither does anyone else. It isn't like the 3.5 issue where it's either +P or -P and you could plausibly take one side or the other. It's seriously just all over the place and I don't have any idea how to even begin having that conversation.

-Username17

I think it's Pathfinder's really clumsy way of modifying when and how encounters happen (since I assume it all refers to max. spot distance), but who knows. But the real kicker is that within the "getting lost" part of the core wilderness rules you can still find a relic case of skill synergy. Since 2009.

Stop stop please. I'm sorry about raping your dog, just please stop.

What he said. If it's at all possible, the whole tier idea makes even less sense in Pathfinder. Especially that comment about the Barbarian.

[Insomniac]

I know the Barbarians are very strong, but they just do one thing excellently. The Fighter doesn't even do one thing excellently. I'm just saying that the game did very little to rectify non-casting class problems and has proliferated many strong 3/4 and full caster classes.

Am I really that wrong about the tier thing or is it verboten here or what?

[NineInchNall]

Most people here have a hate on for the particular way in which the tiers have been generated. Mostly this is because it leads to labelling classes that actually can function in a game--and do so effectively--at a higher (i.e., less powerful) tier than they should be, and certain classes that can't really function but have some form of hypothetical bullshit that's awesome at lower tiers.

Examples of the first sort: Rogue (4), Beguiler (3)
Examples of the second: Archivist (1), Factotum (3)

In actual play, a Beguiler is going to have a larger impact on the game than a Factotum (3), but they're on the same tier. And it will generally have more impact than a Sorcerer (2) or Archivist (1), but because those have hypothetical access to more broken shit, they're better. It's dumb.

Never mind that it's all highly mutable by what supplements are in play, what house rules are in play, and what sort of shenanigans are considered kosher both at the table and during the analysis.

[Reynard]

I remember Factotum being personal for Frank, but what did Archivist do?


Also, Tiers do not gauge "in-game power", but potential brokenness. 3rd Tier classes (or 4th, IIRC) are considered optimal. Not 1-2.

[schpeelah]

I remember Factotum being personal for Frank, but what did Archivist do?


Also, Tiers do not gauge "in-game power", but potential brokenness. 3rd Tier classes (or 4th, IIRC) are considered optimal. Not 1-2.

Archivist by 20th is allowed to plunder all divine spell lists for spells, learning like a Wizard. I don't think there was a specific combo for them on top of that.

Tiers are pitched as gauging power and versatility of a class, but really measure how broken they're allowed to get specifically in JaronK's games. For instance, JaronK lets Factotums, but not Rogues, to use the Iaijutsu Focus skill.

[Insomniac]

I think the deal with Archivist may be if it gets access to all the Divine lists and can cherry pick the strongest spells at the lowest levels. If it can, its bananas, if it can't, it is worse than a Cleric, Wizard or Druid.

I would like to hear about the Factotum beef.

[Reynard]

I meant the part of Archivist not being able to "really function" (whatever that means).


Also, I'm tempted, but I'm not going to touch that Factotum "discussion" with a stick.

[schpeelah]

The Factotum beef is that JaronK does not allow Rogues to use flasks and Rings of Blink, putting them at a low tier, but argues for the power of the Factotum, which is a shitty class, using a skill from a setting book that has a list of classes allowed in that Factotum is not on because the book and Factotum are from different editions (3.0 vs 3.5).

[Dean]

Yeah there's no permutation of Archivist that isn't bananas. Archivists are probably the strongest class ever printed regardless of whatever oberoni you threw at them. The basic mechanic of being able to learn any spell that could be on any list means that the potential combos are limitless.

Factotum is bullshit but archivist absolutely is as crazy as it seems.

[FatR]

The Factotum beef is that JaronK does not allow Rogues to use flasks

No one outside of TGD allows rogues to sneak attack with flasks, largely because the whole idea is completely retarded.

and Rings of Blink, putting them at a low tier, but argues for the power of the Factotum, which is a shitty class, using a skill from a setting book that has a list of classes allowed in that Factotum is not on because the book and Factotum are from different editions (3.0 vs 3.5).

Yeah, factotum sucks.