Pathfinder Is Still Bad

Rawbeard · Post by **Rawbeard** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 6:52 pm

no one in the party wants the tech gear yet

Was pretty much the same in my group, other than guns most of the tech is just WBL bloat (god, I want to strangle anyone referencing WBL in an AP. Yes, I had one such ass in my group), or just plain useless aka flavor. And even the guns have some things that make them situationally shittier than muskets... I don't even. Still fun to have a chainsaw wielding barbarian rampaging through some aberrations or robots.

Emerald · Post by **Emerald** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:47 am

hogarth wrote:I don't usually read a lot of 3rd party material for Pathfinder, but someone on the Paizo boards said that the Zeitgeist adventure path was the best adventure path out there, so I took a look at the Zeitgeist Player's Guide (free download).

It's definitely worth it's weight in gold, as an object lesson of what not to do.
A prestige class with the class feature "you receive this magic item"? Check.

A prestige class with an ability that's literally playing "Mother May I" with the GM? Check.

Feats and class features that are so vaguely defined that they're unplayable as-is? Check.

Class features that have static damage attacks that are almost instantly obsolete? Check.
It's just truly impressive all around.

What else would you expect from a pathetically transparent attempt to port 4e stuff to Pathfinder?

It has Fey Step-ing eladrin and reincarnating devas, a nation of humans turned into tieflings in the past, PrCs with only three levels whose ability distributions resemble that of paragon paths (one 3/day "action point" ability, one at-will ability, some per-day abilities), the Dreaming and Bleak Gate as Feywild and Shadowfell stand-ins, "theme feats" that are basically 4e themes in feat form, and an honest-to-gods "flight and plane shifting can never last more than five minutes, because reasons" houserule to port over 4e per-encounter power durations and its aversion to 3D combats and interesting scenery.

It even tries to mix in a bit of 5e, with the Polyhistor using a version of the 5e fighter's combat expertise dice with its stances. And that's just all the stuff I noticed on a quick skim. Kinda sad, really, that someone's trying to turn PF into 4e or 5e and just making those editions look worse by associating them with this shitty AP.

FatR · Post by **FatR** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:25 am

An on an unrelated note, everyone was so busy talking about whether "getting ranged sneak attack all the time" is an appropriate damage benchmark that no one bothered to say whether and how you can get ranged sneak attack to apply constantly in PF...

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:29 am

Emerald wrote:What else would you expect from a pathetically transparent attempt to port 4e stuff to Pathfinder?

I don't have a problem cutting them some slack for trying to write dual-statted adventures, even if that means some weird 4E-isms sneaking in.

Emerald wrote:[..] "theme feats" that are basically 4e themes in feat form [..]

The same kind of adventure path campaign traits/feats showed up in the Shackled City adventure path, which pre-dates 4E by several years.

MfA · Post by **MfA** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:52 am

FatR wrote:An on an unrelated note, everyone was so busy talking about whether "getting ranged sneak attack all the time" is an appropriate damage benchmark that no one bothered to say whether and how you can get ranged sneak attack to apply constantly in PF...

Presumably sniper goggles, smoke/fog seeing, source of smoke/fog ... silly Limburger which most DMs will smite on sight.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:01 pm

Strapping on a gas mask and dropping smoke on a fool is so obviously un-silly that there are thousands of humorless, well-compensated people, who, today, will actually do that to you. Just pick up the phone and tell the police that you've got guns and hostages and they'll be right by to demonstrate.

Pictured: Literally how to play a rogue.

I understand why people thought a rogue baseline where he brazenly wandered into the fray, blinking in and out of existence and throwing jars at people was an unattractive emergent result of the game rules, but it's a load of horseshit for them to go and move the goalposts a second time now that the new baseline looks like something that get's peoples cocks hard enough to include in propaganda and video game advertisements.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:09 pm

The correct choice is a Goz Mask, from Pathfinder's Inner Sea World Guide. It's 8k and lets you see through fog and smoke. Also it lets you breathe water for short periods and count as one size larger for resisting high winds. And it uses a head slot so you can still wear Greater Sniper Goggles when you eventually have enough money that spending 50k to increase your sneak attack damage by 57% seems like a good idea. Then you figure out a way to convince your DM that the fact that a Smokestick says it works "instantly" means you can use it as a free action, and then you are out 20 gp per fight.

Under Pathfinder WBL guidelines, you can pull this off from 5th level.

-Username17

Emerald · Post by **Emerald** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:16 pm

hogarth wrote:
Emerald wrote:What else would you expect from a pathetically transparent attempt to port 4e stuff to Pathfinder?
I don't have a problem cutting them some slack for trying to write dual-statted adventures, even if that means some weird 4E-isms sneaking in.

It's not the inclusion of the 4e-isms that's objectionable, it's that taking something obviously designed for 4e first and foremost and trying to port it to PF is most likely going to lead to a very sub-par AP because the underlying assumptions are so different.

I'd be willing to cut them some slack if they designed a setting that works for both and adapted it to both systems from there, kind of like how the later 3e Monster Manuals have default fluff for everything and then have "X in Eberron" and "X in the Forgotten Realms" blurbs, but not the way they did it here.

Emerald wrote:[..] "theme feats" that are basically 4e themes in feat form [..]
The same kind of adventure path campaign traits/feats showed up in the Shackled City adventure path, which pre-dates 4E by several years.

Huh, didn't know that, I guess the AP feats led to the 4e themes and not vice versa. Complaint retracted on that point, then.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:30 pm

MfA wrote:Presumably sniper goggles, smoke/fog seeing, source of smoke/fog ... silly Limburger which most DMs will smite on sight.

If they're going to use the 'it feels stupid and silly, so you can't do it' argument, they immediately hit a brick wall at how A.) Pathfinder sells smoke stick arrows and for reasonably cheap and B.) Order of the Stick already showed this strategy. The consensus on the boards was that this was awesome and cool and smart.

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:57 pm

I personally prefer being an Ifrit and taking Firesight which does the same thing for a feat instead of money. Ifrit's make great rogues and it's much easier to get an effect into the game with paid for feats and class features than with magic items. A DM can play keepaway with magic items like Goz masks but by making your choice a race and racial feat you get what you want from the very first session or you're told to play a different character before you even hit the table.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:44 pm

Blinding everyone who isn't on your team and taking advantage of that is a totally legitimate and sensible strategy that is entirely within its rights to work. That said, I wouldn't bet on convincing your DM you can use it as a free action; lighting a torch is a full-round action normally and a tindertwig makes it a standard action and any other fire "at least" a standard action, and the smokestick says it works instantly when burned. So you have to light it first. If you get something that lets you start fires as a free action, it'd work then.

Your other simple options are smoke arrows and smoke pellets. Smoke pellets are thrown weapons and last only one round, and the quick draw errata keeps you from pulling them out as a free action, so that's not a good idea. Shooting a smoke arrow at your feet would do it and only cost one of your shots, though.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:19 am

Ifrit as Dean suggests above, then can take Scorching Weapons feat in order to swift action turn a gauntlet red hot and thus light smoke sticks.

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:41 am

The main problem is, having full concealment doesn't actually allow sneak attacks in PF, you need actual invisibility.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:39 am

rasmuswagner wrote:The main problem is, having full concealment doesn't actually allow sneak attacks in PF, you need actual invisibility.

Pathfinder doesn't actually define it one way or the other. There actually isn't a rule for when you are denied dexterity to ac. You'd think that there would be, but there isn't. People just lose their dex if they can't respond to attacks, but it's up to the DM to determine how and when that happens.

Pathfinder just sort of accidentally leaves out a lot of 3.5 rules.

-Username17

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:48 am

The official Paizo stance on when you can get sneak attack is house rule it. There have been so many threads and requests for clarification/errata on this topic and the only thing the devs have done is decide to add a rule for sniping, finally making it possible to use stealth (at a -20 penalty) to get a single sneak attack per round (no, you couldn't RAW use stealth in combat to sneak attack at release) and also some wishy washy bullshit from Jason Bulmahn about how creatures should be denied their dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow," and creatures who are "unaware of a threat" cannot react to it, so hey, maybe you should ask your GM what he thinks those two phrases mean.

I haven't seen a table where the DM made the argument that attacking someone from inside a totally obscuring cloud only you could see through was meaningfully different from being invisible, but you might. Jason Bulmahn isn't going to say shit either way, because it would probably require an official rogue buff and the rogue isn't a caster so fuck that noise.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:34 am

Emerald wrote:
What else would you expect from a pathetically transparent attempt to port 4e stuff to Pathfinder?

It has Fey Step-ing eladrin and reincarnating devas [..]

It's slightly more complicated than that; the older version of the player's guide actually refers to aasimar and high elves instead of devas and eladrin. I guess they changed it because they figured it would be too much hassle trying to search & replace those two terms in every document.

Emerald wrote:[..] PrCs with only three levels whose ability distributions resemble that of paragon paths (one 3/day "action point" ability, one at-will ability, some per-day abilities) [..]

I like 3-level prestige classes in general (far too many PrCs are padded out way too much by useless stuff), but these ones are pretty bad, at least in part due to 4E touches like attacks that do a static 3d10+10 damage. I also have a personal dislike for classes that give you a weird magical ability for no reason (e.g. the war veteran's ability to call in psychic memories of cannon fire, or the celebrity's ability to summon "illusory audience members").

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:52 am

[url=http://icv2.com/articles/news/view/31250/icv2-interview-paizo-publisher-erik-mona wrote:ICV2 INTERVIEW: PAIZO PUBLISHER ERIK MONA[/url]]Are you seeing any impact from the D&D [5e] launch last year?

Not really. What I’ve been hearing anecdotally from a lot of the retailers, especially at some of the presentations that we’ve done here, is that it seems to kind of invigorated the category.
I’m sure that some people who used to play Pathfinder are now playing 5th Edition but we’ve been picking up new people as well so we’re not seeing deleterious drops in our sales.
We’re also doing in April a book called Pathfinder Unchained, which is sort of the opposite of that. It’s a treasure trove of optional rules letting the Pathfinder RPG design team loose to do whatever they want, damn the consequences. Here’s an alternate version of combat; here’s a different way to increase your character’s level, really a lot of experimental stuff that players can pick and choose what they want to implement. So maybe you like Pathfinder but you feel it takes too long to make encounters or make monsters, there’s a streamlined version of how to do that in this book.

There’s also revisions on four classes so there’s a revised rogue, revised monk, and a revised barbarian. Now that we’ve done almost 30 classes and we’ve got several years behind us and people think in retrospect, maybe the rogue and the monk are not powerful enough vs. some of the stuff that’s come since, so we’ve retuned those classes and given people an optional version if that’s a concern of theirs. Also the summoner, which is a class that we put out in the Advanced Player’s Guide, very, very powerful class, perhaps even unintentionally so, this is a new version of that brings its power in line with everything else.
In late July/August is Occult Adventures and that’s the big, major Pathfinder release for this year. It’s our answer to Psionics. It’s a lot of mental magic, a lot of spirits, a lot of ghosts, forbidden knowledge, all that kind of stuff.

Traditionally in fantasy roleplaying psionics and psychic magic has been sort of bolted onto a whole other rule system you have to learn on top of the rule system. That’s always been the way with D&D for example. With Occult Adventures, we’re taking the way that spells work in Pathfinder, the rules people already know, and mapping the conceptual stuff like psychic combat on the astral plane or astral projection and things like that onto the existing spell structure. One of the things that’s cool about that is while we’re still using the framework of how spellcasting works in Pathfinder, we’re doing some really interesting and unique mechanical things with these classes.

With the six classes that we’re introducing in Occult Adventures they are still six legitimately, totally new things, they are not revisions of anything. They are full on new frontier game design and some conceptual things that we’ve never done in the game. We’ve never had a psychic in the game, for example. We’ve never had a character who can summon spirits and have the spirits inhabit their body and gain powers from them like the medium can do. So there’s the medium, there’s the mesmerist, who’s sort of a reverse bard. The bard buffs up his party and the mesmerist de-buffs his enemies, who is about mind control and things like that. We’ve got the kineticist who choses an energy type and does not have spells but can manipulate that energy in terms of shapes and do different things with it. That’s a totally different style of magic than we’ve ever done in Pathfinder before.

"letting the Pathfinder RPG design team loose to do whatever they want, damn the consequences." - That is some quality horror writing.

And looks like pathfinder unchained will fuck over the summoner.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 10:28 am

It just sounds like Pathfinder is trying to puff up their version of Unearthed Arcana. Big deal. 3E D&D made it part of the SRD; how many alternate class versions of the core classes did you see in games? If Pathfinder Unchained goes over like UA did, people are just going to cannibalize the mechanics that they like (which was pretty much just gestalt classes and flaws) and ignore all of the nerfs.

If Pathfinder wants to nerf shit in a manner more definitive than and less passive aggressive than the FAQ, they need to do it Orwellian 4E D&D style.

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:29 pm

I've read through the Occult Adventures playtest, and every single class gives up some spellcasting in order to gain +$LIECHTENSTEIN to [Circumstantial BS].

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 4:51 pm

I can't wait to see the rogue that gets medium armor proficiency and a free weapon focus. I'm also excited for the Summoner that needs to take standard actions to tell its nerfed Eidolon what to do. But the most exciting one will be the monk. I'm sure they've figured out just the class features to give a weaponless, armorless, mid-bab, melee-only character to make him finally worthwhile. As long as they don't make him better in a straight fight than a Fighter! After all the Fighter fights, that's his specialty!

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:06 pm

Dean wrote:I can't wait to see the rogue that gets medium armor proficiency and a free weapon focus. I'm also excited for the Summoner that needs to take standard actions to tell its nerfed Eidolon what to do. But the most exciting one will be the monk. I'm sure they've figured out just the class features to give a weaponless, armorless, mid-bab, melee-only character to make him finally worthwhile. As long as they don't make him better in a straight fight than a Fighter! After all the Fighter fights, that's his specialty!

I am sorry dean. I'm sorry you are so familiar with "their" mindset.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:07 pm

I can see them giving the Monk good BAB (after years of being told to do so and claiming it's impossible due to backwards compatibility), doing nothing else, then patting themselves on the back over how original and forward-thinking they were to implement that fix, and how it fixes everything and the Monk is now perfect.

I don't know what they'll do to improve the Rogue, but I wouldn't be surprised if you told me "Dicked around with proficiencies, nothing else" or "sneakily took one of the not-totally-shit archetypes, scribbled out the name and wrote 'Rogue' on it". Or maybe they'll say "Rogue is the ultimate SKILLS guy!" and then give them "Class Skills: all of them" and a couple of free Skill Focus feats over the 20 levels. Doesn't that make you excited?

RelentlessImp · Post by **RelentlessImp** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:09 pm

UA is still one of my favorite books even if it's more cherry-picked than Complete Psionics. Fractional BAB/Save progressions are par for the course in most of my games, and the Wizard variants, especially the Abrupt Jaunt and Domain Wizards, are some of the most used things in online games.

Paizo-ied UA will be about as successful as Complete Psionics, but 3.5 UA at least has more supporters than detractors.

Lurky Lurkpants · Post by **Lurky Lurkpants** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:45 pm

For those speculating there is a short teaser of the changed classes up. Few details and no specifics, of course, but it has made me very cautiously optimistic for the Monk and Rogue (at least in the context of other martial classes in the Pathfinder meta, which I know isn't saying much at all).

They are both getting at least some semi-magical interaction. Rogues will have skill tricks that include "reading surface thoughts" and "tricking lie detecting magic." Monks will have a variety of options, including some divination access. These will both probably be weighed down by unnecessary restrictions and the view that SLA/Su >>> actual spellcasting, but it at least acknowledges the problem of magic to a small degree.

They also acknowledged the problems of Monks being immobile "mobile" combatants and Rogues not hitting. So Monks have strikes that include at least one "move during full attack" thing and Rogues will have a "debilitating strike" that increases accuracy (or defense). I'd hope that "debilitating strike" also allows Sneak Attack, but we'll have to see. Again though, while I know they are probably going to be screwed over by only being usable once a day on the second Tuesday of every month (but not while raining!), but it is enough for at least a glimmer of hope.

Oh, and Summoner is getting across the board nerfs, but that isn't unexpected as it really was just what many on their board have clamored for. Nobody asked for the Barbarian stuff, so I'm assuming this is another case of "Jason was playing a Barbarian" and didn't like adding +Strength instead of just +attack and +damage, and noticed Raging Climber is insultingly awful even by awful Rage Power standards. No glimmers of hope that either of those will be any good at all.

So yes, it is still probably going to be horribly problematic and the rest of their alternate rules will (like Ultimate Campaigns) be completely untested or even edited, but I'm still going to hope to hope on at least 2/4 of the classes.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:19 pm

and a significant boost to some of her rogue talents (For instance, minor magic? Yeah, you get that cantrip at-will)

Fuck yeah, rogues fixed.