Pathfinder Is Bad - For Kids

[Kaelik]

Forgot you aren't allowed to like stuff around here. Let me correct my fucking useless shilling job, where I suggested not buying core rule book.

Yes, you only suggested selling them Pathfinder material and then telling them to buy the new Pathfinder edition when it comes out, how could I possibly have thought you were a shill?

Look little child, the reason I said you should shill better is not because your advice, if taken, wasn't perfect shilling, it was because the OP DOESN'T OWN A GAME SHOP SO YOUR ADVICE CAN'T BE TAKEN.

Pathfinder is perfect for children.

There are so many books that presents are sorted out for the next 30 years. There are lots and lots of ways of bringing “Ultimate Power” to the gaming table and making your friends feel inadequate (ok, they are all variations on the same theme) and if you spend long enough you can usually come up with some way of stymieing whatever cool thing your friends are trying to do – e.g. “how are you using a heavy shield, a warhammer, a divine focus, a metamagic rod and a crossbow at the same time; are you some kind of octopus?”

There are enough vague areas in the rules to fuel lots of arguments, and kids love arguing. “Who says I can’t use a lance in two hands when mounted?” “No, no, the Scent ability doesn’t allow you to interpret smells and find out lots of useful information about the crime scene; it just does what it says in the ninth paragraph on page 538.”

And it’s educational. Kids get really good at adding together 6+2+1+2+1+1 in their head, then seeing if they can find another +1 from somewhere when it turns out the attack just missed. And it teaches them about commercial game design as well. “That spell can’t do what you think it does, because that would break the game. They fixed all the dodgy D&D spells when they wrote Pathfinder, so we must be interpreting it wrong ...”

Also, if they frequent the Paizo boards it teaches them respect for authority. “<Insert Paizo employee here> said in a random message board post in 2009 that the actual rule isn’t the one written in the rule book you paid for, it actually works in a completely different way and you are stupid to think otherwise.”

... Look, can you learn to read? I ask because, of course Pathfinder is a worse version of 3e that teaches kids terrible things because the designers are (even more than 3e's,) idiots and assholes. Everyone already said that in this thread.

No one is claiming that Pathfinder isn't a shitty set of houserules for 3e that is slightly worse in every way propagated by assholes who teach bad habits by saying dumb things and then throwing tantrums when it turns out they can't read the rules.

The point is that You advice to sell kids Pathfinder and then promise them that Pathfinder 2 will be the greatest thing ever is useless, because no one here owns a fucking game shop.

amethal 1, Kaelik 0

erik I expect better.

Kaelik: The OP doesn't own a game shop so your advice is useless.
Amethal: BUT PATHFINDER TEACHES KIDS TO RESPECT FALSE AUTHORITY SO IT IS GOOD FOR THEM!
erik: Sure showed him!

[maglag]

PF designers allowed most of their material to be OGL and put in a well organized srd that includes lots of 3rd party material. With Path of War even martial do get nice things. And unlike Tome of Battle,Path of War supports archery from the start and is being expanded.

Meanwhile 3.5 devs decided a complete and free srd was an abomination that needed to be burned down. And most other similar games on the market demand a paywall to check their full rules as well.

[Kaelik]

Meanwhile 3.5 devs decided a complete and free srd was an abomination that needed to be burned down. And most other similar games on the market demand a paywall to check their full rules as well.

http://www.d20srd.org/

I think you might be confused. 4e is in fact often times not 3.5.

[Mechalich]

WotC's contribution to Open Gaming Content for 3.5 from any point subsequent to the initial release of the Core was minute. It's like two monsters, some psionics rules, and a few bits and pieces from Unearthed Arcana. Paizo, to their credit, has made a much, much larger proportion of their game OGC.

That doesn't make Pathfinder into a better game, but it is more fan-friendly business practice.

[Kaelik]

WotC's contribution to Open Gaming Content for 3.5 from any point subsequent to the initial release of the Core was minute. It's like two monsters, some psionics rules, and a few bits and pieces from Unearthed Arcana. Paizo, to their credit, has made a much, much larger proportion of their game OGC.

That doesn't make Pathfinder into a better game, but it is more fan-friendly business practice.

Yes, aside from pioneering the SRD, and then expanding it, while technically being beholden to goddam Hasbro, 3e did little to expand the SRD.

But all the same, "Only expanding a little bit" is completely different from "Burning to the Ground" which is what he actually said they did.

Pathfinder has made most of their content SRD, and that's certainly the one positive thing they did, and I didn't criticize them for it. How much of that is that Jason Bulhman is a genius among men who is just sooooo committed to the provision of free materials, and how much is that it's a market strategy that was proven to work and came at the same time as to perfectly undermine 4e, and Bulhman just is no more committed to the SRD than the people who someone managed to force it through a major corporate structure, but is in a better position to do it because he's not beholden to Hasbro is something that I don't know and so will reserve judgement on, which also means not paying them undue compliments by just assuming it isn't a marketing strategy and is a commitment to free games.

But none of that changes the fact that the 3.5 developers didn't Burn the SRD to the ground.

[Dogbert]

Regarding talking to paizils: Don't, just don't.


Trying to reason with fanboys is an exercise in futility.

In all fairness, however, PF is neither better nor worse, just different. Both PF and 3.X are broken, they're just different kinds of broken each. Now, sure, PF's marketing strategy at launch was one big pile of Snake Oil, but it has been long enough for me to let bygones be bygones (also, it has enough splats now to make it palatable).

Its bad, but look at the competition. DnD 5e, Shadowrun 5e, Bear World!, Dark Heresy all are even bigger dumpster fires of cock barrels then pathfinder, at least mechanics wise. And those are just games I played.

Quoting Wonderella: Default is the best fault to have.

[RelentlessImp]

Forgot you aren't allowed to like stuff around here. Let me correct my fucking useless shilling job, where I suggested not buying core rule book.

Pathfinder is perfect for children.

There are so many books that presents are sorted out for the next 30 years. There are lots and lots of ways of bringing “Ultimate Power” to the gaming table and making your friends feel inadequate (ok, they are all variations on the same theme) and if you spend long enough you can usually come up with some way of stymieing whatever cool thing your friends are trying to do – e.g. “how are you using a heavy shield, a warhammer, a divine focus, a metamagic rod and a crossbow at the same time; are you some kind of octopus?”

There are enough vague areas in the rules to fuel lots of arguments, and kids love arguing. “Who says I can’t use a lance in two hands when mounted?” “No, no, the Scent ability doesn’t allow you to interpret smells and find out lots of useful information about the crime scene; it just does what it says in the ninth paragraph on page 538.”

And it’s educational. Kids get really good at adding together 6+2+1+2+1+1 in their head, then seeing if they can find another +1 from somewhere when it turns out the attack just missed. And it teaches them about commercial game design as well. “That spell can’t do what you think it does, because that would break the game. They fixed all the dodgy D&D spells when they wrote Pathfinder, so we must be interpreting it wrong ...”

Also, if they frequent the Paizo boards it teaches them respect for authority. “<Insert Paizo employee here> said in a random message board post in 2009 that the actual rule isn’t the one written in the rule book you paid for, it actually works in a completely different way and you are stupid to think otherwise.”

Honestly this just reminds me of this:

Namely, the only thing you're hoping for is that the statement in the last panel is true.

[Slade]

Step 1)

Am I allowed to use spells from 3.5? Am I allowed to use classes from 3.5?

If no: Then you get that Pathfinder is just a bunch of fiddly bullshit houserules designed to erase previous content so that you buy their new splatbooks (that are no better than 3.5 ones) so you really are just paying money for something you already had.

If Yes: It didn't fix a single goddam balance problem and you are an idiot.

When I DM, I banned 3.5 Core-Core was the problem allow the Completes only and Pathfinder is much better.
Yes, many classes need a boost since they underdid them to not be stronger than Core, but the classes are mostly fine.

PF designers allowed most of their material to be OGL and put in a well organized srd that includes lots of 3rd party material. With Path of War even martial do get nice things. And unlike Tome of Battle,Path of War supports archery from the start and is being expanded.

Agreed, this is why Pathfinder is so well liked/played. You don't need the books for most of the content.

If only the designers were better, it would be even better.

[rasmuswagner]

It's a sad state of affairs when Sean K. Reynolds leaves an RPG and the quality worsens.

[Kaelik]

When I DM, I banned 3.5 Core-Core was the problem allow the Completes only and Pathfinder is much better.

People who ban all splat books because Complete Champion has a pounce barbarian are dumb.

You are just as dumb.

If you ban Lesser Restoration because Planar Binding is broken, the problem is you.

[amethal]

Yes, you only suggested selling them Pathfinder material and then telling them to buy the new Pathfinder edition when it comes out, how could I possibly have thought you were a shill?

Who are you arguing with? My response was trying to correct a false impression, not call you stupid.

There is, however, one good reason why suggesting someone buy Pathfinder 2 is bad shilling. Pathfinder 2 doesn't fucking exist. I guess that part was a bit too subtle for you, but it doesn't mean you are stupid.

Look little child, the reason I said you should shill better is not because your advice, if taken, wasn't perfect shilling, it was because the OP DOESN'T OWN A GAME SHOP SO YOUR ADVICE CAN'T BE TAKEN.

Little child? You can do better than that, surely?

There is a reason why I haven't addressed that part of your first post. Can you guess what it is? Hint - it wasn't because I wanted you to repeat it.

Kaelik: The OP doesn't own a game shop so your advice is useless..

Oops, too late.

Amethal: BUT PATHFINDER TEACHES KIDS TO RESPECT FALSE AUTHORITY SO IT IS GOOD FOR THEM!

However, if you don't think that was sarcasm, then you ARE stupid.

And is it really such a big deal to you that one person apparently preferred my second post to your first one? If it makes you feel better, I loved your post. I'd like to think the short length of time between making my first ever post (although I have been lurking here for years) and suffering my first personal attack was a record, but that's probably too much to hope for.

[erik]

To be clear, I think Kaelik unnecessarily flipped his shit at your post which seemed quite reasonable. I further thought calling you a shill lowered the bar for shilling to the goddamn floor. And I would rather not drive off amethal since I enjoyed ze posts.

[MGuy]

Amethal you've been here since March 2012. In that time have you not gotten at all acquainted with the personalities present on this board or are you just pretending right now?

[amethal]

Amethal you've been here since March 2012. In that time have you not gotten at all acquainted with the personalities present on this board or are you just pretending right now?

Some people would stand out anywhere (and you can probably guess who they are), and I have a better idea about those who've done a few OSSRs since I've read most of them, but I'm a bit vague about lots of other people's personalities.

So if you think I'm missing out on some obvious sub-text, chances are I am. Or even the (non-sub) text, given by how off topic my first post ended up being.

[Neurosis]

If someone you want to do business with likes Pathfinder, I would just avoid stating an opinion at all and try to move on to other subjects as fast as possible. They will probably assume you agree with them without you having to actually say anything you can be held to, which is the best possible result for "person I want to give me money believes something stupid and expects me to agree."

As a rule, the only business I want to do with them is selling them one or several of my games.

So their believing something stupid is a non-issue but their expecting me to agree might be.

[Neurosis]

Here's the short version: it didn't fix any of the major problems with 3.5e and in some cases made them worse.

Pathfinder isn't a bad system. It tightened up the skill list, removed the stupidity around class skills vs cross-class skills, and added character backstory incentives (traits, at least in theory). But those are all minor and easily backported into 3.5e. It didn't address:

• Too many options, most of which are traps. It's fine to have choices, but it's not so fine to have most of the choices shoot you in the foot.
• Caster domination. We've talked this one to death here so I'm won't go into it more.
• Steep martial power drop-off. Even with subsystems like Ki or Grit, they never get the game changers that spellcasters do. They can limp all the way to level 10-ish, but then things start to seriously fall apart without assistance from the party spellcasters or DM.
• Feat taxes. These got worse in Pathfinder. Also, a lot of the feat chains are a big fuck-your-primary-class-feature to fighters.
• Bizarre FAQ and errata. Paizo prefers to double down on mistakes rather than admit they've done wrong, and this leads to some truly strange rulings. It's like Sage Advice, but binding for sanctioned play!

So far, I think I find this most useful, speedballed with Frank's six year old opening rant.

[GâtFromKI]

• Unplayable stuff. And I mean: literally unplayable. Like the soundstriker, a bard archetype asking for 30 roll per round (with some modifier for each roll, so 30 addition per round, etc). Or the synthesist, a summoner archetype so poorly written that the text of its faqs is longer than the text of the archetype.
• Constant erratas. As a consequence of the poor editing, the game is handled like a fucking video game with constant updates. It goes to the point of uselessness: it is not humanly possible to read and memorize all errata, you won't search for erratas and faqs each time you use a rule, so in the end you simply ignore erratas. I mean, open the errata of any book, there are more than one errata per page; and most of those errata are shit like "Page 209—In the Blood Transcription spell, in the Components entry, add “, S”", because apparently it was really an issue that some shitty spell you cast during downtime (the day after killing a boss) didn't get a somatic component. So nobody read the document and nobody knows if there is any important errata.

[Rawbeard]

I think it is pretty important that wizards don't transcribe spells from the blood of their enemies while grappled, or otherwise immobilized. that shit can break game. "the oger has you grabbed in his fist, what do you do" - "I cast Blood Transcription!" happens all the time.

[Neurosis]

Wait, Pathfailure lets wizards do fucking WHAT?

I mean, I want MY wizard to do that, or a PC at my table's wizard (and she is literally the DM's literal girlfriend, now fiance, and if you're slow on the uptake, the DM is me), but in general, yeah, sounds like it MIGHT be a little problematic!

[Kaelik]

I think it is pretty important that wizards don't transcribe spells from the blood of their enemies while grappled, or otherwise immobilized. that shit can break game. "the oger has you grabbed in his fist, what do you do" - "I cast Blood Transcription!" happens all the time.

Pretty sure that literally nothing about about the rules for Somatic Components stops you from casting the spell in a grapple.

I suspect the part where you don't have a valid target is an issue:

Target: 1 dead spellcaster.

[Neurosis]

Pretty sure that literally nothing about about the rules for Somatic Components stops you from casting the spell in a grapple.

wait, in pathfail, or in 3.5?

because if in 3.5, needing to win a grapple check stops you. because you're a wizard, and your grapple bonus is "lol, u srs cuz?"

unless you have freedom of movement or a ring of freedom of movement or some shit

[CapnTthePirateG]

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=13119

For all your wizard grapplin' needs.

[Kaelik]

Pretty sure that literally nothing about about the rules for Somatic Components stops you from casting the spell in a grapple.

wait, in pathfail, or in 3.5?

because if in 3.5, needing to win a grapple check stops you. because you're a wizard, and your grapple bonus is "lol, u srs cuz?"

Honestly, if you are a Wizard, or an anyone, you can just teleport out of the grapple, which is totally something you are going to do.

But having read the rules on a number of things, I have these to say:

0) Yeah, I always read the "You don’t have to make a successful grapple check to cast the spell." thing about concentration checks as just applying to all spells, but it does totally say no spells with somatic components so there you go.

Although by the way, that means making a grapple check still doesn't let you cast spells with somatic components.

1) The spell only works on dead spellcasters. So you totally can't use it on anyone alive. Obviously, this is the main reason why a somatic component is completely meaningless, because casting it on an enemy is impossible.

2) Wholly shit, who even cares if you could cast this in a grapple. It doesn't kill them, it just lets you learn a spell they knew! It literally only works on Sorcerers and Bards (and Maguses?) that grapple you I couldn't possibly give a shit. You spent a standard action to replace a spell with another spell.

3) The only creature I could even imagine that would grapple you and also has spells is a Dragon. That's literally it.

4) So yeah, there is absolutely no reason to worry about this being a no save kill spell without a somatic component, and in fact, with one, if you could use it to kill anyone (you can't) you would be able to do it anyway with like, a touch attack or some dumb shit.

[TiaC]

I'm not quite sure why this is an argument. (Except that Kaelik is in it, that's a good reason.) I don't think anyone here really thinks that piece of errata was needed, so it seems like everyone is angrily agreeing with everyone else that it's shit.

[Prak]

Yeah, what you do is get it as a highly specific contingent spell.