Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[hogarth]

If you're talking about a smiting paladin, he automagically bypasses all DR against his smite target. Of course, he can only do that four times a day.

Is that four attacks or four combats? Because I was under the impression he got DR bypasses once and a damage boost for the rest of the combat. And if thus, if he used a DR bypass for four attacks, he'd be totally useless the rest of the day.

Although it's tempting to spend my free time reading the Pathfinder rules to you one paragraph at a time, I think I'll decline.

But to be ultra mega honest, I stopped paying super close attention to their odd mixture of paladin buffs and nerfs long ago.

Yes, you've made it pretty clear that you stopped reading the rules at some point during the Beta. Which makes sense (once it was clear that PFRPG wasn't really going to fix anything from 3.5 and that you have no desire to play it, what's the point?), but it makes some of your criticisms fall a little flat sometimes.

[magnuskn]

I wonder, when did "caster edition" become popular here to describe Pathfinder? I don't remember seeing it until about one month ago or somesuch.

[Kaelik]

I wonder, when did "caster edition" become popular here to describe Pathfinder? I don't remember seeing it until about one month ago or somesuch.

I've never even heard it from anyone besides Roy until today.

[virgil]

I've heard the "caster edition" moniker as long as a year ago during the Beta. To be perfectly honest, there isn't a qualitative difference between the Beta and final product as far as judgement.

In regards to the paladin, they get that attack/damage/DR boost for the entire combat against whatever single evil creature they target (and an extra damage boost for the first successful attack vs evil outsiders/dragons). The paladin saw the most drastic changes from Beta to Final.

[sake]

It's the nickname fans of 4e and trolls use for PF/3.5E on /tg/.

[Juton]

A lot of people regard the Paladin as one of the biggest successes in Pathfinder. Thing is, Buhlman didn't write it, he outsourced it to some up and comer.

One thing I noticed recently, Barbarians suck in Pathfinder. A raging Barbarian gets matched by a Fighter at about level 5, except the fighter doesn't need to rage to get his bonus. What is really galling about this is that in the Beta, Barbarians had a lot of powerful (or at least adequate) rage abilities and a system that worked like a Psion's powerpoints. But the masses decried that it was 'too complicated' and that they wanted 'something simple', even though they still had the Fighter.

[Maxus]

It's the nickname fans of 4e and trolls use for PF/3.5E on /tg/.

A few pages back, Buhlman was quoted as saying he -wanted- casters dominating the game at higher levels because "that's how it should be"

[virgil]

And an equal number of people call the paladin so broke that it violates its own code of honor.

I didn't terribly like the Beta rendition of the barbarian (or the final one, but still), because it's a needless complexity. The barbarian and bard both got painful nerfs by putting them on a 2-minute adventuring day schedule.

[hogarth]

A few pages back, Buhlman was quoted as saying he -wanted- casters dominating the game at higher levels because "that's how it should be"

He wasn't "quoted" as saying anything -- Roy's hazy memory paraphrased something he thought he read once.

[hogarth]

Does anyone know who Stephen Radney-MacFarland is? Apparently he's joining Paizo as a developer.

[Roy]

What the fuck? All the stuff that makes Rogues good is still nerfed in Pathfailure, so what are you talking about?

Doesn't change the fact that they are the pathfailure DPS kings. It really doesn't take very much to be a DPS king in Pathfailure, because all forms of stabbing enemies in the face have been nerfed in Caster Edition.

As a Paladin you are seriously supposed to be feeling good about hitting enemies for 24 points of damage. At level 10. You're feeling that way, because the Barbarian and Fighter are even worse.

Recall, this is the edition that didn't just nerf Invisibility and Blink to screw Rogues out of sneak attacks - it nerfed power attack for fear that Barbarians might have nice things somehow.

-Username17

Kings of Fail?

I wonder, when did "caster edition" become popular here to describe Pathfinder? I don't remember seeing it until about one month ago or somesuch.

The term Caster Edition has been in effect for a very long time. Sometimes by me, sometimes by other people. I'd like to say I was the first person to call it like it is, but chances are Squirreloid or LogicNinja beat me to it. By now it's in common usage.

As for the line about Jason and caster edition, it was originally Kirth something or another that brought it up. He has an avatar of a drunken satyr. Why don't you ask him? He's the same guy that wrote those house rules, so TOZ can reach him easily enough.

[Leress]

Does anyone know who Stephen Radney-MacFarland is? Apparently he's joining Paizo as a developer.

Hahahaha, SRM hasn't really done much of anything.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/archive.aspx ... savemygame

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... /20080104a

http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=s ... torid=1821

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ ... 2/?pg=last

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... d/20071128

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... d/20071119

[hogarth]

Does anyone know who Stephen Radney-MacFarland is? Apparently he's joining Paizo as a developer.

Hahahaha, SRM hasn't really done much of anything.

According to someone on the Paizo boards, he did some stuff for d20 Modern and Star Wars. As well as some RPGA/Living Greyhawk stuff.

[Koumei]

According to someone on the Paizo boards, he did some stuff for d20 Modern

Wow, I know Paizo like sifting through other people's garbage for their stuff, but taking on someone who touched d20 modern? That's low.

[erik]

According to someone on the Paizo boards, he did some stuff for d20 Modern and Star Wars. As well as some RPGA/Living Greyhawk stuff.

Wow, I know Paizo like sifting through other people's garbage for their stuff, but taking on someone who touched d20 modern? That's low.

Damn. I was hung up on thinking that putting RPGA/LG on his resume was kind of underwhelming since the standards for that stuff were pretty low... but yeah if I worked on d20 modern there's no way I'd admit it. I'd change my name and deny, deny, deny.

[hogarth]

As for the line about Jason and caster edition, it was originally Kirth something or another that brought it up. He has an avatar of a drunken satyr. Why don't you ask him? He's the same guy that wrote those house rules, so TOZ can reach him easily enough.

Kirth's point has always been that 3.X is "caster edition" (at least for mid- to -high-level play) and that Pathfinder is no different. That's true enough, although it ignores the fact that AD&D was "caster edition", too (at least for mid- to high-level play).

The only real difference is that anything after 3.0 is "Internet bitching" edition.

[Roy]

As for the line about Jason and caster edition, it was originally Kirth something or another that brought it up. He has an avatar of a drunken satyr. Why don't you ask him? He's the same guy that wrote those house rules, so TOZ can reach him easily enough.

Kirth's point has always been that 3.X is "caster edition" (at least for mid- to -high-level play) and that Pathfinder is no different. That's true enough, although it ignores the fact that AD&D was "caster edition", too (at least for mid- to high-level play).

The only real difference is that anything after 3.0 is "Internet bitching" edition.

Caster edition is not a binary state. There are degrees of caster support and degrees of non caster support. For Pathfinder, these two are the most widely spread. For 1st and 2nd edition, they were actually the closest together.

[FatR]

Actually, AD&D 2 had the biggest distance between wizards and everyone else (with clerics and druids lagging very far behind, but still above fighting classes at high levels). Wizards got a ton more spells, compared to previous editions, and some of the spells got alot better as well (Geas, for example, became straight "Become my bitch or die, no save"), while fighting classes, as far as I can figure out, were nerfed. The amount of new stuff meant for non-wizards in supplements was pretty much zero (not counting universally useable things, like most magic items). 3.0 actually tried to fix that, by giving fighting classes some actual abilities again, but did not go far enough in this direction, while following editions got everything wrong, and instead of giving fighters more options, so that whoring one of the few offensive tricks wouldn't be the only viable long-term option for them, mostly tried to nerf currently viable versions of said trick.

[Red_Rob]

People forget how fragile wizards were in 2nd edition. When casting a spell a Wizard couldn't move that round, lost his dex bonus to AC, and automatically lost their spell if hit before it was cast (this was when init. was rerolled every round, so no guarantees you'd go before the enemy). Also, saves got better and better over time, so spells allowing a save got less and less useful. Fighters could move and get all their attacks, monsters had no Con bonus to hit points and warrior saves were the best in the game.

The amount of new stuff meant for non-wizards in supplements was pretty much zero (not counting universally useable things, like most magic items).

Really? The Complete Fighters Handbook, The Complete Thief's Handbook and The Complete Barbarian's handbook would like to have a word with you.

Yes, Wizards beat warriors at higher levels, but thats been the case as long as theres been D&D. When a Hill Giant has 50hp then hitting twice a round for D10 + 12 damage is a viable life choice for quite a while.

[Juton]

2e came up a few months ago, one thing to remember is that most 2e games started at 1st level and never got past 10. So the differences between the Fighter and Wizard where less apparent, because Casters don't start to really dominate until around level 7.

The thing that infuriates me is that 3.X and Pathfinder where both designed by people who usually start campaigns at level 1 and end campaigns at or before level 10. If you never get above level 10 then any knowledge you have about high level play is academic, so the spells/powers/feats you create are probably going to be shit, and you'll never find out first hand because you won't end up playtesting them.

[hogarth]

Also, saves got better and better over time, so spells allowing a save got less and less useful.

Fortunately, no-save spells like Polymorph Any Object (turnip -> purple worm?), Simulacrum, Maze, Symbol of Stunning and Shapechange (and even Magic Missile) were even better than they are in 3.X edition.

[FatR]

People forget how fragile wizards were in 2nd edition.

Thanks to experience of playing a wizard in 2E, I don't forget this. And let me tell you, once you got through the hell of low levels, wizard fragility practically disappeared once you had enough 4th level spells to spare. Stoneskin was basically Immunity to Melee with duration of several rounds, except against monsters with serious attack spam. And it lasted indefinitely once cast. And Improved Invisibility in the world where hardly anyone, save for a bunch of outsiders and other castes had reliable access to seeing invisible.

And about higher levels... I believe what is said in this thread is true, and 2E designers quietly assumed that levels above 9 are meant for Uber-NPCs. After getting 6th level spells, wizards' advantage wasn't even remotely fair.

Yes, Wizards beat warriors at higher levels, but thats been the case as long as theres been D&D. When a Hill Giant has 50hp then hitting twice a round for D10 + 12 damage is a viable life choice for quite a while.

Unless I miss something, it was practically impossible to get +12 damage in 2E without magic items, to which you weren't entitled. Assuming your GM wasn't an ass and provided you a good tool of not dying (+2 sword), and you had a wizard to drop a few Strength spells on you (until you roll well) in the morning, you looked at 1d8+10 (+6 from max Str humanly possible without more items, +2 from sword, and +2 from specialization) twice per round at mid levels.

[mean_liar]

Who played a fighter with a race that couldn't get 19+ STR? Who were those people?

[Roy]

2e came up a few months ago, one thing to remember is that most 2e games started at 1st level and never got past 10. So the differences between the Fighter and Wizard where less apparent, because Casters don't start to really dominate until around level 7.

The thing that infuriates me is that 3.X and Pathfinder where both designed by people who usually start campaigns at level 1 and end campaigns at or before level 10. If you never get above level 10 then any knowledge you have about high level play is academic, so the spells/powers/feats you create are probably going to be shit, and you'll never find out first hand because you won't end up playtesting them.

Well actually that's not quite true, but it functionally doesn't matter. See, I recall an incident a while back where... I think it was James Wyatt was discussing high level play, and was trying to justify blasting for piddly shit over using a real spell. I later learned that the monster that was the subject of his 'playtest' was the weakest CR 20 I've ever seen, and I've read the MM2. Mother fucking TARN LINNORM.

So it's not that the Paizils don't play at high levels, it's that they don't understand what high levels mean. So they make everyone, including the monsters complete retards. You can see this in action by looking at any adventure made by the same people, before or after they joined Paizo and became an official Paizil.

[K]

Yah, in second edition you used to be able to defeat spellcasters by throwing rocks at them.