Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[hogarth]

I must've missed the post(s) where you refuted the prior mentions of Pathfinders flaws, otherwise beyond this post I'm not seeing it.

I have yet to hear a complaint about Pathfinder that doesn't apply (roughly) equally to 3.5E D&D.

"It didn't fix the problems with the version before it and it even made some things worse!" -- check
"It's full of all kinds of fiddly bullshit!" -- check
"It's caster edition!" -- check
etc.

[Kaelik]

I must've missed the post(s) where you refuted the prior mentions of Pathfinders flaws, otherwise beyond this post I'm not seeing it.

I have yet to hear a complaint about Pathfinder that doesn't apply (roughly) equally to 3.5E D&D.

"It didn't fix the problems with the version before it and it even made some things worse!" -- check
"It's full of all kinds of fiddly bullshit!" -- check
"It's caster edition!" -- check
etc.

Wait what.

So hypothetically, you would say that 2 apples is basically the same as 100 apples, because 100 apples is 98 apples less than the number of apples you had before it, and 2 is 98 apples less than the number you had before it?

[Krusk]

That's a dumb argument and you don't have to get as abstract or complicated as apples. For instance...

both are caster edition. Pathfinder managed to make caster edition worse with things like power attack nerfs. Pathfinder is obviously worse, even though both are still caster edition.

They added more fiddly bullshit that does less than 3.5. Pf is worse. More variants, more traits, etc. plus hackwards compatable means it's an x+any positive number is bigger than x problem.

3.5 apparently made 3.0 problems worse (debatable, I'd say it had minor improvements and a lot of net neutral). Pf then took that bad thing, and made it worse. Pathfinder is by definition worse. This one is seriously just an argument to play 3.0, not an argument that pf is good.

[...You Lost Me]

Kaelik is specifically targeting the first argument hogarth mentioned, which is that D&D 3e didn't fix things from D&D 2e and added more problems, while PF didn't fix things from D&D 3e and added more problems.

[hogarth]

Kaelik is specifically targeting the first argument hogarth mentioned, which is that D&D 3e didn't fix things from D&D 2e and added more problems, while PF didn't fix things from D&D 3e and added more problems.

I was actually thinking that 3.5E D&D didn't fix things from 3E D&D, but same diff.

both are caster edition. Pathfinder managed to make caster edition worse with things like power attack nerfs. Pathfinder is obviously worse, even though both are still caster edition.

Pathfinder made a few things worse (e.g. nerfing some fighter abilities), it made a few things better (e.g. nerfing some spells), and added a lot of stuff that didn't change things one way or another. It's only "obviously worse" if you willfully ignore the stuff that's not worse!

[Kaelik]

Kaelik is specifically targeting the first argument hogarth mentioned, which is that D&D 3e didn't fix things from D&D 2e and added more problems, while PF didn't fix things from D&D 3e and added more problems.

Actually hogarth probably meant 3.0.

But it still remains true that

Y is worse than X.

Z is worse than Y to the same degree.

That degree is not zero.

Therefore Z is just as good as Y.

Is a terrible fucking argument that no intelligent person should ever make. Also hogarth shouldn't make it.

[Slade]

Kaelik is specifically targeting the first argument hogarth mentioned, which is that D&D 3e didn't fix things from D&D 2e and added more problems, while PF didn't fix things from D&D 3e and added more problems.

I was actually thinking that 3.5E D&D didn't fix things from 3E D&D, but same diff.

both are caster edition. Pathfinder managed to make caster edition worse with things like power attack nerfs. Pathfinder is obviously worse, even though both are still caster edition.

Pathfinder made a few things worse (e.g. nerfing some fighter abilities), it made a few things better (e.g. nerfing some spells), and added a lot of stuff that didn't change things one way or another. It's only "obviously worse" if you willfully ignore the stuff that's not worse!

But nerfing some spells included spells that benefited the rogue: in fact most of the good ones besides save/dies benefited rogue.

The save or dies became save or huge damage.

Glitterdust is lightly nerfed but enough that rogues don't see it as often.
Grease is nuked from orbit as no longer flat footed (before you could sneak attack any creature in grease).
Blink, etc.

They made a 1/day flask ninja attack because they hate rogues so bad with burning hatred of the sun.
So yeah, the nerfs enforce that penalize caster edition to a degree.

[Neurosis]

It has two major variations. There's the traditional ubercharger and then the Cavalry Ubercharger. It's actually hard to build an Ubercharger wrong given how many options you have. For this demonstrations of a basic Ubercharger lets use a Lion totem Barbarian into a Frenzied Barbarian. Lets make the character 11th level because 20th level builds don't impress me. You take Power Attack, Leap Attack and Shock Trooper and the flip out and charge people.

You'll be insanely strong because you have two different rages on at once for +10 strength. Your power attack damage bonus will be at 400% thanks to 2 handing, Leap attack, and the Greater Power attack class feature. You will also definitely hit because Shock Trooper applies the power attack negatives to you AC instead of your to-hit score. You will also get a full compliment of attacks because you have pounce. That means at BASE your charge would look like this:

4 Greatsword Attacks, +28 (2d6+62). That's an average of 276 damage. Enough to one-shot anything in your CR band and at a high enough attack bonus that you only miss on one's. It's a very reliable build.

Aid dumpster diving. Which books are Lion Totem Barbarian, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper in? I think I have PDFs of just about all the splats lying around somewhere at this point.

I get how we got the damage to hahaha what the fuck levels, but how is an eleventh level character getting four attacks on a charge (or for that matter, four attacks ever without something giving extra attacks)? I didn't think you could even full attack on a charge without somehow having Pounce...ENLIGHTEN ME!

I personally do not like to run 3.5 at two-digit levels

Not the case for me. I am completely satisfied with D&D 3.5E. That is not to say it's perfect. It isn't. It has a shit ton of problems. But none of those problems actually impact any of the D&D games I very occasionally run or play in with a few friends with enough force to register anything other than a "meh" from me.

Anyway so yeah, I have this one friend (not to mention legions of random paizils I don't know but that are everywhere at every con, and in my biz as a tiny game company owner guy, I kind of have to go to lots of cons) who is all like, "You should totally switch to Pathfinder, it's totally better than 3.5E". And I'm always like... "Nahh, that's not what I heard" but I asked the question a page or so up because I can never remember the reasons why whilst I'm actually talking to him.

Anyway now I'm trying to figure out like...is it just that it totally fails to be better than 3.5E, or is it actually like OBJECTIVELY worse?

(2)Lifting the list of classes from PHB wholesale, even though it was really not that hard to make the existing 3.5 material passably balanced by editing the allowed class list.

Oh and it seems to me like this was necessary for their (defaulted on) promise and (failed?) design goal of backwards compatibility to 3.X.

[Seerow]

Aid dumpster diving. Which books are Lion Totem Barbarian, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper in? I think I have PDFs of just about all the splats lying around somewhere at this point.

Complete Champion, Complete Adventurer, and Complete Warrior respectively I believe.

[Neurosis]

I've looked through all those splats a lot...so if you're right, I can't believe I missed those things. But my gut tells me you may not be right.

D&D 3e didn't fix things from D&D 2e and added more problems

Wait a second, isn't 2E-3E where we finally got rid of THAC0 once and for all? Because that's like...the best change of all time.

[Seerow]

I've looked through all those splats a lot...so if you're right, I can't believe I missed those things. But my gut tells me you may not be right.

I know for a fact all of them are in the Complete Series, and am 99% sure on Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian being Complete Champion. I was mostly unsure of exactly which complete had Leap Attack and Shock Trooper.

[Neurosis]

Oh man, you're right word up. Page 46. Trade fast movement for pounce at first level? Fuck yes. That is so fucking good it's crazy.

(Complete Champion is probably my least read of the Completes; I've read the shit out of Arcane, Divine, and Adventurer.)

[radthemad4]

I find it best to just think of Pathfinder as a ridiculously huge third party Unearthed Arcana + Monster Manual. Scavenge it, keep the parts you like and let players use stuff from it on a case by case basis and it works pretty well.

[TiaC]

Oh man, you're right word up. Page 46. Trade fast movement for pounce at first level? Fuck yes. That is so fucking good it's crazy.

Except at levels where pounce doesn't matter.

The fourth attack could be Haste, a speed weapon or Whirling Frenzy (UA p66).

If you can't find Shock Trooper, it's a tactical feat, not a general one.

[Archmage Joda]

So, something that nags at me in both D&D and Pathfinder: unless you have class features that specifically require it, why would you ever wield a single one-handed weapon over a two-hander as a meleer? For that matter, why wield a quarterstaff either?

[Wiseman]

Do you mean without a shield? If so, then no, there's no reason to.

[Axebird]

Because while you can use a longsword in a grapple, you can't use a greatsword. You effectively lose 2.5 average damage for the ability to actually fight back if someone/thing grabs you. Plus, you have the option of pulling out a shield for +2 to +7 (depending on enhancement bonus) to your AC when you're fighting a mob of enemies.

[erik]

Oh man, you're right word up. Page 46. Trade fast movement for pounce at first level? Fuck yes. That is so fucking good it's crazy.

Except at levels where pounce doesn't matter.

The fourth attack could be Haste, a speed weapon or Whirling Frenzy (UA p66).

If you can't find Shock Trooper, it's a tactical feat, not a general one.

The 4th attack is due to Frenzy from Frenzied Berzerker. It is not stackable with Haste or a Speed Weapon tho.

[edit: error checked myself]

[Koumei]

And yeah, unless you have a non-standard race that gives you two claw attacks or decide to waste your life by taking TWF as someone who mostly uses Strength and PA multipliers and not bonus damage, Pounce means precisely dick at first level. It does mean Barbarian 1 becomes a good dip for other characters, but otherwise, you may as well say "you get Pounce at level 6". And being told "you can charge and still make two attacks" at level six generally gets a reply of "Ah, cool, that's nice" and not "Oh my fucking god, that's amazing".

[Kaelik]

And yeah, unless you have a non-standard race that gives you two claw attacks or decide to waste your life by taking TWF as someone who mostly uses Strength and PA multipliers and not bonus damage, Pounce means precisely dick at first level. It does mean Barbarian 1 becomes a good dip for other characters, but otherwise, you may as well say "you get Pounce at level 6". And being told "you can charge and still make two attacks" at level six generally gets a reply of "Ah, cool, that's nice" and not "Oh my fucking god, that's amazing".

Well, unless you are a barbarian with a rage, in which case you could have pounce and whirling frenzy, and therefore have two attacks on a charge at level 1.

[Koumei]

Ah of course! I really should have remembered Whirling Frenzy: it's actually a decent variant, as opposed to half the stuff in UA.

[magnuskn]

Because while you can use a longsword in a grapple, you can't use a greatsword. You effectively lose 2.5 average damage for the ability to actually fight back if someone/thing grabs you. Plus, you have the option of pulling out a shield for +2 to +7 (depending on enhancement bonus) to your AC when you're fighting a mob of enemies.

Except you can't use a longsword in a grapple, since it's a one-handed weapon and you can only use light weapons under that condition.

As for why you want to use a one-handed weapon, I guess it comes down to "roleplaying". I am currently playing a Swashbuckler in a Rise of the Runelords campaign and it's going fine.

[name_here]

I don't think there's any reason to use a one-handed weapon over a two-handed weapon if you aren't using your offhand, unless you have a bonus to a one-handed weapon type and lack TWF.

[ishy]

Except you can't use a longsword in a grapple, since it's a one-handed weapon and you can only use light weapons under that condition.

You can't in 3.5, but you can do anything that doesn't take two-hands while in a grapple in PF. Thus in PF you can full-attack while grappled with a longsword.

[ishy]

Hahahaha