Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Antariuk]

Does anybody know when Pathfinder 2.0 is coming out?

Pretty sure you weren't serious, but Pathfinder Unchained will hit the shelves next month and apparently it's full of uncorns and fluffy rainbows and will make all problems disappear. As in, they're revisiting the Summoner (understandable), Barbarian (wat), Rogue (ok), Monk (what are they doing this time?), but not the Fighter (like, that whole book should have been about them). Also scaling magic items, "new" combat system, "new" takes on alignment, the lot.

[Insomniac]

What's wrong with the Barbarian? I just remember Sacred Tattooed Half-Orcs with Superstition and Pounce having jacked saves and beating everything to a pulp. Do you think they will be gimped/nerfed? One of the, if not the, best melee combatant in the game. At least without spells. I dislike Pathfinder but I give them their due with their fixes to Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger. That should be the benchmark for every combatant class without a lot of inherent magic.

More balanced and easier to play=Sounds like nerfing or Dungeons and Dragons Essentials.

It is coming out about 2 months from now, April 29. That would be an interesting one for somebody to review here.

[Dean]

that means being a really really shitty Cleric for a long, long time. Archivist doesn't really come into their own until 9th level.

The first part of this is wrong but the second part is right. A 6th level Archivist is worse than a cleric but they'd still pass a SGT. Then at 9th level Archivists go insane because they gain the abilities required to get the abilities they want regardless of DM keep-away. An Archivist is definitely a mid level character but they are extremely powerful mid level characters and because they're full spellcasters they are going to be contributing party members before that.

Archivist range between functional and extremely powerful depending on your level range. In a 1-20 supercampaign I might not choose an Archivist because the game might stop before I become awesome but in a game starting anywhere in the mid level range they're incredible and that is the only level range at which I've rolled them.

Regarding Barbarians: If anyone is interested I'd be very keen to see a good pathfinder barbarian build. They all seem able to swing lots of attacks for high damage in a 5ft area around them which they have no ability to make enemies be in.

[Reynard]

> That should be the benchmark for every combatant class without a lot of inherent magic.
Benchmark for every combatant class without a lot of inherent magic is called Tome of Battle.

Paizo doesn't have the balls or the brains (imo - both) to make their own version or something better. Which is why DPS getting so much attention from PF-playing crowd, despite problems with consistency or quality.

That is why I can say what will happen in PF Unchained: fuck-tonne of gimped (but very confusing) options. Also, Barbarian will be stealth-nerfed.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Then at 9th level Archivists go insane because they gain the abilities required to get the abilities they want regardless of DM keep-away.

Err, how? I agree that Archivists will eventually get enough abilities that they can mostly override DM keep-away, but it's not going to happen at level 9. It's not even going to happen at level 12, unless you're arguing that most DMs will allow free and unfettered wishes.

And even if they do get unfettered spell access, the question remains: SO WHAT? Clerics have also been upfilling their spell gaps during this time period. It's not an easy task for 3rd-level clerics to put up a list of 5 spells that they'd like to lead an unknown workday with, but it's substantially easier for 6th level clerics and even easier for 9th level clerics. They don't get 'all of the spells' but they don't need 'all of the spells'. Think in terms of marginal utility.

Unless you're doing something really abusive and/or dumpster-divey like finding a way to put Arcane Fusion on your spell list, the utility of having 'all of the spells' just isn't much better than having 'most of the spells' or even 'much of the spells'. Remember: the archivist is still saddled with MAD and doesn't automatically know the entire spell list.

[Insomniac]

> That should be the benchmark for every combatant class without a lot of inherent magic.
Benchmark for every combatant class without a lot of inherent magic is called Tome of Battle.

Paizo doesn't have the balls or the brains (imo - both) to make their own version or something better. Which is why DPS getting so much attention from PF-playing crowd, despite problems with consistency or quality.

That is why I can say what will happen in PF Unchained: fuck-tonne of gimped (but very confusing) options. Also, Barbarian will be stealth-nerfed.

True, Tome of Battle was the shit. I did like it but so many didn't want "Weeaboo Fightan Magic" and were happy to blow feats to get +1 to hit with a greatsword.

:/

As for the Barbarian, yeah, not being able to fly without equipment stinks and is the absolute bane of melee classes. Right around 7th level in Pathfinder, you look through the Monster Manual and I'd say at least half the CR 7 or higher opponents can fly and you can't.

[NineInchNall]

Not that ToB went anywhere far enough.

[Reynard]

Well, yes. ToB was hardly enough.

But then you'll have to consider the whole "DnD is miniature wargame" paradigm. It's not like it could be changed overnight and combat system rebuilt from the scratch.

For 3e ToB was good enough. Too late too little, but still. It got there eventually.

[Dean]

Then at 9th level Archivists go insane because they gain the abilities required to get the abilities they want regardless of DM keep-away.

Err, how? I agree that Archivists will eventually get enough abilities that they can mostly override DM keep-away, but it's not going to happen at level 9.

When things like Commune, Divination, and Teleport are online it's pretty easy to say "Are there any Paladins who have Scribe Scroll" or whatever and do that with pretty much anything. By that time you can use your abilities to ask the game itself what exists and where, and you have the capabilities to go to those places and get those things.

As for "So what?", come on bro. Tell me what books are allowed in your hypothetical game and then tell me that there's no powerful Archivist combinations with those books. Come on.

[Reynard]

IIRC you don't need Paladins with Scibe Scroll.

You just need to have someone with crafting feat and someone with the spell to work together, no?

[Username17]

Then at 9th level Archivists go insane because they gain the abilities required to get the abilities they want regardless of DM keep-away.

Err, how? I agree that Archivists will eventually get enough abilities that they can mostly override DM keep-away, but it's not going to happen at level 9.

When things like Commune, Divination, and Teleport are online it's pretty easy to say "Are there any Paladins who have Scribe Scroll" or whatever and do that with pretty much anything. By that time you can use your abilities to ask the game itself what exists and where, and you have the capabilities to go to those places and get those things.

As for "So what?", come on bro. Tell me what books are allowed in your hypothetical game and then tell me that there's no powerful Archivist combinations with those books. Come on.

Unless you allow Divine Bards and probably even if you do, an Archivist is still going to suck shit compared to a Cleric with the spell compendium. I mean fuck: Clerics just ambiently know spells like wrack and spikes. Any level of optimization your DM allows an Archivist to pull off, you can do with less effort and less razzmatazz by just writing "Wizard" or "Cleric" on your sheet.

In fact, the fact that you need less razzmatazz to float the same levels of awesome as a Cleric means that you will be allowed to optimize harder than any Archivist ever will. The Archivist uses up some of their DM's patience for player side shenanigans just by learning spells in the first place. A Wizard or Cleric just has long lists of good spells to choose from.

Lots of players get boners from the possibility of dumpster diving off of multiple class lists. It's why people were so angry when K and I gave the thumb's down to the True Necromancer in the Revised Necromancer Handbook. But the fact is that almost all of the spell dumpster diving methods end up with much much shittier characters than if you just played a normal and sanctioned full caster character and simply selected good spells instead of bad ones. Even if there was a killer app that you could get that was totally broken, your chances of being able to use it are much less if you had to do something complicated involving multiple books and class lists to get there than if you "just" used a core class and their spell list. And since Cleric and Wizard scale up to any power level you care to think about, they are always going to be able to go at least as far as any complicated piece of bullshit you could possibly design or imagine.

Having to mix and match spells off different spell lists to put something together makes people feel clever for putting together Archivist characters. But that doesn't make it good. It's still really shitty. It's like Favored Soul levels of shittiness.

-Username17

[Grek]

When things like Commune, Divination, and Teleport are online it's pretty easy to say "Are there any Paladins who have Scribe Scroll" or whatever and do that with pretty much anything. By that time you can use your abilities to ask the game itself what exists and where, and you have the capabilities to go to those places and get those things.

Wizards get to do this at the same level, substituting Commune with Lesser Planar Binding: Imp (who also has Commune and gets more questions than your Archivist will). And the Wizard gets all of the other applications of Lesser Planar Binding on top of getting his extra custom spells with it.

[Lago PARANOIA]

When things like Commune, Divination, and Teleport are online it's pretty easy to say "Are there any Paladins who have Scribe Scroll" or whatever and do that with pretty much anything.

Yes, and you're still having to tongue the DM's asshole in order to do this. At higher levels, you get little narrative tricks that let shuffle the probabilities around, but at no point is there an option to skip the rimjob. You just have the option of getting to use syrup or a baby wipe first.

Dammit, didn't we have a discussion a lot like this way back during a thread when people were arguing that wizards shouldn't be allowed to lead armies because of genre constraints and that high-level adventures were impossible to have because anything you could do as a high-level character you could just tongue the DM's asshole instead?

[FatR]

Benchmark for every combatant class without a lot of inherent magic is called Tome of Battle.

Tome of Battle does not work without the same GM coddling that normal martials require. I've run ToB characters in my games. Maneuvers simply do not output enough damage and do not cause good (bad) enough conditions. You still have to rely on the same old ubercharge. And extra mobility options that ToB gives do not help charges. ToB can only be credited with making two-weapon fighting somewhat viable by giving easy pounce and ways to jack the number of attacks that specifically benefit it.

By the way, there is a third-party ToB equivalent for PF now, Path of War. Its classes are an abomination of bad design, but disciplines are quite nice, better than ToB's ones.

[Ice9]

What the hell is this "starting from first level, no buying items, final destination" bullshit coming from? Ok, if you're in a game like that, don't play an Archivist, case closed. Probably don't play a bunch of other classes either.

Meanwhile, in a game where you start at mid level, or buying shit is possible, and the DM doesn't have weird unwritten rules about how many books you're allowed to use, the Archivist works just fine.

It's not even hard. Archivist archer. Like the Cleric archer, but you grab the tasty Ranger spells that put archery on steroids, most of which are in the SpC. And you use Knowledge Devotion, because why not, you have the skills for it anyway because Dark Knowledge.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Uh, no. Archivist Archers are piss-awful. Unless you have a way to keep Divine Power running when you need it to be (which, with no familiar, no Divine Metamagic you won't) your attack bonus will be terrible. It's terrible because you're now trying to keep three stats up to par (INT, CHA, and DEX/WIS) compared to the cleric's one stat (WIS) and you have crippled BAB. And who cares how many spells you can plunder? The ranger/druid/paladin spells you can plunder aren't super-great and they're subject to action clog.

And instead of complaining about people deriding your build for being too theoretical and DM-handjobby, why don't you give us a 10-level build for your archivist? Seriously, you get 10 levels to play with, standard WBL, infinite pre-game downtime, everything is internal to your character so no shit like artifacts, Leadership, or having other people craft for you. You don't even have to do the SGT, just run us through a few typical adventurer scenarios and how your build operates. Pick and mix from whatever sources you want, though keep in mind that with each new book you have to dumpster-dive from you'll be straining credibility.

[ishy]

Dragons can use AMFs now.

That FAQ is really fucked though. Apparently when you have a spell or effect that is centered on you, you use the rules in the book and only if you're larger than medium you use the rules the FAQ invents.

[Ice9]

It's not "my build", it's one of the more commonly used ones. FWIW, I'm pretty sure it uses the same solution for Divine Power as the Cleric - Divine Metamagic Persist, getting turning via some PrC.

I don't really care, I'm not trying to sell Archivist's to anyone. I'm just pointing out that the "Archivist is worthless, buying scrolls is a DM handjob" attitude is equally stupid to "Archivist is Tier 0 and wins everything forever".


Oh, and IME, number of books as a metric for acceptability is far from universal. As far as GMs I've had, the things that count 'against' something are:
* Not first party (biggest one).
* From a setting-specific book for a different setting.
* Uses a subsystem like psionics, Bo9S, incarnum, binding, etc. (only some GMs care)

Nobody is even going to ask what book something was from unless you start crushing encounters with it, and even then the extent to which they give it the hairy eyeball will be based on the criteria above, not how many books total you used. They probably don't know or care how many books total were used.

[Username17]

It's not "my build", it's one of the more commonly used ones. FWIW, I'm pretty sure it uses the same solution for Divine Power as the Cleric - Divine Metamagic Persist, getting turning via some PrC.

Right, but that's:

• Completely bullshit.
• Only available at high level.
• Doesn't benefit from being an Archivist in any way. You could do all of that earlier, easier, and with less razzmatazz as a Cleric.

I don't really care, I'm not trying to sell Archivist's to anyone. I'm just pointing out that the "Archivist is worthless, buying scrolls is a DM handjob" attitude is equally stupid to "Archivist is Tier 0 and wins everything forever".

No. They are not equivalent. As a 3rd level character, you get 2 fucking cleric spells. Clerics don't wipe their ass with only knowing 2 Cleric spells. They have two domain spells, and hundreds of 2nd level Cleric spells, and it ain't no thing. Also you get 2,700 gp and buying a scroll with a 2nd level spell and learning from it costs 350 gp (or more if you want the spell of a class that doesn't get 2nd level spells at 3rd level). Knowing a single spell off a scroll still leaves you with no reason for having become an Archivist in the first place, since you could have just been a Druid or whatever the fuck class you got the spell in question from in the first place. Not until you get a second spell off a bullshit list that isn't the same as the first bullshit list is there any purpose at all to being an Archivist. And now we're talking 700 gold out of a budget of 2,700. Not to have any special equipment or be impressive in any way, just to have spells worth casting at all. You're blowing through more than a quarter of your budget and most of your DM's patience just to get the thing Wizards have for free: two good second level spells. And you're still a MAD caster.

Archivists can't do good things until well after most campaigns are over. It's a bad class that only gets talked about at all because the "theoretical optimization" potential is so obvious. At high levels, with unlimited cash and time and DM patience, you could put together some kind of elaborate and awesome spell list. But in actual games where you have to put one foot in front of the other, the fact that they don't get to do fucking any of this shit out of the box means that they are a farce.

Archivists are a farce. And anyone who tells you otherwise is themselves a farce.

-Username17

[Ice9]

No. They are not equivalent. As a 3rd level character, you get 2 fucking cleric spells. Clerics don't wipe their ass with only knowing 2 Cleric spells.

Okay? How's that any different than Wizard? They have exactly the same spell mechanism there.

The Wizard list might be better, but that doesn't mean that the Cleric list is terrible, especially when you factor in even the easy additions like Druid.

[Insomniac]

Should Pathfinder try something like 3.5 did with specialized casters to different degrees of success like Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Healer and Warmage?

[erik]

I dunno. Wizards get basically 1 battle winning spell and then a very good second spell. Say Web, Glitterdust, Blindness/Deafness or Invisibility.

Clerics make their bones off of having a very diverse spread of spells since they know them all.

If I had to pick only two level 2 cleric spells... there aren't really so many catch all spells. Hold Person and Silence maybe.

[Insomniac]

Don't clerics get Blindness/Deafness as well?

I didn't realize how bad split casting was until it was talked about here and I looked at the bonus spell charts. Maybe losing access to all Cleric spells would be worth it if you could pilfer the choicest Bard, Druid, Paladin and Ranger spells but losing out on that many spells, oof. Just way too much a kick in the nuts.

[Ice9]

Clerics make their bones off of having a very diverse spread of spells since they know them all.

Clerics prepare maybe one more slot of each level per day than a Wizard. That's the limit of their increased flexibility. You might have the entire list hypothetically, but on any given day you only have the spells you prepared, and unless you have advance scouting info, that's probably the same spells on most days.

Split casting does suck, especially at low levels. Although if you're going for buffs or other spells without saves, then you only need enough Int to cast spells of the appropriate level (which you'd want anyway for the knowledge abilities) and can focus on Wisdom.

[K]

And what were you going to spend your wealth on anyway as an archivist? 2,700 GP may sound like a lot for a low-level character, but it really not that much. Even if you have a DM who is forcing you to buy scrolls of non-cleric divine spells instead of copying them from other archivists using the costs that Wizards use from the PHB, it still translates into a lot of spells for a loss of very little effective magic treasure.

Instead of that +1 amulet of natural armor for 2,000 and some potions and coins with the remaining 700 gp at 3rd level, you buy scrolls of 1st level spells for 25 gp and 2nd level scrolls for 150 gp and put them in your spellbook. You can have five non-cleric 1st level spells (125 gp total) and five 2nd level scrolls for another 750 GP, and all scribed for another 1,500 gp. That's just a better deal than a +1 to AC and a few potions and coins.

By 6th level, you just take Leadership and have a cohort with some spell list you like. I suggest getting a shugenja or druid or cleric with interesting domains who has Scribe Scroll.