Pathfinder Is Still Bad

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:14 am

If you gestalted Monk and Fighter into one class that got 4th level spellcasting I think that's the minimum bar required to let them play the game. Some spellcasting is required to play, it just is. The only things that break that rule are things with their own resource systems that achieve the same ends as spells, like Warblade Maneuvers or Tome Monk Stances.

Archmage Joda · Post by **Archmage Joda** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:19 am

Dean wrote:If you gestalted Monk and Fighter into one class that got 4th level spellcasting I think that's the minimum bar required to let them play the game. Some spellcasting is required to play, it just is. The only things that break that rule are things with their own resource systems that achieve the same ends as spells, like Warblade Maneuvers or Tome Monk Stances.

So then, would the Barbarian's rage powers qualify as something that broke the "must have at least 4 spell levels" rule but still managed to be allowed to play?

Fucks · Post by **Fucks** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:34 am

What's with the Brawler?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/brawler

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:08 am

Fucks wrote:What's with the Brawler?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/brawler

It's an even shittier Monk. Like the PF Unchained Monk, it trades away "has the ability to make Will saves" for full BAB (that it mostly had already). Unlike the Monk, who at least justifies his existence as a dip class by being able to bypass prereqs on some sweet feats for the first 2 levels (and there are a lot of sweet feats once you factor in archetypes), the Brawler doesn't get to bypass anything.

His main shtick Martial Flexibility presupposes that martials are not forced to hyper-specialize, and that having juuuust the right combat feat for the specific situation somehow matters. But it's bullshit from the class blurb to the capstone.

It also serves to justify the existence of absolutely terrible feats like this: Anticipate Dodge, because you know, it's situational, but you can totally grab it with Martial Flexibility when you need it. Except it has shitty prerequisites that you don't get to ignore because you're playing a shitty class, and also is a bullshit +2 bonus that isn't even worth a move action.

Her Archetype choices are Beast Wrestler (a joke), Exemplar (a worse Cavalier with no horse), Mutagenic Mauler (which at least provides a useful attack/damage bonus mechanic), Shield Champion (you get to be Captain America, minus the writer's contractual obligation to tongue your asshole on every page, so you're a total fucking chump), Snakebite Striker (a much worse Slayer), Steel Breaker (a Sundertard), Strangler (what it says on the tin, but without all the useful tools a Tetori gets; also, written by someone who doesn't know the grappling rules), Wild Child (You get an animal companion), Winding Path Renegade (Which trades bullshit for different bullshit and thinks "everything counts as adamantine!" is an exciting level 14 ability). [/url]

Post by **fbmf** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:16 pm

The 4E sales debate with Capt. Pike is now here:

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55979

Game On,
fbmf

Rawbeard · Post by **Rawbeard** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:23 pm

Urgh, Will saves gone. great. The one selling point of the monk of making saves, then grappling the EVIL wizard into a pretzle is now "fails will save, folds party wizard into an origami swan"

Insomniac · Post by **Insomniac** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:21 pm

Archmage Joda wrote:
Dean wrote:If you gestalted Monk and Fighter into one class that got 4th level spellcasting I think that's the minimum bar required to let them play the game. Some spellcasting is required to play, it just is. The only things that break that rule are things with their own resource systems that achieve the same ends as spells, like Warblade Maneuvers or Tome Monk Stances.
So then, would the Barbarian's rage powers qualify as something that broke the "must have at least 4 spell levels" rule but still managed to be allowed to play?

Yeah, its roughly analogus. A Monk fix is probably something as easy as Full BAB, make them all Quiqqong monks so they have some sort of Quasi Casting and something like "Martial Arts Styles" that would be similar to Barbarian Rage Powers.

The thing that is so angering with the Monk is that they aren't that far away from not being garbage and Pathfinder did an admirable job with Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers and their new 3/4 casting classes, I think.

Why the ball got totally dropped on Monks and Rogues is beyond me. I think it could simply be that Paizo staff just does not like those classes at all.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:51 pm

Stop saying Pathfinder did a good job with those fucking classes. Stop it. You say it all the fucking time. It isn't true. You might be able to make the case that the barbarian is the best class in the game that doesn't get spellcasting, which is exactly like making the case that the barbarian is the best class in the game after you exclude all of the classes that are actually any good. You might be able to make the case that the paladin and the ranger are merely the worst spellcasting classes in the game, which is exactly like admitting that among the only classes worth considering they are the two worst.

The barbarian, the paladin, and the ranger are ass. Stinky, sweaty, martial ass. If you want to play a paladin, don't. Play a cleric or an inquisitor. If you want to play a barbarian, don't. Play a skald.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:27 pm

Brawler (Strangler) is a good dip for grappling builds though. Brawler's pretty dip friendly in general.

I have to agree about Martial Flexibility. I got pretty excited about it initially, took some time to see what I could get with it, and ... not impressive. If you're using 3.5 stuff it's pretty good, but in PF-only, there's just not a lot of decent feats that don't have tons of prerequisites.

Re: Barbarian - it might not stand up well in an environment where casters are going all-out and the DM is throwing in opposition geared to that. In a normal AP though? It kills its way through most things easily, with just basic optimization. The Gunslinger even more so, since it's not foiled by much. As opposed to the Fighter / Rogue / Monk, who can have trouble with 'normal' encounters if you don't optimize them moderately. Although any-more, the Rogue's problem is less that it can't kill things, and more that the Vivisectionist or Ninja are purely better.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:53 pm

Ice9 wrote:As opposed to the Fighter / Rogue / Monk, who can have trouble with 'normal' encounters if you don't optimize them moderately. Although any-more, the Rogue's problem is less that it can't kill things, and more that the Vivisectionist or Ninja are purely better.

Bolding mine.

You activated my trap card! The Ninja and its ilk are what Pathfinder needed to do, and it didn't go far enough. They succeeded in making a martial class do cool/useful things, like running over motherfucking lava or the goddamn air, that come online right when casters are getting those cool things. Then they forgot to keep doing that after level 6. Whoops.

The Ninja is the right idea in the same way Barbarian buffs were the right idea, but they didn't go far enough and fucked over other classes even harder by making more things effectively immune to martial characters.

Insomniac · Post by **Insomniac** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:20 pm

I strongly disagree that Paladin and Ranger classes are "ass" or that Inquisitors are better than them. I think they are two of the best things Pathfinder did with their classes and are leaps and bounds superior to their 3.5 counterparts.

Pathfinder has whored out trap finding and sneak attack to such a degree its nuts. Even Druids can get Sneak Attack and trap finding is literally a trait, which is defined as worth half a feat and the feat Extra Traits nabs you two of them. Half levels on Perception checks and Trap Sense are basically the only things making Rogues "trap kings" but when you throw in casters getting Detect Magic at will as a cantrip and spells they have like Knock, there is no reason for a caster to not write "Extra Traits" on the character sheet and get something like Trap-Finder and a useful combat trait like Reactionary or a Metamagic level reducer.

The whole idea of "niche protection" is out the window when a Beast Morph Vivisectionist is making full Sneak Attack dice as a Rogue on Pounces with increased Strength scores, inherent spell-casting self buffing like Haste and Heroism backed up with a 60 foot fly speed.

Paizo is really clear that they Don't Want You To Play Rogues (tm) and has been putting out Rogue But Better since almost the inception of Pathfinder.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:46 pm

Paladin and Ranger used to be Monk bad. The group was better off when that player didn't show up that week. In Pathfinder having the Ranger show up, if he's built well doesn't actively detract from the groups success. It doesn't do much to advance it either. I still consider that an improvement though.

Monks are still that bad. Having to split loot and XP with them, and deal with the extra mooks in encounters that say 1 velociraptor per PC make them an active detriment.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:57 pm

Show us on the doll where the Full BAB classes touched you, DSM.

We won't judge.

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:12 am

Archmage Joda wrote:So then, would the Barbarian's rage powers qualify as something that broke the "must have at least 4 spell levels" rule but still managed to be allowed to play?

I don't believe so. In multiple threads where the Pathfinder Barbarian's efficacy has been touted I have asked the person making that claim to defend it. No one has ever done so and the only response has been wishy washy defenses that it's good enough in a mid power game or whatever. I don't think the Pathfinder Barbarian looks good. If someone builds a 10th or 15th level Barbarian that could pass a SGT I would happily eat crow on that statement but no one has even pretended to do so yet.

I was saying that Summoners were good for a really long time and there was a lot of pushback for that until I did a SGT with one. The SGT showed the use of Summoners low level spellslots, his massive recoverable Eidolon HP, and that Eidolon pounces did viable damage even at high level. After the SGT there was a tone change here and that's the correct way to go about things. Saying something over and over doesn't make it any more true. I think Barbarians are kinda shitty. If someone can build a good Barbarian that demonstrates that not being true I'd love to see it.

I think if anyone wanted to play a Barbarian in a modern Pathfinder Game they should just play a Bloodrager because it is better in every way and has 4th level spells.

Archmage Joda · Post by **Archmage Joda** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:57 am

I've seen the use of SGTs mentioned here some times before. What exactly is the criteria of performing one? How does one go about doing so?

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:26 am

http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons ... _Game_Test

[edit:
That link is pretty good but I'll give the reader's digest version.

SGT is an objective method of verifying if a class can pull its weight. This is done by pitting it against varied 1v1 challenges of an appropriate encounter level.

You only positively prove things such as "A barbarian can successfully curb stomp X% of these challenges". Ideally you kit out the build of the class so that it is optimized well. You're not proving anything if a 6 int wizard cannot pass a test, nor a 6 strength halfling barbarian using an armor spiked codpiece as his primary weapon. So if anyone disputes a run as being underpowered, they are welcome to repeat with their own optimized build.

The sample challenges are listed in the link above.

So that's the basic criteria for creating the character and selecting challenges.

How you run it: go through each challenge and repeatedly run the fight with all participants taking optimal actions to figure out who is the likely victor (and how likely). Many of them you can eyeball and just call the % easily, say if a single DC will win the encounter, run that % for your character, or if it is obvious there's no chance of losing (or winning).

Archmage Joda · Post by **Archmage Joda** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:38 am

Ok, I get the idea now. If I were to attempt a same game test for a barbarian, what's the protocol for things that are random, namely dice rolls, are they assumed to always have the dice come up a certain value, or should I roll and just record those results in my records as well, or what? (Pardon my ignorance, I've never actually attempted a same game test before, but barbarian is probably my favorite mundane class in pathfinder so I'm willing to at least give it a shot)

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:46 am

erik wrote:This is done by pitting it against varied 1v1 challenges of an appropriate encounter level.

This part is false or misleading. The challenges are not "1v1" in any meaningful sense.

EDIT: Roll dice, run each encounter that the dice matter at all for at least 3 times.

Think about it, if your barbarian has a to hit of +10, and you face a monster with 22AC, you could mathematically murder ate that monster 70% of the time, but if dice where always 11, you would never hit it even once. Or like if a monster has once per day finger of death, it could be that you have 50% chance of making the save, but instead you always make it.

Also you should read Frank's examples of how the encounters go, they should be met in their envrioment, and there is room for "always win" "usually win" "coinflip" ect type classifications.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 2:10 am

Sorry, 1 character vs. 1 challenge (which may consist of multiple monsters or threats such as traps).

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 2:23 am

Archmage Joda wrote:Ok, I get the idea now. If I were to attempt a same game test for a barbarian, what's the protocol for things that are random, namely dice rolls, are they assumed to always have the dice come up a certain value, or should I roll and just record those results in my records as well, or what? (Pardon my ignorance, I've never actually attempted a same game test before, but barbarian is probably my favorite mundane class in pathfinder so I'm willing to at least give it a shot)

Most fights you won't have to roll at all if you look at the tactical situation as a whole. If you've up against six monsters and average damage from you means you take down one monster a turn and they each have a SoD they're throwing each round then that's a loss. It might not be a loss every time you run it but you can just look at it and say "I probably don't win this" and report that.

For a melee character it's often easier to figure your odds than for a spellcaster. Just figure out your average damage against whatever you're facing. Figure out how long that would make each fight (on average) and then figure out what your enemies are dealing in damage or SoL's and whether or not you would likely reach your victory round.

If you want to actually roll a combat out feel free but don't worry about reporting your rolls or anything. If you got lucky and won a fight you absolutely shouldn't people would still be able to look at the math and say "That's still a likely loss even though you won". Good luck to you.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:40 am

The Pathfinder Barbarian is a modest improvement at very low level. You get to split your rage rounds between two combats, which is a good thing in a lot of low level adventures. You also get two extra rounds of raging per level, which means you probably have all the raging you need for an adventuring day around level 5 without having to spend any feats on it. So that's a bit better than the 3e Barbarian. Although it's a hard comparison because actual 3e "Barbarians" only take the class for two levels and then get all their extra raging with feats and PrCs and spend the rest of their levels in other classes.

Anyway, the Pathfinder Barbarian is pretty much a bunch of dead levels except for the "Rage Powers." The rage powers come off a huge list and almost all of them are crap. The ones that aren't tend to have brutal prereqs. As far as I can tell, if you want to fly by 10th level you need to take a nearly worthless bite attack at 2nd. The Barbarian is made almost entirely of trap options, and I'm not sure that the "good" builds are actually very good.

-Username17

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:55 am

Insomniac wrote:I strongly disagree that Paladin and Ranger classes are "ass" or that Inquisitors are better than them. I think they are two of the best things Pathfinder did with their classes and are leaps and bounds superior to their 3.5 counterparts.

A 10th level ranger gets a total +10 attack and damage distributed amongst three favored enemies, three bonus feats, an animal companion, a total of three spells per day before capping out at 2nd level (if they have a wis of 16, they'll get 3 more and one wille ven be 3rd level, oh wow), and a bunch of shit you don't care about. You're a sub-fighter chassis with a shittier version of the druid's animal companion and a significantly shittier version of the druid's spellcasting. No, the ranger is complete ass. It's awful. And the only improvement over the 3.5 ranger (by level 10) is that you get favored terrain (HAHAHAHA), one of the feats was moved up one level, and you have more combat style options you won't pick because archery is the only good one.

A 10th level paladin gets to smite evil 4/day, lay on hands (5+cha)/day, has two auras and three mercies, adds their CHA to their saves, can channel positive energy for two lay on hands uses, can buff their weapon 2/day, and has the exact same spell situation as the ranger. It's better than the 3.5 paladin, which is faint praise because the 3.5 paladin was a particularly bad choice for a two-level dip, but it's still just a grab bag of shit that doesn't add up to actually doing anything interesting or important other than swinging your sword and having a piddly limited bonus here and there.

Pathfinder is full of characters who get 6th (or 9th!) level casting and also have class features at least as good or better than the ranger's and the paladin's. Some of those characters even fit the exact same role. There is no real conceptual difference between a hunter and a ranger except that the hunter is a PC class and the ranger is an NPC class. There is no real conceptual difference between a cleric/warpriest/inquisitor and a paladin except that the former are all strictly improved versions of the latter. Even the barbarian has been smashed together with the bard into something that is better than either.

Mask_De_H wrote:Show us on the doll where the Full BAB classes touched you, DSM.

We won't judge.

I don't understand why you're asking me this. I'm not the one who wrote those classes. You should be asking Jason Bulmahn about his traumatic fighter/monk/ranger/paladin experiences, not getting pissy with the messenger.

Or do you really want to die on the hill that involves claiming that the fucking ranger is a good life choice even for people who want to play a ranger? Psst, go hunter.

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:02 am

Are you a big fan of the Skald DSM? It looked like ass on my casual glances and I spent more time focusing on the Bloodrager as a Barbarian replacement. Does the Skald do anything cool I'm not aware of?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:26 am

Dean wrote:Are you a big fan of the Skald DSM? It looked like ass on my casual glances and I spent more time focusing on the Bloodrager as a Barbarian replacement. Does the Skald do anything cool I'm not aware of?

I am not a big fan of the skald, but skald spellcasting goes up to 6 while bloodrager spellcasting only goes up to 4. The bloodrager is probably better than the ranger, paladin, and barbarian, but deceptively the gap between 6th and 4th casters is even bigger than the gap between 9th and 6th casters. The bloodrager has four spells total (!) at level 10 (before mods), and is otherwise just a barbarian-but-different.

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:27 am

Dean wrote:Are you a big fan of the Skald DSM? It looked like ass on my casual glances and I spent more time focusing on the Bloodrager as a Barbarian replacement. Does the Skald do anything cool I'm not aware of?

The Skald gets Spell Kenning, the abilty to spontaneously cast any spell from the wizard, cleric or bard lists using their own spell slots, 1/day at level 5. Other than that, it's a strictly inferior Bard; Inspire Rage replaces generic attack/damage bonuses with a Strength bonus. You can do some Rage Cycling with the ability to inspire rage powers, but the powers that work with it are pretty unimpressive.