Paizo sets Benchmark for most horrible feat ever [Archive]

Firechanter

2013-11-05, 05:18 PM

Caustic Slur

You know exactly how to insult your favored enemies in order to make them lose their heads.
Prerequisites: Bluff 1 rank, favored enemy class feature, gnome.

Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a Bluff check against one sort of favored enemy. Any creature of that type within 60 feet of you must make a Will saving throw or become angered. If an affected creature attacks you, it's treated as if it were using Power Attack (taking a penalty on attack rolls but gaining a bonus on damage rolls). If the creature already has the power attack feat, the attack penalty increases by 1 and the damage bonus increases by 2. These modifiers end when combat ends. This ability does not work on creatures that cannot understand you, though sometimes a simple gesture is sufficient for an intelligent opponent to catch your gist regardless of any language barrier.

I am not making this up!

Source:
Pathfinder Companion: Gnomes of Golarion.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/caustic-slur-general

So... I know Paizo has a reputation for "hating feats", but this one must take the cake. Essentially, YOU get to spend a feat slot to GIVE your ENEMY Power Attack. oÔ

I don't even... *insert Jackie Chan face*
One can only be grateful that it's limited to the Gnomish kin.

At least Paizo can advertise with a new slogan now...
Play Pathfinder -- if you want to buy your enemy the best feat in the game!

Boci

2013-11-05, 05:21 PM

Wow, and I thought that "gain a minor temporary buff by bathing in the blood of a celestial. Preq: celestial" was bad.

This wasn't by any chances published in early April?

Zanos

2013-11-05, 05:23 PM

I initially thought it could have a niche use for spellcasters that rely on touch attacks, but then I remembered that it's will negates.
:smallsigh:

ddude987

2013-11-05, 05:29 PM

I initially thought it could have a niche use for spellcasters that rely on touch attacks, but then I remembered that it's will negates.
:smallsigh:

I had the same thought...
Well I thought pathfinder was silly before but seeing this is the icing on the cake.

Temotei

2013-11-05, 05:31 PM

I initially thought it could have a niche use for spellcasters that rely on touch attacks, but then I remembered that it's will negates.
:smallsigh:

It also only works against favored enemies. :smalltongue:

nedz

2013-11-05, 05:33 PM

I'd heard that PF nerfed Power Attack, but I didn't think that the nerfing was so hard that you'd want to wish the feat on your own worst enemy.

Theoboldi

2013-11-05, 05:34 PM

Guys, don't you get it? This is supposed to be a horrible feat. It teaches us that using racist slurs against people we don't like is wrong, and will only result in pain and misery for ourselves. We should thank Paizo for teaching us this important lesson about why tolerance of all people is not only good, but also practical.

Really though. Why do people constantly screw up cool ideas for feats by making them absolutely horrible in actual use?

Kudaku

2013-11-05, 05:35 PM

This is indeed one of the infamous feat turds of Pathfinder, along with prone shooter and a few other beauties.

However, this feat does get token effort award for being the closest you can get to a "taunt" effect in Pathfinder - a GM who takes frame of mind into consideration could interpret the 'angered' effect as a taunt of sorts.

Of course, you're still trading your own standard action to make your favored enemies beat you up more efficiently - and you're spending a precious feat slot on it to boot.

Cicciograna

2013-11-05, 05:35 PM

"You fight like a dairy farmer!"
"How appropriate. You fight like a cow!"

Boci

2013-11-05, 05:36 PM

It also only works against favored enemies. :smalltongue:

Well that's just damage mitigation. Quite literally.

Chronos

2013-11-05, 05:41 PM

So, assuming that everything goes right, the full advantage of this feat is that your enemy get -1 to attack. Which is exactly equivalent to you getting +1 to AC. There are already a ton of different feats that give +1 AC some way or another, and none of them are really considered worthwhile. Plus, this one only works against specific opponents, is limited by both your race and class, requires a skill that isn't usually a class skill for that class, and also gives your enemy a damage boost.

I dunno, if this forced the creature to attack you, that might at least be something... But it doesn't even do that.

Epsilon Rose

2013-11-05, 05:52 PM

For a second I thought this might actually be useful, then I noticed it had the word if...

If only it made them power attack you, no choice in the matter, then it could be great against wizards ("Why thank you for coming in to melee range and not simply blasting me with a spell") archers ("that is a nice bow you have, let's compare it to my sword") and whenever you have good damage mitigation + retaliatory damage (at least they're not attacking someone who's not built to take the hits).

Unfortunately, they get to choose what they do, so only the melee type close and power attack, everyone else is business as usual.

The Glyphstone

2013-11-05, 05:59 PM

And it's too bad it only works on creatures attacking you. Otherwise you could use it to buff your party...i guess by insulting their heritage/race and driving them to perform better to prove you wrong? Though slinging racist slurs at your barbarian to make him kill a dragon faster might not be a good long-term survival strategy.

Deathkeeper

2013-11-05, 06:01 PM

I feel like they're just trying to make a statement on how stupid they made gnomes. :smallannoyed:

Urpriest

2013-11-05, 06:02 PM

However, this feat does get token effort award for being the closest you can get to a "taunt" effect in Pathfinder - a GM who takes frame of mind into consideration could interpret the 'angered' effect as a taunt of sorts.

Pretty sure Pathfinder has ways to get a taunt mechanic...IIRC it's generally viewed as completely broken for its ability to turn random people in the street into attempted murderers.

olentu

2013-11-05, 06:06 PM

Psyren

2013-11-05, 06:07 PM

I had the same thought...
Well I thought pathfinder was silly before but seeing this is the icing on the cake.

Because every feat in 3.5 is solid gold I'm sure :smalltongue:

I agree, it's a bad feat, but Sturgeon's Law people.

Felyndiira

2013-11-05, 06:10 PM

Sean K Renalds: You guys just don't get it. This feat is great because it has flavor, and that's the only important thing in a RPG. It's not for you silly powergamers.

:smallbiggrin:

Deathkeeper

2013-11-05, 06:17 PM

Didn't they have one feat that let you force people into attacking you. Aggravate or something. I recall that it originally forced a melee attack but it got nerfed after people complained.

There is also an actual feat called Taunt which requires a Bluff check to make enemies Shaken or something similar.

Boci

2013-11-05, 06:21 PM

Because every feat in 3.5 is solid gold I'm sure :smalltongue:

I agree, it's a bad feat, but Sturgeon's Law people.

Its what happens when two very similar things are produced by different companies, fans of each have to try that much harder to find reasons to dislike the other. Whenever I read on other forums "Love PF but hate 3.5" or "If this is using PF I'm not interested, but I'd jump right in if it were 3.5" I do a double take.

eggynack

2013-11-05, 06:25 PM

Because every feat in 3.5 is solid gold I'm sure :smalltongue:

I agree, it's a bad feat, but Sturgeon's Law people.
I dunno. This one is pretty bad. It's like, that one truenamer feat that makes you actively worse at truenaming bad. Caustic slur's gotta be one of the worst feats in either game, I think. I feel like I could describe ways in which it's worse beyond, "Gives your enemies power attack," but most of those just make it less bad, because they make the feat trigger less, and thank the gods of PF for that.

The Random NPC

2013-11-05, 06:25 PM

TuggyNE

2013-11-05, 06:25 PM

Because every feat in 3.5 is solid gold I'm sure :smalltongue:

I agree, it's a bad feat, but Sturgeon's Law people.

TBH, I think this is worse than 3.5's worst, which is Focused Lexicon (make your Truespeech checks slightly harder for no benefit at all).

Not that that's really all that important, I just thought I'd mention it.

Edit: ninja'd in part by eggynack. But I gave the feat name! :smalltongue:

137beth

2013-11-05, 06:27 PM

Caustic Slur

Essentially, YOU get to spend a feat slot to GIVE your ENEMY Power Attack. oÔ
Utterly ridiculous, no, that would be too powerful. You spend a feat AND A STANDARD ACTION to give your enemy PA

For a second I thought this might actually be useful, then I noticed it had the word if...

If only it made them power attack you, no choice in the matter, then it could be great against wizards ("Why thank you for coming in to melee range and not simply blasting me with a spell") archers ("that is a nice bow you have, let's compare it to my sword") and whenever you have good damage mitigation + retaliatory damage (at least they're not attacking someone who's not built to take the hits).

Unfortunately, they get to choose what they do, so only the melee type close and power attack, everyone else is business as usual.
Thanks, your eyes just created the perfect fix for this feat. I think I might use it (only without the racial restrictions, or the requirement to use it against favored enemies...yes, I like melee feats to be powerful in my games):smallsmile:

erikun

2013-11-05, 06:30 PM

Nice to know that they think that gnomes specifically are racist in Pathfinder. :smallyuk: Really makes me want to play the setting now.

I was about to ask "Power Attack for how much?" until I remembered that PF's Power Attack is only a set value.

Boci

2013-11-05, 06:31 PM

Utterly ridiculous, no, that would be too powerful. You spend a feat AND A STANDARD ACTION to give your enemy PA

Thanks, your eyes just created the perfect fix for this feat. I think I might use it (only without the racial restrictions, or the requirement to use it against favored enemies...yes, I like melee feats to be powerful in my games):smallsmile:

Its still a standard action that does nothing on a successful save (and doesn't affect unintelligent creatures). Still, it would be useful then. What state if the save based off and what is the DC of the bluff check?

eggynack

2013-11-05, 06:41 PM

I wouldn't call it the worst feat ever.
One, you can use it on your allies if they match your favoured enemy type. Which is anyone with Instant Enemy or the archetype that lets you switch it up.
Suddenly the Strength dump Dex Wahzoo person can Power Attack .There is a light weapon equivalent (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/piranha-strike-combat) to Power Attack, but it doesn't work with dervish dancing scimitars or with the finessable one or two handed weapons.
It also means your normal power attacker is adding a little more negative for a fair bit more plus, especially if a mounted charger type.
Nope, on all of that. The feat only gives the enemy power attack if he's attacking you. I guess if you really need your friends to be great at hitting you, or to fail to hit you, it could work out. Not exactly inspirational.

Two, sometimes an enemy is hitting you but just barely. That -1, 2 or more could mean the difference between not hitting you at all except on 20's. It's not much, but it can help.
Situational? Sure. You just need to be creative with it.
That seems kinda terrible, given that you need to know the enemy's to hit compared to your AC, make sure that it maths out right, have the guy be your favored enemy, spend a standard action, and have them fail a will save. Most of the time, the feat will be actively harmful. The rest of the time, it will still be actively harmful, because you're spending your turn on this.

KillianHawkeye

2013-11-05, 06:41 PM

^ As already mentioned, they only get Power Attack if they are attacking you.

Chronos

2013-11-05, 06:42 PM

This isn't actually as bad as Focused Lexicon, in that you can at least choose not to use this, whereas if you took Focused Lexicon, you'd be stuck with the penalty.

On the other hand, though, the intent of Focused Lexicon is clear, and played as intended ignoring the poor editing, it's about comparable with a number of other (unpopular, but not stupid) feats. This, though, appears to have been intended to be exactly as bad as it actually is.

Cog

2013-11-05, 06:46 PM

Nice to know that they think that gnomes specifically are racist in Pathfinder. :smallyuk: Really makes me want to play the setting now.
Apparently it's not gnomes in general; it would almost exclusively be gnome rangers taking this feat, specifically studying the foes they might face specifically to find out what exact words would get under their skin.

Presumably because nobody would bother to fight a gnome ranger otherwise, and they need some way of actually acquiring XP to level.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-11-05, 06:47 PM

We've had this thread before. PF has a lot of amazingly bad feats that don't just do nothing, but actually make you plainly worse off for using them. My vote still goes to Elephant Stomp, though Monkey Lunge is also pretty craptastic.

And yeah, while 3E had a lot of bad feats that basically do nothing, it had few...if any...feats that actually nerfed you. Paizo takes the prize for bad feats, handily.

Ravens_cry

2013-11-05, 06:48 PM

I think they wanted something like the kender taunt, without being quite as annoying. If you have a DM willing to play up the actual anger aspect, it could be useful as a mundane form of battlefield control. "Hey baggy eyes! Come over here! Right into this trap we set!"
There is quite a few feats I like in Pathfinder that are specific to it. The Jawbreaker line come to mind. Flavourful (who hasn't wanted to give a caster a mouth full of their own broken teeth?) and quite potentially powerful. Another one I like for Tiefling is Blinding Sneak Attack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/blinding-sneak-attack-combat).
Good for a ranged sneak attacker, no? Snipe, if they fail the save, keep shooting. Repeat.

Psyren

2013-11-05, 06:50 PM

TBH, I think this is worse than 3.5's worst, which is Focused Lexicon (make your Truespeech checks slightly harder for no benefit at all).

Not that that's really all that important, I just thought I'd mention it.

Nah, this does have a benefit - you effectively get +1 AC. So, bad as it is, it's still ahead of the truename feat and Skill Focus (Speak Language.)

eggynack

2013-11-05, 06:51 PM

This isn't actually as bad as Focused Lexicon, in that you can at least choose not to use this, whereas if you took Focused Lexicon, you'd be stuck with the penalty.
That's definitely true, but I think that the penalty here is worse. If you take a feat, I think it's fair to assume that you're going to be using it some. I guess the player in question could realize their horrible failings as a person that led them to this point, and stop using the feat, but still. I think that the two feats are roughly comparable in terms of how horrible they are, purely on the basis of the penalty's scale.

On the other hand, though, the intent of Focused Lexicon is clear, and played as intended ignoring the poor editing, it's about comparable with a number of other (unpopular, but not stupid) feats. This, though, appears to have been intended to be exactly as bad as it actually is.
Yeah, it's pretty inexplicable. The rules are right there, without room for interpretation. Crazy.

Frosty

2013-11-05, 06:54 PM

How does this feat compare to the feat that lets you Turn Hippos?

eggynack

2013-11-05, 06:55 PM

Nah, this does have a benefit - you effectively get +1 AC. So, bad as it is, it's still ahead of the truename feat and Skill Focus (Speak Language.)
You effectively get +1 AC, if the enemy fails their save, and if you spend a standard action. If you spend a standard action to get +1 to AC, that's worse than anything focused lexicon or skill focus (speak language) is doing to you. That's not even considering the fact that they also deal more damage, and that you can only do this to your favored enemy. That's just really really bad.

Ravens_cry

2013-11-05, 06:56 PM

How does this feat compare to the feat that lets you Turn Hippos?

I love that feat!:smallbiggrin:

Firechanter

2013-11-05, 06:57 PM

Because every feat in 3.5 is solid gold I'm sure :smalltongue:

Well, maybe there is a _small_ number if feats in 3E that makes you (marginally) weaker. Pretty sure there is _no_ feat in 3.5 that takes your action and gives your enemy one of the most powerful feats in the game.

Psyren

2013-11-05, 07:02 PM

Boci

2013-11-05, 07:12 PM

Eh, I don't really have a dog in this fight either way. I agree that PF has a handful of truly sucky feats, but trying to extrapolate from that to make some kind of broader statement about the system is really reaching. I don't think it's worth a thread, but it's a free country, haters gonna hate etc.

Maybe not for feats, but when it comes to base standard classes (apparently base classes are only in core) I feel WotC was willing to take more risks. Sure we got some dull pieces like the CW samurai and some spectacular messes, most notable the true namer, but is also gave us incarnum, the binder, ToB, to a lesser extend the factotum. Pathfinder brought some new ideas for the table (gunslinger and firearms rules, the alchemist, the witch and their hexes), but overall their approach seemed to be one of emphasizing "solid, safe but fun".

This may be too serious a topic for this thread, and I may be wrong, but that's my impression of things.

Clistenes

2013-11-05, 07:13 PM

This could be a good feat if used to help your allies, instead of against your favoured enemies. The gnome could be like one of those nasty drill sergeants that enrage the soldiers to make them more aggressive.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Ermey_drill_Sgt2_4683.jpg

Psyren

2013-11-05, 07:20 PM

This may be too serious a topic for this thread, and I may be wrong, but that's my impression of things.

No, I definitely agree with you - though thankfully 3rd party got us a Psionics conversion, a Binder conversion and we're looking to get quality Incarnum and ToB conversions too.

I think part of the problem is that they're afraid of making something that could run afoul of the OGL and give WotC their long-awaited chance to sue. WotC has such a wide variety of subsystems that there is precious-little room for PF to play in without things feeling overly safe.

As the system ages though we'll probably see things like this come up more.

GolemsVoice

2013-11-05, 07:46 PM

elonin

2013-11-05, 08:03 PM

First I'm surprised that nobody is taking into account that you have to be a gnome and a ranger to take this feat. Also why does this feat activate with bluff?

Why not change the feat to use some intimidate action to trigger and grants (and requires) the use of rage on target(s). I would also balance this out by increasing the requirements.

erikun

2013-11-05, 08:19 PM

Apparently it's not gnomes in general; it would almost exclusively be gnome rangers taking this feat, specifically studying the foes they might face specifically to find out what exact words would get under their skin.

Presumably because nobody would bother to fight a gnome ranger otherwise, and they need some way of actually acquiring XP to level.
I'm saying that it is only gnomes who are racist. As in, elf rangers don't throw racial slurs with feats. Orc rangers don't use racial slurs with feats. But gnomes are somehow distinct that they have a feat specifically for racial innuendos.

As someone who likes gnomes, I don't exactly appreciate the implication there.

How does this feat compare to the feat that lets you Turn Hippos?
It's Rebuke Hippos, that that feat is awesome. Because it allows you to take control of Hippos and have them attack your enemies.

Yeah, it's silly. It's pointless. But if you're the kind of person who would look at "Rebuke Hippo" more than once, you're probably the kind of person who would have fun using the ability if you ever could. :smalltongue:

Big Fau

2013-11-05, 08:27 PM

Nah, this does have a benefit - you effectively get +1 AC. So, bad as it is, it's still ahead of the truename feat and Skill Focus (Speak Language.)

And they get +X to damage, and it costs a Standard action, and only affects Favored Enemies, and doesn't prohibit the target from using a form of attack other than melee, and is race-restricted, and doesn't affect Mindless enemies, and allows a save to negate, and doesn't do squat if they attack someone else.

Apparently someone at Paizo thought Dodge was overpowered.

Psyren

2013-11-05, 08:28 PM

Apparently someone at Paizo thought Dodge was overpowered.

Dodge still exists, so who cares?

ArqArturo

2013-11-05, 08:31 PM

Use it on the BBEG that relies on diplomancy.

Diplomancer: I must break you.
Rest of the Party: Oh crap
Ranger with Caustic Slur: You're mother was hamster, and your father smells of elderberries!
Diplomancer: Why you little...!

Big Fau

2013-11-05, 08:32 PM

Dodge still exists, so who cares?

The fact that they thought this would be better than it (going by Prereqs and activation time) is infuriating.

Ravens_cry

2013-11-05, 08:38 PM

Sith_Happens

2013-11-05, 08:38 PM

How does this feat compare to the feat that lets you Turn rebuke Hippos?

The ability to rebuke hippos is inarguably beneficial. Caustic Slur is not.

Psyren

2013-11-05, 08:38 PM

They also buffed Dodge though. I didn't see any threads decrying that.

Also, isn't this the same book that gave us Bewildering Koan? I would just ban the whole thing.

ArqArturo

2013-11-05, 08:39 PM

Diplomacy explicitly doesn't work on PCs.:smallconfused:

It does work on the PC allies, though.

Felyndiira

2013-11-05, 08:41 PM

It does work on the PC allies, though.

Still doesn't matter, since the feat doesn't restrict their actions, so they can continue to talk while you have just wasted a standard action.

Big Fau

2013-11-05, 08:48 PM

They also buffed Dodge though. I didn't see any threads decrying that.

Why would there be? That's one of the few bones they threw to the Fighter, not that it changed the fact that Dodge is still largely a feat tax. It also doesn't change the fact that this feat is mechanically inferior to 3.5's Dodge feat, which is a remarkable low for Paizo's design team.

TuggyNE

2013-11-05, 09:27 PM

Captnq

2013-11-05, 09:33 PM

Just another example of their motto.

PAZIO: Just play a damn wizard already!

Ravens_cry

2013-11-05, 09:40 PM

Just another example of their motto.

PAZIO: Just play a damn wizard already!
There's plenty of other options that are still fun and flavourful in my opinion.
So you can't toss planets around or one round kill things with more HP than body cells. You can still contribute to a team victory.

Psyren

2013-11-05, 10:10 PM

Why would there be?

There wouldn't, but threads like these are always less about "wow, look how terrible this one item is" and more about "wow, look how terrible PF is."

For example, the "slogan" in the OP that treats this feat as though it were mandatory.

angry_bear

2013-11-05, 10:18 PM

Rangers are still restricted to light armour in Pathfinder right? So even with this feat, the gnome ranger won't be too difficult to hit... I assume that it's RAI is hoping the GM enforces RP aspects and an angry opponent just wants to kill the dude who ticked them off. Still a pretty bad feat, but the idea behind it isn't horrible.

If they worked it so that any gnome could take the feat, and that the angered opponent had to attack you, I could see this working alright if you were a heavily armoured character. It'd still be a weak feat choice, but at least it wouldn't be horrendous. In 3.5 bluff is a cross class skill for Ranger, how about in Pathfinder?

Just to Browse

2013-11-05, 10:25 PM

There wouldn't, but threads like these are always less about "wow, look how terrible this one item is" and more about "wow, look how terrible PF is."

That's because 3.x was published throughout 2000-2007 and this was published in 2010. The present has a horrible way of biasing people to talk about the things that happen during it.

And the slogan is a joke, sort of how people talking about pun-pun is a joke. We're discussing the the PF authors lack of quality control, not the fact that if you choose to play PF that's badwrongfun.

Psyren

2013-11-05, 10:34 PM

The present has a horrible way of biasing people to talk about the things that happen during it.

I somehow doubt this was the only feat to see the light of day in 2010. There are turkeys in every single sourcebook and this is no exception. Stop the presses!

Yes, the feat is particularly bad, but it's also in a very peripheral setting book. I don't think it will sear anyone's retinas on a daily basis.

Ravens_cry

2013-11-05, 10:40 PM

As I said earlier, this is very DM dependent. If they play up the angered prospect, it's actually not a bad form of mundane battlefield control. Making your enemy come to you or target you alone can actually be quite useful. The Power Attack is a way to incentivises that.
However, mechanically, none of this forces the other party to do this.

Big Fau

2013-11-05, 10:43 PM

I somehow doubt this was the only feat to see the light of day in 2010. There are turkeys in every single sourcebook and this is no exception. Stop the presses!

Yes, the feat is particularly bad, but it's also in a very peripheral setting book. I don't think it will sear anyone's retinas on a daily basis.

They (Paizo) have access to 10 years worth of homebrew feats and extensive optimization resources, yet garbage like Elephant Stomp and this feat still get through. I'm still pretty upset over how horrible their gun rules are, and the Cavalier is better off as a Fighter archtype at best.

This being on top of my grudge. Take it as you will.

Just to Browse

2013-11-05, 10:54 PM

I somehow doubt this was the only feat to see the light of day in 2010. There are turkeys in every single sourcebook and this is no exception. Stop the presses!

Yes, the feat is particularly bad, but it's also in a very peripheral setting book. I don't think it will sear anyone's retinas on a daily basis.

Yes, plenty of other PF feats came out then, but no D&D 3.5 feats did. Because that was 3 years after D&D 3.5 stopped being published. The point is that in the year 2013, we have had thirteen years to talk about third edition, so of course you'll see less talk about it because a bunch of people already talked about that and know it.

Yes other bad feats exist, and yes this feat is in a small sourcebook, and yes its got some great Amazon reviews or whatever but a bad feat is a bad feat, but a team of people actually thought this was A-OK instead of terribad, and that's why this thread exists.

Baroncognito

2013-11-05, 11:10 PM

but a bad feat is a bad feat[/i], but a team of people actually thought this was A-OK instead of terribad

It's not that they thought it was A-OK, but you can look at that feat and go "Okay, that's not a problem. I don't really imagine too many people will use it, but it's a fun bit of flavour."

(And it's not that only Gnomes are racist, it's that only Gnomes are creative enough to really piss people off.)

The problem is when a feat is too good.

A bad feat won't hurt the game the way a good feat can.

Psyren

2013-11-05, 11:11 PM

What's so terrible about Elephant Stomp? It's a way to attack during an Overrun before you get Greater Overrun.

EDIT: Oh I see, you don't actually Overrun when you use it. Yeah I guess it's pretty bad then, but that's in a peripheral book too.

Yes, plenty of other PF feats came out then, but no D&D 3.5 feats did. Because that was 3 years after D&D 3.5 stopped being published. The point is that in the year 2013, we have had thirteen years to talk about third edition, so of course you'll see less talk about it because a bunch of people already talked about that and know it.

Yes other bad feats exist, and yes this feat is in a small sourcebook, and yes its got some great Amazon reviews or whatever but a bad feat is a bad feat, but a team of people actually thought this was A-OK instead of terribad, and that's why this thread exists.

I get that the system is still in print and that's why it's getting talked about. I just think there's a tendency to accentuate the negative in threads like these and not ever give credit for what PF got right.

A bad feat is a bad feat, I agree. But feats are optional, and there are way more even in core than any one character can hope to fit into a build. Ignore the chaff and move on I say.

avr

2013-11-05, 11:21 PM

It's not as if everything in that book is terrible. Bewildering Koan looks fun to use. I know a guy whose head would explode nicely if I was in a PF game with him and used it. It's certainly worth pointing and laughing at Caustic Slur though.

olentu

2013-11-05, 11:23 PM

What's so terrible about Elephant Stomp? It's a way to attack during an Overrun before you get Greater Overrun.

EDIT: Oh I see, you don't actually Overrun when you use it. Yeah I guess it's pretty bad then, but that's in a peripheral book too.

I get that the system is still in print and that's why it's getting talked about. I just think there's a tendency to accentuate the negative in threads like these and not ever give credit for what PF got right.

A bad feat is a bad feat, I agree. But feats are optional, and there are way more even in core than any one character can hope to fit into a build. Ignore the chaff and move on I say.

Eh, I don't give WotC a free pass for the poor work they did and see no reason why any other company should be treated differently.

Psyren

2013-11-05, 11:25 PM

I don't give them a pass for the poor work they did. I give them a pass for the great work they did.

The wheat-to-chaff ratio is still well above acceptable for me.

olentu

2013-11-05, 11:38 PM

I don't give them a pass for the poor work they did. I give them a pass for the great work they did.

The wheat-to-chaff ratio is still well above acceptable for me.

Eh, you are free to excuse whatever you want for whatever reason you care to, just as I am free not to do so, as was previously mentioned.

Psyren

2013-11-05, 11:57 PM

Eh, you are free to excuse whatever you want for whatever reason you care to, just as I am free not to do so, as was previously mentioned.

Agreed, and commensurately, I am also free to rail against whatever threads I choose to for the same reasons.

olentu

2013-11-06, 12:11 AM

Agreed, and commensurately, I am also free to rail against whatever threads I choose to for the same reasons.

If you wish to. Personally I would say that if a company did a sufficiently good job at being that company they would generally not need me to defend them. If anything I would probably welcome discussion of the faults that others find as identification and understanding of the problems makes improvement more likely.

TuggyNE

2013-11-06, 01:15 AM

Rangers are still restricted to light armour in Pathfinder right? So even with this feat, the gnome ranger won't be too difficult to hit...

Keep in mind that when you factor in max dex bonus, all armors are within two or three points of each other, AC-wise. "Light armor" does not mean "easy to hit".

Sith_Happens

2013-11-06, 01:40 AM

What's so terrible about Elephant Stomp? It's a way to attack during an Overrun before you get Greater Overrun.

EDIT: Oh I see, you don't actually Overrun when you use it. Yeah I guess it's pretty bad then, but that's in a peripheral book too.

It's worse than "pretty bad:" the end result of using Elephant Stomp is identical to if you had just move+attacked or charged, except you have to make a CMB check in addition to the attack roll and blow your immediate action for the privilege.:smallyuk:

TuggyNE

2013-11-06, 01:45 AM

It's worse than "pretty bad:" the end result of using Elephant Stomp is identical to if you had just move+attacked or charged, except you have to make a CMB check in addition to the attack roll and blow your immediate action for the privilege.:smallyuk:

Well, you don't have to use it if you selected it, right? :smalltongue:

Corlindale

2013-11-06, 02:54 AM

Craft (Cheese)

2013-11-06, 03:33 AM

It's intended for DMs to give to NPCs: Is that 1st-level Gnome Ranger TPKing your parties? Give them Caustic Slur to give the PCs more of a chance!

TuggyNE

2013-11-06, 05:51 AM

Speaking of useless stuff, try to compare the Water Walk spell and the higher-level Communal Water Walk spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/water-walk).

Note how Communal Water Walk is strictly inferior to Water Walk in every way despite being higher level. I know it's just an oversight but it's still pretty funny.

That's just sad. :smallsigh:

I'm having trouble figuring out how you'd rephrase it to get anything like a sensible result, honestly. You'd have to change it from "creatures touched", for starters (since that only lets you affect up to six allies adjacent), and give it a differently-scaling duration (since the original scales by caster level both in subjects and duration per subject, making the total time O(CL2)). But really, it mostly just seems to be vestigial.

Spuddles

2013-11-06, 05:54 AM

The "cross" class bluff isnt as big a deal in PF- a class skill is only 3 pts higher than a nonclass skill, and a trait can get you both a +1 trait bonus and skill in class for every skill in the game.

Keep in mind that when you factor in max dex bonus, all armors are within two or three points of each other, AC-wise. "Light armor" does not mean "easy to hit".

PF buffed medium armors without changing max dex of light. Mithral cant be used non-proficiently anymore. This makes chunky armor wearers harder to hit unless serious dex stacking takes place, which is expensive and takes place at mid to high lvl.

Occasional Sage

2013-11-06, 06:15 AM

Mithral cant be used non-proficiently anymore.

Can you elaborate? This is a change I seem to've missed.

Psyren

2013-11-06, 06:18 AM

If you wish to.

I do.

If anything I would probably welcome discussion of the faults that others find as identification and understanding of the problems makes improvement more likely.

"Discussion of the faults" is more than fine. Extrapolating them to the entire system without similarly extrapolating the pros is what I have a problem with.

Thankfully there is much less of that now than there was on the first 2 pages between ddude bashing the whole system, LordDeathkeeper's selective amnesia vs. all the good things gnomes actually got, erikun believing all Golarion gnomes are racist instead of Gnome Rangers (it's rangers that are racist, technically - that's what Favored Enemy is) and Big Fau performing the usual exhumation of his grudge etc.

"This is an awful feat!" doesn't need any of that, and if adding that kind of stuff is the only way to flesh this out into a thread, then I stand by my belief that a thread isn't necessary. Anyway, I've said my piece, carry on folks.

TuggyNE

2013-11-06, 06:20 AM

PF buffed medium armors without changing max dex of light.

And they're still in the same 7-9 total AC range I was referring to, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. (Full plate got cranked up to 10, but eh.)

Big Fau

2013-11-06, 07:51 AM

"Discussion of the faults" is more than fine. Extrapolating them to the entire system without similarly extrapolating the pros is what I have a problem with.

The only things I like about Paizo are published by DSP (thanks to good experience with their materials and their developers). The stuff Paizo churns out can be easily replicated in 3.5 by existing materials. The Summoner, for example, can be replaced by an Ardent with the Creation mantle or a Shaper Psion or a Psychic Warrior with the right feats.

Paizo has given me no reason to convert. Not even their adventure paths or bestiaries.

Crustypeanut

2013-11-06, 08:11 AM

They also buffed Dodge though. I didn't see any threads decrying that.

Also, isn't this the same book that gave us Bewildering Koan? I would just ban the whole thing.

Gnomes of Golarion.. is a book that I have never used, despite having. It has literally the silliest things in it - the Gnomish Battle Ladder, for example, not to mention an entire set of silly feats. Tantrum? Helpless Prisoner? ARCANE SCHOOL SPIRIT?! I'm pretty certain the devs hate Gnomes even more than they dislike Dwarves - and yes, at least one of them ranks Dwarves fairly low - at least when it comes to how well he likes their lore.

I love Pathfinder.. but gnomes get gno loving from the devs, what with this book and the crappy archetypes in the Advanced Race Guide for gnomes. Gnomes of Golarion is garbage, but shouldn't be used to rate Pathfinder as a whole.

Its just that.. whoever wrote GnoG didn't know what the hell they were doing - and I facepalm at the devs for allowing it into publication as it was.

I mean theres a picture of a gnome wearing a tea-pot-shaped helmet on his head, steam coming out of the spout and all. What the hell? >.<

However, PF has a great many awesome books regardless - just.. not this one.

Crustypeanut

2013-11-06, 08:19 AM

See, in my own homebrew world.. Gnomes will be a force to be feared..

Considering that they tend to go on genocidal rampages of death and destruction when angered. Otherwise they're pretty chill. :smallbiggrin:

Craft (Cheese)

2013-11-06, 08:49 AM

Sith_Happens

2013-11-06, 08:55 AM

Barstro

2013-11-06, 09:08 AM

It's intended for DMs to give to NPCs: Is that 1st-level Gnome Ranger TPKing your parties? Give them Caustic Slur to give the PCs more of a chance!

I realize that blue is sarcasm, but I'd bet money that it is supposed to be an NPC Feat, and most likely for that similar reason. Having not read the module, I can only assume that some NPCs are listed as having the Feat and utilize it as part of their suggested strategy.

There are a number of feats/traits/abilities that I think would be great for NPCs that have no value at all for a PC. This, however, is not one of them. It is a horrible Feat that is designed to hurt the NPCs to the PCs benefit.

Crustypeanut

2013-11-06, 09:15 AM

IIRC the fluff behind gnomes on golarion is that they have to worry about dying from a process called "bleaching" where they lose their connection with the realm of the fey.

How do you stop the bleaching? Literally by being silly.

So in the offical PF setting, gnomes are silly because if they stop acting silly, they die. I like to think that all gnomes actually hate this but have to keep putting up the facade of being a lunatic anyway.

Definitely maeks sense.. but the devs still seem to dislike gnomes. Though, the gnomes don't have to be silly necessarily, according to the lore - they just need to keep themselves learning or experiencing new things. Obviously, they generally go about it in a silly way, but.. I don't think it should be required.

But hey, they're fey-bound, so I guess being silly is just in their blood.

Spore

2013-11-06, 09:15 AM

That feat is actually good if cleverly used. Just remember to only use it AFTER you have put hefty debuffs on the enemy's attack rolls. If Power Attack is what he needs to go from a rolled 17-18 to a natural 20 and no debuffs are possible, then so be it.

Possibly even greater for mundanes like fighters with great AC and an abundance of feats. Try hitting an AC 40 character while shaking in your boots (-2) being cursed (-4) and then wildly swinging after the hero with another -2.

The only problem of that feat is a 20. The resulsting crit will be so devastating...

Psyren

2013-11-06, 09:24 AM

I love Pathfinder.. but gnomes get gno loving from the devs, what with this book and the crappy archetypes in the Advanced Race Guide for gnomes.

Gnomes of Golarion I agree was a poorly written book. I'm having trouble however seeing what is so bad about the ARG material. Saboteur in particular is nice as it grants a large stealth bonus + HiPs, and can combo equally well with Vivisectionist or with Grenadier.

Interestingly, the Prankster also has a "get them angry" ability, only that one does specify that they try to attack you. I have a feeling that language was intended to be put in Caustic Slur but was overlooked.

eggynack

2013-11-06, 09:24 AM

That feat is actually good if cleverly used. Just remember to only use it AFTER you have put hefty debuffs on the enemy's attack rolls. If Power Attack is what he needs to go from a rolled 17-18 to a natural 20 and no debuffs are possible, then so be it.

No, that doesn't make it good. Seriously, you're spending a standard action to accomplish this. That's your entire turn, spent on a marginal reduction in your enemy's ability to hit you, and only you. If you happen to be facing an enemy that is outside of the exact parameters within which power attack reduces the enemy's average damage per attack, then you're actively harming yourself by using the feat. If they are within those exact parameters, then they can still just not attack you. After you spent a standard action. To make your enemy slightly worse at hitting you. And they can save against this. And it only works on your favored enemy. I don't know why people keep thinking that this feat has some sort of redeeming value, because it really really doesn't.

Crustypeanut

2013-11-06, 09:27 AM

Gnomes of Golarion I agree was a poorly written book. I'm having trouble however seeing what is so bad about the ARG material. Saboteur in particular is nice as it grants a large stealth bonus + HiPs, and can combo equally well with Vivisectionist or with Grenadier.

Interestingly, the Prankster also has a "get them angry" ability, only that one does specify that they try to attack you. I have a feeling that language was intended to be put in Caustic Slur but was overlooked.

The ARG ones have their niches, certainly.. but they seem more haphazard than good. The Saboteur one is better than the Experimental Gunslinger, at least.

The Random NPC

2013-11-06, 10:20 AM

Can you elaborate? This is a change I seem to've missed.

In 3.5 you used to be able to wear medium armor with mithral, without taking non-proficiency penalties. In Pathfinder, you take said penalties.

Big Fau

2013-11-06, 10:25 AM

IIRC the fluff behind gnomes on golarion is that they have to worry about dying from a process called "bleaching" where they lose their connection with the realm of the fey.

How do you stop the bleaching? Literally by being silly.

So in the offical PF setting, gnomes are silly because if they stop acting silly, they die. I like to think that all gnomes actually hate this but have to keep putting up the facade of being a lunatic anyway.

This is something I dislike fiercely about Pathfinder: Parts of the game are serious, and then they throw in comic relief that stopped being funny when I was ten years old.

WotC did have a tendency to do this in 3.5 (Red Hand's kitchen scene comes to mind immediately) but limited it to one-time scenes, but Paizo does it with entire source books. Goblins and Gnomes alike are utterly ridiculous in ways that it breaks my suspension of disbelief.

Kudaku

2013-11-06, 10:25 AM

Pretty sure Pathfinder has ways to get a taunt mechanic...IIRC it's generally viewed as completely broken for its ability to turn random people in the street into attempted murderers.

They do indeed, specifically the Antagonize feat from UM that was released in 2011. I meant to say 'at the time', as GoG was released in 2010. I like to think that Caustic Slur was a test balloon for Antagonize - it helps keep me sane.

@Bleaching

Please note that bleaching isn't stopped by being 'silly' specifically, but rather by having 'vivid or exciting experiences' - pranks and the like are certainly one way of getting excitement, but so is adventuring in general.

Don't get me wrong, gnomes can definitely be played incredibly silly if the mood takes you to take the race that way - but the bleaching can also be rather sinister, with a race of beings desperately seeking out new experiences, new locations, new sights and tastes and dreams in order to sustain their bodies for one more year of life. Pathfinder wiki (http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Bleaching) has an interesting article on bleaching if anyone's interested in learning more.

Psyren

2013-11-06, 10:50 AM

Please note that bleaching isn't stopped by being 'silly' specifically, but rather by having 'vivid or exciting experiences' - pranks and the like are certainly one way of getting excitement, but so is adventuring in general.

This. They're not saying "be a kender," they're just saying "don't settle in one place too long unless that place is inherently chaotic."

Also, some gnomes do survive Bleaching - their stats are in ISWG.

DarkEternal

2013-11-06, 10:56 AM

If you could use it to force an enemy to attack you and use the favored enemy (arcanist) which I think is in PHB2(though not sure, it's really stupid anyway), it would be pretty damn good.

dancrilis

2013-11-06, 11:19 AM

Well this:

If an affected creature attacks you, it's treated as if it were using Power Attack (taking a penalty on attack rolls but gaining a bonus on damage rolls).

Can be read as forcing them to use power attack if they attack you.
As such if they use a bow/spell/light weapon etc, they are treated as using Power Attack resulting in an illegal usage and thereby wasting there action.

That is actually pretty good - especially against players.

NPC Gnome: Hey <insert appropriate slur here: bonus points if it would offend the player>!.
Player1 (Human Wizard) OOC, spoken through gritted teeth: I blast him with a fireball.
GM (big smile): As you try to focus raw anger into your spell to make it more dangerous the universe hits you with an illegal operation error - and if fizzles out.
Player2 (Human Rogue with light weapon) OOC, shocked: I run up and stab him!
GM (continues grinning) Gripping your weapon so hard throws off your aim and timing you can't actually move your arm in as the muscles lock.
...
etc
GM does not elaborate on the power

The players will remember that NPC.

Boci

2013-11-06, 11:22 AM

ArqArturo

2013-11-06, 11:35 AM

I still think wizards win by bulk.

dancrilis

2013-11-06, 11:55 AM

That interpretation doesn't work, it would be a house rule. Yes that NPC will be remembered, but most likely as a BS DM warded little snot, rather than anything actually good, and I doubt this will improve when they find out why.

Actually my interpretation that light weapons could not have power attack seems to have been wrong - imagine the Rogue was using a bow.

Anyway why doesn't the interpretation work, they are treated as using the power attack feat, which cannot be used with spells or ranged weapons.
Ignoring the gnome feat is a player states that they are using Fireball with Power Attack the GM is fully in the right to say it fails, so when they have to use power attack surely it would fail also?

Fax Celestis

2013-11-06, 11:59 AM

Nope, on all of that. The feat only gives the enemy power attack if he's attacking you. I guess if you really need your friends to be great at hitting you, or to fail to hit you, it could work out. Not exactly inspirational.
Sounds like a job for Cleave!

Boci

2013-11-06, 12:06 PM

Anyway why doesn't the interpretation work, they are treated as using the power attack feat, which cannot be used with spells or ranged weapons.
Ignoring the gnome feat is a player states that they are using Fireball with Power Attack the GM is fully in the right to say it fails, so when they have to use power attack surely it would fail also?

So either specific trumps general and they do get the benefit of power attack for bows (would be difficult for spells though) or it hs no affect. They are treated as using power attack when they attack you, but they attack you in a way that does not benefit from power attack. The logical conclusion is they attack as normal, not that the spell fizzles.

eggynack

2013-11-06, 12:06 PM

Actually my interpretation that light weapons could not have power attack seems to have been wrong - imagine the Rogue was using a bow.

Anyway why doesn't the interpretation work, they are treated as using the power attack feat, which cannot be used with spells or ranged weapons.
Ignoring the gnome feat is a player states that they are using Fireball with Power Attack the GM is fully in the right to say it fails, so when they have to use power attack surely it would fail also?
It doesn't look like anything stops you from using power attack if you use a bow. You choose to use power attack when making your attack roll, and you take a -1 penalty on melee attack rolls, and a +2 bonus on melee damage rolls. Your attack proceeds as it normally would, as neither of those statistics is meaningful to your ranged attack. However, the power attack still occurs in its meaningless way.

As for the fireball, is there any indication that a fireball qualifies as an attack? I know that the 3.5 definition is generally limited to attack rolls, but I'm not sure about PF. In any case, the wizard is treated as if he were using power attack, which bypasses the restriction to using the feat on attack rolls, because it happens automatically. The wizard takes the penalties and bonuses, and doesn't care.

dancrilis

2013-11-06, 12:43 PM

It doesn't look like anything stops you from using power attack if you use a bow. You choose to use power attack when making your attack roll, and you take a -1 penalty on melee attack rolls, and a +2 bonus on melee damage rolls. Your attack proceeds as it normally would, as neither of those statistics is meaningful to your ranged attack. However, the power attack still occurs in its meaningless way.

Fair points, I suppose thinking about it that the same would be true when using power attack with your main hand and throwing something with your off hand, the power attack is still active for the turn but has no affect on the ranged element.
Thanks I had not considered that.

As for the fireball, is there any indication that a fireball qualifies as an attack? I know that the 3.5 definition is generally limited to attack rolls, but I'm not sure about PF. In any case, the wizard is treated as if he were using power attack, which bypasses the restriction to using the feat on attack rolls, because it happens automatically. The wizard takes the penalties and bonuses, and doesn't care.

In answer as to whether spells are attacks:

Pathfinder: Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone. (http://paizo.com/prd/magic.html)

DnD: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm)

I would say in both games a fireball would be an attack based on the above.

eggynack

2013-11-06, 12:46 PM

I would say in both games a fireball would be an attack based on the above.
Fancy. Still, our wizard bypasses the prerequisite for pulling off a power attack, because the feat triggers it automatically. The wizard is treated as if he were using power attack, and that just so happens to be meaningless.

dancrilis

2013-11-06, 12:48 PM

Fancy. Still, our wizard bypasses the prerequisite for pulling off a power attack, because the feat triggers it automatically. The wizard is treated as if he were using power attack, and that just so happens to be meaningless.

Yip completely redundant in this case as you have shown. Possible useful in others.

eggynack

2013-11-06, 12:55 PM

Possible useful in others.
It's not. It's just really really not. The amount of effective AC you're getting off of this feat is just not worth a standard action. You'd be far better off doing an actual thing with that action. This is true even without all of the other factors working against this feat, and then those factors start to come into play, and there are a lot of them. Just so frigging many that it's kinda inexplicable.

Edit: Also, note the possibility of using total defense (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Total-Defense) instead of this. Sure, it's not strictly better for a number of reasons, but in most situations where you'd put forth caustic slur as a viable option, total defense would probably work better.

Kudaku

2013-11-06, 12:59 PM

Using the standard action to use Total Defense would give you a +4 Dodge bonus to AC, although you lose the option to make AoOs. Conversely the AP penalty for Power Attack is -4 at BAB 16, and -5 at BAB 20.

So... This feat gives you +1 AC over Total Defense. On the downside your enemy is now enjoying the benefits of power attack, you spent a feat on this ability, it requires a successful skill check, and it only comes online at level 20. At levels 1 through 19 just using Total Defense is a better option for improving your AC.

... :smallsigh:

eggynack

2013-11-06, 01:06 PM

It requires a successful skill check.
Is this actually a true thing? Like, I see that there's a bluff check, but is that in addition to the will save, or is the will save the bluff check? Do you need two separate rolls to go your way in order to give your enemy power attack?

dancrilis

2013-11-06, 01:09 PM

It's not. It's just really really not.
Sorry I meant that spells counting as attacks might be possibly useful in other situations.

Psyren

2013-11-06, 01:14 PM

Sorry I meant that spells counting as attacks might be possibly useful in other situations.

It's used to show which abilities break invisibility/sanctuary for instance.

eggynack

2013-11-06, 01:17 PM

Sorry I meant that spells counting as attacks might be possibly useful in other situations.
Ah. That is indeed a thing worth knowing. Not really for the invisibility example, because that spell contains its own definition of attack within the text, but maybe for sanctuary, and maybe for some random system intricacies that I'm unaware of.

Fax Celestis

2013-11-06, 01:57 PM

It's not. It's just really really not.

It would in the instance of a melee touch attack spell, wherein the spell would take the PA penalty and get basically no benefit from PA.

Kudaku

2013-11-06, 01:59 PM

Is this actually a true thing? Like, I see that there's a bluff check, but is that in addition to the will save, or is the will save the bluff check? Do you need two separate rolls to go your way in order to give your enemy power attack?

I'm reasonably sure there is a developer post on the paizo forums clarifying that the DC of the will save equals the result of the bluff check somewhere - otherwise the DC of the will save is unclear I think?

Boci

2013-11-06, 02:02 PM

It would in the instance of a melee touch attack spell, wherein the spell would take the PA penalty and get basically no benefit from PA.

Still not worth it though. Standard action, skill check, will negates and little return when it does work.

eggynack

2013-11-06, 02:04 PM

It would in the instance of a melee touch attack spell, wherein the spell would take the PA penalty and get basically no benefit from PA.
No, because you're still spending a standard action to accomplish this. The feat is still bad, even without the damage bonus. Seriously, you still need your opponent to fail a will save (your wizard opponent, with his good will save), you need to have favored enemy against this particular opponent, you need that opponent to use a melee touch attack spell, instead of any other spell in his arsenal, and you still need a reduction in to-hit to be relevant on a touch attack, which it usually won't be. It's a really really really bad feat. If you take away some of the factors that make it bad, you end up with a really really bad feat. Once you get up to "Favored enemies get a scaling penalty to hit on attacks against you," the feat is still kinda bad, because we're talking about a scaling and situational version of dodge, and dodge sucks. Seriously. Really really really bad, all the time, forever.

I'm reasonably sure there is a developer post on the paizo forums clarifying that the DC of the will save equals the result of the bluff check somewhere - otherwise the DC of the will save is unclear I think?
Yeah, that's one of the readings I was considering, and it's probably the best possible case for the feat. It's an odd and unclear thing though.

Boci

2013-11-06, 02:32 PM

And here's the discussion about the feat on the paizo boards:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2la3l?Caustic-Slur-Feat

Gotta admit, I expected worse based on what I'd heard about those forums.

eggynack

2013-11-06, 02:40 PM

And here's the discussion about the feat on the paizo boards:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2la3l?Caustic-Slur-Feat

Gotta admit, I expected worse based on what I'd heard about those forums.
There is a surprising amount of, "Ya guys, this feat is fine as is," particularly from SKR, who apparently thinks that this feat providing an incentive for enemies to attack you is enough justification for taking a feat. There is also a good amount of, "This feat is obviously terrible," and there's some, "This use of the feat is reasonable," over here, so it balances out decently. At least there's not one of those long posts where SKR rants against the very idea that these options should possess any kind of value.

Coidzor

2013-11-06, 02:45 PM

And here I thought spending a feat to be able to use a crossbow while prone when you're already able to use a crossbow while prone was bad.

Though, I suppose I can at least see the original idea they had, which was to give incentive for an opponent to attack you without being derided as OP like Antagonize (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/antagonize)has been.

They just... failed...

Edit: Oh. Publication dates are wrong? Oy gevalt.

eggynack

2013-11-06, 02:50 PM

Though, I suppose I can at least see the original idea they had, which was to give incentive for an opponent to attack you without being derided as OP like Antagonize (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/antagonize)has been.
Antagonize seems decent. It's not great, for a number of reasons (there's a check, and an action, and neither effect is all that potent), but it's decent.

Yawgmoth

2013-11-06, 02:52 PM

Its what happens when two very similar things are produced by different companies, fans of each have to try that much harder to find reasons to dislike the other. Whenever I read on other forums "Love PF but hate 3.5" or "If this is using PF I'm not interested, but I'd jump right in if it were 3.5" I do a double take. Similar != identical, and PF has a lot of really stupid changes that actively make playing less fun. Do you also do a double take when someone says "I like chocolate ice cream but not strawberry" because they're both ice cream?

Coidzor

2013-11-06, 02:54 PM

Antagonize seems decent. It's not great, for a number of reasons (there's a check, and an action, and neither effect is all that potent), but it's decent.

And yet I've seen people complain to Paizo on the forums that Antagonize is OP as well as call it OP on this board. :/

eggynack

2013-11-06, 02:59 PM

And yet I've seen people complain to Paizo on the forums that Antagonize is OP as well as call it OP on this board. :/
Over here? That's pretty surprising. I mean, the diplomacy effect isn't all that great, so you'd presumably be attempting to trade your actions for the targeting on your enemy's actions. Because of the check, you're generally trading at a rate that's worse than one for one, and the one you're getting out of your opponent still has the value of hitting you. You also can't make that trade more than once against a particular opponent, and you're only stalling one enemy at a time. Seems kinda weak, actually.

Psyren

2013-11-06, 03:01 PM

Similar != identical, and PF has a lot of really stupid changes that actively make playing less fun.

See, right here. No comment on any of the changes that made playing more fun. No attempt to average them out and make an reasoned determination.

Sigh.

Fax Celestis

2013-11-06, 03:02 PM

No, because you're still spending a standard action to accomplish this. The feat is still bad, even without the damage bonus. Seriously, you still need your opponent to fail a will save (your wizard opponent, with his good will save), you need to have favored enemy against this particular opponent, you need that opponent to use a melee touch attack spell, instead of any other spell in his arsenal, and you still need a reduction in to-hit to be relevant on a touch attack, which it usually won't be. It's a really really really bad feat. If you take away some of the factors that make it bad, you end up with a really really bad feat. Once you get up to "Favored enemies get a scaling penalty to hit on attacks against you," the feat is still kinda bad, because we're talking about a scaling and situational version of dodge, and dodge sucks. Seriously. Really really really bad, all the time, forever.

I'm not saying it's not terrible, just that there is actual functionality if you use it on a spellcaster who is trying to hit you with a touch attack.

Boci

2013-11-06, 03:04 PM

Similar != identical, and PF has a lot of really stupid changes that actively make playing less fun. Do you also do a double take when someone says "I like chocolate ice cream but not strawberry" because they're both ice cream?

I'm sorry, but no. I cannot imagine how someone can legitimately like one and hate the other. They can have a preference, sure, I prefer 3.5, but I can't see such extreme opinions as anything other than biased.

At least there's not one of those long posts where SKR rants against the very idea that these options should possess any kind of value.

No, but he did apparently say:

"What SRK said, coupled with the fact that the Ranger could EASILY be played as a tank, especially if you are playing a Gnome Ranger.

+1 Hp per level and +1 AC (That cannot EVER be denied you) for a paltry -1 to strength? Yes PLEASE!"

eggynack

2013-11-06, 03:08 PM

I'm not saying it's not terrible, just that there is actual functionality if you use it on a spellcaster who is trying to hit you with a touch attack.
It has... functionality. I don't really know what that means though, because it vaguely had functionality in its original state. Really, the problem with the feat has little to do with the fact that you're pumping the enemy's damage. That just makes the feat really stupid. The problem is mostly that you're just not doing anything. Your example has effectively mitigated one of the many flaws with the feat, and that's good, but there're just too many other flaws for me to consider it functional. I can't even imagine a situation where I'd stick my super powered version of the feat on a character, just because the end result is so minor, numerical, and situational. That feat wouldn't be the worst choice, but it would be a bad choice.

Fax Celestis

2013-11-06, 03:12 PM

Hey, at least the feat actually does something, even if it's terrible.

There are those that do functionally nothing.

Psyren

2013-11-06, 03:15 PM

Hey, at least the feat actually does something, even if it's terrible.

There are those that do functionally nothing.

Yep - this is the point I made earlier in the thread. Even a severely weakened Dodge can be the difference between a hit and a miss.

eggynack

2013-11-06, 03:16 PM

Hey, at least the feat actually does something, even if it's terrible.

There are those that do functionally nothing.
But feats that do nothing only do nothing. This feat will either do nothing, or actively cause you to waste actions to make your enemies stronger, or just cause you to waste actions. At least skill focus (speak language) doesn't do that.

Coidzor

2013-11-06, 03:21 PM

Over here? That's pretty surprising. I mean, the diplomacy effect isn't all that great, so you'd presumably be attempting to trade your actions for the targeting on your enemy's actions. Because of the check, you're generally trading at a rate that's worse than one for one, and the one you're getting out of your opponent still has the value of hitting you. You also can't make that trade more than once against a particular opponent, and you're only stalling one enemy at a time. Seems kinda weak, actually.

Could just have been a sampling bias, too, I'll admit.

See, right here. No comment on any of the changes that made playing more fun. No attempt to average them out and make an reasoned determination.

Sigh.

The things I have to fix back towards how I like to play generally stick out more than the things I had already fixed about 3.5 in order to make it playable that they went along with either in the same way or in a similar way.

Sort of the nature of the beast of human perceptions, I believe.

I'm sorry, but no. I cannot imagine how someone can legitimately like one and hate the other. They can have a preference, sure, I prefer 3.5, but I can't see such extreme opinions as anything other than biased.

Sure, it's biased, but with the amount of "SKR said this" or "Jason Buhlman poo-poo'd this idea completely because apparently the guys who write the rules weren't actually thinking when they wrote the rules and having something neat arise that they didn't explicitly prepare for is anathema," that comes up in discussing PF, I can see how one could get soured against PF as a result of getting soured against its devs and the amount of their personalities that one has to deal with when one's just interested in the rules.

I have to steel myself against finding SKR saying something cringe-worthy every time I seek out a rules clarification. That's not fun. That's the opposite of fun. Consequently, I'm much, much slower about going through and absorbing Pathfinder than I might otherwise be.

Talderas

2013-11-06, 03:21 PM

I dunno. This one is pretty bad. It's like, that one truenamer feat that makes you actively worse at truenaming bad. Caustic slur's gotta be one of the worst feats in either game, I think. I feel like I could describe ways in which it's worse beyond, "Gives your enemies power attack," but most of those just make it less bad, because they make the feat trigger less, and thank the gods of PF for that.

I was going to make a comment about how this could be good, then I remembered that Pathfinder Power attack sucks.

Kudaku

2013-11-06, 03:22 PM

And yet I've seen people complain to Paizo on the forums that Antagonize is OP as well as call it OP on this board. :/

It should be noted that Antagonize was rewritten/errata'ed at some point after its publication. The original version stated that the target had to respond with a melee attack irregardless of his preferred tactics. This meant archers basically dropped their bow and charged you with an untrained unarmed attack, archmages would dump their rod of metamagic and approach you for some good old-fashioned fisticuffs etc.

Psyren

2013-11-06, 03:24 PM

The things I have to fix back towards how I like to play generally stick out more than the things I had already fixed about 3.5 in order to make it playable that they went along with either in the same way or in a similar way.

Sort of the nature of the beast of human perceptions, I believe.

I guess, but as (ostensibly) conscious and rational beings we should be able to recognize those biases and overcome them.

I was going to make a comment about how this could be good, then I remembered that Pathfinder Power attack sucks.

Disagree strongly. The ratio is better and it's more controllable so that DMs aren't dealing with 4-digit damage because the player found a way to auto-hit.

eggynack

2013-11-06, 03:27 PM

It should be noted that Antagonize was rewritten/errata'ed at some point after its publication. The original version stated that the target had to respond with a melee attack irregardless of his preferred tactics. This meant archers basically dropped their bow and charged you with an untrained unarmed attack, archmages would dump their rod of metamagic and approach you for some good old-fashioned fisticuffs etc.
That's certainly better, but it's nowhere near OP. You're still trading a single action for a single action at best, and you can only do it one time, which means that you can't lock down the archer or wizard for multiple turns.

Spuddles

2013-11-06, 03:33 PM

Can you elaborate? This is a change I seem to've missed.

Mithral medium armor is still medium armor for the purpose of proficiency.

And they're still in the same 7-9 total AC range I was referring to, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. (Full plate got cranked up to 10, but eh.)

My point is that, for the first 10 levels of the game, heavy armor wearers will have 3 to 5 more AC than light armor. Maxing dex in mithral chain isnt exactly cheap.

Kudaku

2013-11-06, 03:40 PM

That's certainly better, but it's nowhere near OP. You're still trading a single action for a single action at best, and you can only do it one time, which means that you can't lock down the archer or wizard for multiple turns.

Actually you were potentially trading a standard action for a full action since the target would have to move to you and make a physical attack. It also meant various people who would normally have no interest in being in melee range (archers, spellcasters, flying creatures, enemies behind cover etc) suddenly decided it was a great idea after all.

I'm not going to argue if it was overpowered or not since I never actually got a chance to playtest it in its previous version, but I think it's fair to give it its fair due :smallsmile:

eggynack

2013-11-06, 03:44 PM

Actually you were potentially trading a move action for a full action since the target would have to move to you and make a physical attack. It also meant various people who would normally have no interest in being in melee range (archers, spellcasters, flying creatures, enemies behind cover etc) suddenly decided it was a great idea after all.

Don't you mean standard? It was still a standard action back then, right? Off of a move action, it might actually qualify as OP. If not, the standard for full thing seems relevant, though that's made up for somewhat by the other stuff that I've mentioned. In that version, I can definitely better see how it might be perceived as overpowered, even if it's not really overpowered.

Ravens_cry

2013-11-06, 03:49 PM

Antagonize seems decent. It's not great, for a number of reasons (there's a check, and an action, and neither effect is all that potent), but it's decent.
I would consider its Intimidate effect very descent. Yes, it means you are targeted, but you are forcing someone to act against their possible wishes. A spell caster has to waste one of its spells and its action on a target that could have awesome saves, or a heavy hitter type has to come across the room hit someone who has an awesome AC, instead of the other character who is near death
Plus, I would say that if the creature doesn't know it is in danger, for example a pit trap covered by an illusionary wall, that they don't have reason to suspect, they will still run at you when you use the feat.
It has some pretty strong limitations on target, but as a mundane form of battle field control? It's pretty awesome for a feat with no prerequisites.
The older version was broken in my opinion.

Kudaku

2013-11-06, 03:49 PM

Don't you mean standard? It was still a standard action back then, right? Off of a move action, it might actually qualify as OP. If not, the standard for full thing seems relevant, though that's made up for somewhat by the other stuff that I've mentioned. In that version, I can definitely better see how it might be perceived as overpowered, even if it's not really overpowered.

I do indeed mean standard - started off pointing out that the target also expends a move action, rewrote the sentence for clarity and forgot to switch the words around :-/.

olentu

2013-11-06, 05:06 PM

I do.

"Discussion of the faults" is more than fine. Extrapolating them to the entire system without similarly extrapolating the pros is what I have a problem with.

Thankfully there is much less of that now than there was on the first 2 pages between ddude bashing the whole system, LordDeathkeeper's selective amnesia vs. all the good things gnomes actually got, erikun believing all Golarion gnomes are racist instead of Gnome Rangers (it's rangers that are racist, technically - that's what Favored Enemy is) and Big Fau performing the usual exhumation of his grudge etc.

"This is an awful feat!" doesn't need any of that, and if adding that kind of stuff is the only way to flesh this out into a thread, then I stand by my belief that a thread isn't necessary. Anyway, I've said my piece, carry on folks.

Eh, I don't really see much of that at all. LordDeathkeeper seems to be saying that gnomes are fluffed in a stupid way, and that this feat merely puts the exclamation point on that. Erikun does make a good point, that producing a feat with mechanical benefits that emphasizes the racist tendencies of gnomes could reasonably imply bad things about the race given that there is something inherent to gnomes (as the feat is race restricted) that goes beyond normal ranger class racism. Big Fau seems to mostly be arguing against your making excuses for the company which, given that I am doing the same, is not really something that I can take offense against. Perhaps his tone is a bit more confrontational then mine but the content is reasonably similar.

All in all, I don't really see what you mean. When talking about something that was messed up the discussion naturally focuses on the bad. I see a similar tendency in most threads about where one or another company has messed something up.

See, right here. No comment on any of the changes that made playing more fun. No attempt to average them out and make an reasoned determination.

Sigh.

Apparently you have not completely said your piece. Plus you assume that the changes made by pathfinder made the game more fun for the poster you quote. Perhaps he disliked all of them. Or perhaps he has already made his assessment of the changes and is merely stating a succinct summary of his conclusion. Disliking pathfinder is, of course, a perfectly reasonable position and it would be unnecessarily laborious to have to restate your whole chain of reasoning every time. That kind of thing can span pages and pages depending on the detail into which one goes about each change.

Baroknik

2013-11-06, 05:27 PM

I may be misinterpreting the rules (aka pulling a Bill Belichick), but would multiple uses of this feat stack? It says that the penalty lasts until the end of combat and does not give any immunity after an initial save/failure... So, could a character spend 5 rounds of combat running/cussing all his enemies and then watch as they had a -5 to attack and a +10 to damage?
Though those are two features I think may be missed with the feat: it affects ALL enemies of the favored type chosen and lasts until combat.
Not throwing my support behind the feat, but if the penalties stack I could see it being somewhat useful (though if you can survive the first X rounds of combat doing nothing but taking a move/immediate action and cursing your enemies you deserve to win style points anyway).
Of course, then you still run into the problem of a natural 20 obliterating you in melee. Even if you got them to auto-miss on any other roll with the stacked penalty, a +2X dmg to a crit would hurt like hell.

Boci

2013-11-06, 05:28 PM

Disliking pathfinder is, of course, a perfectly reasonable position

Hating pathfinder when you like 3.5? Kinda hard to believe. (Yawgmoth was responding to me, and I specified hate, not dislike).

The Glyphstone

2013-11-06, 05:30 PM

Baroknik

2013-11-06, 05:34 PM

It only takes effect if they attack you, though, so in addition to stacking penalties, you have to incentivise them to want to attack you. Otherwise they can just pulverize the rest of your party at no penalty, and they probably will, because you're spending all your standard actions cursing and thus doing zero damage.

True, I'm thinking more from the standpoint of a lone NPC who is trying to run away or just taunt the party I suppose.

Firechanter

2013-11-06, 05:37 PM

BTW, I realized only a while into the thread that the topic I chose is wrong. I wrote "new" because I just learned about the feat the other day, and just figured that the book must be new. So, it's 3 years old already. Anyway.

The Glyphstone

2013-11-06, 05:40 PM

True, I'm thinking more from the standpoint of a lone NPC who is trying to run away or just taunt the party I suppose.

Because PCs don't already have enough reasons to murder everyone they see?:smallcool:

Ravens_cry

2013-11-06, 05:42 PM

Hmm, a possible use of Antagonize, though probably not RAW like the pit trap idea. Use Antagonize and then Shadow Split (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/alternate-classes/ninja#TOC-Ninja-Tricks) as a swift action. They go after either you or the clone.

lelfin

2013-11-06, 05:55 PM

Hating pathfinder when you like 3.5? Kinda hard to believe. (Yawgmoth was responding to me, and I specified hate, not dislike).

Wading out of the pbp boards to post...weird...

Way back when I was...don't know where, but whenever they were doing an open Beta on PF, a couple of friends and I played. I rolled up a paladin and enjoyed it. Nice buffs, etc. Reading their stuff at the time online, their whole point was to fix 3.5. Off that bat, I saw several nice things, and some weaknesses (that were pointed out to me, was new to DnD at the time and thought monks were uber powerful until MAD and ability synergy were explained to me).

At the end of our 2, maybe 3, session campaign, the DM e-mailed them our thoughts. Interested in what they would do, we checked out the published results and found...they nerfed everything we told them we thought gave the mundanes power (you ask, and I won't remember what they were, we used two other players lap tops for everything), fixed one of the only things DM suggested (some wonky spell if I remember). Browsing through their SRD now I can't say I'm impressed more now than I was before.

So, yes, I hate Pathfinder, because in it's quest to be a 3.5 fixer, they totally missed the boat, and they haven't made it better. It's not the system, it's the attitude behind the creators.

[re-enabling lurk mode]

Boci

2013-11-06, 05:59 PM

So, yes, I hate Pathfinder, because in it's quest to be a 3.5 fixer, they totally missed the boat, and they haven't made it better. It's not the system, it's the attitude behind the creators.

So you hate Paizo, not pathfinder.

Boci

2013-11-06, 06:07 PM

And by extension the monstrosity they create because it reminds me of something good they killed with a nerf bat.

There is a difference between hating something, and hating it through extension. By saying you hate something through extension, you are saying you would not hate it on its own.

Coidzor

2013-11-06, 06:13 PM

So you hate Paizo, not pathfinder.

One thing I've noticed is that there's not the same buffer between individual designer and the rules with the way SKR and Jason Buhlman comport themselves. It feels like those two major egos *are* the rules or at least are very difficult to separate from the rules.

It's a lot more jarring and uncomfortable to have to deal with a person's ego than a faceless company or a united front of "the devs" or someone who is just wearing the "sage" hat as their primary identity rather than just being themselves and all up ons.

So it's easier for the lines between person and product to blur, from what I've seen and how I've interpreted the general tone.

I guess, but as (ostensibly) conscious and rational beings we should be able to recognize those biases and overcome them.

Oh, I can, it's just extra work, so it gets procrastinated on.

Ravens_cry

2013-11-06, 06:22 PM

Well, it's a less corporate culture. It reminds me of the story of the team of players that won Tomb of Horrors at GenCon and the DM was able to call Gygax and ask him for a ruling, only now instead of at GenCon, it's so much more often on the Paizo forums.
It's less professional and egos can get involved at times, but there is something nice to be said of the immediacy of the whole thing.
I admit though, I don't go to the Paizo forums much. I like you people better, warts and all.

eggynack

2013-11-06, 06:26 PM

TuggyNE

2013-11-06, 07:21 PM

In answer as to whether spells are attacks:

I would say in both games a fireball would be an attack based on the above.

It's only an attack for purposes of spells, and Caustic Slur and Power Attack are feats, not spells.

I admit though, I don't go to the Paizo forums much. I like you people better, warts and all.

Aww, we love you too. :smallsmile:

IronFist

2013-11-06, 07:37 PM

3.5 had lots of useless feats as well. Why all the Paizo hate, really?

Why all the hate, basically? There is so much bashing, so much bullying in these forums these days.

eggynack

2013-11-06, 07:42 PM

3.5 had lots of useless feats as well. Why all the Paizo hate, really?

Why all the hate, basically? There is so much bashing, so much bullying in these forums these days.
I think this feat is probably worse than the useless 3.5 feats, and we discuss those plenty. Honestly, it feels like the hate only comes into question when it starts involving PF, and it goes without comment when it's about 3.5. As for why bashing exists in the first place, it's kinda fun to talk about dumb things. This is dumb, and is worth making fun of, partially because I derive amusement from doing so.

Aww, we love you too. :smallsmile:
Indeed. Hugs for all.

Psyren

2013-11-06, 08:01 PM

Reading their stuff at the time online, their whole point was to fix 3.5.

I knew this meme would show up again too. I need to start a drinking game. *chug*

Or maybe play bingo!

instead of at GenCon, it's so much more often on the Paizo forums.
It's less professional and egos can get involved at times, but there is something nice to be said of the immediacy of the whole thing.
I admit though, I don't go to the Paizo forums much. I like you people better, warts and all.

It's extremely nice. I feel involved in the whole process, like the recent rulings on Confusion Bomb and temporary bonuses.

3.5 had lots of useless feats as well. Why all the Paizo hate, really?

Why all the hate, basically? There is so much bashing, so much bullying in these forums these days.

You just gotta let it roll off your back IF. Eventually they'll get bored, until they can "discover" something else tucked away in Skull & Shackles #37 or Gods of Golarion or something.

Sith_Happens

2013-11-06, 08:14 PM

Actually you were potentially trading a standard action for a full action since the target would have to move to you and make a physical attack. It also meant various people who would normally have no interest in being in melee range (archers, spellcasters, flying creatures, enemies behind cover etc) suddenly decided it was a great idea after all.

I'm not going to argue if it was overpowered or not since I never actually got a chance to playtest it in its previous version, but I think it's fair to give it its fair due :smallsmile:

You know, I think everyone here's been overlooking the best use for Antagonize of all: Suddenly, it's the bartender who started the barfight.:smallbiggrin:

Hating pathfinder when you like 3.5? Kinda hard to believe. (Yawgmoth was responding to me, and I specified hate, not dislike).

There's plenty of people who love Battlefield and hate Call of Duty, or vice versa, despite the two being at least 80% the same game.

Same thing.

Psyren

2013-11-06, 08:26 PM

There's plenty of people who love Battlefield and hate Call of Duty, or vice versa, despite the two being at least 80% the same game.

Same thing.

Exactly, it's just as irrational.

(Also, CoD isn't compatible with Battlefield.)

olentu

2013-11-06, 08:46 PM

Hating pathfinder when you like 3.5? Kinda hard to believe. (Yawgmoth was responding to me, and I specified hate, not dislike).

Eh, who can say, some people run with strong emotion. It's not really any more unreasonable then any emotional response.

Boci

2013-11-06, 08:56 PM

There's plenty of people who love Battlefield and hate Call of Duty, or vice versa, despite the two being at least 80% the same game.

Same thing.

I'm not into SGW games, but from I know of them, yes I find that just as irrational.

Eh, who can say, some people run with strong emotion. It's not really any more unreasonable then any emotional response.

But aren't we meant to try and change our unreasonable emotional responses?

Baroncognito

2013-11-06, 09:01 PM

eggynack

2013-11-06, 09:10 PM

I am wondering why everyone keeps saying it costs a standard action and the comparing it to Total Defense.

Yes, both Total Defense and Caustic Slur take a standard action to activate, but Total Defense lasts one turn and Caustic Slur lasts until the end of combat.

You don't have to be swearing at them every round to keep the penalty up. The only way you curse more than once is if there are a lot of enemies you want pissed at you.
I'm comparing it to total defense because that list of differences you raised are matched by some pretty big advantages on the side of total defense. For example, total defense works every time, against every enemy, whether they're using melee or ranged weaponry, and doesn't add to the enemy's damage. Most important of all, total defense doesn't take a feat. The reason I raised the comparison, ultimately, is because in the few situations where caustic slur is useful, total defense could act as a reasonable approximation, and might actually do the job better. Sure, it doesn't last as long, but that seems minor in comparison to all the problems.

olentu

2013-11-06, 09:10 PM

But aren't we meant to try and change our unreasonable emotional responses?

I assume that by that you mean all emotional response since as I said it's not really any more unreasonable then any emotional response. Well, no. When dealing with a leisure activity your emotions are a rather essential part of the point.

Boci

2013-11-06, 09:13 PM

I assume that by that you mean all emotional response since as I said it's not really any more unreasonable then any emotional response. Well, no. When dealing with a leisure activity your emotions are a rather essential part of the point.

Yes, but when you emotions are unreasonably? Plus this is a social activity, someone your playing with may like the other system, and so it is in your interest to get other any irrational negative feelings you have about either system.

Sith_Happens

2013-11-06, 09:14 PM

Exactly, it's just as irrational.

I'm not into SGW games, but from I know of them, yes I find that just as irrational.

Sometimes it is irrational, but other times it's that person just not wanting to put up with one or more of the parts of the game that are different.

Boci

2013-11-06, 09:15 PM

Sometimes it is irrational, but other times it's that person just not wanting to put up with one or more of the parts of the game that are different.

As I'm said, having a preference is naturally. I prefer 3.5 (technically 3.P, why choose? But that's beside the point). Its when someone claims to hate one of the systems that I'm puzzled.

olentu

2013-11-06, 09:21 PM

Yes, but when you emotions are unreasonably? Plus this is a social activity, someone your playing with may like the other system, and so it is in your interest to get other any irrational negative feelings you have about either system.

Why yes, the best choice would be to love everything fully and equally so that one never suffers unpleasant feelings. As soon as you figure out how to do that, feel free to let everyone else know.

Boci

2013-11-06, 09:23 PM

Why yes, the best choice would be to love everything equally so that one never suffers unpleasant feelings. As soon as you figure out how to do that, feel free to let everyone else know.

Hello there perfect solution fallacy. All I said is that I find it strange when people claim to hate one of the system. I never said they had to love both equally. For the third time, I prefer 3.5.

olentu

2013-11-06, 09:35 PM

Hello there perfect solution fallacy. All I said is that I find it strange when people claim to hate one of the system. I never said they had to love both equally. For the third time, I prefer 3.5.

My point was to illustrate the difficulty in changing one's emotional response and preferences. Perhaps you have had a different experience, but I have found that most people do not find it so easy if it is even possible.

Just to Browse

2013-11-06, 09:37 PM

Boci

2013-11-06, 09:38 PM

My point was to illustrate the difficulty in changing one's emotional response and preferences. Perhaps you have had a different experience, but I have found that most people do not find it so easy if it is even possible.

So try to make you're point without logical fallacies. As for whether its worth it, I don't know if asking people to see that 3.5 and PF are too similar that you can love one and hate the other, but I know it has a better chance of working than just shrugging and saying "emotions, what can you do".

I know there are people that get annoyed with threads talking about how bad PF is, but can we stop with the passive-aggressive defense of PF?

Passive-aggressive is indirect hostility. I think most defense of pathfinder is being pretty direct, and not that hostile. All that's being said is PF, whilst having bad content that deserves ridicule, is unfairly criticized as a system. Which is probably true and relevant to this thread.

Zanos

2013-11-06, 09:45 PM

I know there are people that get annoyed with threads talking about how bad PF is, but can we stop with the passive-aggressive defense of PF?

This thread is about a terrible feat, and it includes some people with a dislike for PF making snarky comments, but you really don't need to drop the signal-to-noise ratio even more by making your own.
The thread started out with the OP ragging on PF, so I think the insults are more signal and less noise in this case. The feat is pretty obviously garbage, so there's no debate to be had there.

The feat showcases that, for all of Pathfinder's fixes, it still has considerable issues. When people have recommended PF in the past to me it's often been referred to as "3.75" or "3.5 as it should have been", and this is clearly not the case. PF is just as flawed as 3.5 is, it's just flawed in different ways. This makes some people prefer it.

Wasted

2013-11-06, 09:49 PM

olentu

2013-11-06, 09:52 PM

So try to make you're point without logical fallacies. As for whether its worth it, I don't know if asking people to see that 3.5 and PF are too similar that you can love one and hate the other, but I know it has a better chance of working than just shrugging and saying "emotions, what can you do".

Oh, I was not saying that because the perfect solution is impossible it should not be attempted as would be my understanding of the fallacy. Rather I was commenting that if changing your emotions was as easy as you seemed to be saying then everyone would take the perfect solution or something similar. Changing emotional response still can have value but the difficulty often means it is not reasonably worth the time, especially when we are dealing with a leisure activity.

In many ways I could see how the similarity between the two systems could lead to hating one, not in spite of loving the other but rather because of loving the other. If one really really loves 3.5 then perhaps changing things in an undesirable way would be like modifying or even defacing a classic work of art, all the more terrible because it comes from the original. Perhaps one could hate pathfinder for stealing a part of the 3.5 player base. There pathfinder is negatively impacting your 3.5 experience, which could move a dislike to a hate. I could come up with more, but they are just conjectured examples and so not really necessary if you get the idea.

ArqArturo

2013-11-06, 09:53 PM

So...there's a a bad feat, that you're not paying real money for, and people are complaining?

Sounds like a feat for a troll character - bad by design.

PS: PF Rangers have medium armor proficiency out the gate. Not sure if that was clarified, but I'm not running back through people arguing about mithral to find out.

Mithral plate, Sword (I preffer the axe) and Board (spiked of course) dwarf ranger. Maybe not the most optimized of builds, but it looks cool in my head.

Psyren

2013-11-06, 09:56 PM

I know there are people that get annoyed with threads talking about how bad PF is, but can we stop with the passive-aggressive defense of PF?

This thread is about a terrible feat, and it includes some people with a dislike for PF making snarky comments, but you really don't need to drop the signal-to-noise ratio even more by making your own.

Ironic, considering this post has nothing to do with the feat either :smalltongue:

But yeah. It's a terrible feat from a bad book. I'd love to leave it there (especially since there's literally nothing else to say about it). In fact, I'll try again right now, we'll see how it goes.

The thread started out with the OP ragging on PF, so I think the insults are more signal and less noise in this case. The feat is pretty obviously garbage, so there's no debate to be had there.

Basically this.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-11-06, 09:56 PM

The thread started out with the OP ragging on PF, so I think the insults are more signal and less noise in this case. The feat is pretty obviously garbage, so there's no debate to be had there.

The feat showcases that, for all of Pathfinder's fixes, it still has considerable issues. When people have recommended PF in the past to me it's often been referred to as "3.75" or "3.5 as it should have been", and this is clearly not the case. PF is just as flawed as 3.5 is, it's just flawed in different ways. This makes some people prefer it.It has the same issue 3.5 and other version of D&D have had: too much content is being produced too quickly, and it's trying to appeal to a very wide audience. **** happens and sometimes it gets published, too.

Boci

2013-11-06, 10:00 PM

Oh, I was not saying that because the perfect solution is impossible it should not be attempted as would be my understanding of the fallacy. Rather I was commenting that if changing your emotions was as easy as you seemed to be saying then everyone would take the perfect solution or something similar. Changing emotional response still can have value but the difficulty often means it is not reasonably worth the time, especially when we are dealing with a leisure activity.

In many ways I could see how the similarity between the two systems could lead to hating one, not in spite of loving the other but rather because of loving the other. If one really really loves 3.5 then perhaps changing things in an undesirable way would be like modifying or even defacing a classic work of art, all the more terrible because it comes from the original. Perhaps one could hate pathfinder for stealing a part of the 3.5 player base. There pathfinder is negatively impacting your 3.5 experience, which could move a dislike to a hate. I could come up with more, but they are just conjectured examples and so not really necessary if you get the idea.

And none of those reasons are valid reasons to hate PF. You can prefer 3.5, but you shouldn't hate PF for making some changes. And it was Wizards that made core 99% of OGL, you can't really blame Paizo for trying. All of your examples involve dislike turning to hate, and that is what should be stopped. It won't be a high priority, people may not be able to change how they feel, but if they don't try then they never will.

Also I was deliberately being unspecific about which system is hated and which is loved. You seem to have assumed PF is going to be the one hated, but I've seen PF players who claim to hate 3.5, which I find just as baffling.

Wasted

2013-11-06, 10:01 PM

Mithral plate, Sword (I preffer the axe) and Board (spiked of course) dwarf ranger. Maybe not the most optimized of builds, but it looks cool in my head.

You'll need to take Heavy Armor Proficiency feat to wear the plate, but it's totally doable. PF Rangers are d10 HD warriors, above all else. Take the Weapon and Shield combat style from APG as well, free up those feat slots :)

After playing Pathfinder for a while, I hate 3.5. I'll admit it. Doesn't mean I won't play it, though. 3.5 has plenty of content and character classes that I still love.

3.5 has always felt too low-powered, IMO, unless you truly dig around into the splatbooks and slap together feats and class combinations that are often difficult to tie into a character story. I don't have to do that nearly as much in PF. It takes many less resources to build a very strong and optimal character in PF than 3.5.

They both have their flaws (Vancian Magic being one, 3.5 having levels where people get nothing, PF still using armor = AC, etc), but given the choice, I would rather convert 3.5 content to PF, not the reverse.

gooddragon1

2013-11-06, 10:06 PM

olentu

2013-11-06, 10:11 PM

And none of those reasons are valid reasons to hate PF. You can prefer 3.5, but you shouldn't hate PF for making some changes. And it was Wizards that made core 99% of OGL, you can't really blame Paizo for trying. All of your examples involve dislike turning to hate, and that is what should be stopped. It won't be a high priority, people may not be able to change how they feel, but if they don't try then they never will.

Also I was deliberately being unspecific about which system is hated and which is loved. You seem to have assumed PF is going to be the one hated, but I've seen PF players who claim to hate 3.5, which I find just as baffling.

Why would you say they are invalid reasons for hating pathfinder. Why should you not hate pathfinder for making some changes given that you may feel negatively about the changes. Why can't you blame paizo for trying if you feel that their trying had a negative impact and, as I have often seen expressed, they really should have known better. I am using dislike and hate as merely different regions on the same scale and so I see no reason why sufficient negative feeling would not compound to move someone's opinion from the lesser region to the greater. But perhaps you are using dislike and hate in a different way.

Eh, the discussion started with a comment by someone who hated pathfinder, so remained working under that idea. I mean I could come up with something like, say, 3.5 adherents holding back the evolution of RPG development as a reason why one would hate 3.5.

ArqArturo

2013-11-06, 10:25 PM

You'll need to take Heavy Armor Proficiency feat to wear the plate, but it's totally doable. PF Rangers are d10 HD warriors, above all else. Take the Weapon and Shield combat style from Ultimate Combat as well, free up those feat slots :)

After playing Pathfinder for a while, I hate 3.5. I'll admit it. 3.5 has always felt too low-powered, unless you truly dig around into the splatbooks and slap together feats and class combinations that are often difficult to tie into a character story.

They both have their flaws (Vancian Magic being one, 3.5 having levels where people get nothing, PF still using armor = AC, etc), but given the choice, I would rather convert 3.5 content to PF, not the reverse.

I forgot mithral doesn't work like it did before in 3.5. I still like the idea :), and I might work on it.

My problem with 3.5, above all else is:

1.- Bulk of useless options (I equate it to the bubble wrap in packaging, but even that is more fun)
2.- Immense dipping to get what you want.

PF at least gives you incentives to stay in your class with the archetypes. Yes, it has some power creep issues, but every game has them, if you know where to look.

Coidzor

2013-11-06, 10:31 PM

PF at least gives you incentives to stay in your class with the archetypes. Yes, it has some power creep issues, but every game has them, if you know where to look.

Of course, part of that is because the developers have, IIRC, a personal vendetta against multiclassing and prestige classes, and so they've actively worked against such being viable.

The fact that they also fixed Arcane Archer to not be a complete waste of ink is something of a miracle, considering that.

ArqArturo

2013-11-06, 10:36 PM

Of course, part of that is because the developers have, IIRC, a personal vendetta against multiclassing and prestige classes, and so they've actively worked against such being viable.

The fact that they also fixed Arcane Archer to not be a complete waste of ink is something of a miracle, considering that.

Not to mention the Dragon Disciple, too.

However, I'm a little amazed that they didn't do an Arcane Gunslinger PrC... Then again, there's the Spellslinger archetype from the Wizard (which is fun, btw), and you can't really call it Arcane Gunslinger because of the other gaming company, Privateer Press, since they have their RPG with that class :smallamused:.

nedz

2013-11-06, 10:49 PM

Of course, part of that is because the developers have, IIRC, a personal vendetta against multiclassing and prestige classes, and so they've actively worked against such being viable.

The fact that they also fixed Arcane Archer to not be a complete waste of ink is something of a miracle, considering that.

Well they do seem to have moved back in the direction of AD&D slightly, with their trees of classes and subclasses archetypes. It's just about the architecture of the class system really: Hierarchical or Modular.

Coidzor

2013-11-06, 10:51 PM

Not to mention the Dragon Disciple, too.

However, I'm a little amazed that they didn't do an Arcane Gunslinger PrC... Then again, there's the Spellslinger archetype from the Wizard (which is fun, btw), and you can't really call it Arcane Gunslinger because of the other gaming company, Privateer Press, since they have their RPG with that class :smallamused:.

It's like Christmas up in here with all these miracles. :smallamused:

Well, they also seem to hate Gunslingers (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8c0&page=1?Query-on-new-limits-to-number-of-free-actions) despite having come up with them in the first place, so there's that possibility as well.

ArqArturo

2013-11-06, 11:03 PM

It's like Christmas up in here with all these miracles. :smallamused:

Well, they also seem to hate Gunslingers (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8c0&page=1?Query-on-new-limits-to-number-of-free-actions) despite having come up with them in the first place, so there's that possibility as well.

Having personally seen the nightmare gunslingers can be, I sort of approve :smallbiggrin:.

Ravens_cry

2013-11-07, 12:22 AM

Having personally seen the nightmare gunslingers can be, I sort of approve :smallbiggrin:.
It's more a recommendation more than anything, so DM's have an idea just what is meant by a reasonable amount.

peacenlove

2013-11-07, 05:12 AM

It's more a recommendation more than anything, so DM's have an idea just what is meant by a reasonable amount.

Also the limits were removed recently (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9r85). So blame the DM not the system if he doesn't allow you to make 5+ ranged attacks/round.

Ravens_cry

2013-11-07, 05:14 AM

Also the limits were removed recently (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9r85). So blame the DM not the system if he doesn't allow you to make 5+ ranged attacks/round.
Wish they could be more specific, but it's probably the right choice. Sometimes a DM must use their own judgement.

Spuddles

2013-11-07, 06:40 AM

IronFist

2013-11-07, 07:16 AM

You just gotta let it roll off your back IF. Eventually they'll get bored, until they can "discover" something else tucked away in Skull & Shackles #37 or Gods of Golarion or something.

Well, you can't really blame me for trying to hold back the storm when nothing else can, right? :smallwink:

You're not the boss of me.
That was so mature.

LordBlades

2013-11-07, 09:31 AM

That was so mature.

Telling somebody that the way he feels about something is wrong isn't the most mature thing to do either.

Boci

2013-11-07, 09:44 AM

But perhaps you are using dislike and hate in a different way.

Pretty much this. to me, the reasons you are listing are reasons to dislike a system, which I still find odd, but still falls with in the bounds of "meh, there no accounting for taste". Its when hate (and refusal to use the system) is claimed that I do I double take.

Telling somebody that the way he feels about something is wrong isn't the most mature thing to do either.

All generalizations are dangerous, even this one.

eggynack

2013-11-07, 09:49 AM

Pretty much this. to me, the reasons you are listing are reasons to dislike a system, which I still find odd, but still falls with in the bounds of "meh, there no accounting for taste". Its when hate (and refusal to use the system) is claimed that I do I double take.

I think that some of the reason for that shift from dislike to hate, at least for some people, has to do with SKR. He says a lot of things that are really divisive, and he says them in a way that can often come across as insulting to people who disagree with him. You can dislike something without ever feeling much about it, but to hate something, you've gotta have some emotional component. SKR might provide that emotional component.

LordBlades

2013-11-07, 09:51 AM

All generalizations are dangerous, even this one.

In this case I disagree. Feelings are by definition subjective and as such there's no place for 'right' or 'wrong' when discussing them.

Boci

2013-11-07, 09:55 AM

I think that some of the reason for that shift from dislike to hate, at least for some people, has to do with SKR. He says a lot of things that are really divisive, and he says them in a way that can often come across as insulting to people who disagree with him. You can dislike something without ever feeling much about it, but to hate something, you've gotta have some emotional component. SKR might provide that emotional component.

Maybe, its just I can't relate. Sure, SKR says some really stupid things. I had to take a 5 minute break when I read his "poverty should suck" post, but I didn't hate PF because of that.

In this case I disagree. Feelings are by definition subjective and as such there's no place for 'right' or 'wrong' when discussing them.

There's a lot of grey area I'll grant you that, but we as a society do have some pretty common guidelines for examples of when it is and isn't acceptable to hate something/someone.

Perseus

2013-11-07, 09:59 AM

Hot damn that sucks...

Paizo must be making up for all their broken feats during their Dragon Mag days...

I wonder if this will become a habit from them?

Or maybe they are going to start introducing a lot of more stupid things so that once 5e comes out they can jump to that edition for a fresh new start?

Well played SKR well played....

LordBlades

2013-11-07, 09:59 AM

There's a lot of grey area I'll grant you that, but we as a society do have some pretty common guidelines for examples of when it is and isn't acceptable to hate something/someone.

I think most social pressure revolves around acting on that hate rather than the hate itself. In the end, you can't really police somebody's mind (yet).

Boci

2013-11-07, 10:01 AM

I think most social pressure revolves around acting on that hate rather than the hate itself. In the end, you can't really police somebody's mind (yet).

No, but that doesn't mean you can't question whether someone is really justified in hating X. I mean an opinion can never really be wrong either, that doesn't stop them from being debated on this forum.

Scow2

2013-11-07, 10:09 AM

And none of those reasons are valid reasons to hate PF. You can prefer 3.5, but you shouldn't hate PF for making some changes. And it was Wizards that made core 99% of OGL, you can't really blame Paizo for trying. All of your examples involve dislike turning to hate, and that is what should be stopped. It won't be a high priority, people may not be able to change how they feel, but if they don't try then they never will.

Also I was deliberately being unspecific about which system is hated and which is loved. You seem to have assumed PF is going to be the one hated, but I've seen PF players who claim to hate 3.5, which I find just as baffling.Pathfinder is defined by its differences from 3.5, and there are some changes that completely screw up the system. Also, the product's image is a major part of its identity, and Pathfinder's image ("3.5 as it should have been!") is a big fat lie. Every point Pathfinder misses and obviously should have known better is a mark against the system - it tried to refine a game with 13 years of experience, with a system reboot enabling the problems to be fixed, and they did nothing, and often worse than nothing as a whole. Slight rules changes can completely change how the game plays, even if it's not obvious to outside players - it creates a major, hate-fueling dissonance.

And, some people hate 3.5 yet love Pathfinder because Pathfinder did fix some of the problems players had with the system. Playing a game for 10 years and continuously running into 'landmines' in design that actively detract from the gameplay experience WILL drive someone to hate it when they finally get sick of its ****.

eggynack

2013-11-07, 10:10 AM

Maybe, its just I can't relate. Sure, SKR says some really stupid things. I had to take a 5 minute break when I read his "poverty should suck" post, but I didn't hate PF because of that.

You're definitely justified in not hating the system for that. I could just imagine someone else hating the system for that, and being reasonable in that position. This is doubly true if the person in question didn't really like the system to begin with, and is thus less accepting of things that provoke negative emotional responses. Another problem with PF, and I believe that it is a fair point, is that PF had the opportunity to remove many of the balance issues from 3.5, or at least some of them, and they really didn't. They had a lot of time to do so, and they had an absolutely ridiculous amount of community understanding of the problems with 3.5, and they just didn't care. I know they were going for compatibility, but I doubt that it would have been impossible to do better on the balance issue while retaining the amount of compatibility they needed.

I think that I'm more on the general dislike side of the spectrum, partially because I think they did a good job with some stuff. Archetypes are a great idea, and their fix for polymorph is one of the better ones I've seen. However, I can understand hate. It's more than SKR saying stupid stuff every once in awhile. It's about the fact that I think that he hates us (here defined as people who are like me), and that doesn't really push me towards a not-hate place.

Psyren

2013-11-07, 10:13 AM

It has the same issue 3.5 and other version of D&D have had: too much content is being produced too quickly, and it's trying to appeal to a very wide audience. **** happens and sometimes it gets published, too.

This I agree with. At least the "Advanced" and "Ultimate" line appears to get decent playtesting and regular FAQs/errata.

Pathfinder is defined by its differences from 3.5, and there are some changes that completely screw up the system.

Unadulterated bull****. Not a single change has "completely screwed up" the system, otherwise it wouldn't be playable.

And of course there are the changes that were fantastic, like polymorph. The Giant himself endorsed PF Polymorph as the best he's ever seen, even better than his (minus keeping PAO of course.)

Also, the product's image is a major part of its identity, and Pathfinder's image ("3.5 as it should have been!") is a big fat lie.

*chug*

LordBlades

2013-11-07, 10:20 AM

No, but that doesn't mean you can't question whether someone is really justified in hating X. I mean an opinion can never really be wrong either, that doesn't stop them from being debated on this forum.

Opinions are usually based on some facts, which lends some leverage to an objective discussion. Feelings don't have to be.

Scow2

2013-11-07, 10:55 AM

Unadulterated bull****. Not a single change has "completely screwed up" the system, otherwise it wouldn't be playable.

And of course there are the changes that were fantastic, like polymorph. The Giant himself endorsed PF Polymorph as the best he's ever seen, even better than his (minus keeping PAO of course.)Polymorph and its spells are fixed (At far better than 3.5) - but Polymorph is not the only facet of the system. Skill consolidation was also good (And I like how class skills are handled) - but the game has made skill DCs rise with level even more aggressively than before (Hello, CMB!) While a lot of the martial classes got much-needed Power Boosts, monsters of a given CR are also much tougher than their 3.5 counterparts, often surpassing the boost given to mundane characters (Especially builds that don't try to take advantage of every aspect of their build, which was frequently more forgiving in 3.5)

Pathfinder also likes to give nice things, then take them away again, and their FAQ tends to change the rules in ways that are detrimental to play (Hey, Vital Strike!)

It's not a single change that screws up the system - it's the aggregate of all changes to the underlying systems. Fortunately, Pathfinder is compatible with 3.5 both ways.

Talderas

2013-11-07, 11:11 AM

Disagree strongly. The ratio is better and it's more controllable so that DMs aren't dealing with 4-digit damage because the player found a way to auto-hit.

The ratio is better and that's the only advantage it has. It scales worse with level and it requires to to use the feat or not use it with no elective on how much. Those are the reasons why the PF version sucks.

The feat discussed in the original post sucks because of the fact that PF PA scaling sucks. Since it scales so slowly it's never giving enough of an attack penalty that it would ever grant a benefit unless you can find ways to stack multiple attack penalties from various sources. If PF PA were 3.5 PA and the feat in question forced you to use PA at full penalty then it would be a lot better.

Psyren

2013-11-07, 11:22 AM

Scow2

2013-11-07, 11:42 AM

CMB isn't a skill, and anyway, there are feats, archetypes and buffs/items that boost your checks. Since mundanes have more feats and can craft magic items now, they have access to everything they need to succeed against any CR-appropriate foe.

Vital Strike is indeed worse than full-attacking, and it's supposed to be. It's specifically designed for "I only have a single standard action to attack with, but want higher output."And yet, Vital Strike doesn't apply to most of the attacks/situations where you'd want to make a standard attack instead of a Full Attack.

Many skills (Hello, Acrobatics) are tied to beating an opponent's CMB or other scaling value, making skill investment an all-or-nothing, never-more-than-33%-chance-of-success deal. In order to have basic functionality in a task, you need to fully invest in the feat chain, or end up stuck with nothing because of the increased scaling on the monster side. Yes, you get 3 extra feats over a 3.5 character... but any given build now needs 3 more feats to do the exact same thing, actually delaying progress to end up in the same spot. Feats that used to be useful at low levels are now high-level Class Features or even Capstones (As if going sword+board wasn't harsh enough in 3.5). Classes got nominal boosts, but the collateral damage from system changes undid said boosts.

Mundanes can't craft magic item without paying two feats for the privilege (One to let them take it, and one to craft it)

Perseus

2013-11-07, 11:45 AM

CMB isn't a skill, and anyway, there are feats, archetypes and buffs/items that boost your checks. Since mundanes have more feats and can craft magic items now, they have access to everything they need to succeed against any CR-appropriate foe.

Vital Strike is indeed worse than full-attacking, and it's supposed to be. It's specifically designed for "I only have a single standard action to attack with, but want higher output."

All that the fast scaling did was lead to abuse, particularly once Shock Trooper was invented. Let it be fixed and provide a benefit without the player swinging for the fences and one-shotting everything I say. Feature, not bug.

It is a good thing they fixed what was broke. In 3.5, all those mundanes doing HP damage was such a pain. I'm so glad they stopped wizards/clerics/druids from being the gods of the game.

Yeah... HP damage is not a problem in 3.5, sure it is flashy but itdoesnt really mess up the system.

Having some classes not be able to keep up with the game where other classes can bend the game over and spank the game...Now there is the problem.

I don't care if the Wizard is stronger than the Fighter, just allow the Fighter to be useful and I'm good. PF CMB versus CMD system has the potential to be awesome but it doesn't work unless the attacker optimizes out his wazoo.

And instead of making a fighter who bullrush/trips you should just make a Summoner who's class feature can get crazy high numbers and can reliably do those actions.

Psyren

2013-11-07, 11:49 AM

And yet, Vital Strike doesn't apply to most of the attacks/situations where you'd want to make a standard attack instead of a Full Attack.

The most common situation (I used my move action for something else, and now want to swing) is all that really matters.

Many skills (Hello, Acrobatics) are tied to beating an opponent's CMB or other scaling value, making skill investment an all-or-nothing, never-more-than-33%-chance-of-success deal.

This is intentional - it's to give various archetypes and other class abilities value. If you could regularly succeed on Acrobatics for example using purely feats and skills, you wouldn't need to invest in items, or spend ki, or need magical buffs, or have incentive to pick an acrobatic race or trait etc. If they did not do this, you would have the 3.5 situation where classes/ACFs/PrCs with those abilities and a couple of magical buffs completely obviated the need for a check at all. In 3.5, there is no point in even rolling for Tumble past level 7 or so for instance.

Mundanes can't craft magic item without paying two feats for the privilege (One to let them take it, and one to craft it)

At least they can do it, unlike 3.5 where they had to attend Hogwarts or bust.

It is a good thing they fixed what was broke. In 3.5, all those mundanes doing HP damage was such a pain. I'm so glad they stopped wizards/clerics/druids from being the gods of the game.

Be enlightened. (http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2013/07/stop-your-endless-bitching-about-magic.html)

LordBlades

2013-11-07, 11:56 AM

It is a good thing they fixed what was broke. In 3.5, all those mundanes doing HP damage was such a pain. I'm so glad they stopped wizards/clerics/druids from being the gods of the game.

Yeah... HP damage is not a problem in 3.5, sure it is flashy but itdoesnt really mess up the system.

Having some classes not be able to keep up with the game where other classes can bend the game over and spank the game...Now there is the problem.

I don't care if the Wizard is stronger than the Fighter, just allow the Fighter to be useful and I'm good. PF CMB versus CMD system has the potential to be awesome but it doesn't work unless the attacker optimizes out his wazoo.

And instead of making a fighter who bullrush/trips you should just make a Summoner who's class feature can get crazy high numbers and can reliably do those actions.

This. Nerfing PA might be considered a feature on it's own(in all honesty, ubercharging often makes me questin the actual need of a HP system), but taken in context it's a bug. They took what was by far the strongest thing a non-caster could do and nerfed it to the ground while casters still have a fair bit of their shiny toys untouched, therefore further widening the gap.

Big Fau

2013-11-07, 11:59 AM

Be enlightened. (http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2013/07/stop-your-endless-bitching-about-magic.html)

That doesn't excuse the fact that we have to plan for them breaking a campaign, including unintentional instances. If a Fighter read the plot for a module there's very little he can do to disrupt it outside of IC communication and magic items. A Caster has dozens of options for completely throwing the plot for a loop. Those were what should have been dealt with, not encounter-enders like Glitterdust and Grease.

Seerow

2013-11-07, 12:01 PM

Be enlightened. (http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2013/07/stop-your-endless-bitching-about-magic.html)

This is a joke right? Do you actually believe that blog makes a convincing argument? The whole first part of that fails on three major points:

First, an appeal to tradition is not a good argument in the first place.

Second, things changed dramatically in the shift from AD&D and before to 3.5, which made Wizards more useful across all levels, including more spells per day, more hit points, a broader selection of spells that was capable of far more than anything Gygax had ever dreamed of.

Third, even if you ignore those mechanical changes, the mindset of the game changed fundamentally. 3rd edition onward isn't a game about a group of people stumbling through a dungeon full of "screw you, die instantly" traps. Sure, it's possible to play that kind of game in the system, but it is not what the game is designed around, or how most people actually play it. The fact that you are not rerolling fresh level one characters every other session for the majority of your play time is a major paradigm shift that makes the whole "Suck now and likely die for a big payoff later" absolutely bunk.

Now, leaving that alone for now, the second half of it boils down to the argument of "Did you track scribing costs? Extra spell books? Did you ever light your party wizard's spellbook on fire with a fireball?". This argument is fundamentally flawed because that restriction applies exclusively to the Wizard. Spoiler: There's a lot of Magic-Users out there that are not the Wizard, and all of them are just as broken. Not to mention if the game is balanced in the first place you don't have to resort to gygaxian asshattery to keep characters in line.

The fact that you consider that article education is really surprising. Honestly considered you smarter than that.

Scow2

2013-11-07, 12:03 PM

The most common situation (I used my move action for something else, and now want to swing) is all that really matters.Can you not hear the cries of non-pouncing Chargers and Spring Attackers?

This is intentional - it's to give various archetypes and other class abilities value. If you could regularly succeed on Acrobatics for example using purely feats and skills, you wouldn't need to invest in items, or spend ki, or need magical buffs, or have incentive to pick an acrobatic race or trait etc. If they did not do this, you would have the 3.5 situation where classes/ACFs/PrCs with those abilities and a couple of magical buffs completely obviated the need for a check at all. In 3.5, there is no point in even rolling for Tumble past level 7 or so for instance.The current situation went too far in the opposite direction with scaling.

Be enlightened. (http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2013/07/stop-your-endless-bitching-about-magic.html)That article is horribly misguided. In pre-3.P editions of D&D, while spellcasters were more powerful, it took them a while to get there instead of starting awesome, and 3e did away with all the things that made being a wizard a hassle... as well as rendering the Fighting Men obsolete by wizardry, when they were still useful in 2e because of their survivability and damage outputs (The former of which got stripped from them because saves don't scale right, and anyone with a poor Will save is either harmless or a liability, and the latter got obviated by encounter-trivializers.)

Perseus

2013-11-07, 12:11 PM

The most common situation (I used my move action for something else, and now want to swing) is all that really matters.

This is intentional - it's to give various archetypes and other class abilities value. If you could regularly succeed on Acrobatics for example using purely feats and skills, you wouldn't need to invest in items, or spend ki, or need magical buffs, or have incentive to pick an acrobatic race or trait etc. If they did not do this, you would have the 3.5 situation where classes/ACFs/PrCs with those abilities and a couple of magical buffs completely obviated the need for a check at all. In 3.5, there is no point in even rolling for Tumble past level 7 or so for instance.

At least they can do it, unlike 3.5 where they had to attend Hogwarts or bust.

Be enlightened. (http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2013/07/stop-your-endless-bitching-about-magic.html)

No. You misunderstand.

I don't care if the Wizard is more powerful than the Fighter. Though it was shown in 4e that it doesn't have to be that way, but people can keep ignoring that if they want.

My problem is that Tier 1 casters destroy the game with little effort. And then they shove these other classes out there and don't give them the tools to keep up with the game.

It isn't class versus class but each individual class versus the game.

Leave the god classes in but how about putting effort into making a mundane class that doesn't suck without a huge amount of optimization? Why should I have to optimize in order to keep up with the game?

Yes I challenge their effort into making their game. They knew the problems of 3.5 and yet they didn't change the underlining problem.

Anyways, I'm done with this on this thread, way to far off topic. If anyone wants to make a "problems with Paizo" thread I'll go there.

Edit: Lol gygaxian asshattery, love it.

ArqArturo

2013-11-07, 12:15 PM

Be enlightened. (http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2013/07/stop-your-endless-bitching-about-magic.html)

Counter-argument of that article: CoDzilla.

EDIT: Also, the magic-breaking Barbarian.

Big Fau

2013-11-07, 12:15 PM

Anyways, I'm done with this on this thread, way to far off topic. If anyone wants to make a "problems with Paizo" thread I'll go there.

I would, but I don't feel like being B&. I'm none too kind when it comes to Paizo.

eggynack

2013-11-07, 12:23 PM

Be enlightened. (http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2013/07/stop-your-endless-bitching-about-magic.html)
Other people have said it already, but it's worth saying again. That blog is just mistaken. Sure, the game is supposed to use linear fighter quadratic wizard as a balancing system, and it's a system that I disagree with, but that's not really the problem. The problem is that the first part of that paradigm, that fighters are significantly better in the early levels, just isn't the case. At first level, the fighter is maybe a tiny amount more powerful than the wizard, and he still lacks the wizard's versatility. By level three or five, the wizard is already outperforming the fighter, and later on, things obviously get ridiculous. For a druid, who is better than a fighter in most ways at first level, this paradigm doesn't even begin to come into play. There is no linear fighter quadratic wizard here. There's just equality early, and super wizards later, and there's barely a trade off at all for the wizardly craziness.

Read those quotes they cite about earlier editions. Would you say that it is a "long hard road to the top," for a wizard in 3.5? Would you say that "low-level magic-users are quite weak,"? How about that, "He is weak in a toe to toe fight," especially when we talk about druids? Moreover, most of the balancing factors against wizards that are listed in the second half of the blog aren't much of an issue at all. Are scribing costs really that prohibitive in 3.5? Is it really that difficult to learn a spell? Is there a maximum number of spells known based on intelligence? Is there some sort of massive spell research cost necessary to make wizards good (I don't know if he's talking about making up new spells, and if he is, I don't think that's necessary)? Is there some cost for travelling spellbooks that I'm unaware of? Most of these factors don't even exist in 3.5, and he expects us to just draw some broad equivalency between the two situations. It is utterly ridiculous.

Boci

2013-11-07, 12:27 PM

No. You misunderstand.

I don't care if the Wizard is more powerful than the Fighter. Though it was shown in 4e that it doesn't have to be that way, but people can keep ignoring that if they want.

My problem is that Tier 1 casters destroy the game with little effort. And then they shove these other classes out there and don't give them the tools to keep up with the game.

It isn't class versus class but each individual class versus the game.

Leave the god classes in but how about putting effort into making a mundane class that doesn't suck without a huge amount of optimization? Why should I have to optimize in order to keep up with the game?

Yes I challenge their effort into making their game. They knew the problems of 3.5 and yet they didn't change the underlining problem.

Anyways, I'm done with this on this thread, way to far off topic. If anyone wants to make a "problems with Paizo" thread I'll go there.

But plenty of people have tried to do this and failed. The best minds of 3.5 on this forum don't have an easy fix. Pathfinder made core more balanced, which is a common gaming style, and they alleviated the need for extra books. Without breaking any laws or buying any books, you can access almost all of their material. You don't have to bow down to the new savior of RPGs, but burning them at the stake because they didn't deliver on some perceived promise to lead us to the promised land isn't exactly fair either. They could have fixed 3.5 by making major changes, but maybe they didn't want to, and hating them for that is not really justified.

LordBlades

2013-11-07, 12:28 PM

Even if 'wizards are weaker at low levels and stronger at high levels' was working as intended, it still wouldn't be a proper balancing factor, because there's no way to force somebody to play a character from level 1 to level 20. What's there to stop somebody to start as a fighter and later on withdarw or kill off the fighter and come back as a wizard?

Also, I'm willing to bet 1-20 campaigns are a minority.

Perseus

2013-11-07, 12:36 PM

Totally came back to make a comment on how bad some other feats are when I saw this gem and couldn't help myself.

But plenty of people have tried to do this and failed. Pathfinder made core more balanced, which is a common gaming style, and they alleviated the need for extra books. Without breaking any laws or buying any books, you can access almost all of their material. You don't have to bow down to the new savior of RPGs, but burning them at the stake because they didn't deliver on some perceived promise to lead us to the promised land isn't exactly fair either.

Please make a thread about this so that people will explain to you everything wrong with it.

And hint: no more balanced than 3.5 and they did make promises and then went back on them (much like my promise to stop being off topic, except I'm owning up to my broken promise and I'm not selling a product I know is inferior to what I promised.)

Boci

2013-11-07, 12:42 PM

Totally came back to make a comment on how bad some other feats are when I saw this gem and couldn't help myself.

Please make a thread about this so that people will explain to you everything wrong with it.

And hint: no more balanced than 3.5 and they did make promises and then went back on them (much like my promise to stop being off topic, except I'm owning up to my broken promise and I'm not selling a product I know is inferior to what I promised.)

1. A game not living up to its marketing hype? Can it be? Its possible I'm missing something, but I've never heard anything solid mentioned. So until it is, I'm going to assume its just people grasping at straws over marketing hype. Much like WotC when 4th edition was released. I don't expect Paizo to say "house rules could probably have done this just as good a band aid", regardless of whether its true or not.

2. Again, conventional wisdom is in my understanding that PF core is better than 3.5 core. If this is so obviously wrong I'm then surely I don't need to make a thread about it, you can point me towards a thread that already details that.

Psyren

2013-11-07, 12:44 PM

First, an appeal to tradition is not a good argument in the first place.

Looking at the past is in fact a good way to determine why things are the way they are.

Second, things changed dramatically in the shift from AD&D and before to 3.5, which made Wizards more useful across all levels, including more spells per day, more hit points, a broader selection of spells that was capable of far more than anything Gygax had ever dreamed of.

They are still very vulnerable at low levels. A single unlucky arrow or Shocking Grasp can end your wizard's career in 3.5 despite all precautions.

CoDzilla I agree with you is a problem - but at low levels, Druids are almost as vulnerable (the metal armor restriction is a pretty big deal before Wild Shape) and Clerics can take it but have a harder time dishing it out. The paradigm applies to them somewhat less than for the "clothies," but it's nevertheless there.

Third, even if you ignore those mechanical changes, the mindset of the game changed fundamentally. 3rd edition onward isn't a game about a group of people stumbling through a dungeon full of "screw you, die instantly" traps. Sure, it's possible to play that kind of game in the system, but it is not what the game is designed around, or how most people actually play it. The fact that you are not rerolling fresh level one characters every other session for the majority of your play time is a major paradigm shift that makes the whole "Suck now and likely die for a big payoff later" absolutely bunk.
...
The fact that you consider that article education is really surprising. Honestly considered you smarter than that.

Oh, this is truly rich :smallbiggrin: Putting aside that your opinion of me matters to me about as much as my pocket lint, I notice you haven't actually addressed the fact that OD&D did spell out that casters are supposed to be the most powerful characters in the game. When exactly that happens is a matter for debate, sure, but not the fact that they will get there if they play long enough.

So yeah, in my sig it shall stay, deal.

Boci

2013-11-07, 12:49 PM

For what its worth Psyren, I don't think much of that article either to put it not in the least because the fluff in 3.5 doesn't spell out that casters reign supreme, unless I missed something. I get that the opinions of strangers on the internet don't mean too much, but at this point quite a few have found the article unconvincing and no one has agreed with it.

eggynack

2013-11-07, 12:53 PM

Looking at the past is in fact a good way to determine why things are the way they are.
It's a good way to tell you why things are the way they are, but it's a pretty bad way to tell you that things should remain the way they are.

They are still very vulnerable at low levels. A single unlucky arrow or Shocking Grasp can end your wizard's career in 3.5 despite all precautions.
Pretty much everyone is decently vulnerable at low levels, and wizards have some powerful defenses that fighters lack. You're looking at a situation of parity between the two classes at best, in terms of overall power level.

CoDzilla I agree with you is a problem - but at low levels, Druids are almost as vulnerable (the metal armor restriction is a pretty big deal before Wild Shape) and Clerics can take it but have a harder time dishing it out. The paradigm applies to them somewhat less than for the "clothies," but it's nevertheless there.
Druids aren't really too vulnerable. They have an armor, even if it's not a great one, and the animal companion can act as a personal druid tank. Also, luminous armor can kick in at third level, and that's pretty sweet. Seriously, druids have some minor disadvantages, but they're matched against massive and crazy advantages. They're just significantly better at low levels, so you're left with a class that's great at low levels, and great at high levels.

Oh, this is truly rich :smallbiggrin: Putting aside that your opinion of me matters to me about as much as my pocket lint, I notice you haven't actually addressed the fact that OD&D did spell out that casters are supposed to be the most powerful characters in the game. When exactly that happens is a matter for debate, sure, but not the fact that they will get there if they play long enough.
No, they didn't just spell out that casters are supposed to be the best. They explicitly said that casters are supposed to be the best later. No matter how you look at it, they changed that aspect of the situation, and you're left with fighters having virtually no advantages. That blog's claim is that things are the same as they ever were, and that's just not true. That blog is a really really poor argument for what you're trying to prove. I'm not sure why you defend it so adamantly.

Big Fau

2013-11-07, 12:56 PM

But plenty of people have tried to do this and failed. The best minds of 3.5 on this forum don't have an easy fix.

There is no easy fix. There never will be; this system is just too expansive for a single easy fix. But Pathfinder was not a "fix", it was a continuation. It did nothing to the overall balance of the game. Fighters are still easily replaced (Summoners have their Eidolon, Clerics can still tank, Druids still have a [nerfed] animal companion, etc). Feat trees are now even worse due to changes, but metamagic was largely untouched. Class skills are now meaningless, and Trapfinding is a footnote at best. Magic items are still overpriced BS and many OP items are still around (they actually made the Dust of Sneezing and Choking cheaper, technically). Monsters still walk all over noncasters, only now the noncasters lack ways to one-round most of them.

Boci

2013-11-07, 12:59 PM

There is no easy fix. There never will be; this system is just too expansive for a single easy fix. But Pathfinder was not a "fix", it was a continuation. It did nothing to the overall balance of the game.

Again, my understanding is that PF is a modest fix for core only groups, plus it allows low income groups to have access to much splat without breaking the law. If this is wrong feel free to connect me to a thread where the truth/alternate theory is laid out.

Psyren

2013-11-07, 01:00 PM

It's a good way to tell you why things are the way they are, but it's a pretty bad way to tell you that things should remain the way they are.

World-building/verisimilitude does that. What incentive is there to painstakingly learn magic if it has no payoff? Or as the Giant put it: "What possible incentive is there to spend decades mastering the subtle and complex art of magic, when the same level of power can be achieved by bumming around a bad neighborhood?"

Pretty much everyone is decently vulnerable at low levels, and wizards have some powerful defenses that fighters lack. You're looking at a situation of parity between the two classes at best, in terms of overall power level.

A wizard's only defenses are spells, which are unreliable at best at low levels. For example, Mage Armor lasts only an hour per casting at 1st-level, whereas a good breastplate can be worn all day.

Druids aren't really too vulnerable. They have an armor, even if it's not a great one, and the animal companion can act as a personal druid tank. Also, luminous armor can kick in at third level, and that's pretty sweet.

Okay, so, before you continue - I agree that 3.5 Druids pretty much turn this on their head. That's why they needed to be nerfed, and PF did that.

No, they didn't just spell out that casters are supposed to be the best. They explicitly said that casters are supposed to be the best later. No matter how you look at it, they changed that aspect of the situation, and you're left with fighters having virtually no advantages.

I disagree - being a caster with no meatshield at low levels is still a very dicey proposition. Being melee at low levels is risky but you're generally able to succeed - a Fighter or Barbarian probably won't crumple from getting shanked by a goblin rogue, and the orc has to spot the Rogue before he can skewer him with a thrown spear. The wizard, cleric and even druid (at least in PF, again) don't have these advantages.

That blog's claim is that things are the same as they ever were, and that's just not true. That blog is a really really poor argument for what you're trying to prove. I'm not sure why you defend it so adamantly.

None of you has come forward and said "the quotes he pulled from older editions are incorrect." Because you can't. So yeah.

Big Fau

2013-11-07, 01:04 PM

None of you has come forward and said "the quotes he pulled from older editions are incorrect." Because you can't. So yeah.

That doesn't change the fact that old-school gaming mentalities do not necessarily apply to 3.5. It isn't that the quotes are incorrect, it's that they are not appropriate for 3.5's mindset.

Seerow

2013-11-07, 01:05 PM

Oh, this is truly rich Putting aside that your opinion of me matters to me about as much as my pocket lint, I notice you haven't actually addressed the fact that OD&D did spell out that casters are supposed to be the most powerful characters in the game. When exactly that happens is a matter for debate, sure, but not the fact that they will get there if they play long enough.

Yeah I failed to address it if you ignored half of my post. You even quoted the relevant bits. :smallconfused:

Seriously you can't ignore that fundamental things changed in the shift from AD&D and before to 3.0 and beyond. Characters became tougher at the outset. Casters gained more spells per day and wider breadth of spells they had access to. Monster design was changed dramatically. These things influence how the game is played. Expectations of character longevity were modified. The game shifted from "Let's see if we can survive this dungeon" to having the general expectation of survival, with character death being the exception as opposed to the rule.

Seriously, when a Wizard jumps from starting with 2 HP and 1 spell per day to starting with 6-10 HP and 3 spells per day (plus cantrips) you'd better believe that makes an impact on both survivability and expectations. A 1st level Wizard in 3.0 onward can be an important member of the team, securing victories in fights that would otherwise have been impossible. They then get exponentially better from there. That goes against the entire idea of "Start weak, get strong" even if you believe starting weak and getting strong is a good philosophy in the first place.

CoDzilla I agree with you is a problem - but at low levels, Druids are almost as vulnerable (the metal armor restriction is a pretty big deal before Wild Shape) and Clerics can take it but have a harder time dishing it out. The paradigm applies to them somewhat less than for the "clothies," but it's nevertheless there.

At the lowest levels studded leather is typically the best armor adventurers are affording anyway. By the time better armor is coming online for other classes (within the next level or two), the Druid has access to options for alternate materials, spells, and such that help make up the difference. Plus there's the difference of pre-level 5 Druid is a backline character, he sends in his companion to deal damage, and supports with ranged attacks and the occasional spell.

He is at the very least a match for the average mundane character, if not better. Again this grossly violates the whole principle of "Casters are supposed to be the strongest because they start weak!" that your blog supports.

Psyren

2013-11-07, 01:06 PM

That doesn't change the fact that old-school gaming mentalities do not necessarily apply to 3.5. It isn't that the quotes are incorrect, it's that they are not appropriate for 3.5's mindset.

A lot of them don't, I agree. The lethality of the game has changed. But the fact that it is more lethal for spellcasters than mundanes, simply due to the presence of proficiencies and necessity of mental stats for casters, really has not.

Big Fau

2013-11-07, 01:09 PM

A lot of them don't, I agree. The lethality of the game has changed. But the fact that it is more lethal for spellcasters than mundanes, simply due to the presence of proficiencies and necessity of mental stats for casters, really has not.

Correction: At 1st-2nd level. 3rd level onward is much easier on a caster than on a noncaster.

Seerow

2013-11-07, 01:14 PM

A lot of them don't, I agree. The lethality of the game has changed. But the fact that it is more lethal for spellcasters than mundanes, simply due to the presence of proficiencies and necessity of mental stats for casters, really has not.

Except it's really not. In the absolute best case scenario you're looking at a Wizard with lower AC and half the HP of a mundane. But if they take a strong hit, they're both pretty likely to drop anyway. Of course if you look at other casters (again the Druid/Cleric stand out here), there's no significant disadvantages in survivability, and several significant advantages (healing, animal companion, defensive buffs).

More to the point, looking not just at survivability, but instead at capability-Those extra first level spell slots the casters get in 3e onward were a huge boon. I remember AD&D wizards having a single spell slot and just hanging back doing little. In 3e you get enough spells you feel like you can at least cast one in every encounter, which makes a huge difference. I can't tell you the number of times I've played first level campaigns where the Wizard/Sorcerer took out as much as the rest of the party combined over the course of a 3-5 encounter day because of this increased endurance.

eggynack

2013-11-07, 01:14 PM

World-building/verisimilitude does that. What incentive is there to painstakingly learn magic if it has no payoff? Or as the Giant put it: "What possible incentive is there to spend decades mastering the subtle and complex art of magic, when the same level of power can be achieved by bumming around a bad neighborhood?"
Because there's a payoff later. That's pretty much the whole point, I think. There's some assertion in that comic that wizards experience some sort of trade off before they even become wizards, and that's just not a trade that's experienced by the player. Also, the difference certainly doesn't need to be on the scale that it's on, where high level mundanes might as well be irrelevant for most purposes.

A wizard's only defenses are spells, which are unreliable at best at low levels. For example, Mage Armor lasts only an hour per casting at 1st-level, whereas a good breastplate can be worn all day.
Well, that and abrupt jaunt, which can be pretty good early on. Also, magical defenses can act on completely different axes than mundane defenses can. Think invisibility or mirror image. At early levels, things come across as different, instead of one option being just better or just worse. At later levels, things come across as wizards being just better. There's no point on the continuum where fighters are just better.

Okay, so, before you continue - I agree that 3.5 Druids pretty much turn this on their head. That's why they needed to be nerfed, and PF did that.
That's fair on both counts. I still felt it was worth note though, because that blog was attacking our assumptions about 3.5, rather than PF.

I disagree - being a caster with no meatshield at low levels is still a very dicey proposition. Being melee at low levels is risky but you're generally able to succeed - a Fighter or Barbarian probably won't crumple from getting shanked by a goblin rogue, and the orc has to spot the Rogue before he can skewer him with a thrown spear. The wizard, cleric and even druid (at least in PF, again) don't have these advantages.

First of all, wizards are definitely better at early levels in 3.5 than they have been at any point in the past. It changes the balancing of the whole paradigm. Second, as I said before, at low levels we're talking about differences in kind. Wizards can shut down whole encounters in a standard, or effect things out of combat, or turn the tables in a way that fighters really can't. The fighter, by contrast, is less fragile, and their stat advantages make more of a difference. That's a difference in kind. At later levels, the fighter has little to no advantage, and anything they can do, a wizard can either do better, or reasonably approximate. I'd rather this not become some ridiculous thing where we talk about exact situations, but it's pretty clear that wizards are just better later, both in and out of combat. One is just better than the other. Thus, you have parity early, and imbalance later.

None of you has come forward and said "the quotes he pulled from older editions are incorrect." Because you can't. So yeah.
His quotes are probably accurate to what was written back then. I'm saying that they don't apply to the game as it exists now. The game balance that existed back then, where wizards sucked for the first half of the game, and did nothing early on, is no longer existent now. Wizards don't suck for the first half of the game. Also, as I noted earlier, many of his cited balancing factors in older editions don't exist now. They're just non-objects. That means that his drawn parallels lose some of their logic.

Psyren

2013-11-07, 01:26 PM

Correction: At 1st-2nd level. 3rd level onward is much easier on a caster than on a noncaster.

That honestly depends; casters require system mastery to truly stand on their own at early levels. For instance, the number of new players that are going to know what Luminous Armor even is, let alone that Druids can freely prepare it, is basically nil.

I agree that 3.5 pushed the levels at which casters can stand without assistance down from where they were in older editions. But that is a good thing as a whole because it means that the game is more forgiving for players that want to learn those casters. Does it also mean that expert players can go on to break the campaign if not held in check by the DM or gentlemen's agreement? Yes, certainly - but the actual proportion of players that even want to do that is much, much lower than forums make them out to be.

Except it's really not. In the absolute best case scenario you're looking at a Wizard with lower AC and half the HP of a mundane. But if they take a strong hit, they're both pretty likely to drop anyway.

But the caster can drop to a medium hit too. And if he's caught out in melee or grappled, it's even worse because there's nothing he can do to fight back. The fighter might crumple to 2-3 hits too, but he can at least give as good as he's getting and has a chance of walking away. If the wizard is in melee, he can't fight back, and there are only specific ways in which he can run, not all of which will work.

I disagree that the disadvantages in survivability for the druid and cleric are insignificant. Yeah, they can match the fighter if given time to buff, but that's one less round (two if you count being caught by surprise) where they are at full effectiveness compared to the mundane. There's also shields - they make a huge difference at lower levels, yet they interfere with spellcasting even on the divine casters. And finally we have proficiencies, which is another area where PF improved by not letting every Cleric pour himself into half-plate from the beginning.

Seerow

2013-11-07, 01:30 PM

I'm curious where you are seeing starting Fighters in half-plate, let alone Clerics. Did Pathfinder give everyone a thousand goldpieces to start with or something?

Squirrel_Dude

2013-11-07, 01:31 PM

Big Fau

2013-11-07, 01:40 PM

But the caster can drop to a medium hit too. And if he's caught out in melee or grappled, it's even worse because there's nothing he can do to fight back. The fighter might crumple to 2-3 hits too, but he can at least give as good as he's getting and has a chance of walking away. If the wizard is in melee, he can't fight back, and there are only specific ways in which he can run, not all of which will work.

The thing is casters have more ways to prevent these things from happening, and do so without needing magic items. Abrupt Jaunt may not exist in PF, but there are spells that bolster a low-level Caster's life expectancy exponentially. Even Aid or False Life goes a long way to keeping a caster alive, removing one of the few deficiency they actually have (smaller HD).

If a melee gets grappled his opponent likely has an ability that boosts it (usually Improved Grab). Casters have the Knowledge skills needed to ID those enemies. Fighters don't (except for PF's CC skills, and Fighters usually don't pump Int; neither do Clerics though). A Fighter will have spent his feats on a singular focus like Tripping (which is non-viable at the low levels in PF due to changes made to the feats), while a caster will have cantrips and spells that are applicable in a wide range of situations. They may not have the perfect spell for every situation, but they usually have a good spell for most encounters.

System mastery plays into it but even at the low end casters (played as something other than suicidal) are going to be the guys running away, while noncasters are going to get minced (barring ambushes, which can TPK at the low levels).

georgie_leech

2013-11-07, 01:41 PM

For what it's worth, my perspective is that discussions of 3.5/AD&D balance has always overly focused on the wizard-fighter relationship, and not the magic-mundane relationship.

I've never heard anyone claims that clerics or druids were weak at the start in AD&D for example. If anything, the claim is that they're two of the more powerful classes in the game. I get that wizards are the poster child for all-powerful caster nerds raining death over the jock fighters, but I'm not sure they've ever been the best example for the failures/success of previous D&D balancing.

Druid, at least, had some pretty hefty problems actually advancing in power past a certain point. They started out strong, had some decent options in mid levels, but didn't get much better. Sort of a reverse Wizard. They also tend to lack the straight damage a Mage can pull off, and because of lower hp totals, damage was very much an important part of power.

Cleric... To be honest, I've never heard someone say they were most powerful at first level. They're one of the most necessary because of the relative lack of healing options (no Wand of CLW for you!), so they tended to get pigeon holed into healing. Since they lacked spontaneous healing, they had to actually memorise said healing spells if the party expected to live through pretty much anything.

Psyren

2013-11-07, 01:41 PM

I'm curious where you are seeing starting Fighters in half-plate, let alone Clerics. Did Pathfinder give everyone a thousand goldpieces to start with or something?

Splint then :smalltongue:

And yes, Clerics/Druids are sturdy (somewhat - again, they have to shift points to mental stats) but without their buffs they will underperform relative to mundanes. Either they'll be able to dish it out but not take it, or vice-versa.

One of the perceived problems with either system is that DMs don't have the number of encounters per day the game actually recommends them to have. Because of that casters never actually run out of steam and their players never feel the need to actually ration their buffs appropriately.

georgie_leech

2013-11-07, 01:48 PM

One of the perceived problems with either system is that DMs don't have the number of encounters per day the game actually recommends them to have. Because of that casters never actually run out of steam and their players never feel the need to actually ration their buffs appropriately.

At 10th level, a Wizard with 24 INT (starting 18, +2 from levels, +4 item) has 28 spells per day memorised, on top of any scrolls or wands they have handy. If you're using the 4-ish encounters per day, that's about 7 spells per battle.

Firechanter

2013-11-07, 01:49 PM

Re Survivability:

#1, the game is still pretty randomly lethal to anyone on levels 1-2; even a Barbarian can quickly succumb to a Greataxe-swinging Orc that lands a lucky Crit. Beyond level 2, it gets more predictable - also for casters. Besides, Clerics and Druids are, if anything, _more_ survivable than a Mundane on _all_ levels. A Fighter may have 12 HP on level 1, a Cleric easily has 20 and a Druid even more, without _any_ optimization.

#2, so what if a character dies? If it happens before level 9, you probably roll a new one. Most groups don't make a new character start over at level 1 (and I for one would flat out refuse to play in such a game). Introducing him 1 level below party average is more common. After level 9, death is just a condition.
Technically - and I've actually seen this done in other people's games - you could roll a Fighter, level him to 10-ish, then swap him out for a Wizard and rock the house.

Big Fau

2013-11-07, 01:50 PM

Splint then :smalltongue:

And yes, Clerics/Druids are sturdy (somewhat - again, they have to shift points to mental stats) but without their buffs they will underperform relative to mundanes. Either they'll be able to dish it out but not take it, or vice-versa.

One of the perceived problems with either system is that DMs don't have the number of encounters per day the game actually recommends them to have. Because of that casters never actually run out of steam and their players never feel the need to actually ration their buffs appropriately.

Most 1st level games I've seen cut short on encounters because no one in the party has longevity. The tiers are actually really screwy at 1st-2nd level, where Crusaders are nearly on-par with Druids in terms of power and Truenamers are at least playable.

Firechanter

2013-11-07, 01:57 PM

One of the perceived problems with either system is that DMs don't have the number of encounters per day the game actually recommends them to have. Because of that casters never actually run out of steam and their players never feel the need to actually ration their buffs appropriately.

Ah right, "But casters have limited Spell Slots" -- that's also just chaff, as the poster above already demonstrated. I'll just say that once, for example, our party kept going until the very last slot was expended and all spells expired, and that endurance run took us from level 9 to 11 _without resting_. That was about the equivalent of _15_ encounters in a single day, with Core-only material and not even any wands.

LordBlades

2013-11-07, 02:05 PM

I disagree that the disadvantages in survivability for the druid and cleric are insignificant. Yeah, they can match the fighter if given time to buff, but that's one less round (two if you count being caught by surprise) where they are at full effectiveness compared to the mundane. There's also shields - they make a huge difference at lower levels, yet they interfere with spellcasting even on the divine casters. And finally we have proficiencies, which is another area where PF improved by not letting every Cleric pour himself into half-plate from the beginning.

A druid that's preparing for a long game (and as such has tanked his Str almost certainly) has no need of a weapon. He can threaten squares with a spiked gauntlet and use a shield without any issues.
There are also light shields for clerics. You can swap your weapon to your shield hand, cast, then swap back.