A Monster for Every Season: Summer 2
You can get A Monster for Every Season: Summer 2 now at Gumroad
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 274
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Good idea. I find the sorc's retraining rules much too stern - one spell every two levels? I know it may hurt consistency if a character retrains all their abilities too often, but surely a blooded spellcaster can learn different spells. I'd consider houseruling it to swapping half-cha-mod spells whenever you level up?
    I think that's a very good houserule, actually. Much more forgiving for players who are new to playing fixed-list classes or when the campaign plot throws the sorcerer a curve-ball.

    I once played a charm-focused bard in a campaign that went from political intrigue to zombie survival over the span of two sessions. I was displeased.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by StreamOfTheSky View Post
    Agreed. Paladin is the only PF class change I 100% prefer to 3E. And archery is much more viable now, albeit all it can do is tons of damage (see above).
    There are, however, lots of trick arrows available. I'm not sure how effective they are from a charop perspective, but at least they exist.

    But yes, I agree that pure-DPR characters aren't all that interesting. At least a Magus or Oracle can be a good melee combatant while still having other options.

    ...wasn't somebody making a Tome of Battle for PF? I know TOB is pretty controversial at times, but at the very least it gives more options to melee'ers.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Dreamscarred are publishing it, I think it's in beta now? There are threads on the topic here and here.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2014

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Agreed. Paladin is the only PF class change I 100% prefer to 3E.
    I'd add Paizo's Duskblade, Artificer and Favored Soul to that list too.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Terazul's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    I'm gonna jump in on this thread because I recently started playing in a Pathfinder game under a friend of mine and ran into the same thing. There are lots of improvements, but many of them are just thinly draped over giant holes in the ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feint's End View Post
    Well as a big supporter of Pathfinder I'd like to mention a few things I think are way better than in 3.5:

    -skills are easier to access for everybody. For somebody who loves to give his characters an edge by selecting certain skills this is amazing. Between putting favoured class boni into skills to traits to pick up the extra skills you want and overall more points (due to the +3 always applying for classskills) it is much easier to customize your characters with skills. Useless skills have been ruled out or ruled together (looking at you concentration and tumble, balance and cohorts).
    I thought this was really cool until I started to build a skillmonkey... and realized I could just play any class and do the same thing. It's great that anyone can be good at anything now, but class skills themselves are also far less important beyond level 1, and it's really easy to add skills to the list. The +3 is certainly useful, but feels like it fades into obscurity pretty quickly.

    -Many, many classes have a much smoother progression than in 3.5. Now what do I mean by that? The powercurve is much smoother. If you want to play a character I can actually recommend a class to you + an archetype and say "take xy-feat and you'll be good to go". In 3.5 a lot of builds needed dips, certain feat combinations and prestige classes to work and more often than not had a breaking point where they became good .... before they were kinda meh.
    This is true, they made staying in a single class much more favorable, between favored class bonuses and abilities that scale off class level. The dearth of decent prestige classes add to that.

    -Faster Feat Progression ... I don't have to explain why this is good.
    This I feel is one of the most misleading things about Pathfinder though. I went in going "oh man, I can make some more versatile melee builds now since I'll have more feats to spread around!", only to find many tricks got their feats split, spread around, and having extra prerequisites taxed on, and then on top of that generally nerfed. I thought about making a tripper. Before, you needed Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip. From those two feats you got +4 on your trip attempt, didn't provoke an attack, and you got a free attack when you succeeded on the attempt. Nice! Now, to get the same result, you need Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, and Greater Trip. Why all that? Well, Improved Trip only gives you a +2 on the check, and no provoke. Greater Trip (requiring BAB +6, so you can't even pull this off at level 1 anymore) gives you that other +2, and lets you make an extra attack... as your Attack of Opportunity for the round. Meaning you don't get the one for them standing up from prone anymore, so if you want the same results, you need Combat Reflexes for more than one AoO a round. Also Dex of at least 12. The same is true for many other tricks; Bull Rush requires two feats just to have the movement provoke Attacks of Opportunity, something it did with 0 feats in 3.5. You certainly do get more feats in Pathfinder, but for replicating many things from 3.5 you often need to expend several more.

    Plus, I see a lot of that same "Sacrifice power for flavor" stuff but dumped into feats. Like, there's the feat that lets you use Tarot Cards as throwing darts for damage. Neat! ...Except that it costs you more to make the deck usable than to just buy the same number of darts, and it requires you to have to use Arcane Strike every round (using up your swift action) if you want to benefit from the feat. So much of Pathfinder for me so far has been Start reading a Feat/Ability -> Think "Hey, that could be really cool!" -> Keep reading, and become thoroughly underwhelmed. There's just a ton of traps.

    -Many classes are better and especially work much better with the ones being nerfed usually being the more powerful ones (exception is monk but monk is easily workable with using hungry ghost qinggong or zen archer qinggong without adding any other dips/prcs). I agree that bard has much less rounds BUT they also got new interesting mechanics and archetypes which actively use their rounds per day (for example soundstriker) opening a whole lot of different possibilities for playing bard. It also makes it more flexible and specified.
    This is true, in that many classes got things to fill dead levels, and several classes (Paladin, Sorcerer) got substantial buffs. Others... not so much.

    I'm doing my best to enjoy the system, but I'm definitely getting the "constrained" vibe. At least at trying to play a more martial character.
    Last edited by Terazul; 2014-05-12 at 08:45 PM.
    Awesome Mordekaiser Pony courtesy of Squeejee!

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    The biggest problem with Pathfinder is that all that lovely 3.5 content (well, some lovely, some not) is all of a sudden off limits. Given the breadth of 3.5 content available, that is going to be a problem. It's getting more palatable with the 3rd party content available, but you can't even guarantee that. Yes, I know, Paizo isn't forcing this to happen. Local DMs are. If PF never existed these DMs would probably still be running 3.5.

    I've found that Inquisitors are second-tier combatants at best. Whereas all the other 2/3 casters can find ways to kick serious ass (i.e. as much as or more than a mundane), Inquisitor just gets too little in the way of combat abilities to matter much. Maybe at lower levels of optimization their tricks stand out a little more? I have found that their skill enhancing spells and abilities make them better skill monkeys than rogues, if you focus on that.

    I agree with StreamOfTheSky regarding mundanes. I've yet to see a full BaB class do something effectively in PF that doesn't revolve around dealing damage or using a couple of skills, and I have seen the 2/3 casters rock in combat as much as the full BaB folk and do other things effectively.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant
    I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    My biggest beef with PF isn't the problems others have mentioned (though I do view them as problems).

    It's that Paizo doesn't learn. In 3.5, it's widely acknowledged that the most broken things are in Core, barring some outliers like Incantatrix. But you'll notice as 3.5 went on, WotC started publishing things like Magic of Incarnum, Binder, Duskblade, and Tome of Battle-- they were trying to add balanced options. Heck, the Magic Item Compendium even has a disclaimer that essentially said that WotC had goofed on prices, and now they were fixing that.

    Paizo, on the other hand, continues to regularly great things for casters. Mundanes, on the other hand, get next to nothing, and when something good sneaks through it gets nerfed (I'm bitter about Crane Wing, I admit it). They really need to read the Guy at the Gym Fallacy, because they have a bad case of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dire_Stirge View Post
    Don't you see it? The inert Shrieker may have more raw power, but the rock has something the Shrieker will never have. VERSATILITY.

    Also, the rock will probably be lighter than the Shrieker, allowing it to be used as a improvised thrown weapon should the need arise.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Feint's End's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by GoodbyeSoberDay View Post
    I've found that Inquisitors are second-tier combatants at best. Whereas all the other 2/3 casters can find ways to kick serious ass (i.e. as much as or more than a mundane), Inquisitor just gets too little in the way of combat abilities to matter much. Maybe at lower levels of optimization their tricks stand out a little more? I have found that their skill enhancing spells and abilities make them better skill monkeys than rogues, if you focus on that.
    I don't quite understand how you got the second-tier combatant vibe. Are you just talking damage or general combat usefulness. Damagewise strength inquisitors are higher than Barbarians and Fighters (they can selfbuff much better) and from a general utility perspective they also have more options and things to do besides "I hit it with a stick".

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Terazul View Post
    This I feel is one of the most misleading things about Pathfinder though. I went in going "oh man, I can make some more versatile melee builds now since I'll have more feats to spread around!", only to find many tricks got their feats split, spread around, and having extra prerequisites taxed on, and then on top of that generally nerfed. I thought about making a tripper. Before, you needed Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip. From those two feats you got +4 on your trip attempt, didn't provoke an attack, and you got a free attack when you succeeded on the attempt. Nice! Now, to get the same result, you need Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, and Greater Trip. Why all that? Well, Improved Trip only gives you a +2 on the check, and no provoke. Greater Trip (requiring BAB +6, so you can't even pull this off at level 1 anymore) gives you that other +2, and lets you make an extra attack... as your Attack of Opportunity for the round. Meaning you don't get the one for them standing up from prone anymore, so if you want the same results, you need Combat Reflexes for more than one AoO a round. Also Dex of at least 12. The same is true for many other tricks; Bull Rush requires two feats just to have the movement provoke Attacks of Opportunity, something it did with 0 feats in 3.5. You certainly do get more feats in Pathfinder, but for replicating many things from 3.5 you often need to expend several more.
    This paragraph was great. I'd just like to add, on top of splitting martial feats and giving them higher pre-requisites, the "more feats" thing is also just plainly misleading. It's identical until level 5 at which point Pf has a 1 feat lead, equals out again at level 6, then from levels 7-10 it's that one feat lead again. The vast majority of play is done at these levels. You're not actually getting much more feats, even if they hadn't split up the martial feats. Then add in that PF doesn't have flaws (there's drawbacks to get +1 trait, which *can* be better than a feat power-wise, but it doesn't do jack to help martials climb up their massive feat trees), and I actually feel way more feat starved in PF as a martial than in 3E.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Feint's End's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by StreamOfTheSky View Post
    This paragraph was great. I'd just like to add, on top of splitting martial feats and giving them higher pre-requisites, the "more feats" thing is also just plainly misleading. It's identical until level 5 at which point Pf has a 1 feat lead, equals out again at level 6, then from levels 7-10 it's that one feat lead again. The vast majority of play is done at these levels. You're not actually getting much more feats, even if they hadn't split up the martial feats. Then add in that PF doesn't have flaws (there's drawbacks to get +1 trait, which *can* be better than a feat power-wise, but it doesn't do jack to help martials climb up their massive feat trees), and I actually feel way more feat starved in PF as a martial than in 3E.
    I agree with Terazul and you but I haven't realized it as that big of a problem because I barely play full mundane. Inquisitors for example work fine if you just add power attack .. their classfeatures do the rest of pulling. That way you can save feats for more interesting things.
    Psychic Warriors the same ... just pick power attack and you are good to go. If you don't fancy a special style of combat that is and even then chances are you can get there easily with using the right path.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Pluto! View Post
    The only thing I can say to this is welcome to class-based RPGs.
    That is an excellent rebuttal and point. Strange I kinda like most of the class based stuff. The shift of focus from multiclassing is what threw me off, I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kudaku View Post
    Are you sure you got this right? A typical bard will start off with ~7 rounds of Inspire Courage, and it goes up by +2 rounds with each additional level - you'll rapidly reach the double digits. I'm playing a 6th level martial bard at the moment and I have 17 rounds/day - more than enough for our typical encounters.
    Thanks for pointing that out. I've been level 3 for a while now, but I only wrote the 4+Cha rounds on my character sheet, so that'll help.


    I must admit, it is nice to see that some people have similar issues that I do. They put it in a much more eloquent and well informed way, though. The trap feats were annoying in 3.5 and they still are in pathfinder. That tarot card feat is a perfect example of what I meant when I said they tie the wrong mechanics into the wrong flavor. If I want to say that my darts are tarot cards, I should be able to do that. No feat tax, just use the same stats. But the existence of the feat implies that I can't do that, I have to sacrifice power for flavor.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Ssalarn View Post
    Oracle is a great divine addition. Their ability to hyper-specialize means they can basically pick any one thing the Cleric can do and do it twice as well, at the cost of being about a quarter less effective at everything else. Life Oracle is pretty much the best healer in the game, and one of the few classes that makes in-combat healing a smart and effective choice.
    This. I'm playing one now. Another player has done the calculations. I effectively double or triple everyone's hit points depending on the combat, and I don't even have the Life Link Revelation that many people crow about. As a spontaneous caster I also get to cast Blessing of Fervor every combat, a superb buff spell. Even the option to stand up from prone as a swift action without provoking an attack of opportunity has proven to be a great asset.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feint's End View Post

    Enter Vitalist. I honestly think that Vitalist beats Life Oracle when it comes to healing by effectively turning the whole group into a single health pool.
    Vitalist is good, but it needs another person to initiate the healing. A Vitalist cohort to a Cleric or Life Oracle is sublime.
    Last edited by Pex; 2014-05-12 at 09:58 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by OgresAreCute View Post
    "Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons fifth edition, where the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter."

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Renegade Paladin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Myrmidon View Post
    Or a rogue who isn't actually that dextrous, but still put plenty of hurt on people. Pathfinder seems to just say "a rogue is a street urchin who can do flips"
    One of the guys who plays Pathfinder Society around here plays a rogue. He has 18 Strength and uses a longspear. You were saying?
    "Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein


  14. - Top - End - #44
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by GoodbyeSoberDay View Post
    ***

    I've found that Inquisitors are second-tier combatants at best. Whereas all the other 2/3 casters can find ways to kick serious ass (i.e. as much as or more than a mundane), Inquisitor just gets too little in the way of combat abilities to matter much. Maybe at lower levels of optimization their tricks stand out a little more? I have found that their skill enhancing spells and abilities make them better skill monkeys than rogue***.

    I feel like you may be doing it wrong. The Inquisitor is a beast in combat. Judgements, Bane, Solo Tactics, Inquisitions/Domains, and a number of solid divine buffs let the Inquisitor tromp serious face, while stepping in as a very competent skill-monkey and doing any heal-sticking required. They are major contenders for best Tier 3 class in the game, with much better staying power than the Magus and better DPR than the Bard. They've also got a great optimization threshold as their class abilities provide a solid chassis that's hard to screw up, and there's a plethora of tricks you can pull off to make them great in melee or at range.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    ...Vitalist is good, but it needs another person to initiate the healing. A Vitalist cohort to a Cleric or Life Oracle is sublime.
    Hrm?
    3 HP/PP spent, Network power that can target anyone in the collective. For a second level character, that ain't bad. And then they get Mend Body at 5th, with even better returns if she expends her focus, and it can be empowered or maximized if that's your thing...

    Of course, vigor is an even better return for the same PP spent. The Vitalist in my party is easily doubling the beatsticks' HP, and providing them with a set of defensive buffs and traditional healing similar to an oracle's. From 120' away. Plus they can slowly rotate their powers known day-by-day, leaving them more flexible to deal with emergencies or unusual situations.

    Honestly, I consider DSP's products to be the main reason to play PF. Paizo themselves consistently come off as fairly "meh;" seems like for every idiocy like Fickle Winds or Prone Sniper they've published, they've put out a gem like Clustered Shots or the Inquisitor.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Feint's End View Post
    I don't quite understand how you got the second-tier combatant vibe. Are you just talking damage or general combat usefulness. Damagewise strength inquisitors are higher than Barbarians and Fighters (they can selfbuff much better) and from a general utility perspective they also have more options and things to do besides "I hit it with a stick".
    Quote Originally Posted by Ssalarn View Post
    I feel like you may be doing it wrong. The Inquisitor is a beast in combat. Judgements, Bane, Solo Tactics, Inquisitions/Domains, and a number of solid divine buffs let the Inquisitor tromp serious face, while stepping in as a very competent skill-monkey and doing any heal-sticking required. They are major contenders for best Tier 3 class in the game, with much better staying power than the Magus and better DPR than the Bard. They've also got a great optimization threshold as their class abilities provide a solid chassis that's hard to screw up, and there's a plethora of tricks you can pull off to make them great in melee or at range.
    I haven't actually played an inquisitor; I've only seen them from across the table. It is quite possible that I just haven't seen a good combat-focused Inquisitor build; if either of you have one I'd love to see it. The judgments seem... very minor. Bane is nice, probably their best combat feature, but not as good as other combat characters' tricks. I'd rather have rage powers, spell channeling, eidolon evolutions, smite evil, sound striker, et cetera.

    I definitely agree that they can do things outside of combat. It was just my suspicion that they're better off focusing in non-combat stuff. Solo Tactics and Inquisition/Domains seem more utility-focused to me, and most of their spells deal with skills. All that screams "skill monkey/utility with a side of so-so combat features" to me.

    Again, I'd love to see a build around levels 5-10. We could compare it to various benchmarks, like T5 (Gunslinger), T4 (Paladin), and T3 (Summoner).
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant
    I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ponyville
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Turion View Post
    Paizo themselves consistently come off as fairly "meh;" seems like for every idiocy like Fickle Winds or Prone Sniper they've published, they've put out a gem like Clustered Shots or the Inquisitor.
    Now now...they Errata'd Prone Shooter, it DOES SOMETHING now.
    Monkey Lunge still remains useless. Feel free to pick on it from now on.
    [retired]

    Horribly out of date guide goes here:
    Oradin Guide

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    bekeleven's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Terazul View Post
    This I feel is one of the most misleading things about Pathfinder though. I went in going "oh man, I can make some more versatile melee builds now since I'll have more feats to spread around!", only to find many tricks got their feats split, spread around, and having extra prerequisites taxed on, and then on top of that generally nerfed.

    [...]

    So much of Pathfinder for me so far has been Start reading a Feat/Ability -> Think "Hey, that could be really cool!" -> Keep reading, and become thoroughly underwhelmed. There's just a ton of traps.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vedhin View Post
    Paizo, on the other hand, continues to regularly great things for casters. Mundanes, on the other hand, get next to nothing, and when something good sneaks through it gets nerfed (I'm bitter about Crane Wing, I admit it). They really need to read the Guy at the Gym Fallacy, because they have a bad case of it.
    These connect another way, of course. They added more feats, so to balance everything out they reduced the power of feats (again). In other words, adding more feats isn't actually an effective sell so much as a bait and switch, as you can't really do more with your character.

    Remember why Fighter failed, power-wise? Because when designing 3E, they realized that this guy could basically take every feat in the PHB that meant anything, they got scared, and made feats have tons of traps and prerequisites. In other words, fighters failed due to the low purchasing power of their primary class ability. Well, now not only do feats mean less, but they went from having +160% the feats of others (7 base, 11 fighter) to +100% of them. I don't think armor training and whatnot really made up the difference that this nerf double whammy laid onto the class.

    The reason I brought up the fallacy is, what tricks don't need to be broken up? Well, I've never seen a guy need two feats to extend a spell. So who really does benefit from the feat increase?

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    The Random NPC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by malonkey1 View Post
    CMD was a lifesaver! Now instead of having umpteen rules many repeated on each maneuver, we have a single unified roll and a few short rules for each maneuver. If I were programming I'd never want to rewrite the same procedure umpteen times when I could just call a function, and that's what the CMD does, functionally.
    I never really understood this, most of them are simply opposed Strength rolls or Attack rolls. Feint was the only really weird one and it's almost unchanged in the Pathfinder version.

    Quote Originally Posted by Terazul View Post
    Spoiler
    Show
    I'm gonna jump in on this thread because I recently started playing in a Pathfinder game under a friend of mine and ran into the same thing. There are lots of improvements, but many of them are just thinly draped over giant holes in the ground.


    I thought this was really cool until I started to build a skillmonkey... and realized I could just play any class and do the same thing. It's great that anyone can be good at anything now, but class skills themselves are also far less important beyond level 1, and it's really easy to add skills to the list. The +3 is certainly useful, but feels like it fades into obscurity pretty quickly.


    This is true, they made staying in a single class much more favorable, between favored class bonuses and abilities that scale off class level. The dearth of decent prestige classes add to that.


    This I feel is one of the most misleading things about Pathfinder though. I went in going "oh man, I can make some more versatile melee builds now since I'll have more feats to spread around!", only to find many tricks got their feats split, spread around, and having extra prerequisites taxed on, and then on top of that generally nerfed. I thought about making a tripper. Before, you needed Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip. From those two feats you got +4 on your trip attempt, didn't provoke an attack, and you got a free attack when you succeeded on the attempt. Nice! Now, to get the same result, you need Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, and Greater Trip. Why all that? Well, Improved Trip only gives you a +2 on the check, and no provoke. Greater Trip (requiring BAB +6, so you can't even pull this off at level 1 anymore) gives you that other +2, and lets you make an extra attack... as your Attack of Opportunity for the round. Meaning you don't get the one for them standing up from prone anymore, so if you want the same results, you need Combat Reflexes for more than one AoO a round. Also Dex of at least 12. The same is true for many other tricks; Bull Rush requires two feats just to have the movement provoke Attacks of Opportunity, something it did with 0 feats in 3.5. You certainly do get more feats in Pathfinder, but for replicating many things from 3.5 you often need to expend several more.

    Plus, I see a lot of that same "Sacrifice power for flavor" stuff but dumped into feats. Like, there's the feat that lets you use Tarot Cards as throwing darts for damage. Neat! ...Except that it costs you more to make the deck usable than to just buy the same number of darts, and it requires you to have to use Arcane Strike every round (using up your swift action) if you want to benefit from the feat. So much of Pathfinder for me so far has been Start reading a Feat/Ability -> Think "Hey, that could be really cool!" -> Keep reading, and become thoroughly underwhelmed. There's just a ton of traps.


    This is true, in that many classes got things to fill dead levels, and several classes (Paladin, Sorcerer) got substantial buffs. Others... not so much.

    I'm doing my best to enjoy the system, but I'm definitely getting the "constrained" vibe. At least at trying to play a more martial character.
    I was going to say almost exactly this, but you beat me to the punch. The only thing I can think to add is that I feel the emphasis on single-classing is a detriment to the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    ... Vitalist is good, but it needs another person to initiate the healing. A Vitalist cohort to a Cleric or Life Oracle is sublime.
    Not only does the Vitalist have healing powers, the Sadist Life Leech can steal health to heal it's collective starting at 3rd level.
    See when a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, you can bet we've bought the vinyl.
    -Snow White

    Avatar by Chd

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by The Random NPC View Post
    I never really understood this, most of them are simply opposed Strength rolls or Attack rolls. Feint was the only really weird one and it's almost unchanged in the Pathfinder version.
    Well, there's the thing: some of them are opposed strength rolls and others are opposed attacks rolls (and some use both), so people have to remember which is which. Mostly though it's a matter of formatting; 3.5 uses one large paragraph for each maneuver separately, whereas PF uses one combined section with all the common rules on top; that makes it seem easier. Oh yeah, and having CMD precalculated on your sheet helps, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vedhin View Post
    Paizo, on the other hand, continues to regularly great things for casters. Mundanes, on the other hand, get next to nothing, and when something good sneaks through it gets nerfed
    That is true and it's problematic. To be fair, WOTC appears to making the exact same mistake for 5E.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by StreamOfTheSky View Post
    Size isn't nearly the worst part of it, especially w/ PF's nerfs to size bonuses, they're practically nonexistent till you get to gargantuan. The (biggest, hardly the only) problem is adding BAB to the CMB/CMD thing. It's like people have amnesia. Who seriously thought 3E grappling was balanced? *Why* was it imbalanced (aside from all the spells that auto-neuter it)? Because big monsters with tons of HD got to add their stupidly big pile of BAB to it! Pathfinder took the "grapple problem" and applied it to all combat maneuvers. And tumble, for good measure!
    I think that might just be the symptom, actually, and that the real issue is BAB being linked to hit dice.
    Because how do you make a boss for a 1-on-4 battle? You give it at least four times as much HP as the regular enemies of that level. That leads to the BAB being four times as large, which leads to AC being useless and CMD being screwed up.
    I mean, back in AD&D the Tarrasque had 70HD. Its THAC0 wasn't linked to that, though, so you could have big beefy monsters that are inaccurate or frail ones that hit all the time.

    Although this might just be an example of how monster design being identical to PC design screws things up. Racial Hit Dice need a serious revamp. And monster PCs as well, obviously.

    ...Actually, what's the current stance on monster PCs? Is it still the hilariously broken ECL=CR, or are you supposed to use the race builder, or what?

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini476 View Post
    I think that might just be the symptom, actually, and that the real issue is BAB being linked to hit dice.
    Because how do you make a boss for a 1-on-4 battle? You give it at least four times as much HP as the regular enemies of that level. That leads to the BAB being four times as large, which leads to AC being useless and CMD being screwed up.
    The obvious solution would be to either use bigger hit dice (if a barbarian has 1d12, why wouldn't a giant have 1d20?) or to give them a huge constitution bonus (because if a human can start with 20 con, why wouldn't an earth elemental have 40 con, for +15 hit points per die?)
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    That is true and it's problematic. To be fair, WOTC appears to making the exact same mistake for 5E.
    This is really a topic worth exploring. Why is it that, with the possible exception of 4e, designers routinely come back to nice things for casters and quadratic wizards? One could conclude that they all simply don't read message boards, but with their ubiquity and ease of lurking I have trouble buying that explanation.

    One could also conclude that all of them don't know what they're doing - yet somehow they manage to make a living doing this, so I don't really buy that either.
    Last edited by Psyren; 2014-05-13 at 09:20 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Feint's End View Post
    I don't quite understand how you got the second-tier combatant vibe. Are you just talking damage or general combat usefulness. Damagewise strength inquisitors are higher than Barbarians and Fighters (they can selfbuff much better) and from a general utility perspective they also have more options and things to do besides "I hit it with a stick".
    Inquisitors are one of the things I've most enjoyed in PF thus far; with a Torture Subdomain Inquisitor I was useful enough in and out of combat that the DM and I needed to have a talk about some enemies being resistant to my shtick in order for the other Players to contribute. . . at 1st level.
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV. Play as me!


    Spoiler
    Show

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by bekeleven View Post
    Remember why Fighter failed, power-wise? Because when designing 3E, they realized that this guy could basically take every feat in the PHB that meant anything, they got scared, and made feats have tons of traps and prerequisites. In other words, fighters failed due to the low purchasing power of their primary class ability. Well, now not only do feats mean less, but they went from having +160% the feats of others (7 base, 11 fighter) to +100% of them. I don't think armor training and whatnot really made up the difference that this nerf double whammy laid onto the class.
    This is perhaps one of the biggest sources of the caster/mundane imbalance in 3.P. I can almost guarantee that without the Fighter, mundane feats would have been better. But they "balanced" around the number of feats Fighters get, instead of the number of feats Barbarians/Rogues/etc. get. Thus, the feats are weaker, so non-Fighters get a bunch of weak feats for no good reason, and Fighters get just enough to keep up (in their theory). Personally, I think that a 20th level Core-only Fighter ought to be a master of all combat styles. He should be good at THF, TWF, S&B, Archery, Thrown weapons, Unarmed, even Singleton. Other classes ought to be more forced to choose, because their class features can augment their chosen style.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    This is really a topic worth exploring. Why is it that, with the possible exception of 4e, designers routinely come back to nice things for casters and quadratic wizards? One could conclude that they all simply don't read message boards, but with their ubiquity and ease of lurking I have trouble buying that explanation.

    One could also conclude that all of them don't know what they're doing - yet somehow they manage to make a living doing this, so I don't really buy that either.
    Well, the Guy at the Gym thing is a source of it.
    But I think that it's because, back in the days of yore, Gygax decided that wizards should be better. However, they'd need to suffer through low-level nigh-uselessness to get there, and had a bad XP curve. As time went on, designers realized that being a punching bag for half your career wasn't fun, so wizards got less useless at low levels (and people started campaigns already at high levels). What they failed to do was get the ingrained "wizards are better" mentality out of their heads. After all, it has a storied history in fantasy. The difference is that fantasy tended to attach major drawbacks to magic, which aren't always so fun to play with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dire_Stirge View Post
    Don't you see it? The inert Shrieker may have more raw power, but the rock has something the Shrieker will never have. VERSATILITY.

    Also, the rock will probably be lighter than the Shrieker, allowing it to be used as a improvised thrown weapon should the need arise.

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    This is really a topic worth exploring. Why is it that, with the possible exception of 4e, designers routinely come back to nice things for casters and quadratic wizards? One could conclude that they all simply don't read message boards, but with their ubiquity and ease of lurking I have trouble buying that explanation.
    I wouldn't be surprised. First because the majority of their target audience doesn't frequent D&D forum, and second because people on forums tend to contradict each other a lot. I mean, just look at how often we have lengthy debates here on whether class X is better than class Y; it is pretty obvious that if there are ten people that think that X is clearly superior, there will be ten others who are convinced that Y is obviously the better choice.

    ...that doesn't mean that WOTC and Paizo have clear design goals that they adhere to, but for a game designer I don't really see how listening to message boards would help much.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Snowbluff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised. First because the majority of their target audience doesn't frequent D&D forum, and second because people on forums tend to contradict each other a lot. I mean, just look at how often we have lengthy debates here on whether class X is better than class Y; it is pretty obvious that if there are ten people that think that X is clearly superior, there will be ten others who are convinced that Y is obviously the better choice.
    This. I find that forums can be very misleading, like with stat dumping. They are also not always representative of the player base. For every 10 players I know, only one or 2 of them frequent forums. After that, you have to divide those players on certain issues, and the result is a VERY vocal minority.
    Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
    GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
    I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Vedhin View Post
    This is perhaps one of the biggest sources of the caster/mundane imbalance in 3.P. I can almost guarantee that without the Fighter, mundane feats would have been better. But they "balanced" around the number of feats Fighters get, instead of the number of feats Barbarians/Rogues/etc. get. Thus, the feats are weaker, so non-Fighters get a bunch of weak feats for no good reason, and Fighters get just enough to keep up (in their theory). Personally, I think that a 20th level Core-only Fighter ought to be a master of all combat styles. He should be good at THF, TWF, S&B, Archery, Thrown weapons, Unarmed, even Singleton. Other classes ought to be more forced to choose, because their class features can augment their chosen style.
    I can definitely agree with this line of reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vedhin View Post
    Well, the Guy at the Gym thing is a source of it.
    But I think that it's because, back in the days of yore, Gygax decided that wizards should be better. However, they'd need to suffer through low-level nigh-uselessness to get there, and had a bad XP curve. As time went on, designers realized that being a punching bag for half your career wasn't fun, so wizards got less useless at low levels (and people started campaigns already at high levels). What they failed to do was get the ingrained "wizards are better" mentality out of their heads. After all, it has a storied history in fantasy. The difference is that fantasy tended to attach major drawbacks to magic, which aren't always so fun to play with.
    But presumably these folks who are again making this stuff for a living are using things like playtesters, focus groups, polls etc. And presumably, if "Guy at the Gym" was the huge problem it's often portrayed as, they'd have done everything they could to get away from it. The one time they did seriously try to change it was 4e, and it looks like they are heading right back towards it with 5e.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised. First because the majority of their target audience doesn't frequent D&D forum, and second because people on forums tend to contradict each other a lot. I mean, just look at how often we have lengthy debates here on whether class X is better than class Y; it is pretty obvious that if there are ten people that think that X is clearly superior, there will be ten others who are convinced that Y is obviously the better choice.

    ...that doesn't mean that WOTC and Paizo have clear design goals that they adhere to, but for a game designer I don't really see how listening to message boards would help much.
    This is true, but there are some things that I think are more or less universal. Druid power staying consistently high from 1-20 is something few will argue with for instance. Rogues being weak from 1-20 is another (and, I'm willing to bet, led directly to the subsequent creation of the Ninja in PF.)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    This is true, but there are some things that I think are more or less universal. Druid power staying consistently high from 1-20 is something few will argue with for instance. Rogues being weak from 1-20 is another (and, I'm willing to bet, led directly to the subsequent creation of the Ninja in PF.)
    That's interesting because we can analyze it directly.

    I'm certainly willing to accept that the PF rogue is weak and that the ninja was created to fix that... but that leads to the questions of (a) why is the rogue weak, (b) what can be done to fix that, and (c) did it work? I get the impression that the answer to question C is "no", because ninjas don't strike me as substantially better than rogues; but I'd like to hear if Paizo posted anything on what they thought about A and B.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Snowbluff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Gripes about Pathfinder

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    I'm certainly willing to accept that the PF rogue is weak and that the ninja was created to fix that... but that leads to the questions of (a) why is the rogue weak, (b) what can be done to fix that, and (c) did it work? I get the impression that the answer to question C is "no", because ninjas don't strike me as substantially better than rogues; but I'd like to hear if Paizo posted anything on what they thought about A and B.
    Yeah, I can follow this. Ninja is definitely better than rogue, but some of the problems with rogue were system problems, and were not specific to the rogue.
    Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
    GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
    I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •