That is a needlessly inflammatory statement to express his impression of the game. If they are surprised that it has managed to catch the forest on fire, they are the only one.
One flurry of hectoring, argumentative posts and a lot of little blue Belgian weirdos and it's a forest fire? O_o
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't play Pathfinder for the same reason I don't watch snuff films and torture porn.
Because watching someone else torture or kill is never as satisfying as doing it yourself?
But how does that relate to Pathfinder?
Heh. Also, I quoted this at the top of a new page and w/o the spoiler. Wonder how long it'll take to truely take off...
But why are the smurfs gone?
|
You don't watch snuff films and torture porn?I don't play Pathfinder for the same reason I don't watch snuff films and torture porn.
** spoiler omitted **
I know, it is a bit of a shock for someone like me to be on this site without those interests, right? ;)
You torture porn?
I don't play Pathfinder for the same reason I don't watch snuff films and torture porn.** spoiler omitted **
I might, but I don't do it while watching snuff films. ;)
But no I don't torture porn, that would be wrong, since that is what the internet is for. I care for it and treat it nicely, bring it a glass of water when it is thirsty. Love porn, never torture it.
There is only one possible response to this.
I really can't figure out why they seem SO angry about Pathfinder. I could understand if a substantial number of them claimed they hated the system but loved the adventures, or something similar. But since the majority of them claim to hate both the system and everything that Paizo has ever touched...why not simply ignore it's existence.
Cop out answer?
Human nature.
As a species, we have not evolved to that level. Sure, many role player circles tend to run the more "enlightened" peoples... Acadamia, and the like. But by far not all, and most likely not even half.
In other words, if people (in general) could just ignore somethings existence just because they didn't like it, there wouldn't be such a thing as a hate crime. (And no, I'm not comparing the Den's hate of Pathfinder to a hate crime.)
That was supposed to be a punchline.I don't play Pathfinder for the same reason I don't watch snuff films and torture porn.
** spoiler omitted **
I thought it was "a needlessly inflammatory statement to express his impression of the game. If they are surprised that it has managed to catch the forest on fire, they are the only one."
Oh, no, wait. It was a punchline.
Don't you have a bridge to prevent goats from crossing?
Which one of you is the pot?
I know the other is the kettle.
I want to be the fire poker!
How does a bridge pervent goats from crossing? Wouldn't a bridge enable the goats to cross?
Not if its a construct built to look like a bridge that then proceeds to crush said goats upon attempted crossing.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Not if its a construct built to look like a bridge that then proceeds to crush said goats upon attempted crossing.
How does a bridge pervent goats from crossing? Wouldn't a bridge enable the goats to cross?
Hmmm...I suppose it could happen if Matt Tracker were somehow involved...
How does a bridge pervent goats from crossing? Wouldn't a bridge enable the goats to cross?
Don't you have a bridge to prevent goats from crossing?
I have no idea what perversions those goats are venting by crossing the bridge, nor do I want to know.
I like what happens to sane pleas in this thread. "Like" in a very particular way.
I demand to know their reasons!
Problems? Pathfinder?
Goats and Bridges want to know!
Tell me their reasons!
Demands to argue
Like short pants in winter time
Unseasonable
Not if its a construct built to look like a bridge that then proceeds to crush said goats upon attempted crossing.
How does a bridge pervent goats from crossing? Wouldn't a bridge enable the goats to cross?
As long as the gorram DM doesn't make a combo encounter with both a bridge AND a gazebo. Killer DMs. Sheesh.
Dear God no ... NOT THE GAZEBO! ANYTHING BUT THE GAZEBO!!
Dear God no ... NOT THE GAZEBO! ANYTHING BUT THE GAZEBO!!
I am getting that shirt shipped to me from ThinkGeek right now
|
|
As long as the gorram DM doesn't make a combo encounter with both a bridge AND a gazebo. Killer DMs. Sheesh.Not if its a construct built to look like a bridge that then proceeds to crush said goats upon attempted crossing.
How does a bridge pervent goats from crossing? Wouldn't a bridge enable the goats to cross?
C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!
Personally I think the hammer came down on spell casters. If you are fond of playing any of the spellcasting classes as they were in 3.x then at first you might look at the nifty new school/bloodline/domain special abilities and giggle with glee and then as you start to notice the changes to the spells you'll begin to weep. I'm of the thought that many of the spells needed to be toned down a little but whereas I though they just needed a shave off the top PRPG went and cut them down to the knees with little to no thought about adjusting their level to something more appropriate to their power.
Barbarians were quite disappointing in the end, many of their abilities are the type that even the role-players in my group roll their eyes and scoff at.
Fighters were given a boost and are definitely good, if not great, at what they do (as they should be) but keeping them backwards compatible meant keeping them very much the same as their 3.x counterparts just with higher attack and damage.
Rangers are pretty badass but are specialized which means if the campaign moves away from their favored enemy/terrain for a long period of time then they're hosed. I know some DM's are cruel and sadistic enough to intentionally do that so make sure to only play a ranger if you have a reasonable DM.
Some of the problems with Monks were addressed and while they didn't get the fighter BAB that many people clamored for they did get it in regards to Combat Maneuvers and their Flurry of Blows which makes them effectively good 'two weapon' fighters/grapple monkeys. I think they were improved from previous editions but still suffer some of the faults monk haters have discussed. I've seen monks played by people who know how to properly play them to devastating effect and will not jump on the "Monks Suck" bandwagon. They're just not ideal for beginners or people used to thinking with the fighter/spellcaster mentality.
Paladins are pretty much the king of the hill when it comes to Good vs. Evil games. They can be countered, and fairly easily, by neutral beasts as I've proven in some of my games wherein our groups Pally was cut down by a direbeast and would have died regardless of lay-on-hands had not the party cleric effectively sacrificed himself by swapping places with the Pally and taking the hit. I've seen a Pally singlehandedly take out a demon three CR's higher than them. Not a class for players who like to spam their powers rather than use them in moderation, easy to piss off GM's who can't handle such things in that fashion.
Bards... well... honestly I can't say much about bards. Few of my players ever cared much about them enough to play and those that did only did so in 3.x I can't say much on their improvements.
Rogues got a much needed overhaul. You can now put one through Age of Worms and not have him feel utterly useless without hunting down that prestige class that allows them to sneak attack undead. Now with being able to sneak attack things they couldn't before (there are still creatures they can't sneak attack but it makes sense for them and you're not likely to have a campaign focused around most of those) and their rogue talents they can be pretty nasty. Some of the rogue talents suffer from being utterly useless like many of the barbarian rage traits but many of them are not. Basically good changes all around there.
Sorcerers: Aside from my firm belief that sacrificing versatility for being able to cast more spells in a day is most definitely not a fair trade (I'm not big on spontaneous casters in general *shrug*) the sorcerer got a nice overhaul. I doubt I'll see any of my players running them but their bloodline abilities are pretty neat. These are countered by the complete nerfing of spells however which seemed to continue the mentality of 'if this spell is useful in combat then it must be too powerful and needs nerfing!' mentality that's been seen since the transition from 3.0 to 3.5.
Wizards: I liked the school abilities and personally can't think of anything I dislike. The focus was a good idea for those who don't want a pesky familiar around and like item crafting. Item crafting in general was altered a bit and personally I like the changes.
Clerics were altered in a manner I dislike considerably and being one of my favorite classes have received the most house rules. They no longer get Heavy Armor, their spells are weaker, and they are further pushed into the healbot niche. I like the positive/negative energy burst but I don't think there's anything wrong with the cleric effectively having the "Turn Undead" 'feat' as it's written, basically allowing them to choose to turn rather than damage undead. I really hate the idea of feats being necessary to let the class do what they should be able to do already so the argument 'well if you want this ability back just take the feat' falls on deaf ears here. Never mind the remove curse, cure disease and neutralize poison spells, all require a caster level check against the DC to beat which makes scrolls effectively useless.
My house rules for clerics include: Heavy Armor is free for clerics of more militant deities. Turn Undead is given free to clerics using positive energy and if they buy the feat they can effectively turn while damaging. Cure Disease and Neutralize Poison clerics can substitute their healing skill in place of their caster level instead giving them a reason to keep the heal skill going through their levels.
Druids: If you liked wild shape you'll hate the changes to the druids. Pure plain and simple it was another example of castrating a class where a little trim off the top would have sufficed. At least in my opinion. Then again I always thought CoDzilla was a myth, powerful but easily countered by any DM worth his dice.
Now don't be confused, I loved a lot of the changes, I thought the paladin was pretty badass and loved how they changed the rogue. I think there's a lot of caster hate over at Paizo though :P Those are pretty much my take on the classes in regards to their failings, I think they all have improvements here and there and some I don't think are bad at all (i.e. rogue and paladin) but then I'm also used to a higher powered game and players who like to abuse their power don't last long. Many of the 'broken' qualities that were nerfed have been viewed, in our group, as abilities that are only broken if you have bad players (or DM's I suppose).
I don't know. That's my take at least.
@Devil of Roses: Look up Treatmonks guide to Wizards, if you really think casters were gimped. While true on many accounts, there are still enough devastating spells left for a arcane caster to dominate his enemies, just as before.
I like your Healing Skill house-rule re: Poision/Disease removal.
It would have been cool if those spells just granted a bonus to the skill, like Invisibility to Stealth (as well as being a Standard Action). I like Skills to be useful for all characters at all levels.
(This is part of why I disliked some Rage Powers: Raging Swimmer kind of sucks when there isn't much reason to scale your Swim skill super-high and given Rage is already boosting it anyways - offering actual scaling Swim Speed would have been WAY better for a what is a very limited Power anyways)
A couple things the Barbarian beats the pants off the Fighter at:
1. Sheer hit point absorption. The fighter's d10 HD may not seem that different from the d12, but that combined with an additional +6 at mid level? That's 60 hit points, from your own buffs. Oh, and since Rage helps you get hit, you can dump AC if you're in a min-maxing mood, and just boost Con, something the Fighter shouldn't do. Your excuse? You just have to last long enough for the party to kill the thing, and 60 hp is an extra hit, maybe two from even a Balor. Add in the innate DR, and against more minor threats you have a Juggernaut. The Fighter gets this too, but at 19th level when it is next to useless. At 7th level the DR is viable and useful, and it adds to the Barbarian all the way instead of the Fighter's which is counterable and only results in an average one more than the barbarian.
2. Maneuverability. Barbarians can be used to block and hinder enemies if maneuvered properly. That speed boost is something the fighter never gets, and it helps a lot at low to mid levels. In many situations, especially against enemies working as a team, having the casters "Take a round to buff" is a completely flawed strategy that results in their deaths. The Barbarian comes pre-built to be able to cover a lot of ground. Not as fast as a monk, but he'll definitely last longer. If your DM in a high level game loves using quickened dispels on magic items to throw your party off, the characters least affected will be the monk... And the Barbarian.
3. Skill Selection. Skill don't feature in every game, but a resourceful player loves his skills. The Fighter's skill selection is so limited it's become a joke amongst 3.5 players. The Barbarian? Can track now, can climb over things like crazy, can perceive a threat before it catches you by surprise, can tumble, and gets a knowledge only possessed by 3 other classes as a frontline fighter. Sure, there isn't much to choose from, but it's mostly hands down better than anything the Fighter gets.
4. Flexibility. Let me list off a few abilities here for you that only a barbarian can get.
Clear Mind: Reroll a failed will save, mid level. Excellent as around this time monsters start using dominate and similar effects.
Mighty Swing: Auto-confirm a crit. Mid level. Fighter wants this like h needs it to live.
Scent: Oh baby. This combined with blind fight neutralizes hidden foes. You have perception as a class skill. Use it. Low level.
Strength Surge: Add your barbarian level to defenses against certain maneuvers, or on strength checks, or on a combat maneuver check. Stops the barbarian from being swallowed whole, which will drop a Fighter of any stripe but two-weapon into near uselessness, and can stop grapple, which does the same thing. Very good synergy with the rage power Knockback. Low level.
Superstition: Bonus on saves vs spells. Dwarven Barbarians rejoice. LOW LEVEL.
Unexpected Strike: Make an AoO against a foe that moves INTO your reach. Amazing with Stand Still and a reach weapon. You can cost chargers a turn, drop a desperate foe, the list goes on and on. Mid level.
That's six very nice powers, and you can pick more situational powers like the climbing power that could come in handy. If a fighter is charged by a Balor, he takes it. You, the enlarged Barbarian, can stop a Balor or dragon if you've got just three of these abilities and a feat, effectively wasting their turn, which equals a win if the rest of the party is half well built.
The Barbarian is, in effect, more strategic than the Fighter. Oh, the Fighter can deal damage, but the Barbarian is better at living, avoiding spells, and being able to contribute in more than just combat. And if combat is all your game is, clearly the Fighter is the superior choice. Otherwise, give me a greataxe and a loincloth, I'll be raging in the front lines.
There were some major issues in game play that WOTC never succeded in dealing with, in particular polymorph, and wildshape powers that turned the Monster Manuals into shopping lists of powers goodies, the abundance of save or die spells that turned the game into initiative rocket tag, and the general delegation of non caster characters into spectator roles as levels progressed.
Actually, like many other additions to Pathfinder, WotC did take a shot at solving at least Wildshape in PHB II. The only problem was they can't up and say "Wildshape now works like this in a much more controlled and extremely nerfed manner!" and have everyone start doing it instead of the old "Druid is a zoo" method. It's a rather popular variant rule, but I doubt it was used that much except as a forced house rule by the DM.
On the Gaming Den, Frank Trollman posted a very interesting line some days ago.
Quote: "And what their afraid of is that if 3.x gets support, that 3rd party materials could end up taking the mantle from them of anointed RPG default. Pathfinder could have done it, and I think they were (justifiably) pretty worried about Pathfinder taking over back in 2008. But... that's not going to happen. The bloom is off the rose, and Pathfinder failed to get the throngs of 3.x players to jump on their bandwagon to an even more spectacular degree than 4e did. Pathfinder is a footnote in gaming that counts in the annals in the same way and for the same reason that TORG does."
Why would he say that? From what I've seen, Pathfinder seems to be very healthy and still is garnering interest of disaffected 4e players or people who want to get the next edition of 3.5.
Anybody got an opinion?
|
Frank Trollman got banned from Paizo forums for gross violation of "don't be a dick" rule. Ever since he is on a one-man crusade against Pathfinder (sorry, Failfinder using his terms), Paizo (sorry, Failzo) and Jason Buhlman (sorry, Jason Failman). His relentlessly vehement hatred of all things Pathfinder-related makes some 4e fanboys look like tame domestic cats in comprasion.
The merry appreciation society at the Gaming Den doesn't seem to mind. Don't mention Pathfinder in any positive light there, you will get ripped to shreds in 30 seconds. :)
Frank Trollman got banned from Paizo forums for gross violation of "don't be a dick" rule. Ever since he is on a one-man crusade against Pathfinder (sorry, Failfinder using his terms), Paizo (sorry, Failzo) and Jason Buhlman (sorry, Jason Failman). His relentlessly vehement hatred of all things Pathfinder-related makes some 4e fanboys look like tame domestic cats in comprasion.
The merry appreciation society at the Gaming Den doesn't seem to mind. Don't mention Pathfinder in any positive light there, you will get ripped to shreds in 30 seconds. :)
All of this is of course a well-known fact. :)
However, Frank tends to have some industry insight which others don't ( at least in respect to Shadowrun, for which he was a writer ). So I was wondering if maybe he had heard something which I hadn't, and if someone else has some data on how well Pathfinder is doing.
|
|
Dunno about you, but with Paizo having to do a third print run, being for the second time 2nd on the ICV2 RPG list (above, say White Wolf and Warhammer stuff) and having pretty much taken over the 3.5 3PP market (Freeport Companion and Slumbering Tsar are some indication of that) all this might, just might be an indication that Frank Trollman is slightly off the mark.
Dunno about you, but with Paizo having to do a third print run, being for the second time 2nd on the ICV2 RPG list (above, say White Wolf and Warhammer stuff) and having pretty much taken over the 3.5 3PP market (Freeport Companion and Slumbering Tsar are some indication of that) all this might, just might be an indication that Frank Trollman is slightly off the mark.
I certainly hope so. :) I just was, y'know, worried a bit. With all the good stuff coming out in the months ahead, it certainly seemed a strange assertion by him.
Maybe hogarth or Windjammer want to follow up on the Gaming Den on his assertion? I really don't want to make an account there, there's just too much allusions to male poultry thrown around on that forum. :p
One thing I am noticing that I don't like one bit is power creep. Small, but it's there. I've got my eye on you, Adventurer's Armory. Still, you've done enough that I enjoy that I'll just be a disapproving customer for a while.
If the Paizo Staff needs some new ideas I'm sure they can hit one of us up. I'm working on a use for "unrefined" Ioun stones and magical prosthetic bits with unique abilities you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for.
Just... Just one or the other really.
Unless you want two.
It's not really much of a power creep, and I supposed I was exaggerating (Better to keep them on their toes, I say, than to let them rest on their laurels) but the scabbard tricks are really amazing, especially the blind fighting one. Basically, sine you can close your eyes and blind yourself, all creatures are treated as invisible towards you. You can make the TOUCH attack at a 50% miss, and if that fails, open your eyes and swing anyway. This gets around Mirror image, Displacement, Blink, etc. with the way it's written, which for one attack at a -2 doesn't seem like much, but since dropping the scabbard is a free action that attack is two-handed, vital striked, etc. and potentially from a two handed weapon user holding their sword in one hand for a round with quick draw because they had an extra few gold and two feats to spend. Plus ONLY the heavy blade gets this, and ONLY the shield guys get the other ones (which aren't as good, which is fine, but I digress). Why can't, say, a light weapon fighter get something like this, with just the tricks and gimmicks they need to step up to playing more seriously? It's focusing more on stuff that already works than stuff that doesn't yet. In what is kind of a negative power creep a lot of the exotic weapons are terrible. If I was a Tengu I would never take the Falcata when I could have a Khopesh, and I don't even have to spend feats to take them. They could have had the Falcata be martial because it's a darn longsword, the thing has very little differences. The butterfly knife is not worth it at all (especially since it's ONE HANDED!), and the meteor hammer is probably the best choice overall, but I'm not sure if it can gain a shield bonus so that might not be true.
I dunno. I'm glad they are making new weapons, and trust me I love the fact that there are more polearms, but a lot of them seem way underneath the standard. Like the rope gauntlets being exotic. Is it really that hard to figure out how to do this? The butterfly knife I would let someone with sleight of hand do as a swift action and reduce it to martial. I guess you don't see it every day, but warriors can be pretty resourceful when no weapon is near. Would I really take a -4 to punching if I wrap my hands up in rope before doing so? Guess I shouldn't have skipped the "Fighting with your hands wrapped in rope" class at fighter school. It's clearly as different as using a butterfly knife is from using a normal one.
If I was a Tengu I would never take the Falcata when I could have a Khopesh, and I don't even have to spend feats to take them. They could have had the Falcata be martial because it's a darn longsword, the thing has very little differences.
Only that the Falcata is by far the best one-handed melee weapon out there at the moment. A crit range of 19-20/x3 is superior to every other melee weapon in the game.
Are the stats on the Archives of Nethys still accurate for current Pathfinder? They seem contrary to what Sean stated, about exotics being more flavour now than really useful upgrades.
I think the biggest thing that was taken away was the Leathality of the game
Now there are less save or dies, alot of classes get more HP and its a lot easier to get braught back from the dead
Not to say these are all bad but one of the groups I game with always think if there is no threat of dieing why play? Now its still leathal just a little bit less then it was in 3.5