Is Pathfinder a Boon or a Bane?

[Nytemare3701]

Back on topic: Pathfinder did 2 things right for our group...It made us say "fuck balance, let's have fun" and it made the monk suck slightly less.

[Solo]

Why couldn't you have done that without Pathfinder?

[Nytemare3701]

The group was still under the delusion that CORE was balanced. seeing a new core come out that STILL fucked it up finally broke them.

[Solo]

That sounds kinda funny.

[X-Codes]

The group was still under the delusion that CORE was balanced. seeing a new core come out that STILL fucked it up finally broke them.

Logic and reason being created by the hands of the Pathfinder SRD?  Blasphemy!

[Nytemare3701]

In a roundabout way, Paizil's fail made it easier for us to have a productive game. Everyone pulled their heads out of their asses and stopped obsessing over the "brokenness" of 3.5

[veekie]

The group was still under the delusion that CORE was balanced. seeing a new core come out that STILL fucked it up finally broke them.

That was hilarious.

Open their eyes!

[Nytemare3701]

I introduced the current DM to the tiers of power and explained that CO is about making a character that does what you want thematically without mechanically sucking, and all the extra goodies that come along afterwards are just good planning on your character's part. YES I will have 20 pieces of chalk.

[Sunic_Flames]

 

So back to why Pathfailure is an abomination.

I've covered a few reasons already, but because it amuses me...

The Magus.

In short:

Paizils release a shitty version of the Duskblade, who lacks just about everything a Duskblade needs to be a viable Duskblade. Paizils attempt to defend their fail class. Smart people point out it's completely full of fail, and to return to the drawing board to start from scratch.

They take a diversion to mess with something that makes casters take long amounts of time to resolve their turn in combat, after complaining melees aren't allowed to have nice things if it slows down their turn.

Then they come back to it... and it still sucks. In most of the same ways even. Except now it also has a shitty GMW a few times a day, and some other minor things you could completely forget to write down and it would make no practical difference.

This is an example of what you get when "lots of features, even if they suck" is your design goal. Shiny useless stuff to distract the mouth breathing fuckwits, no actual substance to stop the monsters from slaughtering said mouth breathing fuckwits, but that's ok. Because like 4.Fail, most of the people that claim to be playing it are not actually playing it. They are instead playing Magical Tea Party and calling it 4.Fail/Pathfailure.

[Sobolev]

it made the monk suck slightly less.

Hi Welcome

[Hallack]

On the upside, it does mean continued module production for those that like modules and are sticking with 3.5. 

[Unbeliever]

I introduced the current DM to the tiers of power and explained that CO is about making a character that does what you want thematically without mechanically sucking, and all the extra goodies that come along afterwards are just good planning on your character's part. YES I will have 20 pieces of chalk.

While I find the tiers system too mechanistic for me and mine, the part Nytemare says about the thematic stuff is spot on.  I need CO to make good ranger-types that can compete w/ even straightforward clerics, druids, et al. 

[juton]

On the Magus:

Firstly, why not just let them have Wizard spells? Why create another spell list that you'll have to maintain in new products, lest ye earn the wrath of your fans?

Secondly, while this class is objectively weaker than an Eldritch Knight build, maybe that's the point. The Inquisitor is like a Cleric that trades their spell casting for a bunch of class features, I'm sure we'll see a version of a Druid soon that gives up spellcasting for some more baubles. Instead of fixing whats abusive about the major casters they just create trap classes, so the old melee classes won't be over shadowed by by casters. But I'm probably reading too much into it, it could be that Buhlman, as a player likes shinnies so that gets expressed in how he designs classes.

I wonder how weak the Magus would actually be in play, I think it may be down at the unoptimized Warmage end of the spellcasting scale, so around Tier 4. Which is probably exactly where they want their classes to be so bravo I guess.

[Sinfire Titan]

it made the monk suck slightly less.

Hi Welcome

WTF? That is not only horrible flavor, it makes no sense for the Monk class.

[Sobolev]

it made the monk suck slightly less.

Hi Welcome

WTF? That is not only horrible flavor, it makes no sense for the Monk class.

It's almost impressively bad.

[Sunic_Flames]

On the Magus:

Firstly, why not just let them have Wizard spells? Why create another spell list that you'll have to maintain in new products, lest ye earn the wrath of your fans?

Secondly, while this class is objectively weaker than an Eldritch Knight build, maybe that's the point. The Inquisitor is like a Cleric that trades their spell casting for a bunch of class features, I'm sure we'll see a version of a Druid soon that gives up spellcasting for some more baubles. Instead of fixing whats abusive about the major casters they just create trap classes, so the old melee classes won't be over shadowed by by casters. But I'm probably reading too much into it, it could be that Buhlman, as a player likes shinnies so that gets expressed in how he designs classes.

I wonder how weak the Magus would actually be in play, I think it may be down at the unoptimized Warmage end of the spellcasting scale, so around Tier 4. Which is probably exactly where they want their classes to be so bravo I guess.

The problem is, that's where it is if you play it like a Wizard lite. If you play it like they try to tell you to play it, you just have a character who fails at everything. Kind of like Monks, actually. Which is what I said before.

[Kuroimaken]

it made the monk suck slightly less.

Hi Welcome

WTF? That is not only horrible flavor, it makes no sense for the Monk class.

It's like they tried to make Bleach without swords then fell on Naruto along the way!

[Sinfire Titan]

it made the monk suck slightly less.

Hi Welcome

WTF? That is not only horrible flavor, it makes no sense for the Monk class.

It's like they tried to make Bleach without swords then fell on Naruto along the way!

And hit every tree in the stupid branch on the way down.

[Akalsaris]

Hungry Ghost is lame, but check out the Zen Archer monk down at the bottom of the page. 

8 bonus feats in 6 levels and wis as an attack stat makes for a pretty cool variant archer that challenges an equivalent level fighter or ranger as a ranged combatant while maintaining higher saving throws and remaining decent in melee as well.  Standing in place to flurry-shoot (and therefore gain full BAB) solves one of the monk's main problems. 

At higher levels, you'll have more ranged attacks than any other character (+18/+18/+18/+18/+13/+8/+3), with each arrow dealing your unarmed damage (2d10, or more if large-sized - and why wouldn't you be?), and arrows are automatically lawful and adamantine on top of whatever your bow's giving them.  Add in the homing property, the ability to take AOO's with your bow and not provoke them either, and you have a pretty sweet package altogether. 

[ProfessorCirno]

Now if only they could do something outside of combat.

Also has anyone mentioned that just adding "fail" to something does not make it witty or insulting?  I mean fuck, "4.fail?"  How does that even work out?  There's literally no connection there.  It's like if I went "Sunic more like BALLsic hurr hurr."

Wait no, I think mine was actually funnier.