Author Topic: Is Pathfinder really that bad?  (Read 47808 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #80 on: November 24, 2009, 02:04:35 AM »
Exactly.  If you have to debate it, it wasn't enough.

JaronK

Treantmonklvl20

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #81 on: November 24, 2009, 10:08:26 AM »
Quote
Exactly.  If you have to debate it, it wasn't enough.

I actually think Viletta Vadim's point is that class balance isn't the draw for Pathfinder.  VV is a very prolific poster at the Pathfinder boards, so I'm assuming is a convert...

Quote
My take on the gap matter: The gap is still there.  The gap is still big.

Absolutely true.  I was not saying otherwise.

If you want class balance, WotC made that a priority on their latest edition...

I think the very mechanics of 3.5 leave a caster more powerful than a non-caster.  Spells can just do so much more than a pointy stick can.  Pigeonholing casters, like Warmage, Healer or Dread Necromancer can narrow the gap, but if those kinds of casters become your only casting options, it makes it less interesting in play.
If at first you don't succeed - maybe failure is your style.

juton

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
  • Jack of all trades, master of nothing.
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #82 on: November 24, 2009, 11:23:13 AM »
I think the very mechanics of 3.5 leave a caster more powerful than a non-caster.  Spells can just do so much more than a pointy stick can.  Pigeonholing casters, like Warmage, Healer or Dread Necromancer can narrow the gap, but if those kinds of casters become your only casting options, it makes it less interesting in play.

Unless you want to make fighting classes capable of teleporting, flying and going invisible just as well as a Wizard you'll never get true balance. I want those abilities to stay in the game, I'm assuming most people who stuck with 3.5 want it also. So you can either nerf the most awesome powers or give something equally as good to fighters. Pathfinder nerfed some things and gave fighters a few little perks, it moves towards balance but certainly doesn't get there.

Some people are quick to disregard Pathfinder for whatever reasons. The ones most often given are that Fighters are nerfed by changing power attack or improved trip and that they made Wizards stronger. I hope we can come to some understanding of these issues, like it or not Pathfinder material is the only new material we are going to get for the foreseeable future and I'd like if we can embrace it.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #83 on: November 24, 2009, 01:21:03 PM »
I think the very mechanics of 3.5 leave a caster more powerful than a non-caster.  Spells can just do so much more than a pointy stick can.  Pigeonholing casters, like Warmage, Healer or Dread Necromancer can narrow the gap, but if those kinds of casters become your only casting options, it makes it less interesting in play.

Unless you want to make fighting classes capable of teleporting, flying and going invisible just as well as a Wizard you'll never get true balance. I want those abilities to stay in the game, I'm assuming most people who stuck with 3.5 want it also. So you can either nerf the most awesome powers or give something equally as good to fighters. Pathfinder nerfed some things and gave fighters a few little perks, it moves towards balance but certainly doesn't get there.

Some people are quick to disregard Pathfinder for whatever reasons. The ones most often given are that Fighters are nerfed by changing power attack or improved trip and that they made Wizards stronger. I hope we can come to some understanding of these issues, like it or not Pathfinder material is the only new material we are going to get for the foreseeable future and I'd like if we can embrace it.

There's always homebrew. We know 3.5 is borked already, it's not like adding more to the pile will hurt that much.

I find that much of what makes 3.5 unbalanced also makes it fun. I mean, try to imagine the evil tyrant, the staple of medieval fantasy, let's-save-the-world-from-this-incredibly-nasty-individual, as a fighter rather than a wizard. Unless the guy's got style, charisma and a billion followers, it just doesn't get done (Ashram anyone?). However, you set an army up against a SINGLE evil wizard and you've got a huge fight in your hands.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


juton

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
  • Jack of all trades, master of nothing.
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #84 on: November 24, 2009, 02:16:45 PM »
There's always homebrew. We know 3.5 is borked already, it's not like adding more to the pile will hurt that much.

I find that much of what makes 3.5 unbalanced also makes it fun. I mean, try to imagine the evil tyrant, the staple of medieval fantasy, let's-save-the-world-from-this-incredibly-nasty-individual, as a fighter rather than a wizard. Unless the guy's got style, charisma and a billion followers, it just doesn't get done (Ashram anyone?). However, you set an army up against a SINGLE evil wizard and you've got a huge fight in your hands.

I like the idea of homebrew, but not every group allows it. Most groups tend to like things that are in some way official so I figure in the future we'll see builds using what ever Paizo puts out because they've inherited the mantle of 'most-official'.

When I first got into char-op I wanted my Fighter to be as strong as a Wizard, it made sense to me. Now I think that after a certain point a Wizard should be stronger but I want two caveats. First, at lower levels a Wizard should be a book loving nerd and need a Fighter to protect him, because a Fighter should shine for at least part of his career. Secondly a Fighter should always have a slim chance at beating a Wizard in a fair fight, it doesn't have to be a big chance just bigger than 0.

I always liked that Conan was able to take out Thulsa Doom despite him being a Wizard with an army.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #85 on: November 24, 2009, 02:35:45 PM »
I think the very mechanics of 3.5 leave a caster more powerful than a non-caster.  Spells can just do so much more than a pointy stick can.  Pigeonholing casters, like Warmage, Healer or Dread Necromancer can narrow the gap, but if those kinds of casters become your only casting options, it makes it less interesting in play.

I dunno, casters like Bards, Factotums, and Beguilers still have  a lot of flexibility without the insane power.  Those classes either limit the power of their spells or the scope, but still can do many things... and they are balanced nicely against Crusaders and the like.

I think the 3.5 mechanics could be balanced (at least with spells vs melee... skills are totally borked).  The problem was too many early on designers who didn't realize the importance of balance in a game and had ideas like "Wizards are magic, so of course they should be stronger!" and who didn't realize that there might be more to D&D than "suddenly, combat starts!"

Meanwhile, if they'd wanted a game where casters are just more powerful, they should have published something like the Tier system to begin with and just said "yeah, casters are stronger, if you want to play a stronger (and thus easier) class play a caster, if you want a greater challenge play a melee" though even that doesn't work because melees are both simple (which is better for beginners) and weak (which is better for people who want more challenge, usually people who've played for a while).

In the end, when people think of a fantasy group, they're thinking of Conan next to Gandalf with Catwoman sneaking around or something like that.  Right now in D&D, at least at high level, they get Gimli next to the second coming of Shiva and Superman with a Green Lantern Ring, and it's just not fun when you're effectively just playing a red shirt (unless the entire party is red shirts, in which case it's HILARIOUSLY fun).

JaronK
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 02:55:12 PM by JaronK »

Viletta Vadim

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Metal Genocider, maximum shooto!
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #86 on: November 24, 2009, 03:22:02 PM »
I actually think Viletta Vadim's point is that class balance isn't the draw for Pathfinder.  VV is a very prolific poster at the Pathfinder boards, so I'm assuming is a convert...
To say that I play Pathfinder would be about as inaccurate as to say that I play 3.5.  Rather, I play a bastardized spawn of those two and a big stack of houserules.  I've even been fiddling with adapting Duel of Wits from Burning Wheel.
I think the very mechanics of 3.5 leave a caster more powerful than a non-caster.  Spells can just do so much more than a pointy stick can.  Pigeonholing casters, like Warmage, Healer or Dread Necromancer can narrow the gap, but if those kinds of casters become your only casting options, it makes it less interesting in play.
You don't have to restrict it to Beguiler and company.  Mainly, you just have to axe the Big Five.  The remainder isn't nearly so bad.  A Sorcerer can do anything, sure, but can't do everything.  Meanwhile, Tome of Battle brings melee way up and considerably expands the number of things swords can do.  A Sorcerer or a Psion is still a lot more powerful than a Warblade, true, but if you have a high-level Warblade next to a high-level Sorcerer, the Warblade is still a powerful enough force to stay relevant and useful, which is what's really important.

And mind, there are a lot of casters floating around.  Even full casters.  Even without the six members of the Big Five.  Warmage, Wu Jen, Favored Soul, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman, Ardent, Psion, Wilder, Dread Necromancer, Healer, Sorcerer, Beguiler, Shadowcaster.  That's eleven casting classes worth mentioning, plus Shadowcaster and Healer (which can be salvaged with some houserules).  I'd say that's plenty of room for variation.  Cleric and Druid are even salvageable with the spontaneous divine caster and shapeshifting variants.
First, at lower levels a Wizard should be a book loving nerd and need a Fighter to protect him, because a Fighter should shine for at least part of his career.
Absolutely not!

Dynamic imbalance is still imbalance.  If you have a case where mages are trash at levels 1-6, while they're gods at levels 15-20, and warriors are the reverse... you're only at one level at any given time.  That the warrior was awesome ten levels ago doesn't change the fact that he's a wimp now.

A level 15 character should be level 15.  Period.  They should wield level 15 power.  If you have two level 15 characters such that one is deliberately given level 13 power and the other is given level 17 power on the basis that one was powerful ten levels ago and the other was weak ten levels ago, you're tossing in irrelevant, arbitrary trivia as a premise to obfuscate the fact that these two characters are not remotely balanced.

Also, most campaigns don't run from level 1 to 20.  If you have a campaign running from level 2 to 5, the game is completely unbalanced across all levels without that dynamic aspect even coming into play.  If a campaign is run from levels 15 to 18, same thing.

The notion that warriors are supposed to drop off until they're scarcely relevant, while Wizards are supposed to explode into omnipotence is poisonous.
I always liked that Conan was able to take out Thulsa Doom despite him being a Wizard with an army.
Do mind that Conan is armed with an author who can give Conan all those 20's when he needs it and make the mages make those little, stupid mistakes at the very moment it would allow Conan to put a sword in their throats.  That which works in a book does not necessarily work in a game.

Braithwaite

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #87 on: November 24, 2009, 03:45:36 PM »


That said, I do see human Wizards too.  I see humans taken for every class in the game, and for every class in the game, choosing the Human now compared to a Human in 3.5 means a +2 to the primary stat, no matter which stat is was, so not really a unique advantage to Wizards, or even casters in general.  It is an advantage for any character taking Human as their race in Pathfinder instead of in 3.5.
That said, I won't argue that Wizards get more Skill Points than fighters.  Not sure the gap has increased though, as I think Fighters are a lot more likely to take the favored class bonus to skills than the Wizard is.

The difference is that the wizard can take the key skills of his class (Say Spellcraft, Linguistics, Know Arcane and another knowledge of his choice), max them, and still have points left over to cross class max Stealth, Acrobatics, and Perception. As he goes up in levels, he gets more skill points, and when he gets magic items to boost his int (which he would have gotten anyway), he gets even more skill points. Rogue, Bard, and Ranger do benefit, but they already have skill lists full of gold. The skill system benefits all classes, but the best improvement goes to the class that has a lot of skill points, and multiple cross class skills that they really want to keep maxed. Core, that is only wizard. If you throw in 3.5 splatbooks I will grant that Warblades and Duskblades will like it a lot also.

You did mean the bonded item!...wow.  So how do you define "free" and "Crafting feat"?  You seem to use a different definition than I do.

For me, "Free" means "No cost", not "Give up a familiar and add a vulnerability"
  Since a single spellcasting and a familiar provide vastly different benifits, the claim is unfalsafiable.  Why not ask me to prove that God doesn't exist while you're at it?
  Don't need to.  You're the one who made a positive claim.  I only expressed doubt regarding that positive claim. 

It's called Burden of Proof - and it always falls on the one who made the positive claim, not the one who doubts the claim.  I can't prove their aren't marshmallow men on Jupiter either, but if you make the claim their are, I'm not the one who has work to do.

I am aware of the concept of Burden of Proof. Standing alone it is almost meaningless.

We are not in a court of law. The trier of fact and law in this case is anyone who is reading the forum.

I would posit that the standard of proof is preponderance of evidence. That is, if my arguments persuade the reader that if my claim is more likely than not to be true, or 50.1% likely, that the claim stands. Personally, I think that the arguments in favor of the wizard are true beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of a criminal court.

Evidence does not mean proof to a mathematical certainty. Any fact or statement that makes the trier believe one position or the other more or less likely to be true is evidence. Personal observation is evidence that tends to prove or disprove the ultimate question. The value of the evidence is determined by the trier of fact.

I have introduced evidence of a large number of concrete ways in which the PF wizard has benefited. More than enough to meet the standard of proof. After that, if you disagree, the burden falls on you to introduce evidence that disproves or discredits my evidence, or to weigh the argument in the other direction.

There are at least 3 separate questions here. Did PF weaken the Wizard? Did PF strengthen the wizard? Did PF strengthen the wizard more than they strengthened most other classes.

If you need another legal lesson, I can give you some suggestions on where to go.


  Can't prove it so it's self-evident?  Ever read the guides of Dictum Mortuum?  That guy could give you 101 reasons why a familiar was better than even Abrupt Jaunt - nevermind a spell casting
 
What?  You know what a "rumor" is right?  "A story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts"
 
wait...did you just label me dishonest...again?  For the same thing?

No, I clarified that I STILL think your statement was dishonest. Not your entire pattern of behavior. Just that sentence. You act like it is some kind of mysterious whisper from the astral plane, when in fact it is a solid position embraced by a number of easily identifiable people who are more than willing to explain their reasoning in detail.

shalandar

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 75
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #88 on: November 24, 2009, 05:09:48 PM »
I would think, if you were really bent on "balancing" spell casting classes with non-spell casting classes, a few things could be done...

1) Cut the number of spells a spell casting class has each level in half or even less.  It often times isn't what they cast, it's how much they can cast it at any one time.  Casting a 9th level spell 4 rounds in a row, that's crazy.  You don't see mages (Gandolf anyone) using their casting abilities all the time.  No, they reserve it for the times when it is truely needed, because they dont' have much.

2) Put a "recharge" for spells of a certain level.  Casting a 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd level spell isn't that big of a deal (generally) when you can cast 6th and 7th level ones.  So when you cast a higher spell, you can't cast another spell for 1/2 the spells level in rounds - 1...cast an 8th level "uber" spell, well, you can't cast another spell for 3 rounds, as your body recuperates from the amount of energy needed to flow through you.  You can still act normally, do other "non spell casting" things (maybe use a wand or staff, but no scrolls). 

Just some ideas.  Actually, I personally have no problems with mages, and I play one here and there.  I also like pathfinder and many of the changes they have made.  As some have said, it appears to have closed the gap some, but it will never fully close it.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #89 on: November 24, 2009, 06:01:50 PM »
I would think, if you were really bent on "balancing" spell casting classes with non-spell casting classes, a few things could be done...

1) Cut the number of spells a spell casting class has each level in half or even less.  It often times isn't what they cast, it's how much they can cast it at any one time.  Casting a 9th level spell 4 rounds in a row, that's crazy.  You don't see mages (Gandolf anyone) using their casting abilities all the time.  No, they reserve it for the times when it is truely needed, because they dont' have much.

2) Put a "recharge" for spells of a certain level.  Casting a 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd level spell isn't that big of a deal (generally) when you can cast 6th and 7th level ones.  So when you cast a higher spell, you can't cast another spell for 1/2 the spells level in rounds - 1...cast an 8th level "uber" spell, well, you can't cast another spell for 3 rounds, as your body recuperates from the amount of energy needed to flow through you.  You can still act normally, do other "non spell casting" things (maybe use a wand or staff, but no scrolls). 

Just some ideas.  Actually, I personally have no problems with mages, and I play one here and there.  I also like pathfinder and many of the changes they have made.  As some have said, it appears to have closed the gap some, but it will never fully close it.

Gandalf lives in a low-magic fantasy world. One of the most powerful artifacts in his world is a freaking RING OF INVISIBILITY (which presumably makes Sauron stronger because it can).

3.5 assumes, resources-wise, that an average party will face about 3 or so encounters a day. This means that while casters can go nova (and there's a lot of ways to do that), once they do, they're essentially useless. Resource management in 3.5 is every bit as important as resource acquisition - you can be a god for 5 minutes, but you should bring in those 5 minutes when they count the most. You can handle every situation (if you're a Wizard), but you need to anticipate that situation (spell slot preparation). While cutting the amount of spell slots one gets in half would go a long way towards avoiding novas, it doesn't speak well for the character's survivability (and even so you can get around those anyway with a careful enough build).

The recharge is also a terrible idea. Combat in D&D doesn't last long enough to make it practical - and what will the caster do for all the time he spends scratching his balls? Further, what's the point? Some spells are powerful enough to bring a combat to an end in the first round anyway.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Treantmonklvl20

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #90 on: November 24, 2009, 07:58:06 PM »

All other classes?  Or just your examples?

Does this apply to Paladins, Clerics, Bards, Druids?

Or are we now narrowing the discussion to casting vs non-casting?

Quote
The difference is that the wizard can take the key skills of his class (Say Spellcraft, Linguistics, Know Arcane and another knowledge of his choice), max them, and still have points left over to cross class max Stealth, Acrobatics, and Perception

This reminds me of another point.  Pathfinder combined a lot of skills.  However, other than Language/Forgery - they didn't seem to combine many Int skills.

There are the same number of Knowledges in Pathfinder that there were in 3.5.

Search, which was an Int skill - is now part of Perception - a Wisdom skill.

Seems to me that skills based on Dex/Wis got the love in Pathfinder more than Int based skills...

Quote
Well, as the extra spell is, alone, better than the core familiar, the ability to craft a magical item at the appropriate level is a complete bonus. As in, buy one, get one free.

The extra spell alone is better than a familiar?  Care to present evidence for that?

Quote
it is vastly easier to kill your familiar.

Yay.  Your first piece of evidence presented that the free spell from bonded item is better than a familiar.

I would respond with, "the cosequences of a killed familiar, are vastly less dire."

Quote
Personally, I think that the arguments in favor of the wizard are true beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of a criminal court.

Read back, you have changed topic:
YOU (in regards to Pathfinder wizards being superior): "He can pull spells that he didn't know to prepare (Bonded item)."
Me: "If he gives up his familiar, and you haven't established it as the better option.
You: "You haven't established it as a worse option"
Me: "Burden of proof..."


Your burden of proof isn't "Pathfinder wizards are better" it is "The Bonded Item is superior to a familiar"

So far, the evidence you've presented is that a familiar is easier to kill than a bonded item is to break - to which I responded that a dead familiar has far lighter consequences than a bonded item.

You also said that the benifits of Bonded Item over a familiar were self-evident.  I pointed out that saying it's "self-evident" isn't very convincing.

This is why I call your claim unfalsifyable.  You haven't presented evidence yet for me to argue against.  If Bonded Item is so much better than a familiar, then surely you can explain why.

I understand the value of an extra spell per day.  I understand the value of spontaneous casting that spell (although I didn't consider Alacritous Cogitation a "must have" feat, it was a nice to have feat).
I question if you know the value of a familiar though.  Give me your best shot.  Why is it self-evident that the Bonded Item is better?  How is the extra spell alone so good, that being able to enchant the item considered "free" by you?

Quote
There are at least 3 separate questions here. Did PF weaken the Wizard? Did PF strengthen the wizard? Did PF strengthen the wizard more than they strengthened most other classes.

Those 3 questions may exist, but we are only debating the last one.  I've already stated my opinion on the first two questions is opinion only, and accept that others may have different opinions based on their priorities.

Quote

I agree.  I was not convinced that it beat it's non-core alternatives either.  However, I do think it made it questionable.  I also must point out that he needed to compare the value of a familiar to Abrupt Jaunt, a "get out of death free" ability usable several times per day as an immediate action.

It takes significantly less to convince me a familiar is better than a free spell once/day.

The familiar is the better option IMO, though I admit that it depends somewhat on your DM.  However, for the purpose of this argument, I don't need for the familiar to be the better option.

Quote

None of the definitions of "rumor" would imply intentional disception on my part.  The argument I was referring to fits all those definitions in my opinion.

So I resent the repeated accusation that I made a dishonest statement.

If you wish to refer to my statement as inaccurate, go ahead, but calling it dishonest suggests that I do not believe what I was referring to was not a rumor, which of course, would mean deliberate disception.  What you believe my motive would be I can only guess.
If at first you don't succeed - maybe failure is your style.

awaken DM golem

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • PAO'd my Avatar
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #91 on: November 24, 2009, 08:18:44 PM »
The "debate" is almost always loudest, at the 50/50 mark

... regardless of any personal investment.

(does this qualify as a tweet ?)

Akalsaris

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1143
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #92 on: November 24, 2009, 11:44:54 PM »
Treantmonklvl20, do you have any plans to repost those guides on the d20pfsrd board to the handbooks section here?  It would probably be a very worthy effort, especially the bard one :)

Treantmonklvl20

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #93 on: November 25, 2009, 12:34:56 AM »
Treantmonklvl20, do you have any plans to repost those guides on the d20pfsrd board to the handbooks section here?  It would probably be a very worthy effort, especially the bard one :)

The guides at the Pathfinder SRD are just embedded google Docs.  I like the Google Doc for handbooks (it will pretty much be my exclusive method for Handbook creation for the time being) because it is much easier to work with (I don't need tags).

However, I can certainly post links in the handbooks section to those guides.  I'll do that now.

A Druid guide is coming as well - but it's turned into a colossol undertaking, so it may be weeks before its completed.  (and I can't see it ending up as one document - I'll have to figure out how to split it up into chapters or something)
If at first you don't succeed - maybe failure is your style.

Taanyth

  • Monkey bussiness
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Chaos Engineer
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #94 on: December 01, 2009, 12:35:42 PM »
I don't like pathfinder, i don't like what they've done with races, i don't like what they've done with polymorph, i don't like what they've done with most classes, i don't like the CMB system, i don't like the new PAttack, i don't like the new crafting system, i don't like their iconics, i don't like their PB system, i don't like the new death spells, i don't like that we are supposed to believed they closed the gap between the casters and non casters cuz the fighter got a bit more of CA and to hit bonus, while the wizard got free int, free sorcerer like stuff and free XP, i don't like how we are supposed to believe that Paizo is capable of producing good material despite all those years of unbalanced Dragon mag stuff, and above everything else...

I don't like how their fanboys that keep popping up in every other forum defending PF as a religion until someone casts Power Word Reason and they go back crawling to their shitty forum where sadly they renew their faith and get their dicks hard again cuz Bulman posted a new shitty rule or banned someone who actually knew a thing or two about RPG's from the forums.

Viletta Vadim

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Metal Genocider, maximum shooto!
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #95 on: December 01, 2009, 01:33:27 PM »
As someone who rolls plenty herself, Taanyth, I gotta say, that's quite the natural one on your diplomacy check.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #96 on: December 01, 2009, 03:46:09 PM »
As someone who rolls plenty herself, Taanyth, I gotta say, that's quite the natural one on your diplomacy check.

I don't think Taanyth was aiming to use a diplomacy check, but then again there's no nut-kicking skill in D&D.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Treantmonklvl20

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #97 on: December 01, 2009, 08:40:42 PM »
I don't like pathfinder, i don't like what they've done with races, i don't like what they've done with polymorph, i don't like what they've done with most classes, i don't like the CMB system, i don't like the new PAttack, i don't like the new crafting system, i don't like their iconics, i don't like their PB system, i don't like the new death spells, i don't like that we are supposed to believed they closed the gap between the casters and non casters cuz the fighter got a bit more of CA and to hit bonus, while the wizard got free int, free sorcerer like stuff and free XP, i don't like how we are supposed to believe that Paizo is capable of producing good material despite all those years of unbalanced Dragon mag stuff, and above everything else...

Nice emotional ranting - sounds like you have a hate-on for everything Paizo.  Did Jason Bulmahn kill your dog or something?

Quote
I don't like how their fanboys that keep popping up in every other forum defending PF as a religion until someone casts Power Word Reason and they go back crawling to their shitty forum where sadly they renew their faith and get their dicks hard again cuz Bulman posted a new shitty rule or banned someone who actually knew a thing or two about RPG's from the forums.

Here's a major intellect failing.

You "above anything else" (bolded) don't like PF being defended then open a thread that is clearly intended to debate the value of Pathfinder.  Your intellect astounds.  :clap  For your next trick why don't you set fire to your hair and get mad because you hate getting burned?

You bringing up religion is a bit ironic since you are throwing up dogma like you cut-and-paste it from a creationist website.  Nobody here is defending "everything Pathfinder", because that would be just as mind-numbingly inane as attacking everything Pathfinder.

Oh...and I didn't just "pop up" here.  From the looks of your profile - you did.  
If at first you don't succeed - maybe failure is your style.

Akalsaris

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1143
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #98 on: December 01, 2009, 10:10:33 PM »
Hey, I still can't resist opening a "Fighter 20 vs. Wizard 20" or "Why monks don't actually suck" thread even when I KNOW it's going to annoy me :P  I imagine Taanyth is the same.

Really though, you can't pin this thread on PF fanboys infiltrating the BG forum or something.  Unbeliever, kobo1d, Glutton, and Taanyth are the only "new" posters in this thread, and Glutton is the only one who liked PF. 

juton

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
  • Jack of all trades, master of nothing.
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #99 on: December 01, 2009, 10:36:08 PM »
I still don't get why we see the extremes in attitude. I don't love pathfinder, I don't hate it either. I don't think anyone is saying that it completely fixed 3.5, there's some debate over whether they fixed it even a little. Even if it turns out they didn't improve it, it still feels like 3.5 to me.

Since most people in 3.5 stuck purely to WotC material, they'd use anything regardless of how weird it was (Incarnum anyone) as long as it had that official WotC seal. I figure people will begin adopting Paizo stuff just because it's new and fresh for the same reasons. Ahead of that I wanted to hear opinions on what they thought worked and what they didn't. Hopefully in the years to come we can pick apart the new content Paizo makes and not the changes to the SRD which it failed to.