Pathfinder: Forget the best, let's find the worst.

[Prime32]

Hold on... doesn't some analog of 3.5e Cleave exist in Pathfinder?

Cleaving Finish + Improved Cleaving Finish.

So, no one's said anything about the Achievements system?

[Solo]

what

[Garryl]

To be fair, Cleaving Finish and Improved Cleaving Finish are from Ultimate Combat, which may make them non-core (whatever that means in PF).

Speaking of which, did they somehow make Cleave and Great Cleave even worse?

[Bozwevial]

Oh yeah, achievement feats. In order to get them, you have to suffer through repeated instances of the same thing while keeping track of tedious numbers. Then you have to spend a feat slot on them, at which point you get a minor benefit when you're doing the same damn thing.

Seriously, one of them is "free 50+ enslaved beings over five or more different occasions," meaning that your DM has put you up against slavers no less than five times. So naturally your course of action is to take a feat that requires you to fight more slavers for it to be any benefit at all.

[Squirel_Dude]

Hold on... doesn't some analog of 3.5e Cleave exist in Pathfinder?

Yes

Cleave (Combat)
You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.

Or were you speaking of something else?

[Squirel_Dude]

Tower Shield Specialist:

Tower Shield Training (Ex): At 3rd level, a tower shield specialist gains armor training as normal, but while he employs a tower shield, the armor penalty is reduced by 3 and the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor increases by 2. The benefit increases every four levels thereafter as per standard armor training; if the tower shield specialist is not employing a tower shield, the benefits to armor training revert to the normal bonuses.

Let's break down this rule, shall we.
 - "At 3rd level, a tower shield specialist gains armor training as normal, but while he employs a tower shield, the armor penalty is reduced by 3..."
What's an armor penalty?

 - "...and the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor increases by 2..."
Which would be great if Tower shields didn't have a max armor of +2 anyway, so that benefit goes no where.

 - "...The benefit increases every four levels thereafter as per standard armor training..."
Does that mean it has a maximum of -4 to Armor Check Penalty, and +4 to the maximum dex allowed too? If so, then the character doesn't gain any benefit after level 12. Another question about this: Does this stack with normal armor training, or does it replace it if you're wearing a shield?

[Bauglir]

- "...and the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor increases by 2..."
Which would be great if Tower shields didn't have a max armor of +2 anyway, so that benefit goes no where.

Technically, if you are wearing any core heavy armor, this is an improvement from +1 or +0 to +2. Obviously this whole thing is still stupid.

[Halinn]

While the RAW on tower shield specialist is idiotic, the RAI is at least clear on them.

Achievement feats are just stupid. Even if you didn't have to spend a feat choice on them, why the hell should stuff like that be ported from video games?

[littha]

While the RAW on tower shield specialist is idiotic, the RAI is at least clear on them.

Achievement feats are just stupid. Even if you didn't have to spend a feat choice on them, why the hell should stuff like that be ported from video games?

It wouldn't be quite as bad if the abilities were any good or the feats were free.

[Halinn]

While the RAW on tower shield specialist is idiotic, the RAI is at least clear on them.

Achievement feats are just stupid. Even if you didn't have to spend a feat choice on them, why the hell should stuff like that be ported from video games?

It wouldn't be quite as bad if the abilities were any good or the feats were free.

It would still be bad, because of the bookkeeping. Who wants to count how many gnolls they've killed, or points of healing (and subtracting an amount based on damage)?

[littha]

While the RAW on tower shield specialist is idiotic, the RAI is at least clear on them.

Achievement feats are just stupid. Even if you didn't have to spend a feat choice on them, why the hell should stuff like that be ported from video games?

It wouldn't be quite as bad if the abilities were any good or the feats were free.

It would still be bad, because of the bookkeeping. Who wants to count how many gnolls they've killed, or points of healing (and subtracting an amount based on damage)?

Oh this is true. I had rather meant things along the lines of:
Killed a God
Destroyed an Artefact
Banished a Demon
Singlehandedly slew a dragon

and so on. Actual achievements rather than a list of repetitive tasks.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Not strictly related, but proof that SKR does not understand momentum/does not want chargers to feel good about themselves:

If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the extra damage multiplier from charging?

No, for two reasons.

One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.

Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because there is no rule in the Core Rulebook that allows a PC to charge and take multiple attacks with a weapon, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)

Am I a bad person for agreeing with him on that one?  Your attacks, quickly as they happen, don't all happen at the exact same moment, you would NOT have that momentum behind iteratives that you did on the first hit.  And frankly, while casters are still much > melee, having a pouncing lance build is fucking broken, too.  I don't really want those kind of number explosions anymore than I want crap like teleportation specialist wizard.
Also, the context of that ruling...people on the paizo boards were MORONICALLY using the "ragelancepounce" concept to whine and bitch and moan that pounce...for anyone...from any source...should be for natural weapons only.  If Paizo had actually listened to their stupid fans on that one, melee would've taken it up the ass like never before (as the tiger-shaped druid smiles).  While you may disagree with his interpretation, it did a nice job of shutting down the lance pounce build that so many found to be too much (again, I'm one of them) while still preserving weapons-based pouncing as an option.

I was very happy with SKR's ruling there, and I trash SKR and his decisions all the damn time.  Given the situation, it was probably the best possible outcome.  I guarantee you, if he hadn't nerfed something in the lance pounce combo, the fans would've kept complaining and something much worse would've likely happened.  That's the scary thing about paizo -- they actually DO listen to their fans (and their fans suck).

[Solo]

Honest question: If I Power Attack one minion, kill him, and then trigger Cleaving Finish, should the exact same modifiers apply to my attack and damage rolls? After all, my sword won't have the same momentum coming out of a mook as it did going in...

[Squirel_Dude]

While the RAW on tower shield specialist is idiotic, the RAI is at least clear on them.

Somewhat, but not entirely. The problem is whether or not it is in place of, or it stacks with, and how it supposed to progress and what the cap on the ability is.

Basically, there is a lot of grey, and it's more Rules as Interpreted than Rules as Intended. In my experience, that is never a good thing. Meh, It's still better than Merciful Healer.


Another item:

Map Maker's Kit:
Price: 10 gp
Description: This small kit contains a simple slate with a grid carved into its surface and a number of different colored pieces of chalk. Anyone using this kit to draw a map as they travel receives a +2 circumstance bonus on Survival skill checks to avoid becoming lost.

It's 10 gp for a blackboard and multi-colored chalk. Note that a piece of chalk is priced at 1 cp. Apparently every school has a "map maker's kit."

[Waazraath]

Not strictly related, but proof that SKR does not understand momentum/does not want chargers to feel good about themselves:

If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the extra damage multiplier from charging?

No, for two reasons.

One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.

Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because there is no rule in the Core Rulebook that allows a PC to charge and take multiple attacks with a weapon, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)

Am I a bad person for agreeing with him on that one?  Your attacks, quickly as they happen, don't all happen at the exact same moment, you would NOT have that momentum behind iteratives that you did on the first hit.  And frankly, while casters are still much > melee, having a pouncing lance build is fucking broken, too.  I don't really want those kind of number explosions anymore than I want crap like teleportation specialist wizard.
Also, the context of that ruling...people on the paizo boards were MORONICALLY using the "ragelancepounce" concept to whine and bitch and moan that pounce...for anyone...from any source...should be for natural weapons only.  If Paizo had actually listened to their stupid fans on that one, melee would've taken it up the ass like never before (as the tiger-shaped druid smiles).  While you may disagree with his interpretation, it did a nice job of shutting down the lance pounce build that so many found to be too much (again, I'm one of them) while still preserving weapons-based pouncing as an option.

I was very happy with SKR's ruling there, and I trash SKR and his decisions all the damn time.  Given the situation, it was probably the best possible outcome.  I guarantee you, if he hadn't nerfed something in the lance pounce combo, the fans would've kept complaining and something much worse would've likely happened.  That's the scary thing about paizo -- they actually DO listen to their fans (and their fans suck).

I wouldn't know about how things go at Paizo's, but for the rest I fully agree with you.

[Unbeliever]

...
Am I a bad person for agreeing with him on that one?  Your attacks, quickly as they happen, don't all happen at the exact same moment, you would NOT have that momentum behind iteratives that you did on the first hit.  And frankly, while casters are still much > melee, having a pouncing lance build is fucking broken, too.  I don't really want those kind of number explosions anymore than I want crap like teleportation specialist wizard.
...

I don't think you're a bad person, but I have two problems with it. 

Problem #1 -- it's ad hoc and gets closer to what's called a magical tea party approach.  The game is not particularly realistic.  Even the conventions of rounds, hit points, and so on break a lot of realism/verisimilitude in the game.  And, that's fine.  My problem is that once you start down this path you end up with pages long discussions on the momentum point of a scimitar, which I recall reading in Dragon Magazine years ago or the stats of such and such weapon v. another weapon and so on. 

Then the game shifts from whatever set of rules you're using to "persuade your DM/the gaming group" or an amateur medieval weapons debate.  Neither of which I think are particularly fun or rewarding.  Nor do I think they lead to a better game.

Furthermore, there'd be no end to the mechanics you have to subject this treatment to.  Every feat or feat combo would have to go under this scrutiny.  Inevitably, a player is going to wonder why his lancer got the ax but other combos don't. 


Problem #2 -- it's a little dishonest.  If the build is overpowered then the build is overpowered.  If the pouncing lancer build is broken, then it's broken, and that's the problem to address.  Trying to come up with a realism-based argument is besides the point.  Pun-Pun (hyperbolic example used for illustrative purposes) is uber-broken, and that build shouldn't be excused b/c it doesn't run afoul of any realism-based critiques. 

Personally, I think trying to hunt out all the various potential broken builds in a game as fiddly as D&D/Pathfinder is a fool's errand.  But, as I said, it's better to directly address the problem rather than trying to dodge it based on some sort of realism-based argument.

[Waazraath]

Well... I don't think I really see problem #1 you mention, Unbeliever, as a real problem. In a way, all (or at least most) combat mechanics are meant to mimic real world stuff. Obviously, you can get way to far in that, as you describe, and indeed nobody gets better with endless arguments about a certain kind of weapon... but too weird / illogical stuff can be distracting from the game as well, at least in certain games and in certain groups. Especially when a certain unrealistic feature is broken (and especially when only chosen because of that) I do think the 'realism' argument can be valid.

#2 is problematic though... because when these kind of arguments are used, they'll only be used regarding real world stuff, sword, sticks, combat... not to magic or psionics. If realism is used as an argument to ban stuff, martial classes only get weaker while the already overpowered casters won't be bothered by it. In that sense, I agree it might not be totally 'fair'  balance wise.

But for me, charge-lance-pouncing always fell in the catagory "the rules don't say I can't"-kinda arguments. Indeed, the rules don't say you can't, but they nowhere say you can either, no example build or creature in any book that I know of used it. That, combined with the lack of logic / realism makes it quite a reasonable ruling for me.

[Solo]

Historically, lancers also bore swords, maces or something else suited to close quarter battle, since the lance was often a one-use-per-engagement weapon; after the initial charge, the weapon was far too long, heavy and slow to be effectively used against opponents in a melee.

The conclusion to be drawn is left as an exercise to the reader.

[midnight_v]

Subscribed to this interesting and hilarious (achievement feats) thread.

Solo I find you points very astute. I agree with solo and unbeliever on this one. Not SKR. For the reasons above.
 The whole thing about:

In a way, all (or at least most) combat mechanics are meant to mimic real world stuff.

Seems like a really bad deal in a bubble when I'm fighting monsters that often cannot exist in real world, alongside reality manipulating beings.
  The problem with that mindset is if you start applying real world rules to melee, you really hurt melee conceptually, when substantial amounts of opponents aren't using that same metric.

Truth be told its a "I don't care WHAT the rules say... I'm the DM!" moment, taken to an odd extreme as SKR is the Dm... it reinforces in my head that pathfinder is just a set of well marketed house rules.

[Prime32]

A few more things:

• Mundane fear effects do not stack. Magical ones do. Whyyyyy.
• You cannot draw more than one alchemical item per round by any means. No justification is given for this. You can still draw multiple improvised weapons per round, including alchemical items treated as improvised weapons. Also alchemical items cannot deliver precision damage.
• Spiked chains are nerfed into oblivion, but other weapons still do the same thing.
• Class levels do not count as HD.
• Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) is illegal.
• Flying creatures and things without legs are immune to the Trip special attack.

These rule changes were made to ban particular fluff. As in, if a rogue thief doesn't spend the entire combat hiding in the shadows and stab anyone who tries to get away with a dagger, he's not playing right and should be punished. If you fight by throwing flasks, that's bad and dumb... unless you're a member of the new "fights by throwing flasks" class, in which case you're Doing It Right. Likewise, half-dragon PCs having breath weapons doesn't make sense, so they should have them but be pathetically weak.*

Paladins were almost nerfed from 3.5, with one of the designers saying their party role was "superior roleplaying opportunities", which was antithetical with being good at combat. However, there was so much outcry over this that they back-pedalled and paladins became possibly the best-designed class in the game. Um, yay?

*Oddly, when told the template was for roleplaying reasons, one designer immediately posted a feat with no prereqs which let class levels count as HD while making the half-dragon's breath weapon usable once per 1d4 rounds.


More:

• Abilities which were at-will in the beta were nerfed to 3+mod/day in the final game. Except cantrips. Most of the sorcerer's lv1 3+Cha/day bloodline powers are weaker than his at-will cantrips which do the same thing.
• Monks have multiple "count as full BAB for certain purposes" abilities so that they're effectively a full BAB class that counts as average BAB for prereqs. Why not just make them full BAB? Also, at some point the flurry rules were changed so that you have to TWF to use it (and you can't dual-wield two unarmed strikes).