Look at this thing I found in Pathfinder! The bad feats/spells/etc thread

[Libertad]

Saw the thread on GitP about this one, holy shit this is a stupid feat.

How did Paizo ever compete with 4E again?

Because some people hate 4th Edition's aesthetics so much that they'd rather stick with Paizo, "who are more in touch with gamers  than those corporate fat cats at WotC!"

That last bit's exaggeration on my part, but not by much.  While 4th Edition has it's faults, it was revolutionary for trying to fix some major problems of previous Editions.  But those problems were such a large part of D&D that it felt "wrong" to a lot of people.  Hell, gamers went nuts over the "Wizard getting nerfed" and the Fighter getting powers.  3rd Edition players, even, who should know better than anyone else!

Now I was reading a thread over at The RPG Site, speculating what would have happened if Pathfinder went farther in fixing the Edition's problems.  A few folks thought that the game would've become a niche market, only for another 3E retroclone to take their place in popularity.

I don't know if that's 100% accurate (Paizo's a very well-received company), but there are quite a few Pathfinder fans who wouldn't have jumped board otherwise.  Pathfinder's definitely got a target market, but it's not for min-maxers and people interested in fixing the worst of 3.X's faults.  A lot of the fanbase are folks who preferred 3rd Edition for familiarity, no problem with that.  But then there's the Wizard Supremacy advocates who just have to have their reality-breaking shenanigans, and the reactionary gamers who think that taking some inspiration from MMORPGs is a horrible betrayal.  And apparently they're a significant enough segment of the D&D fanbase that WotC is taking steps backwards to bring them back into the fold with Next.

There's also the OGL, which is less restrictive than the GSL.  Leading to more 3rd Party support, which makes Pathfinder seem more accessible and widespread.  Although I don't know how much of a role that plays, considering that the Pathfinder SRD's free and their books are hideously expensive.

[LordBlades]

Saw the thread on GitP about this one, holy shit this is a stupid feat.

How did Paizo ever compete with 4E again?

Pathfinder gave people that wanted more D&D 3.5, more D&D 3.5.

For all it's failing, D&D 3.5 is a pretty good (And popular system), and has a quite different target audience than 4E, so there is still a market for offering a supported 3.5 product.

[ImperatorK]

Saw the thread on GitP about this one, holy shit this is a stupid feat.

How did Paizo ever compete with 4E again?

It's not boring or bland?

[King Kamor]

Caustic Slur

(text)

So you use this feat and grant your enemy the benefit of Power Attack.  I don't know what to say.

I realize that Paizo definitely didn't mean for this to happen, but if your DM works with 3.5/Pathfinder transparency (able to use both systems with DM permission) then this feat works kind of okay with Elusive Target.

(click to show/hide)

Elusive Target

The Elusive Target feat enables the use of three tactical maneuvers. Negate Power Attack: To use this maneuver, you must designate a specific foe to be affected by your Dodge feat. If that foe uses the Power Attack feat against you, the foe gains no bonus on the damage roll but still takes the corresponding penalty on the attack roll.

And if your DM uses the Pathfinder version of Dodge, then it technically affects everyone using Power Attack on you. It might be good to help dodge one or two attacks if you're going for a dodge-tank sort of ranger. Who knows?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending it. By itself, within just the Pathfinder system, the feat is pretty useless and can easily backfire. Additionally, the favored enemy requirement severely hinders its usefulness, depending on the setting. If it put the enemy into a frenzy of some kind then that would be more flavorful and fun, I think.

[akalsaris]

Caustic Slur

(text)

So you use this feat and grant your enemy the benefit of Power Attack.  I don't know what to say.

I realize that Paizo definitely didn't mean for this to happen, but if your DM works with 3.5/Pathfinder transparency (able to use both systems with DM permission) then this feat works kind of okay with Elusive Target.

(click to show/hide)

Elusive Target

The Elusive Target feat enables the use of three tactical maneuvers. Negate Power Attack: To use this maneuver, you must designate a specific foe to be affected by your Dodge feat. If that foe uses the Power Attack feat against you, the foe gains no bonus on the damage roll but still takes the corresponding penalty on the attack roll.

And if your DM uses the Pathfinder version of Dodge, then it technically affects everyone using Power Attack on you. It might be good to help dodge one or two attacks if you're going for a dodge-tank sort of ranger. Who knows?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending it. By itself, within just the Pathfinder system, the feat is pretty useless and can easily backfire. Additionally, the favored enemy requirement severely hinders its usefulness, depending on the setting. If it put the enemy into a frenzy of some kind then that would be more flavorful and fun, I think.

Good thinking!  Man, I'd love to one day make the 1 character in the world who actually took Caustic Slur and wasn't worse off for it

[Garryl]

Caustic Slur

(text)

So you use this feat and grant your enemy the benefit of Power Attack.  I don't know what to say.

I realize that Paizo definitely didn't mean for this to happen, but if your DM works with 3.5/Pathfinder transparency (able to use both systems with DM permission) then this feat works kind of okay with Elusive Target.

(click to show/hide)

Elusive Target

The Elusive Target feat enables the use of three tactical maneuvers. Negate Power Attack: To use this maneuver, you must designate a specific foe to be affected by your Dodge feat. If that foe uses the Power Attack feat against you, the foe gains no bonus on the damage roll but still takes the corresponding penalty on the attack roll.

And if your DM uses the Pathfinder version of Dodge, then it technically affects everyone using Power Attack on you. It might be good to help dodge one or two attacks if you're going for a dodge-tank sort of ranger. Who knows?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending it. By itself, within just the Pathfinder system, the feat is pretty useless and can easily backfire. Additionally, the favored enemy requirement severely hinders its usefulness, depending on the setting. If it put the enemy into a frenzy of some kind then that would be more flavorful and fun, I think.

Elusive Target doesn't work with PF's version of Dodge because you never designate foes to be affected by it.

[Squirel_Dude]

Saw the thread on GitP about this one, holy shit this is a stupid feat.

How did Paizo ever compete with 4E again?

Because they made their product essentially free to play and enjoy.

[King Kamor]

Elusive Target doesn't work with PF's version of Dodge because you never designate foes to be affected by it.

I know, that's why I said it could work with 3.5/Pathfinder transparency. If a feat's broken, then the DM might as well fix it and make some new rules to make it work, if a player thinks the feat sounds fun and wants to use it. Dodge is relatively useful in PF so we always use it in my games, so it would be easy to just replace the Elusive Target text "target designated by Dodge" with "target designated for the use of this tactical maneuver." In the case with Caustic Slur, the target would be "that guy I just pissed off."

[Aliek]

Problem is it would be at most a gimmick - 3 feats, a standard action and a bluff check, which may  fail, to get effectivelly 3 ac or so. And its even race and class restricted! And you can only use it against favored enemies!

Also, you cant use it on party members, since the power  attack only works when attacking you.

[Prime32]

So...

You can't "re-skin" the ability's game mechanics

Pathfinder has officially banned refluffing.

[phaedrusxy]

So...

You can't "re-skin" the ability's game mechanics

Pathfinder has officially banned refluffing.

Those idiots...

[Libertad]

So...

You can't "re-skin" the ability's game mechanics

Pathfinder has officially banned refluffing.

Those idiots...

Yet one more thing 13th Age (and a smorgasboard of other games) has over them.

[Raineh Daze]

I'm not sure they've banned refluffing as a whole, so much as refluffing that would free up your hands, since it's talking about rearranging claw attacks.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Bumping this thread to commemorate the official death of the rogue class.

While you could legitimately argue the rogue was dead on arrival when PF launched (thanks to the nerfs to class skills, tumble DC, flasks, and obtaining sneak attack; or the fact that Bard was basically "rogue, but better"), or that it was left comatose and then suffocated to death on its hospital bed by splat book archetypes (Vivisectionist Alchemist, Sandman Bard, Trapper Ranger, Archaeologist Bard, etc...), or even by the ultimate stake to the heart, Flanking Foil...

For some, the fact that "only like half a dozen or so classes" could obsolete the rogue meant the rogue was still alive.  Or in some weird, fragile state between living and dead.  Even if the only purpose the rogue had by that point was "most expendable party member to go monkey with the traps."  But now, paizo has seen fit to finally put the resilient little bastard out of his misery once and for all.  Not even thinking Rogue deserved the dignity of being replaced by an entire feat, or to show some respect by not blatantly re-using the same name, the day has finally come.

May you rest in peace, Rogue class.  It's hard to believe that only one edition ago you were one of the best non-caster classes in the game and my personal favorite to play as.  Your swift fall from grace and vicious demise are proof that Paizo truly is capable of great (and terrible) things!

[Prime32]

Goodbye Crane Wing

[Libertad]

Goodbye Crane Wing

Rest in peace.  I've noticed that many of these nerfs are done specifically when niche min-max builds spring up taking advantage of the feat/archetype.


Just a thought, if one were to reverse the errata on all the mundane/non-primary caster options, how much would the power level of martials rise?  A little?  A lot?

[StreamOfTheSky]

Un-fucking believable, the monk nerfs never end!  It's more than a nerf... they took a very good feat for a very horrible combat style (1H free or completely unarmed, pick your poison) and turned it into a completely worthless feat not worth taking, ever.  Well done, SKR, well done.

Just a thought, if one were to reverse the errata on all the mundane/non-primary caster options, how much would the power level of martials rise?  A little?  A lot?

A little.  It's still be a giant disparity, but at least the martials could feel useful sometimes, other than specific tricked out builds (that haven't been nerfed yet themselves) to min/max dps.  Likewise if you were to undo all the caster buffs of PF.  I mean, then you'd be back at 3E level "balance."  A noticeable improvement, but still a tiny one.

And I mean, there are specific exceptions and a lot depends on what level you can "start" at, etc... Like... pre-nerf, a level 20 Monk with Cloud Step could Air Walk infinite distance as a move action infinite times per day.  That's pretty damn powerful and useful.  But it doesn't help at all the first 19 levels of monk you have to suck down to get there.

[Prime32]

Is there any compilation of these pre-nerf versions out there? I know all the (3+ability mod)/day abilities were originally at will...

[Libertad]

Is there any compilation of these pre-nerf versions out there? I know all the (3+ability mod)/day abilities were originally at will...

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was an "errata" compilation out there.  Perhaps one could reverse-engineer from there.

[oslecamo]

A little.  It's still be a giant disparity, but at least the martials could feel useful sometimes, other than specific tricked out builds (that haven't been nerfed yet themselves) to min/max dps.  Likewise if you were to undo all the caster buffs of PF.  I mean, then you'd be back at 3E level "balance."  A noticeable improvement, but still a tiny one.

Excuse me, but even tough PF does gives a lot of buffs to spellcasters, the end result is still weaker than a 3E caster.

Why? Because shapechange and wish that's why. They may be just two spells, but they were two spells behind pretty much all of the top borked magic. PF Wish no longer can create magic items, and PF shapechange no longer allows you to cherry pick abilities from any monster from any book. And those two combined were worth infinitely more than all of the boosts PF has given casters so far.