Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

10 things you love and hate about PF


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 100 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

HappyDaze wrote:
Twigs wrote:

But this doesn't make Reactionary any less overpowered.

I think that there are other traits that grant the +2 initiative too, but why do you object to this trait more than the various +1 to a save traits?

I don't object to it. Why, I take it all the time. :P

I'm just pointing out that it blows traits like Anatomist and Charming clean out of the water, and I'm more inclined to think these should be boosted and more traits should give these unconditional bonuses. To saves, spells, attacks with weapon x, etc.

Most of us have enough to keep track of. Don't we?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Things I like:

  • The Paizo Staff
  • The Monsters Revisited Line
  • The Adventure Paths
  • The Production Values
  • The way expansions dont make previous books redundant
  • The incentive to remain in one class
  • Kaer Mage (Not really PF, but I'm not going to leave it out)
  • The improvements to Combat Maneuvers
  • The quality of writing

Things I dont like:

  • Hit Points
  • Experience Points
  • The skill system (by tenth level, it seems like you're awesome or crap at everything)
  • The high assumed level of magic
  • The required level of system mastery to avoid bad choices
  • The need for a pre-planned 'build' instead of an organically developed character
  • The fact it pulls resources from developing Golarion
  • The prep-time required as DM

Edit: I also think alignment is silly, but that's mainly because people treat it as if it's modelling something which exists in real life. As a game concept, in a universe with real 'forces of good/evil/law/chaos' then it all makes sense and works fine. The trouble, imo, is that because PF alignment affects how a character acts - the assumption follows that in the real world we all have some 'alignment' which affects how we act. Dropping that flawed assumption and accepting that this points to a fundamental, metaphysical difference between the fantasy world and our world would reduce a lot of the alignment angst, in my view.


In no particular order

Like:
1. Vancian magic - wizard flavour screams for it
2. Monsters with varied combat and non-combat abilities and unified mechanics
3. Archetypes - I can customize my characters in ways previously impossible and without prestige classes.
4. Skills - easy to allocate, accessible for all.
6. Setting - I may not like it's patchwork overall nature, but in details it overflows with flavour
7. Adventure Paths and support, Gamemastery cards
8. Unified system of combat maneuvers.
9. PDFs for books
10. Poison is useful again

Dislike:
1. Magic - everyone has to rely on it.
2. Skills - not enough power to them, easy to replicate with magic.
3. Amount of cool and utility given to martial classes is different from full and half casters.
4. There is no way I can subscribe to PDFs only.
5. Feats - some are rather useless and some overpowered or confusing. Some corrections would be nice.
6. Preparations time
7. Monsters - If I didn't have to look to five other places to learn what to do with them. Some basic tactics would be nice to have for beginners. Hardlay everything needs to be known to use a monster effectively.
8. Item creation and economy
9. Christmas tree effect
10. Sometimes the fight is too easy, sometimes too hard. Single monster is either overkill or cakewalk way too often.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Like -
1. Martial Combat: I really like what the martial classes can do when compared to 3.x
2. Bloodlines: Not only are sorcerers now playable but they are fun.
3. Archetypes: Fun, flavorful, and none seem broken (so far).
4. CMB & CMD: Thank you so much Paizo!
5. Plenty of quality adventures to run: nuff said.
6. Channeling: Way cool and fun to use.
7. Skills: Simplified and more useful with the added effects that some of them have.
8. Quality production value: keep up the good work.
9. The people: Paizo is a company that clearly cares about the product as a whole and it shows with a solid end product.

Dislike -
1. Spells: the inconsistency of how obviously good some spells are verses others of the same level, also the inconsistency
of spell design.
2. Spell decay: some spells start off good then becomes useless at higher levels or they effects cap or become nullified at
some arbitrary point vs spells which are always useful.
3. Vancian Magic: Clunky, unintuitive, and is a very dated game mechanic
4. Magic Items: over reliance on magic in general
5. Class based characters/level progression: sorry, but I’ll never be happy with this one.
6. 1 Standard action a turn/full attack action: this is such a difficult and unintuitive concept to explain to even experienced
gamers who are new to the system.
7. Dump Stats: there should always be (relatively balanced) reasons why every class should want every stat and the desire
to leave one or more stats weak should be a design decision based on what the player wants out of the character.
8. Item Creation: while better than 3.x, it still just does not seem to work in the long run.
9. Built in Min/Maxing: much like spells, there are just some bonuses that are clearly the stronger choice than others when
picking spells, magic items, feats, etc.
10. Power Creep: a lot of the things put out in the newest book has to just be a little more powerful than the last book put out creating an never ending arms race (Ninja!)

Shadow Lodge

Like:

The lack of distance between the devs and fans

The flavor added to the sorcerer class by way of mechanics. They're actually DIFFERENT than wizards now.

Something to look forward to at every level

A reason to stay in a class, or even single class. in 3e there was no reason for a barbarian not to snag 2 levels of fighter or a fighter not to snag a level of barbarian.

The arch types allowing you to play the character you want without waiting till level 6 and snagging a prestige class.

Rogues can sneak attack things now. (in 3.5 everything, its brother and its brothers familiar were immune to sneak attack)

Dislike:

Not so much pathfinder in particular but the difficulty in being a melee class and having to move. Terrain and obstacles should make fights interesting for melee types to hop around on and interact with without halving their effectiveness.

The stealth rules (hopefully that will be moving to the other column soon)

The magic item creation rules are horribly confusing. (but getting clarified by the errata.. i think)

The effects of all day long detect magic haven't quite rippled through the gaming system yet. It was a relatively minor change with far reaching implications that haven't been addressed. For example, magic traps may as well now have a sign on them.

Grapple: most of what grapple does depends on conditions which aren't listed in the grapple rules. Its still unclear if you can cast in a grapple or not. Its also confusing for non bipeds.

hey, how do you make those bullet thingies?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


hey, how do you make those bullet thingies?

It's an asterisk inside square brackets.

Enclosing it within [list] and [/ list] indents it.

Cheliax

I don't know why some of you guys even play... Disliking experience and hit points?

Likes:

1.Artwork. Hands down some of the best out there. The amount of detail added into the artwork by Wayne Reynolds boggles my mind.
2. The iconics are flat out nifty. They look cool and they would be killer to read about more than just the chapter blurbs. I do admit the reuse of an iconic(*cough* magus *cough*) cheesed me out a but.
3. The fact that the core and additional classes make playing a 20 level class viable is so welcome over WoTC's vomitting PrCs all over the place.
4. I may be the only one, but I love the additional classes. I think the Witch and Magus are my favorite Pathfinder classes. Heck I even dig the idea behind the Gunslinger, maybe not completely sold on the ruleset.
5. Goblins. I LOVE Paizo's take on them. Ogres too.
6. Adventure Paths are keen. The layouts, the artwork, the additional info like the little stories are just so welcome. I love how they try to incorporate something new into each path.
7. The human sub divisions. I love how they're so different in outlook and appearance.
8. The play test phases. I feel like Paizo really goes out of their way to make sure they take their clientele and fan bases opinions to heart.
9. Drow aren't the only bad boys on the block. I love that each AP addresses something different in terms of BBEG.
10. I've yet to find a Paizo product I felt was worthless. That means a lot to me. They don't just put out product; they think it through and it shows.

Dislikes:
1. Magus iconic. See #2 above.
2. Lack of iconic based novels.
3. Lack of a Pathfinder video game a la Baldurs Gate. I know it's early yet, but I'd love this. ;)
4. I feel the Pathfinder Scenarios a bit unbalanced. One first level we played through had exploding flaming skeletons. That didn't end well ;)
5. Druid Wild Shaping could be more thorough in description, or rather Beast Shape 1 could be.
6. Magus iconic (sorry I really was ticked we didn't get something new lol. Mostly because it would have meant new Wayne Reynolds art.

I really don't think I have more griefs than this. I think D&D 3.5 was good. Pathfinder is just plain wonderful.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Darktoasty wrote:
I don't know why some of you guys even play... Disliking experience and hit points?

We've already ditched experience points. If Paizo ever come up with some alternate wound/recovery rules (and it I get around to reading them) we'll ditch them too. They're not that essential to the game.

Taldor

Aloquis wrote:
Toadkiller Dog wrote:


4. The fact that Paul S. Kemp was supposed to write PF Novels, but nothing came out of it.
Did not know that... Now I'm slightly depressed. Kemp is one of my top 3 authors (a list that does not include Salvatore)

Oooh. That's a whole new thread. My votes are for Greenwood on Alkenstar. Dan Abnet on anything. Ditto on William King.


Love:

1) Skill system changes from 3.5
2) Improvements to martial classes from 3.5
3) Supporting the system with adventure paths
4) The combat maneuvers system
5) Feats every other level
6) Making core classes shine
7) Improvements in balance from 3.5
8) Improved point buy system
9) Improved favored class system
10) Variety of talent in the company

Hate:
1) The alignment system
2) That some classes pigeonhole you to a particular alignment
3) Still lots unbalance in spells and feats
4) The "alternative" favored class bonuses in APG
5) Firearms
6) No Beholders or Mind flayers
7) Heavy reliance on Magic Items
8) Random HP rolls
9) Magic item crafting: way too easy, too flexible
10) There is no #10


cp wrote:


Things I hate about Pathfinder:

2. Balance
Pathfinder duplicated the mistake of Dnd 3.0 by letting all the player characters advance at the same pace, this ignoring for the sake of ease of arithmetic one of the best mechanisms for player class balance.

I feel like you must not have played 1E/2E very much because that never worked out well at all as a balancing mechanism. It was a terrible idea on paper and a worse one in practice.

Hey, the casters can outdo every single ability the thief gets with a level 1 or 2 spell, but he gets to be a level higher than they are. Woo! Yeah... that's not balance.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

...For example, magic traps may as well now have a sign on them.

...

Not true - detection spells is easy to block and with th cost the lead coating, or Magic Aura can get in there without saying.


Frogboy wrote:

Love: It's based on d20 rules

Hate: It's based on d20 rules

+1.

Really, most of the things I dislike about Pathfinder come directly from 3.5 and older editions of DnD (such as alignments, rolling for hit points, level drain, etc.). Considering that the designers were constrained by the OGL and had to make something that, while new, was still backward compatible with 3.5, I am quite forgiving of those things, as far as Paizo is concerned. But just taking the things that are unique to Pathfinder as opposed to things I've liked or dislked about DnD for years, here's my top ten:

Likes (in no particular order)
- The production quality of the Pathfinder books (art, layout, quality of new game mechanics, etc). Paizo continues to impress me by coming out with books that I actually want to buy and feel are a good value for my money, as opposed to the tiring stream of mediocre stuff that WotC put out over the years. Sure, there has been the occasional broken spell or whatever, but we're talking about a small handful of broken things out of thousands of new options.
- The magic items and prestige classes being in the core book.
- Character Archetypes and all of the other options for customizing your class (I love customizable base classes as opposed to Prestigle classes, which I hate)
- Feats at every even level instead of every 3 levels
- Consolidated Skills (Perception instead of Listen, Search and Spot, Stealth instead of Hide and Move Silently, etc.)
- The Combat Maneuver sysetm that greatly simplified the grapple, sunder, etc rules
- Very few monsters are immune to critical hits/sneak attack now. I always thought it was stupid that you couldn't crit undead.
- At-will cantrips/orisons
- Sorcerer bloodlines
- Problem spells that are now balanced and/or much easier to use in play thanks to improved mechanics (Black Tentacles, Dispel Magic, Mind Blank no longer providing absolute invincibility against the entire enchantment and divination schools, several of the save or dies, etc).

Dislikes (also in no particular order)
- Characters getting bonus HP/Skill Ranks for favored classes and the alternative options in the APG, especially the obviously overpowered human spells known option for sorcerers and oracles. I HATE favored classes and wish they had gone away altogether.
- All of the extremely narrow skills that didn't get consolidated (such as Knowledge: Geography, History, Local and Nobility. These all really should just be one Skill: Knowledge (History), IMO)
- The Fly Skill (for all the effort of consolidating the skills, it's totally counterproductive to add an entirely unnecessary new skill)
- The item creation rules.
- The new experience point system, where every character gets the same xp regardless of their level. I much prefer the old system where lower-level players could eventually catch up.
- Smite Evil (which is now stupidly overpowered)
- Way Overbuffed Feats which are now, IMO, overpowered (Power Attack, Manyshot, etc)
- Previously Overpowered/Underpowered/Broken/Poorly Constructed Spells that weren't revised (Magic Jar, the power word spells, spells with Hit Die limits making them useless at higher levels, and many others).
- "Blasting" spells still suck, thanks to an overabundance of resistance/immunity on monster, HP inflation, etc.
- Sorcerers only being able to get a familiar if they are of the Arcane Bloodline. You're seriously telling me my infernal sorcerer can't have an Imp familiar? WHAT? Summon Familiar should have been made a feat, that way its optional but also available to any wizard or sorcerer who wants one. Oh and, speaking of arcane bond, bonded item is a much greater drawback than an advantage. Bleh.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Mmm. Can't say I have strong feelings either way.


Love: Relatively balanced class variations. condensed skills, more information with fewer sources, better organized content, better artwork, bard love, expanded options for spellcasters, additional base classes, easier to use spell sections..... and adorable shocker lizards.

Hate: Auto success/fail on many things (you shouldn't trip a colossal dragon 1 in 20 tries), few viable ranged classes comparatively, typos, halflings (why do they still exist?), heal checks no longer used for forensic purposes, monster templates (CR values are deceptive), dispel magic rules (how you can dispel a 9th level spell the same as a 1st level spell), druid wildshape, needs more prestige classes (variants outshine most current ones), needs epic monster stat blocks

Qadira RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

There are a few big reasons why I chose PFRPG and those are still largely my biggest Loves of PF.

#1 Open Gaming License - I know, it's not a PF invention, but Paizo has embraced it and really turned it into something much closer to what the original intent was. They support and encourage third parties to use and abuse the rules system to do amazing things like the Dreamscarred Press' psionics rules, Midgard, The Breaking of Fostor Nagar, Super Genius Games products... etc...

#2 Pathfinder Adventure Paths - My wife is running a kick a** campaign using Carrion Crown. She is having a ball, we are all loving the campaign. There is absolutely zero chance she would be running something this complex and just awesome without the support of a flexible game system and a team of amazing authors.

#3-10 PAGE TWO OF ULTIMATE COMBAT, plus Sewer Dragons ;)

Biggest hates? I have none. I do have a few frustrations but none really stand out. Well maybe intimidate rules and the slumber hex :P


Steve Geddes wrote:
Darktoasty wrote:
I don't know why some of you guys even play... Disliking experience and hit points?
We've already ditched experience points. If Paizo ever come up with some alternate wound/recovery rules (and it I get around to reading them) we'll ditch them too. They're not that essential to the game.

Ultimate Combat has something simplistic that might be up your alley. I myself really dig the new called shot rules.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

I am having trouble coming up with a list of "Ten" things. So, here is what I have.

Likes
1 The generally excellent quality of the writing.
2 The quality of design. The setting is generally well laid out and makes logical sense.
3 The Adventure Paths. Having a fully plotted out campaign is just awesome. (but see my #1 dislike below)
4 The Art. Paizo rightly puts a lot of effort into the “look” of their products.
5 Traits. These are a brilliant innovation to encourage players to tie their characters into the setting and the campaign.

Dislikes
1 Lovecraft (I never liked Lovecraft, so I have never read much of his work – or other Mythos stuff. To have it be so “fundamental” Golarion is a problem for me.)
2 The fact that so much has to be kept hidden from the player base (including GMs – for example: What are the Packmasters of Katapesh?)
3 There aren’t enough cultural details (not necessarily possible in a gaming source, the level of detail would become colossal), but I would like more about naming, languages, styles of dress, diet, etc.
4 Lovecraft again (Unfortunately, my players ARE big Mythos fans, which means that they know more about what is going on than I do. This is rarely a good thing.)
5 The Gods. I actually prefer having cultural pantheons (which would retain the appropriate cultural favor see Dislike #3 above).
6 Class Bloat. With all the archetypes coming out, I am definitely getting the sense that the "CORE" character classes are becoming obsolite.
7 Finally, I do disagree with a few of their design choices (but that does not make them wrong, I just would have gone in a different direction).


Lord Fyre wrote:
2 The fact that so much has to be kept hidden from the player base (including GMs – for example: What are the Packmasters of Katapesh?)

Yeah, they really aren't doing the GM any favors here.


Love:
1: Finally got skills right
2: +2/-2 racial bonus makes BLATANT optimization less needed
3: Lots of OP spells have been nerfed so that the wizard does not do EVERYTHING better than everyone else.
4: Finally a point to play a paladin. My favorite class was mechanically garbage throughout all of 3rd edition.
5: No dead levels
6: The gods. Unlike Forgotten Realms and such, I feel the Golarion deities make more sense.
7: The martial classes finally got some skills. Was nothing more BORING than a fighter until PF.
8: Character customization options.
9: Got rid of the CR math for XP. Now I can forget my calculator and still GM.
10: No Epic. As a GM, I am SOOOO grateful

Hate:
1: Lots of skills are still (mostly) useless
2: Optimizing still breaks the game
3: Wizards and Clerics are still godlike.
4: Pain in the ass to challenge players on higher levels without "GM Optimizing" or doing slow XP.
5: Doing anything but full-attack-actions-all-the-time is still retarded for any non-caster.
6: What they did RIGHT with skills, they did WRONG with skills. Whose brilliant idea was it to make the maneuvers require TWO feats to do em right?
7: Getting bloaty. I have lost control over what is available around Ultimate Magic.
8: The "ignore challenges" spells still exists.
9: Craft is still completely useless
10: XP equality. A lv5 wizard is more powerful than a lv8 rogue. 2e got THAT one right.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Okay, I am going to restrict this just to the Pathfinder RPG rather than the Pathfinder setting (as I already commented in the Things you love about Golarion and What about Golarion Bugs You? threads). I also will stray away from stuff that was in D&D3.5 and focus more on the changes Pathfinder made and new stuff PF added.

These are all of course IMHO...

Loves
1 SKill consolidation (e.g. Spot Hidden, Listen, Search = Perception)
2 Standardised Skill Rank Cost
3 More frequent feats (every other level now)
4 Traits from the APG
5 Favoured class as a carrot rather than a stick, also favoured class options in APG
6 Alternatve Racial variants in APG
7 Treat Deadly Wounds use of the Heal skill (you can now immediately heal some HP damage, yay!)
8 Sorcerer bloodlines
9 The cheap PDFs - although I wish they were less image heavy as some are almost unusable even on a decent laptop.
10 Pathfinder Society Organised Play - this is the only reason I play Pathfinder RPG.

Hates
1 Not taking the Skill consolidation far enough (loads of knowledges, Swim as a seperate skill, and Fly?????)
2 Having to calculate multiple CMBs as it can differ on a weapon by weapon basis
3 The grapple rules are a mess both in terms of the rules and their presentation, I much prefer the 3.5 grapple rules.
4 It made enough changes to break compatibility with D&D3.5.
5 But didn't make enough big changes to make it worth upgrading.
6 The misleading (some would say "false") advertising of the 3.5 OGL Compatible logo.
7 Its success has severely diminished the 3.5 player base.
8 Some of the artwork seems too cartoony / anime-ish
9 Clerical channelling
10 The lack of a pacing mechanic on an encounter basis rather than daily basis. Also, lack of at will spells other than cantrips.


Love:
1. Skill point system and consolidation, compared to 3.5
2. Lots more class options
3. Splatbooks I actually like and use (GMG and APG)
4. Lots of story hook ideas you can glean even from the rules
5. The idea of archetypes
6. Combat Maneuvers
7. Appropriate nerfing of polymorph
8. Very accessible OGL rules
9. Generally good production values
10. Developer responsiveness

Hates:
1. That Escape Artist still exists, and a skill is still used in a combat mechanics, which is just not intuitive to me
2. Awful, awful PrCs. I don't like a lot of PrCs but I want the ones available to be good.
3. Newer splatbooks, while still high quality, containing less and less stuff I want or will use (UM and UC)
4. NOT ENOUGH GM SUPPORT. Maybe the issue is it's tied into Adventure Paths, which I don't buy because I don't want to play in Golarion. But the GMG was great but not very in depth, and we could use lots more guidelines on campaign design and high level play, for example.
5. The implementation of archetypes--power balance is not consistent and there are starting to be too many of them.
6. Some mechanics get very complex--not easy to look them up quickly. Later base classes/alternate classes also very complicated and make character creation a test in checking for details carefully.
7. Editing for brevity means a LOT of cross referencing if you're playing hardcopy--you can't just play off a Bestiary statblock because you have to constantly look up monster abilities at the end and then look up spell like abilities in the other books. It becomes imperative to run off digital format to speed play time, because most normal human beings can't memorize the entirety of 2-6 several hundred-page books.
8. That counterspell/dispel with SLAs still hasn't been re-edited for a consistent ruling, to my knowledge.
9. Some glaring editing issues, such as simple and obvious copy-paste errors which should have been caught well before the blues.
10. Staff has a tendency to say one thing, then go back on it later after they rethink it. Frex, a long time ago a lot of people were demanding Samurais/Ninjas/Asian stuff and a developer posted something along the lines that the rules as written were all you needed to build such things and they were not going to go in that direction. And then Ultimate Combat came out. They're getting better about saying, "We're not looking at that AT THIS TIME," but they need to be careful about what they say and showing a consistency in their design intentions. Yes, people are allowed to change their minds, but if they show themselves saying one thing and doing another too much, it creates doubt and uncertainty in current and potential customers.

Summary:
It's fun to play.
But damned hard to GM.

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
Not true - detection spells is easy to block and with th cost the lead coating

Line of sight and effect goes both ways. If the wizard can't see the magic trap because there's a coating of lead on it then the magic trap can't see the wizard because of the coat of lead.

Quote:
or Magic Aura can get in there without saying.

Which seriously adds to the cost/cr of the trap.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Not true - detection spells is easy to block and with th cost the lead coating
Line of sight and effect goes both ways. If the wizard can't see the magic trap because there's a coating of lead on it then the magic trap can't see the wizard because of the coat of lead.

A timely demonstration.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Alright, I'm not going to even bother trying to make it 10 and 10, and I'm going to replace "hate" with "dislike or think could be improved".

Like:

• Wayne Reynolds' art. Discovered it in Magic: the Gathering, actually. I was delighted to find so much of his work when I was introduced to Pathfinder.
• It's pretty balanced. I'm not really comparing it with any other system when I say that; rather, I just know that every week when I play PFS, I run into all kinds of different characters, and they all manage to contribute without any of them disgusting me with their brokenness. Sure, there's an overpopulation of greatswords, but overall it still feels wide open to me.
• Love the PFS organized play. It's actually all I play (currently), and I really have no complaints about how it works. The missions are varied and interesting, I don't have to make long-term time commitments, etc. It's fantastic.
• Ability identity. What I mean by that is that STR has certain things it does, and you can't really make it do other things or make other abilities do its things (for the most part). I used to like the way 4E gave you more flexibility in that regard (like your choice of WIS or CHA for will saves), and that method does have certain merits, but I now find that I enjoy having to work within those restrictions.
• The willingness of Paizo staff to stay connected with the player base. That really makes me feel like I matter, and that I could be helpful (like with the recent Stealth blog).

Dislike:

• Vancian magic. Granted, Pathfinder uses a fantastic execution of it, but by its very nature Vancian magic is a bit weird.
• Needs better-standardized templating/vocabulary in the rules text. It's often tough to distinguish between "fluff" and functional rules text, because it seems like a lot of rules are defined in "plain language". Another effect of that wording is that sometimes several similar effects will use the same word/expression for something, leading people to believe that the word/expression used has a specific meaning, but then something else that seems like it should fit the mold uses different wording (or something that doesn't fit the mold does use that wording), and leaves a lot of people scratching their heads. In Magic: the Gathering (granted not an RPG, but still), if you see Term X, you can look up exactly what it means, and every usage of that word means the same thing; no uncertainty. You can actually get to a point where you know the rules well enough that when a new ability/mechanic comes out, you can read it once and know exactly how it works because it uses the same standardized templating for how it's written. Getting closer to this in PF would be FANTASTIC.
• High barrier to entry. Ever seen Dorkness Rising? Lodge (the GM) gives Joanna (who has presumably never gamed before) a PHB and sets her loose. She arrives at the first session with a competent character who allegedly took two hours to create, with no help. Bull. That doesn't happen, and for those of us with loved ones who aren't gamers but want to get more involved in our hobbies, it would be nice if it could.
• The fact that Reflex and Touch AC, both representing your ability to use your quickness and agility to avoid danger, are two separate mechanics that are so different that their only overlap is the use of your DEX mod.

That's all off the top of my head. I'm sure I'll think of more later.


Like:
1) Strong archetypes with great flavor
2) Lots of story hook ideas you can glean even from the rules [as per DeathQuaker, above - thanks!]
3) At least some attempt at nerfing of magic and spellcasters

Dislike:
1) It's not better than 3.5, just different
2) Lack of prestige classes
3) CMD thingy - I'm fine with grapple
4) Magic items are WAY too easy to make; much prefer XP loss
5) No beholders or mind flayers (not their fault, but oh well)
6) The more Golarion an AP is, the worse it is. (The best APs are easily portable to other settings.) I.e. too much focus on Golarion
7) Skill consolidation and skill system (yeah, I'm a minority. Meh.)
8) Already bloaty
9) Some really wonky feats (Antagonize)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Arnwyn wrote:

2) Lack of prestige classes

Huh? There are prestige classes. Did you miss them...?


Jiggy wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:

2) Lack of prestige classes

Huh? There are prestige classes. Did you miss them...?

Relative lack of prestige classes.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Arnwyn wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:

2) Lack of prestige classes

Huh? There are prestige classes. Did you miss them...?
Relative lack of prestige classes.

Ah, so fewer than something else. Got it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Not true - detection spells is easy to block and with th cost the lead coating

Line of sight and effect goes both ways. If the wizard can't see the magic trap because there's a coating of lead on it then the magic trap can't see the wizard because of the coat of lead.

Quote:
or Magic Aura can get in there without saying.
Which seriously adds to the cost/cr of the trap.

Well, when you see the trap, the trap already has a LOS on you and can be triggered. Visual sensor can just fire away just as you look at it.

Mechanic triggers can be anywhere and detect magic can't see them. The area AoE effect spells fired by a trap can target a square to which the trap has the LoS and from which the place containing the trigger is within LoE. Many spells also have greater range than Detect Magic. Lightning Bolt or even Magic Missile can be at the end of a long corridor simply because when you can detect them, you are already under fire probably. For shorter ranged spells you can just have a sliding metal plate covering the magic source, or additional spells around (the trap's aura can be hidden under the aura of the item it's protecting). An obvious magic trap is a thing to restrict party's movement, or to divert attention from something nastier. There are quite a few things you can do to make the life miserable for the fool who thinks Detect Magic solves his trapfinding problems.


Things I love about Pathfinder:

1. Stream lining things
2. Good and proper gun rules
3. Arch-Type to help smooth out fighter.

Things I dislike about Pathfinder:

1. The magic item creation system
2. Non-magic item creation system (Poisons & Alchemy)
2. Summoners because they are a redundant class
3. Basic Fighters still do no have any class-skills! Just feats! Weapon & Armor Training don't cut it. They are 'nice' but not comparable to the new Rage, evasion, or even 1st level spells.

But I really am happy over all. Heck I'm actually playing a fighter right now- Just hit level 16 two nights ago.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

Alright, I'm not going to even bother trying to make it 10 and 10, and I'm going to replace "hate" with "dislike or think could be improved".

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

I kind of regret that I named the thread love and hate, they are perhaps a bit strong words for what I intended for this thread to be. Oh well, to late to change that now.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Frogboy wrote:

Love: It's based on d20 rules

Hate: It's based on d20 rules

Yup.

There are better systems out there. I just don't want to learn them. d20 is very logical for a lot of things. It's also been proven to have issues with other things. It might be easier to blow it up all someday, but that day still hasn't come.

Qadira

more things I hate about pathfinder

1. skills still suck
2. Christmas tree effect
3. No Beholders or Mind flayers
4. "Blasting" spells still suck, thanks to an overabundance of resistance/immunity on monster, HP inflation, etc.
5. Monster templates Not calculated well.

6. Wizards, masters of the universe get 2+int. As a game balance its ok. For versimilitude it bites donkey.
7. Lack of hyperlinks in later books
8. Inconsistent term usage in rules
9. Trap creation. Trap prices.

Cheliax

I have to say, cp, that makes 18 'dislikes' to zero 'likes' for you. Why do you even play this game?

But I've been dithering long enough. I should make my own list. There's probably not going to be 10-to-10.

Likes:

  • The upgrading of the martial classes. Yeah, I know, we all hate monks but compare it to a 3.5 monk. Or a Figher to a 3.5 fighter. And so forth. Huge improvement.
  • The reworking of Sorcerers and Wizards. Bloodlines? Awesome. School-related abilities? Doubly awesome.
  • Gnomes. Always liked gnomes, now I friggin' love 'em.
  • The Pantheon. Gods usually play a big role in my games and I was an instant 'convert' after switching from the D&D pantheon.
  • CMB and CMD.
  • Easier polymorphing/wild-shape rules. Also makes the Druid a lot less ridiculous.
  • XP for encounters greatly simplified.

Dislikes:

  • This might be slightly unfair, but the fiction. I've always enjoyed the accompanying fiction to campaign settings, and have a special fondness for the Dragonlance fiction especially since it actually introduced me to D&D. (I was given Dragonlance Legends as a gift by my mother, neither of us having any clue it was related to D&D) But Pathfinder fiction so far has been . . . well, it's not bad, but it's not particularly captivating.
  • Some of the classes are still way overpowered, comparatively speaking.
  • I know it's nigh-unto impossible, but I wish they would've simplified summoning the way polymorphing was simplified. There's still no way to play a good summoning class without having to constantly hit the Bestiary or prepare umpteen numbers of index cards beforehand.
  • Gunslingers. I can appreciate some Asian influence; and in fact, most of my own campaign settings include lands based on historical Asia and the Middle East. But I HATE HATE HATE Steampunk, and it creeps into everything. Enough Steampunk pandering.


Likes:
1. Fun imaginative world.
2. Interesting take on Fantasy RP
3. Samurai/Gunslinger/Ninja (Sorry, Euro-centric fantasy is boring as hell)
4. easily mod-able to 3.5 stuff (like Eberron!)
5. Magic level of the world is mod-able.
6. Interesting art, beautiful pictures.
7. Anthro-creatures as player races.
8. Ability to do the game MY way, and have fun with it.
9. Rogues get magic!
10. Magus. He owns.

Dislikes
1. Lazy players
2. Lazy Gm's
3. People who complain that they shouldn't have to house rule, when they still purchase the product and don't stop whining about it.
4. Primarily Euro-centric, with sprinkles of other cultures. (Needs more cultures!)
..Hmm..that's it.

Shadow Lodge

Ayrphish wrote:

Not making a list, but rather a simple wish from a guy that came from 4e.

The character creator that wizards of the coast uses to help put together a character is very handy. A lot of players in my group found character creation to be tedious, difficult, confusing, etc.

So I would love a way to streamline character creation.

its called hero lab

love
1. changes to skills, i frakin hated having spot listen and search as different skills
2. bonus feats every odd level
3. advanced players guide, and UC
4. diversity in base classes opposed to prestige classes, honestly i thought i would hate this but its actually easier then remembering prerequisites.
5. cmb
6. cmd
7. making bards playable
8. changes to undead, making them cha based made a huge difference, and lets not forget champions and gory skellys
9. DEATH MASTER!!! BRING THIS BACK PLEASE
10. making the monk so bad ass

hate
1. the fact that everyone is Caucasian, sorry this has annoyed me in ever fantasy setting... i will not watch Lord of the rings because of this.
2.after waiting for new cultures to be introduced... they add in samurai and ninja, the 2 most generic Asian classes in history.
3. releasing books with the need for massive errata immediately.
tetori... grrr
4. the introduction of firearms that are inferior to a bow and arrow.
5. making a ninja into a better version of a rogue
6. making a samurai into an inferior version of a cavalier
7. artwork making me want to play bad classes and concepts just because it looked bad ass in the book. (arcane archer)
8. paizo taking longer then 2 weeks to get an errata out so i can play my damn tetori
9. making the new fenzied berserker (wild ranger) i swear if i die to one of these im going to be pissed
10. PFS restrictive rules

Qadira

EntrerisShadow wrote:
I have to say, cp, that makes 18 'dislikes' to zero 'likes' for you. Why do you even play this game?

Oh, theres a bunch of things that are good or good enough. Saying the bad bits has the tiniest chance of leading to improvement. Saying the good bits.. not so much.

The best thing about pathfinder - its a chance for friends to get together and envision worlds and play.

~~~~~

As for not playing D&D much in 2nd edition or earlier... my h/s college grades beg to differ.

~~~~~

As for examples of fluff:

APG (off the top of my head)

Every race has about a page of fluff explaining why that race would (or wouldn't) play a particular class. Why dwarves don't usually play mages.

Every race has alternate class features - half of which never get used.

There are 3224 weapons. Of which 3220 of them will never be used.

Not specifically APG:

Does anyone ever take a feat that allows them to cast 2 0 level cantrips 1/day?

How many times have you ever memorized arcane mark? (oops, sorry, prior to magus).
Spells are generally ok, but even there... couldn't you trim 20% without missing them.. ever?

~~~~~

Final rant!

I hate when mechanical balance trumps realism. Alchemists can brew bombs and reagents..
Except the laws of physics says they don't work when handed to someone else? WTF? Is that really the best balancing you can do?

Drink one mutagen - and the previous one ends? What? Why not instead just make a table that says how they interact like the old potion interaction chart. Perhaps they explode inside the alchemist. Perhaps they work fine for 1d6 rounds - then blows up. Perhaps the alchemist can figure it out - and swallow a reagent to avoid poisoning himself.....

The alchemist is a master chemist (or the closest thing to it).. why not come up with rules allowing the alchemist to improvise weapons, depending on his alchemy skill? Let him look for reagents: dragon dung, and troll blood.. with all the fantastic and amazing interactions possible.... they had to use a mechanical balancing mechanism?

Rather than mechanically follow a spell caster progression and spell effects.. why not give the alchemist truly interesting abilities.. potions that allow regeneration for a variable time period (which the alchemist does not know) depending on the result of his brewing. Or create decanters of (almost) endless water. Or draw upon classical alchemy and make essential fire, essential earth, the philosophers stone

Or allow polymorph if he has found reagents relative to the creature polymorphed to? Perhaps a Jekyl & Hyde elixir.

Why not make alchemists equipment - perhaps a cinnabar retort would be necessary for potions of speed. Each piece of equipment allowing the alchemist to build upon his knowledge and skill.

Perhaps brewing should have a penalty to skill if you are fatigued - and worse if you are exhausted. Perhaps better elixirs should take days to brew - and the alchemist is limited by his carefully hoarded trove of priceless magics...

Bottom line: the name had fantastic potential but paizo chose to shoe horn it into a caster progression - which while bad enough in itself but even worse when paizo can't even use the excuse of consistency. Power is all over the map. And worse the game mechanisms used to balance may make sense for vancian magic system - which after all at least fits the milieu of Cugel the clever etc. But it makes NO sense whatsoever for an alchemist. Or a witch for that matter.

Why does an alchemist stay home with his retorts and alembics. Why does a witch keep a cauldron bubbling - in pathfinder.. they dont - and yet there's no real explanation of why they dont either.

The game is about imagination - and this class fell short.

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
Well, when you see the trap, the trap already has a LOS on you and can be triggered. Visual sensor can just fire away just as you look at it.

No.

Traps use alarm as the basis for detecting.

The censors 20 foot radius emanation centered on a point in space is itself a magic effect. The whole thing shows up on detect magic, not just a single point in space.

Quote:
Mechanic triggers can be anywhere and detect magic can't see them. The area AoE effect spells fired by a trap can target a square to which the trap has the LoS and from which the place containing the trigger is within LoE. Many spells also have greater range than Detect Magic. Lightning Bolt or even Magic Missile can be at the end of a long corridor simply because when you can detect them

-Lightning bolt might work, magic missile will not. Magic missile cannot be fired at a square, it needs to be launched at a target that is seen.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Well, when you see the trap, the trap already has a LOS on you and can be triggered. Visual sensor can just fire away just as you look at it.

No.

Traps use alarm as the basis for detecting.

The censors 20 foot radius emanation centered on a point in space is itself a magic effect. The whole thing shows up on detect magic, not just a single point in space.

Quote:
Mechanic triggers can be anywhere and detect magic can't see them. The area AoE effect spells fired by a trap can target a square to which the trap has the LoS and from which the place containing the trigger is within LoE. Many spells also have greater range than Detect Magic. Lightning Bolt or even Magic Missile can be at the end of a long corridor simply because when you can detect them

-Lightning bolt might work, magic missile will not. Magic missile cannot be fired at a square, it needs to be launched at a target that is seen.

Magic Missile: Again, mechanic trigger

Magic Triggers: Proximity triggers USUALLY use alarm spells, but there are others at hand. See the trap section in the Environment. You can even use the very Detect Magic spell you are using to find the trap for triggering the effect ;)


Things i like:

skills - the original system was stupid, and while this one isn't perfect, its better.

upgrade to some classes - martial classes mostly, casters didn't need a lot of help, but thats something else.

PDFs - being able to buy the books as PDFs is pretty awesome, since i run everything from either a laptop or my droid tablet, makes it easier to do everything.

things i don't like:

AP focus - i hate adventures, so i'm biased, but a lot of the focus is on adventure paths, and i'm not interested in someone elses idea of what my game should be. YMMV

lack of setting in the PF core book - i guess is supposed to be generic, but when the gods are just a list on a page with portfolio / domains / favored weapon, that does me no good, it says if i want to use the core setting, i have to buy more books. Pass.

Alignment - its stupid, and is just a crunch/fluff crutch that we should move past already.

spellcasting - i hate it now, i hated it in 2E, i want something better. Words of Magic from UM is cool, but i can't use it in PFS, which is all anyone i know does, so its useless.

which brings me to...

Organized play in general, not specific to PFS, so its solo, but unless its a Battletech Campaign or a Blood Bowl league, i'm not interested in organized play, especialy when you release interesting toys and then say that i can't use it in your sandbox. thats just dumb

Shadow Lodge

Magic Missile: Again, mechanic trigger

A mechanical trigger won't work. There's no mechanical ability for the trap to see an intruder unless you mount a warforged head on a stick or something.

Something with blindsense can shoot a lightning bolt at a someone prowling around in the fog. They cannot launch a magic missile at them. The most a mechanical trap can convey is "shoot this square" , it can't target a creature.


Let's see:

10 things I like about Pathfinder:

1.- Vancian Magic: I know it has some issues, but I can't play D&D without Vancian Magic given at least as an alternative.

2.- Emphasis on Core Classes: I've always liked focusing on a handful of well-rounded clases that aim at an archetipical concept than having to work with lots of PrCs/Multiclassing/Dualclassing/whathaveyou. And Pathfinder does a good job making the standard core classes work well that way.

3.- Production Quality: I'm a sucker for hardcovers, and with Paizo's books being so high quality, I'm really happy about my Pathfinder collection. I do admit that if they released the Core Rulebook split in two parts a la PHB and DMG I would buy them, for as much as I love the big book, it does suffer from additional wear due to its size.

4.- Golarion: Ignoring a few bits here and there I dislike (which is logical, since every kitchensink setting will have stuff for different tastes; that's the whole point), I've truly come to appreciate the setting and some of its distinctive locales (Katapesh is a personal favourite). And the new setting book is top-notch.

5.- Developer-Player Interaction: Wether I need to find errata on a monster stat block or trying to set up a wireless monitor through a concrete wall, these forums are a constant source of quick, thoughtful and valuable input from the devs. We roleplayers invest a lot of ourselves in this hobby, so it's nice to see the devs more as fellow players than just service providers.

6.- Prehensile Hair: Really, all I want right now is for one of my players to start DMing so I can make a dwarf witch called Beardfist and start going all Chuck Norris on people with my facial hair.

7.- The NPC Section of the GMG: Few chapters of any book have seen a more intensive use in my games than this one. I have literally used every single session since I got the book, and I love it.

8.- Traits: Things like this give me high hopes for what Paizo might accomplish in time. I'm one of those DMs that houserule stuff to make the rules assist the roleplaying aspect whenever I can, and adding these little bits really helps to spice things up.

9.- CMB: In our 3.5 days, almost no one ever grappled, bull-rushed or disarmed, because we always forgot the rules or ended up confused about what to do next (so I usually winged it and made a ruling depending on the situation). But with the CMB rules, I can hardly keep my players from doing tripple mortal jumps with an inverted greek lock to the neck every single time. It has really, really spiced up combat, plus it being such a simple mechanic has allowed me to expand on it a lot (we don't really use pre-packed CMDs besides grapple; everything is improvised and rules on spot, and having a single pair of numbers decide the outcome has allowed for a lot of awesome things to happen).

10.- The Bestiaries: Besides the excellent production quality, I really appreciate a return to the ways of AD&D of putting a lot of background information on monsters (well, on those that need background. I don't really suffer if I'm not briefed on the pantheon of giant dire bees). It makes the bestiaries an entertaining read, and helps spark a lot of ideas while checking the monsters. And so far the amount of "Blergharglhorg, Half-Horse Dire Midget Winged Mermaid With Seven Heads" type of monsters have been kept to a minimum, which is always nice (AD&D Monstrous Compendium Anual Volume 3 and your blue camel with an elephant's trunk that disenchants stuff, I'm looking at you).

10 things I dislike about Pathfinder:

1.- The Summoner, Cavalier, and Alchemist: Well, in general, all the additional classes have me a bit uneasy. It's not that I dislike how they work; it is that I think it would have been much better if their mechanics and concepts had been folded in as more options for the core classes. I do find a lot of great ideas in them (except the Summoner and Cavalier, which seem far too redundant, and the Alchemist, because it doesn't feel like the type of medieval alchemy I like to put in my games), but I think that making an entire class upon those ideas kind of waters-down the whole thing.

2.- Cool Combat Stuff Turned into Feats: This really comes from 3.5, but that doesn't mean I like it any better in Pathfinder. I'm all for options, but I dislike the notion that everything different from swinging a sword has to be some kind of special power. The CMB has helped aleviate this a bit (and in turn devalued combat-oriented feats in my games, where characters don't need a feat to sacrifice precision for power and stuff like that), but it is still something that nags me. Truly unique and awesome tricks belong as feats, but not stuff that anyone could try out if they get creative.

3.- Lack of Long-Term Support: Again, this is not exclusive to Pathfinder, but the fact that the game focuses so much on short-term stories that almost everything has to be feasible within a spectrum of days rather than months or years is something I constantly fight against and house-rule to avoid. I'd really like some sort of section in a future continuation of the GMG that focuses on campaigns that span long periods of times, with rules about adjusting experience/wealth gain, reasonable crafting times, long-terms effects, etc.

4.- Crafting Rules: Horrible in 3.5, equally horrible in Pathfinder. Practical in some aspects, yes, but it really seems that since 3e came out, devs have been tying themselves up more and more with a system that really seems to cause them -and us- more problems than enjoyment.

5.- New Polymorph Rules: This not so much something I hate, rather than something I'm torn with. I really appreciate the attempt at fixing an otherwise problematic subsystem, and I'm not sure how much more can be done without creating a sprawling new ruleset for it, but I'm not really content about how it turned out in Pathfinder either. It fixes some issues and causes others, so it's not like it's a terrible thing either.

6.- The Iconics: I know I'm in the minority here, but so far none of the iconics has been able to draw my interest and in general I don't really like them. For that matter, none of the 3e-3.5 did either, so maybe I'm just a bad person.

7.- Lackluster Support for less combat-oriented games: Granted, this is something that has been with D&D since always, but I really feel that Pathfinder has the opportunity to throw us more than a bone in the non-combat area. There are lots of great starting points here and there (Traits and Archetypes, for instance), but everytime I get a new book loaded with 100 feats of which 90% are related directly or indirectly to combat, it rustles my jimmies. I really enjoy combats and action-packed stories, but I feel the game already has more than enough stuff there, and that it could really do more in other aspects (this also relates to my complain about lack of long-term support). It's not that I want a complete chapter devoted to growing potatos, but there is a lot more stuff in D&D/Pathfinder-type stories that could get bumped up a notch with some creative new material (expanded Leadership rules or stuff on builing strongholds would be a nice thing, for instance).

8.- No Para- and Quasi-Elementals: What can I say, I miss them being called that way. I know the Bestiary 2 brings them back without the prefix, but I'm a sucker for those kinds of nostalgic details. Same with Beholders and Mind-Flayers (which certainly it is not Paizo's fault. I hope you guys don't mind that I involved the Pactmasters of Katapesh with some Eye Tyrants for my current campaign).

I'm kind of out of ideas here, and I don't want to start making up issues just to fill up 10, so I'll leave it there. I guess that if it doesn't jump right to mind, it's not really something I should be complaining about.

Oh, right!

9.- Lack of a manly book about dwarfs, with rules on beer-making, beard-grooming, and extended duels of gruffy-eyed stare contests!


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Magic Missile: Again, mechanic trigger

A mechanical trigger won't work. There's no mechanical ability for the trap to see an intruder unless you mount a warforged head on a stick or something.

Something with blindsense can shoot a lightning bolt at a someone prowling around in the fog. They cannot launch a magic missile at them. The most a mechanical trap can convey is "shoot this square" , it can't target a creature.

Of course you can just have a visual sensor covered behind mechanical contraption. It may seem complicated, but it's sometimes convenient.


Love
10. Goblins
9. The costumes
8. Paladins
7. Sarenrae
6. The Iconics
5. Pirates
4. Ninjas
3. The Kingmaker AP
2. Ustalev
1. Varisians

Not so Much
10. Elves
9. Numeria
8. Alkenstar
7. Elves
6. Elves
5. Downs Syndrome-looking Hobgoblins
4. Elves
3. Elves
2. Elves
1. Crafting... and Elves

Outside Golarion, some things I've always hated about 3rd/3.5/PF is the Grease spell being on the Bard list and Half-Orcs in general.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Love: Well thought out spell rebalancing. Several of the save-or-dies become different, many of the overpowered spells tweaked.

Hate: Mindless and silly nerfs, such as Forcecage (which still functions as it did in 3.X, with no functional save- sure it says Reflex negates, but the spell doesn't actually affect you, and a save doesn't move you). Spells that are too powerful should be rebalanced, moved higher in level, or edited. If the point of a spell is "works without a saving throw", then work with that.

Love: Artwork. Easily the best art. Duelist and Gunslinger are especially aces.

Hate: Nothing related to this.

Love: Archetypes. Bringing back the old kits is a great idea.

Hate: Complete lack of new prestige classes. Surely SOMETHING can be a prsetige class still! Also, some archetypes are a tad too weak or strong, something that is hard to fix.

Love: Overall good balance and well thought out stuff.

Hate: The few unedited outliers, such as the insulting Falcata, the mind control taunt feat, and... I think that's it.

Love: Good support on fixes.

Love: A ninja base class that is actually cool.

Love: The summoner, a seriously impressive piece of design work. When I read that I was like, oh wait, this is like craftsmanship in this game. A lot of stuff is formulaic, but then we see high art like that, stuff I thought was lost.

Love: Their impressive take on all the iconic base classes. Refusing to throw out classes that have problems, and instead working on the problems.

Love: Refusal to reprint garbage like that lolcharge barbarian or those crazy 9swords things. Good riddance to stuff I always had to ban anyway.

Hate: The new discrepancy betwixt martial classes seems a bit much?

Love: Seriously, that page that has the picture of I think the daredevil, or maybe it's the dervish, in Ultimate Combat. Corset-coat thing on an elven chick with a Rapier? ACES


There are new prestige classes, just not in the hardbacks mostly. They are in the setting books and player companions and sometimes APs as well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arnwyn wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
2 The fact that so much has to be kept hidden from the player base (including GMs – for example: What are the Packmasters of Katapesh?)
Yeah, they really aren't doing the GM any favors here.

Spoiler:
Weren't they all but openly stated to be Witchwyrds? Dark Markets heavily implied it at any rate.

That said, while I like that a lot of the Golarion secrets aren't explained in detail (how the test of the Starstone works and the death of Aroden for starters) so that GMs have the freedom to run them how they'd like, I am itching to know the designers' opinions for them. I can see why they might never be revealed, though, since it would end up going from authorial speculation to canonical fact right fast.

Andoran

This thread looks like fun!

Love:

1) Vancian casting. Not having that kind of a system is one of the reasons I play 4e less frequently.
2) The fluff. Paizo has an amazing concept of what things are cool and how the players want to feel when they play the games.
3) Blasty spells doing less damage than a guy with a sword. I like that it's still the fighter's job to throw unrealistic numbers at the monsters.
4) The feat count. Getting more feats is fun.
5) Spells that auto-succeed at skill checks being toned down.
6) CMB/CMD
7) Incorporeal being half damage instead of a 50% miss chance.
8) No psionics. At least, I don't know of any psionics.
9) Books-as-searchable-PDFs. Yes, please!
10) The developers let us playtest things and seem to listen, even if we still get stuff like...

Hate:

1) Firearm rules/the Gunslinger. Characters that wield firearms should not use a totally different set of rules than other characters for arbitrary, poorly-supported reasons. It slows the game down and doesn't feel right.
2) Mounted combat rules. I love mounted combat and think it's central to the iconic dragon-slaying knight, but the rules are really confusing when you actually read what's happening. Feats like Overrun are a prime example of this: Who's making the overrun attempt, and who needs the feat? The mount? The rider?
3) The crunch. This is kinda part of the firearms rules, but Paizo's ability to make cool fluff is a lot more refined than their ability to make balanced, well-produced crunch. Contrast this with the guys who made Trailblazer, who had an amazing grasp of the crunch/the spine of the game. (And compare/contrast their systems for adding spellcasting to monsters. Wow.)
4) Pets/animal companions. Some are too good at low levels, and can explode party size. Some are so much better than others as to make them too obvious of a choice.
5) 2+Int skill points for classes. Skills are fun, and people should have more of them.
6) Allies blocking charge lanes. The rules should encourage PCs to join combat, not discourage it.
7) The difficulty of blending classes like fighter and wizard without taking a class like Magus.
8) Capstone abilities. There has to be a better, less clunky way of encouraging 20 levels in a class than offering some really powerful ability at the end.
9) The asian culture stuff. It's nice to have a culturally diverse region, but I feel like it should be possible to be a little more inventive rather than "oh, these guys are like Asia."
10) Environments that involve pulling out an entire new set of rules, and thus slow the game to a crawl, like Underwater and in Darkness, and monsters who spontaneously create these conditions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Speaking mostly as a gm here.

Thumbs Up:
1. skill simplification/merging It's much easier for me to make a few choice skills for npcs and then call it a day. Not sad to have seen skill synergy go the way of the dodo. Also, the new skill system gives fighters and their ilk a little bit more of noncombat options.

2. support of the OGL and the PRD, generous community engagement. Besides the obvious benefits, it has enabled a number of free fan-made programs like combat manager which is such a lifesaver to a harried gm.

3. The alchemist- I think this may be my favorite class ever to run adventures for. Plenty of neat little tricks and of course the classic quest for knowledge, merging the mechanics of the wizard's spellbooks with a little bit more grounded basis than the wizard is at mid to high levels. Something here for everybody.

4. Spontaneous casters (oracles, sorcerers, bards, and inquisitors)- so much easier to create spellcaster mooks than detailing full blown spellbooks every time you need a caster to wreak some havoc on the PCs. Plus, the bloodlines/mysteries/curses/etc. really lend themselves easily to making different "themed" opposition and supporting NPCs.

5. the monster creation guideline by CR table. I use this a lot in creating/converting monsters and sometimes NPCs to get general frameworks.

6. NPC stock character stat blocks from the GMG and the NPC guide. Always good for filling in a few goon spots when you need them on the quick. I can't believe how much use I'm getting out of the stock brigand.

7. Trimmed down spell capabilities. Glad to see some of these have been reigned in a little bit. The polymorph changes are nice and simple.

8. CMD/CMB- seems to simplify things a bit putting them all under one banner.

9. Backward compatibility- thankful as it allows me to get use out of Dungeon Magazine adventures I never got around to using in the era of 3.X

Thumbs down:
1. Not quite the level of higher level support as I'd like. Most of the high CR critters are outsiders and/or really too big to fit into a room plausibly. Some more diversity would be nice, so I'm glad to hear they have some more higher CR critters coming in the next bestiary.

2. a few of the splatbook options available are somewhat uneven, particularly considering the usual spread between casters and noncasters. I'm not really sold on the power level appropriateness of the wizard arcane discoveries from Ultimate Magic. And on the opposite side of the coin, some of the rogue archetypes sprinkled throughout the books leave something to be desired, for example.

3. Crafting system. I'm going with the third party supplement Making Craft Work as a replacement.

4. Keeping up with awarding treasure. This can sometimes be a challenge to keep up with as a gamemaster and also keep it fresh/varied.

51 to 100 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / 10 things you love and hate about PF All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.