I was thinking we could create a list were we post the top ten things we think is great and the top ten things we think should be fixed with the Pathfinder system. Here's my list.
Things I love about Pathfinder:
1. The monsters
Things I dislike about Pathfinder:
1. The item creation system
And one thing that I both love and hate simultaneously: I have a player that says "It's too similar to 3.5, and I've done everything with 3.5." I love it because maybe he'll bow out of any Pathfinder games I run (which would allow other members of the large group to shine more), and I hate it because his "done everything," doesn't even include every class, let alone race, and doesn't allow for their to be 2 characters of the same race and class that are not actually the same character...
Things I love about Pathfinder.
1. The Artwork
Things I hate about Pathfinder.
1. That it is not encounter based resource management, it's daily.
11. That monsters are not more simple, characters should be complex and intresting, monsters should be quick, easy and fun.
The reason I run Pathfinder is that well I run the game so the adventure paths make it easy and my group of long time players don't want to give other fantasy games a chance. Plus after over a decade of playing d20 based games it is comfortable.
Things I love about Pathfinder
Things I hate about Pathfinder
Yeah, that's 10 vs 9, but I don't have a lot of issues with PF. :P
Alright... I'll Bite.
1. Power Attack and Deadly Aim. This, and the all around boosts to most 3/4 BAB classes allow all of them to do great in combat.
2. The art.
3. The iconics, especially the chapter openings in each of the RPG line books practically have me squeaking with delight every time. I love the little blurbs. I just wish the other books could have these as well. :P
4. More goodies all around, Bards are amazing, smoother skill system... The core rules hold up fantastically well, and I cant think of a single class that doesn't pull its weight.
5. The APs are solid-gold. I love these to bits. I'd run RotR a hundred times over, if I could.
6. These boards. The fact that the devs have such a presence here and still fuss over the system is awesome, really. Hearing about Lisa's Runelords game while I run it, the Stealth overhaul in the blog at the moment. And of course, James Jacobs' enormous question thread. (And his "Ask Merisiel" thread which I'm checking religiously for updates.)
7. Boosts to the races. I come from a group of human supremecists, so reasons to play a half-elf are much appreciated.
8. Attention to the little things in the major rules books, like vehicle combat and alternate rules (I dig the called shots) and fluff for binding outsiders. These're great.
9. Combat Manuevers. They're not perfect by any means, but the little clause that doesn't restrict you to the default manuevers makes it a great "catch all" mechanic.
10. Actually having skill points to spare. It's beautiful.
In no particular order:
1.) Pathfinder continues the best edition of D&D
1.) The item creation system favors quick campaigns over long campaigns, forcing GM's to have their story be a timed race against players getting overpowered
I think writing eleven good and nine bad things about PF fulfills the requirements of the thread, yes?
1) Character traits: An excellent and elegant way of linking players to the campaign.
Hate (more of a dislike really):
1) Crafting rules: A waste of time
1. CMB and CMD
stuart haffenden wrote:
And if you want to play PFS then you have to suffer through them.
stuart haffenden wrote:
I try to compromise with my players to find a suitable house rules for the issues. I still haven't found a suitable replacement system for the item crafting and Christmas tree effect rules however.
Mostly like the general updates to every class. Instead of a sorcerer being "you get a familiar... now have fun waiting for your spells," I get bloodline powers and whatnot. Same with fighter and other classes.
Archetypes are nice, keep you from having to take PrC's or multiclass. At the same time, Archetypes take the fun out of some old PrC's and multiclassing >.>
Scout, for example, was one of my favorite classes in 3.5. In my gaming group we allow old classes, any archetype, and any PrC (after conversion).
For example, if a monk wants to go Drunken Master archetype, no problem. If that same monk would rather go base monk and Drunken Master PrC from 3.5, also no problem.
1. Gunslingers. I have no problems with firearms in a fantasy settings, and those guys reek of cool.
1. The fact that general erratas seem to be made with organized play in mind. Just update the PFS rules and don't errata something if it's not to fix an obvious mistake or typo.
1. Archetypes (most of them)
1. Varisia. Ok, you love that region. But come on, how many more APs are gonna be around it...
Toadkiller Dog wrote:
Did not know that... Now I'm slightly depressed. Kemp is one of my top 3 authors (a list that does not include Salvatore)
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.
I love Hero Forge for 3.5. The PF versions of Hero Forge are not quite there yet. I would be great if PF came out with a comprehenisve character generator.
Agreed. Erevis Cale Trilogy is one of my favorite series. It was announced way back. When there were no further info, I asked Paul about it on facebook and he said he won't be working with Paizo... Can't remember the reasons, though.
stuart haffenden wrote:
I don't mind banning a few things that especially offend me, but I am not interested in providing 20 pages of supplemental rules to my players that most of them would never read. I'm not even interested in writing them.
Uh, don't know where to begin. :D
First of all, Golarion has a distinctive human feel to me. Ok, not really human feel, but human/elf/dwarf/halfling/gnome/half-orc feel. While playing 3.5 in Faerun, I could not imagine a game without a tiefling, genasi or some other planetouched or weird race. Air Genasi Rogue was my first 3.5 character and I loved their fluff and thought they're a great addition to the setting. But in PF... I don't know, I don't feel like they belong there. Anything aside core races sticks out (in a bad way). Of course, exceptions are made for Tieflings in Cheliax, or Dhampirs in Ustalav and stuff like that, but I wouldn't play (or allow one in my game when I DM) anything else.
Second of all, I'm one of those who dislike asian culture in fantasy settings. Of course, I'm not saying that it shouldn't exist, but if it does, let it have its own continent, like Tian. Let Ninjas, Samurais, Tengus and the rest stay in Tian Xia.
And lastly... Antropomorphic animals. Don't like the idea (aside from lycanthropes of the landbound kind. Werebat is the silliest piece of art I've ever seen in PF) and can't take them seriously and can only see them as a comic relief. I really can't understand people who are begging for a catfolk or any other furry kind of race...
So when you combine my dislike of non-core races, my dislike of Asian culture in Inner Sea and antropomorphic animals, you can see where my distate of Tengus come from. :D
The cleric would like to have a word with you about this.
Forum participation both with the players and the employees.
Rules set is familiar (it should be after so long)
That familiarity makes "hacking" the system easier.
The game functions best when you approach it from a character view as magical realism. Pro, these people see demons, angels, elementals and holy badgers all the time. This approach makes knowledge checks to identify creatures work it dosen't seem gimmick-y to operate in that fashion.
"If it's cinematic/ descriptively cool/ a combat related action it must be a feat." NO, NO, NO. This is bad development. Along with this is power attack, combat expertise and others being a feat rather than a combat option. This means that you have only cut half of the 3.5 bloat issue (prestige classes). Smaller feat chapters and bigger combat chapters with revised action type / provoke charts for new actions would be more fulfilling to me.
The fact that most of the "hacking" of the system is not to play in a different genre or themed game but to make cinematic fantasy function.
The game functions best when you approach it from a character view as magical realism. Con: This means that the "OHHH's and AHHH's" for finding a magic item, or a barbarian that can rage and lift tons of weight over his head, or a monk that can jump dozens of feet at a go do not occur cannot occur as these elements are commonplace for adventurers and a large portion of urban dwellers. Granted the villager may only see gobbo's and orcs and the holy badger that the cleric or druid summons to dig out a new root cellar.
Better but still unresolved C-M D.
There’s too much to like about Pathfinder to restrict me to ten things, so I took it up to eleven. (Also, some of my dislikes are heavy hitters, so I only came up with nine, even though they cropped up in other people’s lists.)
1. It’s based on d20.
I can go either way on:
1. It still feels like D&D. Vancian magic, dungeons, tactical combat, iconic save-or-suck spells (sleep, color spray), etc. I’m kind of meh on most of that, but they’ve been a part of the game for so long that it doesn’t feel like D&D without them.
Hate: (or, strongly dislike)
1. It’s based on d20.
1. Adventure paths - They support the hobby for those of us who have lives, and can't take time to make all of our own adventures. And they're good!
Things I hate about Pathfinder:
1. Lack of good organized play.
Once wizards hit fifth level game balance moves inexorably in their favor (as it should in a fantasy environment).
I *liked* the idea that wizards took a great deal more experience to advance. Liked the idea that they had to find magical items, or learn things. Like parties that were of mixed levels - and frankly found that game balance was much better in those circumstances.
3. No mind flayers, no thought eaters, in fact no psionics at all. I liked the idea that demons could be beaten by psionics. Or players controlled by it.
4. Skill system. First - let me give kudos where it belongs. The general smplification of the skill system is a good thing.
The skill system almost completely eliminates the rogue class. A one level dip on rogue lets ANYONE be just as good as a dedicated rogue. And if its just going to be a one or two level dip - why not just make it a feat based choice.
But I digress from my point.
Skills frankly suck. The d20 system varies WAYYY too much to reasonably approximate skill.
Second example. You are one of the most perceptive people in the world - you are level 20 - and so you have 20 ranks in perception.
Even so random luck counts as much as the 20 levels (years?) of experience...
5. Splat book Fluff. No one reads the crap, so why take the time and the expense to write it, publish it. We know its crap. You know its crap. I buy your books to get legitimate access to the 2-3 feats or 3-5 spells that book contains. I curse every time I have to look through another fluff description of the orcs in Golarion to find my feat.
6. REALLY poor FAQ. Hell the fans are making it easy for you. If you just answered the top 10 questions every two weeks it would be a start.
7. Lack of involvement in the pathfinder world.
8. Shoe horning. Avoid the need to shoe horn everthing into a d20 roll. Avoid balancing by adjusting the #of times per day. Developing other mechanisms (like the summoner's point buy system) is great.
Likes: in no particular order
1) The Skill system: streamlined but not made simpleminded
Dislikes( the few and rather minor)
1) Magic item crafting...way too easy. Either the DC should be higher...or it should cost alot more.
I know I broke the rules and way over on the likes list...and shorted on the dislike list....but hey I really like PF...and really only see minor things that need improvement(the biggest is the crafting rules)
1) Easy to learn
1) Restrictions of d20 system
1. Combat maneuvers.
1. Death is a very easy problem to solve. It shouldn't be so.
Oh, not just the big cats. Look at the Small Cats for a Ranger Choice. 3 Primary Attacks, Trip, Sprint. Compare them to, let's say... a Dog, who has one primary attack. And that's about it.
I went through every AC choice from CRB and classified them into categories (roughly) and it goes about like this:
1. Small animals, whose size increase to medium at 4th lvl and their total stat increase is +4 (combination of +4 to one score, +2 to another, -2 on the third)
2. Small/Medium/Large animals whose size doesn't change. Those are the more utility animals (hawks for Perception, Horses for mounted combat etc) and their advancement is +2 on two stats.
3. Medium animals who advance to large and gain ridiculous amount of stat boosts (+8 to one, +4 to another and -2 to third).
Now, for Rangers, Wolf is a pretty much obvious choice. More capable in combat than any other choice. Why would anyone bother with a dog, when the can have idiotically more powerful wolf (actually, I have one in Kingmaker AP that I'm playing, but mathematically it doesn't make sense)? If your reason would be that wolves are large and can't move around that easily, then go with a small cat! It even has trip also, but only the triple number of attacks that a standard animal companion is getting.
So, even within those categories there are VAST differences between choices, which should just not exist. I know it's logical for a wolf being stronger than a dog, but my critic is towards animals being way more different in the above categories. If Small Cat has two additional abilities ASIDE from having three PRIMARY attacks, why no love for Dogs or Boars? Hell, even it was some style-over-substance ability, let's say, Man's Best Friend that gives the Dog a +2 bonus on saves vs. fear. Wouldn't come much into play but it's better than nothing that they're currently getting (which is nothing). Or Powerful Charge for Boars, or bonus on Grapple for Bears... Like I said, anything to justify it as an equal choice.
Chris Ballard wrote:
I don't like most of the traits. The only ones I like are rich parents and heirloom wepon. If I can't use those traits, then I don't want any.
I honestly hate rich parents. It essentially published the most cliched, obnoxious back story in role-playing and gave you a benefit for making it.
How could I miss this? I love em.
Now, I definately agree that traits are a problem. Many of them are great, but the conditional bonuses (+1 to confirm critical hits, +1 on perception checks to listen, +1 to AC in Bankok on a wednesday evening) are just utterly pointless to keep track of, and just end in unnecessary headscratching.
I usually houserule these problem traits as flat bonuses if I dont make my own trait list. But this doesn't make Reactionary any less overpowered.
Terrible traits are my biggest Pathfinder pet-peeve.
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?
It's really not. Compared to what it was, it is beyond worthless. But I think it's a good choice for a... Let's say a Rogue who wants to wield a greatsword. It's easier to take Heirloom Weapon then to dip into fighter or waste a feat on Martial Weapon Proficiency.
Also a good use of that trait if you want to be specialized in some combat manouver and max it out. +2 on Trip attempts for example, is nothing to sneeze at.
Toadkiller Dog wrote:
Corrected I stand.
I guess that does beat Thrown-Together Fashion.
Oooh... This should be fun.
1. Core classes that are worth taking to 20.
Let's get the dislikes out of the way first (no order):
- Alignment having a mechanical effect.
- The divine and arcane divisions of magic. Magic is magic and casters shouldn't have to take a divine class just to get good skill choices.
- Per diem spell slots (I don't want to call it Vancian, because I've never read any of Vance's books and I think it's unfair to associate an author with a magic system I hate). Mages should not just run out of fuel; this is the most absurd concept I've ever heard of in my life. Cooldown times? Fine. Reasonably reduce damage/effects? Okay. Anything but an arbitrary spells-per-day limit. I cannot find the words in any language to accurately express my utter hatred of this approach to spellcasting.
- The assumption that every setting has a magic shop right around the corner selling whatever the player wants.
- Metamagic feats and rods. Both are still wacky and never see use in my games. The only metamagic feat I've seen that makes sense was Combined Spell from the newest Kobold Quarterly; it contained a section on synergistic magic, which entails mixing spells for new effects. Something like this should replace metamagic entirely (along with many high level spells too open to abuse).
- Power Attack and Weapon Finesse as feats instead of simply integrating them into the rules.
- Allowing Knowledge: Religion to identify undead...why?. This really makes no sense whatsoever. There should be a sort of anatomy knowledge skill that can be used for this purpose.
- The Heal skill doubles as a method to identify diseases illness and skill at surgery. This skill needs to be split into two or three new skills.
- Wish, Limited Wish, and Miracle spells.
- Finally, the biggest issue I have with Pathfinder RPG (and 3.5) is spell components and foci. I'm in favor of doing away with components in favor of psionic displays and dropping (non-affected) foci alltogether.
Next, the things I love about Pathfinder RPG:
- easy skill allocation
- combat manuever mechanics (CMB/CMD)
- class improvements
- moving beyond Middle Earth with every book
- alternate classes
- few prestige classes
- no more level adjustment
- rules for firearms, vehicles, and siege engines
- undead and constructs vulnerable to critical hits
Ultimately, my biggest issue with Pathfinder RPG (and 3.5) is with how magic and spells are handled.