What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

One thing I can't stand is a rule or combo that has been left alone even though it's broken. I don't like playing in a game where the DM has to jack up the stats of his monsters in order to challenge that one PC while destroying everyone else. Are there any rules or combos that you would like to see fixed or toned down?

I would like to see Planar Binding toned down a bit and make it more DM controlled. I would also like to see the Summoner toned down a bit. I shouldn't have to ask a player to please hold back.

Edit: DM fiat is not a fix.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I agree dm fiat is not a fix, simply not using that rule seems to me to be one. If you dont like summoners, or planar binding, dont have it in your game. No game system will make every group happy. There are groups that have used planar binding and the summoner without issue, why do they not have the right to continue using it as is but you have the right for it to be changed?


Also, for this to be useful, you'd probably have to clarify more than 'that one rule or combo' if you actually want them to fix something.

EDIT: nvm, for some reason I thought those two at the end were additional changes.

I'm not that familiar with planar binding, but I agree the summoner is a little over the top, though I don't really see the problem with houseruling things either. I guess it's a bigger problem for PFS.

For my next campaign, I simply said no archetypes for summoner.


I have not had the opportunity to include Summoners in a game yet because I am just now setting up my first Pathfinder game. However, I thought they seemed really cool. I'm a stickler for balance and avoiding that 3.5 power creep, so I'm curious what is overpowering about them?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Fix Fighters, they're way too powerful.


27 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing i would like to see fixed in pathfinder, is to have a community that doesn't complain about the game so much.

40% of the talk here is... how do i make my PC more powerful
40% of the talk here is... this class is to powerful

the problem here is that the game is broken because people are trying to break it.

if i buy my dauther a new doll and she wants it taller, so she pulls and pulls on its head, than the head pops off. when that happens she crys that her toy is broken... Why is the toy broken???!??


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Shallowsoul, is there anything about Pathfinder you do like?

Serious question, not flaming or troll baiting. It just seems like you spend a lot more time on these boards shooting down the game than focusing on anything positive about it.

I have a DM I play under who wasn't happy with Pathfinder either, and he just runs 3.5e. No problems.


Kolokotroni wrote:
While I agree dm fiat is not a fix, simply not using that rule seems to me to be one. If you dont like summoners, or planar binding, dont have it in your game. No game system will make every group happy. There are groups that have used planar binding and the summoner without issue, why do they not have the right to continue using it as is but you have the right for it to be changed?

I agree with this, it is not really "broken" if it is easy to just remove without affecting the over-all system. My group and I don't really like summoners it just seems like a ton of messy book keeping, we don't include it in our games. We didn't have to really make any other changes.

A rule that is "broken" in my mind is when you have to start reworking the entire system to "fix" it. Of course one person's "broken" is a nother person's "works just fine."


if you dont like the game dont play. there are plenty of games out there. hundreds to be honest... go play one you enjoy.


Guy Kilmore wrote:
Of course one person's "broken" is a nother person's "works just fine."

This. 1000x this. We're arguing over consistent mechanical rulesets for people's imaginary fantasy land. It's not going to work 100% with everyone 100% of the time. That's where DM fiat comes in.


EATERoftheDEAD wrote:
I have not had the opportunity to include Summoners in a game yet because I am just now setting up my first Pathfinder game. However, I thought they seemed really cool. I'm a stickler for balance and avoiding that 3.5 power creep, so I'm curious what is overpowering about them?

Basically the summoner gets to pick each and every feature of the eidolon. Most classes and class features in some way spread out the abilities. Even a fighter gets bravery, and can take non-combat feats. A summoner is thus very easy to optimize. Just pick all the evolutions for whatever you wnat to do (usually combat). The offensive options for the eidolon are OBVIOUS, and require no effort to choose the 'best' ones.

So if you play in a group that normally doesnt optimzie heavily, a player could easily unintentionally or intentionally take all combat options for the summoners eidolon and be more powerful then is normal, as if a druid optimized the heck out of himself and his animal companion for combat. Which wouldn't be in line with non-optimized other characters. The solution is to make sure that the player playing a summoner takes some non-combat evolutions as well if you dont optimize heavily as a group. If you do, it wont be an issue in the first place.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EATERoftheDEAD wrote:
I have not had the opportunity to include Summoners in a game yet because I am just now setting up my first Pathfinder game. However, I thought they seemed really cool. I'm a stickler for balance and avoiding that 3.5 power creep, so I'm curious what is overpowering about them?

Nothing, actually, if the player knows all the little rules that keep the Summoner & Eidolon balanced. Most of the "The Summoner is too strong!" threads come from Eidolons that were built incorrectly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
We're arguing over consistent mechanical rulesets for people's imaginary fantasy land. It's not going to work 100% with everyone 100% of the time. That's where DM fiat comes in.

I was prepared to agree with you, right up until that last part...

Kids, just say NO to DM Fiat, okay? If your group has a problem with the rules of the game, then discuss it as a group and work to resolve the problem together. It's our game, right?

/if I could change one thing about Pathfinder and it's D&D roots, it would be freaking DM Fiat.


Yes, there’s a couple small things, but one that is easy would be making a 7 point buy only net a player 3 points not 4. .


loaba wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
We're arguing over consistent mechanical rulesets for people's imaginary fantasy land. It's not going to work 100% with everyone 100% of the time. That's where DM fiat comes in.

I was prepared to agree with you, right up until that last part...

Kids, just say NO to DM Fiat, okay? If your group has a problem with the rules of the game, then discuss it as a group. Resolve the problem together. It's our game, right?

/if I could change one thing about Pathfinder and it's D&D roots, it would be freaking DM Fiat.

Maybe DM fiat isn't the correct term. Basically saying, as a DM, if something doesn't work in your game, work around it. Yes, with the players involved as well. You never know, they might have some insight you hadn't thought of.


Gorbacz wrote:
Fix Fighters, they're way too powerful.

(Sprays soda on computer screen) Really? A lot of people say the opposite even after all the Pathfinder upgrades. I honestly don't know if you were being serious or not.


My one gripe right now is that the rogue needs some help. Especially if you look at the Ninja from ultimate combat where the description basically says "yeah, this is a better version of the rogue"

We need more classes that get by without any inherent magic and the rogue should be that class. Lots of situations shut down the rogue's class features and it is no longer the super skill class as bards honestly do most of its jobs better.

That's really my only gripe. I just feel bad for the rogue.

Silver Crusade

Josh M. wrote:

Shallowsoul, is there anything about Pathfinder you do like?

Serious question, not flaming or troll baiting. It just seems like you spend a lot more time on these boards shooting down the game than focusing on anything positive about it.

I have a DM I play under who wasn't happy with Pathfinder either, and he just runs 3.5e. No problems.

Okay, I post about problems I would like fixed in Pathfinder and then you refer me back to 3.5?

That's like referring me to a 357 when I was using a 22 to kill myself.

Silver Crusade

I really love Pathfinder and I don't want to see it turned into the mess that was 3.5. There are ways to fix what's broken but I shouldn't have to always do it myself when I pay the designers to make sure the game is fixed as much as possible.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People should be able to come in and be able to play their character to the max without being told they need to tone it down.

I should be able to omit material because it doesn't fit my campaign, not because it's broken or overpowered.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Broken and overpowered is highly subjective, and if your goal is to play your characters 'to the max' then the only way to not have unbalanced characters is for a tightly restricted system like 4E. Theres no middle ground there. If you want an open and robust system like pathfinder is, then you have to show a little judgement on the part of the players and dm. This isn't a video game, human intelligence and judgement are supposed to come into play here.

Silver Crusade

Kolokotroni wrote:
Broken and overpowered is highly subjective, and if your goal is to play your characters 'to the max' then the only way to not have unbalanced characters is for a tightly restricted system like 4E. Theres no middle ground there. If you want an open and robust system like pathfinder is, then you have to show a little judgement on the part of the players and dm. This isn't a video game, human intelligence and judgement are supposed to come into play here.

You not seeing a "middle ground" is highly subjective.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
eggplantman wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Fix Fighters, they're way too powerful.
(Sprays soda on computer screen) Really? A lot of people say the opposite even after all the Pathfinder upgrades. I honestly don't know if you were being serious or not.

You've been Gorbacz'd... You can try to wash it off, but I hear that the smell lasts for weeks.


I routinely don't allow spells like knock, fly, create water or phantasmal steed (at least, not at their suggested level) because I think they're really overpowered, but I wouldn't start a call to have them changed by the system overall. I can change them myself.

I'm one of those people that think ring of sustenance is ridiculously overpowered, but again, i'm fine houseruling it.

Silver Crusade

Liongold wrote:

One thing i would like to see fixed in pathfinder, is to have a community that doesn't complain about the game so much.

40% of the talk here is... how do i make my PC more powerful
40% of the talk here is... this class is to powerful

[b]the problem here is that the game is broken because people are trying to break it.[\b]

if i buy my dauther a new doll and she wants it taller, so she pulls and pulls on its head, than the head pops off. when that happens she crys that her toy is broken... Why is the toy broken???!??

That's right and certain measures should be in place that control this.

Wouldn't it be better if the doll had a built in mechanism that allowed the legs to be extended if the child wanted her doll to be taller?

Everyone wins!

Silver Crusade

Kakitamike wrote:

I routinely don't allow spells like knock, fly, create water or phantasmal steed (at least, not at their suggested level) because I think they're really overpowered, but I wouldn't start a call to have them changed by the system overall. I can change them myself.

I'm one of those people that think ring of sustenance is ridiculously overpowered, but again, i'm fine houseruling it.

Wouldn't it be better to have to those spells appropriately leveled so you can use them in your games?


shallowsoul wrote:
Kakitamike wrote:

I routinely don't allow spells like knock, fly, create water or phantasmal steed (at least, not at their suggested level) because I think they're really overpowered, but I wouldn't start a call to have them changed by the system overall. I can change them myself.

I'm one of those people that think ring of sustenance is ridiculously overpowered, but again, i'm fine houseruling it.

Wouldn't it be better to have to those spells appropriately leveled so you can use them in your games?

But wait! I think Kakitamike is nuts and in the games I run those spells are fine at the levels they are. Doesn't this mean that if Pathfinder suddenly changed to Kakitamike Spell levels now I am suddenly stuck house ruling, post basically the same thing and then getting that response from you?

ETA: Kakitamike I don't think you're nuts.

Silver Crusade

Guy Kilmore wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Kakitamike wrote:

I routinely don't allow spells like knock, fly, create water or phantasmal steed (at least, not at their suggested level) because I think they're really overpowered, but I wouldn't start a call to have them changed by the system overall. I can change them myself.

I'm one of those people that think ring of sustenance is ridiculously overpowered, but again, i'm fine houseruling it.

Wouldn't it be better to have to those spells appropriately leveled so you can use them in your games?

But wait! I think Kakitamike is nuts and in the games I run those spells are fine at the levels they are. Doesn't this mean that if Pathfinder suddenly changed to Kakitamike Spell levels now I am suddenly stuck house ruling, post basically the same thing and then getting that response from you?

ETA: Kakitamike I don't think you're nuts.

You may or may not be. There are certain instances where a fix is needed, while there will always be the one or two people that said it was fine, if the fix will help the majority then go for it.


some players build char...s for story and feel. some PCs are built for out of combat uses. some PCs are built for combat. The PCs built for combat are going to shine in combat. and like wise PCs built the other way might need help, or protection in combat. We all have your rolls to fill.

not all players are min maxers.
not all players are created equal. (i mean the same. lol


shallowsoul wrote:
Josh M. wrote:

Shallowsoul, is there anything about Pathfinder you do like?

Serious question, not flaming or troll baiting. It just seems like you spend a lot more time on these boards shooting down the game than focusing on anything positive about it.

I have a DM I play under who wasn't happy with Pathfinder either, and he just runs 3.5e. No problems.

Okay, I post about problems I would like fixed in Pathfinder and then you refer me back to 3.5?

That's like referring me to a 357 when I was using a 22 to kill myself.

So, instead of answering an honest question, you resort to sarcastic snark. I see a bright future on the boards for you.


Ahh, right on time for the bi-weekly "What do you want in Pathfinder 2?" thread.


shallowsoul wrote:
Guy Kilmore wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Kakitamike wrote:

I routinely don't allow spells like knock, fly, create water or phantasmal steed (at least, not at their suggested level) because I think they're really overpowered, but I wouldn't start a call to have them changed by the system overall. I can change them myself.

I'm one of those people that think ring of sustenance is ridiculously overpowered, but again, i'm fine houseruling it.

Wouldn't it be better to have to those spells appropriately leveled so you can use them in your games?

But wait! I think Kakitamike is nuts and in the games I run those spells are fine at the levels they are. Doesn't this mean that if Pathfinder suddenly changed to Kakitamike Spell levels now I am suddenly stuck house ruling, post basically the same thing and then getting that response from you?

ETA: Kakitamike I don't think you're nuts.

You may or may not be. There are certain instances where a fix is needed, while there will always be the one or two people that said it was fine, if the fix will help the majority then go for it.

This statement doesn't jive with your response to Kakitamike. He just identified some spells, didn't even gave a level which prompted you to ask a question if it would be nice for the developers to change the level. You don't even know if his view fits the majority or what levels he is purposing. You ask that question even though he made the statement he wouldn't call for the system to be changed specifically.

What was the point in asking him that question then?


shallowsoul wrote:

People should be able to come in and be able to play their character to the max without being told they need to tone it down.

I should be able to omit material because it doesn't fit my campaign, not because it's broken or overpowered.

Beauty part is, you can have both of these. If your players are crafty and clever, you as a DM need to do your homework to meet their challenge.

I'm not going to be so bold as to pretend to know anything about your DMing style, as I've never sat at a table with you. But really, instead of telling your players to hold back, maybe you need to step it up.

*EDIT: redundancy

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Broken and overpowered is highly subjective, and if your goal is to play your characters 'to the max' then the only way to not have unbalanced characters is for a tightly restricted system like 4E. Theres no middle ground there. If you want an open and robust system like pathfinder is, then you have to show a little judgement on the part of the players and dm. This isn't a video game, human intelligence and judgement are supposed to come into play here.
You not seeing a "middle ground" is highly subjective.

Pathfinder IS the middle ground. The middle ground is somethings will be out of whack for some groups because there is such a rediculous variety of material, players, play style and stories involved. Short of a rule actually being missing, there is no such thing as broken. There are opinions and those opinions differ among the large audience pathfinder has. So again I ask you why your opinion is more important then someone else's and therefore these 'broken' things should be changed.


Kolokotroni wrote:


So if you play in a group that normally doesnt optimzie heavily, a player could easily unintentionally or intentionally take all combat options for the summoners eidolon and be more powerful then is normal, as if a druid optimized the heck out of himself and his animal companion for combat. Which wouldn't be in line with non-optimized other characters. The solution is to make sure that the player playing a summoner takes some non-combat evolutions as well if you dont optimize heavily as a group. If you do, it wont be an issue in the first place.

In practice, this just doesn't really happen. The only support for "Class X is too powerful!" are cherry-picked statistics, artificial scenarios, and anecdotes for support.

In most games there is more to combat that straight damage and more to the adventure than just combat. No one character can finish a professional module made for a balanced group of his level by himself. Get back to me when you can do that.

Silver Crusade

darth_borehd wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


So if you play in a group that normally doesnt optimzie heavily, a player could easily unintentionally or intentionally take all combat options for the summoners eidolon and be more powerful then is normal, as if a druid optimized the heck out of himself and his animal companion for combat. Which wouldn't be in line with non-optimized other characters. The solution is to make sure that the player playing a summoner takes some non-combat evolutions as well if you dont optimize heavily as a group. If you do, it wont be an issue in the first place.

In practice, this just doesn't really happen. The only support for "Class X is too powerful!" are cherry-picked statistics, artificial scenarios, and anecdotes for support.

In most games there is more to combat that straight damage and more to the adventure than just combat. No one character can finish a professional module made for a balanced group of his level by himself. Get back to me when you can do that.

You shouldn't have done that because I bet you there are going to be a few posters that will try.


shallowsoul wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


So if you play in a group that normally doesnt optimzie heavily, a player could easily unintentionally or intentionally take all combat options for the summoners eidolon and be more powerful then is normal, as if a druid optimized the heck out of himself and his animal companion for combat. Which wouldn't be in line with non-optimized other characters. The solution is to make sure that the player playing a summoner takes some non-combat evolutions as well if you dont optimize heavily as a group. If you do, it wont be an issue in the first place.

In practice, this just doesn't really happen. The only support for "Class X is too powerful!" are cherry-picked statistics, artificial scenarios, and anecdotes for support.

In most games there is more to combat that straight damage and more to the adventure than just combat. No one character can finish a professional module made for a balanced group of his level by himself. Get back to me when you can do that.

You shouldn't have done that because I bet you there are going to be a few posters that will try.

Posters have already done this for years, and wore it out pretty well. I think most of us are past that, hence the mention of it.

We've seen a countless number of "X class does Y better than Z class in the cherry picked, plausibly impossible scenarios which means it's BROKENZ!!!" threads already.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


So if you play in a group that normally doesnt optimzie heavily, a player could easily unintentionally or intentionally take all combat options for the summoners eidolon and be more powerful then is normal, as if a druid optimized the heck out of himself and his animal companion for combat. Which wouldn't be in line with non-optimized other characters. The solution is to make sure that the player playing a summoner takes some non-combat evolutions as well if you dont optimize heavily as a group. If you do, it wont be an issue in the first place.

In practice, this just doesn't really happen. The only support for "Class X is too powerful!" are cherry-picked statistics, artificial scenarios, and anecdotes for support.

In most games there is more to combat that straight damage and more to the adventure than just combat. No one character can finish a professional module made for a balanced group of his level by himself. Get back to me when you can do that.

You shouldn't have done that because I bet you there are going to be a few posters that will try.

Posters have already done this for years, and wore it out pretty well. I think most of us are past that, hence the mention of it.

We've seen a countless number of "X class does Y better than Z class in the cherry picked, plausibly impossible scenarios which means it's BROKENZ!!!" threads already.

Like some trick involving diamonds and staffs of wishes ?


There’s little doubt that full spellcasters are more powerful than warriors at the higher level. This seems to be a feature of D&D since the Original 3 Volume Set. PF has slightly evened this out. (4th ed has “fixed” this by making all classes pretty much identical except for flavor).

I’d like to see it leveled out a little more. Still, it’s part of what makes D&D what it is, so I have no problem with a 20th level Wizard being more cosmic than a 20th level Fighter.


loaba wrote:
eggplantman wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Fix Fighters, they're way too powerful.
(Sprays soda on computer screen) Really? A lot of people say the opposite even after all the Pathfinder upgrades. I honestly don't know if you were being serious or not.
You've been Gorbacz'd... You can try to wash it off, but I hear that the smell lasts for weeks.

D'OH! I was wondering if he was serious or not.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I want Spring Attack and other mobility options to synergize well with other feats and abilities (like vital strike).

I want greater teleport to do what interplanetary teleport does and for the latter spell to not exist.

Silver Crusade

Also, some fix on the natural attacks-oriented summoner would be cool.
Oh, and the synthesist's ability should improve the summoner's stats, not replace them. There is no sense in fixing the 3.5 druid's wildshape if it's to create another one in PF.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I want Dragonborn Warlocks.


Since I don't think there will ever be a version of the game that doesn't elicit outraged cries of "Class XXXX is BROKENZ!!! or "Spell YYY is BROKENZ!!! or similar things... I won't waste time with trying to fix things that we can't all agree are broken.

However there are some fundamental things about the game that I'd like to see addressed.

1. I don't like the save mechanic. I never did. One of the very, very few things I like better about 4e than PF is that when I "attack" something, I get to make the "attack" roll against their defenses. That makes me feel more active and in control since there are things I can do to boost my attack rolls.

2. I don't like that the skill system is so woefully unbalanced. As far as I know there isn't a single constitution based skill. I think some skills should clearly be associated with multiple attributes instead of just one. Swimming should be as much a dex skill as a str skill. Appraise should be as much a wisdom skill as an intelligence skill. Use Magic Device should be as much an int skill as a cha skill. Etc. etc...

3. I would like to see the cover/concealment rules revisited, clarified and expanded. The current rules are too draconian, arbitrary and illogical.

4. I think the metamagic feats are a little overdone now. There are too many exploits associated with some of the new feats. There are probably too many of them too.

5. I'd like to see the magic item creation system more formalized and consistent. Another thing I like about 4e is that you can move an enchantment from one item to another compatible item. I'd like to see that in PF as well. But mostly I'd just like to see the creation of magic items become a well supported part of the game with rules that don't turn every attempt to construct a unique item into "that's a house rule, just get with your GM". All that does is result in creative players ending up with characters that have a risk of not being usable outside of their original GM's campaign.

6. I'd like to totally, completely, finally and irrevocably get rid of the gunslinger.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


1. I don't like the save mechanic. I never did. One of the very, very few things I like better about 4e than PF is that when I "attack" something, I get to make the "attack" roll against their defenses. That makes me feel more active and in control since there are things I can do to boost my attack rolls.

To each their own, but I'm the total opposite. I hated the "attacking defense" mechanic of 4e and SWSE. I've always felt if I'm getting hit by a fireball, my saving throw was sort of my own attempt at dodging out of the way. I felt that saves gave more control to the player, even if that control was a random die roll.


Fix the Monk so Flurry isn't TWFing unless they make him qualify for all TWF feats then it would be fine.

Fix feat taxes: either remove them or make them have synergy.
Spring attack has no benefit from mobility (you don't get any AoO so mobility is wasted). Dodge can stay.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post. Let's not make things personal.

1 to 50 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.