The Real Problems In Pathfinder

[Steve Geddes]

magnuskn wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Yeah, sometimes really, really bad stuff slips through. Antagonize, this ring and a few other things, like some of the new spells. While I don't grudge them a few mistakes, one wonders how they survived the editorial process. And no, saying "It's just one item/feat/spell in a huge book!" doesn't make those things any less unbalaced.

I suspect "the editorial process" is bigger, more complicated, more time pressured and more chaotic than us non-professional-editors realize.

I'm sure it is. But if even after large protests the really offensive stuff doesn't get corrected ( and Antagonize has not been, as I looked up right now. Making the DC from "laughably easy" to "a bit less laughably easy" does not fix the problem ), one has to wonder how things like these keep happening.

I have no clue what antagonize is. But f the designers have looked over the issue and made some explanatory comments, then I think it does imply the problem is fixed.

It may well be they have different design goals to what the unsatisfied are operating from.

[wraithstrike]

Steve Geddes wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Yeah, sometimes really, really bad stuff slips through. Antagonize, this ring and a few other things, like some of the new spells. While I don't grudge them a few mistakes, one wonders how they survived the editorial process. And no, saying "It's just one item/feat/spell in a huge book!" doesn't make those things any less unbalaced.

I suspect "the editorial process" is bigger, more complicated, more time pressured and more chaotic than us non-professional-editors realize.

I'm sure it is. But if even after large protests the really offensive stuff doesn't get corrected ( and Antagonize has not been, as I looked up right now. Making the DC from "laughably easy" to "a bit less laughably easy" does not fix the problem ), one has to wonder how things like these keep happening.

I have no clue what antagonize is. But f the designers have looked over the issue and made some explanatory comments, then I think it does imply the problem is fixed.

It may well be they have different design goals to what the unsatisfied are operating from.

I hate that feat. It is effectively mind control that can not be resisted, and overcomes all RP. They tried to tone it down, but they should have just gotten rid of it. It is the only feat I have banned so far in the entire game.

[Kthulhu]

I'd actually be more likely to be forgiving of it if it didn't have the True Strike clause in there. But having shows that they did actually consider it broken for True Struke, but didn't bother to consider the the other spells for which is it just as or more broken.

[magnuskn]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I have no clue what antagonize is. But f the designers have looked over the issue and made some explanatory comments, then I think it does imply the problem is fixed.

It may well be they have different design goals to what the unsatisfied are operating from.

Antagonize

Hm. Looking at the rules text there, it seems that it was fixed to be less idiotically good. Why wasn't that visible in the FAQ and the errata of UM? Maybe I simply overlooked it.

Okay, consider my objection here retracted, it seems that they did do something about it. It is still questionable if we need MMO-style taunts in the game, but that is a matter of taste.

[MicMan]

Antagonize was really poorly done. Everyone with even a tiny shred of rules-fu saw that immediately which makes it so hard to understand why this thing "slipped through".

I think that this was a case where a rough first draft accidentally made it into the book.

The Ring is not in the same league as 90%+ of all people will never reach the level where they will use it.

[Fabius Maximus]

Kthulhu wrote:

memorax wrote:

Still not seeing the doom and gloom of a ring of continuation that some see on these boards. How many groups of players you know are going to patiently save 56K to get one item for one member of the party. I sure as as hell know that I would be spending that much on other improvements.

Timestop + Ring of Continuation = Instant Win Button

You can literally stop the game, sleep for 8 hours, memorize spells for that specific encounter, get throught it, rinse, and repeat.

Essentially, you sacrifice 1 9th level spell slot in order to have infinite reaction time to ANYTHING that happens.

The martial equivalent would be to have a sword that when drawn, causes all enemies to fall over dead, no save. Only that wouldn't be quite as good.

If you'd actually read the thread concerning that item, you'd know by now that it doesn't work the way you described it.

[Bill Dunn]

wraithstrike wrote:

I hate that feat. It is effectively mind control that can not be resisted, and overcomes all RP. They tried to tone it down, but they should have just gotten rid of it. It is the only feat I have banned so far in the entire game.

I think I would disagree that assessment. It is a brief bit of control in the intimidate form, yes, but it's of very short duration and it is resisted with a relatively decent DC that must be met.

[Fleshgrinder]

magnuskn wrote:

Yeah, only that it doesn't work that way in reality. Villains have better stuff to do than spend their action on chugging a Cure Not Enough Wounds potion, while four or more PCs are wailing on them. Players hoard consumables. Most of the time a group will not let an enemy disengage and retreat, so that he can actually heal himself up as described in his tactics.

There's an entire "villain's escape tool box" listed on the NPC page of the PFSRD.

It gives you an entire list of spells and gadgets to assist in an escape.

Again, your problems appear to be completely confined to your GMing style, not the system itself.

[ciretose]

Gorbacz wrote:

But apart from that, tell us where the bad Paizo touched you. Maybe it was SKR? I heard he likes to drive an ice cream truck around. Except, you know, there's no ice cream inside.

I was promised cake...there was no cake...

[Ensirio the Longstrider]

ciretose wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

But apart from that, tell us where the bad Paizo touched you. Maybe it was SKR? I heard he likes to drive an ice cream truck around. Except, you know, there's no ice cream inside.

I was promised cake...there was no cake...

The cake was an overused meme.

[Walter Orlin]

Apple cake?

[ciretose]

Ensirio the Longstrider wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

But apart from that, tell us where the bad Paizo touched you. Maybe it was SKR? I heard he likes to drive an ice cream truck around. Except, you know, there's no ice cream inside.

I was promised cake...there was no cake...

The cake was an overused meme.

That was my exact thought! There is no way there would be no cake, that would be trite and SKR isn't trite. "This is a classic anti-joke moment, there will in fact be cake!", I said to myself...oh foolish heart that longs for false confections...

[TOZ]

It is delicious cake. You must eat it.

[JrK]

THE CAKE IS A PIE.

[Col. Sanders]

Chicken pie?

[Imper1um]

For some reason, I don't seem to see these same issues. It might be who I'm playing with, but Magic doesn't dominate the game. In fact, I see more fighters being the "bad ass" than Wizards/Sorc/Clerics in 3.5e, specifically because lots of Magic Spells were nerfed, and everyone got nice little boosts in PF to compensate.

In the OvD Feats, it is true that some feats look to be absolutely useless, very situational, or outright badly worded, but that goes without saying that some things in the RPG are terribly worded. However, saying that *every* Offensive feat should be picked *before* a Defensive one seems to be...short sighted. I've seen some pretty beastly Defensive feats used against me at the PFS Table. It can be very nasty.

As for class balance, yes, there have been some issues (see: Summoner Synergist), but for every issue, there are 10 other great things I see in PF and pleasantly surprise me every day.

[bugleyman]

Actually, the biggest problem with Pathfinder is its fanbase...

[Imper1um]

bugleyman wrote:

Actually, the biggest problem with Pathfinder is its fanbase...

Pot, we meet again! Its your old adversary: THE KETTLE.

XD

But, on a serious note, yeah, with popularity comes the issue that some of us want to ruin it for the rest of us. We've all seen it, one Min/Maxer at a table of RPers, or an extreme RPer at a table of people that wants the experience without all of the stress of saying every little RP word. On the boards, we see people who complain all the time, and we have fanboys (yes, I've been known to keep a stance once or twice, ignoring all others) that refuse to change their stance regardless of what is said.

Its what comes naturally to popularity of a specific thing. It happens everywhere. The key is that you have to realize that with popularity comes the negative consequences, realize they exist, deal with the most extreme cases as they come, and understand you will never be able to "whack-a-mole" all the extremists (one way or another) without being a total arsebag.

Personally, I think that Paizo has done an amazing job at dealing with problems. They understand that developing an RPG isn't an exact science, and that they make mistakes, and so do their players. They have the best staff dealing with problems, and I haven't had any complaints about anyone on the team. I wish more companies would model their strategies after Paizo (*cough*WoTC*cough*).

[TriOmegaZero]

bugleyman wrote:

Actually, the biggest problem with Pathfinder is its fanbase...

That's what I said.

I think this thread is all the proof anyone needs.

[Creative Munchkin]

Pathfinder has problems? Who would have known!

[Buri]

What you say 'bout my mammy?!