The Real Problems In Pathfinder


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

To start with I suppose I should introduce my. Zardnaar, memeber of the WoTC boards since 2001 (more or less lurker since 2008) and member here since 2009 although once again a lurker. D&D player since 1994, more or less hard core d20 player since 2000 with a few games of D6 Star Wars thrown in. Almost always a DM. Since the great schism of 2008 most of my RPG time has been spent playing 3.5/4th ed/PF or Star Wars Saga Edition (SWSE).

As to the point of this thread it is supposed to be some constructive criticism. Why now? Pathfinder has more or less won this round of the edition wars in regard to 4th ed and one can probably get away with things that would not be possible say in 2008-2010. IMHO each of major d20 subsystems (3.5/PF/4th/SWSE has added something to the d20 system. To me PF won the wars because of a consumer backlash towards 4th ed, Paizo being an excellent company in regards to its customers and a very high production vaule of thier books in terms of art, layout and being fun to read.

Anyway PF isn't perfect. IMHO it is one of the best of the d20 systems and to me it is roughly tied with SWSE in terms of best d20 game I have played. It is probably the best in temrs of best product. The best of 3.5 could put up a good fight but the PF seems to be the most consistent. Alot of the problems PF has however are a legacy of 3.5 or even 3.0. Anyway to me they are.

1. Magic. Specifically the spellcasting classes but mostly the Cleric, Druid and Wizard. Higher level games can still be dominated by these classes without much effort. Magic items in Pathfinder are to easy to craft and they effectively double the recommended wealth by level guidelines. Short of a Pathfinder II I don't see any real solution to this. To many core spells in the PFRPG core book are borked and have been since 3.0 in several cases.

2. Offense Vs Defense or rocket tag. Partly related to number 1 but it can be used in regards to the other classes. Kill stuff faster than it can kill you is a very simple and effective defense. Offensive feats are usually better than defensive ones (power attack vs dodge or toughness). Two handed weapons and archery seem plain out better than say sword and board, dual wielding, or dueling (1 weapon) although the other styles can be good they require alot of effort and access to splat books. To some extent this one is easy to fix- make more powerful defensive feats and class options. Spring attack for example is situationally useful- a feat/class ability could be designed that grants you +4 AC if you are fighing a two handed weapon wielder or on that makes the opponent reroll his attack roll (a'la 4th ed Halflings).

3. Class Balance. A thorny one here. IMHO 4th ed went to far in this goal but I would like the gap narrowed but without a drastic increase in power inflation. Druid vs Monk is a no brainer, and see various complaints about the Rogue. Let monks full attack if they move in regards to flurry or power up the 1 attack they do get. New Rogue talents that grant rerolls on saves, skills, attacks etc could also be added even if they are simlar to encounter powers from other d20 systems. I have no objection to things like this as options I just don't want a whole subsystems designed around them (Book of Nine Swords, 4th ed in general). A small subsection is fine like force powers in SWSE.

Classes lacking outside of combat options (spells, skills, class abilities etc) could use more skill points. The fighter is a prime example of this. It will not break the game to revise the fighters skill list and skill points to 4 per level. Level 18 fighter yay I have 6 skills now. Wizard timestop/gate etc. When a 5th level wizard can cast fly, haste, suggestion etc I have no problems if a monk can knock someone prone once per encounter or whatever.

Those would probably be the big ones. To some extent I think Paizo's excellent adventure paths disguise some of PFs problems. Not to many spellcasters as NPCs and they often have sub optimal spell lists. DM prep time is reduced with prepulished adventures that don't suck. No RPG system is really perfect. Overall PF is very good, (excellent production wise). It can always be better though:)

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think you're going to accomplish much, but good luck friend.


Probably not but I'm DMIng the Kingmaker AP and we've reached level 10. The same probelmes in 3.5 ar starting to turn up again.

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You're not bringing up anything new (even by your own admission). The same general mechanical issues of 3.5e remain in Pathfinder (although some have been mitigated to a degree).

Seeing that backward compatibility was the number 1 design goal of PF, none of this should be a surprise.

-Skeld


Is this supposed to be something new? Because I don't see anything that wasn't debated, discussed and argued ad nauseam on this very boards, not to mention other places. What are you trying to accomplish?

Grand Lodge

I'll come at this from another angle... and just put opinion forward as this battle has been fought ages ago and now its just us armchair generals...

In regards to game balance? I am a big fan of E6 (I use E7 for pathfinder but E8 seems to be popular too). In case you haven't heard of it - levels max out at a certain level (6 for instance) and instead of Levels, characters gain feats (and possible class features). Google it or do a forum search. I love the feel.

3rd and possibly 4th level is when spells start to break the game down - ie fly, and move the game from 'Hero' to 'Superhero'.

For your Kingmaker game its not too late to put E10 in place - that said Kingmaker was written for characters to get to high levels. I am sure the encounters have been adjusted accordingly.

On the whole fighter gets 4 skill points thing? House rule it. I personally don't like it - they get a ton of feats - but its not game breaking. Same goes for Monk flurries and Rogue talents... these won't hurt you to add.

I love what you said about SWSE - waiting for the guys over at d20 Radio to release their fan conversion of the system to a fantasy rpg... its been work in progress for Chris and Dave at O66 for a while now.

Dark Archive

I haven't had the opportunity to play SWSE yet so I can't comment to that, but I think you nailed most of PF's major issues.

With that said, re-working the game to even out casters and non-casters would be an immense task, and I'm not even sure the game would be all that much more fun.

I'd support a house rule granting non-caster classes another +2 skills/level to increase their utility, though.

Banning item crafting by PCs is a simple enough fix if you're concerned about that aspect of the game. It's occasionally been an issue in my games since one of my players does use crafting frequently, but that's mostly because the PC likes custom magic items, which are difficult to balance.

Perhaps the best solution might be to recognize that the game is most balanced & fun at a specific level range and only run games in that range. Paizo puts APs from 1-14 or 1-15 normalls, or you can do E6 or whatever. I run a L18 game, but I understand that I am in the minority here :P


Whats E6?

Its to late to nerf spellcasters I suppose but they can help out the other classes a bit. New rogue talents etc.

Grand Lodge

Zardnaar wrote:

Whats E6?

Its to late to nerf spellcasters I suppose but they can help out the other classes a bit. New rogue talents etc.

Did you google it or use the forum search engine?

Helaman wrote:


In regards to game balance? I am a big fan of E6 (I use E7 for pathfinder but E8 seems to be popular too). In case you haven't heard of it - levels max out at a certain level (6 for instance) and instead of Levels, characters gain feats (and possible class features). Google it or do a forum search.


Here ya go.
E6
(Click for a link to ENWorld that tells you all you need to know.)

Also: The Alexandrian's Little Contribution (click the link for more.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
1. Magic. Specifically the spellcasting classes but mostly the Cleric, Druid and Wizard. Higher level games can still be dominated by these classes without much effort.

This was addressed, both on the "nerfing" and "buffing" sides of the spectrum, to great effect. Is there still some advantages to magic? Yes. Versatility always brings more power, and every new supplement brings the potential for overpowered spells to slip through the QC cracks. But I'm going to be honest - Most campaigns I have played in don't go past 15th level specifically *because* of this, and after 15 levels I feel a character's saga is really played out anyway.

Quote:
Magic items in Pathfinder are to easy to craft and they effectively double the recommended wealth by level guidelines. Short of a Pathfinder II I don't see any real solution to this.

Yes, but this is true for both sides, as only the most arrogant and selfish spellcaster does not also craft items for the rest of the party. This is also far more of a problem in homebrew adventures where PCs are given nearly-infinite time to craft. This does not really come up in adventure paths.

Quote:
To many core spells in the PFRPG core book are borked and have been since 3.0 in several cases

.

There are a handful of spells in the core book that are edging on overpowered. Things like Black Tentacles, etc. I don't consider anything to be "borked".

Quote:
2. Offense Vs Defense or rocket tag. Partly related to number 1 but it can be used in regards to the other classes. Kill stuff faster than it can kill you is a very simple and effective defense. Offensive feats are usually better than defensive ones (power attack vs dodge or toughness). Two handed weapons and archery seem plain out better than say sword and board, dual wielding, or dueling (1 weapon) although the other styles can be good they require alot of effort and access to splat books. To some extent this one is easy to fix- make more powerful defensive feats and class options. Spring attack for example is situationally useful- a feat/class ability could be designed that grants you +4 AC if you are fighing a two handed weapon wielder or on that makes the opponent reroll his attack roll (a'la 4th ed Halflings).

I'm going to ask a serious question in response to this - Do you really, really want combats that last all night? I personally don't. It is not hard to make a defense specialized character that is nearly unhittable by monsters.

Quote:
3. Class Balance. A thorny one here.

I'm going to go out a limb here and say it - Class balance in Pathfinder is fine. I am working on making a character for PFS, and I'm bouncing between a hundred concepts I want to make, all of which are viable, and all of which would be fun and perfectly playable. I did not just write "Wizard", "Cleric", or "Druid" on the character sheet and then decide what minor options I wanted for it.

Now, I will absolutely say that I wish Paizo would fix the handful of archetypes that are very interesting, but realistically completely unplayable as written. Things like White-Haired Witch, Urban Druid (I'm sure I'll probably get blasted for it, but bad archetype is bad.), etc.


GMed among the dead

Spoiler:
had a level 3 monk--was Ki Throwing the CMD 30 mob on a roll of 17 or higher. and I was not hitting him--with a +14 (+10 for being continually tripped--when rolling a 12---22 was not hitting his ac)

he pretty much trivialized the encounter all by himself.

he then went on to trivialize the entire module. every single mob was immediatly tripped and ki threw on the ground. some of my other players were a little frustrated. Unless I deviated from the module(not allowed), there was zero way for me to stop him.

at lower levels, the casters are weak and martial classes will be strong--sometimes due to great AC that a GM needs 20s to hit--sometimes becaues of the above. this seems to start to change at higher levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Item crafting is one of the principal problem areas of the game, since outside of incoming money and time constraints, there is nothing to stop players from nearly doubling their WBL. If you as a GM work within the rules, the only solution is the ( IMO ) heavy-handed decision to just cut short the incoming funds of the players or pick up the pace of the campaign significantly.

I think I finally found a solution for a viable house-rule: Make the item creation price 95% of the item market price. That way, item creation becomes more of a customization tool than a must-take economic feat chain. Selling prices should be market value, too, eliminating that stupid meta-gaming reason why even newly crafted magic items are only worth 50% market price. With only a 5% profit margin, players will probably stick to just using the feats for themselves.

I also introduced another stacking "+5 to the Spellcraft DC" to further half item creation times ( quartering it thusly ), so that even short campaigns can benefit from the newly rebalanced feats.

Grand Lodge

Nice idea there!


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always been so confused about the anti-caster sentiment among d20 critics.

It's not a PvP game. It's a team game.

And Fighters have their role to play, just as Wizards do, in making sure the party can achieve its goals. A party of just Wizards is a weak party indeed.

And and and -- it's not as if players are assumed to always start out at level 20. Most campaigns and adventures never venture past level 15 at the highest, and what's wrong with theoretical class power shifting with levels, even if it could be established that this is so? Low-level gritty adventures should suit the Ranger, Rogue and Barbarian, that's precisely where they're designed to shine, and shine they do indeed. What's more pathetic than a spellcasting-focused Wizard at level 1? Do we hear a cacophony of whiners about how weak spellcasters are at the low levels where the vast majority of play actually takes place? And what about the restrictions of Time and Money on spellcasters? Those material components don't just afford themselves, you know. It's a bad DM who simply gives a Wizard all the time in the world to set up as elaborate a plot as he pleases: why do you suppose the Lich is such an archtypical BBEG? It's because he's had a thousand years to prepare for one epic combat. Behind every complaint about spellcaster power is a lazy or ignorant DM who won't or can't enforce the Rules As Written and/or can't or won't be intelligent about the world he's supposed to design.

Regardless of where the classes end up in terms of the nebulous, unquantifiable quality called "power", characters must still survive and gain "power" throughout their adventuring careers -- don't just assume that all characters will do so! Early game survival is still a balancing factor. Those d10 HD and that Full BAB and that Full Plate Mail shouldn't be written off so casually.

Sounds like someone doesn't have nearly as much experience with the 3.X or d20 system as he thinks.

Silver Crusade

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

The Real Problem With Pathfinder Is That I Don't Have Enough Money To Buy It All.


Gorbacz wrote:
The Real Problem With Pathfinder Is That I Don't Have Enough Money To Buy It All.

And then there's the MMO they're making...

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
The Real Problem With Pathfinder Is That I Don't Have Enough Money To Buy It All.

I came in hear to say this exact thing.


Aunt Tony wrote:

I've always been so confused about the anti-caster sentiment among d20 critics.

It's not a PvP game. It's a team game.

And Fighters have their role to play, just as Wizards do, in making sure the party can achieve its goals. A party of just Wizards is a weak party indeed.

And and and -- it's not as if players are assumed to always start out at level 20. Most campaigns and adventures never venture past level 15 at the highest, and what's wrong with theoretical class power shifting with levels, even if it could be established that this is so? Low-level gritty adventures should suit the Ranger, Rogue and Barbarian, that's precisely where they're designed to shine, and shine they do indeed. What's more pathetic than a spellcasting-focused Wizard at level 1? Do we hear a cacophony of whiners about how weak spellcasters are at the low levels where the vast majority of play actually takes place? And what about the restrictions of Time and Money on spellcasters? Those material components don't just afford themselves, you know. It's a bad DM who simply gives a Wizard all the time in the world to set up as elaborate a plot as he pleases: why do you suppose the Lich is such an archtypical BBEG? It's because he's had a thousand years to prepare for one epic combat. Behind every complaint about spellcaster power is a lazy or ignorant DM who won't or can't enforce the Rules As Written and/or can't or won't be intelligent about the world he's supposed to design.

Regardless of where the classes end up in terms of the nebulous, unquantifiable quality called "power", characters must still survive and gain "power" throughout their adventuring careers -- don't just assume that all characters will do so! Early game survival is still a balancing factor. Those d10 HD and that Full BAB and that Full Plate Mail shouldn't be written off so casually.

Sounds like someone doesn't have nearly as much experience with the 3.X or d20 system as he thinks.

12 years of experience enough? What feat for non spellcasters can duplicate fly at level 5 or suggestion? The reason most games probably hapen at low levels is that people stop playing higher level games because of the power level involved with it rapidly devolving into rocket tag or PCs have an easy game.

Star Wars Saga for example (perhaps the finest d20 product ever IMHO) was essentially 3.5 with the magic system stripped out and with elements of 4th ed used (skill system, unified defenses, more or less optional powers. THe game ran alot faster, as easier to design for and was more interesting than 4th ed because it used a varient of 3.5/PF character creation. Skills were alot more important.

Its not to hard in PF to have PCs even without spellcasters annhilate any similar creature in terms of CR (depending on circumstances). THeres no feat that I am aware of that comes close to duplicating timestop or gate or similar level 9 spells. Outside combat a fighter has very limited options. I am aware its a team based game but someclasses are just plain out better than others espicially once you hit level 7 or so.

Magic item creation is even more OP than what it was in 3.5.


Aunt Tony wrote:
A party of just Wizards is a weak party indeed.

Only on low levels. Even there 4x sleep/colourspray is nothing to sneeze at.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:
12 years of experience enough? What feat for non spellcasters can duplicate fly at level 5 or suggestion? The reason most games probably hapen at low levels is that people stop playing higher level games because of the power level involved with it rapidly devolving into rocket tag or PCs have an easy game.

I don't think this is true.

I think that peoples' lives interfering with the game has a far greater impact than anything else on the length of campaigns.

Most people seem to play until their group breaks up or changes several players or the Gm doesn't have time to GM anymore and someone else takes over the job, or...

Most people who get bored with high-level play seem to have taken a character to very high levels with a long-lasting group and decided that playing one concept for such a long time doesn't really excite them. They do also complain about the system going screwy but... most people just never get that far. A lot of people don't have much experience at all of high-level byond theorycrafting. My own experience only stems from games which began at high levels, which isn't really true to the game experience (don't learn the character in the same way, perfect-but-bland gear, etc.).

On the broader point. I think you are misrepresenting Aunt Tony's point (which he expressed in a pretty rude way, c'mon Aunt Tony: The Most Important Rule...). He wasn't saying that they can/should fly, he was saying that they have a different role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Played a wizard at level twelve and got fed up. Most of all the encounters at that level have DR and SR. Half of the time my caster checks would fail and my spells did ... zip, nada, zero. Meanwhile the tank beats the c**p out of the baddies. Also most of the spells at high level are save or die. Not to many have 1/2 damage or is you save this effect happens kind of thing.

Now before you start arguing for or against what I just said... remember that I am talking about my experience with playing the character. It is the impression I got.

Most of the games wee play are between levels 4 and 10, not counting AP's


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting op but I don't really care about the flaws in a game so long as I'm having fun when I play it sorry

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

None of these are flaws to me. Class balance is nothing to strive for IMO. Back in the day, Wizards were the most powerful by far. My groups were never affected by this fact, and played what they liked.

In life, some things are inherently better than others and that's ok.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*Screams*

To:
Expressing motion in the direction of a particular location.

Too:
1. A higher degree than is desirable, permissible, or possible; excessively: "he was driving too fast".
2. Very: "you're too kind".

You need another O! ADD ANOTHER O! (Or get rid of one, for some of you)

The only thing I like different, and I just house-ruled it in, is a feat at every level, more starting HP (we just add the con score at first level) and a +1 to an ability score at every even level that cannot be the same one as the last one.

*Walks away*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Best fix for magic item creation - don't allow those feats. My campaigns are much happier because of this decision.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:

*Screams*

To:
Expressing motion in the direction of a particular location.

Too:
1. A higher degree than is desirable, permissible, or possible; excessively: "he was driving too fast".
2. Very: "you're too kind".

You need another O! ADD ANOTHER O! (Or get rid of one, for some of you)

The only thing I like different, and I just house-ruled it in, is a feat at every level, more starting HP (we just add the con score at first level) and a +1 to an ability score at every even level that cannot be the same one as the last one.

*Walks away*

Me two.


Thac20 wrote:
Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:

*Screams*

To:
Expressing motion in the direction of a particular location.

Too:
1. A higher degree than is desirable, permissible, or possible; excessively: "he was driving too fast".
2. Very: "you're too kind".

You need another O! ADD ANOTHER O! (Or get rid of one, for some of you)

The only thing I like different, and I just house-ruled it in, is a feat at every level, more starting HP (we just add the con score at first level) and a +1 to an ability score at every even level that cannot be the same one as the last one.

*Walks away*

Me two.

*snigger*


As always, I recommend wizards take haste and telekinetic charge. Haste fighter early. Then delay until just before fighter's turn. Telekinetic charge fighter. Fighter gets a free attack as an immediate action, then full-attacks.

Then you might have the GM complaining that the fighter is overpowered. :P


GMing my home game I have found that every class is op. We just hit level 9, and I find the spell caster to be constantly frustrated in combat due to high saving throws and SR from the baddies- though he casts haste a lot and that is amazing, as is communal Pro-Evil. The barbarian on the other hand deal around 45 hp of damage per swing. I also have an inquisitor who will do around 26 per swing but will crit around 1/4 of the time- oh and he can bypass almost any DR.
The rogue sneak attacks at range since she can vanish almost at will, the bard buffs the hell out of people. So every fight is them busting in and doing tons of damage and often rolling the combat.

So as the GM I adjust and make the combat interesting by putting them at a terrain disadvantage, or by offering a lot of spread out weaker opponents, or by making one bad guy who they have to work very hard to get to before she kills them.

I can keep doing this at any level, there are always monsters that can kill the party- the Jaberwock is pretty strong. And at a certain level your characters SHOULD be like superheroes. They should be flying around and doing superhuman stuff all over the place, level 10+ is right where the PC's are the baddest dudes on the block most of the time. Its fine and its fun, you just have to be an intelligent GM and... occasionally cheat for the betterment of the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Proper wiz strategy involves using spells that give no save or targeting weaknesses after you made the requisite knowledge check. That last part should be easy with a gazillion int points. If baddies are resistant to everything, buff party, summon beasties, create walls. Plenty of gamechangers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Remember - the game is run by you, the GM. Players killing things too quickly? Make things harder. Ramp up saving throws, increase monster HP, add more monsters, add more CR, templates, damage types, ranged and melee mixes, spell casting monsters, etc. Add interesting and diverse terrain, lava pits, anti-magic bubbles, poison gasses.

This isn't a computer game where rules are hard coded into the engine such that nothing above level 5 will be found in the Dark Forest. As the GM, fix it. Stop giving out coins for treasure and don't let them near anything more than a fishing village - hard to enchant magical items if they cant buy raw enchanting materials.

Too many people see the books and think that everything which is printed by Paizo is available and acceptable within the game. It isn't. That's just the list of options; what is actually available is what the GM says is available. Guess what? My players can't be Summoners, Gunslingers, or Ninja. Why? Because I don't want them to be. My druid wants to buy wild armor and has the money, but he can't. Why? Because it is far past the gold limitation of the nearest village. Also, because the wizard doesn't have the down time to make more gear.

Oh, yeah, downtime. Stop giving it to your players. Sorry, no sleep for 48 hours or the clown will eat you. Seriously. Dream clown. Eats people who sleep. No save. What's that Wizard? Pissed off because you did what you normally do and blew all your spells by the third fight. Man, that sucks... still have your sling and bullets?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Murphy's paradox wrote:
Oh, yeah, downtime. Stop giving it to your players. Sorry, no sleep for 48 hours or the clown will eat you. Seriously. Dream clown. Eats people who sleep. No save.

If you need to resort to this sort of godming something has gone wrong.


I am not sure what this "game is not balanced" derives from (I assume MMO's, but of course people complain about balance there also). None of the old D & D games were balanced, (played plenty of 1st level Magic Users with 1HP); in fact the older games were much more deadly. One of the things that 4th edition did was try to emulate MMO balance.

I don't know of any pen and paper RPG that is perfectly balanced.

Attack vs. Defense, been pointed out, it is to simplify combat (which it does), want more active defenses play a different game (Ever try and GURPS combat? Go try one now, we can discuss when your done a week from now).

High Level games can is intimidating to run, it takes a much different GMing and playing style (I find the higher level stuff plays a lot like the older version, less rules). Nothing says you have to run a high level campaign.

Every game has it flaws, but honestly, that's what makes them fun. And all these game, no matter if you are running GURPS, d20, Palladium, etc, can all be houseruled to your hearts content.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Murphy's paradox wrote:
Oh, yeah, downtime. Stop giving it to your players. Sorry, no sleep for 48 hours or the clown will eat you. Seriously. Dream clown. Eats people who sleep. No save.
If you need to resort to this sort of godming something has gone wrong.

It was hyperbole based around a Simpson's reference.

A fair bit of the "Casters break everything" arguments that are made come from situations where the party gets to rest and recover and rememorize spells after every third fight or so. The GM doesn't ensure a means to prevent it and thus the casters can blow big spells on just about every fight.

So adventures which have a time-sensitive element should be employed, something that creates a tangible and meaningful tradeoff for spending the night. Or night-time ambushes that stop the players from memorizing spells the next day.

Point being - the GM can control the power level of a party through many means. Pathfinder is not meant to be a video game with hard-coded rules, APL/CR appropriate fights, and every published thing available at all times. It is meant to be a world constructed and managed by the GM for the purpose of everyone having fun.

Are the players enjoying the overpowered fights? Awesome, let them keep being happy with it; that is kind of the point. Not enough out-of-combat stuff for the fighter to do? Up his skill points because it won't break anything (as suggested by others here). GM has complete control over it.


GMs have to fix every broken thing about the game.


Reading through the thread I think that Zardnaar has carefully articulated some genuine concerns and the ensuing discussion is in and of itself healthy regardless of where you stand on the issues raised.
My 2 cents:

1. In regards to crafting magic items, I agree wholeheartedly. I want the PCs to feel that enchanted items are rare and very special. I have not had much push back from players wanting to craft a wand of thus and such or a +3 vorpal blade of awesomeness.

2. I have to disagree when it comes to the issues of Offense vs Defense; To be clear I agree with the fact that the game favors offense and quick combat; I just do not feel it is a problem.

3. Whether we are Gms or players when find ourselves talking about class balance I think we are expressing a desire that all the players (classes) have a chance to shine during the game session. Concerns regarding the relative power of classes were being bandied about in all of the previous iterations of DnD (3.5/3.0, 2nd ed., ADnD and yes even original DnD). As a Gm I found that all of these systems have their basis in regards to which classes are more powerful at a given level. More importantly,however, I find all of these games give the a creative and thoughtful Gm many tools to ensure that all the Pcs get their moment.


Ubercroz wrote:

GMing my home game I have found that every class is op. We just hit level 9, and I find the spell caster to be constantly frustrated in combat due to high saving throws and SR from the baddies- though he casts haste a lot and that is amazing, as is communal Pro-Evil. The barbarian on the other hand deal around 45 hp of damage per swing. I also have an inquisitor who will do around 26 per swing but will crit around 1/4 of the time- oh and he can bypass almost any DR.

The rogue sneak attacks at range since she can vanish almost at will, the bard buffs the hell out of people. So every fight is them busting in and doing tons of damage and often rolling the combat.

So as the GM I adjust and make the combat interesting by putting them at a terrain disadvantage, or by offering a lot of spread out weaker opponents, or by making one bad guy who they have to work very hard to get to before she kills them.

I can keep doing this at any level, there are always monsters that can kill the party- the Jaberwock is pretty strong. And at a certain level your characters SHOULD be like superheroes. They should be flying around and doing superhuman stuff all over the place, level 10+ is right where the PC's are the baddest dudes on the block most of the time. Its fine and its fun, you just have to be an intelligent GM and... occasionally cheat for the betterment of the game.

Hence my commet about offensive options exceeding defensive ones and the game kinda devolves into rocket tag.

DM can make time restricted adventures but we're using Kingmaker a Paizo AP and the PCs themselves have been commenting on how easy it is although I have recently begun tweaking the encounters. Theres alot of downtime in tha adventure path. Even if you do grind thm down via constant combat you are going to have PCs level up very fast in game time. YOu could have a 16 yo rogue hit level 20 before his 17th birthday for example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Winter_Born wrote:

None of these are flaws to me. Class balance is nothing to strive for IMO. Back in the day, Wizards were the most powerful by far. My groups were never affected by this fact, and played what they liked.

In life, some things are inherently better than others and that's ok.

This, I don't care about balance, I care about fun. Pathfinder has that in droves.

Also I like Rifts so lolbalance.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Is SWSE still available for purchase? I've always been keen to see the differences between it and the d20 one I have...


Quote:
Furthermore, as was said already, the classes are not in competition with each other.

Except when you fight enemies with PC class levels.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Is SWSE still available for purchase? I've always been keen to see the differences between it and the d20 one I have...

WotC no longer has the license for the game, so you are going to have to hunt them down in used bookstores and on the Internet. Great game, lots of fun to play.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hmm. Were these ever in pdf format?


Not in any legal form that I am aware of.


I seriously cannot understand all the item crafting hate/fear. Yall do realize that the WBL table is on an exponential curve, right? That means that doubling your wealth only adds two levels worth of wealth. (Just like doubling your experience will only gain you two levels.)

Plus, it takes an insane amount of time to make high end gear (a +10 equivalent weapon would take 200 days). What kind of adventures are you running where the wizard can simply take 3 years off and make everyone +10 equivalent weapons and armor? (Kingmaker is a known exception here, but even then, shouldn't the wizard occasionally have other stuff to do?) Perhaps it's letting the party have all the time they want whenever they want that's the problem and not item crafting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I consider E6 to be a bogus way to fix a non-existant problem.

If you hate full spellcasters ban them. Or play a different game entirely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ImperatorK wrote:
Quote:
Furthermore, as was said already, the classes are not in competition with each other.
Except when you fight enemies with PC class levels.

If the DM wants to overpower you, his choice of NPC class levels is the least-important tool at his disposal.

And if your DM considers himself to be playing "against" the PCs, then you have much more dire problems on your hands than whatever esoteric flaws you perceive in the mechanics of the game itself.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah I saw the core book on Ebay for cheap,but there's so many damn sourcebooks!

1 to 50 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Real Problems In Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.