Personally the biggest problem I see is saving throws and upper level game-play. It becomes, I make it so long as I don't roll a 1, or I only make it if I roll a 20.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally the biggest problem I see is saving throws and upper level game-play. It becomes, I make it so long as I don't roll a 1, or I only make it if I roll a 20.
The swinginess.
I almost like the 2e way better, but even that was a nightmare. You'd have effects that were like save vs wands -2. So whatever the guy's save vs wands save was, he had to take it at a -2 penalty. You could still prioritize people, but the fact that you had five saves, and the modifiers were based on the guy on the recieving end, usually meant less modifier juggling (although most 2e wizardsjust blasted the crap out of things).
I do admit that I enjoyed the older ethic of certain spells having odd drawbacks to prevent overuse too. Would casting haste on the party be part of the Standard Operating Practice if it still took a year off of everyone's life? It also made them feel like...well, magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The basis of my argument, which I fully admit lacks data, is that with the rise of mmorpg's in the 90's, the tabletop games popularity would decline.
It's not unreasonable to postulate that if sales were truly raising at 750,000 copies of the rules in 1984 (3 years after the 1981 3 mil figure), then it is entirely possible that DnD had reached the 6 million mark by 1985 (could even say 1989 if you want to be conservative about it).
So, my point is, that the growth rate either abruptly stopped and then leveled out, or, a more logical explanation is that the popularity of the game began to decline after a peak somewhere in the early 90's. And to use a...
I just don't get this. As a video game fanatic and TTRPG fan, I can't fathom why the two are constantly put on opposing sides. Seriously, you can enjoy both and you won't lose your geek cred card.
Enjoying video game RPG's and table-top RPG's does not have to be an all-or-nothing, mutually exclusive thing. This entire argument is outdated and biased.
The basis of my argument, which I fully admit lacks data, is that with the rise of mmorpg's in the 90's, the tabletop games popularity would decline.
It's not unreasonable to postulate that if sales were truly raising at 750,000 copies of the rules in 1984 (3 years after the 1981 3 mil figure), then it is entirely possible that DnD had reached the 6 million mark by 1985 (could even say 1989 if you want to be conservative about it).
So, my point is, that the growth rate either abruptly stopped and then leveled out, or, a more logical explanation is that the popularity of the game began to decline after a peak somewhere in the early 90's. And to use a...
I just don't get this. As a video game fanatic and TTRPG fan, I can't fathom why the two are constantly put on opposing sides. Seriously, you can enjoy both and you won't lose your geek cred card.
Enjoying video game RPG's and table-top RPG's does not have to be an all-or-nothing, mutually exclusive thing. This entire argument is outdated and biased.
Speaking as someone who spends half the time he should be prepping for a campaign playing Skyrim instead, I'm definitely not coming from the "one or the other" perspective.
That being said, video games and TTRPGs both cost a lot of money. Every dollar spent on one, is a dollar not spent on the other. video games go on sale a lot more often than TTRPG books. Video games don't require co-ordinating your friends' busy schedules (mostly). Video games have less up-keep cost (most people I know don't stop at the PCR and Bestiary, they want all the books, plus minis, plus props, plus...).
As a result, dyed in the wool TTRPG players rightly see video games as a potential threat. It doesn't have to be a threat, but for the poor college kid choosing between 30-50 bucks (depending on source) for a hard copy PCR, or 30-60 bucks for Dishonored. I'm in the lucky crowd of working professionals that can maintain the costs of both hobbies...
You said it all here. For some, it's a money issue. For others its a scheduling issue. In my case, I've only known one group of TTRPG gamers my entire gaming career. I'm blessed that we've been playing for as long as we have. Were something to happen and we couldn't game anymore, I would most likely never game again.
It's a disturbing prospect, and one never truly knows if wouldn't seek out a new group if I felt the need. However, before I met them I was big into the MMORPG's and would likely switch back to that and for a few reasons...
First, It has the same feeling of social acceptance without actually being "social".
Second, Scheduling conflicts always seem to creep up. We're usually a once a week group, but we often have to skip a session or two for various reasons. Would I ever be able to find another group that works for my busy schedule? MMO's don't have this issue.
And third, there is no guarantee I'll like the group if I do eventually find one that works for me.
So, John, the argument is not out-dated and bias. MMORPG's can and probably do take away from the TTRPG gamers on a regular basis whenever the hoops one has to jump through to joining a TT gaming group can't be overcome.
If MMO's can and do take players away from gaming, then we might as well blame sports, television, movies, music, concerts, parenthood/family obligations, etc for the same exact thing.
Most of my gaming group buddies are avid video game players as well. Neither hobby has interfered with the other.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that it wouldn't be D&D then. Look, guys there are dozens of great FRPGs that have those features. Instead of trying to change D&D into those, why not just play one of them?
Well, Cook, Tweet, and Williams put out a game that dumped the core ruleset of D&D, slapped a "Dungeons & Dragons" label on it, and it's fairly widely accepted as "being D&D". If you can accept it as D&D, I'm not sure why a few more changes that keep that editions base system would be substantial enough to make it "not D&D".
Except that it wouldn't be D&D then. Look, guys there are dozens of great FRPGs that have those features. Instead of trying to change D&D into those, why not just play one of them?Well, Cook, Tweet, and Williams put out a game that dumped the core ruleset of D&D, slapped a "Dungeons & Dragons" label on it, and it's fairly widely accepted as "being D&D". If you can accept it as D&D, I'm not sure why a few more changes that keep that editions base system would be substantial enough to make it "not D&D".
Because the book says "Pathfinder" on it?
If MMO's can and do take players away from gaming, then we might as well blame sports, television, movies, music, concerts, parenthood/family obligations, etc for the same exact thing.
Most of my gaming group buddies are avid video game players as well. Neither hobby has interfered with the other.
That's a slippery slope argument, and a poor one at that. Also, i'm glad that your friends can find the time for both hobbies, many are not that lucky.
I'm going to bow out of the discussion since without the data to back it up, it is all just speculation by both of us. I think it's a very good hypothesis, and if I ever do find the time to do some research on it, I'll get back to you.
What we do know is the growth rate abruptly declined since it's hay-day in the mid 80's. What we don't know is why.
From my experience, video game RPG's were mostly responsible for bring players to table-top RPG's in our groups in the first place. Most of the guys I game with, cut their teeth on early Ultima, Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda, things like that. Once we discovered the infinite options that table-top gaming provides, we dove head first into the hobby. Had we not got our fantasy RPG intro with some of those early games, we might never had even bothered with D&D.
You can find data to correlate anything with being the cause of just about anything else if you look hard enough. I could say the Earth's population is much larger than it was in early 1986, so the release of the NES must be to blame.
Except that it wouldn't be D&D then. Look, guys there are dozens of great FRPGs that have those features. Instead of trying to change D&D into those, why not just play one of them?Well, Cook, Tweet, and Williams put out a game that dumped the core ruleset of D&D, slapped a "Dungeons & Dragons" label on it, and it's fairly widely accepted as "being D&D". If you can accept it as D&D, I'm not sure why a few more changes that keep that editions base system would be substantial enough to make it "not D&D".
I don't accept 4th ED as D&D. Nice game in it's way with some D&D flavor, but not D&D. PF is D&D.
I have been with D&D since the very begining, since 1974, and yes, the game has evolved. But it's still the same game. I am not always happy with the changes, mind you.
From my experience, video game RPG's were mostly responsible for bring players to table-top RPG's in our groups in the first place. Most of the guys I game with, cut their teeth on early Ultima, Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda, things like that. Once we discovered the infinite options that table-top gaming provides, we dove head first into the hobby. Had we not got our fantasy RPG intro with some of those early games, we might never had even bothered with D&D.
You can find data to correlate anything with being the cause of just about anything else if you look hard enough. I could say the Earth's population is much larger than it was in early 1986, so the release of the NES must be to blame.
At least use hyperbole that makes sense. While earths population, like DnD's player base has increased over the years. The earths population growth rate is declining, similar to the DnD player base. You would have made a better argument saying "Earths growth rate is slowing, so naturally DnD's growth would slow too!" then mentioning anything about the NES.
Leave the hyperbole and slippery slope out of the arguments and I would take you more seriously.
It was intended to be a ridiculous example, because that's how ridiculous the "you dang kids and yer video games are ruining D&D!" argument sounds to me.
Video game RPG's have been around almost as long as D&D itself. Sure, MMO's aren't nearly as old, but look at the time period you are citing; mid 90's? That couldn't have anything to do with TSR absolutely glutting the industry with more mediocre products than the average gamer could keep up with, could it? Or simply TSR's "bad management?"
Yep. Gotta be those darn video games.
Thanks for finally putting up a legitimate counter argument, however, the snark is unnecessary.
Perhaps it was bad management by TSR, perhaps it was a declining interest rate due to the emergence of online RPG's. Maybe it was a combination. WOW alone has over 10 million subscribers, are you going to tell me that has had zero effect on TTRPG's numbers? I just don't buy that.
|
|
Thanks for finally putting up a legitimate counter argument, however, the snark is unnecessary.
Perhaps it was bad management by TSR, perhaps it was a declining interest rate due to the emergence of online RPG's. Maybe it was a combination. WOW alone has over 10 million subscribers, are you going to tell me that has had zero effect on TTRPG's numbers? I just don't buy that.
Agreed.
At the end of the day, MMOs are cheaper, less work, and more convenient. Don't get me wrong, I would say that MMOs have also helped TTRPGs gain players but not enough to rock the boat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fluff far too often overreaches crunch
Thanks for finally putting up a legitimate counter argument, however, the snark is unnecessary.
Perhaps it was bad management by TSR, perhaps it was a declining interest rate due to the emergence of online RPG's. Maybe it was a combination. WOW alone has over 10 million subscribers, are you going to tell me that has had zero effect on TTRPG's numbers? I just don't buy that.
And what a coincidence, I know several WOW players who currently play Pathfinder.
I'll tone down the snark, but really, this argument pops up once every two weeks or so, and as a strong supporter of BOTH mediums, it drives me freakin' nuts. I've gamed with close to 50 different players over the years, and I do not know of a single instance where someone abandoned TTRPG for a MMO. Not a single one. I know of several who abandoned MMO's for TTRPGs, however.
Sure, my evidence is only anecdotal, but if things were as connected as you're trying to point out, in a sample size that big, you'd think I'd find at least one? Nope.
This sort of MMO vs. TTRPG thing does more damage than good. Heck, I saw several MMO-influenced facets about 4e, and those were good points that I thought worked well in the system, yet I had several posters rip my head off for daring to make such a comparison. It's stupid.
They are not mutually exclusive, and just because someone plays one or the other, does not take anything away from the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that it wouldn't be D&D then. Look, guys there are dozens of great FRPGs that have those features. Instead of trying to change D&D into those, why not just play one of them?Well, Cook, Tweet, and Williams put out a game that dumped the core ruleset of D&D, slapped a "Dungeons & Dragons" label on it, and it's fairly widely accepted as "being D&D". If you can accept it as D&D, I'm not sure why a few more changes that keep that editions base system would be substantial enough to make it "not D&D".
I don't accept 4th ED as D&D. Nice game in it's way with some D&D flavor, but not D&D. PF is D&D.
I have been with D&D since the very begining, since 1974, and yes, the game has evolved. But it's still the same game. I am not always happy with the changes, mind you.
What is D&D? What separates it from other (IMHO lesser) FRPGs? Character classes, Levels, Spells by levels, Vancian magic (not always with all classes, but at least Wizards), armor class, saving throws, Hit points, certain classic spells like Magic Missile and Fireball.
Generally High Fantasy but can be played with some tech , gritty or moderate magic. Wizards, Clerics, Fighters, Elves, Dwarves. A wide variety of weapons, which have different effects, damage etc. Classic monsters.
Mind you, I have had fun with 4th ED, Chivalry & Sorcery, Runequest, Fantasy Hero, Tunnels & Trolls and a bunch of others.
Thanks for finally putting up a legitimate counter argument, however, the snark is unnecessary.
Perhaps it was bad management by TSR, perhaps it was a declining interest rate due to the emergence of online RPG's. Maybe it was a combination. WOW alone has over 10 million subscribers, are you going to tell me that has had zero effect on TTRPG's numbers? I just don't buy that.
And what a coincidence, I know several WOW players who currently play Pathfinder.
I'll tone down the snark, but really, this argument pops up once every two weeks or so, and as a strong supporter of BOTH mediums, it drives me freakin' nuts. I've gamed with close to 50 different players over the years, and I do not know of a single instance where someone abandoned TTRPG for a MMO. Not a single one. I know of several who abandoned MMO's for TTRPGs, however.
Sure, my evidence is only anecdotal, but if things were as connected as you're trying to point out, in a sample size that big, you'd think I'd find at least one? Nope.
This sort of MMO vs. TTRPG thing does more damage than good. Heck, I saw several MMO-influenced facets about 4e, and those were good points that I thought worked well in the system, yet I had several posters rip my head off for daring to make such a comparison. It's stupid.
They are not mutually exclusive, and just because someone plays one or the other, does not take anything away from the other.
I can point to one example of a friend of mine who was a big TTRPG'er in his college that now exclusively plays MMO's. But that's besides the point.
I think I see where our viewpoints are differing. My argument isn't necessarily arguing that MMO's are stealing away TTRPG'ers even though I know for a fact it can happen. My argument is that with the rise of MMO's, People that would normally play a game like DnD are choosing the easier to get into MMO's over TTRPG's. Thus leading to dwindling popularity of the TTRPG's over MMO's.
That's not saying one is better than the other, I myself played DAoC for over 7 years, while also playing DnD/Pathfinder. I still go through withdrawals where I feel like I should start up again (even though I know the game is essentially dead).
Which brings me to another point.. The addictive nature of MMO's. Yes. I was an MMO addict, I can't say the same about TTRPG's.
|
Combat Maneuvers are another one I want to add. I find that they work but only if you invest heavily in them.
I wonder how they tested out the full CMB, CMD mechanic.
CMB/CMD was first proposed during the Alpha playtest (2008) and was part of the open playtest leading up to PFRPG's release.
You find it in this forum if you're interested in watching its evolution.
-Skeld
Gaming addiction is a whole other can of worms that really needs it's own thread, if this discussion off topic is to continue.
Anyways, back on topic; Pathfinder's flawed. I agree.
It was intended to be a ridiculous example, because that's how ridiculous the "you dang kids and yer video games are ruining D&D!" argument sounds to me.
Video game RPG's have been around almost as long as D&D itself. Sure, MMO's aren't nearly as old, but look at the time period you are citing; mid 90's? That couldn't have anything to do with TSR absolutely glutting the industry with more mediocre products than the average gamer could keep up with, could it? Or simply TSR's "bad management?"
Yep. Gotta be those darn video games.
Sorry, I gotta throw in a history lesson.
D&D in some form has been around since 1974. Unless you consider Pong to be a masterpiece of RPG gaming, computer games were not competition at that time.
The absolute first RPG video game I played was the original Bard's Tale that was released in 1985. Ultima I came out in 1981, but I never actually saw a copy of that game in person. More importantly, these were all PC games. Out of the 100 or so kids I knew only like 2 of us actually had a computer at home in 1985. A good computer in 1985 had 256 KB of memory, no hard drive, and less horsepower than a ten year old cell phone. 640X480 was considered super high resolution. RPGs like BT and U1 didn't even come close to D&D for immersion. There was no competition.
It wasn't until the second generation of consoles(Nintendo and Sega), that I saw RPGs(Final Fantasy I) being played by a significant number of people I knew at school. The NES was launched in 1985, but most of the games were arcade ports. Final Fantasy 1 was the first decent RPG that I played on a console, that was released in the US in 1990. Go play FF1 sometime, then remember, everything that came before that WAS WORSE.
So, yes, until the early 90s, pen and paper RPG did not have significant competition from video games.
The references to competition arent suggesting the two hobbies are equivalents. It's a reference to the fact that time and money spent playing computer games is time and money you're not spending playing TTRPGs.
They're clearly competitors - that doesnt mean the loss to TTRPGs arising from the existence of computer games is greater than the gain (from providing a large, mainstream way to enter the market for TTRPGs).
It was intended to be a ridiculous example, because that's how ridiculous the "you dang kids and yer video games are ruining D&D!" argument sounds to me.
Video game RPG's have been around almost as long as D&D itself. Sure, MMO's aren't nearly as old, but look at the time period you are citing; mid 90's? That couldn't have anything to do with TSR absolutely glutting the industry with more mediocre products than the average gamer could keep up with, could it? Or simply TSR's "bad management?"
Yep. Gotta be those darn video games.
Sorry, I gotta throw in a history lesson.
D&D in some form has been around since 1974. Unless you consider Pong to be a masterpiece of RPG gaming, computer games were not competition at that time.
The absolute first RPG video game I played was the original Bard's Tale that was released in 1985. Ultima I came out in 1981, but I never actually saw a copy of that game in person. More importantly, these were all PC games. Out of the 100 or so kids I knew only like 2 of us actually had a computer at home in 1985. A good computer in 1985 had 256 KB of memory, no hard drive, and less horsepower than a ten year old cell phone. 640X480 was considered super high resolution. RPGs like BT and U1 didn't even come close to D&D for immersion. There was no competition.
It wasn't until the second generation of consoles(Nintendo and Sega), that I saw RPGs(Final Fantasy I) being played by a significant number of people I knew at school. The NES was launched in 1985, but most of the games were arcade ports. Final Fantasy 1 was the first decent RPG that I played on a console, that was released in the US in 1990. Go play FF1 sometime, then remember, everything that came before that WAS WORSE.
So, yes, until the early 90s, pen and paper RPG did not have significant competition from video games.
I never said they competed. I said they co-existed, and even then, I DID say "around the early 80's," so thank you for clarifying my point about Ultima 1.
And yes, there were arcade video games in the 70's. D&D beat them to the punch by maybe a few years. I'm speaking from what I experienced, what I played, and what a large group of fellow players in my area played. The Legend of Zelda was the big kicker that pushed me into playing RPG's, even though it "technically" isn't an RPG. It still had an elf-eared protagonist battling monsters with a sword and shield, traversing the countryside looking for magic items, and delving dungeons for loot, and to rescue the princess. It directly sent me looking for more games that did all that and more. Later games like Final Fantasy and Ultima Exodus(NES version) just gave me more inspiration to draw from.
Money spent on video games is not always "money that could've gone to TTRPG instead," in my case, money spent on video games directly led to me spending money on TTRPG's. Thanks for the history lesson, anyway.
Gaming addiction is a whole other can of worms that really needs it's own thread, if this discussion off topic is to continue.
Anyways, back on topic; Pathfinder's flawed. I agree.
Agreed. I shall drop the discussion, which I honestly don't recall how I even got on the topic.
So to also get back on topic. I also agree that Pathfinder is flawed, but I challenge anyone to find me the perfect game. I also recognize that one man's flaw is another man's feature.
I personally like the take 10 mechanic that some find too easy.
I think the Magic Item Creation rules are fine as is, but would not be opposed to minor (and I stress minor) changes.
I find the mundane item creation rules quite flawed.
I'm sure there are other flaws I could find, but the bottom line to me is: I find Pathfinder to be the best of a lot of good games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to also get back on topic. I also agree that Pathfinder is flawed, but I challenge anyone to find me the perfect game. I also recognize that one man's flaw is another man's feature.
I very much so agree with this. I personally prefer 3.5e over PF, but my gaming group prefers PF over 3.5e. Since I'm pretty much the only one in my group that feels this way, I have to tag along with their PF campaign, or not play at all.
While 3.5e is in itself very flawed, I was accustomed to those flaws and could work with them. PF just messes up my memory of which rules are what and tacks on an extra truckload of unfamiliar, but kinda familiar mechanics that just throw me off badly. I'm more of a "better the devil you know..." kind of guy. I also realize how much I am in the minority here.
Stuff
They coexisted in the 80s because it is very easy to coexist with something that isn't a threat.
In the 80s, I would never have skipped out on a D&D session to play Ultima or Bard's Tale. As for cost, paying a $1000 for a computer plus $50 for the game vs $100 for a set of main rule books was pretty much a no brainer for most people.
During the 90s, most people had bought a console or computer. So the initial cost is more like $50 for a video game vs $50-$100 for the books you need. The quality of immersion of video games increased significantly. In short, video games began to compete with TT games for people's time and money.
I personally have been spending my money on game on Steam because it is pointless to buy more PF books when I don't have a gaming group to play with. Most of my old gaming group would rather stay home and play X-box or Computer Games than drive 30 minutes to a friends house to play PF.
StuffThey coexisted in the 80s because it is very easy to coexist with something that isn't a threat.
In the 80s, I would never have skipped out on a D&D session to play Ultima or Bard's Tale. As for cost, paying a $1000 for a computer plus $50 for the game vs $100 for a set of main rule books was pretty much a no brainer for most people.
During the 90s, most people had bought a console or computer. So the initial cost is more like $50 for a video game vs $50-$100 for the books you need. The quality of immersion of video games increased significantly. In short, video games began to compete with TT games for people's time and money.
I personally have been spending my money on game on Steam because it is pointless to buy more PF books when I don't have a gaming group to play with. Most of my old gaming group would rather stay home and play X-box or Computer Games than drive 30 minutes to a friends house to play PF.
Then we're just in opposite situations. For us, video games are what you play in-between TTRPG sessions. Never instead-of. Not even MMO's.
Then we're just in opposite situations. For us, video games are what you play in-between TTRPG sessions. Never instead-of. Not even MMO's.
It's the accessibility of video games more than anything else. When I was in college in the late 90s, a TT game always less than 5 minutes away. There was competition between VG and TT, but TT generally won out.
Once I moved to a large city everything changed. I met a lot of my gaming friends via TT wargaming, but that is something that takes 2 hours, and we could always find a brick and mortar store that was halfway in between to meet up at. Once we transitioned into TT RPG, we had to start meeting at someone's house because most stores kick you out at 9 or 10PM, not to mention that at a lot of brick and mortar places you have to deal with outside interruptions. That was when we realized that the 30-45 minute drives were a big deal.
45 minute drive
4 hour session
45 minute drive
That is basically a 6 hour block of time you have to align 5 people for. I was the only one with a normal 9-5 jobs, 3 of the guys worked retail. So there was a lot of I have late shift Saturday or early shift on Sunday, I can't come. Then you throw in the other normal interruptions(I have family in town, etc). It was a struggle just to get the group together. It was mostly me and one other guy, then we finally got burned out on holding it all together. We haven't had a PF session in over a year and to be honest, while I miss playing the game, I don't miss the stress of trying to get everyone together.
|
|
Jumping into this race:
Magic Item Creation system - Even before WBL, designers knew that crafting was awesome but could break the system by flooding the party with items, so they wisely said "it can and will be done but we shall make no rules how except that items will drain thou 1 CON so thou does not make too many. PF has done a decent job giving us guidelines. However, the cost of one feat to double a party's effective wealth and be able to create nearly any item on the "must-have Christmas Tree list" is minimal. It's too good.
The guidelines need a tweak. I'm advocating to my group currently a 100% cost system but being able to salvage similar items (e.g. a weapon to make a weapon) at 100% value. It removes the wealth benefit to the entire party while maintaining what I think is the intent and primary benefit of crafting - let the players craft what they need rather than rely solely on what they find so they can play the character they want.
Traits - With a "Guide to Traits" out there, the purpose has gotten lost behind the game mechanics advantage. From the RAW: a character trait isn't just another kind of power you can add on to your character.... For now, as a patch-fix, I'd be inclined to have the DM offer a list of traits based on a background concept the character provides and let the player choose 1-2. Otherwise, will I ever see an alchemist who isn't "reactionary" and doesn't have "splash weapon mastery?"
WBL - It works till it doesn't. Fix crafting and WBL, assuming adventures are played/written that adhere to WBL treasure distribution, falls in line.
|
|
Gaming addiction is a whole other can of worms that really needs it's own thread, if this discussion off topic is to continue.
Anyways, back on topic; Pathfinder's flawed. I agree.
Agreed. I shall drop the discussion, which I honestly don't recall how I even got on the topic.
So to also get back on topic. I also agree that Pathfinder is flawed, but I challenge anyone to find me the perfect game. I also recognize that one man's flaw is another man's feature.
Nobody ever said anything about wanting a perfect so why keep using that phrase? It has already been explain to you that the current iteration of Pathfinder has not reached it's peak to where the next step is perfection.
Some of us just want the flaws to be fixed as much as possible.
Gaming addiction is a whole other can of worms that really needs it's own thread, if this discussion off topic is to continue.
Anyways, back on topic; Pathfinder's flawed. I agree.
Agreed. I shall drop the discussion, which I honestly don't recall how I even got on the topic.
So to also get back on topic. I also agree that Pathfinder is flawed, but I challenge anyone to find me the perfect game. I also recognize that one man's flaw is another man's feature.
Nobody ever said anything about wanting a perfect so why keep using that phrase? It has already been explain to you that the current iteration of Pathfinder has not reached it's peak to where the next step is perfection.
Some of us just want the flaws to be fixed as much as possible.
Aw yes, the perfection fallacy.
"We can't make it perfect, so lets stop trying to make it better"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gaming addiction is a whole other can of worms that really needs it's own thread, if this discussion off topic is to continue.
Anyways, back on topic; Pathfinder's flawed. I agree.
Agreed. I shall drop the discussion, which I honestly don't recall how I even got on the topic.
So to also get back on topic. I also agree that Pathfinder is flawed, but I challenge anyone to find me the perfect game. I also recognize that one man's flaw is another man's feature.
Nobody ever said anything about wanting a perfect so why keep using that phrase? It has already been explain to you that the current iteration of Pathfinder has not reached it's peak to where the next step is perfection.
Some of us just want the flaws to be fixed as much as possible.
Except “we” don’t agree on the “flaws’., or that the “flaws’ you want “fixed’ are actually “flaws”. As Dr Grecko put it "one man's flaw is another man's feature."
We do agree that PF is not perfect and there are a few issues. OTOH, the devs are working hard to fix them, which is a good thing.
Currently, I see no major issues, but a number of minor ones, and a few larger ones that it would be nice to see fixed in the next "edition".
Gaming addiction is a whole other can of worms that really needs it's own thread, if this discussion off topic is to continue.
Anyways, back on topic; Pathfinder's flawed. I agree.
Agreed. I shall drop the discussion, which I honestly don't recall how I even got on the topic.
So to also get back on topic. I also agree that Pathfinder is flawed, but I challenge anyone to find me the perfect game. I also recognize that one man's flaw is another man's feature.
Nobody ever said anything about wanting a perfect so why keep using that phrase? It has already been explain to you that the current iteration of Pathfinder has not reached it's peak to where the next step is perfection.
Some of us just want the flaws to be fixed as much as possible.
And some of us like the features you call flaws.
Nobody ever said anything about wanting a perfect so why keep using that phrase? It has already been explain to you that the current iteration of Pathfinder has not reached it's peak to where the next step is perfection.
Some of us just want the flaws to be fixed as much as possible.
I only used the phrase once, just now. And, it was rhetorical as I know there is no such thing as the perfect game. Pathfinder will never be a "perfect" game for everyone.
Let's go over a few of the flaws you mentioned starting from the beginning:
1: The Magic Item Creation system: Are there flaws here? Possibly. I personally like the GM discretion on item creation and wouldn't want that taken away from them. Being that the creation cost guidelines are indeed "guidelines" I don't see a problem. Could some of the rules be cleaned up a bit.. Sure, but its a minor issue, and doesn't need major rewriting.
2: Traits (Some are just too good): I haven't read through all the traits, but it's inherent in a system where you have options, some of the options would be preferable to others. Now is this because of the strength of those options, or the weakness of others. I don't see a problem here.
3: Spells such as Simulacrum, Charm Person, and Planar Binding just to name a few: Again with the options thing.
4: The wording of some things are just not clear: Now this I agree with fully. Pathfinder has done a good job with Errata to fix some of these, but a good clean re-write would go a long way.
5: WBL and how it works with some gaming styles and not others, including the default: I'm not entirely sure what your perceived problem is here. Again, these are suggested wealth guidelines what exactly is the problem with them?
6: Shouldn't be able to take 10: Not sure if this was in this thread or another, but I find the take 10 feature a welcome aspect to the game.
While I too agree that we all want the flaws to be fixed as much as possible, you need to acknowledge that not everyone see's flaws the same way you do.
|
|
I very much so agree with this. I personally prefer 3.5e over PF, but my gaming group prefers PF over 3.5e. Since I'm pretty much the only one in my group that feels this way, I have to tag along with their PF campaign, or not play at all.
I think you might be surprized just how many people there are that think the same thing, honestly. I've noticed that a lot of people wither prefere 3.5, but can't find a group or want to play a "living" edition game, or like the Golarion setting, but not necesarily the PF rules.
I very much so agree with this. I personally prefer 3.5e over PF, but my gaming group prefers PF over 3.5e. Since I'm pretty much the only one in my group that feels this way, I have to tag along with their PF campaign, or not play at all.I think you might be surprized just how many people there are that think the same thing, honestly. I've noticed that a lot of people wither prefere 3.5, but can't find a group or want to play a "living" edition game, or like the Golarion setting, but not necesarily the PF rules.
3.5 would be great if it was cleaned up and errated, with some of the worst loopholes fixed. I still have fun playing it with a reasonable DM.
Two even! I still remember one of their backgrounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4: The wording of some things are just not clear.
[...] Now the thread doesn't have to focus on just those, there are others out there so post them here.
I love Pathfinder as a whole, but my biggest problem is that somewhere around 70% of the core text is directly copied and pasted from the 3.5 SRD. A bold accusation, but I can provide countless examples as proof. However, my problem is not with the copy and pasting of text itself, but the fact that it creates inconsistent, repetitive, and "bloat" wording (not to be confused with "fluff"). We have new, innovative mechanics interwoven with an outdated core language, which can sometimes be unintentionally unclear and confusing.
This is why I (like the majority of posters in this thread) agree with the OP in that this needs to be fixed. I sincerely hope that the Pathfinder designers don't take this complaint lightly. Here are a few noteworthy examples:
1.) RAW, line of effect only applies to SPELLS, even though many other non-spell related mechanics - such as total cover - use line of effect.
2.) The rules for line of sight and line of effect BOTH refer to each other. Furthermore, the rules for line of effect imply that line of sight is specifically used for ranged attacks, although the rules for line of sight don't mention ranged attacks at all. Could this be ANY more convoluted?
3.) The rules mention several stipulations about concealment, but they don't even hint as to what concealment actually is. RAW, sources of concealment are specified case-by-case (namely dim light and darkness).
4.) The current rules for invisibility have twice as much text as the rules for stealth. I realize most people don't care about this, but my point is that it's absurd for invisibility (and other mechanics) to be so wordy.
5.) There is NO ACTUAL GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT for using stealth. It's absolutely absurd! An iconic skill that RAW doesn't even cause unaware enemies to be denied their DEX? Why has it been 4 years since this game's release and this issue is STILL yet to be resolved? Don't tell me that "it's by design, stealth is meant for out of combat" either, because some time ago Paizo discussed this VERY ISSUE in a blog, planning for a fix, but then the whole thing just got dropped. My question is: Why?
Just to list a few examples of how copying and pasting 3.5 text into the Pathfinder core causes trouble. The core mechanics need a rewrite. I'm not talking about changing the mechanics - just rewriting them. Make them work the way they are SUPPOSED to work. Tie up these loose ends and make the wording clearer. It's a simple thing would VASTLY improve the game.
And no, a lawyer would NOT be required for such a thing. Why do I keep seeing this? I'm no lawyer, and even I can do it. Check out this thread that I made a while back (that sadly got very little response) for a few good example re-writes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing i don't get it, maybe because i have a thick skull, why rules changes is seen so sacrosanct when story changes are made so easily? Reading some olde Pathfinder books (specifically, classic horrors revisited) i saw a number of minor changes on the history of well known npcs and places, but a lot of major ones, like the Harlot Queen beign a mummy and had died against the Whispering Tyrant (nowadays she is a lich and died against Geb). IMO Canon changes are much more game-breaking compared with a revision in the rogue class or stealth rules. My 2 cents.
This is why I (like the majority of posters in this thread) agree with the OP in that this needs to be fixed. I sincerely hope that the Pathfinder designers don't take this complaint lightly. Here are a few noteworthy examples:
[3.) The rules mention several stipulations about concealment, but they don't even hint as to what concealment actually is. RAW, sources of concealment are specified case-by-case (namely dim light and darkness).
5.) There is NO ACTUAL GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT for using stealth. It's absolutely absurd! An iconic skill that RAW doesn't even cause unaware enemies to be denied their...
But you see, you don’t agree with the Op in WHAT needs to be fixed.
3 & 5 are good points, and James Jacobs admits as much. BUT read the two Stealth blogs and the replies. They found out that fixing them required either:
A open minded DM who prefers RAI to RAW (which is how JJ plays)
OR
A complete re-write of the rules, which will have to wait for another edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3 & 5 are good points, and James Jacobs admits as much. BUT read the two Stealth blogs and the replies. They found out that fixing them required[...]
A complete re-write of the rules, which will have to wait for another edition.
This is PRECISELY what I'm suggesting, and what I think needs to happen. All because much of Pathfinder's core is copied and pasted 3.5 SRD text. As I explained, a re-write wouldn't be THAT big of a deal (a revision). Even a Joe-Shmoe like me could do it with a bit of time. And again, this WOULD NOT be a change in mechanics - but rather FIXING the existing mechanics by doing a clean rewrite.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion a PF1.5 is the greatest thing that Paizo could do right now. I suggested it a few years ago under the premise that the longer they wait, the more the cracks will show. Not another print run with errata, not a full new edition, but someting in between similar to 3.0 -> 3.5, which did amazing for WotC.
|
|
In my opinion a PF1.5 is the greatest thing that Paizo could do right now. I suggested it a few years ago under the premise that the longer they wait, the more the cracks will show. Not another print run with errata, not a full new edition, but someting in between similar to 3.0 -> 3.5, which did amazing for WotC.
As long as they nerf Clerics, I'm all in! Stupid overpowered class, still 13 years later. :)