Does anyone just like Pathfinder as it is?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Morgen wrote:

No you're just getting exposed to the vocal part of this message board's community. It exists for pretty much all games in history and will exist for all games in the future, you can even look at old issues of say Dragon magazine and see articles on the same or similar topics. Occasionally they will raise a valid issue but even that is lost in the noise some times.

It's a sliver of players who want to play the game with which the system doesn't exactly emulate some thing in their head and instead of doing what most people do in changing/fixing/ignoring/etc themselves, they demand developers solve their issues and start threads on various message boards about "fixing" monks/rogues/fighters/whatever. The internet is the place where people get a voice after all.

Best advice is to ignore them for the most part and hope that the developers of the games you like don't listen to them just for being loud.

Right. And what's interesting is when they want a radical change- like dumping alignments or Vancian casting (not just having a few other spellcasting methods, but "Vancian has to go") or wanting a classless system- in other words, changing Pathfinder into something it's not.

But I ask then- there are plenty of great FRPG without Vancian or without alignments or that are classless, etc. Why not play one of those? Why the NEED to change Pathfinder to meet your particular wants?

I got nothing against wanting Fighters to have 4 SkP (altho I dont want a new edition for that) or more martial archetypes that can get a flying mount, or jump like Mythic. Fine- all those are within the scope of PF. Looks like some are coming with Unchained.

This is a fair point. Since I don't participate in PFS I may be missing something, but if folks feel that the game is becoming too complex, why not remove the material that is adding to the complexity and simply play with the Core rulebook?

Personally, I love the complexity the game offers. There are now so many strategies and options available to my players that it forces them to become more strategic with their game play while feeding their creativity. Nothing is stagnant in the game. I love it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:
In the case of the fighter I more and more agreeing with people like Cheapy that the class not really the problem, but rather that the game rewards versatility, but the class demands specialization. However the other classes especially the rogue and summoner are problematic. Yet, this has always been ignored, downplayed or even denied by Paizo and by some of the more loyal posters. The general attitude have mostly been: Oh, another rogue thread. Now, all of a sudden we are getting a new rogue and a new summoner, but again this is an “optional” fix. Again it feels like a lot of the feedback from the posters that complained about the rogue being to week and the summoner being too powerful and to complex was ignored and denied for years and years. So now they admit that we were right, but the fix is still optional. I'm not sure this is a great way of earning trust. I think people could easily read it this way: the Devs have not been honest with us. All these years they have denied that the monk and rogue were problematic and now they finally admit it. Can we trust them not to repeated this behavior? Conclusions people might make are: They won’t fix the rogue, but just offer an optional fix. The fighter and other issues won’t even be offered an optional fix. So if they say the fighter is fine, how can we trust them?.

Sure, the Fighter has issues for many players. But here's the point- for a lot of players it's fine as it is. They want a plain vanilla damage monster without versatility. For that group of customers, the Fighter *IS* "just fine". The Fighter is still a EXTREMELY popular class.

Now- I dont care for the Fighter myself. I much prefer the Ranger or the Paladin. So, I simply dont play the Fighter.

There are now 30 or so PC classes. Let the customers that want a simple plain vanilla damage monster have *ONE* class. CHOICES.

So, we can "trust" the devs as the Fighter *IS* just fine for a certain group of customers. It's not "just fine" for others, sure, but for them the devs have given you about a dozen other nice martial classes to choose from. That's why I trust them. If the fighter aka 'the fighting man" was our only choice? Yes, there'd be a issue. Hasnt been the case for nigh forty years.

The issue with Rogue can be fixed by adding or fixing the talents. They have promised us more cool new rogue talents. And there are also archetypes like the Scout and Ninja that fix many of what some folks are complaining about.


thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Strawman is Strawman.

Perhaps, but I still don't understand what you mean.

What do the particular limits you disapprove of have to do with either power gaming or caster/martial disparity?

I fundamentally don't understand the connection you're making and I don't think you've tried to make it clear.

Quote:
Is caster-martial disparity a thing? When power gamers limit their resources and give martials the exact same packages they give casters, then yes. In asymetrical games where 'balance at all costs' is not the #1 priority of the DM/PFS house rules, you may find martials to be much more enjoyable.

More specifically, how would you change the "packages" given to martials to lessen the disparity? What kind of asymetry makes martials more enjoyable?

Martials, simply put, require more resources to run as effectively as casters in 3.x.

They all have a minimum of 3 priority stats, the physical ones, and that doesn't even mention taking away from the role playing ability of a character needing to dump mental stats to get there.

Martials require more gear than casters, weapons, armor, and other items that allow them to mimic the things that casters do. When the game mechanics require investment in one resource, and class abilities require investment in the others we end up with a serious problem in game design.

Games that give martial characters more resources (higher stat pools, more starting wealth) are inherently more balanced than those that give all characters the same baseline (20 point buy, 150 starting gp) and the problem is that players see the opposite as true because "BaLanCe!!!!"

Note that I never said anything about rolling stats being better than point buy. That is misleading and misconstruing of my point.

The game isn't balanced, and I'm okay with that. What I'm not okay with is making the game less balanced by limiting player resources under the guise of making it more balanced. It's a farce.


master_marshmallow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Strawman is Strawman.

Perhaps, but I still don't understand what you mean.

What do the particular limits you disapprove of have to do with either power gaming or caster/martial disparity?

I fundamentally don't understand the connection you're making and I don't think you've tried to make it clear.

Quote:
Is caster-martial disparity a thing? When power gamers limit their resources and give martials the exact same packages they give casters, then yes. In asymetrical games where 'balance at all costs' is not the #1 priority of the DM/PFS house rules, you may find martials to be much more enjoyable.

More specifically, how would you change the "packages" given to martials to lessen the disparity? What kind of asymetry makes martials more enjoyable?

Martials, simply put, require more resources to run as effectively as casters in 3.x.

They all have a minimum of 3 priority stats, the physical ones, and that doesn't even mention taking away from the role playing ability of a character needing to dump mental stats to get there.

Martials require more gear than casters, weapons, armor, and other items that allow them to mimic the things that casters do. When the game mechanics require investment in one resource, and class abilities require investment in the others we end up with a serious problem in game design.

Games that give martial characters more resources (higher stat pools, more starting wealth) are inherently more balanced than those that give all characters the same baseline (20 point buy, 150 starting gp) and the problem is that players see the opposite as true because "BaLanCe!!!!"

Note that I never said anything about rolling stats being better than point buy. That is misleading and misconstruing of my point.

The game isn't balanced, and I'm okay with that. What I'm not okay with is making the game less balanced by limiting player resources under the guise of making it more balanced. It's a farce.

Well, I'd say that starting wealth is largely irrelevant, since at low level the balance is already in the martials favor. It's long term wealth that's the problem and that's as much under the players control as the GMs. Though I'll admit that WBL does push in the direction that would probably be the default anyway: roughly equal division of the spoils.

And it was your "obligatory point buy is the devil" line that made me think you thought rolling was better.

Shadow Lodge

Disclaimer : it's been years since I played a PFS game.

For all those who say "play Core only / Ban the [insert splat here] / etc", that isn't an option in PFS. Neither the GM nor any of the players can disallow any of the official PFS-endorsed material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

...

Right. And what's interesting is when they want a radical change- like dumping alignments or Vancian casting (not just having a few other spellcasting methods, but "Vancian has to go") or wanting a classless system- in other words, changing Pathfinder into something it's not.

But I ask then- there are plenty of great FRPG without Vancian or without alignments or that are classless, etc. Why not play one of those? Why the NEED to change Pathfinder to meet your particular wants? ...

Actually, even though I do really like PF I have tried to use a different game system. I was completely unable to get a group going. I would find 1 other person that would agree to give it a try. Great, that makes 2 of us. By the time I would find a 3rd, the other guy had moved on to something else.

That's why I said the huge following that PF has is one of the things I most like about it.
.
.

Kthulhu wrote:

Disclaimer : it's been years since I played a PFS game.

For all those who say "play Core only / Ban the [insert splat here] / etc", that isn't an option in PFS. Neither the GM nor any of the players can disallow any of the official PFS-endorsed material.

Agreed, but as a player I can (and have) played a CRB only character. Very simple to run. Only 1 book to lug around. No weird combinations to memorize/interpret. He is still effective and fun.

You are correct, that a PFS GM doesn't have that option. However, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that the player that uses umpteen splat options will have researched it an understands it correctly. It is unfair to expect that the GM can know every single published thing in its entirety and double check every single thing the player does.


Kthulhu wrote:

Disclaimer : it's been years since I played a PFS game.

For all those who say "play Core only / Ban the [insert splat here] / etc", that isn't an option in PFS. Neither the GM nor any of the players can disallow any of the official PFS-endorsed material.

Ah...being that I am not familiar with PFS regulations I was unsure of this aspect. Thank you for clearing it up.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Holybushman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

Disclaimer : it's been years since I played a PFS game.

For all those who say "play Core only / Ban the [insert splat here] / etc", that isn't an option in PFS. Neither the GM nor any of the players can disallow any of the official PFS-endorsed material.

Ah...being that I am not familiar with PFS regulations I was unsure of this aspect. Thank you for clearing it up.

On the bright side, the PFS campaign focuses on levels 1-11, and most common complaints about the system (at least, that I've seen) tend to only show up (or be at their worst) at higher levels.

For instance, I recently played a scenario alongside an 11th-level rogue, and although the difference between him and the other PCs could be felt, it wasn't too bad and he could still contribute.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
That's why I said the huge following that PF has is one of the things I most like about it.

I do like that it does have a large fanbase. I'm kind of dismayed, though, that it seems the table top slice of the market can only have one large game out at a time. You either play x or good luck finding a game.

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
It is unfair to expect that the GM can know every single published thing in its entirety and double check every single thing the player does.

Unfair but necessary otherwise they simply don't know. Your only other fall back is to maybe have a player call them out on it who has done the same thing. Then, to make matters tricky, their particular mix of abilities and selections may make something possible that wasn't in isolation so you really do need a familiarity with the options AND how they can combine to serve in that role well.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


Agreed.

However, many of the complaints on here are so vociferous, angst ridden, completely negative, and even hate filled that I can't understand why they still play the game.

The game became even MORE fun when I got pissed at the devs.

I stopped attempting to listen to their often contradictory opinions on what good game design should be, and the numerous unnecessary and detrimental FAQs they've released (See: Crane Wing, Weapon Cords) and just decided to play a fun game with minimal developer interference ruining the experience for me.

Uh...this attitude does not require being angry at the devs. I ignore the Crane Wing Errata without feeling any particular anger at them at all, for example.


Anzyr wrote:


Also casters struggle through low levels? You are thinking of some edition prior to 3.5. The Barbarian can kill one enemy a round. The caster can use Color spray to just plain end the encounter.

I can confirm this, I played a bloodrager and an arcanist at gencon, both went fine, but I was definitely an ender, and one time after two critical hits on the same round the endED


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Carl Hanson wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


Agreed.

However, many of the complaints on here are so vociferous, angst ridden, completely negative, and even hate filled that I can't understand why they still play the game.

The game became even MORE fun when I got pissed at the devs.

I stopped attempting to listen to their often contradictory opinions on what good game design should be, and the numerous unnecessary and detrimental FAQs they've released (See: Crane Wing, Weapon Cords) and just decided to play a fun game with minimal developer interference ruining the experience for me.

There's something to be said for this attitude. I rarely go to the errata or FAQs for Pathfinder. Not because I'm pissed at the developers, but because I game with a group of highly intellegent people who can figure out how we want most of the rules to work ourselves in a way that we will have fun playing.

Yeah I've never understood the whole "getting pissed at the developers" thing. I dont know, maybe I come from a different era but when we were playing D&D back in the day, when we came across a rule or something that we didnt like or want to use? We just changed it or didnt use it.

We didnt get hot at designers or call them out in Dragon Magazine. We were more concerned about playing our game. And that's it.

Now I understand how the rules could greatly impact a PFS game so I could see how THOSE players might be annoyed. But that's one of the other reasons that I simply refuse to do PFS or living games of any type.
I have no tolerance for people just being self-entitled jerks. Not saying that's the bulk of PFS players, it's not. But if the rules threads here are any indication of the type of player that plays PFS? I'm glad that I stay away. There's a way to get your gripes across without being a jerk. Unfortunately it seems that more than a few people dont know how or are actively being jerks about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A plea: Let's leave caster-versus-martial for another thread? Suffice it to say that it's a enough of a point of contention that it causes some players to fall into the "no, I don't like Pathfinder as it is because . . ." and some others into the "yes, I like Pathfinder as it is, but it would be better if . . .", while still others don't really mind the situation.


What is the definintion of "problem" in this case? Is it just a rule that you don't like? Or is it something that is fine but doesnt mesh with your table's playstyle? Or is it something that can honestly break the game? And when I say "break" I mean having seen it in action at the table, played the rule in conjunction with the other rules of the game and found that it's not something that can be fixed simply by proper application of the rules as written as a whole.

For me a "problem" is that last thing because then you simply have to house rule it or remove that element from the game.

But just because I make certain changes as to how I play at my table doenst mean that I have problems with the rules. It means, "Hey these rules are fine. But I have something specific that I want to pull of here so I'm going to supplant these rules with my own."

In my case it's more hit points at first level. It's full hit dice + CON score. Not bonus, SCORE. So a fighter with CON 15 starts off with 25 HP at first level. Increases PC survivability and doesnt break the game. Our Campaign has been going on close to 5 years and there's been quite a few character deaths but they've all had fighting chances due to the hp buff.
Does that mean the starting HP rules in the Core Rulebook are broken or a "problem"? Nope. I just like mine better so I use those.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Carl Hanson wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


Agreed.

However, many of the complaints on here are so vociferous, angst ridden, completely negative, and even hate filled that I can't understand why they still play the game.

The game became even MORE fun when I got pissed at the devs.

I stopped attempting to listen to their often contradictory opinions on what good game design should be, and the numerous unnecessary and detrimental FAQs they've released (See: Crane Wing, Weapon Cords) and just decided to play a fun game with minimal developer interference ruining the experience for me.

There's something to be said for this attitude. I rarely go to the errata or FAQs for Pathfinder. Not because I'm pissed at the developers, but because I game with a group of highly intellegent people who can figure out how we want most of the rules to work ourselves in a way that we will have fun playing.

Yeah I've never understood the whole "getting pissed at the developers" thing. I dont know, maybe I come from a different era but when we were playing D&D back in the day, when we came across a rule or something that we didnt like or want to use? We just changed it or didnt use it.

We didnt get hot at designers or call them out in Dragon Magazine. We were more concerned about playing our game. And that's it.

Now I understand how the rules could greatly impact a PFS game so I could see how THOSE players might be annoyed. But that's one of the other reasons that I simply refuse to do PFS or living games of any type.
I have no tolerance for people just being self-entitled jerks. Not saying that's the bulk of PFS players, it's not. But if the rules threads here are any indication of the type of player that plays PFS? I'm glad that I stay away. There's a way to get your gripes across without being a jerk. Unfortunately it seems that more than a few people dont know how or are actively being jerks about it.

I don't think of PFS players as jerks--most of the ones I've met are pretty normal in the spectrum of tabletop gamers. I do think that it's a bit unfiar to expect Paizo to shape the rules around the PFS experience, though, since it's just one campaign and quite different from the typical RPG table. But if I were playing PFS exclusively, maybe I would expect differently, fair or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Even without taking into account PFS, rules should be clear, consistent and balanced. Ideally, when I join a Pathfinder game, the rules will be clear enough and consistent enough that I can join that game and expect the rules to work the same as they would in any other Pathfinder game. If something is unclear, it should be made clear. If something is inconsistent it should be made consistent. If something is unbalanced it should be balanced. That will improve *everyone's* Pathfinder experience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:

I like pathfinder. I think its a great system. I like what paizo has done with it by and large. That doesnt mean I dont think it could be better.

Also, I enjoy debating things on internet forums. Pathfinder is a thing i like with disperate ideas, and without any kind of real 'bad' side. Debating pathfinder stuff on the internet is fun for me. And I think a productive analysis of something I like. The more I undestand the rules of the game, and disperate view points on those rules, the better I can make my game at home. Sometimes the debate itself is an end worthy of persuit.

This is a great post and I wish it was indicative of how more people felt who argue here. But it is the internet, and there are people who get their jollies by tearing down what others like or love. A spirited debate can be good and even improve the product. Some of what we get, however, isn't on the same level as what Kolokotroni is going for and only serves to make the place unpleasant.

I love this game, whether just out of the box or modified to taste. It can be better, but it could be FAR worse. It gives me the platform to play out of the box with others with only minor disagreements or to modify to my heart's content for any number of games.

For me at least, a lot of the debates have driven house rules I've written, and I have further ideas that I am tinkering with. When they are mature I'll share them with the community, because thats honestly half of what I love about pathfinder. Paizo wants us to be a community.

Early in PFRPGs career, I honestly thought paizo made a mistake for not having an 'optimization' board or something of the like. But now I think they are right to force us all together. The 'roleplay vs rollplay' argument needs to be had, because in general, contact between opposing view points has an effect of pushing everyone to the middle. Isolation of viewpoints tends to radicalize.

Every once in a while the 'dont play x, x are stupid' crowd needs to be shouted down by people who think concept is important. And the people who make deliberately bad choices because 'roleplaying' need to be reminded that their characters are going into extremely dangerous situations. And being an expert basket weaver, while interesting, might not make the best case for them being included.

Even if there are more arguments because of it (and god is there really a caster vs martial conversation going on in THIS thread right now?) I think the community and the game are healthier for the exchange of ideas instead of the insular way I felt like the wizards boards pushed the community by dividing it.


ShinHakkaider wrote:

What is the definintion of "problem" in this case? Is it just a rule that you don't like? Or is it something that is fine but doesnt mesh with your table's playstyle? Or is it something that can honestly break the game? And when I say "break" I mean having seen it in action at the table, played the rule in conjunction with the other rules of the game and found that it's not something that can be fixed simply by proper application of the rules as written as a whole.

For me a "problem" is that last thing because then you simply have to house rule it or remove that element from the game.

But just because I make certain changes as to how I play at my table doenst mean that I have problems with the rules. It means, "Hey these rules are fine. But I have something specific that I want to pull of here so I'm going to supplant these rules with my own."

In my case it's more hit points at first level. It's full hit dice + CON score. Not bonus, SCORE. So a fighter with CON 15 starts off with 25 HP at first level. Increases PC survivability and doesnt break the game. Our Campaign has been going on close to 5 years and there's been quite a few character deaths but they've all had fighting chances due to the hp buff.
Does that mean the starting HP rules in the Core Rulebook are broken or a "problem"? Nope. I just like mine better so I use those.

Interesting. Do you implement this for monsters as well? I can see it decreasing the "diceyness" of the game but also the attention to tactics important to an early level game. It certainly would have saved our bacon in Harrowstone.... A strong character with a greataxe no longer a "5% chance of ruining your low-level game per round" situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Even without taking into account PFS, rules should be clear, consistent and balanced. Ideally, when I join a Pathfinder game, the rules will be clear enough and consistent enough that I can join that game and expect the rules to work the same as they would in any other Pathfinder game.

Heh, I haven't had that happen in any RPG, D&D-based or not. Every table has had different takes on the rules, and I love it that way. But there's definitely something to be said for a consistent baseline from which to deviate. Whether it's balanced or not . . . eh, doesn't bother me, but it's clearly important to you and some other players (especially PFS) because that's the kind of table you want to play at.

Just keep in mind that making things more balanced will not actually improve *everyone*'s experience; some players like the balance exactly where it is. You don't have to like that, and you can think they're crazy for liking it, but it's still a valid perspective. De gustibus non est disputandum.


No. I do not like Pathfinder as it is. I get third party products specifically to make Pathfinder into a game that I do like. I'm not switching games because I already bought stuff to make Pathfinder the game I like best. If a few house rules are all that it takes to make the game from good enough to almost perfect I'm not going to some game I don't even know and angers me way more.


Malwing wrote:
No. I do not like Pathfinder as it is. I get third party products specifically to make Pathfinder into a game that I do like. I'm not switching games because I already bought stuff to make Pathfinder the game I like best. If a few house rules are all that it takes to make the game from good enough to almost perfect I'm not going to some game I don't even know and angers me way more.

The frequent use of the term "anger" in these contexts.... Do people really get angry when they don't like a game system? I mean, I don't like Starbucks coffee, but it doesn't make me angry. That's a waste of a useful emotion. The only game that has made me actually angry lately is Godus, and that's a whole different off-topic thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:


Yeah I've never understood the whole "getting pissed at the developers" thing. I dont know, maybe I come from a different era but when we were playing D&D back in the day, when we came across a rule or something that we didnt like or want to use? We just changed it or didnt use it.
We didnt get hot at designers or call them out in Dragon Magazine. We were more concerned about playing our game. And that's it.

I don't understand getting mad either. I do understand some frustration, though, when a FAQ answer is unclear or needs clarification that only seems to come after a messageboard brouhaha breaks out. I'd prefer it if more FAQ entries included a developer-perspective rationale for the interpretation. The two-handed weapon + two-weapon fighting ban needed clarification and I think none of the ensuing messageboard discussion has filtered back up to the rule clarification. That is frustrating.

I think one reason we tend to see more testiness is because of the immediacy of the internet. Multiple exchanges can occur and sentiments build up over the course of a few hours. With Dragon, exchanges took weeks and that's a lot calmer.


blahpers wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Even without taking into account PFS, rules should be clear, consistent and balanced. Ideally, when I join a Pathfinder game, the rules will be clear enough and consistent enough that I can join that game and expect the rules to work the same as they would in any other Pathfinder game.

Heh, I haven't had that happen in any RPG, D&D-based or not. Every table has had different takes on the rules, and I love it that way. But there's definitely something to be said for a consistent baseline from which to deviate. Whether it's balanced or not . . . eh, doesn't bother me, but it's clearly important to you and some other players (especially PFS) because that's the kind of table you want to play at.

Just keep in mind that making things more balanced will not actually improve *everyone*'s experience; some players like the balance exactly where it is. You don't have to like that, and you can think they're crazy for liking it, but it's still a valid perspective. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Balance is very important for the overall health of a game. It's no fun being useless and there's many many opportunities in Pathfinder to become useless. I'd rather have everyone be useful then cater to a hypothetical player who enjoys being useless or enjoys being overpowered. And I think everyone agrees. Except the hypothetical person. But I've never met a hypothetical before.

Sovereign Court

Anzyr wrote:
Even without taking into account PFS, rules should be clear, consistent and balanced. Ideally, when I join a Pathfinder game, the rules will be clear enough and consistent enough that I can join that game and expect the rules to work the same as they would in any other Pathfinder game. If something is unclear, it should be made clear. If something is inconsistent it should be made consistent. If something is unbalanced it should be balanced. That will improve *everyone's* Pathfinder experience.

Agreed on clarity and consistency. Balance depends on context though. Some balance fix proposals may alter the game to a state that could ruin a persons experience. There is no way to guarantee improvement for everyone which is why we have these discussions over and over again.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

To add an answer to Bill Dunn's concern of why people need rule clarification - it's the downside to Pathfinder Society gameplay.

If this was just personal, home games we could make all the house rules and modifications we want to. PFS depends on everyone to agree to a standardized rule set since a player can shuffle their character from game table to game table in a lot of locations.

The strength of PFS is that people can play the game anywhere, and would know what to expect. You wouldn't have to learn a bunch of house rules when playing with a new group. The down side, it means everyone has to play by the printed rules without house rules.


blahpers wrote:
Malwing wrote:
No. I do not like Pathfinder as it is. I get third party products specifically to make Pathfinder into a game that I do like. I'm not switching games because I already bought stuff to make Pathfinder the game I like best. If a few house rules are all that it takes to make the game from good enough to almost perfect I'm not going to some game I don't even know and angers me way more.
The frequent use of the term "anger" in these contexts.... Do people really get angry when they don't like a game system? I mean, I don't like Starbucks coffee, but it doesn't make me angry. That's a waste of a useful emotion. The only game that has made me actually angry lately is Godus, and that's a whole different off-topic thread.

In my case the answer is yes but usually it has more to do with the individuals that bring the new systems to the group than the rules themselves. In some cases the rules actually induce rage but that's rare and exceptional case. Using your Starbucks example, its as if Starbucks literally tasted like dookie but the people that insisted that you go there say that it's part of it's charm and nothing warned you that it was supposed to taste like dookie before you sipped it.

Admittedly I use hyperbole when it comes to systems where I feel like the system is trying to play the game for me. I particularly do not like that not as a preference difference but actually believing it's wrongbadfun while slightly admitting that I'm exaggerating.


thejeff wrote:

Well, I'd say that starting wealth is largely irrelevant, since at low level the balance is already in the martials favor. It's long term wealth that's the problem and that's as much under the players control as the GMs. Though I'll admit that WBL does push in the direction that would probably be the default anyway: roughly equal division of the spoils.

And it was your "obligatory point buy is the devil" line that made me think you thought rolling was better.

It's that kind of 'stuck in the box' thinking that causes terrible game balance.

The game isn't designed to be balanced.

At 1st level, the classes are designed to have different starting points for wealth, it is most certainly significant. I would like to see classes receive different packages of stats and/or money.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Malwing wrote:
No. I do not like Pathfinder as it is. I get third party products specifically to make Pathfinder into a game that I do like. I'm not switching games because I already bought stuff to make Pathfinder the game I like best. If a few house rules are all that it takes to make the game from good enough to almost perfect I'm not going to some game I don't even know and angers me way more.
The frequent use of the term "anger" in these contexts.... Do people really get angry when they don't like a game system? I mean, I don't like Starbucks coffee, but it doesn't make me angry. That's a waste of a useful emotion. The only game that has made me actually angry lately is Godus, and that's a whole different off-topic thread.

Probably has something to do with spending money on it. Im personally never purchasing a gencon release again since the ACG is clearly not a quality product and I now know that its not an isolated incident.

Does that make me mad? Yeah a good bit. Quality was sacrificed so they could sell it at gencon. The amount of text fluffing was also disappointing. Is there some good in the text? Sure! Am I pissed that I wasted 40 bucks for a hardcopy that I would never bring to a game because it's full of editing errors? Hell yes!


DrDeth wrote:
stuff

Why are you bringing the fighter into this? Is this some kind of baiting? You are obviously missing the whole point with my post.

Anyway, can we please not turn this into a fighter thread or a caster-versus-martial thread?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like Pathfinder as is in the sense that I don't need a new edition. Sure there are some things that bother me but they are minor. An upgrade to the fighter and rogue for example would be great. So feats I feel could change. Some feat trees could be condensed into a single scaling feat. None of this would require a new version of the game but the core rule book could be reworked to work with later books.

Sovereign Court

Yeah, I like it as it is . mostly.
Would use the ban hammer very liberally if I got the chance though.


Scavion wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Malwing wrote:
No. I do not like Pathfinder as it is. I get third party products specifically to make Pathfinder into a game that I do like. I'm not switching games because I already bought stuff to make Pathfinder the game I like best. If a few house rules are all that it takes to make the game from good enough to almost perfect I'm not going to some game I don't even know and angers me way more.
The frequent use of the term "anger" in these contexts.... Do people really get angry when they don't like a game system? I mean, I don't like Starbucks coffee, but it doesn't make me angry. That's a waste of a useful emotion. The only game that has made me actually angry lately is Godus, and that's a whole different off-topic thread.

Probably has something to do with spending money on it. Im personally never purchasing a gencon release again since the ACG is clearly not a quality product and I now know that its not an isolated incident.

Does that make me mad? Yeah a good bit. Quality was sacrificed so they could sell it at gencon. The amount of text fluffing was also disappointing. Is there some good in the text? Sure! Am I pissed that I wasted 40 bucks for a hardcopy that I would never bring to a game because it's full of editing errors? Hell yes!

The ACG Didn't really make me mad despite banning divine protection right out the gate. I liked more than I disliked by a wide margin but I do sometimes wish that the pdfs would be available before it goes to the printers specifically so that editing stuff can be avoided.


master_marshmallow wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Well, I'd say that starting wealth is largely irrelevant, since at low level the balance is already in the martials favor. It's long term wealth that's the problem and that's as much under the players control as the GMs. Though I'll admit that WBL does push in the direction that would probably be the default anyway: roughly equal division of the spoils.

And it was your "obligatory point buy is the devil" line that made me think you thought rolling was better.

It's that kind of 'stuck in the box' thinking that causes terrible game balance.

The game isn't designed to be balanced.

At 1st level, the classes are designed to have different starting points for wealth, it is most certainly significant. I would like to see classes receive different packages of stats and/or money.

It's noticeable at first level. Having a bit more money helps the martials start with the mundane gear they want, rather than replacing their initial stuff after they get their first loot. But unless you find a way to keep the wealth levels different through higher levels, starting wealth won't have any influence past maybe 3rd level.

That's not "stuck in the box", that's just math.

Different point buys would be an interesting approach. I've seen it suggested before. Different rates of leveling would be another, and it's a bit more viable as PF moves away from multiclassing & prestige classes. I've also toyed with idea of going to 30 levels and letting full casters get a new spell level every 3 levels instead of every other. And giving martials new cool abilities to fill the empty levels. The math starts to get wonky at high levels, even without the highest level spells though.


Zark wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
stuff

Why are you bringing the fighter into this?

Zark wrote:

"In the case of the fighter I more and more agreeing with people like Cheapy that the class not really the problem, but rather that the game rewards versatility, but the class demands specialization. However the other classes especially the rogue and summoner are problematic. Yet, this has always been ignored, downplayed or even denied by Paizo and by some of the more loyal posters. The general attitude have mostly been: Oh, another rogue thread. Now, all of a sudden we are getting a new rogue and a new summoner, but again this is an “optional” fix. Again it feels like a lot of the feedback from the posters that complained about the rogue being to week and the summoner being too powerful and to complex was ignored and denied for years and years. So now they admit that we were right, but the fix is still optional. I'm not sure this is a great way of earning trust. I think people could easily read it this way: the Devs have not been honest with us. All these years they have denied that the monk and rogue were problematic and now they finally admit it. Can we trust them not to repeated this behavior? Conclusions people might make are: They won’t fix the rogue, but just offer an optional fix. The fighter and other issues won’t even be offered an optional fix. So if they say the fighter is fine, how can we trust them?."


Threeshades wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
I love pathfinder as it is, which is precisely why I make huserules to fix what i consider imbalanced or not flavorful. If i didn't like it i would go for a different game.
Isn't that the same thing as saying you don't like it as it is? If you liked it as-is, you wouldn't change anything.
No. If i thought it was perfect as-is I wouldn't change anything. I don't think it is perfect, but I still love it.

The point he was making is that if you accept something "as is" then you won't change it. By changing it you are not playing it "as is". You are doing the same thing the rest of us do, even if you don't come to the boards and list what you would like to be different.

Sovereign Court

DrDeth wrote:
Zark wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
stuff

Why are you bringing the fighter into this?

Zark wrote:

"In the case of the fighter I more and more agreeing with people like Cheapy that the class not really the problem, but rather that the

Stuff...

What if they were right ?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To my experience it is not possible to play pathfinder RAW. There are countless omissions or contradictions for rule interactions.

Some people view this as something to be fixed, and for a lot of it that is true. On the other-hand if the rules were ironclad, then PF would be better suited as a video game with a GM mode to create encounters and campaigns.


thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Well, I'd say that starting wealth is largely irrelevant, since at low level the balance is already in the martials favor. It's long term wealth that's the problem and that's as much under the players control as the GMs. Though I'll admit that WBL does push in the direction that would probably be the default anyway: roughly equal division of the spoils.

And it was your "obligatory point buy is the devil" line that made me think you thought rolling was better.

It's that kind of 'stuck in the box' thinking that causes terrible game balance.

The game isn't designed to be balanced.

At 1st level, the classes are designed to have different starting points for wealth, it is most certainly significant. I would like to see classes receive different packages of stats and/or money.

It's noticeable at first level. Having a bit more money helps the martials start with the mundane gear they want, rather than replacing their initial stuff after they get their first loot. But unless you find a way to keep the wealth levels different through higher levels, starting wealth won't have any influence past maybe 3rd level.

That's not "stuck in the box", that's just math.

Different point buys would be an interesting approach. I've seen it suggested before. Different rates of leveling would be another, and it's a bit more viable as PF moves away from multiclassing & prestige classes. I've also toyed with idea of going to 30 levels and letting full casters get a new spell level every 3 levels instead of every other. And giving martials new cool abilities to fill the empty levels. The math starts to get wonky at high levels, even without the highest level spells though.

"Stuck in the box" comes from the notion that the only other way to generate stats than point buy is by rolling.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Balance is very important for the overall health of a game. It's no fun being useless and there's many many opportunities in Pathfinder to become useless. I'd rather have everyone be useful then cater to a hypothetical player who enjoys being useless or enjoys being overpowered. And I think everyone agrees. Except the hypothetical person. But I've never met a hypothetical before.

I have played a lot of RPGs over the years, and balance did not exist in any of them as anything more than an illusion. In any system that allows choices, some choices will be better than others--sometimes much better--even if which options are better is determined by situational variants (such as campaign style in an RPG).

Further, balance is not necessiraly as desirable as some people seem to think it is. In the harsh reality of game design, the trade-off for adding balance is usually a reduction of uniqueness because the more varity of options used, the harder it becomes to balance all of those options.

As to the uselessness of certain classes. Almost every Pathfinder or D&D game that I have ever played in has included a Figher and/or a Rogue, and I have never heard a player in any of those games complain that they felt useless. I know that my experience may not be the same as yours, but it is just as valid; and there should be rules to support both of our playstyles.


wraithstrike wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
I love pathfinder as it is, which is precisely why I make huserules to fix what i consider imbalanced or not flavorful. If i didn't like it i would go for a different game.
Isn't that the same thing as saying you don't like it as it is? If you liked it as-is, you wouldn't change anything.
No. If i thought it was perfect as-is I wouldn't change anything. I don't think it is perfect, but I still love it.
The point he was making is that if you accept something "as is" then you won't change it. By changing it you are not playing it "as is". You are doing the same thing the rest of us do, even if you don't come to the boards and list what you would like to be different.

They aren't exclusive. You can like something as-is, certainly well enough to play it and have a good time. You can still see ways to improve it; that doesn't mean you don't like it. Take it back to Jiggy's post. You can probably think about some quality of a friend or loved one you'd rather be different. Does that mean that you don't like him or her? That doesn't even get into situations where you like someone or something because of those flaws. Subjectivity is weird.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

To my experience it is not possible to play pathfinder RAW. There are countless omissions or contradictions for rule interactions.

Some people view this as something to be fixed, and for a lot of it that is true. On the other-hand if the rules were ironclad, then PF would be better suited as a video game with a GM mode to create encounters and campaigns.

That about sums it up. It isn't unique to Pathfinder, either; it's as old as RPGs. Older if you want to go back to things like poker and other pastimes in which everybody has a slightly different understanding of the rules because the rules evolved differently in their area.


blahpers wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

To my experience it is not possible to play pathfinder RAW. There are countless omissions or contradictions for rule interactions.

Some people view this as something to be fixed, and for a lot of it that is true. On the other-hand if the rules were ironclad, then PF would be better suited as a video game with a GM mode to create encounters and campaigns.

That about sums it up. It isn't unique to Pathfinder, either; it's as old as RPGs. Older if you want to go back to things like poker and other pastimes in which everybody has a slightly different understanding of the rules because the rules evolved differently in their area.

I think there is a difference between the rules being ironclad and immovable like a video game, and them being functional as written. And even if they were somehow so, I'd still say dms are better then video games, because in the end video games can only do what they are programmed for, the gm can improvise.


DrDeth wrote:

Zark wrote:

"In the case of the fighter I more and more agreeing with people like Cheapy that the class not really the problem, but rather that the game rewards versatility, but the class demands specialization. However the other classes especially the rogue and summoner are problematic. Yet, this has always been ignored, downplayed or even denied by Paizo and by some of the more loyal posters. The general attitude have mostly been: Oh, another rogue thread. Now, all of a sudden we are getting a new rogue and a new summoner, but again this is an “optional” fix. Again it feels like a lot of the feedback from the posters that complained about the rogue being to week and the summoner being too powerful and to complex was ignored and denied for years and years. So now they admit that we were right, but the fix is still optional. I'm not sure this is a great way of earning trust. I think people could easily read it this way: the Devs have not been honest with us. All these years they have denied that the monk and rogue were problematic and now they finally admit it. Can we trust them not to repeated this behavior? Conclusions people might make are: They won’t fix the rogue, but just offer an optional fix. The fighter and other issues won’t even be offered an optional fix. So if they say the fighter is fine, how can we trust them?."

I feel like fighters might have an optional fix now. Martial flexibility adds a lot of options. There are many feats out there that are situation-ally perfect, but too much so to warrant a permanent feat slot.


ShinHakkaider wrote:

...

Now I understand how the rules could greatly impact a PFS game so I could see how THOSE players might be annoyed. But that's one of the other reasons that I simply refuse to do PFS or living games of any type.
I have no tolerance for people just being self-entitled jerks. Not saying that's the bulk of PFS players, it's not. But if the rules threads here are any indication of the type of player that plays PFS? I'm glad that I stay away. There's a way to get your gripes across without being a jerk. Unfortunately it seems that more than a few people dont know how or are actively being jerks about it.

Not from what I've seen. Most of the people I've met at PFS tend to be much calmer, more relaxed, and more accepting of the rules than a lot of what you read on the rules forums.

I sometimes cringe before asking a question on the rules forums because if it is effective and iffy, it always seems like someone will try to vilify me for not knowing everything perfectly and agreeing with that particular person completely.
On the other hand, since PFS is pretty much RAW. I still go to the rules forum for questions. I will usually eventually get a definite answer even if I have to be insulted a bit first.

The only real difference I see is that there is often a bit less role playing at a PFS event. Unlike some I do NOT think that is because they are powergaming munchkins of brokenness. I think it is just because we are in a public environment with people we don't know quite as well. So there is a slight amount of inhibition there.

It is not as good as an excellent home game, but it is better than a bad home game. And for some it is nearly the only realistic alternative to no game.

When I first started PFS it was that for me. My work schedule was extremely unpredictable. I didn't know when I would be working until I got the call to come into work. So a home group just didn't work out since I could rarely keep to their consistent schedule. (If I recall correctly, I made it to about 1 in 5 of their game days.)
But if on a saturday afternoon I found myself at home, I would check the schedule. If there was a PFS game getting ready to start, I'd head over and play for a few hours.

My work schedule has since calmed and I have a home game. I still go to PFS 1 or 2 times a month to get an additional fix for my RPG addiction.


blahpers wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
I love pathfinder as it is, which is precisely why I make huserules to fix what i consider imbalanced or not flavorful. If i didn't like it i would go for a different game.
Isn't that the same thing as saying you don't like it as it is? If you liked it as-is, you wouldn't change anything.
No. If i thought it was perfect as-is I wouldn't change anything. I don't think it is perfect, but I still love it.
The point he was making is that if you accept something "as is" then you won't change it. By changing it you are not playing it "as is". You are doing the same thing the rest of us do, even if you don't come to the boards and list what you would like to be different.
They aren't exclusive. You can like something as-is, certainly well enough to play it and have a good time. You can still see ways to improve it; that doesn't mean you don't like it. Take it back to Jiggy's post. You can probably think about some quality of a friend or loved one you'd rather be different. Does that mean that you don't like him or her? That doesn't even get into situations where you like someone or something because of those flaws. Subjectivity is weird.

You misread my post. I said nothing about disliking anything.

The OP disliked the complaining and with the way his opening post was presented we should not complain because the game is fine the way it is. Now maybe he meant "the game needs no major overhauls", but it read as "nothing needs to change. you people need to stop complaining".

That is why I asked if he meant the game is fine "as is".

However the very act of changing something if you can demonstrates that you are not accepting something "as is". When dealing with people we often cant' change them, so we have to decide if we "like them enough" as is.

Also my point to the post you replied was to let him know how he is coming across, even if he does not mean to.

More likely he is only saying the game needs no major overhauls.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Zark wrote:

"In the case of the fighter I more and more agreeing with people like Cheapy that the class not really the problem, but rather that the game rewards versatility, but the class demands specialization. However the other classes especially the rogue and summoner are problematic. Yet, this has always been ignored, downplayed or even denied by Paizo and by some of the more loyal posters. The general attitude have mostly been: Oh, another rogue thread. Now, all of a sudden we are getting a new rogue and a new summoner, but again this is an “optional” fix. Again it feels like a lot of the feedback from the posters that complained about the rogue being to week and the summoner being too powerful and to complex was ignored and denied for years and years. So now they admit that we were right, but the fix is still optional. I'm not sure this is a great way of earning trust. I think people could easily read it this way: the Devs have not been honest with us. All these years they have denied that the monk and rogue were problematic and now they finally admit it. Can we trust them not to repeated this behavior? Conclusions people might make are: They won’t fix the rogue, but just offer an optional fix. The fighter and other issues won’t even be offered an optional fix. So if they say the fighter is fine, how can we trust them?."
I feel like fighters might have an optional fix now. Martial flexibility adds a lot of options. There are many feats out there that are situation-ally perfect, but too much so to warrant a permanent feat slot.

It's a fun archetype as an option. It takes my very favorite part of the brawler class and applies it to a class I like more. Shame about the loss of weapon training, though. I might have replaced some of the fighter bonus feats instead.


Kolokotroni wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

To my experience it is not possible to play pathfinder RAW. There are countless omissions or contradictions for rule interactions.

Some people view this as something to be fixed, and for a lot of it that is true. On the other-hand if the rules were ironclad, then PF would be better suited as a video game with a GM mode to create encounters and campaigns.

That about sums it up. It isn't unique to Pathfinder, either; it's as old as RPGs. Older if you want to go back to things like poker and other pastimes in which everybody has a slightly different understanding of the rules because the rules evolved differently in their area.
I think there is a difference between the rules being ironclad and immovable like a video game, and them being functional as written. And even if they were somehow so, I'd still say dms are better then video games, because in the end video games can only do what they are programmed for, the gm can improvise.

Part of the problem also is that different people need different amounts of direction because some can fill in the gaps more easily than others. Of course when the rules are written badly enough that many of us don't know the intent those should be addressed more quickly than things most people understand.


wraithstrike wrote:
You misread my post.

Entirely likely. Problem inherent with the medium and the human condition.

Quote:

I said nothing about disliking anything.

The OP disliked the complaining and with the way his opening post was presented we should not complain because the game is fine the way it is. Now maybe he meant "the game needs no major overhauls", but it read as "nothing needs to change. you people need to stop complaining".

That is why I asked if he meant the game is fine "as is".

However the very act of changing something if you can demonstrates that you are not accepting something "as is". When dealing with people we often cant' change them, so we have to decide if we "like them enough" as is.

Also my point to the post you replied was to let him know how he is coming across, even if he does not mean to.

More likely he is only saying the game needs no major overhauls.

Sorry about that. I stayed in the language of liking versus disliking because that was the text used in the thread title and original post. If we use the criteria to "would it be improved by any changes", I doubt anyone would disagree from a subjective standpoint. There's always something a particular player would want to change. So if that's what OP meant, then there probably aren't many people who like don't want to change it at least a little--apart from folks who don't really bother to evaluate rules.

Aside: I'm not convinced that the act of changing something demonstrates non-acceptance, but getting into it would be too philosophical even for me. At least, not unless it's 2 AM and I'm fighting a bout with insomnia. o_O


wraithstrike wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

To my experience it is not possible to play pathfinder RAW. There are countless omissions or contradictions for rule interactions.

Some people view this as something to be fixed, and for a lot of it that is true. On the other-hand if the rules were ironclad, then PF would be better suited as a video game with a GM mode to create encounters and campaigns.

That about sums it up. It isn't unique to Pathfinder, either; it's as old as RPGs. Older if you want to go back to things like poker and other pastimes in which everybody has a slightly different understanding of the rules because the rules evolved differently in their area.
I think there is a difference between the rules being ironclad and immovable like a video game, and them being functional as written. And even if they were somehow so, I'd still say dms are better then video games, because in the end video games can only do what they are programmed for, the gm can improvise.
Part of the problem also is that different people need different amounts of direction because some can fill in the gaps more easily than others. Of course when the rules are written badly enough that many of us don't know the intent those should be addressed more quickly than things most people understand.

Agreed. Even if the intent being made known is "we chose not to be more specific here so that individual tables can decide how it works". When I find a gap, I assume this by default, but if the text is egregious enough that there's no real way to adjudicate it, that's generally bad and should be revisited by design/editing. Which is one of the reasons I haven't picked up the ACG yet--from what I've seen and read, it needs enough additional editing/QA attention that it just wouldn't be worth the effort to figure out how the unclear stuff works.

101 to 150 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Does anyone just like Pathfinder as it is? All Messageboards