| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have lost my love for pathfinder.
It has become too much of a mess and I found myself writing house rule after house rule, until I realised that I was attempting to write a different game.
So I did. I've left behind the clunky, math-heavy rules of the d20 system and gone in a different direction entirely and we are playing it weekly, with great enthusiasm from my players and myself :-)
For me, it all ended when magic became ordinary. Without the feeling of magic, I can't see the reason to play a fantasy rpg and pathfinder lost that feeling long ago.
Of course, that doesn't prevent me from data mining these forums every now and then for ideas, I especially like the homebrew forum for that ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).
I conditionally disagree, I've run into a fairly large number of games that were pretty well balanced. They, however, were all very simple. Complexity makes it a lot harder to properly balance mechanically distinct options.
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.
It's definitely a balancing act (pun intended) between truly mechanically distinct options and perfect game balance...but that doesn't mean game balance isn't a good thing to strive for, just that it must be balanced (ha! pun again) with other concerns.
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.
How does the Fighter being better out-of-combat or the Rogue in-combat hurt your playstyle, though? If a class's design prohibits certain playstyles while other classes don't...that class is a worse-designed class and should be fixed.
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.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.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?."
Mutagen Warrior effectively replaces weapon training while adding a lot more. Sadly for a lot of people this is not the kind of fighter they were looking for.
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).I conditionally disagree, I've run into a fairly large number of games that were pretty well balanced. They, however, were all very simple. Complexity makes it a lot harder to properly balance mechanically distinct options.
Even in simpler games, balance issues occurred. Take T&T. I kinda like the game, and in some ways it's like D&D in that Warriors are more powerful than Wizards in early levels, but soon, Wizards take over.
Take another game I enjoyed- Runequest. Try playing a PC without any magic at all.... a poor choice. In fact RuneLords and Runepriests are what you strive towards.
Fantasy Hero is theoretically balanced but spellcasters can do a LOT more than non-spellcasters.
and so forth.
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).I conditionally disagree, I've run into a fairly large number of games that were pretty well balanced. They, however, were all very simple. Complexity makes it a lot harder to properly balance mechanically distinct options.
Even in simpler games, balance issues occurred. Take T&T. I kinda like the game, and in some ways it's like D&D in that Warriors are more powerful than Wizards in early levels, but soon, Wizards take over.
Take another game I enjoyed- Runequest. Try playing a PC without any magic at all.... a poor choice. In fact RuneLords and Runepriests are what you strive towards.
Fantasy Hero is theoretically balanced but spellcasters can do a LOT more than non-spellcasters.
and so forth.
Don't even get me started with nWoD and the Hunter:The Vigil books...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I loved Pathfinder as is. Then I started reading these forums. I've liked it less and less ever since. Less to do with the system, more to do with some of the types of people attracted to this type of system.
Ya having your eyes opened to the system's flaws can be frustrating, especially since once you've seen the disparity it's impossible to *not* see. Don't worry though! Once you get good at spotting disparity, you start gaining system mastery and as you start gaining system mastery you can learn how to avoid disparity. It's a win-win.
How does the Fighter being better out-of-combat or the Rogue in-combat hurt your playstyle, though? If a class's design prohibits certain playstyles while other classes don't...that class is a worse-designed class and should be fixed.
But isn't that kind of the purpose of different classes. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses thus the reason a party is formed. To me the way you're suggesting makes everyone seem kinda generic but maybe I missed your point.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Answer to OP question - YES
Converted from AD&D 2nd Ed. to it, finished an off-and-on twenty year campaign with it, started a more recent 3yr campaign with it that is now winding up, looking to delve into one of the AP's for the first time, and got into PbP here with it. So far my home group has no reason to go away from it, aside from a few small homebrew "tweaks" which is nothing monumental. Any issues I have with Pathfinder have less to do with the game and more to do with Golarion concepts and consistency, but that's not a reason to gripe about the game itself...and some of the Golarion lore has grown on me in the last couple of years.
To be fair, while my gaming group and I like to build strong capable characters in these campaigns, none of us look to explore the wrinkles in the system that could unbalance it in gameplay. Then again, I personally see that issue as less about game mechanics and more about player attitude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuffWhy 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?."
Which your post of "Some people like extremely one dimensional classes that do little than 5 ft step and full attack" has little to do with it.
That doesn't have anything to do with Zark's analysis of the system and Paizos attitude to adapt classes post printing. Quite frankly I'm a bit tired of hearing you mention that when no one is saying to take that option away from the Fighter. It's a shame there isn't an easy method of substituting class features for other interesting features like say...an archetype of some sort?
And you keep talking about Rogue talents but the ACG had no love to give for the Rogue. Two lackluster archetypes that encourage the poorest aspect of Rogue gameplay(Ranged Sneak Attacks[And the archetype only lets you make 1 a round IF you qualify] and UMD) and 0 new rogue talents.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does the Fighter being better out-of-combat or the Rogue in-combat hurt your playstyle, though? If a class's design prohibits certain playstyles while other classes don't...that class is a worse-designed class and should be fixed.But isn't that kind of the purpose of different classes. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses thus the reason a party is formed. To me the way you're suggesting makes everyone seem kinda generic but maybe I missed your point.
I think you did miss his point. I think that every single person who wants different classes to have their own strengths and weaknesses and thus require a party.
In fact, that's WHY people have issues with some of Pathfinder's elements: because currently, it's NOT the case that "everyone's got strengths and weaknesses". Rather, you've got Class X that has such-and-such a strength and also these other weaknesses, but then Class Y has that same strength only better, and then also has fewer weaknesses and additional strengths.
So if the ideal is something like "Everybody is strong in one or two areas, weak in another one or two areas, and moderately competent in the rest," then the argument from folks like the above is "Let's please get there, instead of having some classes that have strengths but no weaknesses while others have weaknesses but no strengths".
And somehow, lots of people (not just you) see that call for every class to have a unique assortment of both strengths and weaknesses and think, "Wait, you mean you want everyone to be the same?"
I'm still trying to figure out how that conclusion is drawn.
How does the Fighter being better out-of-combat or the Rogue in-combat hurt your playstyle, though? If a class's design prohibits certain playstyles while other classes don't...that class is a worse-designed class and should be fixed.But isn't that kind of the purpose of different classes. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses thus the reason a party is formed. To me the way you're suggesting makes everyone seem kinda generic but maybe I missed your point.
I think you did miss his point. I think that every single person who wants different classes to have their own strengths and weaknesses and thus require a party.
In fact, that's WHY people have issues with some of Pathfinder's elements: because currently, it's NOT the case that "everyone's got strengths and weaknesses". Rather, you've got Class X that has such-and-such a strength and also these other weaknesses, but then Class Y has that same strength only better, and then also has fewer weaknesses and additional strengths.
So if the ideal is something like "Everybody is strong in one or two areas, weak in another one or two areas, and moderately competent in the rest," then the argument from folks like the above is "Let's please get there, instead of having some classes that have strengths but no weaknesses while others have weaknesses but no strengths".
And somehow, lots of people (not just you) see that call for every class to have a unique assortment of both strengths and weaknesses and think, "Wait, you mean you want everyone to be the same?"
I'm still trying to figure out how that conclusion is drawn.
Ahhhh ok that spells it out a little better for me. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even in simpler games, balance issues occurred. Take T&T. I kinda like the game, and in some ways it's like D&D in that Warriors are more powerful than Wizards in early levels, but soon, Wizards take over.
Take another game I enjoyed- Runequest. Try playing a PC without any magic at all.... a poor choice. In fact RuneLords and Runepriests are what you strive towards.
Fantasy Hero is theoretically balanced but spellcasters can do a LOT more than non-spellcasters.
and so forth.
I never said all simpler games were balanced, nor was that my intent. It is easier for a simpler game to be more balanced, or made more balanced...that doesn't mean that's always what happens.
Additionally...while I've never played Runequest, I would not call it simple from how it is described, and the Hero system (in any form) is likewise not especially simple. So, I think we may be defining 'simple' very differently.
Don't even get me started with nWoD and the Hunter:The Vigil books...
NWoD, much as I actually like large portions of it, is not simple at all. The basic mortals book is simpler than Pathfinder, but only a bit if you don't count spells, and the various splatbooks (including HtV) add enough complexity that it's not simpler at all.
I mean, it's less combat focused, but that's not inherently the same thing.
How does the Fighter being better out-of-combat or the Rogue in-combat hurt your playstyle, though? If a class's design prohibits certain playstyles while other classes don't...that class is a worse-designed class and should be fixed.But isn't that kind of the purpose of different classes. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses thus the reason a party is formed. To me the way you're suggesting makes everyone seem kinda generic but maybe I missed your point.
You did. My point is not that every class must be mechanically similar (that's a terrible idea), my point is that they should be on-par power level wise, because that doesn't hurt people who don't care about power level and helps those that do (those being the different play styles under discussion).
EDIT: Jiggy said this last bit way better. Go with that.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point is not that every class must be mechanically similar (that's a terrible idea), my point is that they should be on-par power level wise
Or to perhaps put it another way:
How scared the party is of the BBEG should depend more on their estimation of his level than on what class he is. The WAYS in which the party prepares for combat should be different based on what class he is (i.e., prepare displacement against a fighter, dispel magic against a caster, etc), but HOW MUCH of a threat he is should NOT be a function of which class he is. The party should be equally scared of a 20th level fighter as a 20th level wizard, even if they'll approach the two with different strategies. But currently, that's not the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).I conditionally disagree, I've run into a fairly large number of games that were pretty well balanced. They, however, were all very simple. Complexity makes it a lot harder to properly balance mechanically distinct options.
I will concede this point as I am something on an old-school (more middle shool really, I started with AD&D 2nd Ed in the early 90's), and am drawn to the more complex systems that were the hallmarks of that era of gaming. I don't know that I have ever played a system more simple than the old White Wolf games, and some choices in those games were defintely unbalanced.
But then, I have no interst in playing a system that is simple enough to be easily balanced. That's why I like Pathfinder so much, the complexity of the system provides a depth of game play that simpler games cannot approach.
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.It's definitely a balancing act (pun intended) between truly mechanically distinct options and perfect game balance...but that doesn't mean game balance isn't a good thing to strive for, just that it must be balanced (ha! pun again) with other concerns.
I'm not sure that we disagree here. It may be that, as a long time Magic player and a fan of Mark Rosewater's game design column, I am more comfortable with games containing choices that are actively unbalanced than other gamers might be. Those choices are what allows experienced, knowledgeable players to demonstrate their system mastery. Without bad choices, system mastery loses it's advantages.
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.How does the Fighter being better out-of-combat or the Rogue in-combat hurt your playstyle, though? If a class's design prohibits certain playstyles while other classes don't...that class is a worse-designed class and should be fixed.
You say the straight-forward, single-minded, simple design of those classes makes them bad. My wife says those are the things that make the Fighter her favorite class. Everyone has an opinion, and none of them are necessarily wrong.
Jiggy said this last bit way better. Go with that.
Yeah he ninja'd you a bit but I see where you are coming from now.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will concede this point as I am something on an old-school (more middle shool really, I started with AD&D 2nd Ed in the early 90's), and am drawn to the more complex systems that were the hallmarks of that era of gaming. I don't know that I have ever played a system more simple than the old White Wolf games, and some choices in those games were defintely unbalanced.
But then, I have no interst in playing a system that is simple enough to be easily balanced. That's why I like Pathfinder so much, the complexity of the system provides a depth of game play that simpler games cannot approach.
That's fair. I was just clarifying that it's not quite so universal as all that.
I'm not sure that we disagree here. It may be that, as a long time Magic player and a fan of Mark Rosewater's game design column, I am more comfortable with games containing choices that are actively unbalanced than other gamers might be. Those choices are what allows experienced, knowledgeable players to demonstrate their system mastery. Without bad choices, system mastery loses it's advantages.
I agree that what you say is true. I just don't think that people with system mastery having quite as much of an advantage as they do in, say, Pathfinder is actually good for the game or the players.
You say the straight-forward, single-minded, simple design of those classes makes them bad. My wife says those are the things that make the Fighter her favorite class. Everyone has an opinion, and none of them are necessarily wrong.
I'm not talking about making the Classes more complicated. Just better at a particular thing. A Full BAB Rogue with a good Fort Save or a 4-6 skill points per level Fighter (with better class skills) with a good Will Save isn't actually more complicated, just better (those aren't exactly how I'd fix the classes or perfectly balanced, it's just an example).
And some opinions are flatly wrong. I don't actually think this is one of them, but they certainly exist.
I agree that what you say is true. I just don't think that people with system mastery having quite as much of an advantage as they do in, say, Pathfinder is actually good for the game or the players.
This is a good point, and I am willing to accept that something that is good for a game like Magic is not necessary good for an RPG.
I'm not talking about making the Classes more complicated. Just better at a particular thing. A Full BAB Rogue with a good Fort Save or a 4-6 skill points per level Fighter (with better class skills) with a good Will Save isn't actually more complicated, just better (those aren't exactly how I'd fix the classes or perfectly balanced, it's just an example).
And some opinions are flatly wrong. I don't actually think this...
I hate that I have contributed to devolving this thread into another Fighter thread, so I am going to wrap up our little debate before it gets out of hand (if it's not too late already). Please don't take this as a dismissal of you or your points, I have enjoyed this conversation immensly and appreaciate your well stated opinions.
What I love most about Pathfinder it that it is a robust enough system that you can despise some aspects of it that others adore, and the game can support both of those playstles with minimal fuss. I would wager that I could put you and my wife, with your diametrically opposed options about one of the Core classes in the same campaign and you would both have fun in your own ways.
Happy gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, who needs different opinions or points of view? The forums would be so much better if there was nothing but constant verbal fellating of the devs for being perfect, unerring gods.Being polite to the devs is not, in fact, the same as sucking up to them or providing them endless positive feedback. Politeness is one of those things that should govern the majority of basic human interaction with everybody.
All one should really do, is treat the people at Paizo like people, with the same courtesy you treat other forum goers. Certainly not like perfect unimpeachable gods of RPG design, but also not like some sort of robots who churn out RPGs but don't have feelings to be hurt by repeated insults to their intellect or skill in their chosen profession. Neither is useful or appropriate (though the latter is much ruder and more unpleasant, generally speaking).
I agree, one should treat the devs the same as any other human beings. Which means they shouldn't be put up on a pedestal or treated badly. If a dev makes a mistake or says something stupid, they should be called out on it just like you would anyone else.
It might just be my biased perspective (or the fact that all those posts get deleted), but I see the devs being put up on a pedestal a lot more often than I see them being treated badly. And a lot of people's ideas about what constitutes being disrespectful to the devs seems to basically be "anything other than slavish agreement and worship." Almost any time a dev posts in a thread, there will inevitably be a dozen people stumbling over each other to slobber all over them in gratitude for the post, even if it's completely inane.
The devs shouldn't be treated as robots churning out products for our enjoyment. But they also shouldn't be treated as paragons creating Pathfinder purely out of the goodness of their hearts. The ACG was not made as a charity project, the devs wrote it to make money. It's the same as any other product I purchase. At the end of the day, Paizo is a for-profit company, and Pathfinder is a big money-making business.
Tl;dr: the devs should be treated the same as any other person. No better, and no worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like Pathfinder a lot. Its a solid system it has lasted for almost 14 years considering it really is an outgrowth of 3.0. I would love for a few things to be fixed I would suspect that there will be an attempt to fix them in Unchained.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I started Playing D&D way back in 1975.
And so far Pathfinder is the best version of the D20 system produced so far.
Is it perfect ? No there are still bugs that can be worked out.
Are Arcane caster too powerful? Maybe but the class balance if far better then in earlier edition where after 8th level most classes where just there to provide a cheering section to the Wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I started Playing D&D way back in 1975.
And so far Pathfinder is the best version of the D20 system produced so far.
Is it perfect ? No there are still bugs that can be worked out.
Are Arcane caster too powerful? Maybe but the class balance if far better then in earlier edition where after 8th level most classes where just there to provide a cheering section to the Wizard.
Gives secret Grognard handshake.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm happy with pathfinder. I like the system. Can it be improved? sure. Are there things I don't like here or there? sure. But on the whole I am happy with the game.This. I have played Pathfinder since it's inception migrating from 3.5 (and previous to that all editions back to AD&D and BECM). Yes there are some things that niggle me about PF such as escalating skill bonuses and DCs to ridiculous levels and travel rules that are a little to dull and simplistic but overall PF is one of my two go to games (the other being Savage Worlds).
Go team Paizo!
THIS +1.
And honestly, the constant straw-man arguments permeating the boards these days that you have to like everything to like anything, that if you don't want a completely new edition you're slavishly devoted to butt-kissing Paizo, etc. are becoming more than tiresome.
For those clamoring for a radically new edition, all change is not good. A PF 2.0 will likely not satisfy some, heck even most, of the radical design suggestions being thrown around. Even if/when a substantially different PF 2.0 appears one day, once you realize Paizo didn't adhere to your specific criteria then what? Immediate calls for PF 3.0?
There have been threads recently that have progressed well beyond differences in taste - complaints of developer's turning a deaf ear & blind eye to the poster's obvious RPG genius, calling Paizo incompetent, exaggerated claims of bloat, references to new material as "tumors" & "cancerous". Not to mention the dismissive posts or outright attacks on those who don't agree, or even dare to not agree as strongly about the things they view as broken. These are the standard-bearers of the Paizo fanbase that should guide the specs & goals of future Pathfinder content? Do they even like the game that they so radically wish to change? Did they ever?
I like Pathfinder in it's current form. Do I like everything? No, but I look to things like Pathfinder Unchained and third-party publishers to provide me alternatives that don't require me to redo/undo everything. Paizo continues to produce some of the highest quality products in the RPG industry - ever, not just today. They continue to find new design space and creative elements in a system that, according to claims that are very similar to the "PF2 must come!" crowd, was "done" and "used up" back in 2008. Archetypes, new classes, new takes on races and monsters, subsystems like those found in Ultimate Campaign now combining with products like Pathfinder Unchained & Psychic Magic.
Not to mention that they've displayed an incredible amount of skill and knowledge with how to profitably run & just as importantly, grow, a RPG business. Eric Mona has, for several years running, cited that Core Rulebook sales continue to grow.
Yeah, I'll stick with Paizo & Pathfinder. I don't have to like everything, but they're doing a TON of things right.
Is there anyone out there who just likes Pathfinder as it is, with what they've done so far?
FWIW...
Like:
Core Rulebook
Bestiaries
GameMastery Guide
Select Adventure Paths (I'm sure all are awesome; just don't have the gaming dollars to pick up ones that don't grab me right off)
Most Campaign Setting books
Most adventure modules
Most flip-mats and map packs
Paizo as a company: seem like genuinely good folk
Dislike:
Ultimate books, save Ultimate Equipment
Advanced books, save Advanced Race Guide
Most Player's Companion books (not enough/too specialized content for the price - yes, even at $12.99. Plus, we're beginning to be spammed by them all)
System is slightly too far over the line towards complexity for my personal taste. I'm a more narrative guy in my old age (less is more)
Neutral:
The "If Forgotten Realms is Disney World, then Golarion is Epcot" paradigm. There's a lot going on on that world, don't ya think!? From Gothic Horror to Ancient Egypt and Sci-Fi!
And another fine medley!
TOZ Why?! Make it go awaaaaay. There are far too many of those threads. I think I'll just quote you whenever I see one. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there anyone out there who just likes Pathfinder as it is, with what they've done so far
Yes, dear gods, yes! I was thrilled with PF as an evolution of 3.5. I chose PF over 4th edition. I continue to choose PF over D&D Next. It's a powerful, robust, detailed game that I love to death and back again. One of its biggest strengths, however, is that it is easy to add or subtract elements, either to cover perceived flaws or to expand the game in ways the core material does not.
I love Pathfinder as it is. I am always willing to play a "vanilla" Pathfinder game.
I also love Pathfinder with my host of house-rules and homebrew supplemental material. I am always willing to play my house-ruled Pathfinder game.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM and Player, I have to say I don't play Pathfinder as it is, because I know I tweak aspects of the game. The fact I tweak stuff, means I'm unhappy with it.
The biggest issue I have with Pathfinder, I think, comes down to legacy issues of 3.5. The next biggest issue is I think Paizo is biting off more than they can chew with their product speed.
The Legacy Issues are complicated, because when Pathfinder first came out, it was a risky move and they wanted to draw in the 3.5 crowd, so they needed to stay close to 3.5, but they also wanted to fix aspects of the game. As time has gone on, Paizo has stepped further and further away from 3.5, because their confidence in their product has expanded. However, this means that their earlier products that paid a lot of lip service to the 3.5 rules, are often seen as inferior because of it.
For example, the Investigator/Slayer is what the Rogue could have been if Paizo didn't have legacy issues. Or many of the Monk archetypes could simply be the base Monk class.
A complete revision of Pathfinder's Core Rules could be a great thing as they do away with legacy issues in the rules. However, the Legacy issues is one that is understandable and forgivable.
I also feel that the product schedule that Paizo has now has negatively impacted their products in a big way. The ACG playtest is one such example, but so too is Mythic Adventurers. Mythic, as is well known by this point, has some serious issues in ramping up the rocket tag aspects of the game at higher levels.
The ACG playtest was just a mess. With it's absurdly short run time, a great many issues were not fixed. One of the biggest complaints I've seen in the playtest, is that many people felt like the Designers weren't listening to feed back. I can't recall a single person who thought Charmed Life would work well as it existed, yet the Designers kept it in regardless. Many people pointed out the increased power of the Arcanist over other classes, and the class became even more powerful in the release of the ACG. At the end of the second round of the playtest, nearly everyone said the Warpriest was good as is, he just needed some better Blessings because the ones in the playtest sucked. So instead of just buffing the blessings, they nerfed the entire class to the point that every other Divine Class is a better Warpriest than the Warpriest.
I really feel that Paizo needs to cut back on their product schedule and go back to releasing high quality products with solid editing and solid mechanics. I enjoyed the APG and Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, but I am highly disappointed with many aspects of Mythic Adventures and the Advanced Class Guide. I feel they suffered too much from the crunch product schedule.
I feel that Paizo could really benefit if they paid more attention to FAQs and Errata for the game. There are some issues in this game that have been too long standing and need to be fixed. Instead, we are always told they are too busy to do so, and keep putting it off.
That is a very bad policy to take. If your product has an issue that needs fixing, you should stop and fix the product instead of putting it off and releasing more stuff. The policy of only issuing Errata when a product is reprinted is also a bad one. Paizo needs to start maintaining a living Errata document that can be updated any time new Errata is included, instead of just when it's re-printed. There are too many issues with this game to only fix it with reprints.
I also feel that there is some issues of 'pride' over the products released. That some feedback or FAQs are ignored because people don't want to admit they are wrong. The overwhelmingly negative feedback on the Crane Wing errata is one such example.
It's also sad that, it seems the only time something is legitimately fixed in this game anymore, is when the forums get overly angry over something. I think back to the 'Get your House in Order' thread, or the 'Ice Tomb Hex' threads, or the 'Crane Wing' threads. Paizo states that they are less likely to respond to a thread when they are being insulted, yet, every time I see a major issue in this game being fixed, it's almost directly connected with a thread blatantly insulting Paizo and it's employees.
This means that, there is a perception that the only way to get something fixed, is to be a total asshat. If you've got a rules issue, then the best way to get it fixed is to create a derogatory threat that insults the company. It almost ensures that the Design team and others will make their presence known, and once they do that, they can't pretend the issue doesn't exist. Once a deigner has weighed in on Ice Tomb, it resulted Ice Tomb being fixed.
It's a lose-lose situation for them. If you ignore the disrespectful threads, it just proves them right when they say, "Paizo doesn't listen". It also engenders a bad perception of Paizo being spiteful because they won't fix an issue unless you ask nicely. But if they respond to them, then it only encourages further behavior in the same vein.
I think I went majorly off topic and rambled more than I should, so I'll just end this off.
For a more positive post now.
I love the archetype system. I think it really adds a lot to the game because it lets you play more classes, without having a bunch of class bloat like 3rd edition had. It's also a great way to keep adding more abilities to a class, and change the flavor, without having to keep creating more and more classes. It also solves a bunch of the Prestige Class issues of a character not being able to play what they want until they're already 1/4 or more of the way through the game.
I like a lot of the feats that have come out too. I think Paizo has a really creative mine for being able to keep coming out with new feats and new stuff without overly stepping on the toes of other things. I mean, there's what, some 1,500 feats in this game and only a few of them obsolete feats before them or cover a similar role? That's outstanding!
I also like a lot of the classes that have come out. I love the Inquisitor, and I've been wanting to play an Alchemist and a Magus for a long time. I'm not too fond of spontaneous full casters like the Sorcerer and Oracle, but I think the Oracle is a good class. The Cavalier took a long time for me to like it, but once I really delved into the class, I did enjoy it, though I still think it's got conflicting or too limited class features.
I also really enjoy how much support Paizo keeps giving to older material. I disliked that, in 3rd Edition, a new class only really got stuff for it, in the book it was released in. After that, new products didn't include anything for older products beyond generic options.
The same is not true with Pathfinder. I can know that each book that comes out is going to contain options for every class and every playstyle that came before it. The exception being the 'optional' systems like Words of Power or Armor as DR.
I think that Pathfinder, over-all, is an excellent game and I have no intention of changing or switching yet. I highly enjoy playing it, and even when I'm not playing, I'm constantly thinking of things I can do with it.
I know that when I played in 3rd edition I wasn't nearly as excited for the game as I am with Pathfinder. But in Pathfinder, I'm always thinking of new characters, and new plots, and discussing the game with other people and their plots and their characters. With Pathfinder, I don't have to be playing the game, to be having fun with the system.
I've never had a game that I've done this with before. No other game has me sitting down and watching a movie, and then think of how I could build a similar character in 3.5, or GURPS, or WoW. I always think, "How can I play this in Pathfinder?"
So for me, I know that Pathfinder 'clicks' with me really well. I do recognize that there are issues with the game, and I think those could be fixed. But I'm still happy with the system as it currently stands.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the implication that somehow being critical means you hate the game or are being mean spirited.
Personally I really enjoy Pathfinder, it's probably my favorite tabletop system
In fact, it's because I love the game so much that I criticize things. If I hated Pathfinder I just wouldn't visit these forums and be done with it because it wouldn't be worth my time. Why bother with something you dislike?
It's rather because I like the game so much that I'll say something if I feel a class isn't polished or designed as well as I think it could be.
I didn't read everything. Usually I don't copy everyone. :)
My Second Darkness Character was my second character but my first AP. I started out with the CRB and as the game progressed I got to see other books. I'm starting in Rune Lords with a Magus (liked the Duskblade in 3.5).
I have seen the playtest for the ACG and then gotten the ACG and I like what has been done with the Gunslinger (Swashbuckler and Bolt Ace).
I originally thought that Pathfinder had too many classes but then read around here that 3.5 had just as many.
I guess I like the way things are going. [backpeddling from another thread...]
I like a lot about Pathfinder, enough that I still play it, in any case.
But I don't like the spellcasting system as a whole.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kids, really, its fine as long as you use point buy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love Pathfinder. I've spent hundreds of pounds, even during time periods when I didn't have a job via scrimping and saving, buying all the hard backed books and a good potion of the soft covers. It's what I do to relax after (and often during...heh, Night Receptionist is a good job) work. I do it with my wife. I've started teaching my kids to play.
But there are bugs in the system, and just because I love it doesn't mean I'm going to ignore it. The martial/caster disparity is frustrating as all hell sometimes, especially when you see Crane Wing nerfed but a feat ike Sacred Geometry put out. Sacred Geometry really sums up my with balance in Pathfinder - play a wizard, do maths, win Pathfinder. Neatly rolled up in one feat. It's why the only way I'd ever play a Wizard would be to swap it over to Spontaneous casting. I actually like a lot of Wizard abilities and Schools and such, but I don't like the fact they can make so many encounters a joke if they're reasonably well prepared.
The fiasco with dex to weapon damage is another example. I appreciate that many members of the dev team aren't fond of the idea, and are worried about balance. But so many people would love to play a dex based style, even one that's not quite as good as a strength based one, that throwing the odd afterthought of a feat out just isn't an answer.
Honestly, I think that's my biggest gripe - it feels like a lot of decisions made are based on what the dev team like and don't like. Someone is fond of spellcasters, so Paragon Surge stays broken for a good long time. Martials, on the other hand, shouldn't be as powerful - anything that makes them too strong gets zonked straight off.
Realism has no place in a system where a guy carrying 200lbs of gear can swing two greatswords, one in each hand, 1.5 times a second. But it's used as a limiting factor for martials in many cases. Gunslinger's aren't supposed to reload that fast. Monks can't do that much damage with a kunckle duster. Spellcasters, of course, are magic - therefore it never needs to be limited for the. So being good at maths should totally allow a wizard to add two metamagic feats to all his spells...
It's tiring and frustrating to be essentially told, by the developers, 'No, you're wrong to want to play a throwing weapon specialist, and trying to do so will result in a crappier character than an archer.' It's why I'm so big on 3rd party content. They often allow me to create a spontaneous casting combat mage or a dragon riding fighter (Genius Games' Vanguard and Dragonrider classes) or a mechanical inventor who uses crazy combat bots of a steampunk nature (Interjection Games' Tinker) or something else Paizo doesn't allow. I really wish it didn't have such a bad rap, 3rd party stuff - there are some wonderful companies doing wonderful things that deserve recognition and some cash.
The ACG has been a step in the right direction with somethings. We finally have a viable crossbow combatant, and a couple of semi-decent throwing based characters like the Brawler Archetype and the card-based ones from the Harrow book. But I'd love for Paizo to understand, and agree, that just because a character concept isn't one they're a big fan of, such as dex to damage, doesn't mean it should be made naff or very limited.
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?Can't speak for everyone, but maybe even the drastic changes are (at least in the eyes of those clamoring for them) still smaller than going to a whole different game? I mean, theoretically, if someone wanted to change anything up to 49% of the Pathfinder system, then it's still "easier" (in at least some sense of the word) to change Pathfinder than to switch to a different game.
Or at least, that's my speculation.
Bonus explanation: Pathfinder is among the easiest systems to find a game for. Sure I love a few smaller systems out there, but I'd have trouble finding players for them, much less a GM so that I could be a player.