Does anyone just like Pathfinder as it is?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Kthulhu wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:

I started Playing D&D way back in 1975.

And so far Pathfinder is the best version of the D20 system produced so far.

Disclaimer: Prior to 2000, D&D didn't use the d20 system.

I also disagree. I think the best version of the d20 system is probably Trailblazer.

I've heard of that but never looked into it, mostly because Pathfinder ripped out and consumed its still-beating heart in the arena of market share before I really got heavy into tabletop RPGs.

With that in mind, what do you like about it? What did it do differently when it split and went on its own evolutionary line from 3.5? Why are all 3.5 derivatives I know named after people who make roads through forests?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:

I started Playing D&D way back in 1975.

And so far Pathfinder is the best version of the D20 system produced so far.

Disclaimer: Prior to 2000, D&D didn't use the d20 system.

I also disagree. I think the best version of the d20 system is probably Trailblazer.

I've heard of that but never looked into it, mostly because Pathfinder ripped out and consumed its still-beating heart in the arena of market share before I really got heavy into tabletop RPGs.

With that in mind, what do you like about it? What did it do differently when it split and went on its own evolutionary line from 3.5? Why are all 3.5 derivatives I know named after people who make roads through forests?

It actually attempts to FIX some of 3.5's inherent problems, instead of just duct-taping them over and saying that backwards compatibility is more important than a functional system.

YMMV on how successful those fixes were (I think they are largely better than Pathfinder's tweaks), but at least they made the attempt. It also gets some hate for having taken a few cues from 4e, which some here seem to view as the equivalent of child molestation.


Kthulhu wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:

I started Playing D&D way back in 1975.

And so far Pathfinder is the best version of the D20 system produced so far.

Disclaimer: Prior to 2000, D&D didn't use the d20 system.

I also disagree. I think the best version of the d20 system is probably Trailblazer.

I've heard of that but never looked into it, mostly because Pathfinder ripped out and consumed its still-beating heart in the arena of market share before I really got heavy into tabletop RPGs.

With that in mind, what do you like about it? What did it do differently when it split and went on its own evolutionary line from 3.5? Why are all 3.5 derivatives I know named after people who make roads through forests?

It actually attempts to FIX some of 3.5's inherent problems, instead of just duct-taping them over and saying that backwards compatibility is more important than a functional system.

YMMV on how successful those fixes were (I think they are largely better than Pathfinder's tweaks), but at least they made the attempt. It also gets some hate for having taken a few cues from 4e, which some here seem to view as the equivalent of child molestation.

The 4e hate does get a little ridiculous. While I wasn't a fan of the at-will/encounter/daily power setup for all classes, there were plenty of other things I liked in 4e. Taking out HP rolls. Flattening the curve on skills and Fort/Reflex/Will so that bad saves and skills you didn't invest in weren't utterly crippled, Better stat mods. Tieflings as a base race. And of course, letting non-casters have nice things.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I often *Play* Pathfinder as it is; I'm not the biggest fan of Pathfinder as it is, and I therefore never run Pathfinder as it is.

But, I have yet to play an RPG that doesn't have at least a few things that I think the designers seriously dropped the ball on. 3.5 had a bunch of stuff; Pathfinder fixed some of it, ignored some of it, and added a few new crappy areas of its own.

And Pathfinder has more supporting material than any other extant RPG system, let alone other fantasy RPG systems. It's also still a good and very serviceable RPG system, even if it does have problems I would like to see corrected, and make efforts to correct them myself if I am the GM (or if my prospective GM would make use of my houserules).


Kthulhu wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:

I started Playing D&D way back in 1975.

And so far Pathfinder is the best version of the D20 system produced so far.

Disclaimer: Prior to 2000, D&D didn't use the d20 system.

I also disagree. I think the best version of the d20 system is probably Trailblazer.

I've heard of that but never looked into it, mostly because Pathfinder ripped out and consumed its still-beating heart in the arena of market share before I really got heavy into tabletop RPGs.

With that in mind, what do you like about it? What did it do differently when it split and went on its own evolutionary line from 3.5? Why are all 3.5 derivatives I know named after people who make roads through forests?

It actually attempts to FIX some of 3.5's inherent problems, instead of just duct-taping them over and saying that backwards compatibility is more important than a functional system.

YMMV on how successful those fixes were (I think they are largely better than Pathfinder's tweaks), but at least they made the attempt. It also gets some hate for having taken a few cues from 4e, which some here seem to view as the equivalent of child molestation.

I'll have to look into it and see if there are any fixes I like enough to incorporate into my houserules. Would you have any suggestions for things to consider there?

Dark Archive

It made a nice change to attack progressions, and was the first D&D/D&D variant to have integrated multiclass spellcasting (5e does it also).

IIRC they also shortened feat chains.

They made tweaks to classes, but it's all based on 3.5, and I've never tried using the TB classes in PF.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
OP wrote:
Is there anyone out there who just likes Pathfinder as it is, with what they've done so far?

I like Pathfinder.

I think it's an extremely complicated system, numerically speaking and considering the many options it offers which require an excellent grasp of its overall mechanics.

Since I applied myself to master (a bit) the crunch of the system, I feel more content with it, being able to house-rule some parts of it without breaking the whole of it.

I'm feeling grateful towards the Paizo team for continuing the legacy of a system I play since the 80s.

Thank you, Paizo Team [*hugs*] !

I also think the Internet (and its forums especially) is a challenge to the whole of the human race regarding civility ;-).

Despair not, fellow human gamers: (tough) love and courteousness will prevail in the end, though the journey will be long and arduous ^_^ !


DrDeth wrote:
misquotes Zark

I’m going to assume you didn’t do this intentionally, so I’m not going to be snarky or something. I’ll just assume you just rolled low on your linguistic check or that my English and my use of format wasn’t good enough to convey what I meant or possibly a combination of them.

My post has nothing to do with the fighter. True, I do use the word fighter in my post six times, but the text still isn’t about the fighter. It’s not even about the rogue for that matter.
I’ll try to explain what the text is about. To make things easier for you (and others who may need to go back and reread the text) I will tell you what the text is mainly about. This is not a perfect chronological walkthrough that covers everything, but it gives you a rough guideline on what I meant and how to read the text. Make sure you read the last part of this post since it explains why/how I use “ out-of-character commentary

Seriously, trust me. The text is not about the fighter (or the rogue).

walkthrough:

==========================================================

So what is my post really about then?
The text is an answer to the OP’s question
My answer in short is: “No, I don't, and sadly I think the quality is deteriorating, at least when it comes to rule books. I also see deteriorating in trust as an issue.”

Then my post tries to explain why I answered no. Some of the issues I bring up are:


  • The system is too complicated and requires a high level of system mastery, even for simple classes.
  • They are too many patches and the patches are spread out and some don’t even appear in the core book. Some of the patches even require new patches.
  • The Game is unbalanced.
  • The game isn’t intuitive enough and there are too many traps and too much “Ivory Tower Game Design"
  • The game isn’t ‘open’ enough and sometimes you are just shut out of some options or/and forced into others.

Then comes some examples of what I mean by this.

I move on to discuss lack of trust and how feedback is handled. I’m well aware that this part is highly subjective, but I’m stating my opinion and it’s an opinion shared by others and it is also backed up by some facts. After this the post focus on the deterioration of quality and balance problems in relation to the expectation from fans and again lack of trust/feedback to finally return to discuss quality (The ACG again as an example) and bringing up the infamous thread “Paizo needs to get their house in order” as something that in some ways reflects the current situation.
==========================================================

I eventually edited the post and added that I’m looking forward to Pathfinder Unchained and that I think the Arcanist is a good thing in spite of some of its issues/flaws. Yes, this last text is actually off topic and could have been formatted as such, see below, but I wanted to add something positive.

More off topic, why I like the Arcanist:

I’m not denying the Arcanist have some issues. It is even on the brink of being too powerful, mostly because Counterspell and Quick Study, but I’m hoping for errata. At least some limitation to how many times per day the abilities can be used.
So why do I like the Arcanist? I like it because, in my opinion, it fills a niche that is needed.
None of my fellow players like playing full arcane casters. My guess is that one of the reasons for that is that they all require a too high level of system mastery. Yes, even the Sorcerer does. If you pick the “wrong” bloodline you are fried. The Arcanist is a fix to that problem. Does this mean the Arcanist kills the Sorcerer? I don’t think so. It sure isn’t killing the Wizard, but if it means a lot of people will swap from Sorcerer to Arcanist so be it. I think the Sorcerer is, in some aspects, a flawed class that locks the player into a set of suboptimal choices made by the ones that designed the bloodlines. Some bloodlines are simply good and some are simply bad (yes, notice that I didn’t say better or worse. I mean some are actually bad). Also, once you pick a bad spell or a spell that doesn’t do what you thought it did or a spell that doesn’t fit your play style you are stuck with it until you can swap it out, unless of course you discover you have picked more than one spell that needs to be changed or you are looking at bloodline spells. I like the Arcanist just as I like the Investigator and the Slayer. If they all kill one of their parent classes so be it.
My two favorite classes are the Bard and the Sorcerer, yet I welcome the Arcanist and now you know why. BTW, Please don’t respond to this in this thread. If you want to discuss the Arcanist, create a thread a PM me.

Speaking of off topic

the use of out-of-character commentary format in my post. :

Out-of-character commentary is used in play-by-post threads to highlight that a commentary is made out-of-character. Or one could say, the commentary is made out of context. You are posting something that doesn’t really belong to that thread so you mark in light blue to highlight that this does not really belong to this thread or is not relevant to what we discuss here.

The use of out-of-character commentary has spread so that it is now also used in other parts of the forum to indicate that you are posting something that is off topic. It’s a polite way of not thread jacking a thread. It also makes it easier for readers to skip text that is unnecessary to read if you want to stay on topic.


Carl Hanson wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


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.

This should be the default statement everyone needs to read when discussing game balance. Well written, Carl.

-HB


OP wrote:
Is there anyone out there who just likes Pathfinder as it is, with what they've done so far?

Yeah. Pretty much. I'll take improvements if there are any to be made (and there probably are, to be sure) but overall, I'm happy with the game as it is.


Tels wrote:


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.

This is a very important point, and even tho I have been called a Paizo Fanboy, it is a issue. I was hoping that with Mark getting hired they'd have him blow thru the backlog, but so far he's only done a couple.

Stop making new stuff. Fix the old stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

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.

Sure, but there's a difference between saying: "I think the rogue could really benefit from some cool new rogue talents, and here are some ideas:...."

(there's even a thread for that somewhere)

and "The rouge is teh suxxor, and it's proof paizo hates martials".
(and there's about a million threads for that).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:


Is there anyone out there who just likes Pathfinder as it is, with what they've done so far?

Absolutely.

And one of the things I like most about it is the bit that tells you to change the things you don't like or think you can improve on. It's an RPG, not a boardgame, it's designed to be customized, to have its square pegs forced into round holes by stubborn GMs (shaving bits off to fit and gluing new bits on, where necessary) and to generally be used as a toolkit to construct the game *you* want to play with it.


As much as 4e fallacy is a fallacy, when people advocate that the best way to balance PF is by making casters just as boring and limited as low tier martials, or that martials need buffs and casters need nurfs, then the comparison is valid.

To balance martial vs casters you need to rebalance them, not nerf one and buff the other.

For example, Martial full attacks are really devastating, to the point that if they get one off that tends to end the encounter. Now let's say that damage got scaled back, think of all the other things martials could do then and still be just as strong.

For casters just compare Psions and Wizards. Psions have more straight forward defenses, and better blasting at the cost of not having many game breaking options or things like mirror image. Psions still play the AC game, they still grab 5 of the big 6 magic items (2 stat items) instead of the wizards traditional 3 (cloak, int booster, con booster). Psions take significant hits but gain in places that keep them just as strong as wizards but more fair.


20 point buy and fixed HP gained per level is the only true way to play Pathfinder!

*I am only half kidding.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:

20 point buy and fixed HP gained per level is the only true way to play Pathfinder!

*I am only half kidding.

Obviously the only way to play pathfinder is 3d6, rolled straight down xD

Paizo Glitterati Robot

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some baiting posts/posts edging into edition war territory and their responses. This thread has been able to remain pretty civil for the most part, let's keep it on that track, please.


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
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.

Sure. But when a GM advertises for players for a Pathfinder game and they show up and your game is E6, low magic, non-vancian, alignments are gone,, etc aren't they being a tad disingenuous?


I'd hope that the advertisement would mention this so as not to waste folks' time. At least the low-magic part. I don't know many players who would walk out the door if alignment was removed.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

I like the game pretty well as-is. While I have a page of house rules I make use of, I'd be willing to run or play in a rules-as-written game without any complaints.

I look forward to future innovations with the game and would like an eventual 2nd edition to streamline the rules a bit, but overall Pathfinder provides what I want out of an RPG better than any other system I've found.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Marroar Gellantara wrote:

20 point buy and fixed HP gained per level is the only true way to play Pathfinder!

*I am only half kidding.

I haven't played a game that wasn't 25 PB in like, a year and a half.


Charlie Brooks wrote:

I like the game pretty well as-is. While I have a page of house rules I make use of, I'd be willing to run or play in a rules-as-written game without any complaints.

I look forward to future innovations with the game and would like an eventual 2nd edition to streamline the rules a bit, but overall Pathfinder provides what I want out of an RPG better than any other system I've found.

Honestly I've played with zero house rules and the game isn't terrible. There's a few quirks that I'd probably do away with but a vast majority of things that people complain about online almost never show up.


I personally do not like it as is.

1) Probably 50% of the material is "useless" or undesirable to most of the community. Mina maxers for example.

2) full spellcasters completely overshadow everything but a very few niche builds, not classes builds.

3) clerics overshadow any class in the game unless u have a spell that you want to abuse and the cleric can't get it or something comparable. The reason is be ause the cleric can do practically anything in the game as good as any other class.

4) new material , ACG, was not recieved well or as well as it could have been. The community is very passionate and likes this game. But I sense that players are starting to believe that the devs have run out of ideas. I'm NOT saying this is the case but in my area and to lesser extent on the forums I can see that the idea has gotten in people's heads now (which bad for everyone).

Despite these above I can say that I play this a fair bit and obviously I can deal with it or I would t still be on forums and tabletops. I will continue to at for a lo g while but the game needs some Tweeks. Final note: if ACG is the quality to look forward to, ill stick with pathfinder as is rather than new material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suppose liking Pathfinder "as is" means also enjoying new material as it comes out? Or does it mean "given the current published material only"? If the latter is the case, I guess I've liked it as-is for some time, since I play with only the Core Rulebook.

If the former, not so much. For me, added complexity, added rules, a growing gap between those rules and fantasy archetype, and increasing focus on character abilities rather than player abilities change the tone of the game in ways that makes the experience much less fun for me. I find it unfortunate that Pathfinder continues this trend from its predecessor.

I love what Paizo has done for the gaming community though.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

I know man
all I want to do is GM Skull & Shackles and have some pirate fun
but James Jacobs keeps showing up at my house and forcing the Technology Guide into my hands instead

oh wait no he doesn't


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zalman wrote:
I suppose liking Pathfinder "as is" means also enjoying new material as it comes out?

That was my intent, yes.


Lamontius wrote:

I know man

all I want to do is GM Skull & Shackles and have some pirate fun
but James Jacobs keeps showing up at my house and forcing the Technology Guide into my hands instead

oh wait no he doesn't

Because as we all know, it's only the developers who want to play the new material, and never the players who get excited by a recently published class, or spell, or trait, or feat, or thingamabob from a new book and want to use it.


Malwing wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:

I like the game pretty well as-is. While I have a page of house rules I make use of, I'd be willing to run or play in a rules-as-written game without any complaints.

I look forward to future innovations with the game and would like an eventual 2nd edition to streamline the rules a bit, but overall Pathfinder provides what I want out of an RPG better than any other system I've found.

Honestly I've played with zero house rules and the game isn't terrible. There's a few quirks that I'd probably do away with but a vast majority of things that people complain about online almost never show up.

The #1 house rule I like to play with is granting the bonuses of an average typical set of big six items to all characters, regardless of class, as they level up according to WBL. There are many ifs, thens and thats involved in this house rule I don't want to get into.

With that rule in place, no one feels a need to get X items for their character and it takes the stress out of the game that power gamers feel. I then ban item crafting and magic item stores and leave nothing in but item drops, mostly no bonus wonderous items or weapons and armor with special abilities and more odd ball stuff.

When I play RAW, people get excited at first about the magic item store, but then quickly realize what a piece of crap the game is when you spend your own playing time discussing treasure, passing out loot, and buying items with a group fund with optimization in mind. All that stuff sucks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:

I know man

all I want to do is GM Skull & Shackles and have some pirate fun
but James Jacobs keeps showing up at my house and forcing the Technology Guide into my hands instead

oh wait no he doesn't

Just want to point out that Skull and Shackles is the AP that introduced the most lethal poison in any book ever released, that can basically insta-win any fight in which it's deployed.

Rum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep
threw that little set of nonsense right out the window
...as...as if I only used the fun things while ignoring the things I did not like...

:O

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Rum.
Lamontius wrote:

threw that little set of nonsense right out the window

Best not do that anymore. That is how you get hobos congregating outside your window.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

no jiggy it always works
the bottles are empty at that point
and they just take them to collection center for CA redemption value
everyone wins


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cranefist wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:

I like the game pretty well as-is. While I have a page of house rules I make use of, I'd be willing to run or play in a rules-as-written game without any complaints.

I look forward to future innovations with the game and would like an eventual 2nd edition to streamline the rules a bit, but overall Pathfinder provides what I want out of an RPG better than any other system I've found.

Honestly I've played with zero house rules and the game isn't terrible. There's a few quirks that I'd probably do away with but a vast majority of things that people complain about online almost never show up.

The #1 house rule I like to play with is granting the bonuses of an average typical set of big six items to all characters, regardless of class, as they level up according to WBL. There are many ifs, thens and thats involved in this house rule I don't want to get into.

With that rule in place, no one feels a need to get X items for their character and it takes the stress out of the game that power gamers feel. I then ban item crafting and magic item stores and leave nothing in but item drops, mostly no bonus wonderous items or weapons and armor with special abilities and more odd ball stuff.

When I play RAW, people get excited at first about the magic item store, but then quickly realize what a piece of crap the game is when you spend your own playing time discussing treasure, passing out loot, and buying items with a group fund with optimization in mind. All that stuff sucks.

Am I the only one around here that doesnt know or care about what the heck the big six items are? I spend entire campaigns not buying anything but starting gear and ammo and didn't not accepting loot unless nobody else could use it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:

I like the game pretty well as-is. While I have a page of house rules I make use of, I'd be willing to run or play in a rules-as-written game without any complaints.

I look forward to future innovations with the game and would like an eventual 2nd edition to streamline the rules a bit, but overall Pathfinder provides what I want out of an RPG better than any other system I've found.

Honestly I've played with zero house rules and the game isn't terrible. There's a few quirks that I'd probably do away with but a vast majority of things that people complain about online almost never show up.

The #1 house rule I like to play with is granting the bonuses of an average typical set of big six items to all characters, regardless of class, as they level up according to WBL. There are many ifs, thens and thats involved in this house rule I don't want to get into.

With that rule in place, no one feels a need to get X items for their character and it takes the stress out of the game that power gamers feel. I then ban item crafting and magic item stores and leave nothing in but item drops, mostly no bonus wonderous items or weapons and armor with special abilities and more odd ball stuff.

When I play RAW, people get excited at first about the magic item store, but then quickly realize what a piece of crap the game is when you spend your own playing time discussing treasure, passing out loot, and buying items with a group fund with optimization in mind. All that stuff sucks.

Am I the only one around here that doesnt know or care about what the heck the big six items are? I spend entire campaigns not buying anything but starting gear and ammo and didn't not accepting loot unless nobody else could use it.

You aren't alone.


Malwing wrote:
Am I the only one around here that doesnt know or care about what the heck the big six items are? I spend entire campaigns not buying anything but starting gear and ammo and didn't not accepting loot unless nobody else could use it.

It depends a lot on the difficulty you run the game at. If you run on hard more they are basically requirements. If you run 6 players through an AP on RAW, not as big as a deal (well maybe the cloak of resistance still since failed saves can kill you).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:

I like the game pretty well as-is. While I have a page of house rules I make use of, I'd be willing to run or play in a rules-as-written game without any complaints.

I look forward to future innovations with the game and would like an eventual 2nd edition to streamline the rules a bit, but overall Pathfinder provides what I want out of an RPG better than any other system I've found.

Honestly I've played with zero house rules and the game isn't terrible. There's a few quirks that I'd probably do away with but a vast majority of things that people complain about online almost never show up.

The #1 house rule I like to play with is granting the bonuses of an average typical set of big six items to all characters, regardless of class, as they level up according to WBL. There are many ifs, thens and thats involved in this house rule I don't want to get into.

With that rule in place, no one feels a need to get X items for their character and it takes the stress out of the game that power gamers feel. I then ban item crafting and magic item stores and leave nothing in but item drops, mostly no bonus wonderous items or weapons and armor with special abilities and more odd ball stuff.

When I play RAW, people get excited at first about the magic item store, but then quickly realize what a piece of crap the game is when you spend your own playing time discussing treasure, passing out loot, and buying items with a group fund with optimization in mind. All that stuff sucks.

Am I the only one around here that doesnt know or care about what the heck the big six items are? I spend entire campaigns not buying anything but starting gear and ammo and didn't not accepting loot unless nobody else could use it.
You aren't alone.

Definitely not alone. Not only that, both myself and a number of my players enjoy passing around loot, customizing gear, and otherwise "shopping". Sometimes we pass entire games doing just that, preparing for a ball or managing resources and so on, and not even to optimize, but to get the right colour gems to match clothing or having to travel to another place to find the right person to make what you want. It can be quite fun if your group is into it.


knightnday wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Cranefist wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:

I like the game pretty well as-is. While I have a page of house rules I make use of, I'd be willing to run or play in a rules-as-written game without any complaints.

I look forward to future innovations with the game and would like an eventual 2nd edition to streamline the rules a bit, but overall Pathfinder provides what I want out of an RPG better than any other system I've found.

Honestly I've played with zero house rules and the game isn't terrible. There's a few quirks that I'd probably do away with but a vast majority of things that people complain about online almost never show up.

The #1 house rule I like to play with is granting the bonuses of an average typical set of big six items to all characters, regardless of class, as they level up according to WBL. There are many ifs, thens and thats involved in this house rule I don't want to get into.

With that rule in place, no one feels a need to get X items for their character and it takes the stress out of the game that power gamers feel. I then ban item crafting and magic item stores and leave nothing in but item drops, mostly no bonus wonderous items or weapons and armor with special abilities and more odd ball stuff.

When I play RAW, people get excited at first about the magic item store, but then quickly realize what a piece of crap the game is when you spend your own playing time discussing treasure, passing out loot, and buying items with a group fund with optimization in mind. All that stuff sucks.

Am I the only one around here that doesnt know or care about what the heck the big six items are? I spend entire campaigns not buying anything but starting gear and ammo and didn't not accepting loot unless nobody else could use it.
You aren't alone.
Definitely not alone. Not only that, both myself and a number of my players enjoy passing around loot, customizing gear, and otherwise...

You guys have likely been using them without even knowing it.

The Big Six items are:
Stat boosters (Belts of Strength, Headband of Charisma etc.)
Cloak of Resistance
Magical Weapon
Magical Armor
Ring of Protection
Amulet of Nat. Armor

These items are deemed 'necessary' for survival at higher levels. Some classes don't need all 6 of the items, like Wizards, or some need alternative items, but in general, these are the items almost every character ends up with.

201 to 250 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