Does anyone just like Pathfinder as it is?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

29 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems to me a LOT of people complain about the system as it is. Complaints about not enough dex-to-damage options just up your strength if you really want to melee THAT badly or that certain classes are vastly underpowered compared to others don't play said class or problems with spell lists, or that feat chains are unfair, or that Pathfinder should be classless Seriously?? Play another system then, there's plenty of classless ones out there! or any other number of complaints. The forums are absolutely riddled with them. There's an entire section devoted to house rules!

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

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I like Pathfinder how it is. I don't think the rogue is a joke (optimizers may be able to break other classes much easier, but it's still a viable contributor to the team, imo). I think the feat chains are neat, and a fair way to get to more powerful feats. I think it should be harder to damage someone with dex than strength. I like all 25 classes, some more than others, but I feel they all fit a nice fantasy niche. I think there SHOULD be some caster versus martial disparity; it makes you feel like you earned it when you're a high level caster and you had to struggle through the low levels to get there. (I don't care what anyone says, wizard 1-4 is pretty boring and you feel almost useless compared to the barbarian who's destroying everything in one hit until you start to get some decent spells.)

I think the developers have done a great job, frankly. It's not perfect, but I don't think a perfect gaming system is possible. You'll always end up with simplicity versus realism, and balance will always be a complaint, even in classless systems. I'm grateful for such an extremely in-depth game, so much of which is available free through OGL that you don't even need to own a single book to play with just about every option thanks to websites like d20pfsrd.

I don't know... I pretty much love PF as it is.


39 people marked this as a favorite.

Everything can be improved. To be complacent is to be obsolete.

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. And it's not so much that Rogue is bad, as it is that the Rogue is the worst at being at the Rogue. Investigator and Slayer are just plain better and even before they came out it been thoroughly trounced in CRB by the Bard (a gap which has only continued to widen, really Bard is hands down *the* skill master class at this point, nothing else comes close) and soon after that Rogue was obsoleted again by the Urban Ranger and Alchemist. And then the Vivisectionist Alchemist. And lets not forget the Seeker Archetype for Sorcerers *and* Oracles. Or Aram-Zey's Focus. Or...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Everything can be improved. To be complacent is to be obsolete.

This.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

A good consumer is a critical one. You avoid many pit falls due to anything silly like brand loyalty which does more damage to relevant parties, both yourself and the company in question.

Silver Crusade

17 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.

Sovereign Court

13 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Scarab Sages

39 people marked this as a favorite.

The people who are happy with the system mostly don't write on the forums about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

I don't see how expecting a CR X to be equally challenging whether it's a Wizard or a Fighter is something I'm emulating in my head. I expect that if the system says the Fighter and Wizard are equal, they should be so. Or they should include information that the classes are not equal, in much the same vain that Commoners, Aristocrats, Experts and Adepts are presented as weaker. Though Adepts would actually clean the Fighter's clock so...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
so much of which is available free through OGL that you don't even need to own a single book to play with just about every option thanks to websites like d20pfsrd....

This.

People on forums only ever complain. I'm sure of you looked up the definition of a forum, that would be there. For the same reason no one ever posts a good review... if they're satisfied, they're quiet and content. But if you feel slighted, real or imaginary, you'd want to voice your opinion and feel validated.

I like Pathfinder. It's a great system written by passionate people who actually give a damn about what their clientele have to say. And if someone doesn't like it, they can homebrew and houserule until they feel content again.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sindakka wrote:
For the same reason no one ever posts a good review

The PFRPG Core Rulebook has 91 5-star reviews on Paizo.com (out of 122 total ratings).

Looks like some people do post good reviews.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The game is fine and I have never seen, a game where the DM goes 100% with the rules of the book. Everybody tweak and customized depending on their needs, make custom monsters, houserules, new magic items...everybody uses the same frame and for what it does, pathfinder is awesome.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Heck considering how limited in scope the vast majority of the complaints are (ie. largely class balance), that's an outstanding achievement. That doesn't mean the issue of class balance doesn't exist and shouldn't be addressed.


I like it as it is, but I find the concept of a 'poor' ruleset to be difficult to define sensibly so I like most games as they are - I just dont want to play many of them.


There's a lot of things I don't like about the system as is, but it's not completely broken as some people say.

But seriously you try finding a game that is in another system. I'm lucky if I can find someone running shadowrun or 5e--everything else I pretty much am forced to run myself if I want to ever play it.

Silver Crusade

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

I like PF as is. Until level 10+ where legacy problems from 3.5 creep in.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It's tough to make a game system that a lot of people will like, everyone has their preferences.

It's also very possible to love a game system and still want to make changes to it.

I loved the old Marvel Super Hero system, yet it had a very bad character generation system I had to house rule to make it playable. Pathfinder is no different in that it is not free of any flaws, yet I still enjoy it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find that the system is going in one specific direction, and that there are a lot of options that players want that aren't happening. Luckily it is an OGL game and there are lots of supplemental materials beyond what Paizo has put out (not all good).

But a big selling point for me is that it is almost universally compatible with 3.5 materials, and thus anything I find I am missing from old games I can simply allow in my games. Illathids? Cool. Beholders? Cool.

I am a sucker for the 3.5 system, but I understand that it is flawed. Could feats be redesigned to not have intensive feat chains? Yeah, easily without compromising any of the other design philosophies proposed by the game.

A big thing that I notice, especially when it comes to the specific kind of crowd who bothers to join internet forums about TTRPGs, is that most of them don't even realize the extent to which they power game and limit themselves. An inherent part of power gaming is to limit your resources and see how much you can get out of it, and so a lot of times you see players and DMs talking about lowering the scope of their games by limiting their resources to their players mainly out of fear. These are the guys who are heralding 5e as the greatest thing ever for its simplicity and balance.

Pathfinder is not balanced, I don't want it to be. Could some classes get more umph to make them more enjoyable? Absolutely. 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.

Also, obligatory point buy is the devil statement.


I like it just the way it is. Gaming is more about being creative and spending time with friends as it is appreciating a particular gaming system. Writing homebrew is fun, but I don't consider that fixing a game.

HOWEVER, I believe that PF is a strong enough system that it is only broken when people that break it. All small cracks are covered without deductible by GMFiat liability insurance. Doughnuts on gravel parking lots are a blast, but eventually your exhaust or some unprotected filter will give out.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Me? I like Pathfinder. I like the way it plays fairly well, and I love the world of Golarion.

But no rules system is perfect, and the more complex it is the more inconsistencies, imbalances, and other problems inevitably creep in. And Pathfinder...Pathfinder is a very complex system. Which means there are problems. So, I House Rule them (I have a long list of such rules) and move on and play the game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I like it as it is. If they made a dragon rider or dragonfire adept class, my life would be complete.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Shhhhhhhh just play you fools!!!!


Just a point...no system will be perfect all the time for all the people. If you try you would get a complete mess or a very small fan base. So the fact that people do complain about various things kinda is (at least to me) a sign that the system is good because it does have a broad fan base.

But you have to deal with people who don't realize others play the game and the game is not written for their sole enjoyment and come here and complain...because you do at times get people who do point out things that can be improved on.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think anyone who would spend his/er time to complain on a game's message board about changes the game should make does in fact like the game.


I agree with everything the OP said. I like pretty much every aspect of Pathfinder they way it is. Of course some things could be improved and made even better, but I don't trust that a revision of the rules would make anything better, so I hope that never happens.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
Everything can be improved. To be complacent is to be obsolete.

You'd be surprised how many people still view ODD, 1e, and 2e to be their favorite versions and play them just like they did 30 years ago. That viewpoint isn't all that common here simply because this board caters to a newer game.

-Skeld


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone like life the way it is all the time. Humans on the internet are negativity monsters. Also threads like, "I really enjoy the grapple rules, thanks!" don't get a ton of traction. Actually, they would, and everyone would assume OP was a troll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowkire wrote:
I think anyone who would spend his/er time to complain on a game's message board about changes the game should make does in fact like the game.

Truth. Criticism of Pathfinder usually isn't meant as some kind of attack against the game and it's developers, but a means of pointing out imperfections in the game so they can be fixed to make an even better game. Where the problem tends to crop up is that everyone has a different idea of what a better game would be.

Which is also why few people are absolutely 100% happy with Pathfinder-as-written. It's made for broad appeal, not catering to a single narrow niche. It's almost never a perfect match for someone's ideal game system, but it usually manages to be close enough for a lot of people. Perfect is probably something that only comes when you custom-build your own game system to cater to your own desires.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I make the best game for my group as I can. If I have to take the wonderful guidelines Paizo publishes and make my own feats or spells or change things for my specific players, then I feel like the system is set up in such a way that I have precedents to guide me and rules to fall back on. The game is everyone's and no-one's, so it's up to each and every GM to decide how they want to run their table, unless they're in PFS. We have fun, we enjoy our play sessions, and 95% of the time we enjoy things as they're written.

RPGs are a hobby, and like with any hobby fiddling with them is half the fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I definitely like the game. I like tinkering with the rules because I like the game, in fact as a GM I consider playing around with the rules part of the game. A fun part.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty happy with it as is. There are things I think could be improved, but overall I love it. I'm not a fan of some issues that have cropped up due to editing or an (apparent) lack of forethought, but yeah, mostly I leave it alone and just house rule the little annoyances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone I have gamed with has had house rules no matter what the system was. Complaining does not mean they don't like the system. It means it isn't perfect for them.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I despise Pathfinder. I can't stand it. It feels me with blind rage. I loathe it with such an intensity that I can almost feel it flowing through my veins, through my organs, and settling in my stomach where it begins the slow hateful process of becoming ulcers.

That, of course, is why I've been here for two years, posted over 2,400 times, and participate in three separate Pathfinder games.

I'M ALMOST ENJOYING MY ANGER.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I think the feat chains are neat, and a fair way to get to more powerful feats.

I could understand everythign else in your post but not this. I have played and DMed in games when the rogue is useful, when low level wizard struggles to survive and etc

I suppose it depends on what you call feat chains. It is a real chain then fine, but it is a chain filled with silly prerequisites then no, because I have never seen someone say something like "damn man, having to take combat expertise a feat I never ever plan to use in order to later take improved trip is makign the game much more fun for me!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At this point I own at least $400 worth of pathfinder books. I think it's safe to say that I like the game. I like the stats they come up with for things. I like the classes they design. I like their ideas. Their rules I tend to like overall, but I'm willing to change what I feel like needs changed myself.

I don't expect anyone else to cater specifically to my preferences, and I intend to keep buying ideas and rules both from pathfinder.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the game the way it is. Especially after I've house ruled it to next Tuesday. : )

Seriously, everybody has their beeves with the system--or any system. My set of beeves won't be the same as Anzyr's set, or Ravingdork's set, or TOZ's set, or the OP's set--and that's great! It means the game appeals broadly enough that it stays relevant. Gamists, storytellers, optimizers and folks who can't even be bothered to fill out their sheets. I've played Pathfinder with all of these folks and had a great time doing so.

But let's face it--we're playing one of the pastimes traditionally associated with social oddballs. It's not terribly surprising that we butt heads, misinterpret each other, and so on. On top of that, it's a message board--a medium that we've all seen reward the loudest, most obnoxious voices with the most attention. Given that, you're going to see a higher percentage of inflammatory posts about the poster's raison d'être du jour (why yes, my French is terrible) than you'd see in, say, an in-person gathering of accomplished diplomats over tea and scones. Little things look like big things, and disagreement is seen as head-on attack. It's frustrating, which only encourages responding in kind.

But at the end of the day, we're still here, posting on this board, aren't we? That convinces me that the vast majority of us still love Pathfinder, subjective warts and all. Otherwise, we'd be griping on Steve Jackson's or White Wolf's forums instead.


I really like it. I just wish we could get some more clarifying on some of the holes in the rules.


chaoseffect wrote:

I despise Pathfinder. I can't stand it. It feels me with blind rage. I loathe it with such an intensity that I can almost feel it flowing through my veins, through my organs, and settling in my stomach where it begins the slow hateful process of becoming ulcers.

That, of course, is why I've been here for two years, posted over 2,400 times, and participate in three separate Pathfinder games.

I'M ALMOST ENJOYING MY ANGER.

I gotta say, your avatar is just perfect for that post. x D


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There is one solid rule of message boards on the internet:

There are FAR MORE complaints on them than anything else. Why? Those who are satisfied are not motivated to go to a message board and complain.

Do NOT use the boards as a measure of the average gamers opinion on anything with the game IMO.

I for one love Pathfinder. But every group I have played in for 35 years now has had table rules of some sort. EVERY group. Some were super minor. Some were massive.

I think overall people like the game. If they don't they usually find another system or rewrite it themselves for their home use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Seems to me a LOT of people complain about the system as it is. Complaints about not enough dex-to-damage options just up your strength if you really want to melee THAT badly

This stinks of badwrongfun right here... because following your train of logic, then everyone should just be greatsword wielding muscle heads who power attack...

/endrant

Personally I love pathfinder, especially their goblins! Easily the best race ever lol


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No. I'm pretty sure everyone has some problem with the system, including you. I find it hard to believe you like every single piece of the game and have no complaints at all about any portion of it.

This is a good thing. It prevents the forum from being nothing but a circlejerk.


Nope, don't like it as it is. They've put out some very poorly constructed mechanics, and we are at the "bloat" stage, and they seem to be putting out worse mechanics.

But I still LIKE PF, just not as it is, and the amount of time I'm starting to have to spend with each splat book "fixing" the issues is getting wearisome. I will likely cut off all material post ACG just because its becoming a cluster....bomb.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

No. I'm pretty sure everyone has some problem with the system, including you. I find it hard to believe you like every single piece of the game and have no complaints at all about any portion of it.

This is a good thing. It prevents the forum from being nothing but a circlejerk.

One need not like every detail of a system to like the system as-is any more than one must like everything about a friend to like that friend the way he or she is.

And, frankly, the way the forums have been going lately, we could use a little more circle and a little less jerk.


blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

No. I'm pretty sure everyone has some problem with the system, including you. I find it hard to believe you like every single piece of the game and have no complaints at all about any portion of it.

This is a good thing. It prevents the forum from being nothing but a circlejerk.

One need not like every detail of a system to like the system as-is any more than one must like everything about a friend to like that friend the way he or she is.

And, frankly, the way the forums have been going lately, we could use a little more circle and a little less jerk.

From what the OP said it seemed like he was saying "without any changes". Hopefully he comes back and clarifies if that is what he meant.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love Pathfinder. But I still house rule.

Every group has its different needs and preferences for what they want out of this game. It would be impossible to meet them all. Thus most people have house rules.

Some folks on the boards just think their house rules are so important everyone else should use them too, so they ask for change. They may be right for all we know, so it never hurts to listen.

The problem only really becomes an issue when the same people pop up constantly calling for their "fixes" to become core, even when others don't agree with their issue.

If you check the threads with complaints about the game enough, you'll see it's the same folks making them over and over again. This seems to create an image of people not liking it more than is probably true. It's called selective bias.

There's a thread here somewhere asking if people want a new edition, which would address these issues presumably. The overwhelming consensus in that thread was no, leave the game as is.

Cheers


3 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

No. I'm pretty sure everyone has some problem with the system, including you. I find it hard to believe you like every single piece of the game and have no complaints at all about any portion of it.

This is a good thing. It prevents the forum from being nothing but a circlejerk.

One need not like every detail of a system to like the system as-is any more than one must like everything about a friend to like that friend the way he or she is.

And, frankly, the way the forums have been going lately, we could use a little more circle and a little less jerk.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder allows for many homebrew rules to fit seamlessly (At least from my experience) and I've enjoyed that to the full teat.

That said... I'm not much of an online guy because of the negativity sinkhole the net provides for fans of pretty much anything.

So to answer the OP question- YES I freaking love pathfinder as it is. It is a version of the oldest RPG game that has been clearly written buy fans for fans, and it deserves more credit than it gets on it's own website forums.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've made extensive changes to PF for my home game, but in PFS, I enjoy the certainty that the game will be played according to predictable rules.

There's lots of things in PF that could be improved; some of them I think are structural defects, others are matters of taste. But that doesn't mean I think PF is a bad game; it's a very strong framework on which to build. Most of it hangs together well, which makes it possible to identify the parts that are less functional.

Also, I just enjoy tinkering with game systems. I've tried (but failed; it was just too hard) to write revised hacking mechanics for Shadowrun, and written most of a cleaned-up ruleset for Old World of Darkness Vampire. I've also written a streamlined merger of 2.5 and 3.0 D&D.

What I've learned is that game design is an iterative process; you notice a problem, you try a fix, and then you need to change your fix again because it still doesn't work right. All the while other players are getting annoying because they feel you're not listening enough to their input or because they're just getting tired of the constant changes.

Now imagine how that must be like for Paizo.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Seems to me a LOT of people complain about the system as it is. Complaints about not enough dex-to-damage options just up your strength if you really want to melee THAT badly or that certain classes are vastly underpowered compared to others don't play said class

"Don't play the character you want to play" isn't really going to get much traction as a solution to issues some folks have with the system.

That said, I've got really high hopes for Pathfinder Unchained.


I agree that there are some in the 'fan' base that tend to be rather venomous in their opinions regarding the system as a whole, but more so since the release of the ACG. I don't count myself among them and consider the system as it is outstanding.

But I agree that a fan base that isn't vocal dooms a product like pathfinder to stagnate and die out. So sometimes house rules and complaints are needed, as long as they aren't geared towards pure power gaming imo.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I really like Pathfinder, and I don't houserule. Keep in mind, the boards can really be an echo chamber, so don't consider the boards as any kind of real snapshot of the attitude of the general gaming populace or the feelings of the game developers. In general I think the best thing to do is just ignore the discussions that don't interest you.

1 to 50 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