All of these complaints sound crazy to me.
*lots of etceteras*
I'm so bored that I'll bite on the obvious trolling. So you get on a thread that's made specifically for others to state the things they don't like about a product just to try to denigrate the posters from the height of your moral high horse? Gee, you must feel like a great man now. Congratulations lmao.
|
Only one real complaint. It dropped the package it was sent in on my foot and it broke my toe. I'm not kidding. I hate pdf copies of things, but this book is just down right toe unfriendly.So, your Pathfinder Book has brought you the "Agony of De-feet"?
I just read that being human I get a free feet, so I guess I'll limp around until Paizo sends that out to me.
Other more game related complaint - it's the game I WANT to DM, meaning hours/days of my life will be lost to this darn thing!
S.
None of these complaints make any sense to me. I've heard all the arguments, no need to repeat them. All I end up seeing when I read it is "I don't know how to play well with other people"Seriously.
I am in awe of the galactic mind-blowing perspective it must take to seriously complain that a 200 pound barbarian only has a 20% chance to bull rush a 12,000 pound Storm Giant.
Or that a rogue might experience some difficulty tumbling through an 20 square foot area filled with a sentient roaring inferno of pure elemental fire.whatever.
Well you know what doesn't make sense to me? That someone can, jsut by being angry, go from average strength (Strength 10) to the equiivlent of a light-weight boxing champion (Strength 14). What doesn't make sense is that simply by wiggiling fingers and speaking phrases, someone is able to throw a fireball. Fantasy doesn't make sense in general, why should your 200lb barbarian be limited needlessly? (Expecially since the same barbarian could still be only 200lbs at 40th level, but yet somehow stand a far better chance of bull rushing the giant then).
And I don't see what's wrong with rouges tumbeling underneaht large foes. In fact, it's quite an iconic image to see a rogue slide under a large enemy to strike a vital spot underneath.
You think some complaints here might not make sense? Fair enough, I think the same for some, though some make plenty of sense to me. What I don't think make's sense is the people who act like this game in perfect, and the writers infallable. No game is ever going to be perfect. Even if a game this size suits someone, theres always going to be somthing that they don't like.
Don't act annoyed simply because others are saying what they personally don't like in the thread for people to explain what they don't like.
|
2 things really get me at first glance: Clerics losing heavy armor proficiency and the degree of nerfing of the Spiked Chain. They're some of the very few places where Pathfinder is a step back, a dialing down and regression from what 3.5 offered. I've gone off on tirades about dropping the armor proficiency before, but major problem is that it's changing something that has been constant for Clerics for the literal entirety of D&D. You go back to the original D&D books, I mean alllllll they way back to the 1973 release of Volume 1: Men and Magic and it gives Clerics full access to armor. That's something that hadn't changed in the 36 years of the game... until now, and I just really still do not get why. Clerics needed nerfing, but the problem has been the spells that Clerics could cast, not their class features. Nerf those, not the class! Changing something that's been true for the literal entirety of table-top roleplaying because "well, in other fantasy there's no archetype of the armored priest" strikes me as either arrogant or misguided. Fantasy doesn't have this tradition so I'm making the decision to drop it. 36 years of unchanging D&D tradition isn't enough? (And to make things worse, it's not even a domain power for the War domain. Yes, I can certainly see Clerics of Gorum and other War gods running out into the middle of battle in breastplates.)
On a similar theme, my other big problem is how badly the Spiked Chain got nerfed. It needed nerfing, no doubt. Any DM who's had a player that wanted a half-ogre or goliath spiked chain wielder can attest to that. (The problem, as I saw it, was the Reach + can attack adjacent opponents - so why not just get rid of that part?) Now you have to spend a feat for a mechanically unimpressive weapon. Why spend a feat for a flavor change? A Ranseur has a better critical, and Disarm, and Reach. And if you're mainly picking up the Chain for Trip attacks, then why not a Guisarme? Reach, x3 crit, and Trip.
Even from a pure numerical analysis the Spiked Chain is now a loser of a weapon. A heavy flail uses has 1d10 damage, a 19-20/x2 crit, and both disarm and trip. I'm expecting a combat-focused character to expend a feat for an exotic weapon proficiency to get the exact same abilities of the flail but less average damage and a lesser threat range?
Anyway, my big problems with Pathfinder are not the things that were nerfed, but to the pointless, needless degree that they were.
|
|
I am split on alot of things. Some of the changes I like alot, and some of the changes I am trying to get my group to houserule. One big thing I don't like it the change to channeling energy. I can deal with having to take a feat to turn, since it is no longer the turn undead ability, but positive energy is positive enerby, and positive energy has a certain effect on creatures, be they living or dead. I don't understand the reasoning for having to choose healing the living or hurting undead when you channel. I guess they did not want it to be overpowered, but it has worked fine in our game. I also don't like the loss of heavy armor for clerics, the entire bard class, and a few of the feat changes. All in all though, I am very happy with Pathfinder. The changes are new right now. After playing with them for a while, I'll get used to them and they will bother me less and less. Oh yeah, and I have to be sitting at a table to read the book. Otherwise my arms start to hurt. I guess thats a good thing though.
|
|
One big thing I don't like it the change to channeling energy. I can deal with having to take a feat to turn, since it is no longer the turn undead ability, but positive energy is positive energy, and positive energy has a certain effect on creatures, be they living or dead. I don't understand the reasoning for having to choose healing the living or hurting undead when you channel. I guess they did not want it to be overpowered, but it has worked fine in our game.
That's another thing that bugs me. Thanks for reminding me. 3 big problems with Pathfinder IMO. Of course others don't see the problem, but... *shrugs*
...I mean alllllll they way back to the 1973 release of Volume 1: Men and Magic and it gives Clerics full access to armor. That's something that hadn't changed in the 36 years of the game... until now, and I just really still do not get why. Clerics needed nerfing, but the problem has been the spells that Clerics could cast, not their class features...
Almost. They lost it in 4E a little over a year ago. Of course, 4E did away with everything iconic about DND.
I'm hesitent about the chaneling change. I think with being able to crit and sneak attack undead, they are going to wind up as one of the weakest creature types out there. To me, healing the party and hurting the nasty zombie in range just makes sense, the way it is now really doesn't. It makes sense balance wise, as I think parties would be burning through hordes of undead otherwise.
When I look at the new bestiary and see how undead work I'll voice my fully informed opinion. Until then, I'm running the game as is and only houserulling things that specificly come up in game and cause problems. Things not working in theory are completely different than things not working in actual game play.
Hopefully undead get a major boost in the amount of hitpoints they get. Maybe this has been covered somewhere else on the boards...I don't get the opportunity to read here as much as I'd like. But 1d12 per level with no bonus is a joke.
Otherwise, the only thing that really pops right out at me so far is some of the rage powers. Raging swim and raging climb...I'm sorry, these are lame. I really wish there was more quality in the barbarian rage powers. I was working up some stat blocks for possible bad guys in a game I'm running, and had a hell of a time picking powers for low level barbarians. +1 to one attack while raging? Sorry...not very helpful. It'll work for PCs, cuz it scales...but for badguys...just doesn't feel like it's enough.
Overall I thought Jason and company did an amazing job, and I love the game. A few things that were saved in the spirit of "backwards compatability" should have been changed, in my opinion, though I can see the reason for wanting it easily convertable. I really wish some improvements to the magic system would have been made though. Basically the pathfinder rules with arcana evolved magic would have been as close to perfect as anyone could ever want.
That I still DO NOT OWN IT!!!!
Here is my "short list" of dislikes. Note, while I may feel strongly about them, they are all - individually - very minor things.
EDIT:: Forgot to mention Barbarians.
And this helps the format a little.
- Half-orcs were adopted by humans. They lost their heritage, and are more like the poor cousin than a race all their own. They became the Klingons of the D&D world...
- Barbarians lost Rage Points. This forced a weird and clunky "times per rage" mechanic into the Rage Powers.
- Clerics. Because of CoDzilla, they got caught in a nerf crossfire. This nerfing from all directions was done with little double checking afterwards to make sure the nerfing didn't go too far when taken as a whole. This includes:
- Clerics losing heavy armor proficiency.
- Overpowered spells getting reworked and reworded - damn near to the point of making the spells worthless by themselves.
- Domains are, at best, poorly worded, and at worst flat out crappy. It is pretty clear that this area was rushed. Prime Pet Peeve: Magic domain. At 8th level the cleric gets a targeted dispel magic as a touch attack. Three levels after the domain grants the dispel magic spell (not to mention that Clerics get the spell on their general list at the same time as the domain gets it as a spell), the Cleric gets a watered down and gimped version once a day. Had it been greater dispel magic it would have made sense.
- Sorcerer bloodlines that grant claws now have the use of claws limited to a number of rounds per day.
- The Heavy Mace is still stuck back in second edition when most Clerics could only use bludgeoning weapons. The Morningstar is a clearly superior weapon with out giving up anything.
- The Spiked Chain was caught in a nerf crossfire as well.
- The exotic weapon group is still the red headed step child of the weapon groups. A hand crossbow is still 50 daggers you should have bought instead.
- The rule about casting range touch attack spells when threatened adds in a clunky, corner case rule of the kind that Pathfinder was supposed to be fixing.
And there are probably more that I will notice as I see how the little details interact with each other.
Exotic weapons would have to be my one clear complaint. They are just not worth a feat. 4e did a decent, but mostly boring, job with exotic weapons. Exotics weapons seemed like a relatively easy fix from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
I was hoping for Prestige Classes to die a horrible death to be replaced by class ability choices. You can't win 'em all. <3 Pathfinder <3
Well the breaking down of save or die. I know alot of people hated them, but I have to admit it lent a certain excitment to the game. It made players alot more cautious in battle when fighting an enemy had access to such an effect. Since you no longer lose a level if you are resuurected from the dead I think it should still remain. Personally Im going to keep it as 3.5.
I kind of agree with you. As a DM, I always was very unsure about adding an NPC with these spells at their disposal. I guess I don't have that problem anymore. It's just, I guess I kind of feel like some of the bite has been taken out of the spell list after this. I feel a little less "hard core" if you know what I mean.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to label it as "whining" when someone posts what they dont like about Pathfinder in a thread entitled "What do you not like about Pathfinder?" I'm glad you think it's perfect, but some people dont. Personally, I like hearing from them too and this does seem like a reasonable place to post their perspective, don't you think?
|
So far, everything that Disciple of Sakura, Disenchanter, and Thurgon wrote, plus. Magic is pretty da*n unusable in combat. Every change to magic, but a few specific spell nerfs, has really messed up magic. Cleric and Mage bosses are a joke, unless the GM gives them 5 or so rounds of prebuffs. Magic is not very "magical", and like the SoD spells mentioned earlier, not even fun or flavorful now.
Rogues are to good. Either drop the skills to 2+ Int or get rid of the Sneak Attack vs everthing again.
Paladins are way way to good. Not even comparred to all other classes, but just the Fighter and Barbarian.
Step Up.
All in all I am not pleased. I may be taking a few things and importing them into 3.5, but Pathfinder is a system that is just not usable, literally, for my main groups.
|
|
I still HATE the skill rank system. If it's a class skill you automatically are maxed in it if you take a "rank"?
I like the original system better...which I plan to keep using.
We should be allowed to "dabble" if we choose to.
Too many skills were consolidated together as well.
I don't really care for that fact that a half-orc can now get a +2 to CHA.
Proficiency with the Falchion and Greataxe I also hate.
Why would they do away with the -2 INT and -2 CHA stereotype (that half-orcs are dumb and ugly) and add another stereotype that all half-orcs know how to use big weapons!!??
I am not thrilled with skill focus adding ANOTHER +3 at 10th level. Whats the point?
I'm still on the fence about what they did to the prestige classes saves.
DR was the absolute worst change in 3.5 and now we are once again stuck with it. A variant to DR sidebar would have been nice. Maybe in the Beastiary?
|
|
In general I like the skill system, it is the skills themselves I'm not a fan of. Fly. How many times was that requested to be removed? While it seems that there are a lot less skills, there really are not. I kind of wish they ywould have gotten rid of more, but made them more useful over all (outside of being a Rogue who is really one of the only ones that get a big benefit).
Stuff....
You really should go and post in other forums if your going to just try and insult people for their opinion, unless your trying to start a flame war.
There is a forum for the things you like that Pathfinder did, go hang out there please.
Magic is pretty da*n unusable in combat. Every change to magic, but a few specific spell nerfs, has really messed up magic.
I'm kind of nervous about this one myself. I'm hoping that they didn't go overboard on this and nerf all of the good spells just because they were good. I'd have rather they made the bad spells better.
Cleric and Mage bosses are a joke, unless the GM gives them 5 or so rounds of prebuffs.
Evil clerics seem like they would be the new kings of enemy boss class. Being able to channel negative energy on the party would really widdle you down pretty quick. Although if you have a cleric, it'd probably cancel each other out.
|
I dislike the change to the CMD because I was looking forward to a good, working mechanic. Right now, I'm not sure it works. If playtesting proves otherwise, I will be happy.
Edit: To clarify, I do not like that the design goal of combat maneuvers was to relegate them to desparate times or assured success. I do not like the 3.5 paradigm of melee characters 5-foot step/auto-attack combo. I want viable options other than weapon attacks to spice up the battles in my game.
|
|
That is the thing though. Wizards were not overpowered in 3.5, or 3.0. Specific spells were, or rather could be. The truth is, those spells are not so broken as the other options just are not good enough. This is pretty true for all casters. The classes themselves are pretty weak and did not offer much in the way of either class features or difference from most other versions of that class.
Most people never had any trouble with Polimorph, but it is understandible that some few did, so it is not a huge change. Changing most of the non direct damage dealing spells to damage dealing spells though, is a completely different story, and there is no good reason for it, from my perspective.
The other side of the coin is, Pathfinder went a long way to suping up the noncaster classes. That is arguable that it needed any change. In the groups I play in, Rogue has always been the single most powerful/broken/diverse class, and not only needed nothing, needed a step down. Fighters also had strengths and weaknesses, but are not, at any level weaker.
I also don't like the idea that they are trying to get away from classes being able to fill in roles for other classes. Again, I do not often play with four players, so the crossover was somethng we needed to be able to play. A Cleric could sub as a tank, a wizard could sub as a party buffer, a Bard could sub as either a healer or a tank. So far, it really seems a lot less possible with Pathfinder.
Channel Energy, how to say, is incredibly weak. Outside of healing, (yah we want Clerics with even more healing, right so we can push the class right back into the band aid role), is particularly useless. Offensively, it deals minimal damage, because the DC is almost always going to be way to low against a unanimously high save. Negative Energy channeling offensively is sleightly better, but still, you are effectivly looking at a 5d6 20th level power. To use offensively, you really need to delve right into the middle of a fight, which is now extremely dangerous for the Cleric that is not a melee guy any more.
It's a whole new aspect of the Edition war, for me anyway.
Well I'm not one who dislikes pathfinder, quite the contrary.
And there really aren't any parts in the book that I do not like, but rather wish more thought or perhaps time were put into certain aspects of the rules.
From a GM standpoint, I've read quite thoroughly Chapter 13 on environments over the last few evenings, and overall I find the chapter quite confusing. That is not to say that the 3.5 DMG content wasn't any better, but I really don't see an improvement.
I bring it up because this particular chapter has the potential to really liven up encounters, in addition to monsters. There is a lot o good stuff in the chapter, but it is difficult to navigate through it for quick reference during play.
I think I would have rather liked all the charts in the chapter clustered together in the chapter, or maybe added in the appendices. I also feel that a lot of the rules "hidden" within the text could have been better referenced as tables as well: for instance, under Sleet it says that it has the same effect as Rain while falling and Snow once on the ground. Rain, in turn, says that it has the same effect as Severe Wind for perception checks. It would be nice to have a chart that references all of these to make flvoring encounters with these dynamics relatively simple.
I may attempt to make my own charts. In defense of the Jason, though, it does seem that it is a hard chapter to write.
I bet the new GM screen will take care of that for you...knowing how Paizo does things - very, very well - after all they actually read these boards and take them into account...
If only Paizo were running for President...
One issue is the CMB/CMD mechanic. CMB is fine - a great way to deal with these types of things (maneuvers/special attacks and such) but the CMD makes it almost impossible to ever actually use it effectively unless your fighting a total weakling (compared to yourself). CMD NEEDS to be fixed.
My second issue is Overrun - not knocking the guy down? Seems odd to me but I am not sure it's broken all by itself; taking CMD into account it is broken (since actually successfully making the Overrun is hard enough let alone beating the DC by 5 or more...)
One issue I see here with the posts is the complaint about Clerics and Heavy Armor. Yes - its been that way since the start but that does not make it right.
A Cleric of a love goddess gets heavy armor? Or a God of farming? The buff masters get the bonus of making out AC without a single spell being cast...what exactly is it in Clerical school that would get one ready for heavy armor?
I have not read the domain section of the cleric fully as of yet but perhaps associating Heavy Armor proficiency with certain Domains would be an answer - such as War or Destruction.
I'm not sure if that was sarcastic or not? On more than one level, too.
Nope - not sarcastic - sorry if it got taken that way.
I meant that Paizo is very thorough with Pathfinder and things that are pointed out as issues are addressed (if enough people talk about it and its actually possible).
By the president thing I meant that Paizo listens to its constituents...
|
|
I can't believe it. They gave channel energy to actually liberate clerics from turning their SPELLS into healing, and that's not good enough? 10d6 in an area (you can heal the whole group with it) at 20th level is not enough healing (or damage)? And the cleric is no longer a "melee guy" because they took away heavy armor proficiency? They didn't take away the d8 and the 3/4ths BAB progression now, did they?
Channel Energy, how to say, is incredibly weak. Outside of healing, (yah we want Clerics with even more healing, right so we can push the class right back into the band aid role), is particularly useless. Offensively, it deals minimal damage, because the DC is almost always going to be way to low against a unanimously high save. Negative Energy channeling offensively is sleightly better, but still, you are effectivly looking at a 5d6 20th level power. To use offensively, you really need to delve right into the middle of a fight, which is now extremely dangerous for...
That's true, they didn't lose that stuff, but it does not play the same. Between upping the other classes HP, granting the rogue more combat ability, and other little things like that, it is mandatory that monsters deal more damage. Now, there is just one more person in need of healing.
Look at Undead. To counter the fact that they can be sneak attacked, they got more HP, better BAB, and deal more damage. That means they are more deadly to the Cleric, but Rogues, Wizards, Sorcerers, Paladins, and Fighters all got a bit stronger towards them. Add in the fact of Crits as well, Barbarians, Rangers, Rogues, and Fighters really come out strong here. Channel energy against undead averages at about 1 damage per 2 cleric levels. Sorry, it's not impressive, except in reinforcing the heal only cleric. Sure they have other spells now, but one, they actually lost spell per day, and two many of their spells are pretty weak, or likely must be prepaired multiple times now because they don't do their full job anymore or just outright fail.
I'm not crazy about death spells doing damage. I know people don't like dying because of one failed save and that is understandable. I was thinking of housing death spells to do continual damage until the save is made. Slay Living used to kill you. Now it does 12d6+1/CL. Not bad when you can start casting it at 9th level but ends up getting weaker as you level up. Flame Strike is about as good at 9th level and way better at higher levels. Plus, straight damage eliminates the flavor. Makes it feel like another type of energy damage. Death spells will be scary again if you know another 12d6 is coming if you don't save next time. It would also allow your friends to try to help save you if they know what is happening. "Hey, thanks for that Death Ward. I really needed that."
I almost want something like in Japanese RPG's. Death spell starts a countdown, and if it's not countered in a certain amount of time, poof, you die. Say, 1 minute? Gives you just enough time to finish the fight and get a death ward put up.
Hey All
I am starting this thread for those who do not like Pathfinder and want to comment about what they dislike. I am starting a similar thread about stuff they do like. Please keep it civil.
I dislike how they made it with such skill and inspiration that I can't find anything to dislike about it.
|
|
That is not a bad idea, but that might be to long. Most combats last 2 to 3 rounds, so maybe 5 rounds max. This would also mass combats are even more deadly, as they last much much longe.
Maybe a mechanic like every other round, you must save and take a cumulative penulty until you either die or roll a nat 20, or save 5 times in a row, or something like that. One failure might make you exhausted, and the second kills you.
Think about it, and be honest with yourself. Are you annoyed at the changes because you liked the class? That's perfectly fine, but that does not MEAN that the changes were not needed. I like wizards. They were more powerful in 3.5. Now they are less. Am I going to say I dislike Pathfinder because of it? No. It was a needed change. And the same thing could be said for ALL the changes in the final version of PF. Easy as that.
Well for myself, I have never played a character or even been in a game that anyone used the spiked chain. That doesn't mean I can't examine how it has been nerfed and express bewilderment at it. That also doesn't mean I can't feel I should point out how it is now inferior to the heavy flail. Of course now that I pointed out that I have never used it, the counter is "If you never use it, why do you care?" The answer, because it is a irrational change made to satisfy haters of the spiked chain. Because I am not a hater or lover of it, I can objectively recognize this, of course the haters can't believe that.
One issue I see here with the posts is the complaint about Clerics and Heavy Armor. Yes - its been that way since the start but that does not make it right.
A Cleric of a love goddess gets heavy armor? Or a God of farming? The buff masters get the bonus of making out AC without a single spell being cast...what exactly is it in Clerical school that would get one ready for heavy armor?
I don't quite understand that argument. Why take it away from all clerics just because some clerics might not use it? It is not like having the ability to wear heavy armor without penalty is forcing them to do so. If a cleric believes his deity wants him to run around in nothing but a thong, having armor proficiencies can't keep him from running around in a thong.
What I hate most about the PFRPG are the fans who have apparently taken far too many ranks in Perform (Hyperbole). You know who you are.
Word.
Also, haven't we been over the whole cleric and heavy armor thing already? You have more feats now, use one of them on heavy armor proficiency = done, you can still wear heavy armor. Don't compare the finished book to the Beta book (i.e. unfinished rules). Compare it to 3.5.
|
|
Also, haven't we been over the whole cleric and heavy armor thing already? You have more feats now, use one of them on heavy armor proficiency = done, you can still wear heavy armor.
Ya, it was mostly a "Wha, wha what!!! Why would you do that" on one side and a lot of "HA ha, you don't like it, but deal anyway" on the other and still not a single good reason for it. It's pretty amazing though that that is still comming up.
|
|
Clerics losing heavy armor proficiency
Its only one feat you have to take for heavens sake and I think the breastplate is more than enough PLATE for an iconic cleric. Its also a good balancing option having them stick with medium. medium armors have been ignored for the most part in favor of heavy or light/none. now you have a class that is less agile and more inclined to use medium. Even if you dont take the heavy armor proficiency feat you can always wait till you 1 level dip into fighter or wear the heavy and suffer the penalties.
I don't quite understand that argument. Why take it away from all clerics just because some clerics might not use it? It is not like having the ability to wear heavy armor without penalty is forcing them to do so. If a cleric believes his deity wants him to run around in nothing but a thong, having armor proficiencies can't keep him from running around in a thong.One issue I see here with the posts is the complaint about Clerics and Heavy Armor. Yes - its been that way since the start but that does not make it right.
A Cleric of a love goddess gets heavy armor? Or a God of farming? The buff masters get the bonus of making out AC without a single spell being cast...what exactly is it in Clerical school that would get one ready for heavy armor?
It would be the same as taking heavy armor away from fighters because one built on dex will stay away from it for a long time, or a paladin looking for mobility going with a chain shirt should mean all paladins don't need heavy armor. Weak arguement made to defend the undefendable.