What is the worst thing about Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

951 to 1,000 of 1,173 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Agreed.

Weapon damage should scale by level. Just look at MMORPG's out there, which live and die by math. All Weapons scale by level, in addition to magic and stat buffs.

So something like Superior Unarmed Strike for Weapons should actually be part of the game.

Exotic Weapon should be something you can apply to ANY weapon. Exotic Prof (longsword) should have a tangible benefit above and beyond being a Martial Weapon.

4E made martial weapons give a flat +2 to hit, reflecting that they were weapons idealized for war. Monte Cook made Dire and Agile weapons. Exotic weapons should basically go away unless they are really strange, or they represent extra training in another weapon that is actually beneficial.

As for attacks...attacks should be a class ability, nto a BAB ability. But, if you're going to start balancing melee, you need to do serious balance with spellcasters...that hasn't happened yet, either.

===Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Yeah, I REALLY miss the spiked chain. It was nerfed to uselessness. They fixed the trip combat maneuver and that is all that was needed.

Agreed. My first character was a spiked chain monk. :)


Aelryinth wrote:

Agreed.

Weapon damage should scale by level. Just look at MMORPG's out there, which live and die by math. All Weapons scale by level, in addition to magic and stat buffs.

So something like Superior Unarmed Strike for Weapons should actually be part of the game.

Exotic Weapon should be something you can apply to ANY weapon. Exotic Prof (longsword) should have a tangible benefit above and beyond being a Martial Weapon.

4E made martial weapons give a flat +2 to hit, reflecting that they were weapons idealized for war. Monte Cook made Dire and Agile weapons. Exotic weapons should basically go away unless they are really strange, or they represent extra training in another weapon that is actually beneficial.

As for attacks...attacks should be a class ability, nto a BAB ability. But, if you're going to start balancing melee, you need to do serious balance with spellcasters...that hasn't happened yet, either.

===Aelryinth

The idea in 4e is to brutally chop away at the hundreds and hundreds of modifiers you saw in 3e. I mean, your Pathfinder fighter has a strength bonus modifier, five or six different feat bonus modifiers, an enhancement bonus to attack and damage, magical effects on their weapon for more damage, and most likely a multitude of buffs all going on at once. It leads to a simple +1 to damage not really being a whole lot, in the end. It's also why Vital Strike isn't all that great - at the end of the day, your weapon damage doesn't mean much. It also leads to the d20 not being that important due to how much higher attack bonuses scale over armor class.

So that's why exotic weapons tend not to be worth it. A +1 to damage is hard to notice. A +.5 to damage is even harder to notice.

In 4e, fighter powers do weapon damage. So a low level attack power does 1[W] and a very high level does 7[W]. Modifiers are far fewer, and are added on only once rather then multiple times from iterative attacks.

So, you have simple weapons, you have martial weapons, and you have superior (not exotic) weapons. Superior weapons are also typically more then just +1 damage - they give Reach, or they count as more then one type of weapon, or they give you a better attack bonus, etc, etc.

I think Pathfinder should learn that lesson from 4e: take a sharp, bloody axe to the modifiers. Unfortunately, the best way to do this is also the least backwards compatable - to solve the twin problems of AC uselessness...and the nightmare that is iterative attacks.

Unfortuantely, this only solves the first "hypothetical" involved in catagorizing an exotic weapon - the idea that they're "better" then non-exotic, when usually the actual difference is miniscule. The other two assumptions, typically untrue - that non-western weapons somehow require specialized training, and that a repeating crossbow is somehow more difficult to use then a longbow - can't be fixed, unless we're using veterinarian terms. And really, just ripping those out altogether is for the best.

One of the problems is that there's just such a huge number of items that are all so rediculously similar. I blame the original D&D for that, with it's thirty charts of completely samey polearms. It leads to weirdness such as "my character has fifty feats that all make him the indisputable master at using a longsword, but as soon as he holds a Slightly Longer Sword he is utterly useless.


If I ever have time to sit down and really codify my vision for the game I'm pretty convinced that I would eliminate the divisions between simple, martial and exotic weapons.

That way I could eliminate the relatively pointless tiers within the weapon rules (is the longsword really that much better than the mace for instance).

Classes would get proficiencies based upon weapon groups (light blades, heavy blades, etc).

I'd also like to fix the discrepancies between the crit values. When most damage isn't based upon base weapon damage having 3 different crit rates (more if you factor in keen/imp crit) is a pretty poor design.

Finesse effects would be a function of specific weapons or weapon groups and wouldn't require the use of a feat to use.


memorax wrote:
As the thread says what do you think are the bad elements of Pathfinder. Please keep the topic civil.

Well, in a RAW scenario, I find the experience progressions (even the slow on) to be too fast for my taste. I've been cutting the experience gained per encounter in half to compensate and it seems to be working out better.

Other than that, the system seems to work fabulously. I find myself satisfied with the class progression and changes from 3.5 and really hope they don't go changing the system for at least 8 years.


LadyWurm wrote:

As others are saying, exotic weapons do need a serious overhaul. Honestly, I find the entire proficiency/BAB system itself far too ubiquitous.

I would like to see a warrior's proficiency with weapons and a spellcaster's proficiency with various types of spells broken down a lot more, personally.

I'm on the fence about exotic weapons. As it stands I agree that they are practically not worth using compared to the handful of great martial weapons, but if they were made SIGNIFICANTLY better there'd be no reason NOT to take them. In my 3.X groups, probably about half to three quarters of the "fighters" (or shall we just say full BAB classes...) used the spiked chain for its sheer ability to be awesome. In PFRPG though, fighter is a stronger base class than in its predecessor and along with the power bump there are more feats for everybody, so in a non-optimizing group a fighter spending one of his many feats on a flavorful weapon option isn't going to cause a significant lag in power. I was always more of a fan of Unearthed Arcana's weapon group variant anyway.

vuron wrote:

If I ever have time to sit down and really codify my vision for the game I'm pretty convinced that I would eliminate the divisions between simple, martial and exotic weapons.

That way I could eliminate the relatively pointless tiers within the weapon rules (is the longsword really that much better than the mace for instance).

Classes would get proficiencies based upon weapon groups (light blades, heavy blades, etc).

I'd also like to fix the discrepancies between the crit values. When most damage isn't based upon base weapon damage having 3 different crit rates (more if you factor in keen/imp crit) is a pretty poor design.

Finesse effects would be a function of specific weapons or weapon groups and wouldn't require the use of a feat to use.

Yes, yes, double yes times infinity on the citical multiplier and range discrepencies. I grow weary of people using the falchion with improved critical simply to multiply their vast amounts of damage boosts from feats on a regular basis.

Honestly past low level the base weapon damage die roll barely matters. At level 10, my very non-optimized halfling monk/cleric is still putting out 50 to 100 damage a round with a quarterstaff (depends on if the bane goes off and what buffs our bard has thrown out) and single handily takes out Bebilith and other midling demons with ease. And lets just say it isn't from the D4's. Imagine what that would come out to with either a keen or improved critical temple sword?

I'd like to see criticals more balanced between weapons and make weapon dice count for far more than they do now, perhaps giving extra weapon diced based on BAB or level but not multiplying the damage modes from STR and feats?

Though I must say, ever since "Drumroll", my goblin lightning mace style bard/fighter I will always prefer the light mace to the longsword.

Of course balancing out all of the weapon issues still won't resolve that casters still are a far ahead of the class in power. I'd like to see a weapon-group-like varient for wizards/sorcerers/others where you begin with only knowledge and ability to cast of one or two schools or types of spells at low levels then open up more as you progress to be able to start learning spells from. Off the top of my head something akin to:
Wizards:
Lvl Schools
1 Specialist school + 1
2
3
4 3rd school, spells up to 1 lvl lower than highest capable of casting
5
6
7
8 4th school, spells up to 2 lvls lower than highest capable of casting
9
10
11
12 5th school...
Et Cetera.

Just an example of what I was thinking, obviously such a chart would need a lot more work and testing than something I came up with in less than two minutes. But I'd like to see more restrictions on spellcasters' spell selections. I find that the same spells get reliably taken by casters time and time again and by reigning in what schools/types they are able to pull from at any time, especially with the ever increasing list of potential spells from supplements, there'd be a lower curve of power for arcane casters as well as more variety between casters.


Spoiler:
Ringtail wrote:


Midnightoker, Tuesday, 02:25 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Mandor wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Flasks. Tanglefoot bags. Your argument is invalid.

Not in the module. Your argument is invalid.

CoDzilla wrote:
Mandor wrote:
How does the troll know it can't hit just by sight? It will have to be in combat a couple of rounds to realize that.

"Ug want eat tasty flesh, but metal man get in way. Ug try go around."

Ug's master ignored question. Ug's quote is invalid.

CoDzilla wrote:
The enemies are coming from multiple sides. Your argument is invalid.

Terrain doesn't allow enemies to come from multiple sides. Your argument is invalid.

CoDzilla wrote:
With such obviously poor tactics on the part of the enemies, which largely revolve around humoring the players I'm not surprised no one has died. I mean, you haven't asked their permission to kill them so that would be like, totally unfair right?

Who said no one died? Your argument is invalid.

+1

BadWrongFun, Tuesday, 02:26 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Liz Courts wrote:
Posts removed.

Let's not let a good topic be buried by posters telling other posters that they're not playing the "right" way or having BadWrongFun. Keep this topic on-topic please!

*offers cookies and hot chocolate - it's cold out *brr* *

Me like having BadWrongFun! Me think all others wrong!

Mynameisjake, Tuesday, 08:44 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

CoDzilla wrote:
I have put several people on ignore already

Could someone please point me to the Ignore button?

TriOmegaZero (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber), Tuesday, 08:54 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Mynameisjake wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
I have put several people on ignore already

Could someone please point me to the Ignore button?

It's a script someone posted here, not actually part of the forums. Do a search for Greasemonkey on the forums and it should pop up.

Mynameisjake, Tuesday, 09:33 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Mynameisjake wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
I have put several people on ignore already

Could someone please point me to the Ignore button?

It's a script someone posted here, not actually part of the forums. Do a search for Greasemonkey on the forums and it should pop up.

Thanks, TOZ.

FatR, Yesterday, 05:38 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Gorbacz wrote:

Again. The level III game would require such a major move away from 3.5 (overhaul of combat system, to begin with) that it would move beyond the familiar territory of the average level I-II player. At which point you would end up with a game that would bomb within a year, because nobody would play it.

"Improvement is too hard, so let's wallow in the same s#*& as always" is the most anti-constructive position in the history of ever.

And if you believe that having a ruleset that is balanced at least to the point of not having total trap options, as well as instant gamewinners, AND clearly identifying powers that must be GM-adjudicated due to their openendedness/win potential (as more than one superhero game does) is, for some utterly incomprehensible reason, bad, I don't even want to talk with you.

Gorbacz wrote:

Trailblazer and Fantasycraft both took shots at being Level III games and, well, where are they now ? They moved outside of the "safe zone".

No. They failed to achieve Level III standards. Their mechanics sucked. The same goes for 4E by the way, except it has much greater marketing inertia.

Gorbacz (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber), Yesterday, 06:03 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

FatR wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Again. The level III game would require such a major move away from 3.5 (overhaul of combat system, to begin with) that it would move beyond the familiar territory of the average level I-II player. At which point you would end up with a game that would bomb within a year, because nobody would play it.

"Improvement is too hard, so let's wallow in the same s#*~ as always" is the most anti-constructive position in the history of ever.

And if you believe that having a ruleset that is balanced at least to the point of not having total trap options, as well as instant gamewinners, AND clearly identifying powers that must be GM-adjudicated due to their openendedness/win potential (as more than one superhero game does) is, for some utterly incomprehensible reason, bad, I don't even want to talk with you.

Gorbacz wrote:

Trailblazer and Fantasycraft both took shots at being Level III games and, well, where are they now ? They moved outside of the "safe zone".

No. They failed to achieve Level III standards. Their mechanics sucked. The same goes for 4E by the way, except it has much greater marketing inertia.

I'm not even talking about the quality of a ruleset, I'm talking about the sale-ability of a ruleset. And the business factor is something that eludes the Denist school of thinking so much, that I sometimes wonder if the Denizens even know how modern market works.

If you make changes that move the ruleset to "Level III" standards, you're off the base 3.5 in a way so great that people just won't buy your stuff. Because it's not something they are used to after 10 years of 3.5 digging deeply under their skin. TB and FC don't make money because they moved too far away. 4E is on a slope because it moved too far away (and also, because it began to run around like a headless chicken at some point). PF makes money because it's still the same old song.

And if anybody is to blame it's WotC for releasing 3.5 and capturing the market so strongly with it. The iteratives, the mundane Fighter, vancian magic and all that sits in the people's minds so deeply, that they reject ToB as a "wuxia assault on the principles of D&D". See what I mean ?

CoDzilla, Yesterday, 06:20 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

FatR wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Again. The level III game would require such a major move away from 3.5 (overhaul of combat system, to begin with) that it would move beyond the familiar territory of the average level I-II player. At which point you would end up with a game that would bomb within a year, because nobody would play it.

"Improvement is too hard, so let's wallow in the same s!&~ as always" is the most anti-constructive position in the history of ever.

And if you believe that having a ruleset that is balanced at least to the point of not having total trap options, as well as instant gamewinners, AND clearly identifying powers that must be GM-adjudicated due to their openendedness/win potential (as more than one superhero game does) is, for some utterly incomprehensible reason, bad, I don't even want to talk with you.

This.

Mok, Yesterday, 06:43 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Gorbacz wrote:
If you make changes that move the ruleset to "Level III" standards, you're off the base 3.5 in a way so great that people just won't buy your stuff. Because it's not something they are used to after 10 years of 3.5 digging deeply under their skin. TB and FC don't make money because they moved too far away. 4E is on a slope because it moved too far away (and also, because it began to run around like a headless chicken at some point). PF makes money because it's still the same old song.

I'd agree that a big part of PF's success is that "it's still the same old song."

From my observation of TB and FC, both of which I was promoting heavily last year to friends and the net as more robustly "fixed" versions of 3.5, was that I failed to convince my fellow local players for several different reasons.

For TB the problem is that it was published as a set of patches. You'd still have to manually go in and patch everything yourself. If the book had been published as a standalone core book, with all the rules present and ready to go, then people would have been more inclined to work with it to convert some 3.5 campaigns.

For FC, everyone was really stoked on the rules. Finally you could do a lot of weird and interesting stuff and get a cinematic game. But it kind of shriveled up simply because, first, everyone needed to buy the rules. And second, there is no living campaign.

Overall, from my neck of the woods the biggest selling points for PF have been the free complete rules online (which has led to many sales after a try before you buy), and the living campaign system, which once again has let plenty of people to play without strings attached.

There is a division of players that are casual and don't care much about the rules and just like how it's just easy to get in a PF game, and then the players like me that play but are critical with the rules. For many of us, the shared reason to use PF is that it's the main game in town. It might not be perfect, but lots of people are playing. If lots of people are playing then you're either mixing it up at some healthy PFS meetings, or you get a large player base to pick the good and sane players to invite to your home games.

I haven't really read anything explaining how 4e failed to be a level III game. My shallow impression is that it was built for level III, which is a kind of play that I'm not interested in, and thus recoiled from playing 4e. I guess that's for another thread though.

I'd think that for a level III ruleset to succeed in the marketplace it needs to be backed with huge sums of money. You'd need to be going into it with a five or ten year committed publishing plan. The game needs to be become ubiquitous in gaming circles, free to pick up to start, dripping with good artwork and production values, and funding a large living campaign network to promote the kind of gamist gaming approach that is desired for level III. Finally, it needs proper support so that level I and II play styles feel promoted by the gaming community.

One example that comes to mind that survived over the long haul has been Star Fleet Battles. The game grew and grew over the decades and eventually a "tournament" rulebook was published. That was built and designed for pure level III play within that community. Meanwhile the huge number of supplements that were available supported both casual gaming and tournament play. The publisher acknowledged explicitly both beer and pretzel play and min/max optimized play in their product line.

CoDzilla, Yesterday, 07:22 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Mok wrote:
I haven't really read anything explaining how 4e failed to be a level III game. My shallow impression is that it was built for level III, which is a kind of play that I'm not interested in, and thus recoiled from playing 4e. I guess that's for another thread though.

They were trying to go for it, but they failed miserably. Instead they got a game that doesn't function at any level of play. Not even I. And given that I works with no rules at all you'd have to be screwing up rather hard in order to make rules that can't support that.

Miranda, Yesterday, 07:57 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

More love for skills.
I've houseruled most of the relevant bits of Complete Adventurer in.
Extend aid another bonus like 3.5 Rules Compendium.

Clean up 3.5e rules cut and paste
Errata is removing the obvious 3.5 stuff that got in, what's really needed is a proper re-write that makes no assumptions of 3.5 knowledge (like the +1 to attribute per 4 levels) and editing to get relevant rules in one place (like the unarmed attacks/gauntlet/Monk debate) in a format giving a standard rule and clearly marked exceptions to it.

Continue standardising sub-systems to streamline rules and reduce rule repetition e.g. detect X rules.

Remove class X only limits to feats. A hangover from 3.0 which said it was a bad idea then.

Fix Exotic Weapon Proficiency to make it worthwhile (free weapon focus??)

Increase falling damage, I use 1d10 for medium size then scale up and down the dice by creature size (the larger they are, the harder they fall).

memorax, Yesterday, 09:11 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

CoDzilla wrote:

They were trying to go for it, but they failed miserably. Instead they got a game that doesn't function at any level of play. Not even I. And given that I works with no rules at all you'd have to be screwing up rather hard in order to make rules that can't support that.

This is not a what ia wrong with 4E thread. Stick to topic.

memorax, Yesterday, 09:12 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Miranda wrote:

Fix Exotic Weapon Proficiency to make it worthwhile (free weapon focus??)

Agreed. Imo its really not worth it to take Exotic WP now. Almost a waste of a feat.

Kaiyanwang, Yesterday, 09:42 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

memorax wrote:
Miranda wrote:

Fix Exotic Weapon Proficiency to make it worthwhile (free weapon focus??)

Agreed. Imo its really not worth it to take Exotic WP now. Almost a waste of a feat.

It depends from the weapon I guess. A Falcata is not a Bastard Sword.

And you can take a Double Weapon prof just becaus you can sink all the feats into a weapon and go 1H/2H anyway. Not to say that is ZOMG UBERR!!11! but at least to consider.

CoDzilla, Yesterday, 09:48 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

memorax wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:

They were trying to go for it, but they failed miserably. Instead they got a game that doesn't function at any level of play. Not even I. And given that I works with no rules at all you'd have to be screwing up rather hard in order to make rules that can't support that.

This is not a what ia wrong with 4E thread. Stick to topic.

That's why I didn't go into detail. I was already done talking about it.

Midnightoker, Yesterday, 01:04 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

memorax wrote:
Miranda wrote:

Fix Exotic Weapon Proficiency to make it worthwhile (free weapon focus??)

Agreed. Imo its really not worth it to take Exotic WP now. Almost a waste of a feat.

Actually I was wondering if sometime in the future exotic weapons would be changed to manage a particular schtick.

Overall damage isnt really a good reason to take an exotic weapon, the weapon should give you the ability to do something out of the ordinary, thats why it is exotic.

I understand some have a combination of a few small things, like the shuriken.

That was why I always liked the spike chain in 3.5, easily the best weapon in the game IMO. Close range? no problem. reach? no problem. Trip, disarm, and decent damage? no problem.

You can call the spiked chain broken but it was disarmable and they could trip you if you messed up. It only did 2d4 after all with a cool little reach ability that was arbitary since most reach weapons can be altered or move five feet to swing.

Would really like to see the exotic move more in the direction of... well exotic ability.

Make the weapons interesting dont raise the DPR

EDIT:

Actually after I posted this I went to pour through my books and online for the exotic weapons.

I have to say I am not disappointed in my respects. Just maybe vamp a few... like the kama... poor awesome looking weapon almost pointless by anyone not a monk... :)

ProfessorCirno, Yesterday, 07:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

The problem with exotic weapons is with how arbitrary they are. Really, I think the first mistake was to call them "exotic" in the first place.

There's three reasons weapons are classified as exotic.

1) They're "better" then martial weapons. The flaw: they aren't that much better. Most of the exotic weapons are such a minute upgrade that it honestly isn't worth it.

2) They're "non-European." The flaw: It makes the game stupidly Euro-centric, and the "stupidly" is the word of note there, because it's, well, stupid. You're stating that if a player wants to make someone that isn't white bread, they have to pay a feat to do so. Hey, I want to make a character that isn't a medieval knight! The game: "Hey screw you buddy, spend one of your feats to do so!"

3) They're "harder to use" then martial weapons. The flaw: It's completely arbitrary what constitutes as "too hard" and what doesn't. The longbow we all love and treasure was by and large a very specialized weapon, taking several years of specialized bow training to use properly. It's given to just about every martial character ever forever.

The flaw that combines them all: All three are placed in the same area. So, let's take the repeating crossbow. It fits definition 2 as a weapon that originated in China. But it's substantially weaker then any type of bow, and the only classes that don't have bow expertise is the wizard or sorcerer, so it misses definition 2 by miles, and it is probably the most hilariously simplistic weapon imaginable to use, so it misses definition 3 by just as much. What about the bastard sword? It's European, it doesn't require specialized training...but it's minutely better then the longsword, so it's considered "exotic."

The very idea of "exotic weapons" has been flawed from day one.

LadyWurm, Yesterday, 07:09 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

As others are saying, exotic weapons do need a serious overhaul. Honestly, I find the entire proficiency/BAB system itself far too ubiquitous.

I would like to see a warrior's proficiency with weapons and a spellcaster's proficiency with various types of spells broken down a lot more, personally.

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus, Yesterday, 09:30 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Midnightoker wrote:
memorax wrote:
Miranda wrote:

Fix Exotic Weapon Proficiency to make it worthwhile (free weapon focus??)

Agreed. Imo its really not worth it to take Exotic WP now. Almost a waste of a feat.

Actually I was wondering if sometime in the future exotic weapons would be changed to manage a particular schtick.

Overall damage isnt really a good reason to take an exotic weapon, the weapon should give you the ability to do something out of the ordinary, thats why it is exotic.

I understand some have a combination of a few small things, like the shuriken.

That was why I always liked the spike chain in 3.5, easily the best weapon in the game IMO. Close range? no problem. reach? no problem. Trip, disarm, and decent damage? no problem.

You can call the spiked chain broken but it was disarmable and they could trip you if you messed up. It only did 2d4 after all with a cool little reach ability that was arbitary since most reach weapons can be altered or move five feet to swing.

Would really like to see the exotic move more in the direction of... well exotic ability.

Make the weapons interesting dont raise the DPR

EDIT:

Actually after I posted this I went to pour through my books and online for the exotic weapons.

I have to say I am not disappointed in my respects. Just maybe vamp a few... like the kama... poor awesome looking weapon almost pointless by anyone not a monk... :)

Yeah, I REALLY miss the spiked chain. It was nerfed to uselessness. They fixed the trip combat maneuver and that is all that was needed.

Aelryinth (Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber), Yesterday, 09:33 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Agreed.

Weapon damage should scale by level. Just look at MMORPG's out there, which live and die by math. All Weapons scale by level, in addition to magic and stat buffs.

So something like Superior Unarmed Strike for Weapons should actually be part of the game.

Exotic Weapon should be something you can apply to ANY weapon. Exotic Prof (longsword) should have a tangible benefit above and beyond being a Martial Weapon.

4E made martial weapons give a flat +2 to hit, reflecting that they were weapons idealized for war. Monte Cook made Dire and Agile weapons. Exotic weapons should basically go away unless they are really strange, or they represent extra training in another weapon that is actually beneficial.

As for attacks...attacks should be a class ability, nto a BAB ability. But, if you're going to start balancing melee, you need to do serious balance with spellcasters...that hasn't happened yet, either.

===Aelryinth

TriOmegaZero (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber), Yesterday, 09:34 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Yeah, I REALLY miss the spiked chain. It was nerfed to uselessness. They fixed the trip combat maneuver and that is all that was needed.

Agreed. My first character was a spiked chain monk. :)

ProfessorCirno, Yesterday, 10:12 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Aelryinth wrote:
Agreed.

Weapon damage should scale by level. Just look at MMORPG's out there, which live and die by math. All Weapons scale by level, in addition to magic and stat buffs.

So something like Superior Unarmed Strike for Weapons should actually be part of the game.

Exotic Weapon should be something you can apply to ANY weapon. Exotic Prof (longsword) should have a tangible benefit above and beyond being a Martial Weapon.

4E made martial weapons give a flat +2 to hit, reflecting that they were weapons idealized for war. Monte Cook made Dire and Agile weapons. Exotic weapons should basically go away unless they are really strange, or they represent extra training in another weapon that is actually beneficial.

As for attacks...attacks should be a class ability, nto a BAB ability. But, if you're going to start balancing melee, you need to do serious balance with spellcasters...that hasn't happened yet, either.

===Aelryinth

The idea in 4e is to brutally chop away at the hundreds and hundreds of modifiers you saw in 3e. I mean, your Pathfinder fighter has a strength bonus modifier, five or six different feat bonus modifiers, an enhancement bonus to attack and damage, magical effects on their weapon for more damage, and most likely a multitude of buffs all going on at once. It leads to a simple +1 to damage not really being a whole lot, in the end. It's also why Vital Strike isn't all that great - at the end of the day, your weapon damage doesn't mean much. It also leads to the d20 not being that important due to how much higher attack bonuses scale over armor class.

So that's why exotic weapons tend not to be worth it. A +1 to damage is hard to notice. A +.5 to damage is even harder to notice.

In 4e, fighter powers do weapon damage. So a low level attack power does 1[W] and a very high level does 7[W]. Modifiers are far fewer, and are added on only once rather then multiple times from iterative attacks.

So, you have simple weapons, you have martial weapons, and you have superior (not exotic) weapons. Superior weapons are also typically more then just +1 damage - they give Reach, or they count as more then one type of weapon, or they give you a better attack bonus, etc, etc.

I think Pathfinder should learn that lesson from 4e: take a sharp, bloody axe to the modifiers. Unfortunately, the best way to do this is also the least backwards compatable - to solve the twin problems of AC uselessness...and the nightmare that is iterative attacks.

Unfortuantely, this only solves the first "hypothetical" involved in catagorizing an exotic weapon - the idea that they're "better" then non-exotic, when usually the actual difference is miniscule. The other two assumptions, typically untrue - that non-western weapons somehow require specialized training, and that a repeating crossbow is somehow more difficult to use then a longbow - can't be fixed, unless we're using veterinarian terms. And really, just ripping those out altogether is for the best.

One of the problems is that there's just such a huge number of items that are all so rediculously similar. I blame the original D&D for that, with it's thirty charts of completely samey polearms. It leads to weirdness such as "my character has fifty feats that all make him the indisputable master at using a longsword, but as soon as he holds a Slightly Longer Sword he is utterly useless.

vuron, Yesterday, 10:12 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

If I ever have time to sit down and really codify my vision for the game I'm pretty convinced that I would eliminate the divisions between simple, martial and exotic weapons.

That way I could eliminate the relatively pointless tiers within the weapon rules (is the longsword really that much better than the mace for instance).

Classes would get proficiencies based upon weapon groups (light blades, heavy blades, etc).

I'd also like to fix the discrepancies between the crit values. When most damage isn't based upon base weapon damage having 3 different crit rates (more if you factor in keen/imp crit) is a pretty poor design.

Finesse effects would be a function of specific weapons or weapon groups and wouldn't require the use of a feat to use.

juanpsantiagoXIV, 6 hours, 44 minutes ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

memorax wrote:
As the thread says what do you think are the bad elements of Pathfinder. Please keep the topic civil.

Well, in a RAW scenario, I find the experience progressions (even the slow on) to be too fast for my taste. I've been cutting the experience gained per encounter in half to compensate and it seems to be working out better.

Other than that, the system seems to work fabulously. I find myself satisfied with the class progression and changes from 3.5 and really hope they don't go changing the system for at least 8 years.

Ringtail (Pathfinder Tales Subscriber), 5 hours, 45 minutes ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

LadyWurm wrote:
As others are saying, exotic weapons do need a serious overhaul. Honestly, I find the entire proficiency/BAB system itself far too ubiquitous.

I would like to see a warrior's proficiency with weapons and a spellcaster's proficiency with various types of spells broken down a lot more, personally.

I'm on the fence about exotic weapons. As it stands I agree that they are practically not worth using compared to the handful of great martial weapons, but if they were made SIGNIFICANTLY better there'd be no reason NOT to take them. In my 3.X groups, probably about half to three quarters of the "fighters" (or shall we just say full BAB classes...) used the spiked chain for its sheer ability to be awesome. In PFRPG though, fighter is a stronger base class than in its predecessor and along with the power bump there are more feats for everybody, so in a non-optimizing group a fighter spending one of his many feats on a flavorful weapon option isn't going to cause a significant lag in power. I was always more of a fan of Unearthed Arcana's weapon group variant anyway.

vuron wrote:
If I ever have time to sit down and really codify my vision for the game I'm pretty convinced that I would eliminate the divisions between simple, martial and exotic weapons.

That way I could eliminate the relatively pointless tiers within the weapon rules (is the longsword really that much better than the mace for instance).

Classes would get proficiencies based upon weapon groups (light blades, heavy blades, etc).

I'd also like to fix the discrepancies between the crit values. When most damage isn't based upon base weapon damage having 3 different crit rates (more if you factor in keen/imp crit) is a pretty poor design.

Finesse effects would be a function of specific weapons or weapon groups and wouldn't require the use of a feat to use.

Yes, yes, double yes times infinity on the citical multiplier and range discrepencies. I grow weary of people using the falchion with improved critical simply to multiply their vast amounts of damage boosts from feats on a regular basis.

Honestly past low level the base weapon damage die roll barely matters. At level 10, my very non-optimized halfling monk/cleric is still putting out 50 to 100 damage a round with a quarterstaff (depends on if the bane goes off and what buffs our bard has thrown out) and single handily takes out Bebilith and other midling demons with ease. And lets just say it isn't from the D4's. Imagine what that would come out to with either a keen or improved critical temple sword?

I'd like to see criticals more balanced between weapons and make weapon dice count for far more than they do now, perhaps giving extra weapon diced based on BAB or level but not multiplying the damage modes from STR and feats?

Though I must say, ever since "Drumroll", my goblin lightning mace style bard/fighter I will always prefer the light mace to the longsword.

Of course balancing out all of the weapon issues still won't resolve that casters still are a far ahead of the class in power. I'd like to see a weapon-group-like varient for wizards/sorcerers/others where you begin with only knowledge and ability to cast of one or two schools or types of spells at low levels then open up more as you progress to be able to start learning spells from. Off the top of my head something akin to:
Wizards:
Lvl Schools
1 Specialist school + 1
2
3
4 3rd school, spells up to 1 lvl lower than highest capable of casting
5
6
7
8 4th school, spells up to 2 lvls lower than highest capable of casting
9
10
11
12 5th school...
Et Cetera.

Just an example of what I was thinking, obviously such a chart would need a lot more work and testing than something I came up with in less than two minutes. But I'd like to see more restrictions on spellcasters' spell selections. I find that the same spells get reliably taken by casters time and time again and by reigning in what schools/types they are able to pull from at any time, especially with the ever increasing list of potential spells from supplements, there'd be a lower curve of power for arcane casters as well as more variety between casters.

Very interesting. Makes sense in my opinion too.

The Exchange

David Jacoby wrote:
memorax wrote:
As the thread says what do you think are the bad elements of Pathfinder. Please keep the topic civil.
Recently I lost the use of my writing hand [right hand] via a glass door. It may take 2 years before I get full use of my hand. I can use my laptop, somewhat slowly with my left hand, and I'm in need of a PDF that I can fill-in via my computer. I don't have the ability to create the PDF as I don't have the access password. I can't believe that it would take that much time to create the three files I need ['Front' & 'Back' Character Creation page, and the 'Chronicle Page'. If anybody has something I can place on my laptop that would surfice, as the same, I'd really appreciate you downloading it to david.j.jacoby@hotmail.com. As of now I'm desperate. The group I'm with starts playing on Monday the 15th at 4:00 P.M. I've been elected as the scribe for the group, keeping all important information on my laptop. I'm desperate.

May I suggest some adaptive technology?

http://www.aboutonehandtyping.com/halfqwerty.html

http://www.aboutonehandtyping.com/bat.html

http://livescribeinc.createsend1.com/t/y/e/qdyiul/ojijrhuhy/

I've used the Livescribe device and its optional OCR software, and it works better for me than Dragon Dictate.

http://www.nuance.com/for-individuals/by-product/dragon-for-pc/index.htm

Good luck!

The Exchange

memorax wrote:
As the thread says what do you think are the bad elements of Pathfinder. Please keep the topic civil.

The lack of online play for level one beginners. The Google Group / Warhorn folks are concentrating on level 5 and up.

Shadow Lodge

Midnightoker wrote:

*snip*

Quotes the whole g!!+%+n thread
*snip*

Was that really necessary?


Aelryinth wrote:

Agreed.

Weapon damage should scale by level. Just look at MMORPG's out there, which live and die by math. All Weapons scale by level, in addition to magic and stat buffs.

So something like Superior Unarmed Strike for Weapons should actually be part of the game.

Exotic Weapon should be something you can apply to ANY weapon. Exotic Prof (longsword) should have a tangible benefit above and beyond being a Martial Weapon.

4E made martial weapons give a flat +2 to hit, reflecting that they were weapons idealized for war. Monte Cook made Dire and Agile weapons. Exotic weapons should basically go away unless they are really strange, or they represent extra training in another weapon that is actually beneficial.

As for attacks...attacks should be a class ability, nto a BAB ability. But, if you're going to start balancing melee, you need to do serious balance with spellcasters...that hasn't happened yet, either.

===Aelryinth

hmmmm maybe +1 if I am catching drift

So like if I were take Exotic Weapon Profieciency longsword i could Choose from a list of said abiltities (or similiar):

- You treat this weapon as a trip weapon, and gain a plus two on trips
- You may use this weapon in a grapple, despite its size category
- You may use this weapon as a monk weapon
- You may use this weapon using your dexterity modifier to hit
- You may use this weapon to slay the tarrasque in one hit
- You treat this weapon as either piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing at your discretion
- You may treat this weapon as a sunder weapon
- You gain a +1 to attack and a +1 to AC while weilding this weapon

At every +5 BAB you may select another specialty from this list.

Sounds very limited because you can only use said weapon to do all this, but very decent, scales with level like powerattack and deadly aim.

Also it doesnt suck :)


Aelryinth wrote:

Agreed.

Weapon damage should scale by level. Just look at MMORPG's out there, which live and die by math. All Weapons scale by level, in addition to magic and stat buffs.

I don't know about anyone else, but I so would not buy that game.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Agreed.

Weapon damage should scale by level. Just look at MMORPG's out there, which live and die by math. All Weapons scale by level, in addition to magic and stat buffs.

I don't know about anyone else, but I so would not buy that game.

I dont know if weapon damage is that big of a deal. There is a brutal pugnalist barbarian in my groups part. He uses a kama, a fairly weak weapon. Does close to thirty points a round at 5th level, with a 20 pt buy. His AC is dreadful, but CMD and CMB, forget about it.

anyways

His damage is really high due to his bonuses, not the weapon damage. I feel like the weapons themselves is really arbitrary, if anything I would encourage stating all weapons as the same die roll and then make all the pluses where the "scaling" comes from.

just my 2cents.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Agreed.

Weapon damage should scale by level. Just look at MMORPG's out there, which live and die by math. All Weapons scale by level, in addition to magic and stat buffs.

I don't know about anyone else, but I so would not buy that game.

I would. Especially if the rest of the game was well designed.


Dire Mongoose wrote:


I don't know about anyone else, but I so would not buy that game.

I wouldn't either.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:


I would. Especially if the rest of the game was well designed.

Seconded.

Sczarni

memorax wrote:
As the thread says what do you think are the bad elements of Pathfinder. Please keep the topic civil.

Summoner + Eidolon!

That says it all!


Vaahama wrote:
memorax wrote:
As the thread says what do you think are the bad elements of Pathfinder. Please keep the topic civil.

Summoner + Eidolon!

That says it all!

What about them don't you like? just not flavorful or do you think they are broken?

Sczarni

Midnightoker wrote:
Vaahama wrote:
memorax wrote:
As the thread says what do you think are the bad elements of Pathfinder. Please keep the topic civil.

Summoner + Eidolon!

That says it all!

What about them don't you like? just not flavorful or do you think they are broken?

broken would be the most polite words that is coming to my mind barely 24 hours later!


Vaahama wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Vaahama wrote:
memorax wrote:
As the thread says what do you think are the bad elements of Pathfinder. Please keep the topic civil.

Summoner + Eidolon!

That says it all!

What about them don't you like? just not flavorful or do you think they are broken?

broken would be the most polite words that is coming to my mind barely 24 hours later!

Sigh.

see the thread you started for further discussion of this subject.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I spoilered a post. There is a reason why the 'reply' function truncates long posts.

Shadow Lodge

Ross Byers wrote:
I spoilered a post. There is a reason why the 'reply' function truncates long posts.

The Mi-Go's pet human brain speaks the truth!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
There is a reason why the 'reply' function truncates long posts.

You mean that is intentional????? That is something I hate about these forums.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

DigitalMage wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
There is a reason why the 'reply' function truncates long posts.
You mean that is intentional????? That is something I hate about these forums.

Me too. I hate having to copy the text into Textedit then reply, delete the reply text the site gives me, paste in the text, type in the "quote" brackets start/end, and then cut down/modify my pasted in text.

Hitting reply is so much more clean.

I guess I also assumed it was a "oh we can't do this oops" as opposed to "intentionally truncate".

I'm ok with "we screwed up" but I'm annoyed by "we want to make your life hard on purpose". ;-(

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

It would be better, Ross, if the boards cut off the first part of long messages, rather than the last part.

So, in a cascading series of people quoting people quoting people, or in the case of someone beginning their reply with a long quoted original post, the most relevant (that is to say, recent) information gets included in the reply.

Contributor

Or you chuckleheads could just learn to quote the few sentences you're actually replying to.

I actually had to unsubscribe from a private game industry mailing list because too many "pros" couldn't break themselves of the habit of quoting an entire post and adding one line of commentary (even though the list's rules said to limit quoting).

Liberty's Edge

What I've learned from this thread is that the worst thing about Pathfinder is that the messageboard code truncates long quotes.


James Risner wrote:

I hate having to copy the text into Textedit then reply, delete the reply text the site gives me, paste in the text, type in the "quote" brackets start/end, and then cut down/modify my pasted in text.

Hitting reply is so much more clean.

I guess I also assumed it was a "oh we can't do this oops" as opposed to "intentionally truncate".

I don't really find it that annoying. I just hit reply, scroll up to the post I'm replying to, copy the relevant parts, scroll back down to my reply box and paste it in.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I just learned the quote tag syntax and copy the bits I am replying to.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Or you chuckleheads could just learn to quote the few sentences you're actually replying to.

I actually had to unsubscribe from a private game industry mailing list because too many "pros" couldn't break themselves of the habit of quoting an entire post and adding one line of commentary (even though the list's rules said to limit quoting).

Even without quote nesting, it's easy to hit the limit simply by posting in any decent level of detail. If you want to limit nested quotes, then only have it display the person you are directly responding to and no one else. So if someone replied to this message, they would see my words, but not yours. And if someone responded to that, they'd see that first person's words and not mine.


Jeremiziah wrote:
What I've learned from this thread is that the worst thing about Pathfinder is that the messageboard code truncates long quotes.

If there were post sigs on this board, I would completely be ganking this for mine.


anthony Valente wrote:
I don't really find it that annoying. I just hit reply, scroll up to the post I'm replying to, copy the relevant parts, scroll back down to my reply box and paste it in.

Sure, you can do it, but it's kind of a PITA, especially if you're replying to a post on a previous page.

It hurts my inner usability advocate. In the groin.


So, it's clear now.. it saddens me say it but.. Sean..

Please..

Nerf the messageboard. It's unbalanced.


Kaiyanwang wrote:

So, it's clear now.. it saddens me say it but.. Sean..

Please..

Nerf the messageboard. It's unbalanced.

+1

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

anthony Valente wrote:
I don't really find it that annoying. I just hit reply, scroll up to the post I'm replying to, copy the relevant parts, scroll back down to my reply box and paste it in.

I find that more annoying than deleting the section of the quoted post that isn't related to what I'm replying.

Cut and Paste is hard man! Takes effort!


Kaiyanwang wrote:
Nerf the messageboard. It's unbalanced.

Nerf the messageboard? Why? Compared to the wizard, the messageboard is just dead weight in the party.

Say you have a mid-level encounter where it becomes necessary to respond to a post. Your messageboard probably can't even reach the post, because all mid-level posts you're going to meet are flying. Even the ones that aren't. But let's say your messageboard can somehow reach the post. Then what? All it's going to do is truncate the quote. So you're going to have to spend three rounds cut-and-pasting. And that's all your messageboard can ever do. Run up, cut-and-paste, rinse, and repeat. Same thing every encounter.

Meanwhile, my wizard has an Intelligence score of whatever score you account for in your counterexample +2. And SoD spells. Lots of SoD. More sod than a freshly landscaped lawn. More SoD than his spell slots would indicate possible. Kneel before SoD! The wizard doesn't have to rely on cut-and-paste like your mere messageboard. The wizard has infinite options when replying to a post. (Hint: 90% of them are glitterdust.)

All of that is so self evident, I don't even have to post a build for my wizard. Where's your messageboard build that can compete with that?


Devil's Advocate wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Nerf the messageboard. It's unbalanced.

Nerf the messageboard? Why? Compared to the wizard, the messageboard is just dead weight in the party.

Say you have a mid-level encounter where it becomes necessary to respond to a post. Your messageboard probably can't even reach the post, because all mid-level posts you're going to meet are flying. Even the ones that aren't. But let's say your messageboard can somehow reach the post. Then what? All it's going to do is truncate the quote. So you're going to have to spend three rounds cut-and-pasting. And that's all your messageboard can ever do. Run up, cut-and-paste, rinse, and repeat. Same thing every encounter.

Meanwhile, my wizard has an Intelligence score of whatever score you account for in your counterexample +2. And SoD spells. Lots of SoD. More sod than a freshly landscaped lawn. More SoD than his spell slots would indicate possible. Kneel before SoD! The wizard doesn't have to rely on cut-and-paste like your mere messageboard. The wizard has infinite options when replying to a post. (Hint: 90% of them are glitterdust.)

All of that is so self evident, I don't even have to post a build for my wizard. Where's your messageboard build that can compete with that?

This is invalid. Err...Oh snap.


Devil's Advocate wrote:
Stuff

Okay, now that's a little funny.

Anyway, I never said a wizard could beat your messageboard! I said a balanced team of arcane and divine full casters could beat your group of messageboards! :P


Devil's Advocate wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Nerf the messageboard. It's unbalanced.

Nerf the messageboard? Why? Compared to the wizard, the messageboard is just dead weight in the party.

Say you have a mid-level encounter where it becomes necessary to respond to a post. Your messageboard probably can't even reach the post, because all mid-level posts you're going to meet are flying. Even the ones that aren't. But let's say your messageboard can somehow reach the post. Then what? All it's going to do is truncate the quote. So you're going to have to spend three rounds cut-and-pasting. And that's all your messageboard can ever do. Run up, cut-and-paste, rinse, and repeat. Same thing every encounter.

Meanwhile, my wizard has an Intelligence score of whatever score you account for in your counterexample +2. And SoD spells. Lots of SoD. More sod than a freshly landscaped lawn. More SoD than his spell slots would indicate possible. Kneel before SoD! The wizard doesn't have to rely on cut-and-paste like your mere messageboard. The wizard has infinite options when replying to a post. (Hint: 90% of them are glitterdust.)

All of that is so self evident, I don't even have to post a build for my wizard. Where's your messageboard build that can compete with that?

*gates a Balor with the sole purpose of answer to the post*


Dire Mongoose wrote:
Anyway, I never said a wizard could beat your messageboard! I said a balanced team of arcane and divine full casters could beat your group of messageboards! :P

With optimized or non-optimized posts?

One of the other issues I am seeing here is the heavy use of posts from non-optimized posters. I know it's a mechanical problem that no one wants to talk about - we all know it's there though.

Yeah I know, you may enjoy reading all the various posts or even just posting simple responses yourself, but the reality doesn't change the fact that you're still doing it wrong.

So non-optimized posters try to get their message out and it takes what - several posts to pull it off? They create aliases which are in effect just a post-tax, while optimized posters can get their point out in one post, maybe two if the board makes it save.
If you're optimized with the right stat and buffs you probably would only need one post 85% of the time.


Joe the Diviner wrote:
With optimized or non-optimized posts?

Optimized posts? You can't optimize posts in Caster Edition! The Paizo boards nerfed quote truncation. In 3.5, you could truncate your entire quote and pump it into Shock Trooper. Now, you can't. And because that one option is gone, everyone who relied on full BAB now sucks. Which also makes rogues suck, somehow. Just take my word for it.


Devil's Advocate wrote:
Joe the Diviner wrote:
With optimized or non-optimized posts?
Optimized posts? You can't optimize posts in Caster Edition! The Paizo boards nerfed quote truncation. In 3.5, you could truncate your entire quote and pump it into Shock Trooper. Now, you can't. And because that one option is gone, everyone who relied on full BAB now sucks. Which also makes rogues suck, somehow. Just take my word for it.

Don't forget about the monk's "flurry-of-eaten posts"...


Devil's Advocate wrote:
Joe the Diviner wrote:
With optimized or non-optimized posts?
Optimized posts? You can't optimize posts in Caster Edition! The Paizo boards nerfed quote truncation. In 3.5, you could truncate your entire quote and pump it into Shock Trooper. Now, you can't. And because that one option is gone, everyone who relied on full BAB now sucks. Which also makes rogues suck, somehow. Just take my word for it.

I should have seen this coming.....


Coming late to the party, but here's my main gripe about Pathfinder:

While it fixes many of the things I, as both a player and a GM, disliked about D&D3.5, it is still a very complicated system. Because backwards compatibility is a primary goal of the design, a lot of mechanics are preserved with minimal changes, or revisions that are easy to make on the fly. From the standpoint of a person who has invested heavily in 3.5 and still likes using a lot of those products, that's a big draw.

For a person just coming into the game, though, or for a GM trying to teach a new person, there's still a very steep learning (or teaching) curve. More options for traditional character types - whether you're dealing with class features or feats - translates to a very daunting array of choices for the newbie. I used to get the look of exasperation from inexperienced players when I explained how skills work in D&D3.5; now I get that look when I show them the list of feats in the Core Rulebook.

OGL-based rules systems tend towards complication and simulationism. It's just the nature of the beast. But when I play other games like Call of Cthulhu or UniSystem, I'm a little jealous of those GMs. They can break newbies in very easily and get them right into playing with little oversight or confusion. I still don't feel that I have that luxury as a Pathfinder GM. Hero Lab makes my life a lot easier in that regard, but only because I'm willing to invest in a third-party product for the benefit of my players.

In the coming years, I do think a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder that builds upon the original while simplifying play would be a great thing for the hobby. For all the things Wizards of the Coast did wrong with 4th Edition, that focus on making it easier to learn and play is something they've done right. (I also think it's easier to dodge the perils of min/max'ing players in 4E, but that might just be because all of my Pathfinder players have been doing this song and dance for a long, long time and know how to put together ultra-powerful character builds!)

If the focus on backward compatibility stays in place, the game designers will have a tough job on their hands as they go about streamlining the system. But I also have faith in the designers' ability to accomplish that task, because they love the game and they listen to their customer base.

The playtests are an excellent example of this. I currently find little to like about the Words of Power rules and I don't seem to be in a minority on that, but I know from feedback posted by Jason and Jacob that they are aware of the problems and willing to address them in the final product. Compared to other companies who routinely fail to deliver on promises for their products and don't appear to appreciate or understand the value of being involved with their online community, Paizo is setting a great example for the industry.


Power Word Unzip wrote:
For all the things Wizards of the Coast did wrong with 4th Edition, that focus on making it easier to learn and play is something they've done right.

As much as this thread isn't about 4E, I feel in the interest of the discussion concerning PF2 that I should add that, at least for myself and my group, 4E was NOT easy to learn and play. That whole powers suite didn't gel with them at all (this was a mixed group btw, two new to roleplaying and two vets.)


Devil's Advocate wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Nerf the messageboard. It's unbalanced.

Nerf the messageboard? Why? Compared to the wizard, the messageboard is just dead weight in the party.

BWAAHHHH!!!

That is great!


kyrt-ryder wrote:
As much as this thread isn't about 4E, I feel in the interest of the discussion concerning PF2 that I should add that, at least for myself and my group, 4E was NOT easy to learn and play. That whole powers suite didn't gel with them at all (this was a mixed group btw, two new to roleplaying and two vets.)

I should be more specific to qualify that statement - D&D Essentials has been easy to learn for my group.

The Exchange

Devil's Advocate wrote:
Joe the Diviner wrote:
With optimized or non-optimized posts?
Optimized posts? You can't optimize posts in Caster Edition! The Paizo boards nerfed quote truncation. In 3.5, you could truncate your entire quote and pump it into Shock Trooper. Now, you can't. And because that one option is gone, everyone who relied on full BAB now sucks. Which also makes rogues suck, somehow. Just take my word for it.

I call BS! Postfinder clearly stated it was compatible with 3.5 and if you're saying I can't use all my splatbooks to optimize my posts with feats of powercreep then this version is clearly full of fail!

I had more to say but my first post got eaten. It was a much better post, trust me.


To me the worst thing is everyone got a bonus except the Basic Wizard.

Sorcerers are much better spellcasters in 3.5 and yet they GAINED abilities. The only thing wizards had was flexibility and that is useful if you have a god gm that knows how to make their wizards useful. Average Gm's (and poor ones) Wizards are not worth much.( I still see the wizard as what spellcasters are supposed to be but then I began with original D&D and all the old fantasy books.)

The Hate of spellcasters is very evident on this board and not really understood
A fighter vs a wizard:
If the wizard has range and if he gets the first spell off and if the fighter fails its save versus one of the few kill spells the wizard wins otherwise the fighter wins every time. That's alot of ifs to allow the wiz to survive. Everyone says wiz have such power, they can kill 100's of monsters with one spell(sure if the monsters are alot lower level and not a challenge to the party anyway). Try taking a wizard though a equal level dungeon (Say he has 20 healing potions) and take a fighter of the same level through the same dungeon (with the same # of healing potions) and see which one last longer. - anyone want to bet on the wizard? I thought not so why the hatred of Wizards??? Why does everyone want to wimp them out?

4th edition to me was put together to make all the classes EQUAL but to me they all seem the same. Yes they call their abilities different things but they essentially have the same powers - that is why I liked 3.5 and Pathfinder so much better that 4th ed.


Power Word Unzip wrote:


In the coming years, I do think a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder that builds upon the original while simplifying play would be a great thing for the hobby. For all the things Wizards of the Coast did wrong with 4th Edition, that focus on making it easier to learn and play is something they've done right.

Please Please please Do Not "Simplify" this game,

D&D was and Pathfinder is a game for Intelligent people, there are plenty of games for people that either are not smart enough to play it or are to lazy to learn ---- please so many other games have become so "simplified" that it makes me cry.

951 to 1,000 of 1,173 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What is the worst thing about Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.