10 things you love and hate about PF


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Love:
1) Adventure paths are great
2) Fluff is great
3) Love the artwork
4) Wayne Reynolds is everywhere! I can't get enough of his art
5) Personal interaction with fans
6) Modern content distribution (PDF and electronic sales are a winner!)
7) Willing to share free content
8) Good prices
9) Entertaining fiction
10) Quality products

Hate:
1) No artwork galleries on the site :( You should showcase the beautiful art!
2) Too much copy-paste from 3.5e
3) System lacks innovation and creativity
4) Most issues with 3.5e were ignored (caster vs. martial)
5) Not enough attention to balance
6) Monsters are boring, and often feel too similar to one another
7) Mechanics are sometimes sloppy and poorly designed
8) Requires too much prep-time for a DM
9) Combat can get boring for low level casters and martial characters in general (stand there and full attack round after round)
10) Too much effort is put into backwards compatibility.


For people not liking the asian stuff: Main market - USA, second markets Europe? Japan and South Korea (+ Hong Kong, Singapore, ...)?

I think that having asian stuff ignored would be damn unwise, for there'd be quite a few people who want to portray that mythology and truth to be told it's a rich source.

We already got some african flavour from the Heart of Jungle, arabian spices from Katapesh and Quadira, now it's Eastern Asia's turn and if I look upon the publishing schedule, the we have Vikings (Lands of the Linnorm Kings) and India (Impossible Kingdoms) in line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't hate the asian stuff. I just hate that they made the asian stuff markedly superior.

You want to have a katana at 1d8 and a better crit range than the bastard sword fine... 6 of one half a dozen of the other. But asian STICKS are better than European sticks!?!?!? The Bo staff is a better weapon than the quarterstaff.

Asian armor is as good or better, which historically is just an ENORMOUS no. Nothing, NOTHING in the Japanese arsenal remotely compares to the full body, neigh impenetrable western full plate. Plate armor was so good that the sword became almost obsolete, replaced with hammers maces and axes because you were better off trying to pulverize the knight inside the armor than ever hope of getting through it.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Asian armor is as good or better, which historically is just an ENORMOUS no. Nothing, NOTHING in the Japanese arsenal remotely compares to the full body, neigh impenetrable western full plate. Plate armor was so good that the sword became almost obsolete, replaced with hammers maces and axes because you were better off trying to pulverize the knight inside the armor than ever hope of getting through it.

Yes. I too am concerned, since after all the AC system is a perfect meathod of representing armor in the real world. This ideal system is deminsihed by not encouraging all samurai to wear full plate.


Quote:
Yes. I too am concerned, since after all the AC system is a perfect meathod of representing armor in the real world. This ideal system is deminsihed by not encouraging all samurai to wear full plate.

chuckle. Sorry, i would have used [nerdrage] [/nerdrage] tags on the above if they had them.

I just really dislike the "its eastern therefore its better" motif that i see a lot, especially among the geek set.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't hate the asian stuff. I just hate that they made the asian stuff markedly superior.

You want to have a katana at 1d8 and a better crit range than the bastard sword fine... 6 of one half a dozen of the other. But asian STICKS are better than European sticks!?!?!? The Bo staff is a better weapon than the quarterstaff.

Asian armor is as good or better, which historically is just an ENORMOUS no. Nothing, NOTHING in the Japanese arsenal remotely compares to the full body, neigh impenetrable western full plate. Plate armor was so good that the sword became almost obsolete, replaced with hammers maces and axes because you were better off trying to pulverize the knight inside the armor than ever hope of getting through it.

I'm not saying that you hate it, but there were voices crying that there is too much focus on the stuff. My reaction was actually meant for general dissent with the asian themes, not to you specifically. I'm sorry if it looked that way.

Now more toward your complaints...

Well, truth to be said there are three pieces of armour that are stright better than what was in Core (perhaps more if the cost gets ignored). Haramaki, (Silken Armour), Haramaki and Do-maru. Others are comparable or worse. Those that allow better Dexterity are more useful for archers, which samurai primarily were, but they at the same time allow european-style armour wearers to focus on melee stats (Strength and Constitution), marginally lessening their multiple ability dependency. I don't see anything problematic here. If we were to make some weapons inferior by heavy armour, we'd actually have to go to armour as DR... (I'd have to check that section first).

Toward weapons I must say that the problem probably stems from the fact that quarterstaff is a simple weapon, while bo staff is exotic., just like the Katana. The problem you see is probably comming from constant stream of complaints that core exotic weapons are weak and not worth the feat investment AND that the monk is lacking any viable toys. So the book tried to provide and perhaps we'd once receive a rewrite of the core (problem: Backward compatibility).

I would have actually preffered if whole proficiency thing was scrapped and the feats went as follows:
Weapon Proficiency - Allows the use of weapon as simple weapon
Improved weapon proficiency - Improves weapon stats to martial standards
Greater weapon Proficiency - Exotic standard

For example longsword would be 1d8/19-20 x2 two-hander as simple weapon, one-hander as martial and 1d8/19-20 x 3 blocking as exotic

Scimitar/Katana (any curved blade) could be 1d6/19-20 x2 as simple, 1d6/18-20 x2 as martial and 1d8/18-20 x20 deadly as exotic

Less weapons, improvement in the way you can use them.


I'll throw in my two cents.

Love:
1. Misfit Monsters Redeemed. They took the flumph and made it respectable. They did what I thought was impossible.

2. Keeping 3.X alive. I don't hate 4E, but it changed to many things to D&D for it to be my thing.

3. The APG. 'nuff said.

4. The APs. Kingmaker is my favorite at this point, but we'll see what happens with Jade Regent and Skull and Shackles.

5. Company interaction. Paizo posts here to answer questions and chat with fans all the time. Compared to a company like White Wolf...well...

6. The fluff's overall power level. I love how there are no 57th level archmage NPCs walking around Golarion who are 5,000 years old and have had love affairs with goddesses. I also love how the campaign setting is kinda dark, with villians who are actually competent.

7. Andoran & Cheliax. I just love the concept that there's a fantasy setting with a fledgeling democracy and an evil empire done right.

8. Cayden Cailean. Best concept for a fantasy god ever.

9. The conversion rules. They can't publish beholders or mind flayers, so they give you tools to make them yourself.

10. Half-Orcs. They get a +2 on any stat you want. You don't have to get stuck with a slob with no manners or a moronic half-wit.

Hate:

1. Sci-fi and cosmic horror elements in Golarion. Too much Lovecraft for my tastes.

2. Asian crunch. The direction they seem to be going is 'asian weapons and armor are like the western counterparts, but they're all better. Because they're asian.'

3. Gunslingers and guns. I just don't like them, don't like the rules, and I don't like that they're in Golarion.

4. Crunch. There are a lot of issues with the crunch in Pathfinder, and the Stealth blog post is just one of many.

5. The artwork. I just don't care for Wayne Reynold's style of armor. Too bulky and ornamental for me.

6. The iconics. I just don't find any of them all that interesting. And some of them downright annoy me.

7. Feats. I don't like the direction these are taking either. Some of them are just poorly designed or so specific if your GM doesn't run a very specific kind of game you basically just wasted a feat slot.

8. The fact that they haven't put out epic rules yet. :P

9. Pigeon-holing monsters. Yes, I get that all orcs are supposed to be CE cannon fodder for PCs. I get that drow are NE sociopaths. I get how annoying Drizz't got for fantasy fans. But driving home the point that NO orc or drow or whatever can POSSIBLY be anything other than irredeemably evil annoys me. That's why I prefer WoW's orcs conceptually.

10. No psionics.


Darwyn wrote:

I'll throw in my two cents.

Love:
1. Misfit Monsters Redeemed. They took the flumph and made it respectable. They did what I thought was impossible.

2. Keeping 3.X alive. I don't hate 4E, but it changed to many things to D&D for it to be my thing.

3. The APG. 'nuff said.

4. The APs. Kingmaker is my favorite at this point, but we'll see what happens with Jade Regent and Skull and Shackles.

5. Company interaction. Paizo posts here to answer questions and chat with fans all the time. Compared to a company like White Wolf...well...

6. The fluff's overall power level. I love how there are no 57th level archmage NPCs walking around Golarion who are 5,000 years old and have had love affairs with goddesses. I also love how the campaign setting is kinda dark, with villians who are actually competent.

7. Andoran & Cheliax. I just love the concept that there's a fantasy setting with a fledgeling democracy and an evil empire done right.

8. Cayden Cailean. Best concept for a fantasy god ever.

9. The conversion rules. They can't publish beholders or mind flayers, so they give you tools to make them yourself.

10. Half-Orcs. They get a +2 on any stat you want. You don't have to get stuck with a slob with no manners or a moronic half-wit.

Hate:

1. Sci-fi and cosmic horror elements in Golarion. Too much Lovecraft for my tastes.

2. Asian crunch. The direction they seem to be going is 'asian weapons and armor are like the western counterparts, but they're all better. Because they're asian.'

3. Gunslingers and guns. I just don't like them, don't like the rules, and I don't like that they're in Golarion.

4. Crunch. There are a lot of issues with the crunch in Pathfinder, and the Stealth blog post is just one of many.

5. The artwork. I just don't care for Wayne Reynold's style of armor. Too bulky and ornamental for me.

6. The iconics. I just don't find any of them all that interesting. And some of them downright annoy me.

7. Feats. I don't like the direction these are taking...


I'm not sure I can come up with 10 for either, but I'll go with my usual thoughts. Also, my negatives are really just RAW, I don't actually allow any of the things I hate that i can change.

Like
1. archetypes. I never liked the prestige class bloat from 3.5. I like how you get one, maybe two archetypes per character.
2. More base classes. same as above, I like that approach more than prestige classes.
3. CMB/CMD. best d20 grappling system i've dealt with so far.

Dislikes
1. Magic item creation. too easy
2. How readily available magic items are for sale in PFS stuff
3. create water at 0 level
5. The GM screen. Only thing 4th got right was a GM screen I'd want to use.
6. Removal of XP costs from spells and item creation
7. All or nothing saves. This isn't paizo's fault per se, as they're just carrying it over from 3.5, but the standard save results, and the variance that evasion adds still seems lackluster. I really wish their were more tiered results, ie miss by 2/5/10, and in some cases, make by 2/5/10
8. Lost/Combined skills. I wish there were more skills, not less. I'd rather have 5 different skills than one skill with 5 different uses. This also means classes would get more skill points.
9. How easy it is to learn new languages.

I know i have 3 times as many dislikes, but it's like the squeaky wheel. The stuff I like, I don't really dote on, while the stuff that annoys me is easily remembered every time it's encountered.


Love (most of these are in comparison to 3.5)

1) The art, particularly in the core line of books.
2) Unlike 3.5, every character can more or less contribute at every level; "suck now, rock later" and other idiotic notions about how balance can work have been (more or less) discarded.
3) Lots of cool opportunities to "theme" a character. (Although I'd love more!!)
4) Archetypes!!!! This is the single best thing about PF.
5) Single-class to twenty is not only doable, but actively good for nearly every class.
6) So much content is open, semi-open, or online-tolerated, allowing for the existence of awesome tools like www.d20pfsrd.com/. (I buy books and books are pretty, but they're a crappy way to find what you're looking for.)
7) The dedication to continuing to support character options introduced in splats with later splats, rather than 3.5's fire-and-forget system.
8) Simplified and unified combat maneuver system.
9) Lots of things that help keep otherwise somewhat similar classes distinct from each other.
10) A firearms system in a fantasy setting that doesn't read like it was grudgingly designed by someone who loathed the idea of firearms in a fantasy setting.
Bonus) Every class is now really awesome!

Don't love

1) Monster design - mechanically - is overwhelmingly boring and samey. The monster concepts are cool, but their mechanical execution tends to make everything feel very similar to everything else.
1.5) This is related: Monster design doesn't - to the degree that would be useful - take into account what monsters are actually used for. It shouldn't be the case that if I want to make an adventure where the party fights bee women that I have to advance and regress everything a ton of levels and then try to eyeball it to make sure that it looked reasonable because somebody thought that making the bee woman boss a dozen CR higher than the base bee woman was a good idea.
2) Trap options. They happen in any system with this many mechanical choices that interact in so many ways. Doesn't mean I can't dislike them.
3) Fighter design is a billion times better than 3.5, but they still have the fewest options in and out of combat.
4) Again, this is hard to get around in a system this complicated, but introducing the mechanics game to new players is super difficult because of the raw number of concepts that need to be understood.
5) Vancian magic - still does an awful job modeling how most people's intuition about how fantasy spellcasting works.
6) Arbitrary complexity for its own sake. It's kind of cute, but would anyone miss it if Tree Stride didn't have different - but only barely different - distances you could travel depending on what type of tree you used? And where on earth did that list come from?
7) General uncarefulness with how things are written. While PF is better than a lot of systems in this regard, it's plays a little too fast and loose with terminology like "target" and is often unclear about when things are optional. It's way too often unclear what's rules text and what's fluff, and that's so darn easy to fix.
8) Crafting, staves, and a bunch of other options vary ludicrously in how powerful they are based on how much free time characters have. I know that it's inevitable that certain options are going to be situational, but I hate how meta this is.
9) Crusty junk left over from earlier editions that I feel like many groups have abandoned but is still presented as standard. Rolling for HP is the most obvious one.
10) 15-minute work day lives. You know what's better than having to shoehorn time limits into every single thing the party ever does ever? Moving more of the pacing into per-encounter stuff. There's always going to be some incentive to keep the day as short as possible, but the system does the whole thing no favors.
Bonus) Tracking bonuses. Oh lord, tracking bonuses. I don't know what I'd do about it exactly, but the number of situational and not-always-on bonuses to piles of different numbers is just a pain to track. Even with "bless cards" that display the bonuses someone's getting to something while they have it, it's still annoying to add things up.


In the order I thought of them, not necessarily order of importance:

+1. The art. Uniformly very good.
+2. The adventure paths.
+3. Skill system is clear, 'lean', and easy to use.
+4. I've never seen an easier-to-use combat maneuver system. Would like to see it made deeper for martial classes.
+5. Class abilities. Lots, pretty well spread out. There are still dead levels, but far fewer than in the past.

-1. The binding on the Core book. My 30-year-old DMG is in way better shape, even if you make allowance for Core's greater page count.
-2. Some fighting styles work pretty well 'out of the box'; others require 2-3 feats before they start to click and I don't know that this was done intentionally.
-3. High magic "christmas tree" assumptions in balancing. (Yes, I can and do work around this. I'd rather not have to.)
-4. Alignment. The D&D alignment system sometimes screws up games, and I've never seen it improve one.
-5. The Core book, IMHO, doesn't do a very good job of explaining character generation. Familiarity with D&D got me through my first experience with only mild vexation, but I feel bad for a true newbie trying to figure it out on his/her own.
-6. Fighters' mechanical options are a little sparse when there isn't a fight going on. (Yes, there are supps with fighter-like classes that don't have this issue, but they could+should have done better with the core class.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a GM, so that's how I see things.

Pro
1. Human variable stat bump--Demi humans 2 up 1 down.
2. Cmd/Cmb
3. Polymorph
4. Infinite Cantrips
5. No XP costs for anything = I'm able to just set a current level for the party and increase it between adventures as I see fit. Yay no more incentivizing XP grinding. Yay no more having to keep up with experience math. Yay! No more worrying if the badguys I pick to challenge my power gaming parties will just make them more powerful. This easily doable house rule puts me in control without adversely interacting with the rest of the game system.
6. Drows, Hobgoblins, etc. with no Level Adjustment.
7. Cleric Channel (So much more useful than turn undead and simpler to boot)
8. The death of the prestige class.
9. The fluff of sorcerer bloodlines.
10. The flexibility of the single cost per rank spell system.
11. Druids got a good nerfing.

Con

1. The absence of an online npc character generator that allows me to designate a race, class levels, and alignment and then spits me out a stat block with vaguely intelligent feat, equipment, and spell selections. I had several of these options for 3.X, and it made my life 5000 times easier as a GM.

2. NPCs take FOREVER to generate in bulk after level 2.

3. Favored Class Bonus. I loved this at first. But after playing the system for a year, I find that it is just one more layer of character complexity that makes the game worse by allowing characters to erase their weaknesses and all look the same. It is especially bad because it highlights two of the systems worst class balance problems and makes them worse. It takes the only drawback of being a mage- squshiness, and largely lets you erase it with a bunch of free hitpoints (as if the d6 wasn't enough). Then it takes the games crappiest class, the Rogue, and let's anyone have a whole bunch of what makes them special: skills

4. The Splat Books. Specifically Ultimate Combat and APG. I don't mind Ultimate Magic, because it's so bad that there is nothing in there I'd ever want to use. The APG and Ultimate Combat entice me into hours of trying to separate the little flecks of gold from the piles of steaming filth. They are so very far beneath the standards set by the Core Rulebook that it can be disorienting. Granted, most of the material in the core rulebooks has been playtested and improved upon for decades by hundreds of players and designers, while the stuff in the splat was just pulled out of thin air by Paizo in the last 2-3 years on a deadline, but sadly that is exactly how it reads, and how it plays.

5. The Golgarion/AP centric paradigm. I run my own games that I generate, and set in Eberron. I hear that the AP's and PFS are top noch if you're into that sort of thing, and I don't doubt it, but I get the impression that they are not particularly concerned with making my life easier as a GM, because they think I'm using their Adventure Paths.

6. Traits. I thought these sounded like a great way of letting the players flesh out their characters, with some harmless little background perks. Turns out they are another layer of poorly balanced rules bloat that have added no additional flavor to the PCs, but have become central to several of their builds.

7. Class Skills mean NOTHING. Fighter- never dies in combat. Wizard- can control the entire universe by Lv 5. Cleric- never dies in combat AND controls the entire universe by level 5. Rogue- gets twice as many +3 bonuses to underpowered skills that everyone can access as the Cleric does.

8. Combined super skills, mean that classes with few skill points never notice that they have few skill points, further exacerbating the nerfiness of the rouge class. This is of course further exacerbated by the favored class thing that gives everyone as many additional skill points as they need.

9. Too many spells outshine skills and make rogues irrelevant.

10. Spellcaster>Warrior>Skill User

11. Monks either suck or use some poorly balanced splatbook mechanics that break/slow down my game. There is no middle ground.

12. Spell blasters still kinda suck.

13. Trip is a little OP. Giving a few more options to prone characters would help.

14. Too many cut & paste artifacts from 3.5 and awkward rules seams where they changed something without rewriting

15. Transmutation and Conjuration are still, individually the only school you'll ever need.

16. The 'Over Haul' of the spell system is underwhelming.

17. Clerics are still a little OP, though I admit they are less so than in 3.5

18. Christmas Tree effect, made worse by the fact that the rules imply unfettered market access to any magic item the players can afford.

19. Archetypes. I liked them at first... until I saw them in action a while. Want to give up a well designed special ability that the party is depending on someone of your class to have, to get a poorly designed special ability that lets you narrowly over specialize? Choose an archetype. Or, alternately: Want to let your players give up a useless class ability that they were never going to use for an over powered ability they are going to use 10 times a session? Choose an archetype.

20. The mechanics of the Sorcerer bloodlines are super under powered, especially when you compare them with their divine counter part, the Oracle.

Liberty's Edge

I found the "likes" a lot easier to come up with than the "dislikes". In fact, narrowing "likes" down to ten took a bit of work.

Like ("Love" is a bit strong):

1. The availability, earnestness, and dedication of the Paizo staff.
2. Skill consolodation.
3. Emphasis on modularity in classes (i.e. Bloodlines, Cavalier Orders)
4. Vast improvements to martial classes over 3.5
5. Everything they have done with my favorite class since 2nd Ed., the Bard.
6. The Inquisitor, the only class I've ever loved almost as much as the Bard.
7. The Golarion setting. Particularly the much greater emphasis on diversity (of all kinds) than I typically find in tabletop RPG settings.
8. The effort the designers make to cater to a wide variety of playstyles and aesthetic prefrences.
9. Archetypes.
10. The way Wayne Reynolds draws monsters.

Dislike ("Hate" is a bit strong):

1. Even with my deep lack of concern for precise balance and mechanical optimization, the Rogue still needs some help outside of the hands of a veteran player.
2. The fact that, even though I love the Summoner and have no compuctions against it in the games I run, something about it still feels "off" to me.
3. The lack of support for a "Free-Hand" fighting style. I like the little bit we've got, but it has by far the least support of any classic fighting style.
4. Vital Strike's lack of interaction with other feats. This is the only extreme contention I've ever had with a Pathfinder ruling, so I can't complain too much. It just irks me like crazy.
5. The nerfing of the Spiked Chain. Yes, I am a Spiked Chain fanboy. No, I am not proud. I go to a support group. The road to recovery is long.
6. That "Elves of Golarion" is the only race guide not written under Pathfinder rules.
7. That, as far as I know, there is no non-campaign specific trait that grants Acrobatics as a class skill. This is one of the very few mechanical things that has gotten in the way of a few "off the beaten path" character ideas I've had.
8. While I think Paizo has done a *lot* to mitigate it, the game *does* still start to fall apart once characters hit 17th or so.
9. The way Wayne Reynolds draws people. (Here come the slings and arrows.)
10. That katanas, RAW, can't cut a mountain in half.

That last dislike isn't true, at all, but it's the best thing I can think of to try and draw fire off of the fact that I really don't like the way WR draws people.

But it's futile, isn't it? Oh well, just find a nice stake to burn me on. I prefer cedar, but birch will do in a pinch.


Bunch of Haters in this room...

Ten Pro:

Fighter
Rogue
Bard
Ranger
Paladin
Monk
Barbarian
CMB / CMD rules
All the Asian monsters in the Bestiary
The new feats and archetypes in the APG

Ten Con:

Wizards
Sorcerers
Clerics
Druids
Oracles
Summoners
Gunslingers
Guns
Gunfighting Feats
Magic Item Creation


Chris Ballard wrote:
I don't like most of the traits. The only ones I like are rich parents and heirloom wepon. If I can't use those traits, then I don't want any.

As those are probably two of the most powerful traits, I think your observation amounts to "I think traits should be more powerful."


Orannis wrote:


Dislike ("Hate" is a bit strong):

7. That, as far as I know, there is no non-campaign specific trait that grants Acrobatics as a class skill. This is one of the very few mechanical things that has gotten in the way of a few "off the beaten path" character ideas I've had.

I almost wish they would just publish an "I am incidentally good at this" trait that let you pick a skill and get it as a class skill (possibly with an additional +1). There's already a bunch of traits that are more or less exactly that with no concrete fluff behind them besides that - Fast-Talker and some of the Knowledge ones are already more or less "I am good at this, okay?" If as a DM I am willing to accept "I'm good at bluffing people" as a background justification for why someone has bluff as a class skill an a bonus to it when they normally wouldn't, I'm probably pretty willing to accept just about anything.

Shadow Lodge

Like: Paladin.

Dislike: Traits.

Shadow Lodge

Love: Druids

Hate: The ridiculous amount of hunting and cross-referencing it takes to understand a fundamental class ability: wild shape.


Likes:

1: The assumption that the players are adults (items like birth control are available, the hideous backstory of ogres etc.)
2: Everyone gets a cookie of some sort with every level
3: The better thought out skill simplification
4: The fact that a well made martial character out damages a casty every time.
5: Traits
6: the Adventure paths
7: Golarion
8: The fact that Wotc cannot homogenize it in an effort to give it broader appeal
9: Archtypes
10: CMD and CMB

Dislikes:

1: The rigid marriage to the alignment system.
2: That Paizo did not buy Scarred Lands and convert all books to Pathfinder
3: The skill system still could use some love
4: Not stats for yurts
5: Craft skills need a bit of an overhaul
6: That I only get to play it at most twice a week.
7: Sorcerers
8: Oracles
9: when AM BARBARIAN mistakes me for Schrodinger's Casty.
10: The fact that the pinnacle of your class arrives at 20th level, it should arrive at like 14th level.


like:
the classes
archetypes
no dead levels
art
forum
goblins
dislikes:
the rogue is weak
lazy faq
unneeded nerfs
christmas tree effect
"role players"


Likes
1 the way each class gets something at each level
2 you dont need a rogue for most APs
3 APs! are a great idea and mostly well executed
4 The APG is full of cool classes
5 Archtypes + alternate racial things
6 I like traits
7 you get feats more often
8 Kingmaker is awesome
9 that you roll a d20 add some stuff, and have to hit a target number
10 A lot of the monster artwork

dislikes
1 the covers of the books have PCs doing things not possible with the rules
2 alot of the P.C. artwork,way to OOT in terms of weapons size, boobies etc
3 Goblins, and the obsession with goblins
4 The monk...lets make a class that doesnt fit the default and makes everyone groan when they slow the game down on their complicated go
5 many of the find the McGuffin PFS's mods
6 They took the 3.5 rulesbook and uglified it a lot....and stuff it together with cheap glue
7 the editing is rather poor, and lack of playtest is evident in a number of mods, and written by committee
8 that number 7 above is actually 2 things!!
9 Grappled....why didnt they stop at grappled....why then go on to pin etc
10 blaster casters are weak

Silver Crusade

Would like to point out the cleric, sorcerer, and bard classes to those saying "no dead levels". It's just untrue. Not going to participate in the thread's intended direction because I'd rather bring facts than opinions to a discussion.


Tiann Ceriagh'u wrote:
Would like to point out the cleric, sorcerer, and bard classes to those saying "no dead levels". It's just untrue. Not going to participate in the thread's intended direction because I'd rather bring facts than opinions to a discussion.

At what level does the Cleric, Sorcerer or bard not gain in spell-casting ability?

Silver Crusade

I suppose you can count that; I meant things like new feats (fighters get one every level) or new mercies for paladins or sneak attack dice.


Might as well give it a shot:

Love:
1- The artwork
2- The rules (seriously, I hate the 4e rules)
3- The Magus
4- The archetypes
5- The new combat maneuvers

Hate:
1- The 1st-level domain powers, bloodline powers and school powers being "per day" instead of "at-will" AND level-scalable (no one would call them broken, even if they become 10d6 damage-dealing at-will rays at 20th level). Furthermore, apparently, during the playtests, they WERE at-will abilities until they got changed.
2- STILL no cold-based 3rd-level spells that deals up to 10d6 points of damage
3- Templates almost being forbidden for PCs due to having no rule on how to use them
4- The management of prestige classes, because most, if not all of them, would be better as archetypes. Assassin for rogue, Battle Herald for bard, Arcane Trickster for wizard, etc...
5- The lack of a dragon-based race

I don't have much to add though...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
rat_ bastard wrote:
At what level does the Cleric, Sorcerer or bard not gain in spell-casting ability?

Most people don't consider an extra spell slot without a new spell level enough when determining dead levels.


Here's my list.

Things that I like about Pathfinder:

1. It's based on 3.5e D&D.

2. Traits were a nice idea.

3. The artwork is quite lovely.

4. Skill system has been simplified.

5. No level adjustment rules needed anymore.

6. New and interesting races such as Changelings.

7. Removal of empty levels was also an improvement.

8. Tracking was one of the smaller rules that improved.

9. Paladin's Smite actually does something useful for once.

10. Some of the fluff is pretty awesome, such as Hellknights.

Things I hate about Pathfinder:

1. Fanboys/girls.

2. 3.5 Compatibility does not really exist.

3. Gunslinger, how it and Firearm rules work.

4. Feats in general cost too much to be of use.

5. Archetypes. It's like the 2e kits, minus the fun.

6. Most Combat Maneuvers cost too much for too little gain.

7. Shoddy mechanics that prove a lack of proper play-testing.

8. Channeling rules. Might just be me being used to Turn Undead.

9. Casters weren't really nerfed (they got more HP, for example).

10. Unneeded nerfs in the core rules (spiked chains being one example).


Tiann Ceriagh'u wrote:
Would like to point out the cleric, sorcerer, and bard classes to those saying "no dead levels". It's just untrue. Not going to participate in the thread's intended direction because I'd rather bring facts than opinions to a discussion.

as this thread is opinion, not factual discussion, so post away!!!!!


10 things I like:
#1: Improved feat cycle. It seemed baffling to me that there were ~hundreds~ of feats in 3.5 and you only got to pick seven unless you were human or a fighter.
#2: Consolidated feats. This one's a tie in to the above, and it's ugly stepsister, feat-division, will be #1 in dislikes, but in general, I like it when I don't have to pay feat tax to get to a particular perk.
#3: Some of the martial class buffs. I wish my bard actually got to benefit from them, but Paladin is a little more fluid now and I enjoy it!
#4: Simplified skill system.
#5: Psuedo-feats like Rogue talents, alchemist discoveries, etc. I like minor, subtle customizations.
#6: Animal Companion progression tables. My first and last 3.5 game, I played a Druid and we basically skipped my animal companion rather than try to figure out how to properly progress it by level. Having a simple, straightforward way to progress a creature is great.
#7: Simpler Grappling Rules.
#8: Firearms vs touch AC. My current character is a disaster of a hybrid gish with a gun, the gun eliminates the need for so many traditional pre-combat buff cycles.
#9: The Paizo rules forum. It's funny, educational, makes you think, and the dev team offers both official and unofficial commentary.
#10: The artwork. I love the digital coloring that makes me wonder if you went to japan to get a decent colorist.

Things I dislike:
#1: Split feats (Improved/greater trip). I loathe being feat-taxed simply to achieve basic functionality.
#2: Vancian Magic and x/day effects in general. Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards is a symptom of False dichotomy: when you feel spells have to be "Worth" the per diem limit, you tend to erratically make them more powerful. Eventually you get to the point where Wizards can create their own pocket dimensions because "Hey, they can only do that once per day!"
#3: Wildshape nerfs. Wildshape has dual purpose - Fluff, and combat prowess. The wildshape nerfs guarantee that I'll only ever be able to use it for fluff, as opposed to the 3.5 wildshape I only ever used for combat because it was too valuable. There must be a healthy medium.
#4: Polymorph/Alter-self nerfs.
#5: Did I mention...? Yeah, sorry. I really, really liked 3.5 Wildshape and Alter-self. There were better ways to make polymorph spells workable than to remove the reasons to ever cast polymorph.
#6: Paizo's Bard update is terrible. From will save based songs being a guaranteed failure, to the misunderstanding that bardic knowledge = I know everything. Bardic Knowledge is "Hey, I'm good at picking up rumors, legends, gossip and local politics at the pub!" Not "I've never put a point into kn(engineering), but I can take 20 x/day and be just as good at it as someone who's put points into it every single level."
#7: Arbitrary flavor costs. Some class themed, flavorful weapons require exotic weapon proficiencies. More powerful weapons (by both damage and crit range) are given to martial weapon users for free. It simply doesn't add up.
#8: the 2D alignment axis. What if I'm not chaotic, but adhere to "blue and orange morality?" D&D says "that's chaotic". I say "That's lawful, it's just not your law." It makes paladin more complicated than it needs to be.
#9: The paladin code needs to be taken out of the DM's hands, period. He can already nerf you at will, he doesn't need to be encouraged. My current DM's cool with grey-case morality, but my first DM had a policy of "if you roll a paladin, you will fall because the class has a feature that says I am required to make you fall as punishment."
#10: PrCs having Medium save progressions.


I like most of Pathfinder. That said, I'd wait until they re-issue the CRB before commenting overmuch. I definitely agree with some of the combat maneuvers and combat actions being too "stuffed into" feats. I'd like overall, a little relaxing in areas like these.

My only other complaint is the shifting away from the DM. That is, making a rule for everything and viewing the DM as an enemy. It isn't a Player versus DM game. Take it across the table if there's an issue.

Regarding smite: the math has been done. Click there for charts and breakdowns.


No I haven't read every post ;)

I like Pathfinder over all. Love the fact that they saved us when 3.5 was canned. Don't like the way improved grapple needs improved unarmed strike as a prerequisite. You should be able to have that one on its own i.e. wrestling, judo etc. Also there should be improved unarmed strike greater. Oh well. I wish they would have updated the Psionics Rules to Pathfinder but Dreamscarred Press did- so it doesn't matter. I wish they had put out their 3.5 stuff in Pathfinder rules. Over all its great fun.


The Loooovvees...

1) Traits - when applied with sense and reason, not just tacked on for advantage
2) Archetypes - like traits, just another great way to individualize characters, and tie capability in with background.
3) CMB and CMD - I'm all for workable simplicity - D20 has enough to stay on top of, even without rules like the old grapple stuff.
4) Races - they are all pretty exciting and worthy now. One complaint with the 1/2 O - see below.
5) Energy channel for clerics - I'm a cleric player from way back, and this is one of the best enhancements ever.
6) Fighter class - even though will never be my personal favorite, I feel for those who love it, and PF big strides in the right direction with it.
7) Sorcerer class - I never liked the vanilla sorc of 3E. Now I will generally take in preference to wiz, even knowing reasons not to.
8) Oracle, Witch, and Alchemist base classes.
9) Varisia (yes - I KNOW it's been overused, now. But it is still one of my favorite settings.)
10) Detail of Golarion's neighboring worlds - I'm a big fan of the old planetary romance novels (Leigh Brackett in particular), so I love this element. (though I acknowledge it could easily get carried away with, and cheesy, and think there should be fewer inhabited worlds)

The "We hates, it precious!!" list --

1) Summoner - first, that name is dumb. Mechanically - why CHA driven? Doesn't that denote an intuitive caster, like a sorc or oracle? So why does someone end up a summoner, instead of a sorcerer? Just "happens?" And why the armor use and middle tier BAB/HD progression? Someone who devotes themselves to this esoteric art also has time/inclination to study combat? I *do* like the eidolon aspect of it -- if was more like a wizard (Int based, slow BAB/D6 etc.) I would like it better. (yes -- bards have some similar questions attached, but as a whole don't annoy me the same. Possibly just because I'm used to them...)
2) Gunslinger - I just don't care for firearms added to a fantasy setting, personally.
3) Paladin's smite - for reasons already expounded by others.
4) Skills - okay, yes, I do like the simplicity. Doing skills in 3.5 was always my least favorite part. But, as someone else brought up, it takes a lot away from the rogue (just one level, and suddenly you're the new skill monkey). Also, *too* many were combined -- perception, stealth, and linguistics, should have retained their separate elements, IMO, except for combining search/spot.
5) Half-orc - +2 to any ability? I know this is norm now for semi-humans -- but I feel a bonus to Int or Cha, and really Wis or Dex too, is badly inappropriate for this race.
6) Item creation - for reasons already elaborated on by others.
7) Ninjas - in my gaming years, never encountered one that was role played well, or for any well considered reason. I am open to being pleasantly shocked, some day. But, in the meanwhile, I expect annoying silly stuff when I hear someone is playing one. The name alone makes me wince.
8) Prestige classes - most would probably be better as archetypes, now. Assassin most outstandingly.
9) Favored classes - both unbalancing and unnecessary.
10) Creating npcs. I ad lib when I GM, sometimes, I confess! My life is just too damn busy to spend the hours it often takes to crank out numbers of npcs under the 3E paradigm.


Likes:
1) Revamps to Fighter. Despite the hate, most people I know find them solid.
2) Solid adventure path books.
3) Removal of most "dead levels".
4) Monsters just seem to "work better" in Pathfinder.
5) Low-level wizards and sorcerers can (kind of) put away their pom-poms.
6) So far nothing even really resembling the Book of Broken Swords has made it in the game.
7) Adventure paths tend to not just focus on combat.
8) The fluff is good, even if I think there's too much of it.
9) Release schedule is not overbearing.
10) Combat does feel substantially faster than 3.5 at higher levels.

Dislikes:
1) The "Spontaneous Penalty": Spontaneous casters suffer enough from limited spell selection, they don't also need to be a level behind the curve.

2) Lack of PRCs: It seems Pathfinder is trying to distance itself from them, but I think an important thing is being forgotten. Archetypes are great... for new characters. PRCs let me apply things from my new purchases to existing characters.

3) Pathfinder Society: Too. Much. Is. Banned. Enough said. The fact every new book has most of its new and interesting choices gutted out to appease grognards is keeping me from participating. Guns was the straw that broke the camel's back... Either they're in the game or not.

4) Feats/Abilities/Etc are either awesome or completely lackluster and not worth taking. While it is something best avoided, it seems that Paizo is so afraid of power creep they they're absolutely paralyzed in the face of it. I like that my core stuff is still totally good, but it's frustrating to page through 20 pages of new feats and go "meh.. none of these do anywhere even close as much for me as power attack."

5) Some huge 3.5 mistakes are being repeated: The best example I can think of is this - I don't think it's any secret that Dex is probably the single best stat in the game. It's already so overloaded, yet things like Dervish Dance and Agile weapons are sneaking their way into the game. Dex is good enough... stop letting it count for everything.

6) "Capstones" brutally punish you for multiclassing. The abilities gained for remaining a single class should be worth it on their own, the "golden carrot" at the end of the stick tends to kill desire to multiclass.

7) Even with a new book full of options, Monks are still "meh", and Ninjas completely overshadow Rogues.

8) Too much fluff, not enough crunch in most books. I expect more than 3-4 new feats, 5 new spells and a handful of new traits in a book. The "Faiths of" books were a huge letdown for me. If there has ever been a D&D/Pathfinder/ETC class that has been extremely mutable based on a deity choice, it is clerics. I think even the old Gods and Magic did a better job of making a cleric of <x> feel more like a cleric of <x>.

9) Swift Action Overload: Too many things require swift actions, and with no way to convert them, it feels like tons of class abilities get thrown to the curb just because you never get the window to use them.

10) Probably just a attitude in general about D20 games, but I'm kind of tired of "swiss army wizards".


Love:

1) The campaign setting. When I first got into Pathfinder, I intended to use it to convert my third edition Forgotten Realms material into PF, then go on playing in that setting. Then I discovered Golarion, and, well, I don't think I ever converted anything other than the Genasi races in the end.
2) The fact that I easily could use it to convert material from my old Forgotten Realms and Eberron books - I spent a lot of money on those, and I'm sure at some point or other I'll feel the Realms calling, or decide I want to give Eberron another try, and I won't have to re-adjust to 3.5 to do so.
3) The fact that they managed to find enough interesting monsters to make me buy three Bestiaries - in 3.5, I looked through the second Monster Manual and was decidedly unimpressed, and the third was no better. Very few monsters stood out as things I couldn't wait to try in an encounter.
4) Pathfinder Tales (except the Worldwound Gambit - present tense just rubs me the wrong way - also, I have yet to read Plague of Shadows). My main motivation for picking up Prince of Wolves was to learn more about the setting, but about half-way through I was hooked. So far, I've read through both of Dave Gross' novels, Winter Witch, and Death's Heretic, and I love them all. Can't wait for more Tales.
5) The fact that the Beginner Box has made it easy for me and my fiancé to introduce the kids to the game.
6) Just about everything in the Advanced Player's Guide. The alternate race features, new archetypes, and new classes alone made the book well worth the money as far as I'm concerned. Of the new classes, I especially love the Witch and Oracle, and I very much want to see the Inquisitor and Alchemist in action more. Haven't really looked at Cavalier much, to be honest, and I'm the Summoner isn't my particular cup of tea, but still interesting options.
7) Awesome pre-painted miniatures. Without minis, I probably wouldn't bother with battle-maps at all.
8) Having the rules available for free online, and having the PDFs of hardcover rulebooks so reasonably priced. As someone who plays much more online (either through Skype or play by post) than tabletop these days, I love having quick access to all the rules on my laptop.
9) The fact that every change to the rules I've seen so far is one I agree with (if not right away, then after giving it some thought). Also, the fact that this makes every core base class interesting to me - I feel like I could take any class, play it to level 20 with no multiclassing or prestige classing, and and have a good time doing so. In 3.5, I too often found myself searching all sorts of books trying to find the 'perfect' prestige class, and the idea of a character with 20 levels in a single class only ever made sense to me if I was playing a Monk or maybe a Druid. Oh, and they fixed the Dragon Disciple and Arcane Archer - why anyone would design such classes in a way that didn't improve their spellcasting ability is beyond me.
10) I feel the rules are still very easy to tweak and house-rule if I should feel the need to do so.

Dislike (because I can't think of a single thing about Pathfinder I can claim to hate):
1) The lack of a character builder type program. I loved the CB for 4th Edition, and having a similar product for Pathfinder would be awesome. Yeah, there's Hero Lab, but, well, it's expensive. To pick up the core rules, the APG, Ultimate Magic, and Ultimate Combat for it would be $60. (I've already got the core rules, APG, and UM as hardcovers, and PDFs of the core, APG, and UC. If I didn't have access to these things already, the price would seem more reasonable to me, but since I've already paid twice for several of them (three times for the core rulebook), I really don't want to pay up yet again.) Throw in all three Bestiaries, since I tend to GM as much as I play, and that's $30 more (again, for content I already own either as PDFs, hardcover books, or both). And that's before we consider any of the campaign setting material. Ugh. At least with 4E, I could pay for a month's access to DDI, download the Character Builder (back when you still could download it, anyway - haven't played 4E lately, but I realize this has changed), and get all material published until then available in it.
2) I wish Pathfinder Tales could be sold in the Kindle store on Amazon. Yes, I've read the arguments for why this can't be done, and yes, I know I can easily download the epubs, convert them, and read them on my Kindle just fine. But as a consumer, convenience is very important with me, and I love being able to fire up my Kindle, search for a novel, and download it, all in a minute or two. Add to that the ability to quickly download a sample of each book, letting you read the first chapter or so before deciding if you want to spend money on it or not. I'll still keep buying the epubs here and converting them myself, though, but in an ideal world, that'd be a step I wouldn't have to go through to get the book on my device.
3) The constant edition wars, as if there's no room for both Pathfinder and 4E in the market. Nothing annoys me as much as the 'zealots' who will preach the complete superiority of their game and go on and on about why this other game sucks and why you shouldn't enjoy it (unless you're a bad roleplayer who just hasn't seen the light yet). Give me a break. 4E might not be my favorite game out there, but I've had fun playing it, I've roleplayed my 4E character just as well as I could have done in Pathfinder. On the other hand, I also really like Pathfinder. Right now, Pathfinder is the only of the two I'd consider running, but if a friend of mine said he'd be running a 4E campaign and asked me to play, I'd accept in a heartbeat, and have fun playing - just as I would if the same campaign was run in Pathfinder or 3.5.
4) Oh, hey, a rules-thing! I think Rangers should have Acrobatics as a class skill - and in fact, I'll gladly house rule this when I run games.
5) I wish more modules would be tied together with flip-mats the way Crypt of the Everflame used the Dungeon flip-mat. Having that map ready when I ran the adventure last summer made the whole adventure run much smoother for me, and it was one less thing I had to worry about as I was prepping for the game.
6) This is where I would have said "more support for playing Aasimars and Tieflings, please", but with Blood of Fiends, Blood of Angels, and the Advanced Race Guide all on the schedule... I guess I'll soon have what I'm asking for here. :-)
7) This is a minor one, since I've informally house ruled it since 3.5, but carrying capacity still being a thing? Really? I mean, sure, if your character decides to carry four sets of full plate and three greataxes with him back to town to sell to the local blacksmith, I'll tell you that you're being silly and that's just not going to work (unless you're the proud owner of a Bag of Holding or Portable Hole, anyway). But counting every last half-pound item in your backpack, trying to figure out if you're under a Light or a Medium load (and then having to figure out what the difference between those two is again)? No. In my games, unless you're trying to carry a plainly ridiculous amount of stuff with you, I don't care - and the carrying capacity rules has never enhanced my game in any way, shape or form.
8) On a similar note... counting down how many non-magical arrows you have in your quiver? Sure, realistically speaking, you'd eventually run out of arrows - but does it make for a fun game when the archer suddenly has to switch from the weapon he's focused in and has invested the most resources in, to a weapon that's at best going to be considered a back-up for him? Yeah, if you want to go shooting off magical arrows or arrows made of special materials for the purposes of defeating damage reduction, I'll make you count how many you have, but plain arrows that do nothing other than allow you to attack with your longbow? Nah. Infinite ammo for everyone.
9) I'd prefer Paladins to be restricted to any Good alignment, not just Lawful Good. Similarly, Anti-Paladins should get to be any Evil alignment.
10) My poor wallet cries every time new Pathfinder products are announced. ;-)

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / 10 things you love and hate about PF All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.