How to fix Pathfinder? Easy.

[Captain Marsh]

There is a sort of unceasing debate on the message boards here about myriad "broken" aspects of Pathfinder.

Classes are unbalanced at various levels. Abilities that are cool in the early game are irrelevant later. Some classes are particularly vulnerable and unfun in the early going.

Buried in all that complexity is the fact -- confirmed through countless hours of game-table play-testing -- that Pathfinder is actually a very nearly perfectly balanced, synchronized and ridiculously fun RPG through the middle levels.

If I were writing Pathfinder Next, I would essentially canonize the rules with PCs running from roughly 3rd through 12th level.

I would maintain a set of variant rules for "low magic" campaigns that include 1st and 2nd level options.

And I would include two high level variants, one for "superhero" play in the 12th-18th level range and another for "diety" style play in the 18th level and higher range.

This adjustment of the game's scope accomplishes a couple of things.

First, it brings the Pathfinder experience into the range of rules where everything works incredibly well.

You can play a rogue or a wizard or maybe even a bard and feel like you've got a vivid, balanced and effective range of powers and abilities.

Secondly, it focuses Pathfinder on what most genre fans think of as "real fantasy".

Characters much higher than 12th level have powers and abilities that just don't fit the feel of most fantasy narratives.

Obviously, anyone can just "house rule" this sort of change.

But if Paizo were to lead the charge it might also reshape things like the Adventure Paths.

It would be really cool to see what an AP story arc would look like that ran from 3rd through 12th levels.

PCs could really start with a bang -- no puttering around in the first couple of encounters -- and move more deliberately through the campaign.

(The leveling up sequence for this kind of AP would look something like this: Book 1 3-4, Book 2 5-6, Book 4 7-8, Book 5 9-10, Book 6 11-12)

I'll end with a question: How many playing groups actually spend much time playing in the levels that I'm spurning?

Would Pathfinder lose a lot of its interest if the range of play occurred between levels 3-12?

--Captain Marsh

[Gorbacz]

Last time Paizo did an AP that ended up at level 12-13 things didn't go quite well.

[TOZ]

Captain Marsh wrote:

How to fix Pathfinder?

Play Kirthfinder.

[Captain Marsh]

Gorbacz - Say more about that. What went wrong?

[Kthulhu]

Even better - Play Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rulebook.

It's MUCH shorter, and it's not hundreds of pages of house rules layered on top of a system that's already 600 pages.

[Gorbacz]

Captain Marsh wrote:

Gorbacz - Say more about that. What went wrong?

Simply put, the amount of folks who want the game to reach the level 20 capstone or beyond is so high that doing a low-ball AP (Council of Thieves) was met with much criticism about characters not being able to reach their full potential.

Also, there's this whole front of folks who clamor for epic/mythic ruleset.

[Captain Marsh]

I guess that's why I asked whether a lot of people actually play in the 13th-20th level range. I guess the answer is yes.

If so, then obviously Paizo has a market-driven answer here:

Even if the rules don't quite work in those upper levels, people are having fun and getting the experience they want...

Fair enough.

[Wolfgang Baur]

The epic/mythic ruleset group is somewhat like the psionics group, though. A vocal minority, but still a minority taste. I know there are groups that quit around level 10 when things get "too silly."

It's a matter of taste, clearly.

[Captain Marsh]

PS: Though it does sort of remind me of the "turn it up to 11" gag on Spinal Tap.

If Paizo structured its character and story arcs in this imaginary ecology so that the standard for "really awesome" was 12th level...maybe people wouldn't need to imagine being 20th level.

[Gorbacz]

Wolfgang Baur wrote:

The epic/mythic ruleset group is somewhat like the psionics group, though. A vocal minority, but still a minority taste. I know there are groups that quit around level 10 when things get "too silly."

It's a matter of taste, clearly.

Considering my complete lack of interest in epic/mythic/20+/whatever, these words spoken by an industry insider do calm my nerves which go wazoo with every "I want to battle UberGods and TurboDragons" thread. :)

[Captain Marsh]

One final thought:

I do remember playing D&D in the 70s when "leveling up" was a big part of the thrill and teenage power fantasies were at least half the fun.

I didn't care much if the rules (or the storylines) were broken, so long as I could slam dragons' heads together...

Maybe one of the disconnects here is that so much of Paizo's work doesn't seem to be aimed at the Middle School crowd.

[Ravenbow]

Gorbacz wrote:

Wolfgang Baur wrote:

The epic/mythic ruleset group is somewhat like the psionics group, though. A vocal minority, but still a minority taste. I know there are groups that quit around level 10 when things get "too silly."

It's a matter of taste, clearly.

Considering my complete lack of interest in epic/mythic/20+/whatever, these words spoken by an industry insider do calm my nerves which go wazoo with every "I want to battle UberGods and TurboDragons" thread. :)

This!

[Ravenbow]

Captain Marsh wrote:

Maybe one of the disconnects here is that so much of Paizo's work doesn't seem to be aimed at the Middle School crowd.

Oh the replies to this that went through my head.

Thanks for the laugh.

[cibet44]

Captain Marsh wrote:

How to fix Pathfinder?

Just use the core rules. It works fine all the way from 1 to 20.

Wolfgang Baur wrote:

I know there are groups that quit around level 10 when things get "too silly."

In my experience the only thing that gets silly is the occasional high level adventure or things like ninjas and cowboys. The classic and vetted stuff stays very grounded when you have an adventure writer or GM that is experienced with high level play, not reading or daydreaming about what high level play is like, or what it was like when they were 12 years old.

[Vazok Goregrin]

Hey man daydreaming about how D&D was when were 12 years old is every GM with 20+ years experience under thier belt's gods given right dern it!

You kids and your fancy shmancy Pathfinder do not understand what it was like to suffer through everyone in the game just given psionics or elf being a class. Do not even get me started on THAC0, for the love of all that is Holy not THAC0.

Not gonna lie I am one of them old timer Game masters who recalls the "good ole days" before Pathfinder and let me tells yah from first hand experience as a player and a game master they sucked. You guys think Pathfinder is unbalanced and that some classes are unremarkable at "cap" you honestly have no clue.

[Puna'chong]

It's broken?

[houstonderek]

Puna'chong wrote:

It's broken?

Not "broken". It just never addressed any of the real issues with 3.5 D&D. It was created in a time of uncertainty, out of need to keep the business model (selling APs) viable. The core engine of 3.5 has a ton of flaws carried over from ignoring the limits of the D20, and throwing out the limits on spell-casting AD&D used to keep magic users in check.

Pathfinder was doomed to repeat the same issues 3.5 had when Paizo decided the "we'll fix it at the table" side was their audience during the Beta, and they ignored the "we really have a chance to fix 3.5" crowd.

[Duiker]

houstonderek wrote:

Puna'chong wrote:

It's broken?

Not "broken". It just never addressed any of the real issues with 3.5 D&D. It was created in a time of uncertainty, out of need to keep the business model (selling APs) viable. The core engine of 3.5 has a ton of flaws carried over from ignoring the limits of the D20, and throwing out the limits on spell-casting AD&D used to keep magic users in check.

Pathfinder was doomed to repeat the same issues 3.5 had when Paizo decided the "we'll fix it at the table" side was their audience during the Beta, and they ignored the "we really have a chance to fix 3.5" crowd.

It's critical that you resurrected this three year old thread, because despite this same thing being posted every week since then, this old thread has one special difference: it's short.

[houstonderek]

Duiker wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Puna'chong wrote:

It's broken?

Not "broken". It just never addressed any of the real issues with 3.5 D&D. It was created in a time of uncertainty, out of need to keep the business model (selling APs) viable. The core engine of 3.5 has a ton of flaws carried over from ignoring the limits of the D20, and throwing out the limits on spell-casting AD&D used to keep magic users in check.

Pathfinder was doomed to repeat the same issues 3.5 had when Paizo decided the "we'll fix it at the table" side was their audience during the Beta, and they ignored the "we really have a chance to fix 3.5" crowd.

It's critical that you resurrected this three year old thread, because despite this same thing being posted every week since then, this old thread has one special difference: it's short.

Some of us were around way back then. It still sticks in the craw.

[Sellsword2587]

Easy fix for Pathfinder?

Bounded Accuracy; smaller bonuses and penalties that have a cap (no ridiculous modifiers of +/- 20+), and PC power level is measured in options/actions during their turns (doing more, unique stuff) instead of growing/more numbers.

D&D 5E is a good example of Bound Accuracy put into practice.

[Cyrad]

I'm not crazy about bringing up old threads, especially for a topic so common and overdone like this. If you want to discuss any of these ideas of "fixing" Pathfinder in a separate thread, go right ahead.

[houstonderek]

Sellsword2587 wrote:

Easy fix for Pathfinder?

Bounded Accuracy; smaller bonuses and penalties that have a cap (no ridiculous modifiers of +/- 20+), and PC power level is measured in options/actions during their turns (doing more, unique stuff) instead of growing/more numbers.

D&D 5E is a good example of Bound Accuracy put into practice.

Easier fix? Play 1e or 5e. Pathfinder is and probably will always be just 3.5 with houserules. Can't fix a flawed engine.

[Scud422]

Captain Marsh wrote:

I'll end with a question: How many playing groups actually spend much time playing in the levels that I'm spurning?

I don't know if the OP will see this old thread, but I think this is still a very worthwhile question.

I've been playing tabletop RPGs consistently for the past 10 years. Of all of the d20 level based games that I've played, not a single one lasted past lvl 14, majority of them never went past 10. Also, for each system that I've all ready played 1 or 2 games in, I always beg the DM of the new game to start us at least at level 3 or 4.
When I eventually DM a campaign, I would love to find a great campaign that starts them off at level 3-5 and then goes to level 12-15. Then, if the group is still together and wants to keep going, bust out an epic level campaign for them.

[Kirth Gersen]

houstonderek wrote:

Can't fix a flawed engine.

I've started just halving all total bonuses above +5, and DCs above 15. So instead of a guy with a +30 attack going up against a monster with AC 40, it's a guy with a +17 attack going up against a monster with AC 27. Helps keep all the numbers in a more reasonable range.

[OS_Dirk]

It tends to work out about the same for my group, too. We often end up starting at level 2 or 3, and more often than not the campaign is done by the time we hit level 15/16.

We had one epic level (sort of) campaign, but that was cobbled from the remains of a lot of previously fun campaigns that had ended too early.