|
By your logic...
I didn't offer any logic, only a factual statement and question.
No, the Magus should have at most the same number of spells per level as the Wizard. Neither the Ranger or the Paladin has more spells per level than the Cleric or Druid.
The Magus is also expected to use his spells while attacking in combat, while the Paladin and Ranger are not. Reducing the Magus to even fewer spells means he will run out that much faster, while the Paladin and Ranger have much more to offer when their spells run out.
By your logic...I didn't offer any logic, only a factual statement and question.
Neither did the authors.
Okay, so let's agree that an archer could accurately shoot 200 yards, and smoothbore muskets sucked (as they indeed did).
Let's take a look at early rifled muskets,
Rifled muskets increased the effective range to about 200 or 300 yards, and a rifled musket could often hit a man-sized target up to 500 yards away.Which is at or above the effective range of a longbow, yet in pathfinder the best bow will shoot farther than the best rifle.
Bearing in mind I know nothing about guns (I only dived in when I saw the longbow query), I'd say if Rifled Musket = Advanced Firearm then that's a good case for increasing the maximum range of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bring back the 10 foot exception for medium pole arms.
"Attack them from the north west!
"Why's that captain?
"Pole arms don't work in any direction but due north due south due east or due west!
You either need to write in an exception to how a pole arm threatens, OR you need to write in an exception changing threatened squares to a threatened "Area" that doesn't show up well on the grid.
Just switch is to a hex grid and be done with it
255 posts of things people don't like with Pathfinder. I knew there was some discontent, but I didn't expect this. Further, there's not been any "true believer" incessantly arguing.
Is this significant?
Given that we probably won't see Pathfinder 1.5 for another 3 years and problems tend to snowball and cascade, what's that forecast about the rule set a year or two from now?
What systemic issues caused this?
Most of the posts are repeats of the same thing.
A decent number of people don't like:
-Vancian casting.
-Alignment (either in general or as it interferes with the mechanics).
-The Grapple rules.
-Various ways the rules do not line up with reality.
The rest are pretty far off from each other, which means most people (as I am) are content with the majority of the game, besides some small factor that doesn't bother them too much but they will nevertheless take the opportunity to say it bugs them because it does.
The fact that a thread reaches 255 posts of people saying they don't like stuff doesn't mean much. Everybody has something they don't like about something, even things they enjoy. Nothing is flawless, especially when the flaws are subjective in many cases.
However, I think the first three things on the list (the list of entirely mechanical perceived issues) are worth looking at in any possible revision/new edition because of the consistently solid number of complaints about them.
|
Because there's no such thing as the perfect game. While treasure and encumberance and their handling annoy me, for others they are a key feature about what feels good about the game.
People who play any table top RPG house rule stuff they don't think feels right. Pathfinder, FATE, D&D 4, or D&D Next, Fiasco, whatever the game there's houserules.
Pathfinder was built on the 3.X chassis, and there are legacy issues involved with that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The things people complained about a decade ago are still broken?
You're assuming that what people are complaining about is something that's actually broken rather than a question of preferences and taste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this significant?Nah. Just the same things we've complained about since 3.0 debuted.
Yep, I haven't liked feats since day one, and I haven't liked all the additional classes and spells and on and on, that they keep adding.
DR/magic
Afther a couple of levels is like a joke.
Adventurers are a cut above normals. Notice that DR/magic would still be a significant obstacle for the world at large. It's OK for a monster's characteristic to be little more than a speed bump for well-equipped adventurers if it serves the purpose of the setting and general rules. A creature may remain vulnerable to adventurers, but still be difficult for their followers, neighbors, or guard dogs to affect.
255 posts of things people don't like with Pathfinder. I knew there was some discontent, but I didn't expect this.
225 ain't nothin' - personally I've found this thread to be very illuminating and informative, and I'm surprised at the fairly accepting tone for the most part of what are, after all personal opinions. Folks have likes and dislikes about parts of the system. It's a naturally occurring phenomenon of human variation/tastes.
Further, there's not been any "true believer" incessantly arguing.
Is this significant?
I don't think so.
Given that we probably won't see Pathfinder 1.5 for another 3 years and problems tend to snowball and cascade, what's that forecast about the rule set a year or two from now?
The first is an assumption. That problems tend to snowball and cascade is not universally agreed upon. I don't see an escalation of gripes.
What systemic issues caused this?
Making an RPG for humans? Or, staying true/backwards compatibility to some problematic parts of 3.5? Creating a messageboard for said game?
I do like that you are trying to find a common thread/possible solution however.
255 posts of things people don't like with Pathfinder. I knew there was some discontent, but I didn't expect this.225 ain't nothin' - personally I've found this thread to be very illuminating and informative, and I'm surprised at the fairly accepting tone for the most part of what are, after all personal opinions. Folks have likes and dislikes about parts of the system. It's a naturally occurring phenomenon of human variation/tastes.
Also, at least half the posts are poking holes in the other half and saying they're not things that need changing anyway.
All in all it's a pretty small sampling of relatively minor issues. They may be major issues to a few people, but as far as the game as a whole goes they're hardly dealbreaking.
I want a game where a priest of Cayden Cailean is more like a fighter while a priest of Calistria is more like a rogue and a priest of Desna is more like a bard. For that reason, I hate the cleric and paladin classes. I prefer healing to be based on the heal skill and "priest feats" be a collection of feats which grant characters the ability to channel and so forth.
That seems like a pretty bad way to go about it TBH as long as the class and Feat systems even vaguely resemble what they do now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The comments around Alignment confuse me; why do people struggle with this? we define moral boundaries in real life (that's why people go to prison) So if you dig up someone's graveyard and steal their relatives to make your undead. At the very least this is theft - even allowing that some weird little Goth has decided to take your fathers corpse as his personal attendant. There is good and evil acts; your's PC's actions actions whether good or evil have in game consequences.
The difference being that in real life mitigating circumstances are taken into account. That and we do not define moral boundaries in a concrete manner IRL. We define legal boundaries. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes not.
The example I always like to use is using Infernal Healing to save someone's life. Most normal people would look at that and say "Yeah, that's good, he saved somebody from dying!".
By RAW, that's not the case. It's eeeeevilllll. You are eeeeeeeviiiillllll for saving someone's life. And not in any morally ambiguous way like "I performed an organ transplant on this person by ripping the organ from one of my captive foes" sort of way. Using Infernal Healing doesn't do so much as inconvenience someone else.
Then there's the whole moral quandary where if you swallow someone's blood as a Dhampir with the Blood Drinker Feat, you are evil. It could be in combat, you bite the man in self defense, and swallow his blood. You're still evil.
Meanwhile, your Human/Half-Orc/Catfolk/Insert any other race here friend can do the same thing, and NOT be evil. Because he gained no benefit from it.
Nope, he swallowed the blood just because he felt like it. Or enjoys it. But because he didn't benefit from it, it's not evil.
That's stupid. There is not a more polite way to put that.
The comments around Alignment confuse me; why do people struggle with this? we define moral boundaries in real life (that's why people go to prison) So if you dig up someone's graveyard and steal their relatives to make your undead. At the very least this is theft - even allowing that some weird little Goth has decided to take your fathers corpse as his personal attendant. There is good and evil acts; your's PC's actions actions whether good or evil have in game consequences.
Actions having consequences and/or been perceived as good/evil/whatever has absolutely nothing to do with the alignment system.
You don't need a LG in your sheet to be play the most paladinesque character ever. And you surely don't need "Evil" in your stat block to do evil stuff and therefore be hated and hunted by good guys.
Alignment doesn't allow you to do anything you wouldn't be able to do without it. If it were a simple description of a character's morality, it would be okay, but it isn't. You can't have grey moral areas where everything is objectively Good or Evil. So many classical plots and character archetypes become really dumb thanks to alignment system, like a deluded villain who sees himself as a hero, how does he not know he's evil when a 1st level cleric can tell that he is, in fact, objectively evil. How can an evil shapeshifter do its job when it's so freaking easy to detect her? How can I make a surprise-villain who trick the heroes into trusting him when the Paladin can simply say "Nope. He's Evil. Let's not trust him." with 100% precision as soon as he meets the guy for the 1st time?
Alignment is not even necessary to play a game with Black & White morality. It simply makes playing one with grey areas a lot more difficult.
You can work around these restrictions and come up with some weird solutions, but it'd be so much simpler if we didn't have to do that in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want a game where a priest of Cayden Cailean is more like a fighter while a priest of Calistria is more like a rogue and a priest of Desna is more like a bard. For that reason, I hate the cleric and paladin classes. I prefer healing to be based on the heal skill and "priest feats" be a collection of feats which grant characters the ability to channel and so forth.That seems like a pretty bad way to go about it TBH as long as the class and Feat systems even vaguely resemble what they do now.
I do agree with the general sentiment, though. The idea that clerics of different gods should have major mechanical differences has a certain appeal to it. It makes the choice of deity seem more mechanically significant than just "what domain spells and weapon do I get?"
I seem to recall one of the Paizo devs also mentioned that they would have liked to have more variation in clerics depending on deity/domain as well, but that there just wasn't a way to do that without massively bloating the rules/wordcount of the class. The idea is fun, but it's hard to make it work outside of including deity-specific archetypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that clerics of different gods should have major mechanical differences has a certain appeal to it. It makes the choice of deity seem more mechanically significant than just "what domain spells and weapon do I get?"
I seem to recall one of the Paizo devs also mentioned that they would have liked to have more variation in clerics depending on deity/domain as well, but that there just wasn't a way to do that without massively bloating the rules/wordcount of the class. The idea is fun, but it's hard to make it work outside of including deity-specific archetypes.
I'd like if each domain offered a different ability at say, 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th level, and the Cleric could pick 1 at a time (instead of getting powers from both domains). these powers would be related to the doamin's theme, of course, so Trickery and Illusion domains would make you a more sneaky character, while Bravery and Healing domains would make your Cleric more like a Paladin, and so on.
Domains would offer a lot of character variety and could even give Clerics a something close to a capstone ability. Clerics' abilities better reflect their deities' abilities and portfolio. Instead of a few different spells and a couple abilities, you have a bunch of cool features to make servants of Iomedae different from servants of Calistria, Gorum or Gozreh.
This also makes even-numbered Cleric levels more interesting. Right now, they get all the cool stuff at odd numbered levels, and really dull level-ups the rest of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I can not talk for others, but if the threads were about things you like in pathfinder then I would have written much more words that the ones I have used in this thread.255 posts of things people don't like with Pathfinder. I knew there was some discontent, but I didn't expect this. Further, there's not been any "true believer" incessantly arguing.
Is this significant?
I, OTOH, would have used fewer words.
My post would be something like "Pretty much everything, except X, Y and Z".
Disliking stuff is the exception, not the rule. I still love PF and think Paizo is doing a great job with the game, despite a few bad rulings here and there. It's not a perfect game by any means, but it's a very good one.
I want a game where a priest of Cayden Cailean is more like a fighter while a priest of Calistria is more like a rogue and a priest of Desna is more like a bard. For that reason, I hate the cleric and paladin classes. I prefer healing to be based on the heal skill and "priest feats" be a collection of feats which grant characters the ability to channel and so forth.
I agree with this, especially the Paladin part. Why would a Paladin or a cleric of a God of Magic be running around in plate armor?
I think Lemmy's idea is a bit better. Feat chains are already ick, no need to require them to play your class entirely.
Having Domains or gods or whatever grant a certain set of abilities would be pretty good.
Maybe to keep it setting agnostic they can do like Inquisitions, say "Clerics of Gods with X type of Portfolio (War, Trickery, etc.) would do well with these options" and then have them grant a number of abilities. Healing, Protection, and similar can give Channel Energy (Positive). Death and similar Channel Energy: Negative. War, Destruction, and so on gives Weapon Bond (Paladins). Nature, Leadership, and the like gives Mount...that sorta thing, along with other things like weapon and armor proficiencies and the like.
Keep the Paladin and Cleric chassis, and some of the more universal abilities (Divine Grace, the spellcasting, etc.) and replace stuff like the Auras with more god dependent ones (except maybe Aura of Courage, that seems a pretty universal one). Would all work out just fine if Channel Energy for Paladins was replaced by a Domain in this scenario.
Would be a LOT of content dedicated to just those two classes though.
tl;dr the discussion on clerics of rogue/fighter/etc.
But what I'd do is make an archetype that got casting like a ranger, then list the stuff each non-caster core class lost to get that archetype, then just give them 1st to 4th level cleric spells and be done with it.
You want a barbarian cleric, you give up fast movement and DR and boom, you get 4 levels of casting ability off the cleric list. A cleric rogue? Give up sneak attack and boom, you get casting. Etc.
that's similar to Super Genius Games Martial Archetypes. the thing is, in 3.x you could multiclass, and then pick a prestige class and your cleric would be more roguey/fightery/whatevery. In PF multiclassing and prestige classing is discouraged. The best you can do is use multiclass archetypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that's similar to Super Genius Games Martial Archetypes. the thing is, in 3.x you could multiclass, and then pick a prestige class and your cleric would be more roguey/fightery/whatevery. In PF multiclassing and prestige classing is discouraged. The best you can do is use multiclass archetypes.
I tried looking into those once, but it seemed like every thing always gave up the same things, so there was no way to 'apply' more than one. I'd like a bit more control over that, as some of the archetypes seemed to give up a ton and get a lot less than they gave up.
The alignment system comes from the works of Moorcock et al. (Law/Chaos) and traditional folklore, Tolkien, et al. (Good/Evil). Tolkien and Moorcock wrote during/relatively soon after the World Wars and they see their universes as wrapped up in universal wars between good/evil or law/chaos respectively. They also portray good/evil and law/chaos as physical forces in their universes, in the way that, say, gravity is a physical force in our universe. That's the context Gygax and Arneson were working in when they developed D&D. Whether good/evil/law/chaos make sense to you or not depends on whether you envisage those things as being true about your game universe or not.
So if I'm GM'ing a Pathfinder campaign, there's a backdrop of a cosmic war between good and evil, and a cosmic war between law and chaos. You can pick sides in either or both of those wars, and if you do it comes with benefits, but it's also hard to conceal it from those fighting for the other side. Or you can try to remain aloof, or you can try to play both sides against the other. The sides aren't symmetrical: some of them have distinct technologies. "Paladin" is an example of a technology that's only been developed by one of the sides: the other alignments don't have paladins in the same way that Axis "alignments" don't have advanced equipment for anti-submarine warfare in games set in WWII. And while there's a certain overlap between the alignment you're on and modern concepts of morality, it's not hard and fast.
You can't have grey moral areas where everything is objectively Good or Evil. So many classical plots and character archetypes become really dumb thanks to alignment system, like a deluded villain who sees himself as a hero, how does he not know he's evil when a 1st level cleric can tell that he is, in fact, objectively evil.
So, by this logic, Soviets in an American Cold War era movie couldn't be deluded villains who see themselves as heroes. How do they not know they are the bad guys when a simple glance at their uniforms shows that they are, in fact, objectively Soviets?
Just like those Communists think the Communists are the good guys, in my world the Drow (for example) think of themselves as the good guys. Sure, the spell the surface elves call "Detect Evil" pings when applied to a typical Drow. So? To the Drow, that doesn't mean "you're a bad guy" any more than "Detect Soviet Uniform" tells the Cold War era Soviet that he's a bad guy. To me, "Detect Good" and "Detect Evil" are, from the points of view of characters inside the game universe, "Detect Our Side"/ "Detect Their Side" and "Detect Their Side"/"Detect Our Side" respectively.
How can I make a surprise-villain who trick the heroes into trusting him when the Paladin can simply say "Nope. He's Evil. Let's not trust him." with 100% precision as soon as he meets the guy for the 1st time?
I don't know. How could the writers of novels and films about WWII make surprise villains who trick the protagonists into trusting them when the protagonists can simply say "Nope. He's wearing a German uniform. Let's not trust him." with 100% precision as soon as they meet the guy for the first time?
I like the alignment system in Pathfinder. I like that it effects the game in terms of mechanics. To the point where, if Paizo took away those mechanical effects, I'd stop playing Pathfinder. I certainly enjoy playing RPG's without alignment, but those RPG's have been designed without alignment from the bottom up, and IMO they do it a lot better than an alignment-less Pathfinder would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike that spell damage and weapon damage are two entirely different systems. I'd rather roll less dice but add more modifiers when casting spells. Would it really break the game to allow a wizard his Intelligence modifier as a bonus to damage (or hit, in the case of "aimed" spells, like scorching ray)? Nothing's worse than a burning hands spell dealing 1d4 damage (Reflex half) at 1st-level. I know the argument is that you should be preparing spells like sleep and what not, but what about my pyromancer concept? A true evoker is going to be evoke!
The alignment system comes from the works of Moorcock et al. (Law/Chaos) and traditional folklore, Tolkien, et al. (Good/Evil). Tolkien and Moorcock wrote during/relatively soon after the World Wars and they see their universes as wrapped up in universal wars between good/evil or law/chaos respectively. They also portray good/evil and law/chaos as physical forces in their universes, in the way that, say, gravity is a physical force in our universe. That's the context Gygax and Arneson were working in when they developed D&D. Whether good/evil/law/chaos make sense to you or not depends on whether you envisage those things as being true about your game universe or not.
So if I'm GM'ing a Pathfinder campaign, there's a backdrop of a cosmic war between good and evil, and a cosmic war between law and chaos. You can pick sides in either or both of those wars, and if you do it comes with benefits, but it's also hard to conceal it from those fighting for the other side. Or you can try to remain aloof, or you can try to play both sides against the other. The sides aren't symmetrical: some of them have distinct technologies. "Paladin" is an example of a technology that's only been developed by one of the sides: the other alignments don't have paladins in the same way that Axis "alignments" don't have advanced equipment for anti-submarine warfare in games set in WWII. And while there's a certain overlap between the alignment you're on and modern concepts of morality, it's not hard and fast.
I'm aware of the why. I just don't like it.
So, by this logic, Soviets in an American Cold War era movie couldn't be deluded villains who see themselves as heroes. How do they not know they are the bad guys when a simple glance at their uniforms shows that they are, in fact, objectively Soviets?
Just like those Communists think the Communists are the good guys, in my world the Drow (for example) think of themselves as the good guys. Sure, the spell the surface elves call "Detect Evil" pings when applied to a typical Drow. So? To the Drow, that doesn't mean "you're a bad guy" any more than "Detect Soviet Uniform" tells the Cold War era Soviet that he's a bad guy. To me, "Detect Good" and "Detect Evil" are, from the points of view of characters inside the game universe, "Detect Our Side"/ "Detect Their Side" and "Detect Their Side"/"Detect Our Side" respectively.
"You are objectively the anti-good" is very different from "you hold a different ideology which I find evil".
The Soviets were not objectively evil. They could see themselves as good. "Detect Soviet Uniform" would literally just detect that you were someone wearing a Soviet uniform. That could be for any number of reasons, and even the most obvious one ("You are a Soviet") does not mean "You are evil".
However, that is not how Pathfinder's alignment system works. Detect Evil does not detect whether they have a different ideology than yours. It detects if they're Evil or not. Objectively wrong from a moral standpoint, their opinion is invalid because they are EVIL not just of a different belief than you.
THAT is the issue.
I don't know. How could the writers of novels and films about WWII make surprise villains who trick the protagonists into trusting them when the protagonists can simply say "Nope. He's wearing a German uniform. Let's not trust him." with 100% precision as soon as they meet the guy for the first time?
This is a terrible example. Stop using it.
"He's part of a group" or "He's wearing the uniform of our enemy" is not as concrete as "He is objectively on the wrong side of the moral spectrum".
There are good things to be said about Communism and even the Nazi party. It can be argued that some good came from them.
The same cannot be stated for running alignment in Pathfinder. If they ping as Evil, they are Evil. They might be willing to help you...but they're still Evil, no doubt about it. With the possible exception of Lawful Evil (which kinda has free reign to do good things for bad reasons or with horrifying and brutal methods built into it. At worst you can at least trust them to keep their word and play the long game.), the other Evil alignments will always be in it for themselves, and you can trust them only so far as the fact that they are Evil, and by definition do not align with your interests except as far as it helps them further their own (Evil) goals.
Alternates to the Vancian casting aren't really discussed; I would be interested in what alternate systems people are using in its place, I mean there has to be something that's used right?
Alternatives have been mentioned many times, but not discussed in detail because this thread isn't for that - its for saying what you don't like and why.
However, very simply, my alternative would be to use the Mana system I mentioned. Each spell costs Mana to cast. Mana would be an increasing pool of points that may or may not be linked to a Statistic such as INT and/or CHA.
Instead of getting an automatic increase in spells each level, spellcasters get points that they spend on buying new spells. Spells are priced according to power ('level'), and this also determines how many Mana they require to cast. You could also make buying spells cost money if your campaign worked that way (spell supermarkets like current scroll supermarkets). I would even allow low level casters with high stats to blow accumulated points on a higher level spell - the drawbacks of relatively high purchase cost and Mana cost from a limited pool would make it balanced.
Have you ever played another RPG with a death spiral of wound penalties in it? And I mean, really played it, not just read it and thought "hey, that makes more sense than D&D!"
I have played Shadowrun* for years and never had real problems with its penalties for being injured. And it even has separate penalties for physical (lethal) damage and mental (nonlethal) damage so you get even more penalties if the damage you get is a mix of both.
The most important part of this system is that your rolls to resist damage is never penalized by injury modifiers. So while you are less likely to deliver the killing blow yourself you can still resist damage as good as before.
But I can see your reasoning from other games. If I remember right 7th sea is an example. And, at least in melee combat, it is true for SR, too.
*I can only talk about SR 1-3 because I tested SR4 for only a short time and decided to not accept it as shadowrun.
It also has specklings of unbelievable crap through it, like giving fighters starting at 3rd level Ant Haul, where you add your fighter level to your carrying capacity, ignore encumberence from medium and heavy loads,and can retrieve anything from your massive pile of junk on your back as a free action...
Seems you are one of those "magic can do everything but martials have to be realistic" guys.
Vancian casting.
Off the top of my head:
Low-Light Vision and different levels of lighting. Elves should either have darkvision or just have normal vision. It should either be dark or normal light.
Summoners: Complex and Broken
Grappling: Tedious, Confusing +/- Broken
How PF gets bogged down in Book-keeping: Entire sessions spent on crafting magic items, buying magic items, etc... (i.e. Not Adventuring!!!)
And probably most of all: HIGH LEVEL PLAY (meaning Level 10 and greater) due to ridiculous buffs, sessions slowing down to a crawl due to constant rules checking and even trivial combats that take an entire session to play out.