Does anyone just like Pathfinder as it is?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Me, I like it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElyasRavenwood wrote:
I'm happy with pathfinder. I like the system. Can it be improved? sure. Are there things I don't like here or there? sure. But on the whole I am happy with the game.

This. I have played Pathfinder since it's inception migrating from 3.5 (and previous to that all editions back to AD&D and BECM). Yes there are some things that niggle me about PF such as escalating skill bonuses and DCs to ridiculous levels and travel rules that are a little to dull and simplistic but overall PF is one of my two go to games (the other being Savage Worlds).

Go team Paizo!


I mostly like it and like it a lot.

What I don't like is the poor quality control exercised around rule mechanics when new books are rushed out too quickly. Then we are forced to raise FAQs and wait for clarifications and some (not all) of these FAQs take a very long, long time to get answered if at all.


wraithstrike wrote:
From what the OP said it seemed like he was saying "without any changes". Hopefully he comes back and clarifies if that is what he meant.

That was what I meant. I mean, aside from Society games, which I'm not really a fan of (one-shot adventures don't have the camaraderie, character building, or long-term appeal I enjoy in Pathfinder so much), it seems like just about everyone tweaks the ruleset.

And actually, it was mainly a comment on how inflammatory the boards are over every new release.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

A big thing that I notice, especially when it comes to the specific kind of crowd who bothers to join internet forums about TTRPGs, is that most of them don't even realize the extent to which they power game and limit themselves. An inherent part of power gaming is to limit your resources and see how much you can get out of it, and so a lot of times you see players and DMs talking about lowering the scope of their games by limiting their resources to their players mainly out of fear. These are the guys who are heralding 5e as the greatest thing ever for its simplicity and balance.

Pathfinder is not balanced, I don't want it to be. Could some classes get more umph to make them more enjoyable? Absolutely. Is caster-martial disparity a thing? When power gamers limit their resources and give martials the exact same packages they give casters, then yes. In asymetrical games where 'balance at all costs' is not the #1 priority of the DM/PFS house rules, you may find martials to be much more enjoyable.

Also, obligatory point buy is the devil statement.

I'm not sure what you mean by "limit their resources" in this context. Are you talking about balancing casters with martials by giving martials better stats or more gear or something else entirely?

Because I'm not really sure that "everyone starts at the same point" is really a power gamer thing.

Nor, despite your obligatory statement, does rolling stats address this problem. There's nothing to stop the guy who rolls extra well from playing a caster.
Or I have no idea what you're talking about. Which is quite possible. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I enjoy Pathfinder so much that I have invested a significant amount of my hard earned money into Paizo's products, as well as products from several OGL lines (Dreamscarred Press, FGG and Raging Swan easily come to mind). The Pathfinder system allows massive customization, is extremely flexible and encourages GM/player creativity. Having met the staff it is clear they are deeply passionate about the game. I could spend hours and soak up a lot of server space writing about everything I enjoy about the game.

Yet, I still have house rules in my Pathfinder games. Just as I had house rules in three versions of DnD, CoC, Kult, Conspiracy X, Witchcraft, Mage, and Mutants & Masterminds.

While we, as consumers, should push game developers to make a quality product that appeals to a large population, we should also admit that the folks at Paizo have done a fine job of giving gamers a really well designed game.

For those of you who dislike the game and, for whatever reason, won't house rule your issues, I present to you this challenge: make a better game. Show the rest of us what a better game looks like. Don't just complain about games on message boards - do something about it. I, for one, am very interested in what a game better designed than Pathfinder would look like. And while some of you will inevitably want to post that a better game already exists exist, before you do ask yourself if that game is selling as well as Pathfinder. If it is not, then your "better game" isn't appealing to gamers like Pathfinder is at the moment.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:


Is there anyone out there who just likes Pathfinder as it is, with what they've done so far?

No, I don't, and sadly I think the quality is deteriorating, at least when it comes to rule books. I also see deteriorating in trust as an issue.

I personally think the game has become too complex, too filed with patches, too rigid and too unbalanced and the fact that game more or less demands that you plan numerous levels ahead. The game isn’t intuitive enough and there are too many traps and too much “Ivory Tower Game Design”. BTW, I know Ivory Tower Game Design doesn’t equal traps, but to a new player or a player that prefer a more organic character progression the end result is often the same. The level of system mastery has almost become silly. Strange thing is this is even true to classes such as fighter, rogue and Sorcerer that should be intuitive to play.

Skills, trapfindning, wildshape, feat chains, feat prereqs, dex based melee characters, weapon specialization, maneuvers, bloodline spells and bloodline feats, sneak attack, Stealth, channeling/healing, Pets, Versatile Performance, lack of options/feats, Archetypes are but a few examples of this.

Archetypes are both a blessing and a cure, but often the later, especially if we look at classes like the fighter. Instead of offering an ability as a feat, they make it a class feature and tie it to an archetypes which means you are shut out of that option unless you play that archetype.

There are too many classes or concepts that require system mastery and this is a bad thing. Also, there are too many patches and they are not even in the core book, they are spread out in numerous book and even presented as optional rules. Two things that should really be in the next edition of the core book are traits and retraining rules. Also, some of these patches are not even published in the core book line but are presented as campaign specific options or tied to Golarion. The fact that the game rewards versatility, but often demands specialization is a contradiction that really hit hard on new players or players that have a more organic style of designing a character.

Overall I feel that the fundamental problems with the game aren’t fixed. Some problems with a spell or a class feaature are fixed or at least tweaked by the use of the FAQ, but I personally would like to see a Pathfinder 1.5.

I hate to admit this but I’m really worried about the overall quality of Pathfinder. For example, it feels like a lot of the feedback from the Warpriest and Swashbuckler playtest was ignored. I think the ACG was rushed and rush/lack of time seems to be a constant problem. Every time people start complaining about FAQ pending the answer is in the line of “we just got to finish this first”.

What also worries me is the fact that there have been voices raised for years that the rogue, fighter, monk and summoner are problematic classes. In the case of the fighter I more and more agreeing with people like Cheapy that the class not really the problem, but rather that the game rewards versatility, but the class demands specialization. However the other classes especially the rogue and summoner are problematic. Yet, this has always been ignored, downplayed or even denied by Paizo and by some of the more loyal posters. The general attitude have mostly been: Oh, another rogue thread. Now, all of a sudden we are getting a new rogue and a new summoner, but again this is an “optional” fix. Again it feels like a lot of the feedback from the posters that complained about the rogue being to week and the summoner being too powerful and to complex was ignored and denied for years and years. So now they admit that we were right, but the fix is still optional. I'm not sure this is a great way of earning trust. I think people could easily read it this way: the Devs have not been honest with us. All these years they have denied that the monk and rogue were problematic and now they finally admit it. Can we trust them not to repeated this behavior? Conclusions people might make are: They won’t fix the rogue, but just offer an optional fix. The fighter and other issues won’t even be offered an optional fix. So if they say the fighter is fine, how can we trust them? They used to deny there was a problem with the rogue even though they now admit there is a problem.

When the ACG was released I was excited. I hadn’t been that excited since the APG, but now I’m disappointed. Just like Shadow strike was rogue patch that cost the rogue a feat that she really shouldn’t have to pay, the Fencing Grace is a patch to Slashing Grace that in itself is a patch that really shouldn’t cost what it costs. Also, people are still debating if Slashing Grace should apply to light weapon or not. Some say it probably shouldn’t because it is too good, but at the same time some of the most powerful classes can now get charisma bonus too all saves and that is fine? This feat is published in the same book that gave us Swashbuckler, the class that only gets Charmed life. You can obviously draw other parallels such as the Arcanist being able to use Quick Study as many times as she wants, but the Oracle picking Revelations that can only be use once per day or once per day + once every x level.

Does, the trust issue goes both ways? Aren’t the Devs trusting their fans? If they do why did they not give the fans what they wanted? Of all classes in the book, the Swashbuckler (and possibly a full BAB holy warrior) was the most requested new class of all. If they should have released of rock solid class it should have been that class. Now they patch the patch in a splat book that isn’t even a part of the core book line. The complicated just got more complicated and if that wasn’t enough The Daring Champion made the cavalier a better Swashbuckler than the Swashbuckler and we still haven’t got an official response to the question if Slashing Grace applies to light weapons or not. Sad thing is that I’m starting to think this is going to be met with silence from Paizo or they simply state that they are now involved with Unchained and Occult Adventures and they don’t have the time to address that issue.

The thing is that I’m starting to loose trust in the quality of Paizo rule books. The AGC does not only have the wrong logo on the cover, but the book lacks Paizo's usual editing quality. I even go as far as saying that the editing is a definite problem. We are not only taking about typos, some of the stuff in the book is also badly written in that you simply don’t understand what they mean and in some cases like the Slashing Grace, some stuff is actually poorly designed. This, and the fact that Paizo makes the appearance of not having good internal communication, makes me believe that it is only a matter of time before we see a “Paizo needs to get their house in order part 2”-thread, and sadly Paizo would kind of deserve that.

Edit:
BTW, I'm actually looking forward to Pathfinder Unchained and from the sound of what they are planning it seems to fix some issues, but obviously not all. Also, even though I got some issues with the class I’m very happy we got the Arcanist.


I'm happy with it and would love play a campaing or an AP with just core rules someday. I don't mind the extra stuff (splats and so on) but lot of it goes under my radar anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like it as-is, in the sense that they are expanding it with new ideas and concepts at least once a year, pushing the d20 envelope.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just because I ask for fewer olives doesn't mean I don't like pizza.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
From what the OP said it seemed like he was saying "without any changes". Hopefully he comes back and clarifies if that is what he meant.

That was what I meant. I mean, aside from Society games, which I'm not really a fan of (one-shot adventures don't have the camaraderie, character building, or long-term appeal I enjoy in Pathfinder so much), it seems like just about everyone tweaks the ruleset.

And actually, it was mainly a comment on how inflammatory the boards are over every new release.

Every release will have that because we all have different taste. Some will say X is too powerful. Others will say it is not powerful enough. Some will say it does not have enough options. etc etc

Thanks for clarifying what you meant though. :)


Jiggy wrote:
Just because I ask for fewer olives doesn't mean I don't like pizza.

I like pizza and olives, but usually not at the same time, but if other want pizza with olives they should be able to get it.

Dark Archive

I like PF and I like having more options, and in these terms, at least 1 of my players only started having the tiniest incline in playing PF after alchemists where introduced since that was the kind of character he likes to play. Also I have yet to encounter something in game that is terribly broken one way or another so from personal experience PF is well balanced overall.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Just because I ask for fewer olives doesn't mean I don't like pizza.
I like pizza and olives, but usually not at the same time, but if other want pizza with olives they should be able to get it.

Hey, get your own metaphor!

;)


I love pathfinder as it is, which is precisely why I make huserules to fix what i consider imbalanced or not flavorful. If i didn't like it i would go for a different game.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What if I don't like pizza or olives but I do like analogies?


My group is pretty happy with it. We have a couple of house rules but not many.

I am really looking forward to what Pathfinder Unchained has to offer though


I like PF core as a ruleset, and most stuff in the bestiarys
Don't like much of the mini game creep from splatbooks
Don't like Golarion
Massively gone off the AP system


I liked Pathfinder up until about 6 months ago. That's when it became obvious to me how Paizo is treating the game overall, and I hate it. I would liken my discontent more as a vote of no confidence rather than actual hatred of the system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chaotic Fighter wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Everything can be improved. To be complacent is to be obsolete.
This.

Agreed.

However, many of the complaints on here are so vociferous, angst ridden, completely negative, and even hate filled that I can't understand why they still play the game.

I like PFS, PF, and PF with houserules quite a bit.

There are things I don't agree with completely, but I know they are unlikely to change because enough people do like it the way it is.

I have seen some game systems that I think I might like better, but...
None have the following of PF. I can't get a group going. I've tried.

The huge following is one of the things I like about PF. I can find players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm reasonably sure no gamer, anywhere, has ever liked any game system just-as-it-is. I'm also willing to bet that every GM has some rule that they've overlooked or didn't know existed, and thus no game system has ever BEEN played just-as-it-is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:
I love pathfinder as it is, which is precisely why I make huserules to fix what i consider imbalanced or not flavorful. If i didn't like it i would go for a different game.

Isn't that the same thing as saying you don't like it as it is? If you liked it as-is, you wouldn't change anything.


Zhayne wrote:
I'm reasonably sure no gamer, anywhere, has ever liked any game system just-as-it-is. I'm also willing to bet that every GM has some rule that they've overlooked or didn't know existed, and thus no game system has ever BEEN played just-as-it-is.

For a long, long time I did just this. I enjoyed RAW and welcomed most anyone because of that. I liked that, as long as I stuck to the shrinkwrapped rules, anyone could come play without mental shifts in how 'this is how I play.' The game was the game. Then, the creep in from the PFS crowd practically dictating explicit rewrites of features of that game began dictating how I and those I played with play. It doesn't matter if it was just a few feats. That's now a crossed line, and it's one I can't accept. At that point I mentally walked away while still playing the games. Once I finish out a Rise of the Runelords campaign, and an exception wrt Wrath of the Righteous becuase I have yet to play a mythic character, I'm likely done with Pathfinder overall.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Pathfinder well enough that I didn't even consider switching to D&D 5 and would be unlikely to switch to a Pathfinder 2nd edition unless it was almost entirely backwards compatable.

That doesn't mean that I purchase everything that Paizo releases. On the contrary, I own none of the setting materials and none of the softcover splat books; or even many of the hardcover books. That's the beauty of a modular, expandable game system; beyond the Core Rulebook and first Bestiary each consumer can pick and choose which options to invest in and use based on their own preferances.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like pathfinder. I think its a great system. I like what paizo has done with it by and large. That doesnt mean I dont think it could be better.

Also, I enjoy debating things on internet forums. Pathfinder is a thing i like with disperate ideas, and without any kind of real 'bad' side. Debating pathfinder stuff on the internet is fun for me. And I think a productive analysis of something I like. The more I undestand the rules of the game, and disperate view points on those rules, the better I can make my game at home. Sometimes the debate itself is an end worthy of persuit.


Zark wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:


Is there anyone out there who just likes Pathfinder as it is, with what they've done so far?
No, I don't, and sadly I think the quality is deteriorating, at least when it comes to rule books. I also see deteriorating in trust as an issue...

This was a reasonable and well constructed post.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I like pathfinder and the a lot of the people who make pathfinder
I dislike most of the forum posting by a lot of you
a lot of it makes my enjoyment of my hobby more difficult


Kolokotroni wrote:

I like pathfinder. I think its a great system. I like what paizo has done with it by and large. That doesnt mean I dont think it could be better.

Also, I enjoy debating things on internet forums. Pathfinder is a thing i like with disperate ideas, and without any kind of real 'bad' side. Debating pathfinder stuff on the internet is fun for me. And I think a productive analysis of something I like. The more I undestand the rules of the game, and disperate view points on those rules, the better I can make my game at home. Sometimes the debate itself is an end worthy of persuit.

This gets to me on a personal level. I like pathfinder. I LOVE arguing and debate.


Kolokotroni wrote:

I like pathfinder. I think its a great system. I like what paizo has done with it by and large. That doesnt mean I dont think it could be better.

Also, I enjoy debating things on internet forums. Pathfinder is a thing i like with disperate ideas, and without any kind of real 'bad' side. Debating pathfinder stuff on the internet is fun for me. And I think a productive analysis of something I like. The more I undestand the rules of the game, and disperate view points on those rules, the better I can make my game at home. Sometimes the debate itself is an end worthy of persuit.

This is a great post and I wish it was indicative of how more people felt who argue here. But it is the internet, and there are people who get their jollies by tearing down what others like or love. A spirited debate can be good and even improve the product. Some of what we get, however, isn't on the same level as what Kolokotroni is going for and only serves to make the place unpleasant.

I love this game, whether just out of the box or modified to taste. It can be better, but it could be FAR worse. It gives me the platform to play out of the box with others with only minor disagreements or to modify to my heart's content for any number of games.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Lamontius wrote:

I like pathfinder and the a lot of the people who make pathfinder

I dislike most of the forum posting by a lot of you
a lot of it makes my enjoyment of my hobby more difficult

...and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

Wait, sorry, that was something else.


Nicos wrote:
Zark wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:


Is there anyone out there who just likes Pathfinder as it is, with what they've done so far?
No, I don't, and sadly I think the quality is deteriorating, at least when it comes to rule books. I also see deteriorating in trust as an issue...
This was a reasonable and well constructed post.

Thanks.

edit:
Pathfinder is a game I have played ever since the BETA version was out, so I obviously like it or at least parts of it. I just think it is time for a pathfinder 1.5, until then I think it is time that the Devs cleared up some stuff and fixed some stuff.

I understand they can’t rewrite the game or classes just because there are some issues with some classes and rules, but a more active FAQ and fixing Slashing Grace and addressing some stuff that need nerfing seems like a good start, and some more love for the mundane classes would hurt, IMHO.

Liberty's Edge

I don't but I don't mind that so many people do. I simply switched to another D20 system. I miss playing Pathfinder and looking forward to the next new rulebook (the APG is a real treasure) but the prep time as DM was too much (NPC creation and treasure prep specifically) and balancing past around 12th level was too much effort for me personally. I also wasn't too good at remembering to use feats for monsters or what the feats did.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Subparhiggins wrote:
I like it as it is. If they made a dragon rider or dragonfire adept class, my life would be complete.

No need to wait for that.... third party has you covered already, at least for the first. Dragonrider doesn't really make sense in Golarion given the lack of dragons willing to play the part of being some fool's mount.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is Pathfinder a good gaming system? Yes. Do I enjoy it? Definitely. Does it have issues here and there which need patching of some kind? Of course, nothing's perfect. Can it be improved upon without obsolescence to the initial framework? I believe so, it's why I'm looking forward to Pathfinder Unchained so much.

There's a lot of great posts here by people like Kolokotroni, Jiggy, Buri, even Anzyr explaining why some quirks of the system probably need some smoothing out. This is the Internet, emotions sometimes run high. Overall, though, I think the "let's fix stuff with one of our favorite game systems" crowd has done a good job explaining why PF needs some tuning up here and there.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

No. I'm pretty sure everyone has some problem with the system, including you. I find it hard to believe you like every single piece of the game and have no complaints at all about any portion of it.

This is a good thing. It prevents the forum from being nothing but a circlejerk.

One need not like every detail of a system to like the system as-is any more than one must like everything about a friend to like that friend the way he or she is.

And, frankly, the way the forums have been going lately, we could use a little more circle and a little less jerk.

Yeah, who needs different opinions or points of view? The forums would be so much better if there was nothing but constant verbal fellating of the devs for being perfect, unerring gods.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. : /


thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

A big thing that I notice, especially when it comes to the specific kind of crowd who bothers to join internet forums about TTRPGs, is that most of them don't even realize the extent to which they power game and limit themselves. An inherent part of power gaming is to limit your resources and see how much you can get out of it, and so a lot of times you see players and DMs talking about lowering the scope of their games by limiting their resources to their players mainly out of fear. These are the guys who are heralding 5e as the greatest thing ever for its simplicity and balance.

Pathfinder is not balanced, I don't want it to be. Could some classes get more umph to make them more enjoyable? Absolutely. Is caster-martial disparity a thing? When power gamers limit their resources and give martials the exact same packages they give casters, then yes. In asymetrical games where 'balance at all costs' is not the #1 priority of the DM/PFS house rules, you may find martials to be much more enjoyable.

Also, obligatory point buy is the devil statement.

I'm not sure what you mean by "limit their resources" in this context. Are you talking about balancing casters with martials by giving martials better stats or more gear or something else entirely?

Because I'm not really sure that "everyone starts at the same point" is really a power gamer thing.

Nor, despite your obligatory statement, does rolling stats address this problem. There's nothing to stop the guy who rolls extra well from playing a caster.
Or I have no idea what you're talking about. Which is quite possible. :)

Limiting resources can come from anywhere. Point Buy, limited books allowed, limited magic items, WBL. All of these are constructs put in place to impose limits on the players, usually because the players will push that limit anyway.

Typically I rarely see players who power game and push the limit and when I do, we retire the character.


master_marshmallow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

A big thing that I notice, especially when it comes to the specific kind of crowd who bothers to join internet forums about TTRPGs, is that most of them don't even realize the extent to which they power game and limit themselves. An inherent part of power gaming is to limit your resources and see how much you can get out of it, and so a lot of times you see players and DMs talking about lowering the scope of their games by limiting their resources to their players mainly out of fear. These are the guys who are heralding 5e as the greatest thing ever for its simplicity and balance.

Pathfinder is not balanced, I don't want it to be. Could some classes get more umph to make them more enjoyable? Absolutely. Is caster-martial disparity a thing? When power gamers limit their resources and give martials the exact same packages they give casters, then yes. In asymetrical games where 'balance at all costs' is not the #1 priority of the DM/PFS house rules, you may find martials to be much more enjoyable.

Also, obligatory point buy is the devil statement.

I'm not sure what you mean by "limit their resources" in this context. Are you talking about balancing casters with martials by giving martials better stats or more gear or something else entirely?

Because I'm not really sure that "everyone starts at the same point" is really a power gamer thing.

Nor, despite your obligatory statement, does rolling stats address this problem. There's nothing to stop the guy who rolls extra well from playing a caster.
Or I have no idea what you're talking about. Which is quite possible. :)

Limiting resources can come from anywhere. Point Buy, limited books allowed, limited magic items, WBL. All of these are constructs put in place to impose limits on the players, usually because the players will push that limit anyway.

Typically I rarely see players who power game and push the limit and when I do, we retire the character.

But what does any of that have to do with either power gaming or martial/caster disparity?

Rolled stats are just another limit. And there are always some limits on magic items or WBL. I suppose you could play a game where you just assigned stats as you please and selected whatever magic gear you wanted with no concern for cost. You could also drop the level/class system and just give your character whatever abilities you pleased, if you really wanted to remove the limits.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Chaotic Fighter wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Everything can be improved. To be complacent is to be obsolete.
This.

Agreed.

However, many of the complaints on here are so vociferous, angst ridden, completely negative, and even hate filled that I can't understand why they still play the game.

I like PFS, PF, and PF with houserules quite a bit.

There are things I don't agree with completely, but I know they are unlikely to change because enough people do like it the way it is.

I have seen some game systems that I think I might like better, but...
None have the following of PF. I can't get a group going. I've tried.

The huge following is one of the things I like about PF. I can find players.

Honestly, most of the criticism I read on the boards is very fair and direct to the issues. I can think of very few critical posts that I would call completely negative or hate filled. Within this thread for example, there are many criticisms, but none of them are completely negative or hate filled. It is really a very small percentage of critical posts that are disrespectful, which is an impressive feat that speaks to everyone's maturity and politesse.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

No. I'm pretty sure everyone has some problem with the system, including you. I find it hard to believe you like every single piece of the game and have no complaints at all about any portion of it.

This is a good thing. It prevents the forum from being nothing but a circlejerk.

I agree with this. Rather comprehensively, actually.

However...

blahpers wrote:

One need not like every detail of a system to like the system as-is any more than one must like everything about a friend to like that friend the way he or she is.

And, frankly, the way the forums have been going lately, we could use a little more circle and a little less jerk.

I also agree with this. Not liking things is fine, as is criticism of elements that are less than ideal or even flat-out bad (like the ACG's editing, to pick a recent example). But that's no reason to not be polite and respectful about it. And I feel like large subsections of the forums are getting increasingly bitter and angry, and losing the kind of friendliness and courtesy that makes this a fun place to hag out.

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Yeah, who needs different opinions or points of view? The forums would be so much better if there was nothing but constant verbal fellating of the devs for being perfect, unerring gods.

Being polite to the devs is not, in fact, the same as sucking up to them or providing them endless positive feedback. Politeness is one of those things that should govern the majority of basic human interaction with everybody.

All one should really do, is treat the people at Paizo like people, with the same courtesy you treat other forum goers. Certainly not like perfect unimpeachable gods of RPG design, but also not like some sort of robots who churn out RPGs but don't have feelings to be hurt by repeated insults to their intellect or skill in their chosen profession. Neither is useful or appropriate (though the latter is much ruder and more unpleasant, generally speaking).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


Agreed.

However, many of the complaints on here are so vociferous, angst ridden, completely negative, and even hate filled that I can't understand why they still play the game.

The game became even MORE fun when I got pissed at the devs.

I stopped attempting to listen to their often contradictory opinions on what good game design should be, and the numerous unnecessary and detrimental FAQs they've released (See: Crane Wing, Weapon Cords) and just decided to play a fun game with minimal developer interference ruining the experience for me.


thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

A big thing that I notice, especially when it comes to the specific kind of crowd who bothers to join internet forums about TTRPGs, is that most of them don't even realize the extent to which they power game and limit themselves. An inherent part of power gaming is to limit your resources and see how much you can get out of it, and so a lot of times you see players and DMs talking about lowering the scope of their games by limiting their resources to their players mainly out of fear. These are the guys who are heralding 5e as the greatest thing ever for its simplicity and balance.

Pathfinder is not balanced, I don't want it to be. Could some classes get more umph to make them more enjoyable? Absolutely. Is caster-martial disparity a thing? When power gamers limit their resources and give martials the exact same packages they give casters, then yes. In asymetrical games where 'balance at all costs' is not the #1 priority of the DM/PFS house rules, you may find martials to be much more enjoyable.

Also, obligatory point buy is the devil statement.

I'm not sure what you mean by "limit their resources" in this context. Are you talking about balancing casters with martials by giving martials better stats or more gear or something else entirely?

Because I'm not really sure that "everyone starts at the same point" is really a power gamer thing.

Nor, despite your obligatory statement, does rolling stats address this problem. There's nothing to stop the guy who rolls extra well from playing a caster.
Or I have no idea what you're talking about. Which is quite possible. :)

Limiting resources can come from anywhere. Point Buy, limited books allowed, limited magic items, WBL. All of these are constructs put in place to impose limits on the players, usually because the players will push that limit anyway.

Typically I rarely see players who power game and push the limit and when I do, we retire the

...

Strawman is Strawman.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Strawman is Strawman.

Perhaps, but I still don't understand what you mean.

What do the particular limits you disapprove of have to do with either power gaming or caster/martial disparity?

I fundamentally don't understand the connection you're making and I don't think you've tried to make it clear.

Quote:
Is caster-martial disparity a thing? When power gamers limit their resources and give martials the exact same packages they give casters, then yes. In asymetrical games where 'balance at all costs' is not the #1 priority of the DM/PFS house rules, you may find martials to be much more enjoyable.

More specifically, how would you change the "packages" given to martials to lessen the disparity? What kind of asymetry makes martials more enjoyable?


thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Strawman is Strawman.

Perhaps, but I still don't understand what you mean.

What do the particular limits you disapprove of have to do with either power gaming or caster/martial disparity?

I fundamentally don't understand the connection you're making and I don't think you've tried to make it clear.

Quote:
Is caster-martial disparity a thing? When power gamers limit their resources and give martials the exact same packages they give casters, then yes. In asymetrical games where 'balance at all costs' is not the #1 priority of the DM/PFS house rules, you may find martials to be much more enjoyable.

More specifically, how would you change the "packages" given to martials to lessen the disparity? What kind of asymetry makes martials more enjoyable?

Probably give them 3x WBl or something... or let them play like 4 levels higher, because, you know, playing at the same level means your just powergaming....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
I love pathfinder as it is, which is precisely why I make huserules to fix what i consider imbalanced or not flavorful. If i didn't like it i would go for a different game.
Isn't that the same thing as saying you don't like it as it is? If you liked it as-is, you wouldn't change anything.

No. If i thought it was perfect as-is I wouldn't change anything. I don't think it is perfect, but I still love it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I don't know... I pretty much love PF as it is.

I agree. I have a few quibbles, but I also pretty much love PF as it is.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is a good illustration of why you should take the time to tell your friends/family/etc what you love about them instead of only discussing the things they need to do better. If someone can see discussions of how to improve a game and think it means it's unloved, how much more an actual person?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morgen wrote:

No you're just getting exposed to the vocal part of this message board's community. It exists for pretty much all games in history and will exist for all games in the future, you can even look at old issues of say Dragon magazine and see articles on the same or similar topics. Occasionally they will raise a valid issue but even that is lost in the noise some times.

It's a sliver of players who want to play the game with which the system doesn't exactly emulate some thing in their head and instead of doing what most people do in changing/fixing/ignoring/etc themselves, they demand developers solve their issues and start threads on various message boards about "fixing" monks/rogues/fighters/whatever. The internet is the place where people get a voice after all.

Best advice is to ignore them for the most part and hope that the developers of the games you like don't listen to them just for being loud.

Right. And what's interesting is when they want a radical change- like dumping alignments or Vancian casting (not just having a few other spellcasting methods, but "Vancian has to go") or wanting a classless system- in other words, changing Pathfinder into something it's not.

But I ask then- there are plenty of great FRPG without Vancian or without alignments or that are classless, etc. Why not play one of those? Why the NEED to change Pathfinder to meet your particular wants?

I got nothing against wanting Fighters to have 4 SkP (altho I dont want a new edition for that) or more martial archetypes that can get a flying mount, or jump like Mythic. Fine- all those are within the scope of PF. Looks like some are coming with Unchained.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


Agreed.

However, many of the complaints on here are so vociferous, angst ridden, completely negative, and even hate filled that I can't understand why they still play the game.

The game became even MORE fun when I got pissed at the devs.

I stopped attempting to listen to their often contradictory opinions on what good game design should be, and the numerous unnecessary and detrimental FAQs they've released (See: Crane Wing, Weapon Cords) and just decided to play a fun game with minimal developer interference ruining the experience for me.

There's something to be said for this attitude. I rarely go to the errata or FAQs for Pathfinder. Not because I'm pissed at the developers, but because I game with a group of highly intellegent people who can figure out how we want most of the rules to work ourselves in a way that we will have fun playing.

Sovereign Court

DrDeth wrote:
Morgen wrote:

No you're just getting exposed to the vocal part of this message board's community. It exists for pretty much all games in history and will exist for all games in the future, you can even look at old issues of say Dragon magazine and see articles on the same or similar topics. Occasionally they will raise a valid issue but even that is lost in the noise some times.

It's a sliver of players who want to play the game with which the system doesn't exactly emulate some thing in their head and instead of doing what most people do in changing/fixing/ignoring/etc themselves, they demand developers solve their issues and start threads on various message boards about "fixing" monks/rogues/fighters/whatever. The internet is the place where people get a voice after all.

Best advice is to ignore them for the most part and hope that the developers of the games you like don't listen to them just for being loud.

Right. And what's interesting is when they want a radical change- like dumping alignments or Vancian casting (not just having a few other spellcasting methods, but "Vancian has to go") or wanting a classless system- in other words, changing Pathfinder into something it's not.

But I ask then- there are plenty of great FRPG without Vancian or without alignments or that are classless, etc. Why not play one of those? Why the NEED to change Pathfinder to meet your particular wants?

I got nothing against wanting Fighters to have 4 SkP (altho I dont want a new edition for that) or more martial archetypes that can get a flying mount, or jump like Mythic. Fine- all those are within the scope of PF. Looks like some are coming with Unchained.

They want to change Pathfinder because its supported and easy to find players. Other systems not so much.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DrDeth wrote:
But I ask then- there are plenty of great FRPG without Vancian or without alignments or that are classless, etc. Why not play one of those? Why the NEED to change Pathfinder to meet your particular wants?

Can't speak for everyone, but maybe even the drastic changes are (at least in the eyes of those clamoring for them) still smaller than going to a whole different game? I mean, theoretically, if someone wanted to change anything up to 49% of the Pathfinder system, then it's still "easier" (in at least some sense of the word) to change Pathfinder than to switch to a different game.

Or at least, that's my speculation.

51 to 100 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Does anyone just like Pathfinder as it is? All Messageboards