Do you like this game (Pathfinder)?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 850 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Love, in fact adore the verisimilitude achieved by internal consistencies within the rules that simulate and operate the game world.

Hate, absolutely disgust that said rules actively crush all non-magic stuff's attempt to be a world-shaking badass.

Grand Lodge

depends; if pretty much the only books opened are written by DSP rather than paizo; Pathfinder kicks ass. When it's only paizo however? it's terrible.

The problem is, and really always has been, the PDTs attitude.

The Exchange

I do like this game. It's complexity and variability have allowed my players and I to run it for years and not yet generate the same two characters.

However, in these last months I've found my interest in this system has finally dwindled to nought. Last week, my group and I pulled the pin on Pathfinder forever and are now moving to fifth edition as a more rules light system for a group of players who just want to get some roleplay in without needing a computer system the run the game at high levels.

What we are still doing is running Paizo AP's. The ease at which I can convert those into 5th Ed is amazing.

I must also add, these boards have contributed to my declining interest in the game. So many naysayers and Paizo haters in these threads now days, it's depressing to come here.

When I first came to the boards, everyone was friendly and helpful and creative. Now its all casters disparity and Paizo suxors.

I, sadly, allow myself to get caught up in these threads and then it all gets nasty. One day I'll learn. One day.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

I joined during the ACG playtest, so about 2 years also.

Would I be wrong in guessing that the ACG playtest was the turning point?

I don't know whether that was a turning point for the community. It's long enough ago and my memory would be hazy enough that I could probably be talked into believing that it was.

I will say that it was the point when I just checked out of Paizo's game supplements. The awful editing, and questionable mechanics aside, I was just bored by the book. It was just more of the same stuff that we'd been getting for years, and I still can't really think of anything that the Advanced Class Guide gave me that I couldn't do with other combinations of feats and classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
This is a good summary of how I feel. ** spoiler omitted **

If only I could like this post an infinite amount, I would.

Summed it up succinctly.

Having just gotten my copy of Occult Adventures, I feel like Pathfinder is actually starting to venture into some new and exciting territory. Between the Kineticist and the cool psychic classes, I feel like I could start a superhero-like campaign; add to that some of the firearm rules and technology handbook and Paizo has the grounding for some more modern-era style campaigns.

Hopefully the Occult skill unlocks are a sign that they are going to venture more into the skill side of things, and I really hope that Ultimate Intrigue continues that, and brings some increasing emphasis into non-combat areas of the game, which is where I personally feel the most uncharted design space is for the game now. I'd really like to see more options and groundwork laid for that side of things, and bring the "role" back to roleplaying.

I'm kind of with Samy when it comes to a lot of the archetypes and things; probably most of them are either too niche, or else end up giving away some of the cooler aspects of classes for my tastes, but I still appreciate that attempts are made to do something different, and they rarely fail to give me some inspiration for how I might be able to tweak things to create my own archetypes.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

I joined during the ACG playtest, so about 2 years also.

Would I be wrong in guessing that the ACG playtest was the turning point?

I don't know whether that was a turning point for the community. It's long enough ago and my memory would be hazy enough that I could probably be talked into believing that it was.

For what it's worth having been kicking around the forums for a while people were negative before too but 4th was so polarizingly different that even the people who weren't psyched about Pathfinder were pretty okay with a system that was 3.x just because it wasn't 4th.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Reckless wrote:
With growth comes pain.

I dunno Reckless*. To me "with growth comes pain" is really just an excuse for bad actors. There's no reason that growth has to equal pain.

-Skeld

*- Sorry for not addressing the rest of your post; this part stood out to me.

Grand Lodge

Chengar Qordath wrote:
...mid-nineties TSR

While TSR (like many other companies back then) may have dealt with fan-sites rather harshly, TSR's own “site” on AOL (TSR Online), was a great place to download fan created/homebrewed content, and to upload one's own homebrewed content, as well as communicate directly (in real time) via the chat rooms and instant messaging with the developers...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
Reckless wrote:
With growth comes pain.

I dunno Reckless*. To me "with growth comes pain" is really just an excuse for bad actors. There's no reason that growth has to equal pain.

-Skeld

*- Sorry for not addressing the rest of your post; this part stood out to me.

Not really trying to excuse it/them, merely an observation about the human condition during my lifetime. I've never experienced societal growth absent pains, nor have I read of any such event in any history. If I had a solution to the problems that come with attracting a lot of people to a community, I'd probably be more into politics or policing.

You say there's no reason, and you may be right. And yet it continues to be a valid aphorism, in my observation.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Short answer: yes. Pathfinder is my favorite game, and second place is pretty distant.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I really like Pathfinder. After 20+ years of tabletop gaming and various systems it's my go-to choice when I want to run fantasy.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnomersy wrote:


For what it's worth having been kicking around the forums for a while people were negative before too but 4th was so polarizingly different that even the people who weren't psyched about Pathfinder were pretty okay with a system that was 3.x just because it wasn't 4th.

This makes some sense.

storytime:
I remember WOTC forums pre-4E being plunged into endless martial-caster disparity talks. The kind that got so bad that folks would claim you cant objectively have fun with 3E. If you said you did, they dismissed you as ignorant or invoking Oberoni. Not a great time or place, so I moved onto greener pastures.

I have no interest in engaging in rules and RAW fights. I wanted to talk shop about the fun I was having. I wanted to talk about homebrewing and table dynamics and playstyles. I wanted to talk about the possibilities new releases would provide. I found Enworld to be the place to do it. Come 2008 tho, the E-war really screwed things up even for Enworld one of the best moderated sites on the web (YMMV.) All talk was bogged down in "feel" and "balance" threads and it drowned out anything else. I left again.

As a 3E fan I chose to check out PF. Found it to be the route I wanted to go and the forums were pretty sweet. The mods did a good job of directing E-war rubbish into a subforum and kept the place fairly nice. Folks were happy and engaged and talking shop. A few years passed and PF popularity soared. Wasnt long before things started to look like 2006 in here. However, despite that the subforums seemed to do a decent job of directing traffic away and allowing folks who wanted to avoid the madness to do so. I guess it was only a matter of time before the place was overrun.

I like it here I really do. Though its getting difficult to come around often. Some of my favorite posters are running away from here. The negativity is ever increasing, and its starting to feel like an MMO forum around here; which is a damn shame. The fact I still like PF and have fun keeps me knocking despite awful neighbors. YMMV.


In my opinion the first warhammer fantasy rpg was the best fantasy rpg ever. Sadly no one ever plays it.
I haven't taken a look at the newer version from FFG but I might if PF stays on it's course and I decide to leave it behind. With FFG if you have a rules question you get an answer within some days. At least that was the case when I was part of that community some years ago.


Of course I do. I have my problems with it, most of them stemming from the design philosophy of the developers (DEX to damage is teh devil!!!; Playtesting new sub-systems in AP's is for weenies!!!), but aside from that, it is a solid system which supports both roleplaying and combat well enough.

I'd like more focus on story over combat in adventure paths, but that is not a problem with the system itself, but rather with the writing approach of the AP line developers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm still on the fence about PF. I play it, but I still only DM 3.5, Call of Cthulhu, etc.

I greatly dislike the skill system, the way a lot of the spells were changed (particularly stuff like Death Ward, SoDs should have an easily available counter the same way domination does), and the front loaded character creation(Archetypes instead of an emphasis on PrCs). I dislike the fact that most of the Archetypes, Rogue/Barb talents/powers etc are pretty useless, or extremely niche, leaving only a few choices that actually make a difference in normal gameplay.

The fact that every spellcasting class gets bumped up in power tier while my beloved rogues wallow in the dirt irks me, and paizo's senseless development practices make me not want to touch books they put out. More than anything, the fact that PF seems to have classes, archetypes, etc designed around very specific play styles, as opposed to 3.5 where most classes are pretty much a blank slate upon which a character can be built, makes it quite annoying trying to make characters. What if I want to play a spellcaster built on the concept of enchantments? in 3.5 I pick an arcane spellcaster, whether a beguiler or a wizard, and pick the spells I want to use. in PF, I can do that, but the Serpentine bloodline Sorcerer is laughing at me every step of the way.

The over-specification of classes and archetypes is the single worst thing I've seen in a game that could have been very good. It's not RIFTS-tier bad where you play a Juicer or end up wasting half your actions dodging, but it's pretty damn close.

IMO PF isn't even really playable without extensive house ruling. Sure you house rule for 3.5, and I've incorporated there a few of the recent suggestions concerning casting time (I don't recall the poster, but it hinged on bumping all spells up to 1 full round casting time, and scaling those down as you pass them by).


I like pathfinder a lot it's core system is good and robust.
But I'm finding that all the extra options unnecessary and are just as likely to detract from the game as to add anything.
Also it seems to me that a lot of people on these boards demand that there be rules for everything that could possibly happen, instead of just abiding by there DM'S rulings as they don't trust them to be fair.
It just seems to me that maybe pathfinder and it's developers are maybe worrying to much about bringing out more rules options and should maybe think about producing more one off adventures or source books that deal with the setting rather than the rules
Well that's just my opinion (I know if I don't say that some people will go ballistic at my post )


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Also the fact that Mark has very strong people skills probably helps. A lot less grar is directed at Mark than any of the other devs due to his strong diplomatic practices.

The fact that he was a well-respected member of the messageboard community for many years before moving up to the rank of developer also helps a lot. It gives him a lot of respectability with many of the forum members who have interacted with him over the years, even the old crusty cyncics.


magnuskn wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Also the fact that Mark has very strong people skills probably helps. A lot less grar is directed at Mark than any of the other devs due to his strong diplomatic practices.
The fact that he was a well-respected member of the messageboard community for many years before moving up to the rank of developer also helps a lot. It gives him a lot of respectability with many of the forum members who have interacted with him over the years, even the old crusty cyncics.

He does tick all the right boxes, doesn't he?


Oh, and the one design approach of the Pathfinder development team which just baffles me is that everything now needs to be on a limited resource basis. Every class needs to have some sort of limited resource and after that resource is spend, the class suffers a significant power loss.

I think the developers looked at the problem of the 15 minute adventuring day and finally figured that with half the existing classes already suffering from the problem outlined above, they might as well design all other new classes the same way, making the short adventuring day an institution, not something to be avoided.

That is one of those rare moments where I'd wish that they would take a page from 4th edition D&D and allow one hour of rest to replenish all spent abilities/spell slots. Yeah, it would make the player characters more powerful, but the same applies to the opposition, too.


Snowblind wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Also the fact that Mark has very strong people skills probably helps. A lot less grar is directed at Mark than any of the other devs due to his strong diplomatic practices.
The fact that he was a well-respected member of the messageboard community for many years before moving up to the rank of developer also helps a lot. It gives him a lot of respectability with many of the forum members who have interacted with him over the years, even the old crusty cyncics.
He does tick all the right boxes, doesn't he?

Indeed. I think only Mikaze or Ashiel would have been a better choice.


I wasn't really a member of the community for long before he got hired. I didn't even know about the awesome 3PP work he did until I already liked him.

I like Mark because he talks to us in a down to earth manner like we're his drinking buddies. He doesn't feel like some uncaring corporate monolith, even when he delivers news that we don't want to hear. He does things in a way that forges strong trust between him and the players.

Mark is literally the only reason I haven't abandoned ship entirely on Paizo. I can already get all the good stuff I want with 3PPs, so touching Paizo material is completely optional at this point. The only thing I care about from OA is the Mystic, which I still need to wrap my head around. Maybe I'll make one to fight my players in Iron Gods.


Jiggy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Wow, sorry to hear that Jiggy, but although I agree on the complains about the mechanics it seems to me that the majority of your issues are with your experiences in PFS. NO matter what systems are you playing, if you play with people you don't like you will not enjoy the experience.

There's plenty to the system itself that I don't personally care for: wealth as a second XP track (aka gear dependency), different levels of "fantasy-ness" allowed for different character options, some elements of the math (mainly skill ranks and save progressions), inconsistency in how well multiclassing works, the use of skill checks on a per-action basis, excessively costly specializations, etc. The list goes on.

You're right that no system is fun if the people you're playing with are jerks. However, when I gave up on Pathfinder/PFS, I started trying out PbP. If the community had been the only issue, those PbP games I joined would all be Pathfinder. They're not. ;)

... So the mere existence of fantasy lite options annoys you? Even if high fantasy high magic options you can just as easily use instead exist right alongside them, the people that want to have different levels of fantasy ness available can just go jump in a lake?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

RDM42 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Wow, sorry to hear that Jiggy, but although I agree on the complains about the mechanics it seems to me that the majority of your issues are with your experiences in PFS. NO matter what systems are you playing, if you play with people you don't like you will not enjoy the experience.

There's plenty to the system itself that I don't personally care for: wealth as a second XP track (aka gear dependency), different levels of "fantasy-ness" allowed for different character options, some elements of the math (mainly skill ranks and save progressions), inconsistency in how well multiclassing works, the use of skill checks on a per-action basis, excessively costly specializations, etc. The list goes on.

You're right that no system is fun if the people you're playing with are jerks. However, when I gave up on Pathfinder/PFS, I started trying out PbP. If the community had been the only issue, those PbP games I joined would all be Pathfinder. They're not. ;)

... So the mere existence of fantasy lite options annoys you? Even if high fantasy high magic options you can just as easily use instead exist right alongside them, the people that want to have different levels of fantasy ness available can just go jump in a lake?

I'm not sure what you're asking, or even what part of my post you're replying to. If you could clarify, I'd be happy to answer your questions. :)


I used to like this game a lot.
But, for some reason, having started playing Society play has significantly reduced my liking of the game (not helped by the recent errata undermining my plans to eventually make my highly unoptimised character useful enough that strangers at the table don't get angry at me for being nothing more than a weak novelty healbot).


I like Pathfinder, but I am more invested in Golarion and the related products (Campaign Setting + Adventure Path), and the GM material (Bestiaries/Codexes/etc line), than I am with the player options books (Companions/"Ultimate" series).

I haven't been here forever...I think I must have started visiting sometime near the end of the Advanced Race Guide playtest, or right after. I can't really offer an unbiased take on how the forums have changed. I do think feel that a lot of the negativity that when I started was mostly confined to the rules/advice forum has spread onto the Paizo products and Paizo Publishing forums, and the last few playtests have become increasingly combative, which has also fed back into the development process and resulted in less participation from the Paizo folks on the website in general, besides Mark, James, and maybe a few others.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:


I must also add, these boards have contributed to my declining interest in the game. So many naysayers and Paizo haters in these threads now days, it's depressing to come here.

When I first came to the boards, everyone was friendly and helpful and creative. Now its all casters disparity and Paizo suxors.

YUP. THIS.

I've been here since before the Dragon / Dungeon - Pathfinder transition and while I've gotten into my share of heated debates / arguments the general negativity about Pathfinder has grown ALOT. I dont know if it has to do with 5E coming out and people feeling like they can go back to playing the flagship RPG and not settling for a second stringer (for the record this is NOT how I view the games. I play and support Pathfinder. I do not nor will I probably ever play or support 5E).

I feel like this, I come from a time where interaction with developers and designers just didn't happen. So anything wonky in our games we fixed/patched ourselves. It never once stopped us from enjoying our games. Anything that stands in the way of how things worked at our table was an issue, which is one of the reasons why I never liked Organized Play (the other reason was the people that you would get playing Organized Play. While I'm sure a lot of them aren't the anti-social people I would run into, looking at how people carry themselves in the rules fourm and how they talk to and about the developers and designers pretty much reinforces my my decision in not being part of that particular sub set of the community).

And to be honest and Im almost ashamed to admit it, I would get a kick out of SKR when he'd bring it to people who were just being dickish. He was the ONE guy around here who really kind of suffered no fools gladly. I feel bad that he's gone and while I didnt agree with everything that he said he said it in a way that made me think "Well, Okay...I kinda she why that would make sense. It's a different way of approaching it and not how I'd do it, but I totally get it..."

And to me that sort of approach WORKS. I'd be a lot more tolerant of peoples ideas of how the game can be patched and fixed if it weren't wrapped in passive agressiveness/hostility/arrogance. I like options and I like the idea of using those options to craft the particular game that we as individuals want to play. I'm open to options from the community, but not when that community is acting like a bunch of over entitled sociopaths.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Wrath wrote:

I must also add, these boards have contributed to my declining interest in the game. So many naysayers and Paizo haters in these threads now days, it's depressing to come here.

When I first came to the boards, everyone was friendly and helpful and creative. Now its all casters disparity and Paizo suxors.

YUP. THIS.

I'll blame 5e for that one. Plenty of games have addressed the issue of caster/martial disparity better than pathfinder. 4th was the most popular answer, but casting became uninteresting for many. 5e kept casting interesting AND made martials very relevant (though not as perfectly as 4e, much to the dismay of 4e fans).

BUT 5e is more guidelines than mechanics, it doesn't scratch the niche that PF/3.5 did of having known rules for everything. So we have a popular game that does address caster v martial in a satisfactory way, but doesn't completely pull the PF audience to it. This leaves people playing PF, wanting its over-arching problem to be addressed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder was the first RPG I ever played (OK, well technically I was introduced to it at a 3.5 game where a friend let me play as the caster's golem to learn the mechanics - but my first REAL game was Pathfinder) so it holds a special place in my heart.

On the other hand, once I became more involved and started tinkering with neat concepts I wanted to try, I learned how eagerly Paizo likes to fix things that weren't broken. And a minor gripe, really, but I have noticed the quality in printed material has declined --- it feels like from Ultimate Combat on I didn't have to search hard to find glaring omissions, typos and just general issues with the type face. (The ACG was the worst offender I found - but I didn't buy Unchained or Occult Adventures.)

Do I like the game? Yes. But not like I used to. And I still appreciate Paizo's commitment to representation (unfortunate misuse of the term atheist and the implications it brings aside) and even, it feels like, influencing WotC for the better. But the mechanics themselves --- the more I play, especially compared to other systems, the more I see the cracks and the more I gravitate away from it.


I started playing tabletop RPGs with D&D 4th edition. I was quite resistant to D&D 3.5e but I finally relented when Pathfinder came out because my friend pointed out he had been playing D&D 4th edition despite not liking it and it was only fair for me to return the favour. I ended up running a campaign (Carrion Crown) from 2011 to 2013 and played in a ton as well. I'm proud to say Carrion Crown was run from Level 1 to 14 (roughly) and we actually finished the AP.

From about level 10 running Carrion Crown was becoming increasingly harder. By the end I'd lost heart and just wanted to finish it. Soon afterwards I moved to the opposite side of the country and have read and played AD&D 2nd edition, Traveller, GURPS (only read), Fate and D&D 5th edition. I've even played some Pathfinder as well.

The version of Pathfinder I prefer to play is houseruled a fair bit, taking a handful of things from D&D 5th edition and I'm slowly looking at 3PP content and am open to allowing that in my Pathfinder games for the first time ever.

The game's hard. I don't even know if my latest lot of rules will be sufficient to keep the game within reasonable parameters. However I do feel the ruleset is worth the effort in me continuing to try. It's got an unparralleled breadth of options (GURPs is probably the only game I know of that probably exceeds it) and the community is quite welcoming and the company is downright pleasant. The fact they create an environment that is open to 3PPs is a big part of why I'm currently playing Pathfinder instead of D&D 5th edition.

So yeah, I like the game. There's a few things I'd change. But as I'm working on my houserules and finding ways to houserule things, I'm seeing a few core houserules can change the game dramatically. The rest is deciding which optional systems to use atop the CRB chasis.

Rhedyn wrote:
Plenty of games have addressed the issue of caster/martial disparity better than pathfinder.

Part of the problem is that Pathfinder was never designed to address the issue in any significant way (to my knowledge, at least). It cleaned up the worst of the options (Druidzilla) and simplified the game in a few other areas (apparently CMB and CMD are simplified compared to what 3.5e used). But for the most part it was designed as a nip and tuck. Anything too dramatic (and yes, D&D 5e's spells would have been considered very dramatic back in 2008/2009) would have been rejected by the fan base at the time.

All of the "negative threads" of late is due to Pathfinder's success. It's currently the big kid in town (at least amongst those inclined to participate on online forums. I do believe the 5th edition core rules is outselling Pathfinder's current books, but that's also to be expected) and so people are playing it not from enjoyment but because everyone else is. Those people want to change how the game fundamentally works because ultimately they don't enjoy the core Pathfinder ruleset. Strap those rules on as optional rules and you've got great additions to the game because it broadens the number of people the game can appeal to. However I get the impression that some want the core rules themselves to be changed (either via errata or a new edition) and that I believe would risk driving off a significant portion of Pathfinder's playerbase which would be a mistake.

When a second edition comes along scaling spells with spell slot rather than caster level may no longer be seen as a dramatic depature by the fanbase but instead a welcome refinement. But that will likely be a few years out and you have to remember at the time Pathfinder was originally released that would have likely been seen as the devil's work.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 7 people marked this as a favorite.

It's important to note that being critical of a game, or show, or book doesn't mean you hate it - it means you can see it has an issue and want what you love to be better. Like trying to explain to Crazy Racist Grandpa that having dark skin does not make your friend evil incarnate.

I love Firefly, but it's pretty damned hard to not notice the lack of Asian people in the main cast. Or the supporting cast. Or with a speaking role at all. You mostly see them as poor people during the pilot - when they revisit the planet and see it's nobility, it's almost entirely white. Which, given the back story that the Alliance is a combined US/China, is kinda hard to swallow.

Equally, with Pathfinder, it's hard not to notice if you want to be a useful, effective, contributing member of your party both in and out of combat you damned well better be able to cast some spells. Unless you have a knowledge and system mastery waaaaay above the rest of the party.

I love Pathfinder, and I love Paizo for it's inclusiveness, it's respect for diversity and LBGT rights. But I'll always, always speak up when I see a hiccup in the system, and I expect anyone else who loves it to do the same - or how else or the Devs going to know what works, what doesn't and what plain sucks?


Quote:


different levels of "fantasy-ness" allowed for different character options,

I mean, there are high fantasy martials, there are non high fantasy ones too. Why does the existence of the non high fantasy ones bother?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Quote:


different levels of "fantasy-ness" allowed for different character options,
I mean, there are high fantasy martials, there are non high fantasy ones too. Why does the existence of the non high fantasy ones bother?

Probably because there is no option for "non-high fantasy" casters.

So if you wanna play a more down-to-earth martial, you can, but all his caster friends are going to always be leaps and bounds above him.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JonGarrett wrote:


I love Pathfinder, and I love Paizo for it's inclusiveness, it's respect for diversity and LBGT rights. But I'll always, always speak up when I see a hiccup in the system, and I expect anyone else who loves it to do the same - or how else or the Devs going to know what works, what doesn't and what plain sucks?

I agree. But there's a big difference between "Yeah I dont think that this works the way that it should and here's why." and why a fair amount of people on this board carry on about caster disparity and other points as if someone personally insulted their mother.

At a certain point it's either time to let it go, fix it yourself or play another game. And then there are a few people who show up just to take pot shots at the devs and designers because...you know Internet Tough guys. Pathfinder DOES have issues no one is saying that it doesnt. ANY game has issues. But the way that it's been on this board lately kinda makes it difficult to talk about the the game in ways that we like without the usual suspects showing up to thread crap.

The thing is: people here aren't going to be happy no matter what. Paizo could take the most common points that people have issue with "fix" them tomorrow using posters actual fix proposals and by the evening of THAT SAME DAY the knives and pitchforks will be out claiming that they did it wrong or that they didn't listen to input.

Liberty's Edge

sunbeam wrote:

[QUOTE="Rhedyn"

There was a hilarious thread I saw once that was totally ripping [Sean K. Reynolds'] "value" for feats. I don't know if it is still on his website, it was around the time they were making the Pathfinder RPG.

But that was some condensed insanity if you can find the page he was writing his analysis somewhere.

I think he deleted it around the time Fifth Edition came out. It's replaced with something along the lines of "Deleted, this is just me coming up with stuff on the ride to work anyway, if you're curious go search engine it."

Liberty's Edge

It is frustrating though. I'm not saying they have to cater to our whims. There a point though where you ask, beg and plead. Yet the feedback is ignored. Speaking for myself if a company rpg or not. Keeps repeating the same mistakes. I don't give them praise. It's not to say I don't enjoy the game I do. I don't see why one can't be both a fan and be critical of them as well.


I love Pathfinder. I heavily house rule. I use 3pp. I give positive and critical feedback to their playtests. I use both the free resources and purchase their products.

As for the community, which I have observed from the 2+ years I've been bopping around these threads, unfortunately, we seem disproportionately more responsive to whining and hating than giving constructive feedback - especially in the Homebrew section! Kind of upsetting to see your post asking for community input go unanswered (or answered in dismissive or otherwise unhelpful posts) while the responses to the dead-horse topics pile up exponentially.

That said, there are a few gems in the rough that defy the trend.

Sovereign Court

rainzax wrote:
As for the community, which I have observed from the 2+ years I've been bopping around these threads, unfortunately, we seem disproportionately more responsive to whining and hating than giving constructive feedback - especially in the Homebrew section! Kind of upsetting to see your post asking for community input go unanswered (or answered in dismissive or otherwise unhelpful posts) while the responses to the dead-horse topics pile up exponentially.

So - a bit better than average for the internet? ;)


You win = comparing yourself to something worse to ease your conscience about a (less) negative behavior?

Wait/what!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Malwing wrote:
I'm currently playing D&D 5th edition and my experiences have been that I understand why jump ship from Pathfinder to 5th ed but just comparing the Core rulebook to the DMG and Player's handbook I find it lacking in terms of options and scope. I get the same feel I do from Pathfinder's Beginner Box (with the free third party support involved). Aside from not really being capable of playing the character I want have not seen caster/martial disparity 'solved' as many players described but it goes through great lengths to nerf everything. I guess with the monsters ultimately being pretty weak compared to the PCs will do it. But in terms of getting your fantasy game on with minimal fiddly bits and complexities its a solid game.

I didn't get that impression from 5e. Compare to all of PF and 3rd party, I think 5e can actualize a similar number of character concepts and mechanics. Compare to just the CRB, 5e crushes it.

My 5e characters also feel stronger to me. Sure the numbers are smaller but my abilities seem to have more umpf. You have less spells but they do more.

Its one of the reasons I am growing tired of PF. I've really looked through and played another game where it seems the devs thought "does this meaningfully add to the game?" before they wrote every rules and option. I can't help but look at some of the trash paizo publishes and think "did anyone at paizo seriously think this was useful?"

I'd just like to jump in in support of 5E here for a second. My feelings of the classes are pretty similar. So far, I've played a monk and a rogue up to level 5 and they are great. Ki is short-rest (1 hour) recharge, monks get a bonus melee attack each round with their bonus action (basically swift action), can automatically use Dex as their att/dmg mod in melee (Dex goes to ranged att/dmg by default too, so that's awesome), and my abilities are pretty fricking sweet. My reaction can be used to ignore my level x 5 in falling damage OR block 1d10 + Dex mod + level in dmg from a single ranged attack. Yep, monks get Deflect Arrow by default and then we can expend one ki to throw it back at someone. For the rogue, sneak attack is now amazing. It's the same progression, but as long as you have advantage (roll two d20s and take the better result) on the attack roll or you don't have disadvantage and an ally is next to your target, you can inflict sneak damage. Also, in 5E it's the dice that are doubled on a crit, including sneak damage. At level 2, a rogue's Cunning Action can use a bonus action each round to either A) not provoke attacks of opportunity at all, B) double their move speed, or C) make a Hide check. Lastly, at level 5 their Uncanny Dodge let's them use their reaction to halve all damage from one attack, no strings attached. Even without everything else they get, this makes the rogue more than playable, it makes them FUN. 5E has done a wonderful job of making character classes that play and feel like their 3E counterparts but approach a power balance more similar to 4E. There isn't a lot of material that has been put out for it so far, but I can see additional material for 5E not breaking any kind of power curve based on the way the base system has been setup. Or at least, they'll have to be pretty careless to mess up the balance right now. This is what I mean when I talk about 'power vs usefulness'. In 5E, is a monk's Slow Fall or a rogue's Uncanny Dodge really powerful? No, but they're damned useful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To weigh in on the OP: I like Pathfinder, but I no longer love it. Things like the kineticist are few and far between in new material they put out. Part of it, I think is that they're STILL too focused on being like 3E, as though that ship hadn't sailed ages ago. Plus, it's too rules heavy. There is so freaking much to remember. For example, when you have reach with your melee attacks, even your allies squares can provide cover to your enemies. That's a rule that's been standard for ages now, yet my tables never remember it. There's others too. Feats are also a major issue with me. The word describes a major accomplishment or deed of great power / skill, yet most feats are nothing more than small numbers bumps or tiny little augments that make little difference in a character's daily adventuring life. Things like Crane Wing were amazing breaks from that standard, breaks which got nerfed into oblivion. Which is another problem: Paizo needs to STOP trying to be a MMORPG publisher and just let their existing content be. Let FAQ/errata be for things that were actually broken/incomplete in the first place. Things like the numerous witches hexes that only got addressed because the community bugged them about it for months, even after they had addressed Crane Wing first.

I like Paizo as a company. I like that they're on here and talking to us. I like the flavor of the system (mostly) and Golarion is neat. I appreciate their enthusiastic support of using 3rd party material with their system. I just don't think Pathfinder is all that interesting anymore. I went from not playing RPGs for years to a 4E game, after which Pathfinder seemed positively lively. Now that I've tried Fate, Numenera, and 5E, though, the numbers/rules-heavy Pathfinder and it's race to 'all the magic items' and rocket tag just seems...old. Old and inflexible and constantly in need of infusions from new products, no matter how lackluster they are in general. It needs a major change, and soon. Unchained is a good step in that direction and a lot of that book should be standard when PF 2.0 comes out. Until then, introduce all the 'psychic magic' you want, but I don't think it's gonna help make the system any more interesting.


I started roleplaying as a kid in the 90s with Palladium Fantasy (1st ed - don't get me started on second), then moved on to Nightbane and then in to 3.5.
I've been playing pathfinder since before it was published when we had an alpha rules printout and a beta rules printout and would argue about which parts we thought were better while still using a giant pile of Wizards printed splat books.

Pathfinder is a huge step up over Palladium and all its related works, and I appreciate Paizo for that. It even started out as a nice clean improvement on 3.5.

But the more books they put out the less appeal it holds for me, as the game is feeling more cluttered. I love character options and the ability for interesting builds, which is why I'm still with Pathfinder and not 5th ed, but since ACG came out I've not loved the new material. The 'every class must get a fun new gimmicky ability every level' approach of the newer books just makes everything better than the core. And I think that is bad for the game.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
It is frustrating though. I'm not saying they have to cater to our whims. There a point though where you ask, beg and plead. Yet the feedback is ignored. Speaking for myself if a company rpg or not. Keeps repeating the same mistakes. I don't give them praise. It's not to say I don't enjoy the game I do. I don't see why one can't be both a fan and be critical of them as well.

Certainly one can be a fan and critical. But an awful lot of the criticism coming from the boards lately has been borderline to blatantly insulting. That's less criticism than abuse.


Something I find weird is that people say that new material is better than core. But... if you look at occult adventures you see four tier 3 classes, a tier 2 class and a tier 4/5 class....

Even if you look at ACG: 1 tier 1, 1 tier 2, 4 tier 3, 3 tier 4s, and a tier 5.

Things are generally on the average to lower powers scale with the new material.


Well, the ACG have an option to make wizards more exploitable, so that.


Well the usual 'problem child' classes are mostly either core classes or based on core classes. As I mentioned before I think Paizo is adept at protecting the game's status quo, which unfortunately for a lot of people means the balance logic inherited from 3.5. Sure some things got buffed and some things got nerfed but you can't just give the fighter new things without taking away something that's perceived as equal or you invalidate the core book. Time we talk about martial/caster disparity the Fighter/Rogue and Wizard are the immediate things that come up almost to the exclusion of any other class. (while I'm on that tangent I find it curious that I've seen certain Summoners, Gunslingers and even Magus, for some reason, banned for doing something overpowered but never wizards. This is the only way I can explain this phenomena. )

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:

Something I find weird is that people say that new material is better than core. But... if you look at occult adventures you see four tier 3 classes, a tier 2 class and a tier 4/5 class....

Even if you look at ACG: 1 tier 1, 1 tier 2, 4 tier 3, 3 tier 4s, and a tier 5.

Things are generally on the average to lower powers scale with the new material.

TIER 1: Arcanist; Tier 2: Shaman, Tier 3: Bloodrager, Investigator, Hunter, Skald; Tier 4: Slayer, Brawler; Tier 5: Swashbuckler?


EntrerisShadow wrote:


TIER 1: Arcanist; Tier 2: Shaman, Tier 3: Bloodrager, Investigator, Hunter, Skald; Tier 4: Slayer, Brawler; Tier 5: Swashbuckler?

As far as I'm aware, swap arcanist & shaman, bloodrager & slayer.


How is Shaman not tier one? He's a prepared caster who can change their spell list daily.

@Milo
Bloodrager has to be tier three just by the fact that he has spells. Slayer is Tier 4 since he has skills and damage, no spells.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

Bloodrager has to be tier three just by the fact that he has spells. Slayer is Tier 4 since he has skills and damage, no spells.

Bloodrager's spells are basically all just combat increases except for a tiny tiny tiny number of spells that aren't (spider climb and blood biography are the only ones I can remember off the top of my head).

Slayer has damage and skills, while bloodrager basically just has damage. At least that's what I've seen with it.

201 to 250 of 850 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Do you like this game (Pathfinder)? All Messageboards