What exactly counts as a martial? Are we talking about rangers, paladins, bloodragers, alchemists, ninjas, barbarians, monks, and rogues, since they all get magical powers but still hang out in melee? Seems like these usually degenerate into fighter vs. everyone else, especially wizards.
Fighter and Wizard are the poster boys for each side, being the "pure martial" to the "pure caster" (at least under the core rules). Usually when people say "martial" they mean full BAB plus Monk.
Something to think about; IRL who does the world favor, the amish and other luddites that refuse to use technological magic, or high-tech magic users?
Again, this is the position that "mundane warrior" is a low-level concept for low-level games and/or low-magic settings. It makes sense for the sake of verisimilitude but necessitates one of the following:
- Rulesets in which casters are unabashedly better than non-casters; the point is for PCs to all play some flavor of caster and things like the Fighter are relegated to NPC classes. You might play one for a lark but it'd be like playing a Commoner in Pathfinder.
- In a 3e ruleset, capping character levels at 6 because in your setting, that is the pinnacle of mortal human(oid) achievement. Anyone of a higher level is so extraordinary that they are not available to PCs. While this solution works well in many ways, there are many rulesets out there with a similarly low "level cap" (whatever mechanics that might entail), and I believe a big reason for 3e and its descendants' enduring popularity is the fact that you can advance from one step above a commoner to one step below a demigod with a single character.
- Alternately in a 3e ruleset, capping mundanes at level 6 and making things like Eldritch Knight, Paladin, etc. the only way for fighter-types to advance further, because doing so is impossible without some source of supernatural power. If they refuse to have the character use some supernatural power source they can either retire that character or stay at level 6. Unpalatable for many people, to be sure.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is people rattling chains about C/MD operate under the assumption that "balance" is the goal rather than worrying about fun.
If balance was what people wanted Pathfinder wouldn't be what it is, and 5th ed would look a lot more like 4th.
People continually rail against 3.0/3.5 problems while ignoring, forgetting, or disingenuously glossing over the fact that pathfinder exists because people wanted 3.0/3.5 and wanted the customization and options that they provided.
The case hasn't actually been made that the existence of that disparity has been a significant financial dent for paizo, and without that, people whom are super bothered by it are probably best off finding a game more to their liking. To change it significantly rather than putting out different games is the kind of risk that could (and should) be viewed as potentially putting Paizo out of business or at least dramatically shrinking the company.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
FOR INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE, BARBARIAN HAVE WAY OF RECOVERING RAGE VIA DESTROYER'S BLESSING.
THIS AM NOT REALLY ISSUE, SINCE BARBARIAN GENERALLY HAVE ENOUGH RAGE ROUNDS TO BE INFINITE HATE MACHINE REGARDLESS OF NUMBER OF ENCOUNTERS IN DAY. ONLY PROBLEM IF AM ALSO USING THAT FEAT FOR BURNING EXTRA RAGE ROUNDS INTO BONUS DAMAGE ON SWING BASED ON CONSTITUTION SCORE, BUT MAYBE NOT USE FEAT IF GM HAVE HISTORY OF THROWING MASS ENCOUNTERS AT PARTY.
PS, NOT BOTHER TRYING GET BARBARIAN OUT OF RAGE, BARBARIAN AM RUNNING SPECIAL VARIANT FEAT THAT AM PROVIDING ABILITY FOR CHANNELING RAGE OF COLLECTIVE INTERNET FOR BONUS ROUNDS. BARBARIAN LITERALLY NEVER RUN OUT OF RAGE UNLESS FLAME WARS STOP ON INTERNET. AM TOTALLY AWESOME, FOR SERIOUS.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is people rattling chains about C/MD operate under the assumption that "balance" is the goal rather than worrying about fun.
If balance was what people wanted Pathfinder wouldn't be what it is, and 5th ed would look a lot more like 4th.
People continually rail against 3.0/3.5 problems while ignoring, forgetting, or disingenuously glossing over the fact that pathfinder exists because people wanted 3.0/3.5 and wanted the customization and options that they provided.
The case hasn't actually been made that the existence of that disparity has been a significant financial dent for paizo, and without that, people whom are super bothered by it are probably best off finding a game more to their liking. To change it significantly rather than putting out different games is the kind of risk that could (and should) be viewed as potentially putting Paizo out of business or at least dramatically shrinking the company.
Here's an idea: Every dollar made by a 3rd party company that purports to help "fix" Caster Martial Disparity, is a dollar that Paizo could have made were they not so archaically insistent on pretending it doesn't exist. There would be no need for Path of War, Spheres of Power/Might, Legendary Fighter or anything else if there wasn't this huge gaping problem with the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FOR INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE, BARBARIAN HAVE WAY OF RECOVERING RAGE VIA DESTROYER'S BLESSING.
THIS AM NOT REALLY ISSUE, SINCE BARBARIAN GENERALLY HAVE ENOUGH RAGE ROUNDS TO BE INFINITE HATE MACHINE REGARDLESS OF NUMBER OF ENCOUNTERS IN DAY. ONLY PROBLEM IF AM ALSO USING THAT FEAT FOR BURNING EXTRA RAGE ROUNDS INTO BONUS DAMAGE ON SWING BASED ON CONSTITUTION SCORE, BUT MAYBE NOT USE FEAT IF GM HAVE HISTORY OF THROWING MASS ENCOUNTERS AT PARTY.
PS, NOT BOTHER TRYING GET BARBARIAN OUT OF RAGE, BARBARIAN AM RUNNING SPECIAL VARIANT FEAT THAT AM PROVIDING ABILITY FOR CHANNELING RAGE OF COLLECTIVE INTERNET FOR BONUS ROUNDS. BARBARIAN LITERALLY NEVER RUN OUT OF RAGE UNLESS FLAME WARS STOP ON INTERNET. AM TOTALLY AWESOME, FOR SERIOUS.
Yes, I did take that into account. There's also Wyroot, the Ki Mat, a few archetypes, I'm probably missing something. Not part of the ability itself (so not universally available) and most have strings attached. Yours involves a little orc blood and beating something with a feather duster, if I remember correctly (and was also nerfed in the reprint).
More encounters is 8-12 a day (though they've also suggested 15). Now this may only be for "mid" levels (I don't know if they qualified it that way because it's too many encounters at low levels or they don't think Wizards are a problem at low levels), since they consider level 12 the upper end of "mid" we can assume a lower end of 6. At level 6 a Barbarian has 12+Con rounds of rage. That is at least enough for one round every battle in the worst case, probably more like 1.33. That's not much. And while the Barbarian could not rage every battle just typing that sentence makes me feel unclean. And while Extra Rage exists, "the Barbarian had to take Extra Rage because the GM is trying to challenge the Wizard" is just the worst.
You're welcome.
...WAIT.
THERE AM BARBARIANS WHO AM TAKING MORE THAN 1 ROUND TO FINISH COMBAT?
BARBARIAN ROLL TO DISBELIEVE. (ALSO, BARBARIAN AM HAVING 14+CON RAGE ROUNDS AT LEVEL 6. REMEMBER, LEVEL 1 AM 4+CON, THEN 2 PER LEVEL AFTER.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry but its true. You don't have to like it but it is.
You really want a stereotype, how about gamers constantly complaining about the games they play never being good enough. If you aren't having fun don't play.
This is still an ignorant way to try and shut down people who disagree with you.
"This system has this issue," is not the same as, "This is no fun and I hate it."
Acknowledging and addressing issues is how game design has advanced over time.
Here's an idea: Every dollar made by a 3rd party company that purports to help "fix" Caster Martial Disparity, is a dollar that Paizo could have made were they not so archaically insistent on pretending it doesn't exist. There would be no need for Path of War, Spheres of Power/Might, Legendary Fighter or anything else if there wasn't this huge gaping problem with the system.
Paizo is quite aware of the problem. However, a blanket declaration of, "All prior muggles suck, here's the fix," just... does not work for their position. It's not something they really can fix without abandoning their current design philosophies, which would likely require a new edition, and Pathfinder's kind of been avoiding doing that.
All they can really do is release more patch feats/archetypes like they've been doing.
Sometimes people can also just merely "outgrow" a ruleset in their desires.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an idea: Every dollar made by a 3rd party company that purports to help "fix" Caster Martial Disparity, is a dollar that Paizo could have made were they not so archaically insistent on pretending it doesn't exist. There would be no need for Path of War, Spheres of Power/Might, Legendary Fighter or anything else if there wasn't this huge gaping problem with the system.The problem is people rattling chains about C/MD operate under the assumption that "balance" is the goal rather than worrying about fun.
If balance was what people wanted Pathfinder wouldn't be what it is, and 5th ed would look a lot more like 4th.
People continually rail against 3.0/3.5 problems while ignoring, forgetting, or disingenuously glossing over the fact that pathfinder exists because people wanted 3.0/3.5 and wanted the customization and options that they provided.
The case hasn't actually been made that the existence of that disparity has been a significant financial dent for paizo, and without that, people whom are super bothered by it are probably best off finding a game more to their liking. To change it significantly rather than putting out different games is the kind of risk that could (and should) be viewed as potentially putting Paizo out of business or at least dramatically shrinking the company.
Additional revenue has to be counterbalanced against revenue lost because other players quit buying their products when they "fixed" the system. It also must be counterbalanced by every additional dollar lost because the entire line of APs and modules no longer functions without a massive rewrite.
Third party publishers are filling a useful niche right now, providing compatible classes and systems for players who are dissatisfied with aspects of what Paizo has published. I'd hazard a guess that no matter how Paizo built their Pathfinder classes, these publishers would continue to make money providing something "slightly different from Paizo" that a subset of players enjoy.
None of this means that the classes are balanced, but the magnitude of the changes that are typically proposed ("completely change around half of the classes in the game") really is enough that they require a new system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Telling someone to play a different game may very well mean they play no game. There's not so many GMs out there that everyone has their pick, and there's a lot of GMs with thousands of dollars worth of books who don't want to have to start a new collection. More than that, they may jump to a different game only to discover it has the same issues, putting them right back where they started only $50+ poorer.
The awesome thing about Pathfinder is that it's not a videogame, and each table has the ability to change the meta by adjusting their rules, adding or subtracting content, or swapping the game from an open world sandbox to a linear dungeon crawl. While you don't need any experience with coding to make those changes, you do need game-specific experience, or the advice of people who have it, and you need the abiltiy to have that information communicated to you in a reasonably accessible fashion. Every bit of helpful advice in this thread has been almost immediately drowned out by a cascade of people telling anyone with an issue that it's their own fault and they should play different characters or games, and the response from people trying to explain that they do in fact know the rules and like the other people at their table but are experiencing the issue regardless.
If they feel that Pathfinder is the only game worth playing, then sure, it can mean that. Key word: can. Which means that is not typical, and is honestly quite rare.
But people who research products can not only prevent selecting a bad product that they may dislike, but also help them select a product more in-line with their preferences of games. People who aren't willing to put in the time or effort to find a game or product to their liking are the same people who complain about the Caster/Martial Disparity and/or don't do anything about it when it is clearly present in their games.
So yeah, I won't suggest something they won't clearly do, and I'd rather suggest "No Gaming is better than bad gaming" with that being the case.
I play many systems. I use different systems for different things. Much of the time, Pathfinder is the game I can get a group for, and I want to actually be able to enjoy playing it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Caster/Martial Disparity was written into Pathfinder. That doesn't mean that it's not a good game to play, just that it's flawed, and the flaws continue to grow more glaring with the advent of more spells and classes. The fighter (especially) falls further and further behind on the narrative power-scale as time goes on, and I personally feel that it could use (and should have) an Unchained version that includes some class skills that would grant the fighter more utility outside of combat. Fighters aren't just dumb brutes. I've suggested a few things earlier in the thread, and I feel that it would be useful to come up with ways to enhance the fighter's narrative utility (and the narrative utility of other classes that have fallen behind the curve).
I was thinking again on the topic of balancing casters vs fighters and it occurred to me that three simple and easy to implement changes would alter the math significantly:
- Remove the +5 limit on magic weapons and armor (this is already gone for those of us who play epic)
- Halve the cost of magic weapons
- Halve the cost of magic armor (not including Bracers of Defense, Rings of Protection, etc..)
One concern is that gives Clerics (and other armored casters) a large boost. If that turns out to be a significant issue, it might be better to halve the cost of magic weapons, but not magic armor.
What are your thoughts?
While this is one way to do it, I personally feel you would be over looking the core problem at hand. This is not a character class weakness which causes the disparity between these classes but rather is a fundamental flaw in the game mechanics which needs to be addressed. Once it is, all the other pieces fall into place.
1) Full Attacks are a STANDARD ACTION. Yes this allows for full attacks plus movement. This is on par with how earlier editions of the game did it for decades without issue.
Scenario: Targets are spread 30 ft apart.
Answer: Archers can shoot at anything on the open field. Mages can Quick cast two fireballs 800 feet + away from each other. Yet a 20th level melee can only attack one target, even if he drops that target with a single hit? Really?!
2) Remove the penalty to iterative attacks. IE; at BAB +6 you do not get two attacks at + 6 / + 1, you simply get two attacks at + 6. Unless you are getting into high level game play this really only effects the full martial classes anyway, which is exactly what it should be doing. Again, older editions did it this way (for specialists) and it worked fine.
3) Consolidate (some) feat chains. Two Weapon Fighting for example automatically scales at the appropriate level without the need to purchase additional feats in order to continue "feeding" the progression. After all, wizards don't have to make such an investment in order to get their next level of spells, or their fireball progressing from a 8d6 to a 9d6.
4) I could add another 15 or 20 to this list but will stop here to avoid "scope drift" of the discussion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggestion earlier Edition X did it better! Rather I'm suggesting these ideas are not new and have been field tested for years and proven to work just fine in official products and tournament game play.
Disclaimer: Some may argue these ideas work best at low to mid levels. As I do not play high level campaigns I can not comment on such, they may be right.
I play many systems. I use different systems for different things. Much of the time, Pathfinder is the game I can get a group for, and I want to actually be able to enjoy playing it.
Therefore it should change to something you like rather than the game that the people you can get a group for choose over all the other games out there.
The Caster/Martial Disparity was written into Pathfinder. That doesn't mean that it's not a good game to play, just that it's flawed, and the flaws continue to grow more glaring with the advent of more spells and classes. The fighter (especially) falls further and further behind on the narrative power-scale as time goes on, and I personally feel that it could use (and should have) an Unchained version that includes some class skills that would grant the fighter more utility outside of combat. Fighters aren't just dumb brutes. I've suggested a few things earlier in the thread, and I feel that it would be useful to come up with ways to enhance the fighter's narrative utility (and the narrative utility of other classes that have fallen behind the curve).
The fighter has actually done nothing but gain ground on the narrative power scale. Same with rogue as of URoge and unchained skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play many systems. I use different systems for different things. Much of the time, Pathfinder is the game I can get a group for, and I want to actually be able to enjoy playing it.Therefore it should change to something you like rather than the game that the people you can get a group for choose over all the other games out there.
Translation: Let them eat cake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Translation: Let them eat cake.I play many systems. I use different systems for different things. Much of the time, Pathfinder is the game I can get a group for, and I want to actually be able to enjoy playing it.Therefore it should change to something you like rather than the game that the people you can get a group for choose over all the other games out there.
Translation: Pathfinder became as popular as it was because people wanted to play the 3.0/3.5 system. There are plenty of more "balanced" games out there, but the people in Omnius' area have chosen pathfinder as the game they want to play, they enjoy it. Omnius is, by this fact the odd person out. Life is like that sometimes but people enjoy pathfinder warts and c/md and all. Radically altering the game people enjoy at the company level to satisfy one person is a ridiculous ask.
On top of which this disparity has existed in this system since the 90's and people still find the game compelling and fun to play.
Find an online group playing a game that you enjoy, or start one, or run one, or lobby for house rules in your local games. The idea that they're going to rewrite pathfinder on such a fundamental level is pretty far fetched, and after the 5th or 6th thread about it each month + run ins on any thread that could remotely include the discussion the complaints are stale and old. If people are free to beat this dead horse i'm free to tell them to take some damn agency in their own entertainment.
@ Lazlo.Arcadia: 1. That only solves the Pounce disparity, not the melee/ranged disparity that your example provides, making the solution basically a non sequitur. Even if implemented, the Archer is still a better martial character, and significantly so.
2. You would have to revise how hit points/A.C. is done, since everyone will have a big effective damage bonus that would trivialize the way they are done now. Optimization is a prime example of why this would be the case.
3. To expand on this point, remove staple feats, instead making them options players can use if they meet the requirements. For example, Power Attack and Combat Expertise are constant options, whereas feats like Weapon Focus are completely removed, and aren't needed for requirements of other feats.
3. To expand on this point, remove staple feats, instead making them options players can use if they meet the requirements.
TBH the reworking of feats is IMO the biggest thing. The chains are too large, particularly with combat maneuvers included. Feat consolidation has done wonders for games i've been in. If the unchained skill unlocks were standard thatd be another one. Combat feats working more like vigilante talents where one choice gives you 2 or 3 benefits as you scale in level would work wonders in giving martial classes the wiggle room to use resources in narrative directions instead of having to burn every spare feat on their combat style.
I'm less enthusiastic about stamina, to me its biggest benefit is the abilty to ignore some stat requirements (looking at you comboat expertise).
Telling someone to play a different game may very well mean they play no game. There's not so many GMs out there that everyone has their pick, and there's a lot of GMs with thousands of dollars worth of books who don't want to have to start a new collection. More than that, they may jump to a different game only to discover it has the same issues, putting them right back where they started only $50+ poorer.
The awesome thing about Pathfinder is that it's not a videogame, and each table has the ability to change the meta by adjusting their rules, adding or subtracting content, or swapping the game from an open world sandbox to a linear dungeon crawl. While you don't need any experience with coding to make those changes, you do need game-specific experience, or the advice of people who have it, and you need the abiltiy to have that information communicated to you in a reasonably accessible fashion. Every bit of helpful advice in this thread has been almost immediately drowned out by a cascade of people telling anyone with an issue that it's their own fault and they should play different characters or games, and the response from people trying to explain that they do in fact know the rules and like the other people at their table but are experiencing the issue regardless.
If they feel that Pathfinder is the only game worth playing, then sure, it can mean that. Key word: can. Which means that is not typical, and is honestly quite rare.
But people who research products can not only prevent selecting a bad product that they may dislike, but also help them select a product more in-line with their preferences of games. People who aren't willing to put in the time or effort to find a game or product to their liking are the same people who complain about the Caster/Martial Disparity and/or don't do anything about it when it is clearly present in their games.
So yeah, I won't suggest something they won't clearly do, and I'd rather suggest "No Gaming is better than bad gaming"...
I had to unfavorite this for the sole purpose of saying I favorited it twice.
The most frustrating part about this for me is that we have these players who, and not in a condescending way, are simply not as well read on the fighter who take this fact as an insult rather than someone genuinely trying to help them gain something for their gaming experience.
I understand not everyone has the time to read every feat and stamina trick.
That's why I did it for you...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From all my debates on the topic the solution comes down to three things, all drastic:
2) Completely re-write the combat rules and feats to favor martials
Luckily, no one has to redo #2 if they don't fee like it; the work has already been done. Frank and K did it for 3.5. I did it for Pathfinder. These are free, online rule sets.
Something to think about; IRL who does the world favor, the amish and other luddites that refuse to use technological magic, or high-tech magic users?
Well, you might have heard of a guy called Tom Brady, for example. This is a guy who dresses in tights. His job is to run headfirst into other guys wearing tights. His 2-year contact is for $41,000,000.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The case hasn't actually been made that the existence of that disparity has been a significant financial dent for paizo, and without that, people whom are super bothered by it are probably best off finding a game more to their liking. To change it significantly rather than putting out different games is the kind of risk that could (and should) be viewed as potentially putting Paizo out of business or at least dramatically shrinking the company.
I think this is a really good point. As I mentioned, all the fixes suggested for the caster/fighter disparity involve something drastic such as re-writing the combat rules and all combat feats, banning full casters, or re-writing the magic system (to Spheres of Power).
In any of those cases, Paizo runs the risk of changing Pathfinder too much and alienating a huge chuck of players, like 4th addition did. So the question becomes, will the cure cause more harm than the current problem?
I've also mentioned that my group doesn't want to use Spheres of Power or Iron Heroes, so in my case, I think the cure would be more dangerous than the disease.
Translation: Pathfinder became as popular as it was because people wanted to play the 3.0/3.5 system. There are plenty of more "balanced" games out there, but the people in Omnius' area have chosen pathfinder as the game they want to play, they enjoy it. Omnius is, by this fact the odd person out. Life is like that sometimes but people enjoy pathfinder warts and c/md and all. Radically altering the game people enjoy at the company level to satisfy one person is a ridiculous ask.
On top of which this disparity has existed in this system since the 90's and people still find the game compelling and fun to play.
Find an online group playing a game that you enjoy, or start one, or run one, or lobby for house rules in your local games. The idea that they're going to rewrite pathfinder on such a fundamental level is pretty far fetched, and after the 5th or 6th thread about it each month + run ins on any thread that could remotely include the discussion the complaints are stale and old. If people are free to beat this dead horse i'm free to tell them to take some damn agency in their own entertainment.
Are you listening to yourself?
No, better question. Are you listening to anyone BUT yourself?
When I play Pathfinder, I play g#+&$$n Pathfinder. I don't turn it into Shadowrun or Legends of the Five Rings or even 13th Age. I can't. I use Pathfinder to play Pathfinder. Yes, I acknowledge and account for the systems shortcomings. Guess what? I do that for every system! Because every system has flaws, and every system can be tweaked a bit to better fit any given game or table.
In Pathfinder, the elephant in the room is the caster/martial disparity. And yes, I can address that as a problem without lying to my friends to trick them into playing not-Pathfinder. It's not some sacred necessity or else the game ceases to be Pathfinder.
Solutions I've proposed in this thread?
One. Make the full casters spontaneous with limited spells known. This isn't not-playing-Pathfinder. In 3.X, which Pathfinder was based on, this wasn't even a houserule. It was a published variant rule in Unearthed Arcana. It's also less involved than the streamlining feat chains you mention elsewhere.
Two. Use Spheres. This isn't not-playing-Pathfinder. One of Pathfinder's strengths is a wealth of third party material.
Three. Have a session zero and ensure everybody makes something on a similar level of power. This isn't not-playing-Pathfinder. This is the same concern that should be in every session zero, except it's far more important in Pathfinder than in most games. Playing a game where the group chooses to run a Slayer, a Warpriest, a Ranger, and a Mesmerist is still very much Pathfinder, but you're going to see significantly less C/MD.
Point out where i said it didn't exist.
You've spent multiple posts including the one I just posted saying that for considering it a problem to be addressed and trying to fix it, I, personally, should not be playing Pathfinder and am lying to my friends into playing games they don't want to play by using Pathfinder as a back door.
You're saying its a problem, i'm saying its a feature of the game, its ingrained heavily into the system and fixing it from a company level has a massive risk of player abandonment via changing the flavor of the classes too much.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can it be a feature of the game if it's a myth propagated by people with agendas?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is people rattling chains about C/MD operate under the assumption that "balance" is the goal rather than worrying about fun.
I think that another problem is the belief that balance and fun are completely disconnected, or worse, inversely proportional (as we usually hear in the form of '4e was balanced and 4e was awful, therefore balanced games are awful').
If balance was what people wanted Pathfinder wouldn't be what it is, and 5th ed would look a lot more like 4th.
5e tried to balance it by stretching the first 6 levels out to cover 20 instead. It has its own set of problems (including the C/MD) but is mostly solid.
People continually rail against 3.0/3.5 problems while ignoring, forgetting, or disingenuously glossing over the fact that pathfinder exists because people wanted 3.0/3.5 and wanted the customization and options that they provided.
Customization and options can make things more difficult to balance asymmetrically but once again, a balanced game does not have to imply a boring game.
The case hasn't actually been made that the existence of that disparity has been a significant financial dent for paizo,
I'm not talking at all about sales or commercial success, I'm talking about making a better game (or at this point, helping to change perceptions to ensure better games are made in future). I didn't mention the Toronto Maple Leafs just to take a dig at that team: They are an example of an organization whose fans have made them the most profitable franchise in the NHL throughout—and in spite of—literal decades of sucking s$$#. Their fans still give them money and don't demand better, so why should they change anything about what they do? This is why we can't have nice things, like Stanley Cups.
and without that, people whom are super bothered by it are probably best off finding a game more to their liking.
Once again, I enjoy PF and still play it online, I just don't play martials aside from occasional Path of War classes.
To change it significantly rather than putting out different games is the kind of risk that could (and should) be viewed as potentially putting Paizo out of business or at least dramatically shrinking the company.
I'm well aware that PF's appeal is "continued 3.5" but don't forget it was billed as a "fixed 3.5". No one really cares about backwards compatibility because PF still changes enough things to make converting old material a lot of work.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're saying its a problem, i'm saying its a feature of the game, its ingrained heavily into the system and fixing it from a company level has a massive risk of player abandonment via changing the flavor of the classes too much.
If it's a problem at the table, it's a problem.
Berating people and telling them they shouldn't play the game because they have a problem and they're trying to fix it is not only wrong, it's caustic and antagonistic. You don't think it should be fixed? Then stay the Hell out of conversations that are about trying to fix it and stop telling us we fail at Pathfinder for wanting to make our table experience better.
Everyone, I suggest you take a step back, take a deep breath or two, and then continue on. This isn't productive on anyone's part. Okay?