I've been reviewing Pathfinder to see what rules elements I would use in a new campaign if I was ever to run one (spoiler alert: I won't be running a 1st edition game ever again, but will likely be excited to run a 2nd edition game. It should be released just about when my Starfinder AP wraps up). The game actually got quite a bit right.
I figure lots of threads will be analyzing what Pathfinder got wrong and what can be changed to improve the next edition. But I figured it'd be worthwhile exploring what 1st ed Pathfinder got right.
Core Races
The core races are actually quite balanced. The human feat, skill point and flexible bonus ability score actually stack up quite well against the other core races. The other core races aren't as optimised as humans can be. But for very specific race-class combinations they can be quite good, if perhaps a little bit better than a human. But overall the core races seem fairly balanced against each other.
Alternate Racial Traits
For the most part these were fairly balanced. There were some exceptions, but overall most of the alternate traits were okay and helped offer some customisation for the non-human races and even the humans (I've taken the 3 Skill Focus feats for the human bonus feat on two characters now. However the benefit isn't so good that I see it chosen for every single human).
The Core Classes
Now this is going to be a controversial statement, and it does differ from group to group based on the group's propensity for optimising, the level of skill at optimising and how much the players differ from each other in skill. But overall, so long as you accept the core tenets and premise of Pathfinder 1st edition, the core classes are overall balanced against each other.
Fighters are often derided as boring. But they offer the greatest martial flexibility in terms of story and builds. The bonus combat feats let me build very different fighters. And without things like spells or animal companions I don't need to worry about the baggage (from a story and mechanical perspective) of the ranger and paladin. While a fighter certainly can't disintegrate a CR 16 foe like a wizard can, they can still hold their own when it comes to whittling away hit points (of course wizards redefine combat so HP can become unnecessary so long as their spells take effect).
I also don't see core rogues as bad as everyone here says they are. Especially if you play core only or severely limit the splatbooks. While there's definitely room to improve, the rogue does encompass a specific type of character (skill monkey who relies on wits instead of magic and has some combat ability). They're by no means optimal, but they can still be a fun character.
Archetypes
They're definitely a good way to expand on the basic abilities of a class. While there have been plenty of suspect archetypes, the idea itself is quite good.
That's about the things I liked about Pathfinder 1st ed. There was definitely room for improvement for a whole bunch of other areas that I look forward to. But there's still a lot within the core basics of Pathfinder that have been good and enjoyable.
Mostly agree except with the classes thing.
At the time they got a lot of things right as well, some things have not aged that well (eg iterative attacks).
still like the fort/ref/will save concept and microfeat concepts as well, especially liked the archetypes (2E Kits, PF, 5E all same idea IMHO).
Good APs as well although I prefer shorter one shot type adventures.
Armor rules might be better than 5E as well and a tweaked weapons list would also be interesting perhaps going with 5E/4E type crits to reduce rocket tag of X2 and X3 crits.
From a story perspective the fighter's problem is that they don't have enough skill points to do most concepts justice. Core-only they're almost completely ineffective outside combat.
A rogue can be fun but they're also the character class most easily obsoleted by magic, especially core-only.
On the subject of what they got right - traits. Besides the +2 initiative ones & the metamagic reducers they mostly fit the idea of small bonuses based on your background.
Automatic bonus progression was a good idea. It lets you explore the weird magic items out there without having to keep a close eye on their gp value.
The large number of classes & archetypes means that there's very likely one to fit your concept. Some people complain about the number but I think it's a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Backwards compatibility.
But that problem isn't unique to Pathfinder. And PF rogues are more able to function as single-classed characters than 1st, 2nd and 3rd ed versions.A rogue can be fun but they're also the character class most easily obsoleted by magic, especially core-only.
And the basic concept (skill monkey who relies on wits instead of magic and has some combat ability) can be done in non-D&D RPGs too, without making PFs/D&Ds mistakes. If you're looking at things PF got right that isn't one of them.
And the basic concept (skill monkey who relies on wits instead of magic and has some combat ability) can be done in non-D&D RPGs too, without making PFs/D&Ds mistakes. If you're looking at things PF got right that isn't one of them.But that problem isn't unique to Pathfinder. And PF rogues are more able to function as single-classed characters than 1st, 2nd and 3rd ed versions.A rogue can be fun but they're also the character class most easily obsoleted by magic, especially core-only.
Nope 5E got the Rogue right IMHO. And the Monk.