Pathfinder good for Powergaming?

[Mark Hoover 330]

Well, no... I'd call all of the points you make in the numbers above "mechanics."

The over arching thing in all your posts Chaos is that you want freedom to choose and control any and all aspects of your character, is that right? If so, making any decisions carries a consequence. In every game system I've ever played, characters are limited in some way.

Marvel Super Heroes has no classes but from the outset you have only a finite set of super powers your character can have. Some, like Animal Communication and Control are fairly specific and can be quite niche, not perfect for every game. Others, like Energy Generation, are very powerful and leave the door open to a lot of different permutations which that system calls "power stunts."

With either power though you have something that sets you above normal folks, but puts you on a scale somewhere below Thanos with his Infinity Gauntlet.

Pathfinder is just the same. You have to make choices, some of which have value greater than others, but all of which have consequences long term. The freedom to choose whatever you like is baked into the game's mechanics, as it is for every other game ever invented right down to Rock, Paper Scissors.

If you're looking for a game to WIN, to achieve ultimate perfection in... role playing games might not be a good fit in general as there's no real "winner." Even Advanced D&D 1e, in the back of the DMG there were rules for becoming a demigod because the expectation was that at some point you've done everything you can w/your character.

I THINK I get your gripe above, about players reduced to "rats in a maze," in that at a certain level PF can become an arms race between the GM and the players. Again, this has ALWAYS been in every RPG. Any time you've got one person running things and other folks participating, there's always the possibility for the GM to just steamroll the players. When I first started gaming, as a little kid... it was called The Tomb of Horrors :)

Anyway yeah, a bad GM can nullify or invalidate player decisions, but that's not the system. PF actually rewards good character build choices. Look at Diplomacy for Gathering Information. Now a GM can set the DC as high as they'd like, but in general tough secrets are roughly a DC 20 check. Well, once you hit a +19 on your Diplomacy check the rules on Skill Checks say you can't fail on a "1" so you're auto-succeeding on most Gather Info checks.

Your statement above suggests, unless I've misread, that you don't want an auto-win game (unlimited money and such), you just want to not be "pulled around" by factors like having to talk to one NPC to unlock the next plot point, or being railroaded, or having to rely on magic items to get you to the next level of power, etc.

Ok, so do it.

Work with your GM and explain that YOU'D like to control the narrative of the game. Then, when you roll up or create your character, make them for what YOU want the plot to be. Make a goal for your character, then... achieve that goal.

For example, if you are willing to play Pathfinder and are willing to compromise that the campaign will come to some sort of plot-based conclusion at level 20 even if you continue to run your characters after that, then pronounce at level 1/character creation that by level 20 you will have, say, killed Orcus.

After character creation has finished, roll a knowledge: religion check, explaining to the GM you're using that to find the nearest Orcus worshipper. The GM might be like "you have to go on a quest for..." stop them right there and remind the GM that this is already your quest. Don't let the GM sidetrack you.

From then on, only do things in game that point you towards your goal. Make up magic items that would specifically help you kill Orcus. Willingly give up class features for similar-level features from other classes, to customize your character towards his end goal. Any time something would derail your plot, ignore it.

If on the other hand you'd prefer more of a sandbox, then enforce THAT setting instead. If you're right in the middle of a linear plot created by the GM but don't like it, leave the plot. Choose to ignore the NPC, leave the dungeon, get off the pirate ship, whatever. Constantly ask your GM what's over the next hill or whatever and create small, power-based goals for yourself that you control and resolve.

I'm not saying that every GM or group of players will go along with you, but I'm sure there's a table for this style of play. The other bits, the building the perfect character and such... I guess I'd ask for some examples of what game system in your 20 + years of experience do it the way you want, so that I could compare.

[MerlinCross]

Sorry it just sounds like he wants to be GM and player at the same time.

Allowed GM fiat to give a character whatever he wants and the freedom to choose what to do, but not actually run the game and have to worry about other players.

Question, what happens if your Goal conflicts with another player? Who railroads the other? What if their quest makes them go in another direction? I don't know many GMs that would play two groups at the same time in the same session?

Why is your Goal so much more important than theirs?

I still don't know what you want from this system but I keep coming back to you want a Solo player tabletop game that you can do whatever you want.

I would find that boring to the point of just writing a book but you can do it if you GM yourself.

[Mark Hoover 330]

@ Chaos - do you have examples for us? Systems or video games or something that got it "right" in your estimation? I'm curious to know if there are examples of your ideal to compare PF to.

@ Merlin Criscross'll make ya... The OP was pretty earnest in this thread earlier so its obvious they have some passion for their style. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. At the very least let's understand what they're trying to achieve.

To be honest that's why I'm asking for examples: I'm struggling to understand exactly what the OP is wanting and how PF could accommodate.

[ChaosTicket]

Game wise Dark Soul 2 had a good character customization system. You started with different builds, but nothing prevented to from changing them in any way afterwards. You had a maximimum in statistics but is was really so high you could easily pass at less than 50%.

Fallout 3 has "Almost perfect" perk to raise your stats so you dont need perfect stats to to get to peak. You still had to put in a lot of effort for 100% stats. At least it was possible.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas had crafting systems so you could repair and sell items rather than be completely look dependent.

Most JRPGs have random encounters to make fighters profitable.

I am looking for a higher tier of more interesting characters like common Gestalts, house rules for full 20 levels in Prestige Classes, and just going beyond the limits of single classes. Hybrids classes are fun, but theyre always meant to remain competitive with other classes. So Min-maxing a Wizard (itself a Min-maxed class) pretty conclusively make a Magus "meh", and I really liked the Idea of the Eldritch Knight/Magus.

Its not really a choice when you have to play things like a class is programmed to do. If thats the case then just pick the most versatile and/or powerful classes.

For example, Why is the Fighter even still a core class after 40 years? Its boring mechanically and has limits on roleplaying. There are more powerful and characterful classes. Occultist is basically Harry Dresden, Chicago Wizard.

[burkoJames]

Ive been off these boards ever since the site redesign. People are still trying to engage this guy on these questions?

I had been trying to convince this guy that PF isn't his jam for at least a year.

He states repeatedly what he wants in a game, we tell him that game isn't pathfinder, and then complains that all he can play is pathfinder, and starts a new thread that sounds like he hasn't been having this argument for over a year. I often reply before looking at his name and discovering that its this guy again. Always with a thread title which asks a question, just not the one he is asking.

He believes that his local GMs represent Pathfinder, and since its the only thing anyone will play, keeps trying to determine how to break out of the core mechanics of pathfinder.

If you have an issue with the core design choices of D&D 3.5, including races that are trade-offs, core abilities defined by class, and a Game Master who is more than a simple arbiter of rules, Pathfinder and PFS are not your game, and you will not have fun playing them. If you don't have other options in your area, the internet can provide. If you hate internet TRPGs, then don't partake. Asking the same questions will get you the same answers.

[ChaosTicket]

true, which is why I learn better questions.

Such as, How common are Gestalt character when looking to find a Pathfinder table that allows or promotes their usage?

[TriOmegaZero]

To my knowledge, nonexistent.

[ChaosTicket]

Well there you go. Im looking for higher tiers and more rewarding systems, with something like a Magus is bog standard and Prestige classes are awesome.

Or just play like a quasi-superhero that fights using magical items as "Mithril Man".

I dont know the exact point where poeple give up on the potential of a roleplaying game. Pathfinder has rules for magic and guns, and I found out people dont want to use magic and guns. Ever hear of Arcanum?

[MerlinCross]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

To my knowledge, nonexistent.

Check online, there's usually always some game that's running them.

Less now thanks to both DnD 5 eating the market and PF2 playtest.

If not that it's using Spheres of Power. I like PF1 but at times I have trouble not only remembering rules(Hello Natural Attack and grapple) on top of my home rules, I have to learn a bloody another system on top of a system?

No thank you.

[ChaosTicket]

Optional official rules are better than House rules.

House rules started by a group are okay, but they dont transfer between groups. Personal House rules are just that, personal. Its as good of a Honor Code.

I would rather have a lot of options that can be chosen rather than have things OK'd by the Game Master like he/she is a work supervisor.

[Mark Hoover 330]

@anarchy transmittance document: I don't stalk the boards as much as I used to so if as B-James states above you've raised similar system-based challenges before, I'm afraid the answer is just that Core Pathfinder isn't for you.

The core rules are such that there WILL be certain linear, binary choices that you make from the outset of character design. These are baked into the RAW. Now there's retraining, houserules or "mother, may I" scenarios with specific table GMs but the core of this system is that you pick a class and your decisions are then guided as much by that class's features as by the flavor of the character.

You bring up the fighter as a Core class, claiming is not "characterful." That is your opinion and I respect that, but personally I respectfully disagree. There are classes who deal higher damage with weapons, certainly, and with more fireworks like spells and such, but I choose to see that as not "characterful," in my purview anyway.

No, that just makes those classes better at dealing damage; better mechanically. The true joy of the fighter is choice, or even the lack of them.

If you choose not to take an archetype you've got a class that can pick up ANY weapon short of the exotics, or with the right race or feats you can pick up some of those too. Then with anything you can get your hands on you're somewhat capable... with ANYTHING.

Make it to 5th level, gain a class of weapons you're somewhat better with. That's still an entire CLASS of weapons. Make it to 9th level, now you can take an ability that lets you shift focus or specialization around to ANY weapon in that class.

So in my opinion fighters aren't JUST damage mongers. They're the guys you see in some action movies: they pick up any gun off a fallen enemy and they're experts with a crack shot; running out of bullets they're lethal with the boot knife they just quick-drew; leaving the knife in a bad guy they roll across the courtyard and pick up a loose brick that helps them win the fight!

Now can some classes with Martial Weapon Proficiency do MORE damage, or add ryders like spells to those attacks? Yes, but the advantage to the fighter is a glut of combat feats. Now you can use those to up your damage or give you more attacks... more mechanical benefits, or you can use those in combination with general feats to manufacture that niche PC that goes beyond JUST dealing damage.

Make an intimidation monster. Pick skill focuses on your odd levels and make a fighting acrobat. Choose all mobility feats with reach weapons and make a mass area guard. By level 20 a human fighter will have accumulated 22 feats. If in all that we can't find a few oddball feats to make OUR fighter stand out against the field then I don't know that we were trying.

But those are not what you want CT. I get that. And my opinions are not and won't be yours. As a result I suggest again, Pathfinder isn't your game. At least, not without compromises you don't appear to be willing to make.

For me though, and lots of other folks, the decisions we make in building a PC, or an NPC, or a unique monster, are not concessions to a broken system, but a way to mechanically express a vision in our heads.

I was always the default GM in all my groups. Back in 1e and 2e D&D my chief complaint about monsters and villains was always: how do I make them MINE? I infused them with personalities and quirks, that worked a little, but in a fight all I could do was change colors of spells or descriptions of claws. Mechanical changes were always niche, corner cases that invariably upset the rules lawyers of the group.

Once I hit 3x and now in Pathfinder, I've got mechanics baked right in so I can "reskin" monsters. Sprites that, instead of glowing at will, now they make sounds, or play pranks, or get on their good side and they grant you minor luck (change the Bonus type on Guidance to a Luck bonus), all by swapping out the Light cantrip with some other 0-level spell. Instead of generic goblin chief x I can now make one tribe led by a crazed barbarian, another by a canny alchemist, yet another by some diabolical necromancer priest!

The best is when I can combine all of this. Take a mite, add a template to advance it, swap out Prestidigitation for 2 Traits, and then tack on several levels of Hunter. Suddenly you've got a vermin-companion riding mercenary fey with an interesting talent for dropping metamagic on his spells that don't take up higher slots, making them far more useful in the one epic fight I'll be using him in!

But again, this is all my opinion. Ticketmaster, I hope you find a game you can play that brings you peace and joy but it likely won't be this system. Still I wish you the best in your quest!

[Kayerloth]

And there's the rub. Several have said that PF or other d20 versions are not what you want. I'm going to say you do that's not your issue.

What you don't want is a GM. Or you want a GM who essentially says if its written in the books anywhere it's a playable (since there's no dictation by a 'supervisor' only I gather an arbiter of the rule set(i.e much like the computer in a video game). The problem there is the tendency for new 'rules/rulebooks' to be written that weren't there at start (and a resulting increase in options and power creep). There's also the issue that computer like GMs can't perform the rather vital task of adjudicating rules and all their inherent gray areas (see jumping to the sun, stealth, light levels etc., etc.. At least those rule sets are as close as you are going to get. You said it yourself guns and magic rules exist, stuff for using tech are in place, rules for futuristic weapons are in place, Gestalt rules, rules for Mythic and or epic are in place, rules for ignoring all the rules are in place (though this last is probably not a plus in your eyes.)

Either that or I am still clueless as to what you really are aiming for.

[ChaosTicket]

I just personally dislike that the Fighter has anything any other character cant get. It might as well be "that class" that shows up the fundamental flaw of having inexplicable benefits when every other "warrior" type like the Barbarian and Paladin are supposed to be Fighters that gained special powers way back in 1st edition. That is a mechanical benefit and a contradiction in roleplaying unless you ignore it. You cant give other characters Armor Training without being a Fighter (or certain archetypes)?
Its a hypocritical class that doesnt have powers...except it has powers.

I dont want to go too much into on a rant about it or ill just get a migraine about absurd things.
-------------------------------------------------
I dont know if I want more or less rules in games. I want those rules to "protect" my options in an open world like a legal right, not say what I cant do. Do you expand the world or constrict it?

Higher limits and gameplay objectives that are made up by the players are better at creating an open world. I honestly would be better off a Fallout game, and I really like that series. That itself is the problem. a single player roleplaying game is fine. A multiplayer one, like an MMORPG can be more difficult, but it teaches cooperation.

Now a tabletop Roleplaying games works more slowly, slower than reading a novel, to my dismay. It only goes as fast as every player will allow and not always as a consensus. Thats not just in terms of story, but also is terms of choices of character and class. I have to make characters that both fit with the group I am joining and still be fun to me. That is quite difficult.

If youve ever videogame like World of Warcraft, imagine trying to do something and being told "youre the wrong class, go remake your character". Ive heard Munchkins go around telling everyone how their character should be built, but people who say they arent Munchkins tend to do that much more. In Pathfinder well, everything I do is in the rule and/or spirit of the game. Ive Never made a "god" character like Pun-pun. I wishlist things but I could have a lot of fun with a Primalist Bloodrager or a Wizard.

Problem is the people who will ignore the spirit if there isnt a rule protecting it, and even if there is that can still just be blocked by Mob or GM rule. Like how about "No classes outside Core rulebook"

I could get by on quite a few things in Pathfinder. I like the Bloodrager. Let me make a Primalist and its pretty fun so long as a Wizard doesnt buff everyone with all the Bloodrager's spells.

[Ryan Freire]

You sound like an absolute nightmare to game with to be quite honest.

[Grailknight]

Level and Class based systems are not going to be what you want. Their premise is based around distinction through restrictions.

Your best bet would be trying free form systems like GURPS, Hero or Aberrant. Hero would be my first choice for you, it has no limits or restrictions but those agreed upon by the GM and players. If you can find a GM to build the world you want and run it for you, you're golden.

[Java Man]

As for issues with basic game mechanics/engine: PF will never get to where you want. Ever. So I will say again, there are other systems that I strongly believe you will like more. Exalted or Mage the Ascension (both by Whitewolf) come to mind right off the bat. Gurps is almost a fit, but those rules get funky at the higher end of the power scale, so it doesn't quite work.

Rifts has been mentioned, but I don't agree, you can indeed play any type or class of character you wish, but you are still constrained within the limits of class.

If you would like to hear more of my opinions on these other games I am willing to expand on this, either here or by PM.

[blahpers]

Pathfinder is gonna Pathfinder. Either

1. change the rules to better suit your tastes; or
2. play a different game that aligns more closely to your tastes; or
3. make your own game.

[ChaosTicket]

I just cant end on a high note, now can I?

Why people continue to make little additions that are the same things people have already said.

"Leave you group"
"Dont play Pathfinder"
"Make your own game(from scratch or use an existing game?)"

I know you mean well but at the same time as I said earlier, the reason why Im here and not there are that its more complicated than changing a game disc. I left my old group after people said the above last year.

Groups arent easy to set up with people you dont know. I think all the groups in my area or even online are 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons, which in my opinion is a technical and creative downgrade to 3.5 edition and Pathfinder. Today and tomorrow Im actually going out looking for people to play RPGs.

I dont hate Pathfinder. I actually like it. Just dont do things like railroading, or banning official rules, or heaven forbid BOTH and its great. So its mostly Player Problems. Youre my audience and if you think something wont be accepted by any group I try to join well...If youre trying to make me feel out of place, its pretty successful.

The other advice Ive gotten is much better at helping me find out what exactly Im looking for. Gestalt characters are my new path to pursue. Thanks on that.

[Java Man]

Tone and intent in text is always tricky, so I will say, for myself, all of my statements here are intended to be helpful and assist in the enjoyment of the OP and others with similiar questions/feelings. I have spent too much time, and watched others too many times, fall short of the fun gaming should be because the system being used did not support the expectations of the group. My intention was to help avoid that.

Happy gaming to all!

[blahpers]

ChaosTicket wrote:

I just cant end on a high note, now can I?

Why people continue to make little additions that are the same things people have already said.

"Leave you group"
"Dont play Pathfinder"
"Make your own game(from scratch or use an existing game?)"

I know you mean well but at the same time as I said earlier, the reason why Im here and not there are that its more complicated than changing a game disc. I left my old group after people said the above last year.

Groups arent easy to set up with people you dont know. I think all the groups in my area or even online are 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons, which in my opinion is a technical and creative downgrade to 3.5 edition and Pathfinder. Today and tomorrow Im actually going out looking for people to play RPGs.

I dont hate Pathfinder. I actually like it. Just dont do things like railroading, or banning official rules, or heaven forbid BOTH and its great. So its mostly Player Problems. Youre my audience and if you think something wont be accepted by any group I try to join well...If youre trying to make me feel out of place, its pretty successful.

The other advice Ive gotten is much better at helping me find out what exactly Im looking for. Gestalt characters are my new path to pursue. Thanks on that.

Sorry, but you were asking about things that simply aren't compatible with Pathfinder as written. Looks like you've settled on "change the rules"--excellent! Hope it works out.

[ChaosTicket]

You made a quote larger than the response you gave. Is that just to waste space in this thread?

The Bloodrager and the Primalist Archetype are written in the Pathfinder Advanced Class Guide written and published by Paizo. An example of a class I like. Doesnt require any changes.

I need...to find people that dont change the rules the way they like so I dont have to go "Newton's Third Law" as a response.

Other people screw with the rules I have to do the same as a defiant reaction. Look at the first page. Basically angry vs angry. 2nd page things are much calmer.

[Jhaeman]

Guys, this is classic trolling. It’s no different then posting “I hate sushi” on “sushilovers.com” and engaging in hundreds of posts of arguments about the merits of sushi. It’s not going to change anyone ‘s mind.

[Ryan Freire]

Yeah its pretty clear why its "so hard" to find a gaming group

[ChaosTicket]

Its because 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons is newer, flooding the tables. I walked into a game shop last night looking for a group playing Pathfinder and I thought "Its my lucky day" when I actually say people with pathfinder books. I talk to them and they say theyre about to finish their campaign and move on to 5th edition, and I become disappointed.

I look on Roll20 and 75-80% of the games are 5th edition.

Trying to play Pathfinder, Starfinder, or any other games is quite difficult if you dont have a regular group that moves between games. Im resistant moving to 5th edition largely because it lacks anticipation. I look at those rules and they have all their options rather rigidly structured, especially the magic that is open in other editions Ive played.
----------------------
In Pathfinder playing something like a Wizard means every level you gain various benefits. It feels fun, and and the next level you get even more, so youre making progress. Its an important part of gameplay and real life to motivate people to keep going rather than become stagnant.

Pathfinder isnt perfect but it still has many possible options so long as they are respected by the players and by the Game Master running the game. It can be a Sand Box where people can make them own adventures, or it can be setup in self-contained adventures. Paizo releases Scenarios, Modules, and Adventure Paths for greater structured setups. I prefer the Sand-box where my decisions matter, and I assume other players also want that.

I really dont like wasting my time and yours trying to find out the right questions to ask, especially on Paizo Forum. I cant change the forum topic. Still the better question now is "Where to find groups?" and to those groups "Do you play Sand-box games?"

I am sorry for any bad feelings.

[Sapient]

After reading all of this, all I can figure is that you really don't know what you want. Others have suggested that Pathfinder is not a good fit for you. I'd go a step further. I'd say your version of free-form, never ending, uber-characters in a universe free of any and all restrictions is not really suitable for gaming at all.

I suggest taking up writing. You don't need to find a group. Your character can have every strength of every character you have heard of, and you can make more yourself. And because you are the GM, you will never have to have anyone tell you your character can't do something.

[ChaosTicket]

There is a disconnect from what I would play in a game and what would be good in a story.

For me its "zero-to-hero" like everyone can eventually be The Hero that Saves the World. In a roleplaying video game that is mechanically how they function. You stat at level 1 and rise in level, gain skills, powers, and spells. By the end of the story you end something like an ace marksmen with a longbow that shoots Dragons in the eyes. In a solo story that might be fine.

In a group story that is bad. In a group character flaws make one character different from another.

[Sapient]

ChaosTicket wrote:

There is a disconnect from what I would play in a game and what would be good in a story.

For me its "zero-to-hero" like everyone can eventually be The Hero that Saves the World. In a roleplaying video game that is mechanically how they function. You stat at level 1 and rise in level, gain skills, powers, and spells. By the end of the story you end something like an ace marksmen with a longbow that shoots Dragons in the eyes. In a solo story that might be fine.

In a group story that is bad. In a group character flaws make one character different from another.

But isn't your complaint that Pathfinder doesn't allow you to be the best at all things at the same time? That you can't create a progress in fighting as the best fighter while also progressing in magic as quickly as the best magic user, even as you have unlimited skill points?

When did your complaint become that characters should have more flaws?

[ChaosTicket]

It matters if a goal is actually possible or not. Im not disagreeing a perfect character would be boring. If you started as Superman, where do you go in terms of development? In that case Superman has to develop Personality not powers.

Characters have flaws just by being a class based system. Some are more well-rounded like an Inquisitor or Magus. Their flaws are that they wont ever be as good as a specialist like a Cleric or Wizard.

Where do you want to end a campaign or retire a character? Id like to retire when I beat a challenge 30-40 boss like Lucifer or Orcus, or when I get to level 40. When there is no more challenge, thats a good retirement time. Games are about having challenges. Personally I prefer some puzzles with my combat, like using Diplomacy to befriend rather than fight the Minotaur.

[blahpers]

ChaosTicket wrote:

You made a quote larger than the response you gave. Is that just to waste space in this thread?

The Bloodrager and the Primalist Archetype are written in the Pathfinder Advanced Class Guide written and published by Paizo. An example of a class I like. Doesnt require any changes.

I need...to find people that dont change the rules the way they like so I dont have to go "Newton's Third Law" as a response.

Other people screw with the rules I have to do the same as a defiant reaction. Look at the first page. Basically angry vs angry. 2nd page things are much calmer.

I hit "reply" and replied. Apparently that's bad now?

You're making less and less sense with each post. You have all the tools you need to construct an enjoyable game experience. What else is there to say on the topic?

[Sapient]

ChaosTicket wrote:

It matters if a goal is actually possible or not. Im not disagreeing a perfect character would be boring. If you started as Superman, where do you go in terms of development? In that case Superman has to develop Personality not powers.

Characters have flaws just by being a class based system. Some are more well-rounded like an Inquisitor or Magus. Their flaws are that they wont ever be as good as a specialist like a Cleric or Wizard.

Where do you want to end a campaign or retire a character? Id like to retire when I beat a challenge 30-40 boss like Lucifer or Orcus, or when I get to level 40. When there is no more challenge, thats a good retirement time. Games are about having challenges. Personally I prefer some puzzles with my combat, like using Diplomacy to befriend rather than fight the Minotaur.

So, if I'm understanding you right, Pathfinder is bad because it makes you take classes that don't let you do everything perfectly, which means your character is flawed. Flaws make characters interesting and fun, and you want to befriend a minotaur. Is that it?

[blahpers]

Sapient wrote:

ChaosTicket wrote:

It matters if a goal is actually possible or not. Im not disagreeing a perfect character would be boring. If you started as Superman, where do you go in terms of development? In that case Superman has to develop Personality not powers.

Characters have flaws just by being a class based system. Some are more well-rounded like an Inquisitor or Magus. Their flaws are that they wont ever be as good as a specialist like a Cleric or Wizard.

Where do you want to end a campaign or retire a character? Id like to retire when I beat a challenge 30-40 boss like Lucifer or Orcus, or when I get to level 40. When there is no more challenge, thats a good retirement time. Games are about having challenges. Personally I prefer some puzzles with my combat, like using Diplomacy to befriend rather than fight the Minotaur.

So, if I'm understanding you right, Pathfinder is bad because it makes you take classes that don't let you do everything perfectly, which means your character is flawed. Flaws make characters interesting and fun, and you want to befriend a minotaur. Is that it?

I nearly shot coffee out of my nose reading this post.

[Java Man]

Don't make me flag you for coffee abuse.

[Ryan Freire]

ChaosTicket wrote:

It matters if a goal is actually possible or not. Im not disagreeing a perfect character would be boring. If you started as Superman, where do you go in terms of development? In that case Superman has to develop Personality not powers.

Characters have flaws just by being a class based system. Some are more well-rounded like an Inquisitor or Magus. Their flaws are that they wont ever be as good as a specialist like a Cleric or Wizard.

Where do you want to end a campaign or retire a character? Id like to retire when I beat a challenge 30-40 boss like Lucifer or Orcus, or when I get to level 40. When there is no more challenge, thats a good retirement time. Games are about having challenges. Personally I prefer some puzzles with my combat, like using Diplomacy to befriend rather than fight the Minotaur.

I retire my characters when it makes more sense for them to accumulate real in game power via wealth, property, or title.