Pathfinder 1E Fixing The Pathfinder Game System

[Thotas]

Agreed. Yes, there's a lot of material, but as a player, you only need to know the rules that relate to your character. I've seen posters say "I'll play Pathfinder, but I won't run it." That shows their complexity-ruins-my-fun-threshold, and that's really what we're talking about. The GM has to know more of the material to run the game, since it requires knowing the rules for the entire scenario. If your complexity/fun threshold is high enough, Pathfinder is a great game.

 

[Wolf72]

I think DMs/PCs who've been around quite a while have a solid handle on Fun v. Rules Lawyering v. Power Gaming, which makes 3x/PF easier to use and modify as necessary.

I agree with you Thotas, I've been playing since Basic D&D and feel like I've absorbed and learned enough information that I can wrangle PF rules well enough. If I like/don't like something I can justify, nix, and change all within reason.

(But I'm old and cranky and may not deal so well the younger generation's points-of-view.)

 

[Thotas]

Wolf, I don't know that it's so much generation thing -- it could be, I'm an old guy, too -- but it's undoubtedly in large part a personality thing. And if I misphrase what I'm saying easily misunderstood to be me saying it's an intelligence thing, which it is not. Well, maybe in a couple of cases I can think of it was, but I'm talking about a broader scope than those couple of guys.

I work with a guy who plays Rifts, and the reason he me that he and his brothers went with that system way back when was that D&D wasn't complicated enough for them. That was first and/or second edition from the way he tells it. From what I've seen of Rifts, it's too complicated for me. Not that I can't understand it, but the fun/work ration is too small. With Pathfinder, there's potentially a lot of work to do in deciding how you plan to develop your character and what you're going to have to give up in one area to gain in another and on and on ... but in that system, unlike Rifts, that's actually part of the fun, for me.

Also, I would agree with you that for all that the new D&D brags about being modular, Pathfinder is already modular enough that it's not hard to look at what you don't like and say "Naw, I'm not using that part". (Note that is not a swipe at 5e, they specified a plan to be modular and succeeded quite well, it's also a very well designed game. Just saying it's over reach if anyone tries to claim they were first.)

 

[Starfox]

I've seen posters say "I'll play Pathfinder, but I won't run it." That shows their complexity-ruins-my-fun-threshold, and that's really what we're talking about.

Yeah, this is the core of it. Personally, I'll run Pathfinder but I'm not likely to make any adventures for it soon. And some NPCs of the new classes might not really get played right, especially at higher levels - there was that high-level inquisitor that turned out to be a rather meh enemy because I didn't really grasp the class.

(Talking about home-game advenures here, I'm not up to doing commercial advenures - I am more of a rules guy.)

Thankfully, Pathfinder has a lot of resources for pre-generated monsters and NPCs, many of whom are available at d20pfsrd.com and thus searchable. If I need a level 6 sorcerer on the fly, I can generally find one very quickly, change just a few things, and be ready to run. 3.5 didn't have this, making Pathfinder easier to GM.

Edit: Also this: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3049811/pub/PRPG Monsters.htm

 

[Thotas]

Very cool resource, Starfox. It reminds me that a lot of Pathfinder fans are also HeroLab users from what I can tell (and I am one as well). I see your fun/complexity threshold is that you'll run a Pathfinder adventure but you won't create one. That's your threshold, and everybody has one, thanks for providing another illustrative example.

 

[Wolf72]

Generational may be to much stereotyping, but at the same time the more experience you have something the easier it is to navigate the rules (hopefully!).

I'm glad PF is the way it is, it fits the way I want it to and the way I'm most familiar with ... but I think that detracts from the OP's original intent.

No hijacking intended ... oops

 

[Remathilis]

There are some things I would love to see a "Pathfinder 2.0" fix: magical item dependency to keep the math working, the constant stacking bonuses to track; the ever expanding list of situational +1s (Traits are a big offender for this), caster imbalance, and the growing spiral of power creep, but I realize that after a while, my "fix" list looks a bit like 5e anyway.

 

[Thotas]

There are some things I would love to see a "Pathfinder 2.0" fix: magical item dependency to keep the math working, the constant stacking bonuses to track; the ever expanding list of situational +1s (Traits are a big offender for this), caster imbalance, and the growing spiral of power creep, but I realize that after a while, my "fix" list looks a bit like 5e anyway.

It sure does, but it really isn't too surprising that things turned out that way. In the attempt to appeal to fans of all editions of D&D, the best strategy for incorporating flavor of 3rd would be to do it in a way that would draw in those who liked the idea of 3e but have lower complexity thresholds. It's why my view on 5e is that I may prefer Pathfinder because I like to fiddle the ways my character can go, I have the basics of 5e and will buy more, and am ready to play that and enjoy it if it should turn out that I find myself unable to find other players with the same complexity threshold that I do.

 

[Aura]

There are some things I would love to see a "Pathfinder 2.0" fix: magical item dependency to keep the math working, the constant stacking bonuses to track; the ever expanding list of situational +1s (Traits are a big offender for this), caster imbalance, and the growing spiral of power creep, but I realize that after a while, my "fix" list looks a bit like 5e anyway.

Gosh I hate conditional +1's. Darned if I can remember them, and if I do, it probably won't make a lot of difference. Traits (the primary offender here) can be a cool way of bringing out certain aspects of a character, but should be done in a way that is playable and worthwhile at the same time.

My 'fix' for that is to simply not take conditional +1's, and advise others similarly. However, some are baked into other mechanics (races, classes, etc)--those are harder to deal with. Classes usually outgrow them, with the conditional +1's becoming significant conditional bonuses (e.g.: Fighter Bravery), but Races impart mechanics that just never grow. They can be problematic.

 

[Starfox]

Agree with aura on conditional +1 bonuses. My solution is to not have conditional bonuses less than +2, which markedly improves many traits.

Also, our excuses too the poor OP, who has had his thread go completely lost.