Pathfinder 1E So what do you think is wrong with Pathfinder? Post your problems and we will fix it.

[MarkB]

Someone mentioned magic items being boring earlier so we can start there.

I fixed this by taking magic items out of shops. There is no more PC's going straight for magic item built characters.

How does this make low-level magic items less boring?

 

[Minigiant]

Worthy enemies that don't either take forever to make or play like every other worthy enemy.
Same problem like 3.5. Since at least 50% of the fans have system mastery, it gets bad fast.

 

[oxybe]

Someone mentioned magic items being boring earlier so we can start there.

I fixed this by taking magic items out of shops. There is no more PC's going straight for magic item built characters.

both me and Wombat mentioned our lack of enthusiasm towards magic items, so i'll expand from my point of view.

making the existing magic weapons (magic gear as a whole, really) scarce does not make them exciting AND has the bonus feature of hobbling the poor non-caster types by potentially depriving them of much-needed versatility (or at least enhancements to their basic options). the typical D&D magic weapon is simply rather boring in play.

a +1 sword's hit and damage boost is just another drop in the bucket in the greater sea of bonuses or (in the case of 5th ed and pre-3rd) gets eclipsed by the randomness of the d20 roll and most secondary effects are basically just adding a spectrum of the elemental rainbow to your weapon or modifying a value on it. in truth, the main reason you're going for it is because it bypasses some of the damage reduction afforded to some monsters.

beyond that "can now effectively punch cthulu" factor, in play it still basically acts like just the same 'ol longsword you used last session, only this time it hits a teeny bit more accurately and spews a few extra points of green damage.

some other items, like the invisibility cloak or flying carpet are interesting in that they change how the character interacts with the game world. these are good items! however, they are often so expensive or take up slots that more boring (but generally more beneficial/practical) items take that they are put by the wayside.

given the choice, for most PCs i've seen, i noticed the cloak of invisibility is often discarded for the cloak of resistance, simply because for most characters being invisible every so often is nice and allows for neat in-game interaction/scenarios, but a +3 to all saves means better survival all around as you absolutely need to shore up those defenses, especially at the later levels due to the volatility of spells. heck, i've been forced to make that decision at times and did that same one. i don't like it, but it's a sad reality of the game.

simply making those interesting items, or the more needed ones that boost your survival rate rare doesn't make either of them more interesting in play, just more rare. i would much rather see the game focus on making magic swords/armor/shields as interesting in play as the legendary caladbolg (that farted rainbows and cut the tops of mountains!) or the invisibility cloak and dropping the virtual requirement of magical doodads or magic as a whole for success (which D&D has always had a problem with: that you require the versatility of at least one spellcaster per group) over keeping them in a pure "game changer".

magic items should change how a character interacts with the world regardless of which item slot it takes, not just make them the same character+++. making it rare doesn't magically make it a game changer.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

How does this make low-level magic items less boring?

I will answer your question and at the same time, post how my handle certain things.

1. Item rarity and history: Actually, I have found that this works great. Items in my games are rare, but each item comes with it's own history and sometimes a name. You would be surprised at how more interesting items become.
2. Customizing items: Sometimes I will create my own custom items that gain their own name and history. A +1 Cloak of Resistance may also have another ability attached to it.
3. Limiting item creation feats: There are only two item creation feats in games and those are Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll.
4. Item upgrading: I find this is the most fun for players. What I do is instead of having players conveniently find that +2 weapon for example, I make it where they are able to take an item to someone, or even a specific place in order to upgrade their item. I also attach quests etc so it makes it feel less like I just dropped their next upgrade on them. Items are only found in my games, never purchased.
5. Limiting ability upgrade items: In my games, you are only allowed one ability upgrade item, except for the various tomes. If you want a second then you have to spend a feat to gain "Second ability Item" which I created. You could spend another feat and gain "Third Ability Item". This benefits the fighter greatly.

These have made all my groups extremely happy.

 

[MarkB]

I will answer your question and at the same time, post how my handle certain things.<snip>

Thanks, that's a good answer.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Edit:

Yes an item can be bought in my games but not in the "going shopping" sense. You can run across shady characters or a treasure hunter or two who may have an item they are willing to sell you at a very expensive price.

 

[MoonSong]

In spite of some new abilities, there are times when I feel like the PF Bard is worse than the 3.5 Bard.

It took me just five minutes to notice that and rennounce from playing pf bards Forever. The changes to performace are an overal nerf. Not only they weakened two of the bards signature songs, there is also more book keeing involved.. Versatile performance is also an overal nerf, it took away improvisation with perform by codifying what you could and couldn't and by forcifng you into a small niche. The skill system made skillmonkery less valuable, and changes to bardic knowledge spread bards thinner Than before.There is also the loss of splat rules, the loss of the perform feats, masterwork instrument rules and hidden blades hurt so much.

 

[Warskull]

Summoners - A class that simply should not exist. In fact summoning and pet classes in general are very poorly handed in both 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Metamagic Rods - these should not exist in their current form. It is way too much of a boon for casters to be able to apply Metamagic without taking a feat or manipulating spell levels. Sure they are pricey, but Wizards and Sorcs don't tend to spend a lot of money on weapons and armor, so they often have the spare cash.

Prestige Classes - Most of these are uninteresting and terrible. Prestige classes were an interesting feature that got out of control in 3.5. Pathfinder swung back a bit too hard the other way.

Balance is still kind of screwed up in general - less screwed up than 3.5, but still fairly broken. It really detracts from the game as your players become adept with the system.

Fixing this stuff to my satisfaction would have to be a whole new game. I dunno; are PF players at all interested in a 2nd edition?

I strongly agree here. It wouldn't be a full edition hop like 2nd to 3rd or 3rd to 4th, but more of a system revamp and rebuild like 3.0 to 3.5. A Pathfinder 1.5 could be really healthy for Pathfinder in general. I feel a lot of things needs to be removed from the game, certain classes and items were ill thought out. The main classes could certainly use a bit of rebalancing. Rogues and Bards need a bit of help. The major caster classes, Wizard, Druid, and Cleric could still use some nerfing at higher levels.

I suppose this is just the cycle of tabletop RPGs. All of them are broken, as players become familiar with them and more material is added they become more broken. Eventually, you need to find a new RPG because you and your group have too much understanding about how broken a system is.

We won't be able to fix this cycle until tabletop gaming as a whole adopts digital formats and gains the ability to more frequently and effectively update their rules.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Summoners - A class that simply should not exist. In fact summoning and pet classes in general are very poorly handed in both 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Metamagic Rods - these should not exist in their current form. It is way too much of a boon for casters to be able to apply Metamagic without taking a feat or manipulating spell levels. Sure they are pricey, but Wizards and Sorcs don't tend to spend a lot of money on weapons and armor, so they often have the spare cash.

Prestige Classes - Most of these are uninteresting and terrible. Prestige classes were an interesting feature that got out of control in 3.5. Pathfinder swung back a bit too hard the other way.

Balance is still kind of screwed up in general - less screwed up than 3.5, but still fairly broken. It really detracts from the game as your players become adept with the system.



I strongly agree here. It wouldn't be a full edition hop like 2nd to 3rd or 3rd to 4th, but more of a system revamp and rebuild like 3.0 to 3.5. A Pathfinder 1.5 could be really healthy for Pathfinder in general. I feel a lot of things needs to be removed from the game, certain classes and items were ill thought out. The main classes could certainly use a bit of rebalancing. Rogues and Bards need a bit of help. The major caster classes, Wizard, Druid, and Cleric could still use some nerfing at higher levels.

I suppose this is just the cycle of tabletop RPGs. All of them are broken, as players become familiar with them and more material is added they become more broken. Eventually, you need to find a new RPG because you and your group have too much understanding about how broken a system is.

We won't be able to fix this cycle until tabletop gaming as a whole adopts digital formats and gains the ability to more frequently and effectively update their rules.

All you have to do is ban Summoners and Metamagic rods because they are, after all, players "options".

The point of this thread isn't t make the game perfect, no game is perfect, but to hit those troubled areas in order to make the game just that much better.

 

[shadow]

From what I've seen in Pathfinder, I haven't found a huge amount of rules that are clearly 'broken'. However, there are several things that I dislike about the game because they seem extremely 'over the top' and 'metagame'. For example:

1. Barbarian Rage Power: So a barbarian can gain the ability to see in the dark or gain a bite attack while in rage!? I suppose I could justify it if the rage was described as being possessed by some animal spirit that caused temporary physical changes, but as written the rules seem kind of weird.

2. Alchemist mutagen: An alchemist can only brew one mutagen at a time and if he brews a second mutagen, the first one becomes inert. Moreover, a non-alchemist can never gain the effects of a mutagen. These rules, although written for game balance, seem extremely 'meta-gamey' to me.