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

[pickin_grinnin]

Any game I run (in any system) has a mix of combat, puzzles, social scenarios, etc. to give all character types a chance to "shine." Even when it comes to combat, it's not all about one big battle each time, or even just about foes who can be taken down with brawn and weaponry.

If characters are unbalanced, I find a way to balance them, often via the type of encounters they have during the game. I don't let power levels yank me around by the nose.

 

[oxybe]

Very true.

The rules serve the game, not the other way around. I don't have any problem disallowing things that don't fit in with the campaign or world I'm using.

there's a certain point where i have to ask myself "why am i still playing this game that i'm always finding something new to have issue with? why am i spending so much time trying to make the game barely playable rather then focusing on making it fun?"

the rules might serve the game, but it is still a game governed by rules. if the rules don't work and you find yourself always amending the rules or having to enact a fix of sorts, i would think you would be better served to find a different game altogether, as the one you're looking for is clearly not the one you're currently using.

do note that i'm not just talking about a houserule or two for thematic reason, but the rather wholesale removal and/or insertion of entire sections of the game that are being suggested as a "fix" that probably change the game so much as it no longer resembles the original.

sometimes you can't just modify your car to serve your purposes, sometimes you need to admit that a truck or van is needed.

 

[herrozerro]

I don't know... a lot of this advice sounds quite similar to the advice given in threads about how to fix 4e stuff. The basics, strip out what you don't like, your DMing wrong, etc... Perhaps I am just a little biased, but if you could fix the problems I have with PF, then you'd just be giving me a different game.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

there's a certain point where i have to ask myself "why am i still playing this game that i'm always finding something new to have issue with? why am i spending so much time trying to make the game barely playable rather then focusing on making it fun?"

If I found myself constantly having to rewrite the rules, I would find a different system. That's not what I'm talking about, though. I'm talking about not letting particular players unbalance the game, and not letting a couple of broken rules in general do the same.

It isn't an either-or situation. Rarely do you have a game that is completely perfect or completely broken. You find the system that best matches the game you want to run, and then tweak it if necessary.

When it comes to my games, I typically don't tweak the rules a lot, though I wouldn't feel guilty doing so if necessary. I design the adventures to keep things balanced. If one player wants to play a scholar type of character with virtually no combat skills, I'll put things in the adventure that gives him or her opportunities to contribute and gain experience. If I have a min-maxer, you can bet that I'll make sure the "mins" affect his/her experience as much as the "maxes."

The whole point of the game is to have fun. I'm not hostile towards my players - far from it - and I want everybody to enjoy themselves. That doesn't mean I'm going to hand them everything on a silver platter or that there is no risk involved, though. That isn't fun for anyone, ultimately. I'm consistent and fair.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Any game I run (in any system) has a mix of combat, puzzles, social scenarios, etc. to give all character types a chance to "shine." Even when it comes to combat, it's not all about one big battle each time, or even just about foes who can be taken down with brawn and weaponry.

If characters are unbalanced, I find a way to balance them, often via the type of encounters they have during the game. I don't let power levels yank me around by the nose.

Problem is, for 99% of situations in the game, spellcasters will always shine(the only 1% I can think of is putting an anti-magic ring on the caster then DM Fiating ways he can't ever take it off), whereas noncasters generally only shine in-combat and are fairly terrible outside of it, and even in combat spellcasters still outdo noncasters after level 5 or so.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

Problem is, for 99% of situations in the game, spellcasters will always shine(the only 1% I can think of is putting an anti-magic ring on the caster then DM Fiating ways he can't ever take it off), whereas noncasters generally only shine in-combat and are fairly terrible outside of it, and even in combat spellcasters still outdo noncasters after level 5 or so.

That depends on the game. I usually have a lot of challenges in my game that don't rely on spellcasting or combat. In fact, I specifically put in things that don't rely on either of those. Characters who are heavily skill based have just as many opportunities as magic users and fighters. I'm very careful to make sure that everybody has a chance to play to their strengths.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Making things skill-based still benefits the casters more, since Pathfinder makes INT give retroactive skill points, meaning INT users(aka, casters) will end up being better at skills than the Rogue once you count in their spellcasting.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

Making things skill-based still benefits the casters more, since Pathfinder makes INT give retroactive skill points, meaning INT users(aka, casters) will end up being better at skills than the Rogue once you count in their spellcasting.

It depends on the skills that the players chose for their characters. If someone picked Baker as a profession, chances are high that they will have an opportunity to use that at some point in my games. Things like that are perfect for roleplaying opportunities.

Most social interaction with NPCs, certain types of traps, riddles, puzzles, and more don't rely on fighting or combat, or at least don't have to rely on those things. You could play a farmer in one of my games and still have a lot of opportunities to shine, because I will build those opportunities into the game. I don't use modules and I am good at ad-libbing, so I can adjust things as needed. I also reward players who spend a lot of time roleplaying, whether their actions are successful or not. Characters with no combat or magic skills have enough opportunity to earn experience as those who do.

Players can't game the system in my games because I don't allow it - I design the adventure to prevent that. I don't punish players for optimizing their characters, but doing so isn't going to make the game any easier for them.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

I won't deny you can fiat ways for characters to be useful(though I find having to fiat a character into usefulness to speak volumes for itself already). The problem is, in your average campaign, pretty much any spellcaster will beat out using anything else 99% of the time.

 

[Wicht]

Making things skill-based still benefits the casters more, since Pathfinder makes INT give retroactive skill points, meaning INT users(aka, casters) will end up being better at skills than the Rogue once you count in their spellcasting.

I must admit that I haven't seen that happening.

Sure, sometimes the bard with her wand of detect secret doors is put on that assignment, and sometimes the wizard has the levitate spell at just the right time, but as often as not, the rogue gets to use their skills. For one thing, they are always on, they get more skills as class skills, they get more skills (especially if they intelligently don't make intelligence a dump stat (Wizard with 18 intelligence has 6 skills, 7 if human and two of those are going towards Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana). A rogue with a 14 intelligence has 10 skills, 11 if they are human), and their skills are always on. Sure the knock spell will get the first locked door, but all of them - not likely.

So, again, haven't seen it happen like that.