Pathfinder 1E What's so good/bad about Pathfinder?

[SensoryThought]

Background: I'm a 1e, 2e, then 10yr break, then 4e player. Pathfinder players, tell me what you love about your game? Does anything annoy you?

Please don't turn this into a things I hate about 4e bagfest!! I'm interested what things about Pathfinder would entice you back to the 5e WOTC fold, and what things about Pathfinder would you leave behind?

 

[Hassassin]

Good: It simplifies 3e skill system to IMO exactly the right scope.

Bad: It makes character generation even more complex, because classes have more abilities. It also pushes character power and numbers up instead of bringing them down.

Excellent but irrelevant to the rules: It is directly supported by the best AP publisher in the business.

I currently use the PF skill system in a 3.5 campaign using Paizo adventures in the Forgotten Realms, so it is very compatible.

 

[pauljathome]

Background: I'm a 1e, 2e, then 10yr break, then 4e player. Pathfinder players, tell me what you love about your game? Does anything annoy you?

Please don't turn this into a things I hate about 4e bagfest!! I'm interested what things about Pathfinder would entice you back to the 5e WOTC fold, and what things about Pathfinder would you leave behind?

I played D&D with the original white boxed set. I then played lots of AD&D.

I then moved on to different systems.

3rd edition brought me (partially) back to D&D. I still play other games but since 3rd edition came out D&D has been on the list of games that I play.

The basic thing that brought me back to D&D were the fact that, despite it being a class based system, I could now more or less create the character that I wanted. I like the selection of feats, the skills, the range of classes, the multiclassing, etc. The game easily and readily supported a wide range of games and not just dungeon crawls (rightly or wrongly my distant memory of AD&D was that it primarily supported dungeon crawls).

Pathfinder is just a continuation and improvement of 3rd edition. I like most of the changes that Pathfinder made but they're much more tweaks than major modifications.

Like a lot of people I think that the power curve in Pathfinder is a little steep and I think it can get quite unbalanced. Fortunately, both of these problems are reduced with the players that I game with. I'd find Pathfinder with a group of rabid power gamers a very different experience

4th edition is just not to my tastes. Other than to state the following I'm not going to go into details as to why. Its a good game, its just not MY game.

One of the big advantages claimed for 4th Edition was that it made it easier to GM. However, most of the improvements to make it easier to GM were solving problems that I just don't have. I'd long since decided to "just make up NPCs" and not give a hoot if they were "legal" or not. I could readily adjust monsters on the fly to make them more or less challenging.

 

[Piratecat]

Moved to the Pathfinder forum.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The good is that they fixed some things (combat maneuvers) and they spiffed up some of the customizable elements (classes and races). Some people (not me) like the setting and the adventure products that go with it. There's also the bevy of open content and the nice srd sites.

The biggest thing, to be honest, was that they didn't change too much.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Best thing? It plays just like 3E


Worse thing? It plays just like 3E

 

[kitsune9]

Here's my list of good things:

1. It plays like 3.x.
2. It updates all the characters and gives almost every class something at every level.
3. Streamlined mechanics on grappling, tripping, etc.

Here's my list of bad things:

1. Monster stat blocks way too big.
2. Still has the same problems at high level play that 3.x did.
3. Too many skills.

Still, despite it's warts and all, for me, Pathfinder is my favorite system and I really enjoy it. However, if I want to a "back-to-basics" game, C&C does that for me. The beauty of these two systems is that they are very compatible with each other.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Here's my list of good things:

1. It plays like 3.x.
2. It updates all the characters and gives almost every class something at every level.
3. Streamlined mechanics on grappling, tripping, etc.

Here's my list of bad things:

1. Monster stat blocks way too big.
2. Still has the same problems at high level play that 3.x did.
3. Too many skills.

Still, despite it's warts and all, for me, Pathfinder is my favorite system and I really enjoy it. However, if I want to a "back-to-basics" game, C&C does that for me. The beauty of these two systems is that they are very compatible with each other.

Of those bad things, the only one that I totally agree is bad is the high level difficulties.

In regards to monster stat blocks, I would like to see two versions - one for peons, mooks, thugs, etc. the other for big monsters, major villains, and henchmen. So... 50% agreement?

Pathfinder actually has just about the right number of skills for me.
***
For the OP:

I will also add that the Advanced Player's Guide adds means to radically customize characters in the form of archetypes - if you get Pathfinder then I highly recommend getting the APG. For me it is where Pathfinder became its own game, not just D&D 3.P.

It is a game changer, not just an addition.

It allowed me to create a world that I wanted - witches, and their various archetypes in Ultimate Magic, became the default (and most distrusted) spellcasters in the setting.

The one thing that annoys me is that Pathfinder kept the square/circular base sizes from 3.X - I like bases to be rectangular for critters that are longer than they are wide. (Horses, centaurs, dragons in particular.) Ignorable, but annoying.

The Auld Grump

 

[Crothian]

Pathfinder did some great things. They did a good job of lessening the amount of skills but they needed to do more. I like that they gave classes things at every level but we do get a lot of small bonuses that only apply to certain things. They have way too many feats and skills even when just using the main book. Archtypes are nice but that bloat is just replacing prestige class bloat. And they are starting to look like kits from second edition.

The true strength of Pathfinder is as it has always been the Adventure Paths.

 

[kitsune9]

For the OP:

I will also add that the Advanced Player's Guide adds means to radically customize characters in the form of archetypes - if you get Pathfinder then I highly recommend getting the APG. For me it is where Pathfinder became its own game, not just D&D 3.P.

It is a game changer, not just an addition.

I second the APG on Auld's justification. Couldn't agree more.