Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Bo9S was one of the worst offenders in broken sources. WoTC started going off the rails around PHB2 on.

I on the other hand feel the opposite, they hit there stride after Arcane Power, and really got good with PHB2... before that there where 3 different games packaged as one, then those books brought about a finally the ability for martial characters to be in the same league as spell casters (ok not really bu t close enough.)

Besides, this is a Pathfinder thread so why are we discussing it?

because I only jumped in when it turned into a Bo9s fight... I originally read the pathfinder stuff because I am just trying that system out...

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

The problem is when F-Z are things that are not part of the concept; i.e. that a knight/soldier/archer wouldn't be able to do.

According to your position, it seems that if a player wants to play a knight who can stab the sun and make it go dark, the job of the rules is to let that happen. For me at least, the job of the rules is to prevent that from happening.

you have like 50 classes, there is a fighter, a knight, a swashbuckler, 2 different samari classes that all fit in your little box... Paladin and maybe a few others like it are someone in-between what you want and what I want. warblade or crusader is what I am looking for. Why do I get told mine are 'broken' with NO EXPLANATION... I didn't have a problem with "Oh that's not my cup of tea," I argue against "It doen't belong" or "It's broken"

 

[Ahnehnois]

you have like 50 classes, there is a fighter, a knight, a swashbuckler, 2 different samari classes that all fit in your little box... Paladin and maybe a few others like it are someone in-between what you want and what I want. warblade or crusader is what I am looking for. Why do I get told mine are 'broken' with NO EXPLANATION... I didn't have a problem with "Oh that's not my cup of tea," I argue against "It doen't belong" or "It's broken"

First off, knight most certainly does not fit in that box. I've had experiences with the knight's challenge and I don't care to repeat them. Martial mind control is on the same level as the Bo9S stuff.

Second, it follows even from your opinion that the warblade must be broken. If you believe that it allows one to create character that fall under the fighter class, but does so "better" than the fighter class, then that would pretty much be the definition of broken. It's the same, for example, as creating a new class called the "super wizard" that is exactly the same as the wizard except that it gets twice as many spells. The core classes as presented in the PHB (or the PF CRB) are the baseline. Anything more powerful than that is broken.

Again, if you think that the fighter was insufficient and needed to be 'broken', that's fine.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

First off, knight most certainly does not fit in that box. I've had experiences with the knight's challenge and I don't care to repeat them. Martial mind control is on the same level as the Bo9S stuff.

the knight doesn't have any mind control, they have a tuant, one that is explained in fluff... what are you talking about... I played one for 14 levels...

Second, it follows even from your opinion that the warblade must be broken. If you believe that it allows one to create character that fall under the fighter class, but does so "better" than the fighter class, then that would pretty much be the definition of broken. It's the same, for example, as creating a new class called the "super wizard" that is exactly the same as the wizard except that it gets twice as many spells. The core classes as presented in the PHB (or the PF CRB) are the baseline. Anything more powerful than that is broken.

wow just wow... it is more powerful then the weakest core class, but weaker then the strongest 3 core classes... so perfectly in the middle. You see the Warlock and War Wizard, and true necromancers are all less powerful wizards, about on par with Bo9S... If the core has power levels that are 3, 5,5,5,5,6,7,7,8,10 and a new class comes out and is a 7 that doesn't mean it's broken because it is higher then a 3....

Again, if you think that the fighter was insufficient and needed to be 'broken', that's fine.

Bull... the fighter needed to be fixed, it was broken (weak and uninteresting) now I dare you to compare your choice of Bo9S class to your choice of PHB class and find it broken, if I remove fighter from the list... any other class???

 

[gamerprinter]

I find that people that don't PLAY the classes don't get the same experience as someone who NPCs them. An NPC is not in every encounter, every game. PCs are. NPCs don't earn and use XP, they go up when you want them to. once again the problem is some people like mechanic that give them choices in and out of game.

You're assuming a lot. Our PCs don't earn XP either, we just level up after 4 or 5 sessions, or after the completion of an adventure module, and we've been doing this since AD&D 1e. So NPCs and PCs in our game level the same way, pretty much - when it's appropriate and at no other time. When my players level, my surviving NPCs level up to, and the exactly same way as PCs - there is no difference. Perhaps you don't have games with the same villain over 20 levels of play - we do this a lot, thus we gain the full experience of leveling up every given class, PC and NPC, as GMs. We don't wing it, we do it by the book.

I don't under stand why anyone would ever say that we shouldn't have our idea of fun... and saying things like "Broken book" or "Lotsof players don't like" or "I will never let it in my game" are all ways of saying "Badwrongfun"

Nobody did this - you're assuming again.

Nothing is banned in our game until we try it first. That's what play-testing is all about. Once tested, if we find something bad for our table, we ban it, plain and simple. However, just because something is banned at our table, doesn't apply to anyone else's game. I would never suggest what doesn't work for our group, might not be the perfect mechanic for someone else's game. However, is it wrong to ban a particular aspect of a game if it doesn't work for you?

I never said "that you shouldn't have your own idea of fun" (only you did). I don't judge your table, your accepted rules - so why are you judging my table's game?

Some definitions:

Broken Book
If a book is broken for anyone's personal game - it is indeed broken (as in the game-changing aspects of using a particular mechanic ruins the experience for our group). It doesn't mean it's broken for everyone's game, only the one we actually play in.

Lots of Players don't Like...
If every player you've ever met agree with a particular mechanic as being a poor one, wouldn't "lots of players like/dislike" be meaningful. I cannot say what the players I've never met have opinions on, I can only measure what I've witnessed. In my experience, every player I've ever sat a table with (even at our FLGS) thought that martial adepts sucked as classes and a general mechanic. It very well might not be true for every group, but I have no experience with every group.

I will never let it in my game...
I've never made this claim about any game mechanic. Every game mechanic that we include and exclude from our table was play-tested first at our table. We don't arbitrarily judge a particular mechanic as bad without trying it, so I would never outright ban something we did not test first. We drew up martial adepts for all our players, ran them through an entire module (well most of a module, since we all decided to hate Bo9S before we finished that module). We didn't just read the book and decide without trying.

I've never used the phrase "badwrongfun", so would never compare any mechanic with such a stupid phrase. However, if something doesn't work for your group - is it wrong that we don't choose to use a mechanic, as if you shouldn't be allowed to ban anything? I think martial adepts suck, but am perfectly willing to agree that it might be the most wonderful thing for you. Since you don't play at my table, I just don't care what works for you - that's completely meaningless for my game.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

You're assuming a lot. Our PCs don't earn XP either, we just level up after 4 or 5 sessions, or after the completion of an adventure module, and we've been doing this since AD&D 1e. So NPCs and PCs in our game level the same way, pretty much - when it's appropriate and at no other time. When my players level, my surviving NPCs level up to, and the exactly same way as PCs - there is no difference. Perhaps you don't have games with the same villain over 20 levels of play - we do this a lot, thus we gain the full experience of leveling up every given class, PC and NPC, as GMs. We don't wing it, we do it by the book.

I will still argue it isn't the same. I have played in games like that, and the NPCs are getting a hell of a free ride. (infact there is a OotS comic making fun of it) PCs and NPCs are different (FULL STOP). You do make NPCs that level, it still only is part of a story that the PCs have a MUCH bigger part of, and when they level up there ONE CHARACTER you get to level up the whole world. it is different, the fact that you have never tried it means you can not argue if it is the same or not... you never tried it as a PC.

Nothing is banned in our game until we try it first. That's what play-testing is all about. Once tested, if we find something bad for our table, we ban it, plain and simple. However, just because something is banned at our table, doesn't apply to anyone else's game. I would never suggest what doesn't work for our group, might not be the perfect mechanic for someone else's game. However, is it wrong to ban a particular aspect of a game if it doesn't work for you?

so tell me about your playtest of everything you hate... lets start with Knights and Warblades... just 2 concepts, what did they do in play that made you so dislike them?

I never said "that you shouldn't have your own idea of fun" (only you did). I don't judge your table, your accepted rules - so why are you judging my table's game?

BS I never stoped anyone from playing anything they wanted... infact in my very limited DMing experience my rule was "IF I have the book it's fine, if I don't you just need to bring the book to the game..."

Broken Book
If a book is broken for anyone's personal game

- it is only a broken book if it is not functioning as intended... if you do not like the intention it is a disliked book not a broken one...

Lots of Players don't Like...
If every player you've ever met agree with a particular mechanic as being a poor one, wouldn't "lots of players like/dislike" be meaningful. I cannot say what the players I've never met have opinions on, I can only measure what I've witnessed.

ok well now you have experience that that opionon is in no way universal, and there are people who love the book... how does that effect your thoughts?

I will never let it in my game...
I've never made this claim about any game mechanic. Every game mechanic that we include and exclude from our table was play-tested first at our table. We don't arbitrarily judge a particular mechanic as bad without trying it, so I would never outright ban something we did not test first. We drew up martial adepts for all our players, ran them through an entire module (well most of a module, since we all decided to hate Bo9S before we finished that module). We didn't just read the book and decide without trying.

what made you hate it?

I've never used the phrase "badwrongfun", so would never compare any mechanic with such a stupid phrase. However, if something doesn't work for your group - is it wrong that we don't choose to use a mechanic, as if you shouldn't be allowed to ban anything? I think martial adepts suck, but am perfectly willing to agree that it might be the most wonderful thing for you. Since you don't play at my table, I just don't care what works for you - that's completely meaningless for my game.

just as how I don't care what you say about my books, or religion, or job in your house... I do care when you say them in public... This isn't me comeing into your house and saying "Hey you have to use this book" this is me in the public form telling you "Stop bad mouthing something I like."

 

[Ahnehnois]

wow just wow... it is more powerful then the weakest core class

...in your opinion. It's on the books. It's the default. Whatever you think of it.

Nor would I call fighter the weakest core class. Again, opinions.

you see the Warlock and War Wizard, and true necromancers are all less powerful wizards, about on par with Bo9S...

Where did this come from? Is War Wizard even a class? (Warmage, maybe?). Are they less powerful? AFAIK, they're different concepts, none of them is a less powerful wizard.

If the core has power levels that are 3, 5,5,5,5,6,7,7,8,10 and a new class comes out and is a 7 that doesn't mean it's broken because it is higher then a 3....

That depends on what the new class is. If the new class is a version of the class that rated a 3, it is monstrously overpowered, because 7 is more than 3. How it compares to another examplar of the same concept is far more relevant than how it compares to the other completely different classes. If "3, 5,5,5,5,6,7,7,8,10" is the baseline, that's the baseline.

Not that those particular numbers represent an accurate representation of the baseline.

Bull... the fighter needed to be fixed, it was broken (weak and uninteresting)

... in your opinion. I find fighters as they are far more interesting than clerics.

now I dare you to compare your choice of Bo9S class to your choice of PHB class and find it broken

No, I compared it to your choice of PHB class, i.e.:

I know it wasn't directed to me, but it seems when people say that they really mean they can play cool fighter concepts.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This all went this way because we can't have a "problem with Piazo" thread without everyone saying what WotC is foinf or did do wrong...

 

[Ahnehnois]

This all went this way because we can't have a "problem with Piazo" thread without everyone saying what WotC is foinf or did do wrong...

The two are not mutually exclusive and in fact are rather closely related.

After all, the elements that the OP was criticizing very likely represent a (misguided) attempt to copy things that WotC did do (wrong).

For example, if I think that barbarian rage powers suck (I do), that connects to why barbarians having a daily use limitation sucked in the first place, and why martial "powers" suck. Same name. Clear connections.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

...in your opinion. It's on the books. It's the default. Whatever you think of it.

I disagree, there is no baseline because the core book is all over the place, they tried to fix that at the end of the edtion by normalizing things (around 6-7) instead.

Nor would I call fighter the weakest core class. Again, opinions.

ok fine... everyone who rates teirs of classes is wrong... silly them. Every person who did the math was flawed... sorry. I forgot to run everything by you.

That depends on what the new class is. If the new class is a version of the class that rated a 3, it is monstrously overpowered, because 7 is more than 3. How it compares to another examplar of the same concept is far more relevant than how it compares to the other completely different classes. If "3, 5,5,5,5,6,7,7,8,10" is the baseline, that's the baseline.

The PHB doesn't work... the later books work better...

Not that those particular numbers represent an accurate representation of the baseline.

nore do I, they are just made up numbers although we could if you would agree to it talk out and figure out were that base line really is and compare if parts of those classes did cross the line...

... in your opinion. I find fighters as they are far more interesting than clerics.

in concept I agree with you, but I hate that the cleric gets a huge list of powers... some of witch he can use to be a numericly better fighter... and the fighter does not.

No, I compared it to your choice of PHB class, i.e.:

except in mine it was fixing a mistake, bringing X up to Y... you turnedaround and said "NO X is supposed to be weaker then Y, and making X even come close to Y is broken..." On line we call that "Fighters can't have nice things"