Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[Rob1207]

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 thing 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.

OP here. This guy got it. Not only where the later 3.5 books way too gamey, but 4e wratchet it up to 11. My group fell apart. Some of the people went to 4e, some pathfinder and some left D&D all togather (that was me). Now the group that agreed with me that Book of 9 swords was anima crap, and that come and get it was martial mind control, and why can't I try to do that same sword trick again... all said we were starting this new game... and it is just as bad. I want to know what makes pathfinder any better then late 3.5 or 4e... and the answer seems to be "Some people like Pathfinder more..."

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

...in your opinion. (Going back to other posters who noted that in their view, the later books went off the rails). I don't think using the PHB/Core Book as a baseline is particularly radical.

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.

I hate that the cleric gets a huge list of powers, some of which can be used to make him incrementally better but all of which take up an enormous amount of space in the books and time in the game.

On line we call that "Fighters can't have nice things"

If by "nice things" you mean things like summoning extraplanar creatures, raising the dead, turning invisible, etc., then no. Fighters can't have those "nice things" and still be fighters.

Conversely, if you mean "nice things" like huge lists of things for players to keep track of, complex schemes of powers that have to be learned and optimized to be remotely useful, and weird arbitrary limitations like only being able to do something once "per encounter", than I question your definition of "nice things". AFAIC, not having those things is pretty "nice".

 

[Wicht]

I want to know what makes pathfinder any better then late 3.5 or 4e... and the answer seems to be "Some people like Pathfinder more..."

Granted, some of us do like Pathfinder more than 4e and thinks it strikes the right balance. Others like 4e. Which is fine for them. They are all games and will have more or less verisimilitude for different people.

As for the Barbarian and rage, I can easily see it being very physically taxing to pump that much adrenaline into your system. Takes some practice to be able to handle it for longer and longer periods of time before you really just need a lie down.

Part of the advantage of Pathfinder, for me, besides the fact I really like the engine under the hood, is that you can pick and choose your options and each class has a different feel. Sometimes I just want a fighter. Other times perhaps I would like something a bit more exotic. But I don't feel, when playing a barbarian that I am just playing a fighter and I don't feel like when I play a fighter I am playing a ninja wantabe. Each class has their own feel to them and their own set of subsytems and I kinda like that.

 

[Wicht]

I hate that the cleric gets a huge list of powers, some of which can be used to make him incrementally better but all of which take up an enormous amount of space in the books and time in the game.

Just out of curiosity, did you ever consider the Divine Channeler class?

Less spells, more channeling, channeling does different things depending on domain.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I want to know what makes pathfinder any better then late 3.5 or 4e... and the answer seems to be "Some people like Pathfinder more..."

There are things that PF actually fixed. One of the problems with late 3.5 was the proliferation of prestige classes. Another was the relative nonviability of core classes over 20 levels (dead levels). PF fixed those.

Another problem was that every "combat maneuver" in 3.5 has different rules. Some use BAB, some don't. Some are opposed checks some aren't. PF fixed that.

Another was the rampant spread of different yet redundant forms of mechanical character customization (alt class features, substitution levels, skill tricks, etc.). PF largely consolidated this into archetypes and feats.

There are certainly other things. None of these examples really takes the game down that metagamey road; they just clean up the mechanics, and let you play the game more easily. PF certainly has other changes that are bad, and even pointless, but there is some value there.

 

[gamerprinter]

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.




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?
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..."

- 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...

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?
what made you hate it?
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."

Sorry, Oots is a cartoon, not any kind of an expert at anything, so what they make fun of is profoundly meaningless to me.

Yes, every class: warblade, war mage, every psionicist class, (I don't know what a knight class is as I don't have the book that comes from), every martial adept class, even the Bo9S prestige classes were all play-tested at our table. When something doesn't work for everyone at our table we ban it. How can we judge the value of any class unless it's actually play-tested first? What might work or not work on paper, might have a completely different experience in play. We play-test it all, or at least from all the resources we possess, then make our group decisions after that.

PCs and NPCs in our table are pretty much identical in play and build, there is no difference. (Maybe there's a difference at your table, but not mine.) Also, we often run modules of the players playing the NPCs that will be the normal parties opponents. I've even published a one-shot adventure that does exactly this - the players get the chance to run NPCs (for an entire module) that will be hunting their PCs in the next adventure.

Let me be clear in stating, that I've played most every class at least once. When I say, I've only run martial classes, that is for an entire campaign (or more than 10 levels). I've played all other classes for one-shots and play-tests, if nothing else. Only martials and half-casters have I ever run over the long haul, as those are the only ones that interest me. I didn't mean to suggest that I've never played those other classes at any time. However, mostly I run them as NPCs, as I am a player about 5% of the time.

Regarding banned material, such material was NOT banned because we "hated" it. Actually we have no emotional attachment at all. The question is only if it functions in our game, and meets our overall expectations of fun. When it doesn't we ban it. There's no love nor hate involved, simply function or dysfunction.

A book is broken if it breaks the game with it's rules changes for a given table. I cannot tell you if a given book is broken for all tables, I only play at one table. If it's broken for our table it's broken. I don't need to worry about the rest the gaming world, nor will I judge what's best for them. I didn't say Bo9S is broken for everyone.

Regarding other people's opinions about anything - we all have different opinions (and are entitled to them). What works for one group may not work for any other - I do not judge other people's opinions about anything. I will never state what others might beliefs are and how they apply to their versions of fun - I just don't know. I only what it is true and not true for me, and any post I make in any forum is only based on my point of view. It's never everyone's opinion. So if you or anybody loves the Book of Nine Swords, then good on you, have fun with it. But since your opinion and the books you love have no application to me - why should I even care? It doesn't counter to what I know is true regarding my gaming table - and that is all that really matters.

I at no time stated that my beliefs are everyone elses, nor that they should be (I'll clarify by saying they actually shouldn't be the same.)

And in noticing your post with Ahnehnois, I don't feel fighter is the weakest core class - that belongs to monk, and it was true in 3x as well.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Just out of curiosity, did you ever consider the Divine Channeler class?

Less spells, more channeling, channeling does different things depending on domain.

Never heard of it. Does sound interesting.

I was rather enchanted by a set of alternate warlocks that someone published on the WotC boards many years ago. In a way, they seemed to be more appropriate towards creating a thematic character.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

...in your opinion. (Going back to other posters who noted that in their view, the later books went off the rails). I don't think using the PHB/Core Book as a baseline is particularly radical.

I only think it is radical because you are cutting 9/10 of the book out of your comparison. Just to be fair my normal way to look at if something is broken, is to forget druids exsist at all, then take a mod optimized cleric (no persetant spells, not fully everything perfect) and that is the top end of what a class should be...

I hate that the cleric gets a huge list of powers, some of which can be used to make him incrementally better but all of which take up an enormous amount of space in the books and time in the game.

I only agree in that if there are 10 classes and 5 of them have 3/4 the book dedicated to them, and the other 5 share 1/8 and the last 1/8 is basic mechancics is BS...

If by "nice things" you mean things like summoning extraplanar creatures, raising the dead, turning invisible, etc., then no. Fighters can't have those "nice things" and still be fighters.

(Not withstanding special situations) I don't want my fighter to summon anything, or bring back the dead, or be truly invisible... so we can agree there. But if other classes get those, I want him to get some cool things they can't do either..

Conversely, if you mean "nice things" like huge lists of things for players to keep track of, complex schemes of powers that have to be learned and optimized to be remotely useful, and weird arbitrary limitations like only being able to do something once "per encounter", than I question your definition of "nice things". AFAIC, not having those things is pretty "nice".

see that is the thing I think a list of things for the player to keep track of that are complex and let you really get into the system is very nice... infact I argue what is better is the option of both... (Warlock or Wizard compaired to Fighter/rogue/Prc and Warblade)

 

[Ahnehnois]

And in noticing your post with Ahnehnois, I don't feel fighter is the weakest core class - that belongs to monk, and it was true in 3x as well.

Monks do suck. You just can't have a melee fighter with 3/4 BAB. Trailblazer sort of fixed this but PF didn't for some reason. I don't understand why everyone just doesn't give it full BAB.

 

[gamerprinter]

[MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] - consider that I've published the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG), and so far, I haven't included the monk, nor even mentioned their existence over 14 publications released so far. Really, though the D&D/PF monk is a China thing, and doesn't really apply to Japan. Japan's monks or Kaidan's monks are clerics and oracles. Martial arts is something that applies to all Kaidan classes - it's not really a monk only thing.