Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[Ahnehnois]

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 haven't forgotten that druids exist. However, your contention was that Bo9S classes are useful for creating concepts originally represented by the fighter class. If someone makes a new druid, I'll compare it to the druid. The warblade, however, is not a druid. Thus, I am comparing it to the fighter.

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...

It strikes me as a mild nuisance and a waste of page count. I think a lighter magic system would be a good direction.

(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..

IIRC there was some form of invisibility in Bo9S. I don't have it handy.

In any case, I don't agree with that. The point of playing a character is not to be able to do stuff that other characters can't do. That seems like a rather spiteful take on character creation to me. If it works for you, again, fine. Are the rules written to serve that end? I don't see that they are (or should be).

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...

That's fine. But it does not follow that any character concept you are interested in should be represented in that fashion in the core rules that are used by people other than you.

Part of the beauty of PF or D&D (as alluded to by [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] above) is that the different character concepts, which are meaningfully mechanically different, appeal to different types of people.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

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

it is an online comic that has a huge following by a professional in the roleplaying world, and it is both funny and well thought out. Well it wouldn't be dead set proof of a statement the fact that you disregard it so easily tells me something about you.

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.

ok so lets just focus on what you think is broken on the warblade... instead of just telling us you totally tested it and imperially proved it...

Let me be clear in stating, that I've played most every class at least once.

sorry I confused you with the person who said they never in 35 years played a caster... my mistake that happens when I respond to a bunch of people at once.

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.

I only question the idea that you have no emotional attachment because you are argueing with aperson on the internet who you will most likely never play with...

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

ok so then lets end this now... there is nothing wrong with people using the books they like and not the ones they do, and the only reason to argue it farther is stupid... neaither of us effect the other...

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I haven't forgotten that druids exist.

no, that is how I JUDGE CLASSES, I never suggested you do that or even should. I was just showing my thoughts...

your contention was that Bo9S classes are useful for creating concepts originally represented by the fighter class.

actually my point was there were concepts of warriors that the fighter can not represent, and the 3 class es in that book made them possible.

If someone makes a new druid, I'll compare it to the druid. The warblade, however, is not a druid. Thus, I am comparing it to the fighter.

It is a new class I am compairing it to all the classes that came before (except druid as a special exception I have never expected that)

It strikes me as a mild nuisance and a waste of page count. I think a lighter magic system would be a good direction.

100% agree

IIRC there was some form of invisibility in Bo9S. I don't have it handy

. maybe, but just because it is there doesn't mean I need to take it... remember there are 3 classes of varying levels of supernatural powers.

In any case, I don't agree with that. The point of playing a character is not to be able to do stuff that other characters can't do. That seems like a rather spiteful take on character creation to me. If it works for you, again, fine. Are the rules written to serve that end? I don't see that they are (or should be).

My problem isn't I want things you can't have. I have no problem with fully open systems Everyone can take anything is fine. My problem is that Class 1 2 and 3 each get a list of things only they or classes ass with them can do, and class 4, 5 and 6 get only things anyone can take... one way or the other not both.

Part of the beauty of PF or D&D (as alluded to by @Wicht above) is that the different character concepts, which are meaningfully mechanically different, appeal to different types of people.

yes and at the same table I can play a warblade/warlock/ master of 9, and you can play a fighter, and someone else a druid... oh wait, not at your table I would be told that combo was wrong...

 

[gamerprinter]

it is an online comic that has a huge following by a professional in the roleplaying world, and it is both funny and well thought out. Well it wouldn't be dead set proof of a statement the fact that you disregard it so easily tells me something about you.

The only thing it should tell about me, is that I don't read comics, and I didn't read comics as a kid, online or off. I'm a professional artist and don't find comic art even interesting. I also don't watch television either, does that also say something about me? I generally don't judge people on what does or does not entertainment them. I'm just not shallow in that way.

ok so lets just focus on what you think is broken on the warblade... instead of just telling us you totally tested it and imperially proved it...
sorry I confused you with the person who said they never in 35 years played a caster... my mistake that happens when I respond to a bunch of people at once.
I only question the idea that you have no emotional attachment because you are argueing with aperson on the internet who you will most likely never play with...

I'm actually not arguing so much as trying to correct, many wrongly stated claims by you regarding my opinion and posts. At no time did I say, only my opinion was important, nor did I state that what is broken for me, is broken for everyone. You have repeatedly stuck words in my mouth, that I never said. If I say something "sucks" then it's absolutely true for me, otherwise I never would have stated. At the same time, this does not state it's sucks for everyone - but you are constantly suggest that's what I'm saying. So I'm not arguing, I'm correcting your many, many wrongly made accusations to those with differing points of views from your own.

While I definitely stated that martial adept classes are broken for our games, I never stated that warblades were as well - I don't know where you're getting that. I don't care for warblade as a class, but not because it's broken, rather it doesn't trip my trigger. I do like the PF magus, and think that is a mechanically better design than the warblade's version, but again, both are casters, and not my favorite classes to play anyway.

- ok so then lets end this now... there is nothing wrong with people using the books they like and not the ones they do, and the only reason to argue it farther is stupid... neaither of us effect the other...

So now you're finally agreeing with me. I've only ever stated what was appropriate for my own table, never for anyone elses. I cannot judge what best for your group, only what is best for mine, and that's the only thing I've stated in all my posts in this thread.

 

[Starfox]

I am in the anti Bo9S camp myself - for DnD. Looked at it in the store, didn't like the concept, didn't bye it. Sort of wish I had, as it would be nice to have read it in detail. My reason for disliking it was somewhat different - and invalidates arguments saying I kicked what I didn't even try. I disliked it for concept reasons. I felt it was outside the scope of what DnD does, especially in 3.5. DnD is basically a pretty gritty game with fantastic elements pasted on in the form of magic. There are no "mundane powers". The exception is the monk , which always sucked and was generally treated as optional. I felt that the anime-tastic things from the Bo9S just didn't fit.

This does NOT mean I dislike anime or wuxia. I am a great fan of anime, and I used to love wuxia (the genre seems to have dried out a bit after the movie Hero). In my homebrew (link below) there are many wuxia elements, and one of the inspirations are 2D fighting games like Tekken. So I definitely feel flashy moves can belong in a rpg - just not in DnD.

Now, pathfinder is overall a bit flashier than DnD was. The Magus, Alchemist, and Summoner classes ups the limit on what is "normal" quite a bit, so the Bo9S might actually fit better in Pathfinder than it did in 3.5.

Thinking back on 1E and 2E, almost everyone played a multiclass caster back then, so the mix of swords and sorcery was quite strong back then too. It was actually tuned down in 3E, where multiclassing generally sucked for spellcasters. In 3E you were either a full spellcaster or not at all, unless you found some prestige class enabler, and most of those were mediocre at best. So, perhaps. 3.5 was the class where Bo9S fit the worst of all editions of DnD - and perhaps it was written as a reaction to just that, as a way to tune up the "fantastic" level of the game.

 

[gamerprinter]

@Starfox - strangely, I'm half Japanese, a true old time Japanophile, especially it's history and culture, however, I absolutely detest anime, manga and wuxia. My Kaidan setting of Japanese horror is filled with references to 19th century and earlier aspects of Japanese culture, it is an extremely authentic setting based on Japanese horror and fantasy tropes that are largely unknown in the west. There is not one wuxia element in Kaidan, but then Kaidan's inspiration comes from old ghost tales told in 15th to 19th century Japan - from what is known as hyakumonogatari kaidan kai.

Kaidan is a very serious and almost dystopian police state. Wire-fu and wuxia just doesn't belong in Kaidan.

 

[billd91]

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

That was a stupid exaggeration when it was first used and it hasn't gotten any better. The fighter gets plenty of nice things. They just aren't spell nice things. They're combat feat nice things.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

That was a stupid exaggeration when it was first used and it hasn't gotten any better. The fighter gets plenty of nice things. They just aren't spell nice things. They're combat feat nice things.

the problem I and others like me have is that it is possible for spells nice things to do things combat feat nice things can't come close to, but there nothing (or atleast damn near close to nothing) that a feat nice thing can do that a spell nice thing can't do atleast as well. heck a fighter can take Dodge, mobility, spring attack then combat expertise and has to have a 13 in two stats... just so he can get an AoE attack...and the wizard can have how many spells by that time that do AoE?

 

[Ahnehnois]

heck a fighter can take Dodge, mobility, spring attack then combat expertise and has to have a 13 in two stats... just so he can get an AoE attack...and the wizard can have how many spells by that time that do AoE?

I would think AoE falls under the same category as resurrection/teleportation/summoning/etc., i.e. things that you can't do without magic. Even whirlwind attack isn't a true AoE, nor should it be.

If you want to make a case that, say, a giant should be able to hit a few squares at once, I'd buy that.

the problem I and others like me have is that it is possible for spells nice things to do things combat feat nice things can't come close to, but there nothing (or atleast damn near close to nothing) that a feat nice thing can do that a spell nice thing can't do atleast as well.

Okay... I would hope that the power of a feat that can be used whenever the character pleases would not equal that of a spell that can only be cast once before the character has to recharge.

 

[billd91]

the problem I and others like me have is that it is possible for spells nice things to do things combat feat nice things can't come close to, but there nothing (or atleast damn near close to nothing) that a feat nice thing can do that a spell nice thing can't do atleast as well. heck a fighter can take Dodge, mobility, spring attack then combat expertise and has to have a 13 in two stats... just so he can get an AoE attack...and the wizard can have how many spells by that time that do AoE?

Frankly, I don't mind that. My fighter character isn't competing with my friend's wizard character. He does what he does, I do what I do.