Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[Hussar]

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.

And that's a great attitude and I mean that. But, do you not see how some people might not see it that way? When my fighter is doing 25 points of damage to a single target, while the cleric walks up and vaporizes four others, is it unreasonable to feel a bit like a third wheel? When, in every non-combat encounter, the fighter is standing in the corner picking his nose while the cleric and wizard do all the talking, charming, detecting lies and whatnot? Whenever a mystery crops up, the casters pop out a bunch of spells to solve the mystery, while the fighter stands around doing nothing?

Do you really not see why some people might have an issue here?

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

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.

the problem isn't competing with Bob or Wendy, it is competing with me playing a wizard, or warblade. See I can play only so many games, so when I play I want to play a character that is challenging to play, and also fun. I want to have to figure out lots of synergies, and I want to make major changes. So no I don't care if the wizard uses his big guns, or when he changes the battle field. I care about me doing it. In 3.5 and now in pathfinder I find that because I only play a little now adays I find myself not wanting to play 'just a fighter' mean while in 4e and in my play test of 5e (and in 2e) I can choose any class based on my mood of what character I want to play, I am not limited by rules saying only X classes can have this or that...

 

[Rob1207]

I can choose any class based on my mood of what character I want to play, I am not limited by rules saying only X classes can have this or that...

The problem is, like in my op, when someone else is playing a character they like and it hurts my fun. I don't want to take away your fun, but I don't want to play in 4e with come and get it, or with 3.5 with your war whatever, or in path finder with your alchemist or gunslinger. If I am going to take MY TIME, I want to play a game that is based on what I want.

 

[Hussar]

I really thing HCD&DG has a point. In 2e, fighters were the undisputed champions of damage. Your low level fighter could take on stuff WAY over his weight class and win out. The fighters were very front loaded with damage and monsters had very few hit points. I mean, it's not unreasonable for a 1st level fighter to kill and ogre, in 2e, in a single round.

In 3e, the fighters actually lost damage. At least at the single digit levels. A 3e fighter does about half as much damage per round as a 2e fighter, at least in the single digit levels. And the monsters doubled their hit points, or more. So, now, the fighters are no longer the undisputed champions of what they should be doing because the casters can simply bypass hit points so often.

In 2e, sure, the fighter was whacking baddies right, left and center, but the casters were getting things done outside of combat. In 3e, you can pretty easily make a caster par with the fighter in combat, while the fighter is still lagging WAY behind outside of combat.

 

[Argyle King]

The problem is, like in my op, when someone else is playing a character they like and it hurts my fun. I don't want to take away your fun, but I don't want to play in 4e with come and get it, or with 3.5 with your war whatever, or in path finder with your alchemist or gunslinger. If I am going to take MY TIME, I want to play a game that is based on what I want.

Maybe I'm crazy, but if you're not satisfied with 3rd Edition, 4th Edition, or Pathfinder, it may be a good idea to try a different game system. I'm not saying that with any negativity toward those games, and I'm not trying to flame or anything like that. It just seems to me that a different system built on a completely different set of gaming ideals might be the way to go.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And that's a great attitude and I mean that. But, do you not see how some people might not see it that way? When my fighter is doing 25 points of damage to a single target, while the cleric walks up and vaporizes four others, is it unreasonable to feel a bit like a third wheel? When, in every non-combat encounter, the fighter is standing in the corner picking his nose while the cleric and wizard do all the talking, charming, detecting lies and whatnot? Whenever a mystery crops up, the casters pop out a bunch of spells to solve the mystery, while the fighter stands around doing nothing?

Do you really not see why some people might have an issue here?

some people really can't get why it is that happens... I once had a PC who took leadership it was a complete character point. it was entirely for story reasons, we had just made an alliance with these druids, and I took a druid cohort. I picked a wolf and through it as the animal companion. I didn't min max I didn't even really research the spells I picked, I just took ones that sounded cool.

then the first big fight, these big aberrations (the whole reason for the alliance) that were basically star spawn... We took a min or two to prep and cast buffs then went to split up to attack 2 of them. My druid and his wolf charged one... as I was rolling my attacks the DM reminded me I shared buffs with the wolf... so I stop and refigured my attacks... guess what I had the highest to hit and the biggest melee damage rolls on my wolf, the druid was second highest... our fighter was 4th... behind the rogue.

after that game I asked the GM if I could retrain my feat and just let the druid go off on another leg of the mission. Because I hated having a secondary character with a class feature that was better then our fighter.

I also ran a game where a Barbarian 1/Cleric 9/Prestige class X was using persistent spell buffs... and our level 10+fighter quite not only the game, but doesn't even roleplay anymore...

 

[billd91]

And that's a great attitude and I mean that. But, do you not see how some people might not see it that way? When my fighter is doing 25 points of damage to a single target, while the cleric walks up and vaporizes four others, is it unreasonable to feel a bit like a third wheel? When, in every non-combat encounter, the fighter is standing in the corner picking his nose while the cleric and wizard do all the talking, charming, detecting lies and whatnot? Whenever a mystery crops up, the casters pop out a bunch of spells to solve the mystery, while the fighter stands around doing nothing?

Do you really not see why some people might have an issue here?

Do you really not see why some people don't have an issue here?
Do you really not see how some people refuse to sit back and pick their noses because they don't have the mechanical assets other PCs have but instead proactively find ways to get involved in the game and have fun with it?
If you don't like playing the fighter (or rogue, or monk, or bard, or whatever) as he is the options really should be obvious. Play something else. Find players who play the same way as you do and knock yourselves out. Leave the fighters to the players who like to play them. They're out there. Really.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I really thing HCD&DG has a point. In 2e, fighters were the undisputed champions of damage. Your low level fighter could take on stuff WAY over his weight class and win out. The fighters were very front loaded with damage and monsters had very few hit points. I mean, it's not unreasonable for a 1st level fighter to kill and ogre, in 2e, in a single round.

in 2e fighters have the highest hit points, the best AC and the best damage... I used to joke that wizards were nice enough to ask you to save vs death magic, meanwhile fighters just death you.

In 3e, the fighters actually lost damage. At least at the single digit levels. A 3e fighter does about half as much damage per round as a 2e fighter, at least in the single digit levels. And the monsters doubled their hit points, or more. So, now, the fighters are no longer the undisputed champions of what they should be doing because the casters can simply bypass hit points so often.

a weapon spec fighter could hit an AC 0 on a 16 and deal 1d8+5 damage and attack 3 times in 2 rounds (we always allowed the 2 attacks in the first round but I heard some people forced 1 attack the first round)

In 2e, sure, the fighter was whacking baddies right, left and center, but the casters were getting things done outside of combat. In 3e, you can pretty easily make a caster par with the fighter in combat, while the fighter is still lagging WAY behind outside of combat.

yea and everything got worse at saving... so SOD or SOS spells got better... and wizards got more spells per day (both chart and from high int bonus) and lots of the spells that had drawbacks had those taken away...

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

If you don't like playing the fighter (or rogue, or monk, or bard, or whatever) as he is the options really should be obvious. Play something else. Find players who play the same way as you do and knock yourselves out. Leave the fighters to the players who like to play them. They're out there. Really.

WHat about when I want to play a swordman and hate the limits put on them? how about (like D&D next that I love so far) we have fighters that can choose what way they are built, and as such I can play my complex fighter and you can play your simple one? Why should I be stuck with "Well that character you want to play will suck and be no fun for you, so play a different concept or except it?" when we could have "Well play any way you want?"

 

[billd91]

the problem isn't competing with Bob or Wendy, it is competing with me playing a wizard, or warblade. See I can play only so many games, so when I play I want to play a character that is challenging to play, and also fun. I want to have to figure out lots of synergies, and I want to make major changes. So no I don't care if the wizard uses his big guns, or when he changes the battle field. I care about me doing it. In 3.5 and now in pathfinder I find that because I only play a little now adays I find myself not wanting to play 'just a fighter' mean while in 4e and in my play test of 5e (and in 2e)

Then why are you complaining about the fighter if that's not what you want to play? Why complain about somebody else who prefers to play fighters since that isn't what you want to play anyway? And if you're not allowed to play the warblade in a particular game, and that's what you want to play, why play in that particular game? Why not find one where you can?

I can choose any class based on my mood of what character I want to play, I am not limited by rules saying only X classes can have this or that...

You might want to walk that back a little there. Every edition, 4e included, has restrictions on what classes have and can't have and that you have to build for or around either with feats or multclassing. 3e isn't unique in that regard. In many ways it's more flexible than 2e as far as class abilities and tools (assuming you're not house ruling those restrictions away and, frankly, if you can do that in 2e, you can do it in 3e). Even Next is injecting plenty of those on its own. I don't see how 3e or PF are in any way different or exceptional except in specific details.