Pathfinder 1E So what do you think is wrong with Pathfinder? Post your problems and we will fix it.

[GMforPowergamers]

Missed this. No - it wasn't a joke. It was an observation that there are things which bypass armor.

so your ANswer to high and low AC is to design an encounter that AC doesn't help and as such both take damage? I see how that hurts High ACs but not how it helps the low AC shine...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There is a baseline parity there. Depending on the choices made during character creation, the ability scores, magic items owned, and other factors, any one of them might be technically and mechanically superior to another. I could easily envision a 10th level fighter that far outperformed the other two if called upon to do so, or it could go the other way. Likewise, depending on actual player skill, any one of them could be played superior to another, with more optimal choices. The level alone merely provides an estimate - actual in-game choice, and the luck of the dice during ability creation also matters.

In most of my games, slight variations of power lever rarely matter as the characters work as a team. And the disparity is never all that great, and it balances out over time as each character contributes to different aspects of the game-play.

yes a min maxed fighter at level 10 with the best items could totally out do a sub standard wiz or cleric with less benfital items of the same level... but what happens when you put equal skill into all 3?

Don't hide behind "well if the better player plays the fighter and the new guy plays the cleric" in equal standing witch class has more power?

 

[Wicht]

so your ANswer to high and low AC is to design an encounter that AC doesn't help and as such both take damage? I see how that hurts High ACs but not how it helps the low AC shine...

The low AC character should shine in other ways, ideally. I thought you said that they did good damage (rogue) and such.

Why is it wrong for one character to have abilities the others can't match in any one area?

But yeah, if the high AC guy isn't being challenged, put in a challenge where his AC is no use, or, if wearing lots of armor, where its a downright hindrance.

 

[Wicht]

yes a min maxed fighter at level 10 with the best items could totally out do a sub standard wiz or cleric with less benfital items of the same level... but what happens when you put equal skill into all 3?

Don't hide behind "well if the better player plays the fighter and the new guy plays the cleric" in equal standing witch class has more power?

I think you misunderstood me on two levels.

Firstly, I was saying that giving me their levels alone does not tell me which is better.

And in my games, the level 10 fighter, the level 10 rogue, the level 10 cleric, and the level 10 wizard tend to be pretty equal in their contributions to the cause.

Interestingly, it always seems to me that the discussion is never about the average wizard, but about the wizard who is fully optimized when compared to an average fighter. But in my experience, average fighters slay an awful lot of wizards over the course of their adventuring careers.

 

[Ahnehnois]

in a perfect world yes, but I agree untenable...

A world where the essence of an entire person can be simplified down to one number that defines how good they are? Clearly we have very different definitions of "perfect". But since we're agreeing that this isn't going to happen regardless, moving on...

my attanable goal would be parity within range...

any class average to well built would rate a 1-5 power range at level 1 and a 3-6 at level 2 and a 5-7 at level 3 and a 6-8 at level 4

Which is pretty well established in PF I think. Maybe a really kickass level 1 character might exceed the usefulness of a mediocre level 2, but past some point, level will override the other variables.

no one class would be the more powerful choice and no one feat or race was either...

Well, that's completely different, and really impossible.

an average to well made fighter would be as good to an average to well made wizard. a power gamed fighter would be as powerful as a powergameed wizard...

Which is back to being the well-established truth. PF takes a working baseline, and subtly pushes it even more in this direction with a variety of changes.

ok, so in your mind a 10th level cleric a 10th level wizard and a 10th level fighter are already equal?

I'd say so. Maybe the spread of possible outcomes is somewhat wider for the wizard and for the cleric, and wider for the cleric than the fighter, but not by some huge margin. And on average, I'd rather play the fighter.

PF has done a good job with closing up the dead levels and adding archetypes so that the level 10 fighter (as opposed to the multiclass/prestige class character you'd get in 3.5) is actually a reasonable comparison. It's also closed up some spells, so we're not asking "what about Polymorph?" and the like. I don't see any clear advantage or disadvantage for those classes.

but what happens when you put equal skill into all 3?

You get three roughly equal, pretty kickass characters.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

PF has done a good job with closing up the dead levels and adding archetypes so that the level 10 fighter (as opposed to the multiclass/prestige class character you'd get in 3.5) is actually a reasonable comparison. It's also closed up some spells, so we're not asking "what about Polymorph?" and the like. I don't see any clear advantage or disadvantage for those classes.

You get three roughly equal, pretty kickass characters.

when people say this I wonder if we are even playing the same game... you know what I am about to quite... you make pathfinder better by not playing it... I wish wotc never even dreamt of an OGL for ever good thing we got we got 3-5 bad ones, and it allowed this edition war to spread much farther then ever before.

I came to this thread entitled "So what do you think is wrong with Pathfinder? Post your problems and we will fix it." and somehow forgot that it was going to turn into a mess. no one is recommending any fixes other then 'be a better DM' and now we have people saying that the problems don't exists at all...


I have friends that like pathfinder better then 4e, me and my group rather 4e we all agree we want better then PF or 4e we just disagree on witch has less flaws... I came here hoping that someone might have real answers for a change... instead the same fury inducing wotc bashing piazo fans are here and don't really want to help at all.




SO lets try this again... how do we fix what is broken? (and no the answer isn't pretend it isn't broken.)

 

[pickin_grinnin]

It also allows you to have a certain gauge to compare to how well your characters are above or below average in material assets so as to better predict the toughness of given situations re: CR.
<snip>
but recognize the effect this will have on their ability to perform against certain challenges.

Broken is probably too strong a word.

There is no "average" when it comes to characters in my games, though. They have what they have, and I design the challenges accordingly. Since I don't run modules, I retain full control of every aspect of the design of the adventures. I'm not going to throw them up against something they can't possibly defeat.

It would probably be more accurate to say that one thing I dislike about 3.5 and Pathfinder is the endless array of charts that I will never use.

 

[Wicht]

My biggest problem with PF is what was my biggest problem with 3e and 3.5 too, namely a need to make monster and npc stats easier for the DM to be able to accurately come up with stats that would challenge the PCs, but take at most five minutes to put together. 4e did it marvelously with its page 184-185 rules, but the closest i've seen is Benjamin Durbin's trailblazer rules for standardized monster stats by CR, which was on the right path (no pun intended).

I love the level of detail for PCs (there are plenty of dials and knobs for them), but the DM needs as few stats per NPC as possible, and it should be as easy to put together a 15th level evil cleric, complete with a few generic attk/dmg spell effects to give him some flavor, as it is to put together a short grocery list.

Come up with the math to fix that, spell crunch and all, and you have the perfect game for me.

Henry, why can't you just use table 1:1 from the Bestiary (Monster Statistics by CR)? Take that, add on a few spells or powers and go to town...

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I came to this thread entitled "So what do you think is wrong with Pathfinder? Post your problems and we will fix it." and somehow forgot that it was going to turn into a mess. no one is recommending any fixes other then 'be a better DM' and now we have people saying that the problems don't exists at all...

What did you expect?

No game is perfect, so if you're going to play in a system, the best way to deal with problems with it is either to homebrew them out or adjust your DM/GM style to compensate for them.

You're not going to find a consensus on what is "broken" in Pathfinder. The things that some people dislike are loved by others.

 

[Wicht]

Broken is probably too strong a word.

There is no "average" when it comes to characters in my games, though. They have what they have, and I design the challenges accordingly. Since I don't run modules, I retain full control of every aspect of the design of the adventures. I'm not going to throw them up against something they can't possibly defeat.

It would probably be more accurate to say that one thing I dislike about 3.5 and Pathfinder is the endless array of charts that I will never use.

There's no average in my games either (we tend to play above the baseline). But the average gives you a rule of thumb by which to gauge the correctness or difficulty of your own encounters.

And I don't understand why a chart you choose not to use would bother you? Maybe someone else finds it useful (and I tell you, when I am designing, those charts can be a pretty sweet little reference). I mean, I'm never going to order a McDonalds Chicken sandwich, but I don't complain they have it on the menu.