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

[Wicht]

That people keep repeating it's a DM issue that the casters keep outshining the non-casters is just sad... you're acknowledging that you actively need to build encounters around the fact that the non-casters only have limited ability to participate in the game and that casters have very powerful option, while the GM must force himself to create situations where not only these characters can participate BUT also show that they are required.

the scope of what non-casters and casters are capable of is so wildly varied that this GREATLY limits the scenarios I can put in front of my players since I can't get a good gauge on what they're capable of.

I don't actually think you need to build encounters "around the fact that the non-casters only have limited ability to participate in the game and that casters have very powerful option." In point of fact, this seems an unfun way to design encounters to me.

Rather, the best approach to designing encounters is to put in a variety of challenges in a way that seems pleasing and desirable to you the designer, and then let the players deal with it however they want.

You don't have to figure out ahead of time all the ways your players will solve the problems, because they will likely surprise you (at least they tend to surprise me).

However, if your design incorporates a variety of challenges, requiring more than one solution, then chances are much higher that the party will have to work together to solve the challenges. And while magic will be the solution to some of the problems, if you have done it right, there is little reasonable way it can be the solution to all the problems. Wizards just do not get that many spells per day.

As an addendum to this, when designing high-level challenges, it is far better, rather than trying to restrict choices, to design encounters which demand high-level abilities such as invisibility, fly, teleportation, or the like. Furthermore, as I have noted elsewhere, if your spellcasters are selfishly using all of their spells on themselves, they are being suboptimal. Create challenges which require, not a buffed up cleric, but a buffed up fighter. Challenges where even an invisible wizard is going to have difficulty, but an invisible rogue will get the job done.

Teams in which there is cooperation always outperform teams where there is glory-hogging in my experience.

 

[Wicht]

What I find highly undesirable is telling a new player "Sorry you died in your first encounter Timmy, next time you know better than to play a monk."

Does this happen to you often?

 

[DM Howard]

I think Pathfinder is fine as a rule. However my problems come about more due to my group when playing Pathfinder. Endless rules discussions, debates about the best magic item/feat to take and all that jazz. I don't blame the system at all, but I certainly don't see this occur with games with less options available like Castles and Crusades or, at the moment, D&DN.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I do not want a classless game.

I want a game with classes that all matter and get played.

I want my warrior character to be able to be as influence of the game as my spell casting characters.

I want to look at a chart that claims to be the CR vs Level and have it matter.

I don't want two types of classes where one type has 20% of the book and the other type 60% of the book.

The two games I had that came the closest was 4e D&D and a heavy house ruled 3.5 D&D (one where the classes where the Bo9S ones, and the later spell casters that had limited list and dragon shawman and marshal... no wizard no druid no fighter) both had problems Both had feats that needed to be fixed one was still too swingy and one was not swingey enough...

When I get told pathfinder fixed the fighter/cleric problem I don't see it. when I get told wizards no longer rule the field I don't see it...

pathfinder made some leaps forward(skills and CMB/CMD), and some steps back (Give wizards less not more, and WHy in the name of the gods give the cleric ways to heal without casting spells?)

 

[Wicht]

I think Pathfinder is fine as a rule. However my problems come about more due to my group when playing Pathfinder. Endless rules discussions, debates about the best magic item/feat to take and all that jazz. I don't blame the system at all, but I certainly don't see this occur with games with less options available like Castles and Crusades or, at the moment, D&DN.

Do the players in your group enjoy these discussions?

If yes, then I would not change anything.

If no, then if I were the DM, I would lay down two simple rules. 1) No looking up rules during the game unless the DM asks you to and the DM's rulings are final in all disagreements about the rules (with an understanding that after the game, there can be time for friendly analysis and clarification for future use). 2) Character creation discussions are largely reserved for before and after the game. Keep the in-game dialogue on the events of the game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Does this happen to you often?

The first 3.5 character my brother in law played was a hafling sorcerer with an 8 con and max ranks in concentration... he got hit once and died.

the first pathfinder campaign andel played in TPKed because no one played a cleric

the first pathfinder character I played was a cleric, and 2 players told me to "Stop being a 1 man party, why do you need us if your here..."

so not often but more then it should

 

[DM Howard]

Do the players in your group enjoy these discussions?

About half of us do, half of us don't as it slows down the session.

If no, then if I were the DM, I would lay down two simple rules. 1) No looking up rules during the game unless the DM asks you to and the DM's rulings are final in all disagreements about the rules (with an understanding that after the game, there can be time for friendly analysis and clarification for future use). 2) Character creation discussions are largely reserved for before and after the game. Keep the in-game dialogue on the events of the game.

I would agree, however, one of the people that instigates this is the DM. He is a power gamer at his core and even when he is DMing he plays a character as well.

 

[Wicht]

I would agree, however, one of the people that instigates this is the DM. He is a power gamer at his core and even when he is DMing he plays a character as well.

Ouch. Can't help you with that. Sorry.

 

[Ahnehnois]

...You don't spend much time on the Paizo forums, do you? Plenty of PF fans think that LFQW is a problem, although it's anyone's guess which group is in the majority.

I don't think it's that tough to guess.

In any case, I'm not just talking about the LFQW issue; every given set of PF options includes an undesirablely wide range of power levels. Classes, archetypes, feats, spells, you name it.

I don't think it's nearly wide enough. What it needs is more support for the NPC classes and other noncombatant and or non/adventuring archetypes, as well as a wider range of crazy stuff for the adventurer types to do. I think it's stuffed into to small a box in the name of balance as it is.

Like the edition or not, 4e has proven that D&D can take on much more of the burden of prep.

Any version of D&D can be run successfully with as little or as much prep as you like. The only thing 4e has shown us is a game that we (particularly the we that like PF and, you know, want to fix its issues) don't want to prep for at all.

Oh, and I like uncertainty too; I just don't like "This could be a boring cakewalk, or a first encounter TPK" level of uncertainty.

Cakewalks are largely avoidable through speed of play. If one encounter proves not to be a challenge, it's time to adjust everything else based on that knowledge, or simply zip through them and move on to the next, tougher thing. Moreover, any remotely intelligent enemies should not fight at all if obviously overmatched.

OTOH, if you're saying that you're not OK with a bunch of beginning adventurers getting killed, I have a hard time reconciling that with the popular notion of "zero to hero". If you want them never to die, why run a set of rules that allows death as an outcome? If you want them to die rarely, why play them at the level where they are weakest and combat is the swingiest? I don't see how this is a problem.

A degree of system mastery is inevitable, and arguably even desirable -- though I'm more accustomed to seeing the 'this game must reward skill' argument in reference to competitive games rather than cooperative ones.

I think wanting games to reward skill is pretty universal.

What I find highly undesirable is telling a new player "Sorry you died in your first encounter Timmy, next time you know better than to play a monk." (Fudging the dice to avoid souring Timmy to the hobby not only contradicts your 'reward skill' philosophy, but I also just don't care for fudging.)

That doesn't seem like a big problem to me. I don't recall that ever happening much, but even if it did, dying is a perfectly good way to start the hobby.

Most people who learn to ride a bike start by falling off. Most people who learn chess start by getting checkmated in five minutes by some superior player. Most people picking up an FPS game die over and over again. Failure is a part of learning in general more than it is part of D&D specifically.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Does this happen to you often?

Once was enough. After that, I started campaigns at 3rd level at the lowest, and advising new players about trap options.

Any version of D&D can be run successfully with as little or as much prep as you like. The only thing 4e has shown us is a game that we (particularly the we that like PF and, you know, want to fix its issues) don't want to prep for at all.

Sure, any DM can run a game on zero prep -- just pull stuff out of your nether regions, and roll those dice! The question is: how fun is the result? In my case, improving is not my strong suit, and my experience says that while some DMs are better at 'winging' it than I am, none do it so well that prep isn't preferable. So naturally, I want the game to help the DM out as much as possible. And that's one of the reasons I like 4e so much: it's proven that it's perfectly feasible for the designers and the game to take responsibility for much more of an encounter/adventure/campaign's quality.

I recently wrote up two NPCs for a PF one shot I plan to run; I ignored half the chargen rules and invented some of my own to keep things short and sweet. (Giving NPCs 'innate' bonuses to shore up their numbers is actually something I recommend to remedy the 'NPCs are pushovers without a kingdom's worth of magical gear' problem.)

Will the results be fun? Well, 4e has taught me a lot about what makes NPCs fun and engaging, but ultimately time will tell.

Cakewalks are largely avoidable through speed of play. If one encounter proves not to be a challenge, it's time to adjust everything else based on that knowledge, or simply zip through them and move on to the next, tougher thing. Moreover, any remotely intelligent enemies should not fight at all if obviously overmatched.

So your solution to the cakewalk is 'Throw tougher stuff at them,' or 'Just have the bad guys surrender'? The first one may work for you, but I've managed to accidentally overwhelm the PCs on several occasions when I did the same. Deciding whether to fudge the dice to save a PC or whether to force a player into another 30-90 minute chargen session because I'm bad at gauging power level is not my idea of a fun decision.

Your second solution just sounds lame.

OTOH, if you're saying that you're not OK with a bunch of beginning adventurers getting killed, I have a hard time reconciling that with the popular notion of "zero to hero". If you want them never to die, why run a set of rules that allows death as an outcome? If you want them to die rarely, why play them at the level where they are weakest and combat is the swingiest? I don't see how this is a problem.

I'm seeing a pattern here: I say that I want parity, and you think I want every 10th level character to be exactly equal. I say I want to avoid random cakewalks and TPKs, and you imply that I want totally predictable adventures. I say that I don't like PCs getting killed in their first encounter, and you jump to "TS must not like the possibility of death, ever!"

So maybe not immediately jumping to the most extreme implications of what others say would be better for civil discussion, dontcha think?

That doesn't seem like a big problem to me. I don't recall that ever happening much, but even if it did, dying is a perfectly good way to start the hobby.

Making tactical mistakes and chargen choices that result in in-game setbacks are good ways to start the game.

Dying in your first encounter is a good way to become soured to the hobby forever, or at the very least be forced into another 30-90 minute chargen session. (I've never met a player who didn't want to make their own PC, despite my offers to provide pregens.)