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

[Tequila Sunrise]

I would have hoped though, that given the title and topic, this thread ought to be for people who use PF and accept it as a workable game and want to talk about making it a better version of what it is (i.e. the ones from my solar system).

As has been pointed out, people from your planet trying to help people from ours tends to result in frustration; but I do think that helping people enjoy PF would be cool, so I'll take a stab at it. I'm a house rules guy, so my solutions are along those lines:

As I mentioned a post or two ago, I like 'innate' bonuses, for both NPCs and PCs. They neatly solve the Xmas tree effect, make NPCs more than pushovers without loading them up with a kingdom's worth of magical gear, and allow DMs to ignore WBL without turning combat into Russian roulette. I've seen variants of what I'm about to suggest that completely replace the Big Six with 'base defense bonuses' and suchlike (such as the 3.0 Unearthed Arcana), but 3.x players seem to love the possibility of say, having a sky-high AC via AC-booster items if they really want to, so the following rules work with all existing items rather than replacing them:

Attack‭ ‬&‭ ‬Damage Enhancement‭:‬‭ ‬At 1st level‭, ‬you gain a‭ +‬1‭ ‬enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls you make with manufactured and natural weapons‭. ‬Every‭ ‬four levels thereafter‭ (‬5th‭, ‬9th‭, ‬13th‭, ‬17th‭), ‬this bonus improves by 1‭.‬
Armor‭ ‬&‭ ‬Shield Enhancement‭:‬‭ ‬At 2nd level‭, ‬any armor and shields you wear gain a‭ +‬1‭ ‬enhancement bonus to AC‭. ‬Every four levels thereafter‭ (‬6th‭, ‬10th‭, ‬14th‭, ‬18th‭), ‬this bonus improves by 1‭.‬
Resistance‭:‬‭ ‬At 3rd level‭, ‬you gain a‭ +‬1‭ ‬resistance bonus to saving throws‭. ‬Every four levels thereafter‭ (‬7th‭, ‬11th‭, ‬15th‭, ‬19th‭), ‬this bonus‭ ‬improves by 1‭.‬
Deflection‭:‬‭ ‬At 3rd level‭, ‬you gain a‭ +‬1‭ ‬deflection bonus to AC‭. ‬Every four levels thereafter‭ (‬7th‭, ‬11th‭, ‬15th‭, ‬19th‭), ‬this bonus improves by 1‭.‬
Natural Armor‭:‬‭ ‬At 4th level‭, ‬you gain a‭ +‬1‭ ‬enhancement bonus to your natural armor bonus‭. ‬This bonus stacks with any natural armor bonus you may have‭, ‬but not with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor‭. ‬Every four levels thereafter‭ (‬8th‭, ‬12th‭, ‬16th‭, ‬20th‭), ‬this bonus improves by 1‭.‬
Ability Enhancement‭:‬‭ ‬At 4th level‭, ‬you gain a‭ +‬2‭ ‬enhancement bonus to an ability score of your choice‭. ‬Every four levels thereafter‭ (‬8th‭, ‬12th‭, ‬16th‭, ‬20th‭), ‬choose an ability that you haven't chosen before‭. ‬The new ability gains a‭ +‬2‭ ‬enhancement bonus‭, ‬and the enhancement bonus of each previously chosen ability improves by 2‭.‬

 

[Ahnehnois]

As I mentioned a post or two ago, I like 'innate' bonuses, for both NPCs and PCs. They neatly solve the Xmas tree effect, make NPCs more than pushovers without loading them up with a kingdom's worth of magical gear, and allow DMs to ignore WBL without turning combat into Russian roulette.‬

I think the basic math ought to be changed so that you don't have to buy your AC and saves, but this approach seems more like a patch to me, one with some odd implications.

For one thing, by giving these out as bonuses within the existing structure, it essentially means that existing magic items are worth less the better the character is. That is to say, a level 1 character picks up a +1 sword and it enhances him, but a level 10 character picks it up and gains no benefit. If anything, I'd be going for the opposite vibe, the LotR sense to where your magic items grow more powerful with the user. As it is, these bonuses basically leave the conventional magic items as they are, but make them worthless. I'd rather see them changed, particularly in terms of granularity (that is to say, why does every +1 to attack come with a +1 to damage? why does every +1 to saves improve all saves? let's break those up).

And then there's the in-world rationale. Where are these enhancement bonuses coming from?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think the basic math ought to be changed so that you don't have to buy your AC and saves, but this approach seems more like a patch to me, one with some odd implications.

For one thing, by giving these out as bonuses within the existing structure, it essentially means that existing magic items are worth less the better the character is. That is to say, a level 1 character picks up a +1 sword and it enhances him, but a level 10 character picks it up and gains no benefit. If anything, I'd be going for the opposite vibe, the LotR sense to where your magic items grow more powerful with the user. As it is, these bonuses basically leave the conventional magic items as they are, but make them worthless. I'd rather see them changed, particularly in terms of granularity (that is to say, why does every +1 to attack come with a +1 to damage? why does every +1 to saves improve all saves? let's break those up).

And then there's the in-world rationale. Where are these enhancement bonuses coming from?

I would do away with +x as an item in and of itself, and replace with the idea of named items...

ex:

The Light bringer is a magic sword that sheds light like a torch and deals your choice of +1d4 radiant damage or +1d6 fire damage on a hit. It can 3x per day heal a touch ally 1d6hp, if you have the paliden's aura of courage then anyone in the light of the torch benefits instead of it's normal range and once per day the paliden can use one of those d6 healing;s to heal all alies in light 1d6 instead of a touched ally.

The Lava Axe is a magic axe that deals +1d6 fire damage on a hit and can cut through any non magical wall or barrier. when you crit with this weapon you deal extra d6's of fire equal to the crit multiplier.

Then I would have all 'magic weapons' have a + to hit equal to 1/4 the users base attack...

so Light bringer in the hands of a 1st level paliden is +0 to hit, in the hands of a 14th level paliden is +3 to hit in the hands of a 20th level mage it is a +2 to hit... magic is a force multiplier you need to be able to use it best...

I would have magic armor work similar but instead of upping your AC I would grant DR, equal to half your Base attack maybe...

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think the basic math ought to be changed so that you don't have to buy your AC and saves, but this approach seems more like a patch to me, one with some odd implications.

Yeah, I'm not going to claim that this is more than a rough patch -- my ideal solution would be to rewrite the character progression math, include defense bonuses, and eliminate +X items.

Let's say that BAB goes from Level x 0.5/0.75/0.1 to Level x 0.75/1.0/1.25;
Saves go from Level x 0.33/0.5 to Level x 0.75/1.0;
Ability boosts go from +1 to one every four levels to +2 to two every four levels;
And we'll throw in a defense bonus of Level x 0.5/0.75/1.0, with an additional Level x 0.25 if you use a shield.

It's a rough sketch, but you get the idea.

I'd rather see them changed, particularly in terms of granularity (that is to say, why does every +1 to attack come with a +1 to damage? why does every +1 to saves improve all saves? let's break those up).

Erm...I don't think people from my planet want to turn the Big Six into the Big Sixteen, but to each their own.

And then there's the in-world rationale. Where are these enhancement bonuses coming from?

All but the nat armor bonus can be fluffed as skill. The nat armor can be packaged along with your favorite hit point explanation -- characters already gain supernatural luck/toughness as they gain levels, so innate nat AC fits right in.

...If you're inclined to use this patch rather than another fix, of course.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Erm...I don't think people from my planet want to turn the Big Six into the Big Sixteen, but to each their own.

To me, that's where a lot of balance comes from. Opportunity cost. There's no way to boost everything, so you have to choose. As it is, characters expect an ability item in every ability score they use, and the best AC, saves, and (if applicable) weapon that money can buy. It's very straightforward. Too much so.

All but the nat armor bonus can be fluffed as skill.

We already have numbers for skill, though; suggesting that these bonuses are the same is redundant (and making them the same type as magic items suggests that magic items boost skill in the same way, otherwise they would stack).

I would do away with +x as an item in and of itself, and replace with the idea of named items...

An interesting approach. It's a big shift from the convention, where enchanted items are a way of life and widespread and fairly banal use is often implied. Also potentially a worrisome amount of work. But certainly a road that I wish someone would make a good effort to travel down and see what happens.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

To me, that's where a lot of balance comes from. Opportunity cost. There's no way to boost everything, so you have to choose. As it is, characters expect an ability item in every ability score they use, and the best AC, saves, and (if applicable) weapon that money can buy. It's very straightforward. Too much so.

Different planets again. From my planet, it's clear that the game expects PCs to have -- if not the Big Six -- than the bonuses that come from those items. So scattering those bonuses among even more items just screws with combat dynamics in a horrible way.

We already have numbers for skill, though; suggesting that these bonuses are the same is redundant (and making them the same type as magic items suggests that magic items boost skill in the same way, otherwise they would stack).

I remember a story in which Drizzt is given a pair of gloves of dexterity; he quickly gives them away to what's-her-name because the speed they grant him interferes does more harm than good -- he's so skilled and finessed that the gloves actually trip him up.

Point is, yeah, innate bonuses are gamey, but so is D&D. (Including PF.) If it makes the game work, gamers will come up with all sorts of in-game justifications to explain it. If you don't want to use them, don't; I suggested another alternative already.

(That last sentence is the only really relevant one to your own situation.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

Different planets again. From my planet, it's clear that the game expects PCs to have -- if not the Big Six -- than the bonuses that come from those items.

You're right.

So scattering those bonuses among even more items just screws with combat dynamics in a horrible way.

To me, scattering them and reducing their magnitude is the thing to do after you've ensured that they are not assumed or necessary. If, instead of needing a +2 enhancement bonus on his sword just to be useful, a 10th level fighter has a choice between +2 attack or +3 damage or something else, then it becomes interesting.

The point of magic items should be as limit-breakers. They should be messing with the status quo, not forming it in the first place.

If you don't want to use them, don't; I suggested another alternative already.

Yes, I think it's better to fix the AC and save math so that a character can fend for himeself by changing or adding bonuses through the existing concept of character advancement.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

As far as +x magic items go, one idea I had for D&DNext was making the +x not effect the attack/damage values at all and only go up to +3(by default). The +x would instead be the magic item's "rank" for lack of a better term atm. Each rank the magic item was at would give it more and better abilities.

My standard example was the Flaming Weapon. For this weapon, the ranks could be something like as follows.

Flaming Weapon +1
------------------
As a move action, the wielder can cause the weapon to light ablaze, causing the weapon to shed light as a torch, and can be extinguished as a free action by the wielder, or by any means that would put out a mundane torch. Once extinguished, the weapon loses all it's magical properties until re-lit as a move action. When the weapon is lit, attacks made by the weapon deal fire damage in addition to whatever type the weapon normally deals(fire and slashing, fire and piercing, etc).

Flaming Weapon +2
------------------
Has the same properties as the +1. In addition, when a target is hit with an attack made by this weapon, the wielder can light the target on fire. While on fire, the target takes 5 damage at the start of each of it's turns until it puts itself out by making a Reflex save as a move action. The target can also put itself out by submerging itself in water or dirt, or by any other method that can put out a fire.

Flaming Weapon +3
------------------
Has the same properties as the +2, except the weapon can no longer be doused by non-magical means unless the wielder allows it to be. In addition, the target can make an attack at up to 50' against a single creature. This attack uses the attack and damage bonuses as if it was a melee basic attack, and can trigger any effect that a melee attack would normally trigger(however, effects requiring specific positioning or other requirements must still be met). Damage from an attack made in this way is only fire damage, regardless of the weapon being used.

Where increasing +x's would simply make the above properties stronger, with maybe the +6 letting the wielder cast some fire spell(I used Burning Hands as if prepared in a 6th level slot as an example for Next) once or twice a day.

 

[oxybe]

I think we have a fundamental difference in how we're conceiving of games and campaigns.

Combat and physical challenges are only a portion of any game I run, no matter who is playing or how their characters are designed. Just as much of it is pure roleplaying, figuring out mysteries, working through social issues with NPCs, strategizing, and other things that require more thinking than muscle or magic. When a player shows some genuine effort to roleplay his/her character (of any class or power level), I'm going to spend some time encouraging and rewarding that behavior. I don't take the stance that combat and getting treasure is the central thing, and everything else just leads up to that. It's all important, and not every course of action necessarily ends in fighting or wealth.

I go into a game (and even a long campaign) with a general outline of people, places, events, monsters, etc., but it's only a loose sketch. I ad-lib and improvise a lot as we go along. I don't design linear adventures that must be followed step-by-step to finish. The characters start in a particular time and place with all sorts of things happening around them (near and far), and pursue whatever catches their interest. It's a bit like a sandbox environment, but most players choose to go where the action is, and I make sure they know where opportunities for adventures exist. If they hear about a war in one kingdom and a monster in the hills killing strangers and trouble with pirates down to the south, they will generally go to check one of those things out. Whichever route they take, I have things prepared. If they decide one thing isn't worth it and switch their focus to another, so be it. I keep enough stuff prepared to give them the ability to find some sort of adventure anywhere they look.

Any adventuring party in my campaigns will come up against things that are real challenges for them. Those challenges may differ according to the levels of the characters, the mix of classes being used, etc. No matter how powerful the characters are, they are going to face challenges that they may not defeat, because overcoming challenges is part of the fun of playing.

It's not that I have to alter my game to give everybody a chance to shine. Every game and campaign I run is automatically going to be designed that way, because that's a fundamental part of the way I run them.

who said anything about combat and phat loot only though?

it's a pretty well-known fact that casters simply have far more versatility available to them in how they can approach most any situation. a non-caster is forced to approach a situation as you or i would. a caster can approach it with the knowledge that he can shapeshift, fly, turn invisible, teleport, summon entities of various origins, reshape objects, etc... this is the power that people talk about when they say casters are overpowered.

yeah a wizard can effectively end a fight in a round or two, that's because of bad monster design and how various spells/saves interactions work, but if anyone is thinking that when we talk about casters being borked we're talking only in the murderface way, you're very mistaken: casters have options.

lots of options.

remember that PF doesn't have the stupid skill point halving that 3rd ed does, so a wizard's high int can easily let him get many skills that aren't just fly, spellcraft & knowledge (magical stuff) and those skills will only be 3ish points behind anyone else who does have it on their list should they put equal focus on it.

so yes, the rogue can take open locks and pry it open in a round. so can the wizard if he's the kind that spent his youth breaking into Old Man Johnson's shed so he can steal some bathtub hootch over wasting his school days poring over some books about the outer planes. or, you know... works as a locksmith in his day-to-day life since magic missile-ing is a rather niche profession.

but lockpicking aside, the wizard sees a locked door and he simply has more tools to work with then the rogue when it comes to bypassing this obstacle.

that is what people keep talking about.

anyone can be creative, but give a creative person the choice of two skillsets, one that has more options then the other, and the creative person will probably pick the one with more options as it gives him more vaulting points for his creativity to work off of.

either way, i'm bowing out of this thread. it's obvious no one is going to attempt to address my issues so i'm outta here.

best of luck to all of you and happy gaming.

 

[Wicht]

but lockpicking aside, the wizard sees a locked door and he simply has more tools to work with then the rogue when it comes to bypassing this obstacle.

He potentially has more tools to work with. There's a lot of variability in what happens in game. If the wizard knew ahead of time he needed to prepare for a locked door, he probably is as capable as the rogue... once,... maybe twice,... but its not a given...

Its not even a given he knows the right spell.

anyone can be creative, but give a creative person the choice of two skillsets, one that has more options then the other, and the creative person will probably pick the one with more options as it gives him more vaulting points for his creativity to work off of.

And I just gotta disagree with you here in your assumption. I'm a creative person I think.

Pretty sure.

I would rather play a rogue.