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

[Alzrius]

Then again, if we're talking a combat rogue with solid damage, how long will it take to just smash through the wall? Depends on the wall of course.

Two words: adamantine weapon.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Two words: adamantine weapon.

Exactly. Then it's just a damage vs hp question. Stone has 15 hp per inch of thickness, so if we're talking about a stone wall that is a foot or more thick, it could take a few minutes (though for a really martial character with strength, PF's nerfed PA, and a really nice weapon, dealing over 100 damage in a round is quite feasible, and any wall that isn't adamantine itself will fall inside of a minute).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The more I read this thread the more I remember that my answer to the original question is: "everything". Adamantine weapons that act as lightsabers, constant debates about wizard vs everyone else power levels, having to remember that obscure rule about saving slots and preparing it later and exactly how long it takes and how it works, a boatload of magic items and having to assume that all of the PCs have a boatload of them...or assuming that and finding players who DON'T have a boatload of them and finding they are unable to pass the challenges you've designed.

But most of all, my issue tends to be with the rock, paper, scissors design of magic in the game. Magic and magic items are EXTREMELY powerful. To the point that anyone without magic or magic items doesn't stand a chance against someone with them. A level 1 character with a bunch of powerful magic items can easily win against someone 4 or 5 levels above him with no magic. So, the entire campaign world has to revolve around this concept. Players have flight: All castles must have closed off roofs/magic barriers protecting their top/magical dispelling fields to dispel flight/a squad of men with flight to intercept anyone flying. This has to apply whether the town has 50 people and is in the middle of the wilderness of a million people and the capital city. Failure to do so causes PCs to weak havoc over a campaign. The same thing applies to scrying magic, magic for opening doors, invisibility, teleportation, charming, illusions, and any number of other magical abilities.

Each form of magic requires that the enemies be wielding the counter to the magic. Which means everyone the PCs encounter have to be as steeped in magic items as they are. Which means that when they are defeated, the PCs get all their magic items and become ever more powerful.

It's that the entire system creates a situation where the ONLY campaign you can run is one that is super magical.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's that the entire system creates a situation where the ONLY campaign you can run is one that is super magical.

That is true. I don't know that there are any versions of D&D or its offshoots that this is not true of, but certainly there's a case to take the game into a more grounded direction and reduce the rock-paper-scissors dynamic you're talking about.

 

[Wicht]

That is true. I don't know that there are any versions of D&D or its offshoots that this is not true of, but certainly there's a case to take the game into a more grounded direction and reduce the rock-paper-scissors dynamic you're talking about.

Eh, I think there are some fixes for it, if what you want is a grittier game.

First, increase the cost of item creation and require, not generic ingredients, but very specific ingredients for all items to be made.

Secondly, reduce the amount of magical treasure available in the world. If you don't give it, then they don't have it.

Third, make magic harder to cast. There are a number of ways to do this. Skill checks for each spell seems the easiest solution to me. Perhaps where the difficulty is equal to 10 + 2 x Spell Level.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

This is different from the wizard using his spells to play pretend rogue?

The difference is Wizard playing pretend-Rogue is better and more versatile than the actual Rogue.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The more I read this thread the more I remember that my answer to the original question is: "everything".

I know what you mean; sometimes I'll start fixing some aspect of the game -- like spells, for example -- then one thing leads to another, and I again realize that I'd have to rewrite the game to notably improve it.

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.

Ah, gotcha. I thought you were one of those "RAWR! PCs don't need anything, WBL is stooopid!" people.

Third, make magic harder to cast. There are a number of ways to do this. Skill checks for each spell seems the easiest solution to me. Perhaps where the difficulty is equal to 10 + 2 x Spell Level.

I...wouldn't recommend that, considering how poorly it worked out for the truenamer.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ah, gotcha. I thought you were one of those "RAWR! PCs don't need anything, WBL is stooopid!" people.

Seems to me that killing things and taking their stuff is embedded into the game. I take it as given that the stuff is mechanically useful.

I could definitely see the scope of that utility being changed though. After all if someone in one of these threads wants to talk about how a good save is so different from a bad one, so too is a +5 sword awfully different from a masterwork one. I think splitting out the bonuses and reducing their overall value would be nice, while keeping them in principle.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The difference is Wizard playing pretend-Rogue is better and more versatile than the actual Rogue.

Generally not true; the closest thing to an exceptio would be Knock, but that's a small niche. An invisible wizard is not as generally as stealthy as a hidden rogue for instance, nor is charming someone as beneficial as actually winning them over with a Bluff or Diplo.

Conversely, a rogue playing wizard can also sometimes be better than the wizard. A wand of Ray of Frost (or any ray spell of choice) makes for some pretty devastating sneak attacks; wizards can't do that kind of damage with those spells. A rogue can shoot a fireball with himself in the center and ignore the damage by evading it. A rogue is much better at negotiating with creatures recruited through calling spells. An invisible rogue is much sneakier than an invisible wizard. The list goes on.

The rogue also can use healing wands at the same time; healing is not impossible but is rather a challenge for the arcane casters.

 

[The Black Ranger]

Generally not true; the closest thing to an exceptio would be Knock, but that's a small niche. An invisible wizard is not as generally as stealthy as a hidden rogue for instance, nor is charming someone as beneficial as actually winning them over with a Bluff or Diplo.

Conversely, a rogue playing wizard can also sometimes be better than the wizard. A wand of Ray of Frost (or any ray spell of choice) makes for some pretty devastating sneak attacks; wizards can't do that kind of damage with those spells. A rogue can shoot a fireball with himself in the center and ignore the damage by evading it. A rogue is much better at negotiating with creatures recruited through calling spells. An invisible rogue is much sneakier than an invisible wizard. The list goes on.

The rogue also can use healing wands at the same time; healing is not impossible but is rather a challenge for the arcane casters.

Knock also doesn't disable traps.