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

[GMforPowergamers]

That seems a tad defensive and transference.

Let me explain

I have friends who I used to love gaming with that now only plat PF so I would love to play wwith them them so when I saw this thread it was a light of hope that has become a nightmare

 

[Jacob Marley]

Let me explain

I have friends who I used to love gaming with that now only plat PF so I would love to play wwith them them so when I saw this thread it was a light of hope that has become a nightmare

Okay, so what's the problem?

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Every power they use is magical... just not in the traditional sense.

Such as?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't know the suite of 3E or PF feats very well, but I would have thought feats that boost save DCs are at least passable choices for a decent wizard build.

I'm pretty ignorant of PF feats, but they were an alright choice in 3.5. The thing is, I'm pointing out that you've put significant resources into this build (40% of your feats) and you're still at about 50/50. And that it only gets you a minor effect compared to what you think (a charmed monster, rather than a dominated one).

Where in the Charm rules does it say the target has to be non-hostile? Is that part of PF? In 3E, all that matters it that you not threaten it.

Don't skip around between PF and 3.X, please. That'll make certain bits about Charm confusing (like, say, what Friendly means). Both have an SRD we can check.

Also, it doesn't say it has to be non-hostile. But I'm betting that if it is, it finds you a threat on some level. Maybe not (I could see that in certain situations), but I think even beginning to cast a spell might put it on edge (or make it feel threatened).

A hill giant has a speed of 50'. The range of Charm Monster for a 7th level caster is 60'. So it doesn't seem to be that hard to engineer to be within casting range, but outside melee range, of the giant, run the risk of a thrown rock (definitely the giant's less impressive attack) and then cast your spell.

Again, I could see you even casting a spell making it feel threatened (who the hell is this tiny magic man, and what is he doing? He's not just a peasant). And sixty feet isn't that far to the hill giant. That's one move action and then a standard to attack (10' reach). Or a charge (or one partial charge, in a surprise round). Or a rock, as you've said.

But again, if you cast, and he hears you, I could easily see a hill giant getting defensive (and feeling threatened) before the spell is cast.

I don't see how a Chaotic Evil giant even has allies - its leader, for instance, "lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him". And a 6 INT, 10 WIS, 7 CHA creature looks pretty manipulable to me.

They explicitly band together. Some set off alone, but that takes me back to the niche situation you've found yourself in. If we change this "random" CR 7 encounter to, say, a ghost or a flesh golem, how good is your Charm Monster spell going to be? How helpful are those two feats?

Like I said, you've crafted a fairly niche situation (non-hostile hill giant against an enchanter specialist that are met alone so that their buddies don't attack, and you win an opposed Charisma check as a Wizard [no retries] to allow you to do something that I think is against the rules [fight its allies for you]). If we change it around to other niche situations (like fighting that flesh golem or that skeletal cloud giant), then your character looks way worse off.

You can argue balance problems, but your point was that preparing save or die spells wasn't particularly risky. I'm pointing out that even inside of your niche situation, it's still pretty risky, and it's not nearly as powerful as you make it out to be (I even quoted Charm rules for you... it may not even see your allies as okay). And, of course, outside of your niche situation, the save or die spell, the feats, etc. are a waste for that encounter.

So, I'll say it again (even though I just did), you can argue balance problems, but it's probably best not to argue that save or dies aren't risky and then throw out a niche situation (that seems to favor this Wizard very well). It's just not accurate.

 

[Crothian]

Let me explain

I have friends who I used to love gaming with that now only plat PF so I would love to play wwith them them so when I saw this thread it was a light of hope that has become a nightmare

They must not be very good friends if you would let something as trivial as a game come between you.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Okay, so what's the problem?

The problem is, a topic called "Post your problems and we will fix them" is full of nothing but "Shut up and go play something else if you think Pathfinder has a problem."

 

[Ahnehnois]

The problem is, a topic called "Post your problems and we will fix them" is full of nothing but "Shut up and go play something else if you think Pathfinder has a problem."

It's also full of things that are not actual problems with Pathfinder, some of which carry more that a little edition warr-y glint, which has subverted what the OP was asking.

 

[Dungeonman]

I have friends who I used to love gaming with that now only plat PF so I would love to play wwith them them so when I saw this thread it was a light of hope that has become a nightmare

So maybe change the conversation. Maybe someone wants to play a Rogue in Pathfinder with their friends, but they don't feel that rp'ing a rogue has the fun and flexibility of rp'ing a wizard. If scroll and magic use isn't a satisfying solution AND it's acknowledged the group isn't going to nerf the Wizard, then maybe the DM can work with the player to create a sort of shadow-powered Thief, for example. This character has shadow blood that manifests for example at higher levels as turning into semi-shadow and slipping through crevices almost as if they had a Passwall scroll, but balanced off by something -- like maybe magic items interfere with the shadow ability, so you can either have magic items or your shadow powers but not both at the same time -- I don't know, something like that? Whatever it is, the idea is play with the rules to accomplish the character you like while respecting the fact that Pathfinder (like any system) has its own conceits, but there is some room for houseruling for flexibility I think. If that's not sufficient, then I think one has to be realistic that Pathfinder just isn't for everyone. It is what it is.

 

[Steely Dan]

The problem is, a topic called "Post your problems and we will fix them" is full of nothing but "Shut up and go play something else if you think Pathfinder has a problem."

Your moniker is ironic.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They must not be very good friends if you would let something as trivial as a game come between you.

The problem is, a topic called "Post your problems and we will fix them" is full of nothing but "Shut up and go play something else if you think Pathfinder has a problem."

Here is my original list of reasons for not playing

I am yet to hear an answer to may of the "problems" brought up here...

1) unbalanced progression. This is a big catch all of problems, weather you believe in lfqw or not, there is something here you must admit. It is possible to have 2 groups of PCs that are the same level going into the same dungeon, and be vastly different power levels. If group 1 is a power gamed wizard a pretty powered druid, a decent made gunslinger, and a multi classed power gamed twink, and group 2 is a fighter a rogue, a ranger and a paliden you could watch group 1 take less damage in the entire dungeon then group 2 takes in the first fight.... not so bad in different tables, but very bad when mixed.

1a) I still want to hear an argument for why wizards and clerics, a commonly held high powered set of classes needed to be given MORE class features, I'm pretty sure you could have cut there power and still left them 2 of the best classes in the game, but they chose to up them instead...

2) Legacy issues. Now you can argue that he unbalanced progression is a legacy issue in and of it self, but this goes a bit deeper then that, and it really needed it's own bullet point. Trying to keep pathfinder backwards compatible enough, left it full of issues that people had there own house rules for, that now need readdressing. It is the most surprising flaw I found back in 2010... It is so close to being 3e that it has a lot of the flaws, but different enough that my fixes needed to be reworked...

3) Abstract meta features. Love it or Hate it, pathfinder classes are just as full of gamest parts as 4e was. I laugh when people tell me that the 4e fighter come and get it is worse then an alchemist that can only use potions on himself, or a gunslinger that would fit right next to any class in 4e. One of the strong points of 3e (or so I was told) was how simiulationist it was, but it seams half of the new classes they made where gamest... witch confuses the whole system.

4) Splat book compatibility (AKA the money grab) remember how in bullet 2 I said they had changed enough to remove house rules, they also made changes to everyclass... and most feats. So any class race or feat from a non open source from wotc needs to be reworked to fit pathfinder... now to some that means it is just a new edition, but since it was sold atleast at first as a continuation, it annoys me that I have a few $100 worth of books that dont' work out of the box... Example: Warlock is one of my favorite classes but I have never met a PF GM that will let me play one. Bo9S was my favorite book from 3.5, followed closely by the second complete arcane, but both need to be tossed out in PF...