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

[pemerton]

Sorry, your arguement is flawed.

He's just arguing a losing battle.

This is actually getting to be hilarious. Some people just will not admit when they are wrong.

I'd be interested in your comments on the PF barbarian ability Regenerative Vigour, which allows Fast Healing as an EX ability.

 

[Wicht]

It is possible, I think, for me to be right that the ability is not magical in Pathfinder (and I made no claims about 4e) and that Foreverslayer thinks that it should be.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

Which of these three groups would have the easiest time in the module?

The ones with the most resourceful and creative players.

I see your point if you are running a very mechanistic games. With the right group of players, though, you could successfully make it through the module with a party composed entirely of one class.

 

[Hussar]

The ones with the most resourceful and creative players.

I see your point if you are running a very mechanistic games. With the right group of players, though, you could successfully make it through the module with a party composed entirely of one class.

Only if the DM is willing to fudge an awful lot of die rolls.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

Only if the DM is willing to fudge an awful lot of die rolls.

Nope. If you have a group of smart, resourceful players who don't rely on simple skill rolls to get by, and a DM who doesn't play in a purely mechanistic fashion, you could have a group composed on nothing but thieves, or nothing but clerics, or whatever successfully go through just about any adventure.

The problem is that a lot of players and DMs play Pathfinder and D&D like a wargame with some roleplaying mixed in, which results in ever significant action requiring a dice roll. If you play it as a roleplaying game with some mechanics for figuring out the things that can't be handled through roleplaying alone, you get a whole different game with a lot more variety.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Emphasis mine, No just no, tracking rounds for inspire courage truly ruinned it for me. Before you could be confident you had at least one combat worth of inspire courage. Now you just run the risk of getting out of them in the middle of combat, and tracking them round by round is exccessively fiddly leaving no time to act like a fool or think of witty taunts to say to the enemy. Add that to the nerfing of persuassion and is no wonder I believe PF bard to be the worst bard across the editions. (And no the free heal at first level makes nothing to alleviate it)

QFT! After playing 4e, I can't be bothered with rounds/day, or even hours/day.

Maybe as a PF fix, divide rounds/day of whatever by 5 (round up); the result is the number of encounters/day that the ability can be used. As in 4e, 'encounter' = 5 minutes.

Is anyone able to tell me who it is who is wrong?

I'd love to, but I don't even know what folks around here are debating anymore. I remember it began with something like "I'd like PF be like B/X and 4e, in that muggles don't have to play pretend casters to be competent/effective/fun/awesome," and somehow that turned into a semantic argument over synonyms for 'magical' and 4e.

Which completely misses the point, IMO. Call exploits 'martial magic,' 'extraordinary abilities,' or whatever sounds nice -- the important bit is that fighters and rogues are competent/effective/fun/awesome just by doing fighter and rogue stuff. They don't have to take UMD or buy caster toys to have nice things; because they already have nice things.

I also find it amusing that even if we were able to somehow 'prove' that 4e fighters and rogues are wizards in disguise, the B/X point still stands -- that muggles can be competent/effective/fun/awesome without imitating casters. Well, presumably the point stands; I've never played B/X, so I can only assume by the general silence on the issue that the original claim is in fact true.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which completely misses the point, IMO. Call exploits 'martial magic,' 'extraordinary abilities,' or whatever sounds nice -- the important bit is that fighters and rogues are competent/effective/fun/awesome just by doing fighter and rogue stuff.

That's not the important bit. The important bit is that they don't need those things as they are already just as competent/effective/fun/awesome without them, if not more so.

They don't have to take UMD or buy caster toys to have nice things; because they already have nice things.

Spells (or powers, or maneuvers, or whatever you want to call them) are a punishment, not a reward. The nice thing is being able to say what you're going to do, roll a d20, and do it without having to have picked that thing during character creation, and without having to manage some kind of resource.

Even within the caster world, the best spellcasting characters are the ones who have significant abilities that don't work like spells (druid and witch at the top of that list). That way, they can use the spells as an occasional boost. Any character that is reliant on spells (powers/etc.) to do what he wants is already a step behind everyone else.

The same is true with the whole magic item thing of course. The point is to show that the rogue can easily steal the occasional bit of spotlight due to some spell overwhelming the situation, not to show that this is a major part of the character's power. By and large, rogues don't need to do that stuff.

 

[MoonSong]

QFT! After playing 4e, I can't be bothered with rounds/day, or even hours/day.

Weeeellll, everything is relative, 4e has a lot of round to round fiddliness of its own, so I wouldn't venture conclusions in here.

Maybe as a PF fix, divide rounds/day of whatever by 5 (round up); the result is the number of encounters/day that the ability can be used. As in 4e, 'encounter' = 5 minutes.

I have a better fix, convince the DM to let me use the 3.5 version and related support instead, (just with HD and Spellcasting as in PF)

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Spells (or powers, or maneuvers, or whatever you want to call them) are a punishment, not a reward.

lol, I stopped reading after this point.

Yeah, there are players who just like to tell the DM what they want to do and then chuck a d20, or hash out the details OD&D style. But those gamers don't define the hobby, or even PF. I took a poll just last year, which included the question "Do you generally prefer complex characters with options or simple characters?" and the overwhelming response I got was the former. And this was on the Paizo forum.

Even taking into account that the Paizo forum community is just a sample of the PF fanbase, and the possibility of a high variance, the idea that limited abilities are a punishment is literally laughable.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Weeeellll, everything is relative, 4e has a lot of round to round fiddliness of its own, so I wouldn't venture conclusions in here.

You mean the "+X until the start/end of your next turn" stuff? Yeah, that can get annoying.

I have a better fix, convince the DM to let me use the 3.5 version and related support instead, (just with HD and Spellcasting as in PF)

Fair enough.