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

[Ahnehnois]

So, if I'm free forming, ignoring most of the mechanics, and playing the game, I'm still playing D&D?

Yes.

Hypothetically, though. That wasn't even what [MENTION=6697674]pickin_grinnin[/MENTION] said.

 

[Wicht]

4 druids? Yeah, I could see that. 4 clerics? Maybe less chance, but, depending on how they synergized their characters, it's possible. 4 wizards? After about 5th or 6th level maybe, but, I wouldn't expect them to do it before then. 4 fighters or 4 thieves going through any published module that wasn't specifically tailored for that specific group? Not a chance. The only way that doesn't end in a lot of dead PC's is if the DM is fudging things left, right and centre.

4 clerics with different builds could totally do any adventure. In fact if I was building a party of all the same class, Cleric is the first one I would light on as there is so much variance between the possible builds. But 4 wizards, 4 fighters or 4 rogues could likewise be successful in most adventures. The speed of completion will be affected, but I don't know why you think that its unlikely or impossible short of DM fudging. I can imagine it happening pretty easily actually, assuming the players play to their strengths and play intelligently. Absolutely no reason they could not.

 

[amethal]

So, over 700 posts and we still haven't had a definitive answer.

Do the hill giants in room 1 of the Hill Giant Steading automatically get a bonus to their saves against Charm Monster, or does it depend on the circumstances?

I'm going to stick my neck out and go for the latter.

Do wizards make better rogues than rogues do?

I think so, but who cares? If there is a rogue in the party, then let the rogue do the rogue stuff. If there isn't, then no comparison is needed.

How long does it take to hack through a stone wall?

Actually, this one has been answered. About a minute, apparently.

If something is not a traditional form of magic, can it still be magic?

I think it can, but it might not be.

Does regeneration involve regenerating?

Dunno, too difficult.

Does regeneration that involves regenerating have to be magical?

No, because none of the real world examples, as far as I am aware, involve magic.

What is wrong with Pathfinder and how can we fix it?

I think the problem is the disparity between the power levels of potential player characters. Some stuff comes with a "health warning" e.g. the Commoner class is described as an NPC class, and has a very uninspiring name. Other stuff e.g. Vow of Poverty has an uninspiring name but you might think it was a valid option. Other stuff has a great name e.g. "heavy crossbow" so is a trap option.

The way we deal with these problems in our group is we try to ensure all the PCs are roughly similar in ability. The classes that we think are weaker are heavily optimised, or avoided completely. The DM (me) is more lenient to some characters than to others, and more lenient to inexperienced players than to old campaigners. Encounters are re-balanced in mid combat - usually to beef up the bad guys, often in the form changing some of their signature abilities into swift actions.

This is a form of play which is anathema to many players - who view it as cheating. It requires an experienced DM (I've been DMing for 30 years) and a lot of trust within the group. I'd also like to think it requires a good DM, but then I would think that!

My preferred alternative would be to play some sort of E6 / P6 game, but the rest of the group love high level Pathfinder so that is out of the question.

 

[Crothian]

4 clerics with different builds could totally do any adventure. In fact if I was building a party of all the same class, Cleric is the first one I would light on as there is so much variance between the possible builds. But 4 wizards, 4 fighters or 4 rogues could likewise be successful in most adventures. The speed of completion will be affected, but I don't know why you think that its unlikely or impossible short of DM fudging. I can imagine it happening pretty easily actually, assuming the players play to their strengths and play intelligently. Absolutely no reason they could not.

The all rogue parties are the ones I like best. I've done this in 2e D&D and Pathfinder. We find that it really becomes more of a skill oriented game and with the wide variety of skills rogues can have it can easily set the PCs apart. They had some issues with certain encounters but that was to be expected. Other times though with their ability to use stealth and take advantage of sneak attack situations they were able to handle what I thought would be tough fights with ease. They did not just make it through published modules but they made it through a full Adventure Path.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I generally take it for granted that the natural laws and micro-details of a fantasy world aren't the same as for the real world (eg air, fire, water and earth are all elements). Particularly so for biology, given that - whatever the truth for the real world - I take it as given that lifeforms were created rather than evolved.

Same here. Even disregarding D&D's alchemy theme and obviously 'artificial' chimeric creatures, I don't see how to explain things like hit points without the assumption that D&D physics/biology just work differently than they do IRL. Whatever one's favorite explanation for hit points happens to be, nobody in the real world is that lucky and/or tough.

 

[Hussar]

The all rogue parties are the ones I like best. I've done this in 2e D&D and Pathfinder. We find that it really becomes more of a skill oriented game and with the wide variety of skills rogues can have it can easily set the PCs apart. They had some issues with certain encounters but that was to be expected. Other times though with their ability to use stealth and take advantage of sneak attack situations they were able to handle what I thought would be tough fights with ease. They did not just make it through published modules but they made it through a full Adventure Path.

Sorry, but, I'm not buying it. Not without a heck of a lot of fudging going on. Which Adventure path if I might ask?

 

[Wicht]

Sorry, but, I'm not buying it.

Why not? As a Pathfinder DM it seems entirely plausible to me. The rogue's biggest annoyance is always other team mates messing up their stealth checks. Lots of scouting and relying on skills, along with the ability to bypass magical traps - so why not?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sorry, but, I'm not buying it. Not without a heck of a lot of fudging going on.

Seems to me that trying to run an all-wizard party might require a lot of fudging to not just kill them immediately.

 

[Hussar]

Why not? As a Pathfinder DM it seems entirely plausible to me. The rogue's biggest annoyance is always other team mates messing up their stealth checks. Lots of scouting and relying on skills, along with the ability to bypass magical traps - so why not?

Because they have zero ability to heal for one, and the first failed skill check, which there will be one, will result in the party getting ganked. Never minding things like incorporeal undead, plants, elementals or any host of other creatures that rogues just can't really deal with all that well.

Seems to me that trying to run an all-wizard party might require a lot of fudging to not just kill them immediately.

All wizard party, yeah, that would need to be fairly high level. I did say that I couldn't see it before about 6th level at the absolute lowest. Double digit levels? I can see that.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Let's go back to the original point shall we?

I'd rephrase the above in this way:

Lots of players and DM's play Pathfinder and D&D with in a very freeform manner which results in a very enjoyable game for that table, capable of creating a great experience, but extremely difficult to replicate at any other table since the thing that makes this great is the synergy between those specific players and that specific DM. Change the variables, either on the player side or the DM side, and the results are very different.

Which makes it a difficult thing to talk about across groups because the things that [MENTION=6697674]pickin_grinnin[/MENTION] does that work at his table, or the things that [MENTION=232]Crothian[/MENTION] did at his table, may or may not work at another table, but, since actually identifying those elements would be virtually impossible due to the idiosyncrasies of the individual tables, it's not terribly useful to the conversation.

It should never, ever be a problem to play a game by the rules. If playing the game by the rules gives bad results, then those rules should be changed. I should't have to ignore the rules in order to play the game. At least, that's how I feel about having rules in the game. They are there to be used. Telling me to ignore the rules, without actually being able to tell me which rules to ignore and when, doesn't help me. How can it?