Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[Ahnehnois]

Yet any given spell is usable only once a day, and spells are generally considered valuable.

Maybe spells are, but each individual spell isn't.

Of course, you can prepare the same spell more than once. But would making those Barbarian abilities "X per day" rather than "Once per rage" be superior?

Certainly not. The classes function very differently. A wizard in combat asks "what is the most effective spell I can cast", while a barbarian accepts a default level of combat prowess, chooses where to move and who to attack and how to attack them, and on top of that has to choose whether or not to use some of these powers. The wizard might run out of a spell, but is only likely to run out of useful spells at very low levels. The best thing would be to simply make all the barbarian abilities relatively static.

The Fighter needed more than the Barbarian, I think, and had less to tie his new abilities to.

True. And he got it.

While he gets mechanical abilities usable every round of combat, he's not, as you note, viewed as getting "cool stuff". After all, no one points to the Fighter's BAB as a cool thing when compared to a Cleric or Wizard.

Which, again, is in the eye of the beholder.

It's much like what's happened in baseball, where advanced statistics have taught us that relatively boring but reliable plays have a lot of value. One might think of a fighter as a hitter with a high on-base percentage who hits a fair number of doubles and reliably produces runs, and a wizard as a hitter who hits a lot of home runs but strikes out a lot. Flashy things are overvalued in many arenas.

The Fighter is also less customizable in respect of his abilities, other than choosing specific weapons (but he already had bonus feats to provide a lot of customizing options, where the Barbarian did not).

Have you seen the list of fighter archetypes? Let alone the diversity of feats available.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Maybe spells are, but each individual spell isn't.

Certainly not. The classes function very differently. A wizard in combat asks "what is the most effective spell I can cast", while a barbarian accepts a default level of combat prowess, chooses where to move and who to attack and how to attack them, and on top of that has to choose whether or not to use some of these powers. The wizard might run out of a spell, but is only likely to run out of useful spells at very low levels. The best thing would be to simply make all the barbarian abilities relatively static.

True. And he got it.

Which, again, is in the eye of the beholder.

It's much like what's happened in baseball, where advanced statistics have taught us that relatively boring but reliable plays have a lot of value. One might think of a fighter as a hitter with a high on-base percentage who hits a fair number of doubles and reliably produces runs, and a wizard as a hitter who hits a lot of home runs but strikes out a lot. Flashy things are overvalued in many arenas.

Have you seen the list of fighter archetypes? Let alone the diversity of feats available.

Yeah, but flashy things can be a lot of fun. The guy who swings for the fences all the time creates drama when he comes to the plate - people watched when Reggie Jackson stepped to the plate in the World Series. There may have been other players on his team that had better OPS and other stats, but nobody held the screen like Mr. October. The same can be said of the wizard when they get to higher levels - sure, Finger of Death is Save or Die in 3.5E, but there is a lot of drama at the table when it's cast. Boom or Bust, basically. (Well, almost bust, you get a small amount of damage if you save)

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yeah, but flashy things can be a lot of fun. The guy who swings for the fences all the time creates drama when he comes to the plate - people watched when Reggie Jackson stepped to the plate in the World Series. There may have been other players on his team that had better OPS and other stats, but nobody held the screen like Mr. October. The same can be said of the wizard when they get to higher levels - sure, Finger of Death is Save or Die in 3.5E, but there is a lot of drama at the table when it's cast. Boom or Bust, basically. (Well, almost bust, you get a small amount of damage if you save)

Sure. That's why the game as a whole works. It's dynamic.

 

[gamerprinter]

1 bonus feats suck... they did in 3.0, in 3.5, and in PF. One or two over 10 levels gives you a little extra play... but that is why dipping 2 levels in fighter is way better then playing a fighter.

Warlock is the best class 3.5 ever made. It allowed cool flavorful magic without the overpowered wizard class.

Book of 9 swords was the beginning of fighters getting more then just feats, if you really like bonus feat fighter then I guess that is why you dislike giving them cool and interesting choices instead.

I hated lfqw problems, and pathfinder could have fixed them... take polymorph and change it into 100 lesser morph spells like troll form.

You still miss the point, none of the classes in the Bo9S are fighters, so this doesn't make fighters cool, as none are actually fighters - they're something else, martial perhaps, but no other relationship to fighters. If anything the classes in Bo9S, are actually tweaked versions of cleric or paladin, rogue and monk, not one of the martial adepts look anything like fighters. So you need to stop suggesting it makes fighters cool, because fighters haven't changed at all with the existence of this broken book.

Our gaming group consists of 6 people, 3 of them are GMs that rotate that job. Not a single person in our group wants to play martial adepts. None think they're balanced. None will allow them in play. This is not some personal prejudice against martial classes, as I only play martial classes - I've never played a full caster in 35 years of D&D, yet I find no attraction to including martial adepts in my game. And as a developer, I will never make PF versions of martial adepts nor allow their use in game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You still miss the point, none of the classes in the Bo9S are fighters, so this doesn't make fighters cool, as none are actually fighters - they're something else, martial perhaps, but no other relationship to fighters.

what they allow you to do is play all the same concept as fighter but better. They make playing a swordsman as cool as playing a necromancer.

If anything the classes in Bo9S, are actually tweaked versions of cleric or paladin, rogue and monk, not one of the martial adepts look anything like fighters.

and what is the warblade??? I see the crusaider as a mod paladin concept, but the swordsage (that I have heard as a monk) I see as a martial artest with weapons, so I can see that you might say it isn't like a fighter (although I totally see it as a finess fighter) but the warblade is totally just a better fighter...

So you need to stop suggesting it makes fighters cool,

I have to do no such thing... because for quite a few of us that is exactly what it did...

because fighters haven't changed at all with the existence of this broken book.

ok... show me one power or ability that is more broken then an equal level druid... remembering you can be a bear calling lighting with a bear companion, and if you need to can summon extra bears...

you think broken is what exactly? No Bo9s class alone is better then a lot of core only options...but they with other class depowers make a much more balanced games, so the exact opposite of broken...

Our gaming group consists of 6 people, 3 of them are GMs that rotate that job.

My 3.5 group (before the split) was 23 people 11 of us switched off DMing... I don't see how even if we added those numbers togather and multiplied by 10 how we would have a meaningfull number of people...

Not a single person in our group wants to play martial adepts. None think they're balanced.

balanced compaire to what? compaired to a wizard? or a cleric? or a druid? oh wait I bet compaired to one of weakest classes in the game... core only fighter, what is balanced with tht?

This is not some personal prejudice against martial classes, as I only play martial classes - I've never played a full caster in 35 years of D&D, yet I find no attraction to including martial adepts in my game. And as a developer, I will never make PF versions of martial adepts nor allow their use in game.

as a developer then you fail if you say you will never do anything... if there is enough people who want something and feel that it is balanced, and benficial you would tell them all to shove it you know better?

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

You still miss the point, none of the classes in the Bo9S are fighters, so this doesn't make fighters cool, as none are actually fighters -

I know it wasn't directed to me, but it seems when people say that they really mean they can play cool fighter concepts.

This is not some personal prejudice against martial classes, as I only play martial classes - I've never played a full caster in 35 years of D&D, yet I find no attraction to including martial adepts in my game.

well there is your problem. I know a lot of guys like you, and normally after playing one or two spell casters they change there tune. One friend never understood the problem, until he was in 2 games at once. in one he was a fighter/rogue/monk (I think mostly rouge with only 1 level in the other two.) going for shadow dancer. in the other game he was playing one of his first wizards... after a couple of level ups he said "It feels so hollow to just get a d6hp and some skill points, instead of my choice of 2 of the 500 spells" if you only ever play fighters, of cource you think they are fine

 

[Wicht]

if you only ever play fighters, of cource you think they are fine

I've played both and I think fighters are just fine. Does my opinion count?

 

[gamerprinter]

I know it wasn't directed to me, but it seems when people say that they really mean they can play cool fighter concepts.
well there is your problem. I know a lot of guys like you, and normally after playing one or two spell casters they change there tune. One friend never understood the problem, until he was in 2 games at once. in one he was a fighter/rogue/monk (I think mostly rouge with only 1 level in the other two.) going for shadow dancer. in the other game he was playing one of his first wizards... after a couple of level ups he said "It feels so hollow to just get a d6hp and some skill points, instead of my choice of 2 of the 500 spells" if you only ever play fighters, of cource you think they are fine

No, that's not my problem. I am very familiar with how casters operate, I run them as full on NPCs in many adventures I run and easily defeat PCs with fully knowing how to use a caster. Just as a player, I prefer martial characters to spellcasters. Sword swinging excites me, spellcasting not so much. I've run plenty of NPC casters over the many years of 1e/2e/3x/PF. I generally never play prestige classes.

as a developer then you fail if you say you will never do anything... if there is enough people who want something and feel that it is balanced, and benficial you would tell them all to shove it you know better?

I would never tell players to shove it, however, I can point out just as many players who never want to see a Bo9S in any edition. Should I tell them to shove it, because a certain minority wants that material. Really, there's so many avenues of game development for PF that improving fighters is such a tiny aspect. There are plenty of other developers out there who may just want to develop that. Where my development interests lie, is not on fighter improvement, nor on bring martial adepts to my preferred edition. From what I understand, Dreamscarred Press is working on their version of martial adepts. Rite Publishing did one too. Does every developer need to do their take of Bo9S - of course not, and I definitely won't be one of those developers. There's is plenty of other awesome material to look at development, that I needn't ever look at 3.5 crap and see how I can adapt it. It isn't necessary, nor to a large audience, wanted.

Paizo Publishing has pretty much said the same thing, as I, regarding martial adepts and Bo9S - this is not some corner case opinion.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I've played both and I think fighters are just fine. Does my opinion count?

the funny part is that I jumped in because everyone's opinion counts... it's just trying to see from each others point of view...

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

There's is plenty of other awesome material to look at development, that I needn't ever look at 3.5 crap and see how I can adapt it. It isn't necessary, nor to a large audience, wanted.

Paizo Publishing has pretty much said the same thing, as I, regarding martial adepts and Bo9S - this is not some corner case opinion.

ok so just to double check you get the final say in what is broken, and what the larger audience wants?? great who died and made you king of anything? I know plenty of people who love Bo9s, and what it represents, I also know plenty that call it anime crud... you know what I don't know is who is a bigger group. the difference is you think you know better then anyone else...