Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[Tequila Sunrise]

This thread has been such a bizarre reading experience. Not to pick on Starfox, but I can't resist commenting:

I am in the anti Bo9S camp myself - for DnD...

There is practically nothing in this post that fits my experience, or that I relate to. I respect your opinion, but it's just driven home to me how fundamentally different I am from some of my fellow gamers.

"3.5 is about grittiness, and things that aren't explicitly labeled as spells are mundane. Except for monks, but they suck, so they don't really count. So Bo9S magic doesn't fit." (Okay, I totally agree that 3.5 is gritty particularly at very low and very high levels. Though even if I cared what 3.5 is 'about' according to...well, whoever, I don't think Bo9S makes 3.5 less gritty. Also, there are quite a few non-mundane powers available to non-casters even in core, but whatever.)

"But oh, I'm totally a fan of wuxia and anime. I just don't think 3.5 is about that." (To my way of thinking, what does it matter what 3.5 is 'about'? It's a game -- it's about having fun! So if mundane magic is fun, throw it in there!)

"Now there's PF, but the Magus, Alchemist, and Summer really blur the line between mundane and magic. So maybe Bo9S would fit PF better." (I don't object to blurring the line between the mundane/magic false dichotomy, but I find it odd that you choose those three classes as your examples. To my understanding, all three are explicitly magical; the magus and the summer even have spells. Maybe the alchemist is more steampunk-y though? Also, I scratch my head every time someone mentions PF as if its fundamentally different from 3.5, but I guess some people see it that way.)

"1e and 2e were more gonzo because everyone MCed, but 3.x is less flashy because gishing generally sucks." (I just got a good chuckle out of this, because I'm sure that the folks on dragonsfoot would argue with you till everyone's blue in the face over this.)

I'm paraphrasing you in a very flippant manner, and I hope it comes off tongue-in-cheek rather than argumentative. Because again, you're welcome to your opinion and I'm not here to tell you you're wrong.

One of the benefits of being primarily a 4e gamer is that I don't get so heated up over these 3isms anymore.

 

[Hussar]

Do you really not see why some people don't have an issue here?

And, again, that's great. You don't mind the disparity. Fine and dandy. But, whenever this issue comes up, we have to spend half the thread arguing whether the issue actually exists or not. And, when we try to fix the issue, we're told that we're just playing the game wrong and we should go play something else. Just like you did here.

Do you really not see how some people refuse to sit back and pick their noses because they don't have the mechanical assets other PCs have but instead proactively find ways to get involved in the game and have fun with it?

Presume, for a moment, that we're playing by the rules, reasonably anyway, which means that skill checks are enforced. How, exactly, does your fighter contribute to a naval adventure aboard ship? In what way is he getting involved? You have to sail from point A to point B, stopping at ports along the way, trading goods and exploring a new trade route. What does your fighter contribute to that adventure?

If you don't like playing the fighter (or rogue, or monk, or bard, or whatever) as he is the options really should be obvious. Play something else. Find players who play the same way as you do and knock yourselves out. Leave the fighters to the players who like to play them. They're out there. Really.

Thing is, I DO like playing a fighter. Fighters (and paladins) are my favorite characters. But, in 3e, fighters got left WAY behind. There's a REASON that later 3.5 and then Pathfinder does all sorts of things to bring fighters up to par with casters.

But, for some bizarre reason, years later, we're STILL arguing whether this is a problem or not. I mean, you should be criticing Pathfinder, right, left and center for all the changes they made to fighter types. Yet, despite years of Pathfinder changing fighters, you refuse to admit that there is any mechanical issue. Nope, nope, no issue here. Pathfinder essentially doubled the combat effectiveness of a fighter and fighter types? Naw, they did that for giggles. No reason here. Gimme a break.

So, Bill91, when you play Pathfinder, do you play a 3.5 D&D fighter? Or do you play with the Pathfinder revisions? After all, you have no problems with the disparity between fighters and casters, so, I would assume you would continue to play baseline 3.5 edition fighters straight from the PHB.

 

[Rob1207]

Maybe I'm crazy, but if you're not satisfied with 3rd Edition, 4th Edition, or Pathfinder, it may be a good idea to try a different game system. I'm not saying that with any negativity toward those games, and I'm not trying to flame or anything like that. It just seems to me that a different system built on a completely different set of gaming ideals might be the way to go.

That is what I have done for years. I have played Gurps and Rifts(yea not a good example) and word of darkness. I was asked to come back and have missed fantasy gameing.

WHat about when I want to play a swordman and hate the limits put on them? how about (like D&D next that I love so far) we have fighters that can choose what way they are built, and as such I can play my complex fighter and you can play your simple one? Why should I be stuck with "Well that character you want to play will suck and be no fun for you, so play a different concept or except it?" when we could have "Well play any way you want?"

because I want to play a game the way I want to. The way I want is for classes to make sense, and fighters with encounters just don't make sense to me. If you get to sit at a table and make an Alchemist who has potions that only work for you, and bombs you can put togather 8 times today, and 8 times tomorrow, and 8 times the day after that without ever getting back to town to resupply why can't you make 9 today? You have the knowledge and supplies... and even worse you can shape them to blow up around other PCs... but your potions become non magic liquid in my hands... I want to play in a game that works like I want, and that means at my table all the PCs have to not have crazy options

 

[Argyle King]

some people really can't get why it is that happens... I once had a PC who took leadership it was a complete character point. it was entirely for story reasons, we had just made an alliance with these druids, and I took a druid cohort. I picked a wolf and through it as the animal companion. I didn't min max I didn't even really research the spells I picked, I just took ones that sounded cool.

then the first big fight, these big aberrations (the whole reason for the alliance) that were basically star spawn... We took a min or two to prep and cast buffs then went to split up to attack 2 of them. My druid and his wolf charged one... as I was rolling my attacks the DM reminded me I shared buffs with the wolf... so I stop and refigured my attacks... guess what I had the highest to hit and the biggest melee damage rolls on my wolf, the druid was second highest... our fighter was 4th... behind the rogue.

after that game I asked the GM if I could retrain my feat and just let the druid go off on another leg of the mission. Because I hated having a secondary character with a class feature that was better then our fighter.

I also ran a game where a Barbarian 1/Cleric 9/Prestige class X was using persistent spell buffs... and our level 10+fighter quite not only the game, but doesn't even roleplay anymore...

I had a few similar experiences.

Do you really not see why some people don't have an issue here?
Do you really not see how some people refuse to sit back and pick their noses because they don't have the mechanical assets other PCs have but instead proactively find ways to get involved in the game and have fun with it?
If you don't like playing the fighter (or rogue, or monk, or bard, or whatever) as he is the options really should be obvious. Play something else. Find players who play the same way as you do and knock yourselves out. Leave the fighters to the players who like to play them. They're out there. Really.

In the last 3rd Edition game in which I was a player, I was a druid and a friend of mine was playing a wizard. There were times when the other 6 players (we had a large group at the time) at the table would request that he (the wizard player) and I forgo our first turn in an encounter so they'd actually get a chance to do something.

To be fair, 4th edition isn't without its flaws either. While the PCs are generally closer in usefulness to each other, it's often the monsters who are struggling. While later books and newer monster math did help greatly, most of the 4E games I'm in turn into the PCs pounding the enemy into the dirt from about level 11 and onward. Currently, the group I usually game with has started a new 4E campaign for the first time in a few years. We're trying a few different things to see if we can get less GM-frustrating results.

 

[Argyle King]

That is what I have done for years. I have played Gurps and Rifts(yea not a good example) and word of darkness. I was asked to come back and have missed fantasy gameing.

because I want to play a game the way I want to. The way I want is for classes to make sense, and fighters with encounters just don't make sense to me. If you get to sit at a table and make an Alchemist who has potions that only work for you, and bombs you can put togather 8 times today, and 8 times tomorrow, and 8 times the day after that without ever getting back to town to resupply why can't you make 9 today? You have the knowledge and supplies... and even worse you can shape them to blow up around other PCs... but your potions become non magic liquid in my hands... I want to play in a game that works like I want, and that means at my table all the PCs have to not have crazy options

Have you played GURPS 4th Edition at all? The Dungeon Fantasy series is capable of creating D&D-like games, but without some of the issues you seem to have with D&D (and Pathfinder.) http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/dungeonfantasy/

It might be a nice compromise between what you want and what some of the other people you game with want. It's not too terrible hard to use D&D adventures with GURPS Dungeon Fantasy if you're already familiar with GURPS. Even if you're not familiar with it, the game isn't nearly as complicated as it is usually believed to be. (I've argued elsewhere that I actually consider running D&D 3rd to be harder than running GURPS 4th.) The hardest thing I found was trying to "train" my players to understand that combat in GURPS and combat in D&D are very different.

 

[brvheart]

First of all in 1E/2E 3/2 meant you got 1 attack in round 1 and 2 attacks in round 2, not the other way around (RTFM). If you don't think fighters can't still dish it out in Pathfinder you haven't played a fighter much. Give a fighter a great sword with an 18 str, power attack and cleave and things start going down much faster than that 3rd level wizard can dish out. He is doing 2d6+9 to 1 or 2 opponents a round and it starts going way up after level 3. And he can go that every round while the wizard might have a scorching ray and burning hands and a few magic missiles to last him the day for combat spells. That goes for mid levels as well. I will stack my 8th level fighter doing 2d6+22(x2) up against your 8th level wizard any day. That and his AC is usually a lot higher also.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But, for some bizarre reason, years later, we're STILL arguing whether this is a problem or not.

I don't get it either It almost feels like there is something that I am not saying right, how can people not understand what I have been saying for about ten years now...

So, Bill91, when you play Pathfinder, do you play a 3.5 D&D fighter? Or do you play with the Pathfinder revisions? After all, you have no problems with the disparity between fighters and casters, so, I would assume you would continue to play baseline 3.5 edition fighters straight from the PHB

the funny part is the pathfinder fighter was a great start... if they had just depowered the mage and cleric and druid instead of giving them more... infact take the 3.5 wizard, but go with specialized spells like the end of 3.5 again troll form and hydra form and animal form as different spells instead of polymorph. Then you could give the reserve spell feats from complet arcane a slight redo, but they would give wizards a bit of staying power... or just drop wizard all togather and go with warlock and sorcerer... that might have had a chance in my mind.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

First of all in 1E/2E 3/2 meant you got 1 attack in round 1 and 2 attacks in round 2, not the other way around (RTFM).

I believe you are correct (or at least that is how we used to play it) Although I remember (and please don't try to rules lawyer a 15 year old memory) a weird way to point buy in one of the later books were a ranger could specialize and double wield. We had a 2 short sword ranger who we let (god help me I think it was to make it easier to track) have his main hand attack 1 time in round 1 and twice in round two, but his off hand reverse so he was getting 3 attacks everyround instead of 2 then 4

 

[billd91]

And, again, that's great. You don't mind the disparity. Fine and dandy. But, whenever this issue comes up, we have to spend half the thread arguing whether the issue actually exists or not. And, when we try to fix the issue, we're told that we're just playing the game wrong and we should go play something else. Just like you did here.

And most people do or did that. They started playing wizards instead of fighters (or druids or clerics) if it meant that much to them...
Oh, you thought the only meaning of "play something else" was play another game rather than playing something other than the dumped-on class du jour? Well, aside from being mistaken, what you do you think 4e is except going off and playing a different game?

Presume, for a moment, that we're playing by the rules, reasonably anyway, which means that skill checks are enforced. How, exactly, does your fighter contribute to a naval adventure aboard ship? In what way is he getting involved? You have to sail from point A to point B, stopping at ports along the way, trading goods and exploring a new trade route. What does your fighter contribute to that adventure?

Depending on the PC, I'd probably be arm wrestling with the off duty crew for spare change and otherwise socializing with them, and of course there's the likelihood of getting into fights, adventuring being the dangerous profession it is and all that. When the sahuagin come over the side or a pirate gives chase and starts to run us down, they'll be happy to have my fighting prowess. If this is a relatively short element of the campaign, that's probably enough because it'll be fun to play out and I'll probably know all of the members of the crew and the ship will seem to be a lot more alive as a result. If it's intended to be a significant segment, you can bet I'd be investing my skills in something even more useful like the sailor profession or a craft or some other skill useful around the ship. And I don't dump my stats to ridiculous levels so my options for investing skills usually aren't terribly hampered by a bunch of 7s in my mental stats.

Thing is, I DO like playing a fighter. Fighters (and paladins) are my favorite characters. But, in 3e, fighters got left WAY behind. There's a REASON that later 3.5 and then Pathfinder does all sorts of things to bring fighters up to par with casters.

But, for some bizarre reason, years later, we're STILL arguing whether this is a problem or not. I mean, you should be criticing Pathfinder, right, left and center for all the changes they made to fighter types. Yet, despite years of Pathfinder changing fighters, you refuse to admit that there is any mechanical issue. Nope, nope, no issue here. Pathfinder essentially doubled the combat effectiveness of a fighter and fighter types? Naw, they did that for giggles. No reason here. Gimme a break.

So, Bill91, when you play Pathfinder, do you play a 3.5 D&D fighter? Or do you play with the Pathfinder revisions? After all, you have no problems with the disparity between fighters and casters, so, I would assume you would continue to play baseline 3.5 edition fighters straight from the PHB.

Since when has this been a single-mindedly 3.5 thread rather than a Pathfinder thread? I like the Pathfinder fighter. I think the Pathfinder additions work pretty well. Why would I be mad at Pathfinder? Well, I'd still change the base saves a bit to raise weak saves to 1/2 level rather than 1/3 but that's a relatively small time quibble and not something to rage quit about.

And since when do the people who usually say fighters don't get nice things confine themselves to the 3e fighter rather than the roughly 90% compatible PF fighter? My assumption was that we were discussing 3e-family fighters in general and that includes 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder. So the distinction you're suddenly making doesn't make much sense to me. Unless you're trying to tell me that Paizo removed all of the much ballyhooed disparity between casters and fighters... and somehow, I don't think that's really what you're trying to say.

 

[Sunseeker]

It was based off one of the most gamist editions of D&D...so Pathfinder being "gamey" shouldn't be too surprising.

Unless you mean "gamey" like "stringy meat" that has too much muscle and too little fat. I don't think it's that...

Also: just play a Summoner and break the game and get it over with.