Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[Tequila Sunrise]

So when I was invited to a pathfinder game I was very happy to get back into some
D&D. Except it doesn't seem to me to be any better then 4e. No there isn't a fighter daily, but the Alchemist drove me nuts.

I can't speak to your specific complaints about 3.PF, but as JeffB sarcastically pointed out, gamey-ness is par for the course in fantasy rpgs and D&D is no exception. (See My Virtual Soapbox for examples of how 3.x is far from realistic.)

4e and PF seem particularly gamey to you simply because you haven't played and loved them for years, as you probably have with earlier editions.

 

[Tovec]

Personally @Rob1207 I think your problem is that you played an alchemist at .. first? level or near it. When the alchemist can only do self healing and what not but before it kicks in and he can do more things and stuff for the rest of the party. So, Alchemist was probably the worst class in this "gamey" regard.

Overall PF has that distinction you are looking for. It is based on 3.5 system and so it is still gamey, but as others have pointed out its an RPG so that is par for the course. I know that I love PF and can't stand 4e's gamey-ness and that my friends are all the same. That we never noticed "recharge" power problems for any martial classes, and the spellcasters have that but they are the same as 3.5 and so it was what we were used to I guess. So.. yeah, I blame the alchemist. If he had been able to give the other guy the potion it would have been fine right? If the objection boils down to that one stupidity of a single class then it seems weak for an argument for "PF is too gamey/just as gamey as 4e."

 

[billd91]

what does self buffer and Alchemist have in common? I see the word Alchemist and just assume any potions or elixers he makes would work for anyone... I think it is crazy to make what is really a self buffing sorcerer and call it an alchemist

What you need to recognize is what the character class draws on for its inspiration. It's the not the apothecary, elixir brewer, or Miracle Max who makes stuff for other people to take. He's Doctor Jekyll/Mr. Hyde (or even Kraven the Hunter) - conducting weird experiments on himself and his own physiology. He fits in with that sort of alchemist pretty well, though he dabbles across archetype well enough as he gets more skilled.

 

[Rob1207]

I just don't see how Alchemist (and to a lesser extent gunman) don't break peoples suspension of disbelief as much as 4e did... the part that drives me the most nuts is people who agreed with me to leave 4e are acting like I'm crazy for disliking the same type of thing in pathfinder and as far as disallowing and moding things, I don't DM, so no I can't just say "Don't play X"

 

[Cadence]

Are you ok with the Vancian spell-casting that's used for the Clerics, Wizards, etc...? (Fixed number of spells per day, prepared in advance, with extra limits based on how powerful the spells are?)

It seems like a lot of people dislike that type of casting for being driven by game balance concerns and being limiting. But one could spin an in game story behind it that are similar to some works of fantasy/sci-fi. (Spells take up mental energy so you can only cram so many in. The energy is expended when you cast them wiping out those mental patterns. The big ones use up more energy and require more skill to pull off correctly. You need to rest before you can strain your brain that way again).

The 4e fighter on the other hand seems to also have the limit there for game balance purposes... but lacks a non-meta-gamey explanation for why they can't try their big blow all the time (or at least more than once per day). The situation where the enemy sets themselves up in a position favorable to your hitting them this way doesn't happen that often (which seems ok)... but whether your opponent sets themselves up has nothing to do with the opponent and is instead based on you as the player co-writing the story in a way that seems to overlap the DMs classical prerogative (meta-gamey). This isn't problematic because it's an attack (so are spells in a lot of cases) but because its not how we classically picture the fighter doing things.

Is your complaint that only the alchemist can use the potions that he made (that seems kind of like Vancian casting in that there is an entirely in game explanation) or is it that they are called an Alchemist and that's not how you picture an alchemist working.

 

[Rob1207]

Are you ok with the Vancian spell-casting that's used for the Clerics, Wizards, etc...? (Fixed number of spells per day, prepared in advance, with extra limits based on how powerful the spells are?)

I at the very least have gotten used to it.

The 4e fighter on the other hand seems to also have the limit there for game balance purposes... but lacks a non-meta-gamey explanation for why they can't try their big blow all the time (or at least more than once per day).

see that is what made my group leave 4e and go to gurps and WoD

Is your complaint that only the alchemist can use the potions that he made (that seems kind of like Vancian casting in that there is an entirely in game explanation) or is it that they are called an Alchemist and that's not how you picture an alchemist working.

my complaint is that you have to bend over backwards to make it work...Anyone CAN make come and get it make sense, but it takes a lot of work. the problem is that somehow 'because pathfinder' is an ok reason for the same craziness. (Someone explain the in game reason for grit, or for a cure light becoming non magical water in another PCs hand) it just feels wrong.

 

[Dragonblade]

Pathfinder is no more, or less gamey than 4e. Its all just a matter of perspective and personal taste. I've run games in both systems and never had an issue mapping what happened mechanically in play to the fiction of my world.

Pathfinder, and 3e in general, does a better job of obfuscating its gamey-ness under various subsystems that wrap themselves in the fiction and pretend to be based in fantasy world logic. Whereas 4e doesn't bother to hide its mechanics, assuming you'll provide most of the necessary fiction yourself. Some people like that, others don't. One way isn't better than another. Just different.

But at the end of the day, the underlying rules for both systems exists to provide a fun play experience for gamers. And for fans of the respective games, I think they succeed.

 

[Ahnehnois]

PF does carry some of the "game-y" D&D-isms that predate it, but also introduces some new elements that trend in the wrong direction. "Rage powers" are definitely an example, as is the whole grit system for gunslingers. Those are "martial dailies". They're every bit as unbalanced and nonsensical as every other ability defined by a use per time limitation.

But the beauty is, neither these abilities nor any of the alchemist nonsense or any other mistakes they might have made are inherent to playing the game. It's quite easy to play a game of PF without them, perhaps banning or altering certain elements as needed. The difference between 4e and PF is not that 4e has some poorly designed elements and PF doesn't. It's more that PF has some good ones too.

 

[Kinak]

What you need to recognize is what the character class draws on for its inspiration. It's the not the apothecary, elixir brewer, or Miracle Max who makes stuff for other people to take. He's Doctor Jekyll/Mr. Hyde (or even Kraven the Hunter) - conducting weird experiments on himself and his own physiology. He fits in with that sort of alchemist pretty well, though he dabbles across archetype well enough as he gets more skilled.

We've only had one alchemist in my games so far, but this is exactly how he was played: madman injecting himself with all sorts of crazy mixtures. Sort of like the movie version of Herbert West, but experimenting on himself rather than corpses.

Lots of fun, but caused some problems stealing scenes when another player wanted to steal every scene. Alas.

I just don't see how Alchemist (and to a lesser extent gunman) don't break peoples suspension of disbelief as much as 4e did... the part that drives me the most nuts is people who agreed with me to leave 4e are acting like I'm crazy for disliking the same type of thing in pathfinder

People, myself included, have provided a number of reasons why the alchemist doesn't break our suspension of disbelief. I, personally, find it far less problematic than other Vancian casters, particularly clerics. By extension, I find it far less problematic than martial dailies.

Now, if I sat down at your table and started harping on how stupid the cleric casting mechanic is and all the terrible things that implies about the world, you'd probably treat me like I was crazy. And, really, rightfully so. Who does that?

I'd suggest just accepting that "suspension of disbelief" is a vague and personal thing, not tied to a specific edition or playstyle, but more about individual things that get stuck in our eye and just won't come out. You can't make them understand why the alchemist is terrible, just as we can't make you understand that it's fine.

If it really bothers you that much, the only positive action I can suggest is asking the GM if they'd allow alchemists to have the infusion discovery for free. The alchemist player probably won't object and it allows them to work the way you think they should.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Rob1207]

But the beauty is, neither these abilities nor any of the alchemist nonsense or any other mistakes they might have made are inherent to playing the game. It's quite easy to play a game of PF without them, perhaps banning or altering certain elements as needed. The difference between 4e and PF is not that 4e has some poorly designed elements and PF doesn't. It's more the other way around.

I was thinking of going back to 3e, or 2e, or maybe even 1e...but when I loged on to ask this I found that wotc is trying again... so I amgoing to try to download 5e from wotc playtest...