Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[billd91]

Actually, that's precisely what I'm saying. Paizo at least made a serious attempt at removing the disparity.

It's nice to see someone actually admit that the disparity exists.

Then you should go back and read that again.

EDIT: Oh, I suppose I should really elaborate. I think there's a difference between casters and non-casters. But I've always viewed it as a manageable difference and would never characterize it as a disparity, a term I see as negative spin. That's why I called it a "much ballyhooed disparity," indicating what others perceive and complain about.

 

[N'raac]

I think the general idea is that you use a bag of holding, or Heward's Haversack, or some other self-crafted item that enables you to easily call desired objects to hand while making sure those objects don't count against your encumbrance.

(Also, encumbrance is a tedious rule to have to bring to bear to rein a character in.)

These are the two assertions always raised in regards to encumbrance. First, that the Wizard can use a Haversack. Yes, he can, but it still takes a move action to retrieve items therein, and the haversack weights 5 pounds. Some items, like the spell component pouch, cannot be in the haversack. As well, that wizard typically relies on the GM ignoring the suggestion that extradimensional space within an extradimensional space is hazardous - or does he take his spell books out to climb up the Rope Trick and leave his Haversack behind? Yes, he can mitigate the issue. He cannot eliminate it.

Second, it's "tedious" to track encumbrance. It's pretty basic math. I have it in a spreadsheet. It doesn't need to be real time updated every time we pick up or discard an object, it just needs to reflect what the wizard is carrying, and perhaps be looked at when a significant weight addition is contemplated. It is far more tedious to track arrows (which a lot more games do, "can't he just have a quiver" notwithstanding), spells used and hit points, which get adjusted all the time in game. For that matter, how much does the game slow down when a buff or debuff gets used and we have to recompute a bunch of stats. Even a simple Bless spell tends to result in every miss being met with "did you add the Bless?"

And, as noted above, it's a factor that penalizes the Wizard who dumps STR, so ignoring it contributes to any power disparity. Why don't we also let the Fighters ignore the "tedious" rules associated with armor, like the same encumbrance issues, the DEX modifier cap and the armor check penalty?

 

[Argyle King]

They've got some advantages (crit immunity for one), but they aren't that great really. Also, this was 3e I'm talking about, and the 3e druid doesn't get elemental forms until level 16, at which time his BAB and hp and feats and equipment are enough behind a fighter that using the elemental forms for melee is not a great tactic.

I don't know if it plays out differently in PF, where modestly sized elemental forms are available much earlier and polymorph rules work differently.

I'm probably thinking of Pathfinder. I've played that more recently than 3rd Edition.

 

[N'raac]

I'm probably thinking of Pathfinder. I've played that more recently than 3rd Edition.

Considering the title of the thread, it doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to reference Pathfinder play experience...

 

[Ahnehnois]

And, as noted above, it's a factor that penalizes the Wizard who dumps STR, so ignoring it contributes to any power disparity. Why don't we also let the Fighters ignore the "tedious" rules associated with armor, like the same encumbrance issues, the DEX modifier cap and the armor check penalty?

I think that's the big message here. We're not talking about gunning for the wizard. It's not selective enforcement of rules. It's simply equal and fair enforcement of rules.

What with the bookkeeping and all, it's easy to ignore some little things when you're playing or DMing for a spellcaster. But not necessarily wise.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm probably thinking of Pathfinder. I've played that more recently than 3rd Edition.

Fair enough. However, fighters in PF are also somewhat better.

 

[pemerton]

Second, it's "tedious" to track encumbrance. It's pretty basic math.

I can do the maths. My point is that it's tedious. It's in my view a design flaw in a game if the balance on wizard power is encumbrance. That's certainly not what the encumbrance rules were invented for - it's no part of classic D&D to use encmbrance as a brake on wizardly power.

Examples of non-tedious brakes on wizardly power: random spell failure chances (Rolemaster, RQ, Burning Wheel, I believe also DCC); chances of getting noticed by the dark lord (some Tolkien emulators, or in BW the chance of a random summoning); having to trade something of value to the wizard in order to invoke an effect; or anything else really that, in adjudicating it at the table, evokes the drama of being a wizard rather than the drama of being a warehouse administrator.

If encumbrance is working for you or others as the key element here, then more strength to your arms, but I don't think it's a viable general solution.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Examples of non-tedious brakes on wizardly power: random spell failure chances (Rolemaster, RQ, Burning Wheel, I believe also DCC); chances of getting noticed by the dark lord (some Tolkien emulators, or in BW the chance of a random summoning); having to trade something of value to the wizard in order to invoke an effect; or anything else really that, in adjudicating it at the table, evokes the drama of being a wizard rather than the drama of being a warehouse administrator.

I don't know if those are all non-tedious, but hey, show me a version of D&D that has those things and I'll sign up.

Definitely better than trying to make fighters into warehouse administrators.

 

[Starfox]

Examples of non-tedious brakes on wizardly power: [...] chances of getting noticed by the dark lord [snip].

I once played in a campaign where wizards were persecuted. They have to hid their identity blah blah... The group said ok and we had no wizards (I played a sorcerer, a then brand-new class - this was 3E). The theme of wizardly persecution barely came up in game. I wonder if the DM did this to stop us from playing a potentially overpowered class, or if it had some deeper significance to the plot? If it had, he made the spectre of being persecuted so fearful that none of us really felt like exploring it.

The point I am trying to get to is that it is good for the GM to be transparent in these cases. If you want to set up a campaign about wizardly persecution, you should encourage players to play wizards so that the theme can be explored. If you want to balance wizards by adding irksome restrictions, make it plain that this what you are doing. Player choice is grand and all, but blind choice is really not a choice at all, just using another as a random number generator.

 

[pemerton]

The point I am trying to get to is that it is good for the GM to be transparent in these cases. If you want to set up a campaign about wizardly persecution, you should encourage players to play wizards so that the theme can be explored. If you want to balance wizards by adding irksome restrictions, make it plain that this what you are doing. Player choice is grand and all, but blind choice is really not a choice at all, just using another as a random number generator.

Agreed 100%.