Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[Herschel]

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.

Exactly this.

 

[N'raac]

Someone explain the in game reason for grit, or for a cure light becoming non magical water in another PCs hand

Grit seems similar to hit points - it's a resource that wears down and, as the gunslinger is worn down by focus on complex trick shots, eventually he gets worn out and just can't pull off those stunts any more as he can't focus that well. He gets a thrill of adrenaline when things go right that gets some of that focus back, on occasion.

The Alchemist's postions are customized for his unique metabolism and until and unless he learns to create a potion that is not customized to his unique metabolism, it's useless at best, maybe even hazardous, for anyone else to consume it.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Yeah, that's how I saw it.

I dabbled with the idea of an alchemist who studies himself and alters himself so his crazy potions could affect him and him alone.

Game magics are both benefitted and harmed by the lack of deep explanation of how they work. It allows freedom but relies on the players to make sense of it if they care enough.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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...

It's probably the right move on your part to take a good look at 5e. I wouldn't discount the older games though. They don't go bad or anything.

 

[gamerprinter]

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"

Actually what I didn't like about 4e has nothing to do with how character concepts work in any game. It was only ever about game mechanics, how WotC chose to do the rules. What similarities between the 2 systems thematically means absolutely nothing to me, so if 4e and PF seems similar in this way - I don't have a problem with that. The rules and subsystems alone apart from the theme in 4e, is where issues exist for me.

But really, there's nothing wrong with whatever game you want to play. You are kind of going the way of edition warring, which is not tolerated here at ENWorld, or really in most RPG forums. If you want to get banned, then start an edition war, but most of us won't participate in that activity.

 

[Kramodlog]

And you expect 5e to be less gamey!?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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"

I feel like I'm about to tell a kid there's no Santa, but...have you heard the term 'edition warrior'?

We all tend to rationalize and work around the gamey parts of our favorite games -- even patently absurd things like hit points and damage. For example I can easily explain anything you find gamey about 4e. But some gamers don't realize all the justifying and bending-over-backwards, as you say, they do to make it work. So they mistakenly see other editions as more gamey than their favorite one.

And when an edition changeover is happening and 3rd party publishers are taking up the torch of a previous edition, as was the case the last time you posted, tensions get high. Some of us get on our high horse and try to convince others that their favorite edition is more gamey, or less fun or whatever. And that's how we get PF edition warriors telling you that their game is less gamey than 4e.

So don't feel bad. We've all had the wool pulled over our eyes at one time or another.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

And you expect 5e to be less gamey!?

For someone used to rationalizing 3e's quirks...mind you, I'm not up to date on 5e info, but I've heard it called AD&D 3e, so ya never know. *shrug*

 

[Salamandyr]

I don't care for Pathfinder...at all, but I don't think gamey-ness is the problem.

 

[Kramodlog]

For someone used to rationalizing 3e's quirks...mind you, I'm not up to date on 5e info, but I've heard it called AD&D 3e, so ya never know. *shrug*

I think Fighters had daily powers in one of the many playtests of 5e.

I do think the question is a bit trivial when reduce to one ability or class, but makes sense for an entire system.