Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[Kramodlog]

Is change just for change sake, often called evolution, an automatic improvement?

I hear a lot about issues with 3.x and PF and how they need to be adressed. 4e supposedly adressed these, but 3.x/PF sells are still strong and 4e was cancelled. Now 5e will really adress these issues...

I'm wondering if these "issues" really are that problematic for most players and if trying to solve them turns more people away than bring them back in.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Is change just for change sake, often called evolution, an automatic improvement?

I hear a lot about issues with 3.x and PF and how they need to be adressed. 4e supposedly adressed these, but 3.x/PF sells are still strong and 4e was cancelled. Now 5e will really adress these issues...

I'm wondering if these "issues" really are that problematic for most players and if trying to solve them turns more people away than bring them back in.

3.x is still alive, just like 2e, and 1e, and basic, and everything else... so is 4e.

4e fixed the problems of 3.5 and was a huge change... but the problem was it went too far from core feeling. so 5e is taking the fixes of 5e and the feel of 3.5 and working them togather...

 

[Kramodlog]

I didn't say nobody plays it, just that it has been cancelled. This leaves me dubious when people say it "solved" the "issues" of 3.5 and even more dubious on 5e doing it.

Me thinks the "issues" are more important to the feel of D&D than some people might realize. That the "issues" not only do not prevent people from enjoying 3.x/PF, but are core elements of it.

 

[billd91]

Is change just for change sake, often called evolution, an automatic improvement?

I hear a lot about issues with 3.x and PF and how they need to be adressed. 4e supposedly adressed these, but 3.x/PF sells are still strong and 4e was cancelled. Now 5e will really adress these issues...

I'm wondering if these "issues" really are that problematic for most players and if trying to solve them turns more people away than bring them back in.

That's the question 4e's performance certainly raises. For some people, the solutions 4e presented fixed the problems. For some of the rest of us, 4e presented an unacceptable set of solutions whether or not we thought the problems were fixed or were even important in the first place. And I think WotC's actions over the last couple of years strongly imply that they feel the former group was too small and the latter too large to continue to pursue development of 4e solutions.

 

[Kramodlog]

That's the question 4e's performance certainly raises. For some people, the solutions 4e presented fixed the problems. For some of the rest of us, 4e presented an unacceptable set of solutions whether or not we thought the problems were fixed or were even important in the first place. And I think WotC's actions over the last couple of years strongly imply that they feel the former group was too small and the latter too large to continue to pursue development of 4e solutions.

I think the bolded part is important.

 

[gamerprinter]

For me, I had no issues with 3.5, except that WotC got rid of it from the game stores - my only issue. Pathfinder replaced it with it's own tweaks that I since prefer to the way it was in 3x.

Of 4e and 5e, not my game, nothing wrong with them... nothing wrong with chess, but I just don't play those, and have no interest in their playtest, development, or what it brings to the overall industry. I don't play the industry, only Pathfinder.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

For me, I had no issues with 3.5, except that WotC got rid of it from the game stores - my only issue. Pathfinder replaced it with it's own tweaks that I since prefer to the way it was in 3x.

my issue is that by tweeking a lot in the classes (GOD why oh why did they give cleric and wizard classes MORE!!! then give the fighter so little...) they invalidated a bunch of classes that were already better built then the core 3.5 class. warlock, Bo9s, and spell theif and ninja all need updateing, along with artificer...

 

[gamerprinter]

my issue is that by tweeking a lot in the classes (GOD why oh why did they give cleric and wizard classes MORE!!! then give the fighter so little...) they invalidated a bunch of classes that were already better built then the core 3.5 class. warlock, Bo9s, and spell theif and ninja all need updateing, along with artificer...

Fighters got feats at every level (not a huge improvement, but no other class gets that many feats). I didn't care for Warlock. I absolutely detest Bo9S (and definitely ban that book from both 3x and PF). Never used a spell thief, ninja, nor artificer in all the years I played 3x.

So none of these are issues for me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Fighters got feats at every level (not a huge improvement, but no other class gets that many feats). I didn't care for Warlock. I absolutely detest Bo9S (and definitely ban that book from both 3x and PF). Never used a spell thief, ninja, nor artificer in all the years I played 3x.

So none of these are issues for me.

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.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Is change just for change sake, often called evolution, an automatic improvement?

Heck yeah, IMO change for the sake of improvement is, well, improvement!

Here, I'll ask a leading edition warrior question of my own: Is stagnation for the sake of nostalgia, often called tradition, automatically good?

I guarantee you that 5e will be canceled in a few years, and there will be talk of all the ways it failed to live up to its promising start. Not that 5e is going to fail on some fundamental level, but change is the nature of the D&D beast.