Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[Tovec]

Clearly, 4e isn't the solution everyone is looking for.

Everyone or a vocal minority?

Um.. "Isn't." As in "Is Not," as in "Not Everyone."

Group 1: People satisfied with solution.
Group 2: Dis-satisfied people (with solution).
Group 2 =/= Group 1.
And let's say group 3: Group 1 + Group 2
That is what he said. How large or small group 2 is not part of the sentence. Neither of these groups (group 1 or 2) is individually everyone (group 3).

If the people who are satisfied with 4e are ONLY satisfied with 4e (a statement I don't think is true but let's ignore that too), then "Clearly, another system isn't the solution everyone is looking for" would be equally true.

By definition a "minority" (a subset of everyone) is not everyone, yet I think that's the point that you took objection with?

So, what is your argument? You didn't seem to have one (that I could see) except to try and correct TS (without of course actually correcting him). You may not like the way TS said it but it wasn't wrong or invalid in the wording itself.

 

[Kramodlog]

Um.. "Isn't." As in "Is Not," as in "Not Everyone."

Group 1: People satisfied with solution.
Group 2: Dis-satisfied people (with solution).
Group 2 =/= Group 1.
And let's say group 3: Group 1 + Group 2
That is what he said. How large or small group 2 is not part of the sentence. Neither of these groups (group 1 or 2) is individually everyone (group 3).

If the people who are satisfied with 4e are ONLY satisfied with 4e (a statement I don't think is true but let's ignore that too), then "Clearly, another system isn't the solution everyone is looking for" would be equally true.

By definition a "minority" (a subset of everyone) is not everyone, yet I think that's the point that you took objection with?

So, what is your argument? You didn't seem to have one (that I could see) except to try and correct TS (without of course actually correcting him). You may not like the way TS said it but it wasn't wrong or invalid in the wording itself.

My argument is that not everyone is looking for a solution to 3.x's problems, because not everyone thinks there are problems in the first place. For me, a minority see problems. Tequila seems to think it is everyone. So I pointed the potential flaw in his reasoning by asking a question: "Everyone [sees problems] or a vocal minority [sees problems]?".

Nice effort, but better luck next time.

 

[N'raac]

Clearly, 4e isn't the solution everyone is looking for. It isn't even the solution for everyone who sees problems with 3.x. But it created solutions to problems that are very much present for many D&Ders, regardless of whether you recognize those problems or not.

Everyone or a vocal minority?

I would sat a sufficient number that WoTC has come to the belief they can generate more profits by designing an entirely new edition which abandons much of the 4th Edition philosophy and mechanics than by continuing to market to those who prefer the 4e approach.

I'd suggest that vocal supporters and vocal detractors of any of the editions are each vocal minorities.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

An appeal to authority. Cute.

lol, which authority? I don't have authority; I have experience. With three separate editions (more if you count clones and sub-editions), with playing eight years of 3.x, and with many online forums. I can't give you the years of experience I have, but if you're interested in more than your own narrow perspective, go spend some time at on the 3.x forums.

My argument is that not everyone is looking for a solution to 3.x's problems, because not everyone thinks there are problems in the first place. For me, a minority see problems. Tequila seems to think it is everyone. So I pointed the potential flaw in his reasoning by asking a question: "Everyone [sees problems] or a vocal minority [sees problems]?".

Wrong. Read my posts again; at no point did I claim that everyone sees problems with 3.x.

You're reading into my posts, and then putting words in my mouth. I'm not nearly bored enough to put up with such edition warrior nonsense, so consider yourself ignored.

 

[gamerprinter]

Also Fighters in PF didn't just get more feats. Look at the archetypes, in many cases the additions to the fighter are class features, not just feats. 2-H fighter gains shattering strike, overhand chop, backswing and pile driver - none of these are feats. All of the mobile fighter's abilities that differ from the standard fighter are class features, none being difference of feats. PF designers have done quite a decent job of making fighters more interesting without redoing the Bo9S, which a large segment of gamers thing was overpowered crap - like myself. Now it's the job of 3PP to make the fighter further more interesting. Despite Dreamscarred Press redoing Bo9S (kinda-sorta) I'm not even interested and won't look when it's released. However, I'm sure other PF 3PP will make fighters (and not martial sort of fighters, but real fighters) much more versatile and interesting.

 

[NewJeffCT]

That's because you don't see a problem with your favorite edition.

I've had a paizo forum account for years, and I still post there. If what you're insinuating were true -- that 3.x's issues aren't such a big deal to most D&Ders -- I'd expect the paizo forums to be free of all the debates we saw during the 2000 - 2008 era. (Is LFQW a problem? Should paladins only be LG? How do I deal with alignment? Player entitlement vs. DM god-complex, the list goes on and on.) After all, those who think these issues are problems should have converted to 4e right? Not so! All of these issues are still debated on Paizo, on ENworld, and on every forum where 3.x is discussed -- and just as hotly as ever.

Clearly, 4e isn't the solution everyone is looking for. It isn't even the solution for everyone who sees problems with 3.x. But it created solutions to problems that are very much present for many D&Ders, regardless of whether you recognize those problems or not.


Leading questions aren't so cool from the answering end, are they? I suggest considering your wording more carefully the next time you pose one.


1. I assume you mean 'So will paizo go out of business.' While I don't think that's likely to happen anytime soon, PF 2e is most certainly on its way.

2. Ah, what it must be like to be that optimistic...

3. When you've seen as many editions as I have, you start noticing patterns. So as fundamentally disinterested in 5e as I am, I know it's not fundamentally flawed. (At least not in a way that several other editions aren't.) People will buy it for whatever reasons, even if only "Because it's the current edition of D&D," and many will even find themselves loving it. And then its profits will become a diminishing return for WotC, and all of a sudden 6e will be here!

Interesting - what makes you think there will be a Pathfinder 2.0? Have they said or hinted at anything? Was the Mythic Adventures kind of the kickoff to it?

I like Pathfinder as a player, but I'd hate to DM it (I DM'd a long 3.5E game and it was a chore to DM higher levels, and I think PF, while fixing some things, also added more complexity to the game.)

 

[gamerprinter]

I wouldn't say Paizo will never release a PF 2.0, but it won't be likely soon, not in the next 5 years anyway, so unlikely "on it's way" as TE suggests - though some day, yes.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I wouldn't say Paizo will never release a PF 2.0, but it won't be likely soon, not in the next 5 years anyway, so unlikely "on it's way" as TE suggests - though some day, yes.

I would think it would be more along the lines of PF 1.5, IMHO. Maybe some more tweaks to the system, improvements to high level play, etc. Sort of like going from 1e to 2e D&D back in the day.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Interesting - what makes you think there will be a Pathfinder 2.0? Have they said or hinted at anything? Was the Mythic Adventures kind of the kickoff to it?

How many successful rpg companies don't eventually revamp their games? 'PF 2e is on its way' was a poor choice of words on my part, because I didn't mean to imply that Paizo is about to sound the horns or anything. 'There will be a PF 2e at some point, unless Paizo stock spontaneously combusts' would have been more accurate.

And I will say that PF will slowly inch away from its 3.5 roots as it accumulates editions. It's already only sort of compatible with 3.5, and there are assuredly things that JJ is just itching to tweak. (Or whoever takes over design after him.)

 

[NewJeffCT]

How many successful rpg companies don't eventually revamp their games? 'PF 2e is on its way' was a poor choice of words on my part, because I didn't mean to imply that Paizo is about to sound the horns or anything. 'There will be a PF 2e at some point, unless Paizo stock spontaneously combusts' would have been more accurate.

And I will say that PF will slowly inch away from its 3.5 roots as it accumulates editions. It's already only sort of compatible with 3.5, and there are assuredly things that JJ is just itching to tweak. (Or whoever takes over design after him.)

I'm sure there will be something in the future, but I wasn't sure if it was imminent or not and how much change it would bring.

I didn't really think PF was all that compatible with 3.5E from the beginning. There were enough tweaks & changes that you'd have to look up a lot of things anyways (feats, spells, etc). Not to mention that they made the base classes more powerful and more complex.