Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[brvheart]

So far I am unimpressed with the Mythic rules and if it is a new "Players Handbook 2" as in the start of PF 1.5 I will be cutting it off there. It doesn't need any more refining IMHO. Paizo should stick with settings and adventures from here on out.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

So far I am unimpressed with the Mythic rules and if it is a new "Players Handbook 2" as in the start of PF 1.5 I will be cutting it off there. It doesn't need any more refining IMHO. Paizo should stick with settings and adventures from here on out.

Mythic is the new "Epic without being Level 20" book, not a PH2. Now the forthcoming "Advanced Class Guide" ...

Fighter daily's?
I agree the alchemist's discoveries that do not transfer to others definitely feels like a game mechanic thing then a flavor thing. Basically the alchemist is a self buffer. That is one thing I have noticed about the gaming industry (at least from the D&D range) since the beginning. When the game started the focus was on the party as a whole (group initiative, etc.) while now it seems the mechanic is primarily focused on the individual character. Personally I think it is the sign of the times as new generations have taken over the game which is then geared for their views and focuses.

Oh come on now - 4th Edition was the most party/group focused RPG I've seen as far as mechanics and approach and going back to Basic/AD&D we always used individual initiative. Let's not go generational on this because of one class in an expansion book.

Setting aside the fact that magic works however the author wants it to work and that there are real world alchemical traditions that focus on perfection of the self, drugs working differently for different people isn't really a novel concept.

Not specifically D&D, but in addition to the Jekyll/Hyde example consider Captain Trips form the Wild Cards novels who used different mixtures to turn into a range of different superheroes. He didn't hand them out to other people - he used them on himself.

The Alchemist class does broaden out somewhat as it levels up. I don't see it any more gamey than wizards not casting in full plate or clerics wielding only blunt weapons in older editions.

That said I wouldn't mind if a reworked alchemist class was able to share cures with the party to create an alternative to the cleric for a reliable healing/buffing class.

To the original post: It's a game with a 300 page rulebook. It's "gamier" than many things, including other RPG's. I think for a lot of the players that's a positive thing, not a negative, but you're bound to find something that rubs you wrong in a game this massive.

 

[Kramodlog]

lol, which authority?

Yours, according to you.

I don't have authority; I have experience. With three separate editions (more if you count clones and sub-editions),

And your proving my point. Thank you.

And 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.

So my years of playing and my online experience is narrow, but yours is doubleplusgood?

You're reading into my posts,

I haven't mastered telepathy yet.

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.

I'm not edition warring, just stating facts. Facts seem to create butthurt. Not my fault.

 

[DaveMage]

So far I am unimpressed with the Mythic rules and if it is a new "Players Handbook 2" as in the start of PF 1.5 I will be cutting it off there. It doesn't need any more refining IMHO. Paizo should stick with settings and adventures from here on out.

I'd guess they see next summer's book as "closing the loop" on the multiclass-in-a-single-class options that started with the Magus.

But otherwise I'd certainly prefer future products like adventures that use the rules rather than add to them.

(Although I still hope they do a true Epic Level Handbook some day as I won't be using mythic unless I run their mythic AP.)

 

[Starfox]

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 doubt that PF 2.0 is coming anytime soon - simply because Pazio does not live of FP rules - they live off the whole brand, including novels and adventures. Yes, they may sell a zillion copies of PF 2.0, but of that means they'll sell less novels and adventures, it might still be a net loss to them.

What I could see coming is a book to bring some of the core classes up to par, particularly the monk and rogue. But this is just my guess.

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.

The last two sentences above actually contradict. Yes, they added abilities to the Wizard. The cleric got more in the new channel energy healing, but lost power over undead (channel energy used as a weapon sucks now). A net gain for the wizard, a zero sum for the cleric. But at the same time, they made a LOT of spells less powerful - particularly buffs that got much reduced durations. So in toto I'd say they made both wizards and clerics weaker.

About fighters, the new and changed combat maneuver system is much more versatile, and because it is so much easier to use, it actually gets used.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The last two sentences above actually contradict. Yes, they added abilities to the Wizard. The cleric got more in the new channel energy healing, but lost power over undead (channel energy used as a weapon sucks now). A net gain for the wizard, a zero sum for the cleric. But at the same time, they made a LOT of spells less powerful - particularly buffs that got much reduced durations. So in toto I'd say they made both wizards and clerics weaker.

About fighters, the new and changed combat maneuver system is much more versatile, and because it is so much easier to use, it actually gets used.

Can't speak for someone else, but I think the intent here was that the classes themselves were made more powerful, which they were. Including casters (sorcerers especially). The spells and maneuvers are separate systems from the classes that use them, and the spells were indeed changed in many cases, which is a separate (if related) issue.

 

[N'raac]

As I see it, the intent was that all classes got something, and especially that there be no dead levels. The classes that got less were those considered more powerful from the outset (Wizards, Cleric, Druids) with the intent of giving more to classes perceived as less -powerful (meaning more for the Sorcerer, as he traded off the versatility of the Wizard, and even more for martial classes. Choice generallt grew as well, with "rogue tricks", "rage powers" etc. becoming more common and fixed abilities at specific levels less the focus. Finally, the L20 single class character was the focus - make that viable. That grew more with archetypes largely replacing the 3.5 prestige classes in the later releases.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I doubt that PF 2.0 is coming anytime soon - simply because Pazio does not live of FP rules - they live off the whole brand, including novels and adventures. Yes, they may sell a zillion copies of PF 2.0, but of that means they'll sell less novels and adventures, it might still be a net loss to them.

What I could see coming is a book to bring some of the core classes up to par, particularly the monk and rogue. But this is just my guess.



The last two sentences above actually contradict. Yes, they added abilities to the Wizard. The cleric got more in the new channel energy healing, but lost power over undead (channel energy used as a weapon sucks now). A net gain for the wizard, a zero sum for the cleric. But at the same time, they made a LOT of spells less powerful - particularly buffs that got much reduced durations. So in toto I'd say they made both wizards and clerics weaker.

About fighters, the new and changed combat maneuver system is much more versatile, and because it is so much easier to use, it actually gets used.

Barbarians now have "rage powers", Sorcerers now have "bloodlines", fighters now have "weapon training" and "weapon mastery", as well as "armor training" and "armor mastery", paladins get more abilities, etc, and many classes have special powers at level 20 that 'inspire' one to stick with one class (Paladin "Holy Champion", Ranger has "Master Hunter", Bards gets "Deadly Performance", Rogues get "Master Strike" and so on.) All this is just more things to track for players, and in my 3.5E game previously, the newer players already had trouble tracking & remembering all their abilities - and, PF just added even more on top.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Barbarians now have "rage powers", Sorcerers now have "bloodlines", fighters now have "weapon training" and "weapon mastery", as well as "armor training" and "armor mastery", paladins get more abilities, etc, and many classes have special powers at level 20 that 'inspire' one to stick with one class (Paladin "Holy Champion", Ranger has "Master Hunter", Bards gets "Deadly Performance", Rogues get "Master Strike" and so on.) All this is just more things to track for players, and in my 3.5E game previously, the newer players already had trouble tracking & remembering all their abilities - and, PF just added even more on top.

I can see that, definitely.

To me, this is where fighters come out well; there isn't really anything to track, because most of the abilities are still just numbers on your character sheet that get better. A rage power, on the other hand, is in some ways as much a punishment as a reward.

 

[N'raac]

So, what are the options here? "My character doesn't get enough cool abilities" is answered by Pathfinder giving all characters more cool abilities. Now the complaint is "I can't keep track of all my cool abilities". So what's the solution that answers both complaints?