Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[Kinak]

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?

Choosing between cool complicated abilities and cool simple/static abilities helps some, which Pathfinder does pretty well, although it could use more simple abilities.

At the end of the day, though, there's a curve. At most points on the curve, people will be complaining about how the game needs more stuff and needs less stuff. When people stop complaining about one or the other, either you're shooting for a niche market or you just screwed up badly.

In my experience, good design can be judged not by lack of complaint, but instead by roughly equal cause for complaint on both sides of each given issue.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Ahnehnois]

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?

I think that's oversimplifying it. For one thing, the complaint is more that "my character doesn't get as much cool abilities as the next guy's", which could just as easily be solved by nerfing the next guy's.

For another, the case being made here is that PF gave characters more abilities, but that those abilities were 'uncool'. Abilities that don't require so much tracking might serve the same purpose better.

Edit: Uh, yeah, what [MENTION=6694112]Kinak[/MENTION] said.

 

[NewJeffCT]

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?

I ran a huge group through a 3.5E game that went from level 1-18, and none of the players playing a straight fighter, cleric, sorcerer or barbarian complained that they felt underpowered during the game. The guy playing the rogue/spellthief sometimes felt that way, but he still had his moments to shine. I'd say the party psion was a bit overpowered in the middle levels and outshone the rest of the group for a bit, but it evened out later on. The paladin of freedom and the paladin/cleric and the other fighter never voiced complaints, either.

 

[N'raac]

First off, I agree with @Kinak - as long as we get about the same amount of complaints from both sides, we probably have it right. Maybe we need two contemporaneous editions, one back to OD&D where you pick a class (which might be a race, otherwise you're human), get specific class abilities (and not many of them) and that's it, and another with a dizzying array of choices. Or we need a game that provides that first one as the core rules, and the rest of the options as just that, options you can add in.

I think that's oversimplifying it. For one thing, the complaint is more that "my character doesn't get as much cool abilities as the next guy's", which could just as easily be solved by nerfing the next guy's.

For another, the case being made here is that PF gave characters more abilities, but that those abilities were 'uncool'. Abilities that don't require so much tracking might serve the same purpose better.

To the first issue, it's generally better received to give something than to take something away. To the second, since I'm not clear what requires more tracking than the spells in a wizard's book, which ones he decides to prepare each day and which have been cast, I'm not sure what the desired solution is.

I ran a huge group through a 3.5E game that went from level 1-18, and none of the players playing a straight fighter, cleric, sorcerer or barbarian complained that they felt underpowered during the game. The guy playing the rogue/spellthief sometimes felt that way, but he still had his moments to shine. I'd say the party psion was a bit overpowered in the middle levels and outshone the rest of the group for a bit, but it evened out later on. The paladin of freedom and the paladin/cleric and the other fighter never voiced complaints, either.

Quick - someone cast Invisibility to Class Tier discussions before it's too late!

 

[NewJeffCT]

First off, I agree with @Kinak - as long as we get about the same amount of complaints from both sides, we probably have it right. Maybe we need two contemporaneous editions, one back to OD&D where you pick a class (which might be a race, otherwise you're human), get specific class abilities (and not many of them) and that's it, and another with a dizzying array of choices. Or we need a game that provides that first one as the core rules, and the rest of the options as just that, options you can add in.



To the first issue, it's generally better received to give something than to take something away. To the second, since I'm not clear what requires more tracking than the spells in a wizard's book, which ones he decides to prepare each day and which have been cast, I'm not sure what the desired solution is.



Quick - someone cast Invisibility to Class Tier discussions before it's too late!

Not sure what you mean by class tiers? I thought tiers were 4E?

 

[Ahnehnois]

To the first issue, it's generally better received to give something than to take something away.

That depends. A lot of things have been taken away over the years. More things given than taken, to be sure, but many taken.

I'm still a little peeved that they took the thief's backstab away and replaced it with this sneak attack garbage.

To the second, since I'm not clear what requires more tracking than the spells in a wizard's book, which ones he decides to prepare each day and which have been cast, I'm not sure what the desired solution is.

Virtually nothing. However, a PF wizard also has some other school abilities that have to be tracked too. They're not as complicated, but they are cumulative.

More to the point, for the vast majority of players who aren't playing a wizard, every step towards that level of complexity is a step away from playability. The barbarian is a particularly notable example, because the complexity of tracking rage powers is at odds with the inherent simplicity of the character itself.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not sure what you mean by class tiers? I thought tiers were 4E?

He means the "tiers" that some charop board people came up with to label which classes are the best. This thing.

 

[N'raac]

That depends. A lot of things have been taken away over the years. More things given than taken, to be sure, but many taken.

I'm still a little peeved that they took the thief's backstab away and replaced it with this sneak attack garbage.

Sneak attack was, to me, an evolution of Backstab which provided the Rogue a greater ability to contribute in combat. Obviously, you don't see it the same way.

Virtually nothing. However, a PF wizard also has some other school abilities that have to be tracked too. They're not as complicated, but they are cumulative.

They did address the concern that a 1st level wizard spent a lot of his time firing crossbow bolts and didn't seem very "magical".

More to the point, for the vast majority of players who aren't playing a wizard, every step towards that level of complexity is a step away from playability. The barbarian is a particularly notable example, because the complexity of tracking rage powers is at odds with the inherent simplicity of the character itself.

This is a matter of degree. The Barbarian can be viewed as complex due to the need to decide when to use those precious Rage opportunities (especially in 3e when he's at 1/day). The PF barbarian tracks rounds, and has quite a few powers that only work when raging, and others that work only one per rage. I don't find this harder to track than "Rages per day", but others may. That said, some players need a second character sheet to run "Barbarian in Rage", so that's a greater complexity than most characters face.

Thanks for clarifying my "tiers" reference.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sneak attack was, to me, an evolution of Backstab which provided the Rogue a greater ability to contribute in combat. Obviously, you don't see it the same way.

There are certainly plenty of cases where a character would deal more damage with SA. But by changing it from a multiplier to bonus dice, they made the base damage of the character go from wildly swingy to borderline irrelevant. I preferred the method that rewarded the player for planning an assault and building a character with high base damage.

They did address the concern that a 1st level wizard spent a lot of his time firing crossbow bolts and didn't seem very "magical".

Well, they made that scenario less likely. But there was a cost to doing so. That's all.

This is a matter of degree. The Barbarian can be viewed as complex due to the need to decide when to use those precious Rage opportunities (especially in 3e when he's at 1/day). The PF barbarian tracks rounds, and has quite a few powers that only work when raging, and others that work only one per rage. I don't find this harder to track than "Rages per day", but others may. That said, some players need a second character sheet to run "Barbarian in Rage", so that's a greater complexity than most characters face.

If a power is always on during a rage, that isn't a big deal. If it's once per rage, that means that each round, you have to choose whether or not it's worth using, in addition to the basic choices of combat. And rage powers accumulate.

Moreover, it makes the ability of very limited value. If an ability is only going to be usable once in a given battle, and may not even be used once depending on the player's choices and the situation, it's much less valuable than something that just happens. Sure, some players might feel that their character has gotten more "cool stuff", but practically the character has gained little.

Conversely, the PF fighter has picked up weapon training and armor training. "Cool"? Perhaps not, to the untrained eye. But the character is vastly more effective because those bonuses work during essentially every round of combat.

There's a reason why when I was working on homebrew classes, I hewed very close to the PF fighter, farther from the PF rogue, and ignored the PF barbarian.

 

[N'raac]

There are certainly plenty of cases where a character would deal more damage with SA. But by changing it from a multiplier to bonus dice, they made the base damage of the character go from wildly swingy to borderline irrelevant. I preferred the method that rewarded the player for planning an assault and building a character with high base damage.

Where I consider this a feature in that it focuses Rogues away from high base damage and allows them to focus their choices on something other than being a second class Fighter. Obviously, opinions and preferences vary. The wizard is a great example of the tradeoff between "cool stuff" and "tracking abilities".

If a power is always on during a rage, that isn't a big deal. If it's once per rage, that means that each round, you have to choose whether or not it's worth using, in addition to the basic choices of combat. And rage powers accumulate.

After choosing whether use of Rage is worthwhile at the outset. I certainly agree there are more choices to be made.

Moreover, it makes the ability of very limited value. If an ability is only going to be usable once in a given battle, and may not even be used once depending on the player's choices and the situation, it's much less valuable than something that just happens. Sure, some players might feel that their character has gotten more "cool stuff", but practically the character has gained little.

Yet any given spell is usable only once a day, and spells are generally considered valuable. Of course, you can prepare the same spell more than once. But would making those Barbarian abilities "X per day" rather than "Once per rage" be superior?

The Fighter needed more than the Barbarian, I think, and had less to tie his new abilities to. While he gets mechanical abilities usable every round of combat, he's not, as you note, viewed as getting "cool stuff". After all, no one points to the Fighter's BAB as a cool thing when compared to a Cleric or Wizard. The Fighter is also less customizable in respect of his abilities, other than choosing specific weapons (but he already had bonus feats to provide a lot of customizing options, where the Barbarian did not).