Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[BryonD]

Not "odd" because there have been many discussions regarding this very issue.

And even more bewildered rebuttals.

If it was intrinsic to the system, it would happen to everyone. This is not remotely close to the case.
If someone had issues with it, then a different system that locks out options as a means of control is certainly one solution.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

That's what I did. I banned the broken-ass Spell Compendium from my campaign before Pathfinder was even a glimmer in Paizo's eye.

--Erik

You and me both, I controlled what was allowed in each game. Keeping the total for each game around 5 books max, and even then that included setting books and I vetoed items from even allowed books I found unbalanced or hurt the game. And I told players up from if I allowed something and it became broke or was abused or in someway hurt the game it was gone and they could replace it

So While we only went past 16th level a few times and once to 25th I never had that high level burn out as I controlled what was in the game and had a good grasp on just what my players could and could not do. I did not allow things in I did not fully understand the repercussions of, into my games.

And I think my players had a more enjoyable game for it.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

That's what I did. I banned the broken-ass Spell Compendium from my campaign before Pathfinder was even a glimmer in Paizo's eye.

--Erik

Wait, what? Spell Compendium had a few broken spells in it, but overall it was fairly balanced. The most broken spells are right in core, I thought everyone knew this. Sort or like how the most powerful classes are right in core (3.5), yet people complain about broken splatbook classes?

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Wait, what? Spell Compendium had a few broken spells in it, but overall it was fairly balanced. The most broken spells are right in core,

I'll disagree with you , the spell Compendium had a few ok spells in it, but was way to much trouble to try and see what spells would not kill your game. If ya had a good time with it cool, I banned it and saved myself the massive head ache of playing "lets find the over powered broken spells as we go"

 

[Jack99]

"lets find the over powered broken spells as we go"

Starts right around "Glitterdust" in the PHB

 

[Votan]

I'll disagree with you , the spell Compendium had a few ok spells in it, but was way to much trouble to try and see what spells would not kill your game. If ya had a good time with it cool, I banned it and saved myself the massive head ache of playing "lets find the over powered broken spells as we go"

And there were a few that looked okay but worked out exceedingly poorly in practice. Assay Resistence (free action to cast, +10 to beat SR, 4th level spell) radically reduced the value of Spell Resistance at higher levels. It looked okay (and played okay) until the slots to hold it become cheap . . .

Compare the the +4 possible from 2 spell penetration feats . . .

Or the original Quill Blast and Miasma in Complete Divine. Yikes. I had a druid in the party when that book came out and they were fighting giants. It was remarkable what horror Quill Blast could do to a group of Fire Giants; it was awful . . .

 

[billd91]

Wait, what? Spell Compendium had a few broken spells in it, but overall it was fairly balanced. The most broken spells are right in core, I thought everyone knew this. Sort or like how the most powerful classes are right in core (3.5), yet people complain about broken splatbook classes?

I'm going to have to disagree as well. There were a lot of spells that were OK, but there were many balance issues including padding up the cleric and druid spell lists in general considering they could prep any they wanted.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Spell Compendium was a nightmare for me as a DM, having an artificer in the group.

"What do you need me to do? Is the spell 5th level or lower? Yeah? Okay, I can do it."

"I haven't said what spell yet."

"Doesn't matter. I can do it."

Some good stuff in there, but some seriously problematic stuff as well.

 

[Dice4Hire]

But it seems like a "rules heavy" solution where I might have preferred a rules light one.

Yes, in a way I would have to agree, though I like 4E a lot.

But I do not think rules-heavy is quite the right term, though I cannot think of a better one right now. Game expectation heavy? Hmm. I'll think on it.

 

[Chrono22]

I can't speak at length about it, as I've only played a few games of it.

Loved what they did with the rogue- and not just rebuilding the class either. Being able to sneak attack undead helped tremendously from the combat aspect. The skill consolidations also made the class a much better lead on non adventuring skills.

I hope to get in a regular game of it at some point, when my schedule opens up.