Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[Votan]

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.

Yes, I agree that I might have used the wrong word. Templated?

I also agree that 4E has a lot of positive qualities, the odd personal preference does not detract from the very good design work that went into it. I would nopt have been able to do as well (and use the Ranger and Rogue, both martial strikers who feel completely different but are balanced options as my ""poster child" example).

 

[Erik Mona]

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?

Yes, well, at the time I didn't have the ability to mass-produce professional revisions of the core rules, so I sort of had to allow the spells in the PH on principle. I had one weasely player in my campaign who always cast glitterdust, evard's black tentacles, web, and grease in every single fight. While I didn't see fit to ban core spells (though I did ban the 3.0 Evard's as too much of a PITA), I let frowns and "oh, gee, grease again!" comments let the player know that I'd appreciate a little more creativity and less reliance on broken/overpowerd rules exploits.

I had another player--Jason Bulmahn--whose eye for rules, long RPGA history, and overwhelming competitive spirit immediately made him hone in on the most powerful stuff. I'd look at the spells Jason chose very closely, since his understanding of the rules and personality led him to borderline stuff almost naturally. To his credit, the powerful stuff he went for ALWAYS supported his character concept, which came first and foremost even to the point of making willfully bad meta-game decisions simply to stay in character. So I didn't ban a lot of his stuff, but I watched it very closely.

At the time the spell that bothered me the most was the one that let you use a swift action (relatively new at the time) to "oh no you didn't" immediately cure damage. At the time I greatly resented the way that this took narrative control away from the DM, and felt it was an affront to the story of the game, which is more important to me than the rules. I strive to avoid having to "rewind" during the game as much as possible, and really hated the way these spells made me eat words I had uttered only seconds ago.

I have mellowed out considerably on the topic of swift actions, but that spell and others like it were probably the genesis of my general dislike of that book.

Actually broken spells sealed the deal.

--Erik

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yes, well, at the time I didn't have the ability to mass-produce professional revisions of the core rules, so I sort of had to allow the spells in the PH on principle. I had one weasely player in my campaign who always cast glitterdust, evard's black tentacles, web, and grease in every single fight. While I didn't see fit to ban core spells (though I did ban the 3.0 Evard's as too much of a PITA), I let frowns and "oh, gee, grease again!" comments let the player know that I'd appreciate a little more creativity and less reliance on broken/overpowerd rules exploits.

I had another player--Jason Bulmahn--whose eye for rules, long RPGA history, and overwhelming competitive spirit immediately made him hone in on the most powerful stuff. I'd look at the spells Jason chose very closely, since his understanding of the rules and personality led him to borderline stuff almost naturally. To his credit, the powerful stuff he went for ALWAYS supported his character concept, which came first and foremost even to the point of making willfully bad meta-game decisions simply to stay in character. So I didn't ban a lot of his stuff, but I watched it very closely.

At the time the spell that bothered me the most was the one that let you use a swift action (relatively new at the time) to "oh no you didn't" immediately cure damage. At the time I greatly resented the way that this took narrative control away from the DM, and felt it was an affront to the story of the game, which is more important to me than the rules. I strive to avoid having to "rewind" during the game as much as possible, and really hated the way these spells made me eat words I had uttered only seconds ago.

I have mellowed out considerably on the topic of swift actions, but that spell and others like it were probably the genesis of my general dislike of that book.

Actually broken spells sealed the deal.

--Erik

Are you referring to Close Wounds? If so, that's actually an immediate action -- you can use it out of turn. That's the whole point of the spell, and it does cruddy healing compared to any cure spell. I don't see how that's overpowered, my group loves it, it makes combats slightly less randomly lethal. And if you truly have things to do with your swift action most rounds (Magic Item Compendium certainly could be thanked for that in my group), casting an immediate action close wounds does in fact have a "cost" to the PC.

I'm not sure I agree with your sampling of broken core spells, either. Evard's? Unless the group coordinates well and goes ranged barrage on the enemy, it has a tendency to muck things up for half the party trying to fight in melee. And after a while, the grapple bonus IME is too low to work on many monsters.

Grease and Web are strong, but I don't see how they're broken...I'm sensing you have a thing for battlefield control in general. (And if so, what? No mention of Obscuring Mist? 1st level spell that automatically shuts down the Rogue on top of any BFC functions...).


When I say broken spells, I meant things that were beyond just strong. Glitterdust is an example. I was thinking of Shapechange, Alter Self, Wraithstrike, Wings of Cover, etc...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Spell Compendium had a lot of issues, but I generally allow the non-druid/cleric/wizard spells.

How many people have had issues with paladins, rangers, and assassins being overpowered, after all? ;p

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Well might want to rethink that at lest for the paladin anyhow and the assassin is spelless, although ya can still use the 3.5 version. Ranger also got a boost so stuff may or may not now be an issue.

 

[billd91]

Spell Compendium had a lot of issues, but I generally allow the non-druid/cleric/wizard spells.

How many people have had issues with paladins, rangers, and assassins being overpowered, after all? ;p

That's actually where I'd say that the Spell Compendium is at its best. It's also where I believe 90% of all swift action spells should go - to the paladins and rangers and NOT to the wizards/sorcerers.

But spells like Vortex of Teeth and Phantasmal Assailants kind of soured me on the book.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If it was intrinsic to the system, it would happen to everyone. This is not remotely close to the case.

I disagree. Multiclassing was intrinsic to 3E and only 3E. No other version of D&D has this version of multiclassing. You question why this problem wouldn't happen to everyone. I've already explained that. Groups of players with equal levels of game mastery would not have this problem. If every character in the group is a "10" on the power scale because you have all powergamers it is easy to create appropriate challenges for them. If you have a group of players that care nothing for making powerful character and every character in the group is a "1" it is easy to create appropriate challenges for them. If you have a mixed group of players (which I do and which provides me the variety of outlooks on the game that I enjoy) and some have "10's" while others have "1's" it is difficult to provide an appropriate challenge for the group. The multiclassing system plus a plethora of options creates a power gap larger than any other version of D&D to date. And each new book of options widened that gap. You may say "push those who create 1's to try harder." That's not their playstyle! It's not that the "10" players are better at the game, they just approach it in a different way. The system makes it difficult for players of different styles to coexist. And, of course, your solution to this may be to ban things and keep playing 3E and that's great if that's the solution that satisfies you, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a problem with the system that required you to ban new options.

 

[Mark Chance]

I disagree. Multiclassing was intrinsic to 3E and only 3E.

Multiclassing is part of 3E and, by extension, Pathfinder, but multiclassing isn't the source of the problem your decrying. This is:

Groups of players with equal levels of game mastery would not have this problem.

No game system can compensate for varying skill levels among players.

The multiclassing system plus a plethora of options creates a power gap larger than any other version of D&D to date. And each new book of options widened that gap.

No, permitting those options could be a source of problems. Perhaps the fundamental confusion is the difference between optional, mandatory, and permitted?

...of course, your solution to this may be to ban things and keep playing 3E and that's great if that's the solution that satisfies you, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a problem with the system that required you to ban new options.

My experience with every RPG I've ever played is that options are optional, and, when GM, those that I feel are problematic (for whatever reason) shift from optional to disallowed.

Pathfinder is no different than any other RPG in this respect. Judging by the large number of 4E threads about rules clarifications and house rules, 4E is likewise the same regarding this lack of difference. Of course, I've not played 4E, so I'm just guessing.

I have, however, played OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, and Pathfinder. They're all fine game systems in their own right. Your fact about the perceived option-banning problem isn't a fact, and it's not a problem, except for people who think it's a problem. IOW, your fact is really just a matter of opinion.

 

[coyote6]

Me, I love some of the spells in SC (revivify), think a few suck, think some are broken, and think that adding more and more spells to clerics and druids is what's really broken. Every spell you add for a class that automatically knows all spells, no matter how innocuous and well-balanced the individual spell is, adds to that class's power. When the class is the cleric or druid -- well, they're already quite powerful, so massive increases in spells known just gets ridiculous.

So, my solution was that clerics (and druids) automatically got a few spells (revivify), would automatically get any spells we agreed were especially appropriate for that character's deity, and then they got to pick two spells each level they could add to their "known spells" (with caveats about house-ruling broken spells).

Now, the spells from various pre-SC books -- those were full of brokenosity, IMO. Complete Divine, Complete Arcane -- ugh. SC fixed most of the worst of those, IIRC (the ones they didn't are the ones that got bounced).

Of course, most of the folks I was playing D&D with weren't really powergamers, so I didn't have to put up with a whole lot of wraith strike silliness.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Yes!

I am in so complete agreement here... no wonder I'm so pleased with the changes you made in Pathfinder!

Ken

Yes, well, at the time I didn't have the ability to mass-produce professional revisions of the core rules, so I sort of had to allow the spells in the PH on principle. I had one weasely player in my campaign who always cast glitterdust, evard's black tentacles, web, and grease in every single fight. While I didn't see fit to ban core spells (though I did ban the 3.0 Evard's as too much of a PITA), I let frowns and "oh, gee, grease again!" comments let the player know that I'd appreciate a little more creativity and less reliance on broken/overpowerd rules exploits.

I had another player--Jason Bulmahn--whose eye for rules, long RPGA history, and overwhelming competitive spirit immediately made him hone in on the most powerful stuff. I'd look at the spells Jason chose very closely, since his understanding of the rules and personality led him to borderline stuff almost naturally. To his credit, the powerful stuff he went for ALWAYS supported his character concept, which came first and foremost even to the point of making willfully bad meta-game decisions simply to stay in character. So I didn't ban a lot of his stuff, but I watched it very closely.

At the time the spell that bothered me the most was the one that let you use a swift action (relatively new at the time) to "oh no you didn't" immediately cure damage. At the time I greatly resented the way that this took narrative control away from the DM, and felt it was an affront to the story of the game, which is more important to me than the rules. I strive to avoid having to "rewind" during the game as much as possible, and really hated the way these spells made me eat words I had uttered only seconds ago.

I have mellowed out considerably on the topic of swift actions, but that spell and others like it were probably the genesis of my general dislike of that book.

Actually broken spells sealed the deal.

--Erik