Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[malkav666]

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.

Multiclassing is important to the system, but the problems you are describing about multiclassing have everything to do with the groups of players and NOTHING to do with the system.

I have 3 gaming groups of varying playstyles, ages, genders, sexual orientations, ehtnicities, and religions. They are all into VERY DIFFERENT things both at the table and away from it. Yet somehow all three groups manage to come together and have cohesive, and fun games using 3.x/PF. The problems you describe as being intrinsic to the system have never really come up. I have gotten a few problem players over the years, but they either changed their tune and remained a member of the gorup or we sent them on their way.

IMO your post describes problem players not working well together. Those players will be bad players at any game they are at regardless of system or edition. The more options they have the worse they will be. I do not need a system with training wheels on it and the illusion of choice to reign those players in and make them play characters that are balanced and just like all of the other characters in the group. I like the options, and differences in 3.x. My players do as well. This problem you are describing does not exist at my tables, so I must therefore assume that it is some other variable at the games aside from the system that is causing this issue to surface for you as that is the sytem is the only common theme between what you are experiencing and what I am. And my experiences are fairly positive with the system.

love,

malkav

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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

I sustain that it is. All other versions of D&D, and for that matter all other RPGs I have played, were able to add options without causing the difficulty I encountered in 3E.

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

System Mastery =/= Skill Level. You could be the biggest tome scouring min/maxxing power gamer in the world and still have terrible tactical skills on the table or poor roleplaying aptitude. OD&D, BD&D, 1E AD&D and 4E D&D all kept the gap in power level of the characters close enough to make DMing not seem like a chore to me. I thought 3E was very innovative at first and the core game worked well, but it did not stand up to the added options in play.

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

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.

I'm not confused, but you seem to be confused by my very premise. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADD OPTIONS TO MY GAME WITHOUT CREATING A POWER GAP TOO LARGE TO ACCOMODATE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SYSTEM MASTERY. I never said these options were mandatory, nor did I state that I thought banning permission was a bad idea if that's what you want from the game.

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.

4E goes back to an older paradigm regarding multiclassing. It does not allow one to cherry pick the best pieces of hundreds of different prestige classes to create something larger than the whole of its pieces.

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.

They are all fine if they suit your needs, I never would say anything different. Can you tell me honestly that any of the "problematic options" you refer to above didn't have the issue behind the ban stem from the possibility for a player to cherry pick that ability? Or do you dismiss the 3.5 design team's observations that there was a problem with players cherry picking abilities that were front-loaded into even core classes? I don't throw the fact word around lightly, I can back it up.

 

[thatdarnedbob]

Multiclassing is important to the system, but the problems you are describing about multiclassing have everything to do with the groups of players and NOTHING to do with the system.

I have 3 gaming groups of varying playstyles, ages, genders, sexual orientations, ehtnicities, and religions. They are all into VERY DIFFERENT things both at the table and away from it. Yet somehow all three groups manage to come together and have cohesive, and fun games using 3.x/PF. The problems you describe as being intrinsic to the system have never really come up. I have gotten a few problem players over the years, but they either changed their tune and remained a member of the gorup or we sent them on their way.

IMO your post describes problem players not working well together. Those players will be bad players at any game they are at regardless of system or edition. The more options they have the worse they will be. I do not need a system with training wheels on it and the illusion of choice to reign those players in and make them play characters that are balanced and just like all of the other characters in the group. I like the options, and differences in 3.x. My players do as well. This problem you are describing does not exist at my tables, so I must therefore assume that it is some other variable at the games aside from the system that is causing this issue to surface for you as that is the sytem is the only common theme between what you are experiencing and what I am. And my experiences are fairly positive with the system.

love,

malkav

Haha, the old "your players are awful, therefore the system is good" argument. Stay classy, malkav.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Multiclassing is important to the system, but the problems you are describing about multiclassing have everything to do with the groups of players and NOTHING to do with the system.

As I said, even the 3.5E designers recognized that Multiclassing allowed players to cherry pick abilities. It is very important to the game and thus no change was made to multiclassing. All they could do to alleviated the problem slightly was to not front-load classes.

I have 3 gaming groups of varying playstyles, ages, genders, sexual orientations, ehtnicities, and religions. They are all into VERY DIFFERENT things both at the table and away from it. Yet somehow all three groups manage to come together and have cohesive, and fun games using 3.x/PF. The problems you describe as being intrinsic to the system have never really come up. I have gotten a few problem players over the years, but they either changed their tune and remained a member of the gorup or we sent them on their way.

I explained why you might not have problems. And more power to you. I got 8 years of fun out of 3rd Edition. But the problems I encountered made me want to quit D&D altogether. I would still play 3rd, I would just never put myself through running something I came to find completely unenjoyable. As for my players, they are not problem players. Some like to discover the intricacies of the system and that is a valid exploration of the game. Others like to approach the intricacies of their character's story. Neither are bad players, just different.

IMO your post describes problem players not working well together. Those players will be bad players at any game they are at regardless of system or edition. The more options they have the worse they will be. I do not need a system with training wheels on it and the illusion of choice to reign those players in and make them play characters that are balanced and just like all of the other characters in the group. I like the options, and differences in 3.x. My players do as well. This problem you are describing does not exist at my tables, so I must therefore assume that it is some other variable at the games aside from the system that is causing this issue to surface for you as that is the sytem is the only common theme between what you are experiencing and what I am. And my experiences are fairly positive with the system.

Perchance what system do you seek to smear through your thinly veiled attack? Training wheels? Illusion of choice? Insulting to all of my players who enjoy the intricacies of the new system that they are exploring and find the choices meaningful and fun. They also liked the choices in 3.5 but, like me, none of them would step up to run it when I informed them that I was no longer having fun running it.

I have said that the problem will not exist at all tables. Please read my posts before insulting me, my players, and all the fans of other game systems.

 

[billd91]

I sustain that it is. All other versions of D&D, and for that matter all other RPGs I have played, were able to add options without causing the difficulty I encountered in 3E.

I'm going to assume you've never played a full out point buy system like Hero, Mutants and Masterminds, or GURPS. It's possible to create characters of entirely divergent abilities, far more than in 3e D&D, even if you spend the exact same number of points.

I'm not confused, but you seem to be confused by my very premise. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADD OPTIONS TO MY GAME WITHOUT CREATING A POWER GAP TOO LARGE TO ACCOMODATE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SYSTEM MASTERY.

This basically means that your options all have to be very small in scope and unable to form much synergy with anything else. That's not necessarily a bad idea, but it is a bit constraining because there are almost always elements that you miss when designing the options you're adding or you have to close the book on adding options pretty early.

 

[The Ghost]

Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign.

Emphasis mine. If you don't like that option then don't use that option. Or, add the parts you do like and disregard the parts you don't.

 

[Mark Chance]

Emphasis mine. If you don't like that option then don't use that option. Or, add the parts you do like and disregard the parts you don't.

Hear, hear.

As much as I like 3.5 and as mucher )) as I like Pathfinder, I'm still going to run the game the way I think works best for me and my players (but especially for me). I don't particularly like prestige classes at all anymore. Of course, since I'm running Pathfinder E8, prestige classes won't factor in much at all. What's more, I don't particularly like attacks of opportunity, so I got rid of them. I like Action Points, so I'm using them.

Et cetera, et cetera.

 

[Turtlejay]

Kind of a weak argument, since doesn't the DM have final say over like, everything? Else what good are houserules? Rule 0 and all that?

Jay

 

[Dannager]

This problem you are describing does not exist at my tables, so I must therefore assume that it is some other variable at the games aside from the system that is causing this issue to surface for you as that is the sytem is the only common theme between what you are experiencing and what I am.

Or it could be that the system is great at accommodating groups like those you have, and is very poor at accommodating the groups other people have, and that many people consider this a serious flaw with the system.

Clearly, however, that's just wild and out there. After all, if it were a real possibility you probably wouldn't have just assumed that something else was the underlying cause.

 

[malkav666]

Haha, the old "your players are awful, therefore the system is good" argument. Stay classy, malkav.

Nice try. The point I was trying to make was that just because he/she is experiencing an issue with an aspect of the system, does not mean that necessarily mean its the system.

What was being described as an intrinsic flaw by the poster I quoted, is something that my group thinks is one of the best features of the system. It has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the group. Whether or not a group finds something to be a feature or a flaw has nothing to do with them being awful. But it also does not have much to do with the system either. It has to do with preference.

I was arguing that the systemic flaws that were being reported in his post had to do with preference. I am sorry you interpreted the above quoted sentiment from my argument. It was not my intent to paint his group as sucking, but rather to point out that the issue was one of opinions and not one of facts.

Love,

Classy Malkav