I have been running a Pathfinder campaign since around August and am now up to running 2 separate games. With all the hub bub about all the supposed fixes it made, I have to say that so far I am less than impressed. Their are far too many new classes that take away from the core of the game. Players I understand want to play with the new toys, but without the core classes being covered the parties are ill equiped to handle the challenges they are facing. And these are not small parties either. They average 7-8 players now, but cannot get more than 1 person per game to play a martial class and there is not a rogue in either party at present. I know some of the other classes can cover a lot of the skills, but they will never be as good as it as a rogue and with DC's that will reach into the 30-40 range it is going to get really tough. That and with all the Eidelons, animal companions, etc there is no room for half of the party to act. Half of the players sit on their hands during combat while 2-3 people run 6 or more creatures and many of them are enlarged. Add to this mess the new firearms rules and everything gets turned on its head. I just have to ask the question, is this the game I really want to be playing? It was about this time we as a group stacked up all of our 4E books and put them on the shelf and went back to 3.5. At least with Pathfinder there might be some wiggle room to blend it somewhere in between to a place where we are all comfortable.
Pathfinder 1E So far not impressed with Pathfinder
S
Sunseeker
Guest
This sounds like less of a Pathfinder issue and more of a table issue.
Admittedly when I played Pathfinder we played 3.5/Pathfinder, using the latter to overrule poor rulings in 3.5, but allowing players to draw from the more diverse material in 3.5. When I ran Pathfinder/3.5, I outright banned firearms. They don't fit in my vision for medieval fantasy and their rules are too fiddly.
Keep in mind that every game is different, and if your players aren't playing a "standard" party, then you can't run a "standard" game for them. You will have to adjust combats and you will have to adjust DCs, if you don't you'll only see a greater divorce between players and the game.
There ARE good fixes to the core classes in Pathfinder, but it's not Pathfinder's fault if people want to play the new and shiny classes and not the rebuffed core classes.
Admittedly when I played Pathfinder we played 3.5/Pathfinder, using the latter to overrule poor rulings in 3.5, but allowing players to draw from the more diverse material in 3.5. When I ran Pathfinder/3.5, I outright banned firearms. They don't fit in my vision for medieval fantasy and their rules are too fiddly.
Keep in mind that every game is different, and if your players aren't playing a "standard" party, then you can't run a "standard" game for them. You will have to adjust combats and you will have to adjust DCs, if you don't you'll only see a greater divorce between players and the game.
There ARE good fixes to the core classes in Pathfinder, but it's not Pathfinder's fault if people want to play the new and shiny classes and not the rebuffed core classes.
Argyle King
Legend
I'm currently in a PF game. I've found that some of the fixes do help. However, there are some new issues as well. In particular, the wide range of possible numbers available for certain things can make figuring out how a party will be able to handle an encounter pretty difficult. Through a combination of items, class abilities, and archtypes, one of the rogues in the current group is virtually invisible when it comes to stealth. I'm aware that is his job, but it's a bit extreme, and I'm not even sure that some epic creatures would be able to detect him.
Also, one of the players recently made a summoner. Maybe it's just me, but the eidelon he has seems a bit overpowered. (Granted, it may be that we're not familiar enough with the rules to be using them correctly.) It can manage multiple attacks per turn (more than most of us are capable of) and the damage for each individual attack is greater than what the other party members can manage. We are currently level 10.
I'm still having fun in the game. However, there are some issues which are very visible. Some of them are old problems from before; some are new ones born out of the 'fixes' to old problems.
Also, one of the players recently made a summoner. Maybe it's just me, but the eidelon he has seems a bit overpowered. (Granted, it may be that we're not familiar enough with the rules to be using them correctly.) It can manage multiple attacks per turn (more than most of us are capable of) and the damage for each individual attack is greater than what the other party members can manage. We are currently level 10.
I'm still having fun in the game. However, there are some issues which are very visible. Some of them are old problems from before; some are new ones born out of the 'fixes' to old problems.
I agree on a couple of counts. A lot of it is a table issue. The party leader, one of our most senoir members, tried for an hour and a half to explain to the rest of the party the same issues yesterday trying to get them to figure out what roles they played in the party. No one wanted to give up their character, except in was decided that yes the Summoner with Eidelon had to go, in both games. The additional creature is just in the way with a large party if nothing else. And yes the core classes seem to be ok. The problem is with the opitmizers wanting to take 2 levels of a class to try and fill a full time role. Sorry but 2 levels does not a rogue make.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Point out to the Summoner the archetype "Synthesist", it basically turns the Eidolon into a magic super-suit for the Summoner, it eliminates the extra turn(since the Eidolon and the Summoner have to act as one creature). It also forces the player into a more singular role(since as a Summoner with a separate Eidolon you can fill two roles, usually ranged blaster/controller and tank/melee damage), I found it to be a pretty solid change in a good direction when I played it. Faster turns, less complication, still really powerful though.
Scrivener of Doom
Adventurer
While I haven't played Pathfinder, I ran a lot of 3.xE including into Epic levels.
I think the game is so complicated after a certain point that it works best with two players each with two characters. That way you get your four PCs but generally each PC's turn is shorter because you have only two players making decisions.
Sure, you miss some of the fun that comes with a larger group but it is so much easier to manage the table.
I think the game is so complicated after a certain point that it works best with two players each with two characters. That way you get your four PCs but generally each PC's turn is shorter because you have only two players making decisions.
Sure, you miss some of the fun that comes with a larger group but it is so much easier to manage the table.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Most of that is, in fact, table issues. Number of players isn't set by rules, many of those issues (running about Enlarged) go back to 3.0, etc.
I agree about people avoiding core classes (in that they should try using them to fill roles) but even that's a table issue. (The DM doesn't have to allow the glut.) I'm a bit sad at the Paizo glut now. It's not as bad as WotC's 3e glut, but it's getting there.
Since you're the DM, you can always say PCs have to use classes and other material only from the main book.
This topic was recently discussed at the Paizo boards. The synth is less powerful than the summoner (although that's not saying much, the summoner is very strong) due to a weaker action economy. The biggest problem is complexity. No one ever seems to get it right.
Last edited:
innerdude
Legend
I agree with the other posters who say it primarily sounds like a group issue, not a "system" issue. That said, Pathfinder / 3.x has never been particularly good for games where the GM wants to just "let it roll" when it comes to group makeup. If you're not willing to take an active hand in "managing" the group to be cohesive with the rules, it's probably not the best system. Couple of specific things:
1. Seven or eight players per party is just too many for a pathfinder group, especially with the type of group they seem to want to play (lots of high powered casters, etc.). Split the two groups of 7-8 into three groups of 4-5. If the groups are dead set against changing the makeup, switch to a more streamlined system (Castles & Crusades or True20 come immediately to mind).
2. Work with the players to identify points of "imbalance." Ask them politely if they're okay with one or two party members overshadowing areas of the game. If not, engage the players to help out in figuring out how to make fixes.
1. Seven or eight players per party is just too many for a pathfinder group, especially with the type of group they seem to want to play (lots of high powered casters, etc.). Split the two groups of 7-8 into three groups of 4-5. If the groups are dead set against changing the makeup, switch to a more streamlined system (Castles & Crusades or True20 come immediately to mind).
2. Work with the players to identify points of "imbalance." Ask them politely if they're okay with one or two party members overshadowing areas of the game. If not, engage the players to help out in figuring out how to make fixes.
I don't see an issue with 7-8 players. We have had up to 13 w/o an issue at low levels and I can only run so many games. I am running RA and Slumbering Tsar so a certain make up of the party is presumed and I can ony adjust it so much. Both need a skilled rogue, especially RA.
Similar Threads
