Pathfinder 1E So what do you think is wrong with Pathfinder? Post your problems and we will fix it.

[billd91]

Like I said, you've crafted a fairly niche situation (non-hostile hill giant against an enchanter specialist that are met alone so that their buddies don't attack, and you win an opposed Charisma check as a Wizard [no retries] to allow you to do something that I think is against the rules [fight its allies for you]). If we change it around to other niche situations (like fighting that flesh golem or that skeletal cloud giant), then your character looks way worse off.

I don't think I'd call ordering the hill giant to fight his own allies for you against the rules. I have no doubt they'd do so just fine - a better question would be which allies? If a wizard were charming a hill giant at the steading of the hill giant chief, I have no trouble seeing a single charmed giant being OK with fighting the clan's juveniles, any other single giant, bunches of orc slaves, or the dire wolves out back in the yard. But taking on the stone giants, the cloud giant, or chief Nosnra himself? Probably not. Not unless he recognized he had an obvious advantage on terms he understood - and I'm not sure having a wizard trusted friend and ally really fits that bill.

You can argue balance problems, but your point was that preparing save or die spells wasn't particularly risky. I'm pointing out that even inside of your niche situation, it's still pretty risky, and it's not nearly as powerful as you make it out to be (I even quoted Charm rules for you... it may not even see your allies as okay). And, of course, outside of your niche situation, the save or die spell, the feats, etc. are a waste for that encounter.

So, I'll say it again (even though I just did), you can argue balance problems, but it's probably best not to argue that save or dies aren't risky and then throw out a niche situation (that seems to favor this Wizard very well). It's just not accurate.

This sort of thing often seems to come up in these wizard = autowin or quadratic wizard, linear fighter debates. Optimal conditions, friendly interpretation of spells and abilities, optimal equipment. Quite often the sorts of things that don't actually show up in games or, when they do, it's because someone is taking advantage of the GM's misconceptions. Sometimes it's not deliberate considering the complexity of some of the rules and the assumptions that people have imprinted on them over the years, but sometimes, particularly when you start to hear really tortured interpretations, it clearly is.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

It's also full of things that are not actual problems with Pathfinder, some of which carry more that a little edition warr-y glint, which has subverted what the OP was asking.

Casters being overpowered is a well-known problem with Pathfinder.

 

[Dungeonman]

Casters being overpowered is a well-known problem with Pathfinder.

It doesn't matter. If it's a problem, who do you expect is going to fix it and how? Who on this thread is going to completely rewrite Pathfinder for you or anyone else? There is happiness in acceptance that comes from being realistic.

 

[The_Other_GM]

They must not be very good friends if you would let something as trivial as a game come between you.

i like to think of it as the "mario party" syndrome.

mario party is not a game for everyone, but it is a game meant to be played with others and takes a significant amount of time in an evening to play. the frequency of the minigames and rather quick turn order means that everyone will probably stay engaged pretty often.

i like hanging out with my friends but i dislike mario party. if we hang out together and play mario party, for the most part their attention will be focused on the game whereas mine will be somewhere else. as such, we're not so much "hanging out" as we just happen to be in the same room.

as such, i would much rather do something else in my time that i find enjoyable and actually hang out with them doing something else we all find enjoyable rather then them having fun and me mulling about and being gloomy.

so i made it pretty clear to them: if you want to play mario party (or any other game i dislike), ask someone else who will probably enjoy the game more and bring more energy to the evening.

on the flipside, i would wonder at the quality of friends you have if they keep forcing you to come do things you clearly don't like on the basis that they won't be your friends anymore if you don't show.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think I'd call ordering the hill giant to fight his own allies for you against the rules. I have no doubt they'd do so just fine - a better question would be which allies? If a wizard were charming a hill giant at the steading of the hill giant chief, I have no trouble seeing a single charmed giant being OK with fighting the clan's juveniles, any other single giant, bunches of orc slaves, or the dire wolves out back in the yard.

If he's willing to, then I wouldn't really call them allies. They look like other nearby residents.

But taking on the stone giants, the cloud giant, or chief Nosnra himself? Probably not. Not unless he recognized he had an obvious advantage on terms he understood - and I'm not sure having a wizard trusted friend and ally really fits that bill.

These people aren't necessarily his allies either, but he might not fight them out of fear, I agree.

This sort of thing often seems to come up in these wizard = autowin or quadratic wizard, linear fighter debates. Optimal conditions, friendly interpretation of spells and abilities, optimal equipment. Quite often the sorts of things that don't actually show up in games or, when they do, it's because someone is taking advantage of the GM's misconceptions. Sometimes it's not deliberate considering the complexity of some of the rules and the assumptions that people have imprinted on them over the years, but sometimes, particularly when you start to hear really tortured interpretations, it clearly is.

I think that's true. And I do think it's going on right now.

I also think the entire "4e is magic" side discussion is also pointless and being argued in bad faith by those who dislike 4e. Just thought I'd say that out loud, too, having just read it.

I sympathize with GMforPowergamers, too, since this thread is basically a train wreck. I don't play 3.X/PF, so I don't have much investment in it, but it makes me want to go to his other thread and offer some suggestions. I'm not sure if it'd help, but at least I'd be useful. There are a lot of people defending PF in bad faith in this thread, in my opinion. No doubt some of that is honest defense against attacks made in bad faith (as you pointed out, bill91), but still. It's part of why this thread is a train wreck, and not useful to GMforPowergamers (who showed up for help).

 

[Imaro]

Such as?

Again... every power they use... not sure why it matters if I call a specific one out or not.

 

[Wicht]

Can you name one problem brought up and fixed?

Well the definition of "fixed" is probably in the mind of the reader, but...

Post #20, #24 and #26 offer advice on making magic items less boring. I myself expounded upon this theme in posts #191 and #198

Post #29 suggests getting rid of features you find troublesome by just ignoring those options (the game is modular after all). Post #67 makes a similar suggestion. And I say something very similar in #70 – you don't have to use every option. #77 admits that this is how he keeps his game going smooth. #90 agrees. The fact that this is an unsatisfactory "fix" for some does not preclude it from being a very sensible fix for some of the problems brought up, especially in regards to games being bogged down.

Post #48 points out, quite rightly, that player attitude determines a lot of the approach to the rules.

Post #82, #83 and #86 points out the “hubs” of Golarion.

Now, about post #95 EnglishLanguage begins the “Wizards are Overpowered” argument, which has devolved (though this followed a complaint that PF was just 3e and that was its real problem; a “problem” for which there is admittedly no solution except to play a different game). But there was still helpful advice after...

In #124 I had a suggestion for dealing with wizards accumulating skills through gear.

Posts #170 and #172 points out why there might be rather specific archetypes in the books. (not really a “fix” but an apology for the thing bugging EnglishLanguage).

In post #196 I point out why the wealth/level tables et. al. are not “broken” and can be useful when doing actual design work but that they should likely be ignored during game play.

In post #198 I try to actually address one posters issues and was roundly attacked and insulted for doing so. But I did point out how to make your characters more skillful if this is an in-game problem. But the anger which greeted this post made me think that a lot of the “fixes” people are looking for is actually masking a desire for a different game with different rules.

Posts #199 and 200 are a back and forth examining some of the issues.

I offer some Dming advice in #206. And in #215 and 220 I identify a problem with a certain mindset which will create in-game complications. Post #241 offers adventure design advice.

In post #228 I offer Henry some advice on how to make monsters on the fly.

Post #234 offers some fixes (I don't necessarily agree with them, but they are there).

Post #245 offers advice on how to deal with endless rules discussion (which sadly could not be used because the DM was part of the problem)

I think Ahnenois offers some sound advice in #249 and #252

There's an interesting discussion of magic items in #s 262-268.

Then in #269 Oxybe rekindled the dormant wizard argument.

But in #295 I offer some ideas on making the game grittier, if that's what you want.

And it was posts #315 and 320 which began the 3e vs 4e argument concerning magic which still rages right now.

Now it does seem to me that there are two sorts of complaints that cannot be fixed in this thread and that any desire to see them fixed is misguided. The first is the complaint that Pathfinder uses the 3e engine. If that bugs you, the only fix is a different game. The second complaint that cannot be fixed is the sort that requires a complete rewrite of the classes, which is again, just a different game. If what you want is a different game, then its not very useful to ask advice as to how to fix the game, in fact its slightly disingenuous.

 

[billd91]

I am yet to hear an answer to may of the "problems" brought up here...

1) unbalanced progression. This is a big catch all of problems, weather you believe in lfqw or not, there is something here you must admit. It is possible to have 2 groups of PCs that are the same level going into the same dungeon, and be vastly different power levels. If group 1 is a power gamed wizard a pretty powered druid, a decent made gunslinger, and a multi classed power gamed twink, and group 2 is a fighter a rogue, a ranger and a paliden you could watch group 1 take less damage in the entire dungeon then group 2 takes in the first fight.... not so bad in different tables, but very bad when mixed.

The challenge here is you will often see the same effect even with the same character builds as long as the players are different. It's part of the glorious messiness that is role playing games in general. Even regular games can see pretty extreme variations of results because of choices made by the players. I think RPGs just exaggerate the effect because there are no clear victory conditions, the roles players ascribe to their PCs can be pretty out-there, and then there are the random dice elements.

I agree that you have problems when play styles are mixed, but that's a group composition problem more than a game problem. The only way to significantly compensate for it is to radically reduce the scope of choices available to the players. 4e took a stab at it by redefining virtually the vast majority of powers in combat move terms and even then you could see a big difference between groups that built up with stun-lock powers and ones that didn't.

More choices breeds more differences in characters. The best remedy for it that I've seen is guidance from the referee. The 3e/PF rules could use more guidance on the implications of certain choices (the point of Monte Cook's Ivory Tower article) like Champions has included since the late 1980s. That's probably one area where PF would have been better off with 2 volumes instead of a single Core Rulebook or perhaps a slightly different direction in the Game Master's Guide.

1a) I still want to hear an argument for why wizards and clerics, a commonly held high powered set of classes needed to be given MORE class features, I'm pretty sure you could have cut there power and still left them 2 of the best classes in the game, but they chose to up them instead...

Sure, they got some more powers, but they were "improved" in ways that weren't particularly powerful. Most of the changes offered a bit of flavor rather than the sorts of improvements made to the barbarian, fighter, monk, ranger, or paladin. I remember that some of the complaints levied at 3e were that wizards were expected to rely on non-spell abilities more often than they should - that they weren't "magical" enough. Well, the school powers give them some more distinct magical powers without significantly increasing their power. Plus they give them goodies based on their class level - discouraging multiclassing for power which too many spellcaster-based prestige classes were willing to give away without enough trade-off. Honestly, what was the point with sticking with your primary class if you could hop over to a prestige class with a new benefit every level and which still gave you full casting progression? What did you lose - familiar advancement, a few bonus feats? Well, now you have the potential to lose a lot more with that trade-off. So multiple masters are being served by these power-ups you think the game gave them.

3) Abstract meta features. Love it or Hate it, pathfinder classes are just as full of gamest parts as 4e was. I laugh when people tell me that the 4e fighter come and get it is worse then an alchemist that can only use potions on himself, or a gunslinger that would fit right next to any class in 4e. One of the strong points of 3e (or so I was told) was how simiulationist it was, but it seams half of the new classes they made where gamest... witch confuses the whole system.

This strikes me more as a pot shot aimed at 4e critics who are also PF fans than a criticism of PF itself.

4) Splat book compatibility (AKA the money grab) remember how in bullet 2 I said they had changed enough to remove house rules, they also made changes to everyclass... and most feats. So any class race or feat from a non open source from wotc needs to be reworked to fit pathfinder... now to some that means it is just a new edition, but since it was sold atleast at first as a continuation, it annoys me that I have a few $100 worth of books that dont' work out of the box... Example: Warlock is one of my favorite classes but I have never met a PF GM that will let me play one. Bo9S was my favorite book from 3.5, followed closely by the second complete arcane, but both need to be tossed out in PF...

Neither needs to be tossed out in PF - but neither is open content (for which there can be nobody to blame but WotC) so neither can be directly incorporated and updated by Paizo. If you like them, convince another GM to allow you to use them. But that's an issue between you and them - not between you and Pathfinder. The game's about 90% compatible, I'd say. When I run PF, I generally don't allow warlocks because they're way too superhero game for my tastes, fitting more with M&M than with D&D. The flavor's all wrong, as far as I'm concerned. And I didn't like Bo9S either so I don't run with that either. I run a PF game because I like to do so - I might entertain some feats bubbling up from 3e (I like the luck ones) but I'm going to be pretty choosy. Plus, all of the PF rules are open content, meaning I can get them in various formats on my iPad easily whereas I can't with the 3e stuff (again, because WotC didn't make most of the splat stuff open content - entirely WotC's fault). Paizo has made their game much more accessible to me the way I like to run the game than WotC ever did with 3e - is that a problem with PF? I don't think so - but if that does make it more difficult to play your favorite stuff, that's unfortunate, but it's not the fault of PF.

 

[Imaro]

I also think the entire "4e is magic" side discussion is also pointless and being argued in bad faith by those who dislike 4e. Just thought I'd say that out loud, too, having just read it.

I think you're wrong on both counts... Just thought I'd say that out loud. For me looking at 4e martial powers as a form of magic makes much more sense than some of the convoluted reasoning and narrow play style views that have been put forth as explanations for why encounter powers, daily powers and martial practices work on the way they do...

 

[Crothian]

Casters being overpowered is a well-known problem with Pathfinder.

As the thread shows not for everyone. That is one of the biggest problems with threads like this. What one table sees at a consistent table might never be at a problem at another table. I see that a lot on line in which people post about problems that I never see in games I run. Different style and different players bring out different problems in games.