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

Wicht

Hero
Sadly, I think that's exactly what it'll take to fix Pathfinder. Most of the flaws I see are deeply rooted into the game and can't be removed short of a complete overhaul(though I blame this mostly on it being a derivative of 3.5, aka Caster Edition).

Well, as somebody who likes the game more or less as it is, a complete overhaul is not really something I feel like undertaking at this juncture.

Incidentally, the condescending "Caster Edition" and the related "Casterfinder" come off as just a little bit edition-warrish and don't really make people sympathetic to trying to help you "fix" the game for you.

Some minor problems I have though are, like I said earlier, how narrowly focused a lot of the choices of the game are.

Thats really a matter of personal taste, but the game is modular and if you don't like the narrow choices, the solution is not to use them. You can't really fix something that is a matter of taste other than just avoiding it. For example, I have a visceral physiological reaction to cantalope. There is no fix there. I just don't eat it.

Also, booting the Summoner class or giving it an overhaul, or making the Synthesist the default class at the very least.

Well do so for your games then. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

EnglishLanguage

First Post
Well, as somebody who likes the game more or less as it is, a complete overhaul is not really something I feel like undertaking at this juncture.

Incidentally, the condescending "Caster Edition" and the related "Casterfinder" come off as just a little bit edition-warrish and don't really make people sympathetic to trying to help you "fix" the game for you.
Casters being hilariously broken in 3.5 and Pathfinder are well-known. Calling them as they are doesn't seem like an issue.


Thats really a matter of personal taste, but the game is modular and if you don't like the narrow choices, the solution is not to use them. You can't really fix something that is a matter of taste other than just avoiding it. For example, I have a visceral physiological reaction to cantalope. There is no fix there. I just don't eat it.
Oh, I typically do ignore them. Doesn't mean I'm not going to ignore that it's a problem.


Well do so for your games then. :)
This is typically the kind of thing I expect professional designers like Paizo to not release in the first place.
 

pemerton

Legend
I am saying that a group of adventurers being in a dungeon is inherently threatening to the inhabitants.

<snip>

People who turn up uninvited and armed at my home are going to be considered moderately threatening unless I know them. As an experienced DM trying for some level of verisimilitude in his world, I think it an imminently reasonable assumption on the part of the monsters. The feeling of being threatened is dependent entirely on the perception of the other party as to your intentions.
it doesn't say it has to be non-hostile. But I'm betting that if it is, it finds you a threat on some level. Maybe not (I could see that in certain situations), but I think even beginning to cast a spell might put it on edge (or make it feel threatened).

Again, I could see you even casting a spell making it feel threatened
I think if the spell meant "This spell always grants a +5 to save" it might say so.

It doesn't. So I'm assuming that "threatening" has its ordinary meaning, of actually making threats to the target.

Intelligence is not relevant at all to how well you can manipulate him.
Is PF such a dissociated game that how well you can trick a creature is not dependent on its Intelligence?
 

pemerton

Legend
another specifically calls them out as a type of "non-traditional"-magic
This is not true. It says that they are not magic in the traditional sense. That neither asserts nor entails that they are some other, non-traditional sort of magic. It leaves the matter open. That is a deliberate point of drafting.

If they wanted to write "Martial powers are magical, but not in the traditional sense" they could have. But they didn't.

That appears to be exactly what this text is saying, since it is directly comparing those things to arcane formulas and prayers, which are.
Yes. It denies that martial power involves those things. Instead it draws upon willpower, strength and training.

Seems like a terminological issue to me; it might be supernatural (in the literal sense of being above and beyond what is natural) but not magical (in the D&D-specific sense of referring to discrete powers granted in some organized form by specific entities or forces).
EX abilities in 3E are defined as "not magical though not physically possible either". What does that mean in the fiction? How are these physically impossible things achieved? The game doesn't tell us. The only practical significance of the denial that a troll's regeneration is magical is that it keeps working in an anti-magic field.

4e Martial abilities would keep working in an anti-magic field too.

Total, obvious (not zap/boom magic), unless you are feigning English reading comprehension issues, which, to be honest, I thinks is the case for some, ya know, gotta keep the agenda/crusade burring.
You do realize that it goes on to define what it means. right?
herrozerro is obviously right. The assertion "Martial powes are not traditional magic" naturally gives rise to a question "What are they, then?" The paragraph goes on to explain: they are extraordinary abilities, going beyond ordinary mortal capabilities, driven by willpower and training and strength. Whether a given play group wants to treat that as subtle magic (as some apparently see Aragorn) or as Conan-esque capabilities is left open. It could be different for different PCs in the same game. It could be different for a single PC over his/her career - a player might begin conceiving of his/her PC as "mundane", but as s/he gains levels and becomes a demigod, the player might change his/her conception of his/her PC's source of power.

I don't think anyone would argue that even though Hercules didn't cast spells his strength wasn't magical
And to that I'd say, that high level martials have always been magical.
I have two versions of the game that flag Hercules and comparable legendary figures as paradigm fighters: Moldvay Basic ("Great heroes such as Hercules were fighters": p B10), and 2nd ed AD&D ("There are many famous fighters from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Bewoulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain": p 26 of the fighter-on-horse printing PHB).

It's always been true (at least through B/X and AD&D; I don't know about 3E/PF) that a high-level D&D fighter might go toe-to-toe with Demogorgon or a great dragon, and otherwise do the sorts of things that Hercules did. If that means "magic" for some players, that's hardly something that 4e introduced to the game.

You can start right in the PHBI with the fighter power that allows them to do triple (or 3[W], or whatever) damage once a day. In every relevant sense, this is a magical ability. In a previous edition, it would have been referred to as a smite attack and been given appropriate mechanical descriptors. In 4e, it's a martial power. In no edition is that not a magical action.
This has been discussed at length upthread. 4e uses different rationing techniques from 3E. In particular, it uses player decision as a rationing technique. That does not mean that the ability is magical. A fighter doing 3W damage from a daily power is no more magical than a fighter doing double damage from a critical hit. It's just that the game shifts the rationing mechanism, from lottery to player choice from a pool of resources.

If you don't want to play a game where non-magical abilities are rationed via a method other than lottery, that's of course your prerogative. That doesn't mean that the rationing mechanic changes the fiction of the game. There are plenty of other RPGs out there which use player-driven rationing but don't have magical PCs. (For instance, in MHRP the Punisher's abilities are rationed by player choices about resource deployment, much like a fighter daily in 4e, but this doesn't mean that The Punisher in that game is a magician rather than a skilled, and lucky, soldier.)
 

JamesonCourage

Adventurer
I think if the spell meant "This spell always grants a +5 to save" it might say so.
No kidding. Want me to start replying with snark, too, or is this one way? Too late, I guess.
It doesn't. So I'm assuming that "threatening" has its ordinary meaning, of actually making threats to the target.
If I don't know a creature, and it draws a sword, I'll likely take that as threatening. Same thing with someone casting a spell.

There are situations when this isn't threatening. "Let me cast a protection spell, my friend. *Casts Charm Person*"

But, someone random casting a spell while in my territory (while probably with some heavily armed individuals)? Yeah, I think I'd feel threatened. Context matters.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Is PF such a dissociated game that how well you can trick a creature is not dependent on its Intelligence?

I took Wicht's comment to mean your PC's intelligence will not significantly bear on your attempt to manipulate the giant, which is why he focused in your PC's charisma.

By the way, nice try with the dissociated sarcasm.
 

Wicht

Hero
I think if the spell meant "This spell always grants a +5 to save" it might say so.

Well of course it would. In non-threatened situations, a creature does not get the bonus. This would include people you meet in the market, pub, or anywhere were you are not actually trespassing while fully armed. In situations where it is normal for an encounter to begin and end in violence (ie. adventurers going pell-mell through a monster's enclave) then there is an inherent assumption of threat.

It doesn't. So I'm assuming that "threatening" has its ordinary meaning, of actually making threats to the target.

What do you think the hill giant thinks you are breaking into its home for? Selling cookies? Your very presence in its home is a threat. In this case, threatening should be understood as making the target feel threatened by you in some way.

Is PF such a dissociated game that how well you can trick a creature is not dependent on its Intelligence?
How well you can trick a creature is dependent upon your Charisma. Sure your wizard might be more clever than the hill giant, but if Charisma is not high enough, he probably has a lousy poker face and snickers when he thinks he's pulling a fast one. Now if you want it slightly more realistic, I suppose you could pit your Charisma against it's wisdom, which is the ability reflective of how well he can see through your shenanigans. Again, Intelligence, as defined in game, has no bearing on playing tricks or on perceiving deception, those two things are reflected by Charisma and Wisdom respectively.
 

Wicht

Hero
Casters being hilariously broken in 3.5 and Pathfinder are well-known. Calling them as they are doesn't seem like an issue.

Seeing as how not everybody agrees with this assessment, then calling them as you see them might be interpreted by some as condescending rudeness directed at the things they actually like. Which is not, in my experience, generally a good way to sway others towards your point of view.
 

EnglishLanguage

First Post
Seeing as how not everybody agrees with this assessment.

Disagreeing doesn't stop it from being true. Say contrary all you want, it's still fact that casters are broken in 3.5 and PF(mostly Cleric and Druid of CoDzilla fame, but Wizards to a lesser extent. Summoners should have just never gotten past design as-written, and Oracles aren't quite as bad, but can still get really broken, especially if they abuse the Paragon Surge spell that lets them get access to their entire spell list at a moment's notice which is handy given they cast like Sorcerer and don't need to be worried about preparing the right spell.)

In fact, the main defense I hear againt casters being balanced is that they can be curbstomped into uselessness and that if you ignore the broken parts it's not broken.
 

Imaro

Legend
This is not true. It says that they are not magic in the traditional sense. That neither asserts nor entails that they are some other, non-traditional sort of magic. It leaves the matter open. That is a deliberate point of drafting.

Dude these are the same thing and it doesn't matter how many times you add "sort of" or claim it's not.

If they wanted to write "Martial powers are magical, but not in the traditional sense" they could have. But they didn't.

changing the order of words or adding to them doesn't actually change what the words mean...

Yes. It denies that martial power involves those things. Instead it draws upon willpower, strength and training.

And this precludes it from being magic because (I'd even argue using my will to power something is the essence of some types of magic... It was in White Wolf's Mage)? Again for an example see Exalted and Earthdawn... and now Mage

EX abilities in 3E are defined as "not magical though not physically possible either". What does that mean in the fiction? How are these physically impossible things achieved? The game doesn't tell us. The only practical significance of the denial that a troll's regeneration is magical is that it keeps working in an anti-magic field.

It means whatever you want it to mean... except magic...

Well seeing as the troll's ability is a racial trait, that every single one of their race has I'd argue there's an argument for it being biological??

Martial abilities would keep working in an anti-magic field too.

Does this officially exist in 4e? If so, I'm curious as to where (is it a power, a ritual, or what?) because I was under the impression there was no official anti-magic in 4e...


I have two versions of the game that flag Hercules and comparable legendary figures as paradigm fighters: Moldvay Basic ("Great heroes such as Hercules were fighters": p B10), and 2nd ed AD&D ("There are many famous fighters from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Bewoulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain": p 26 of the fighter-on-horse printing PHB).

It's always been true (at least through B/X and AD&D; I don't know about 3E/PF) that a high-level D&D fighter might go toe-to-toe with Demogorgon or a great dragon, and otherwise do the sorts of things that Hercules did. If that means "magic" for some players, that's hardly something that 4e introduced to the game.

No but 4e is the first edition to explicitly label a fighter's abilities as such... or is it not magic?? Which one are you now claiming it is?
 

Remove ads

Top