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

[amethal]

Interesting post. The techniques you describe make sense as a way of making a game work, though personally I think I'm closer to your anathema category.

We kind of fell into them, in that some members of the group put a lot of effort into optimisation whilst others can't even remember to level up their characters without being reminded. Also, we are busy people so it is rare that every player can make a session - but the group's policy is that if we have the DM and at least 2 players then we play (and the poor DM has to scale the encounters accordingly).

We have just completed book 1 of Way of the Wicked with only 2 players for most of the sessions. I've generally had to scale things down a bit, but the two optimised 4th / 5th level characters have almost been holding their own against 6th and 7th level NPCs. It will be interesting to see how it goes at higher levels - higher level published adventures as written have been a cakewalk up until now but I've got a feeling this time the writers might be able to cope iwth my players. (If not, the next campaign is going to be Slumbering Tsar; that should teach them a lesson!)

 

[Ssalarn]

We have just completed book 1 of Way of the Wicked with only 2 players for most of the sessions. I've generally had to scale things down a bit,...

Having found WotW insanely difficult even with an optimized party, I find myself wondering if this is a bit of an understatement or if we were just doing it wrong...

 

[amethal]

Having found WotW insanely difficult even with an optimized party, I find myself wondering if this is a bit of an understatement or if we were just doing it wrong...

Its not much of an understatement, although they did have a bit of luck at times.

It really helps that one of the characters is a Godling (class by Super Genius Games, I think) and has the ability to teleport (very) short distances even at first level. ("Nice manacles / prison / castle you have there guys, luckily I can walk through walls!")

I wouldn't dream of suggesting someone else was doing it wrong, however

 

[Luciandevine]

Mythic, I LOVE the thought of mythic, but if you play with min/max players, mythic ends up far too broken to be much of a challenge at all.

 

[RangerWickett]

If we're doing this, I'd say what I want to change about PF is:

* No more numerical dependency on magic items. Make magic items provide interesting tactical options (oh hey, my sword can set a guy on fire), rather than simply giving you better bonuses. Cloaks of +1 and belts of +4 are boring. Nix them, and rejigger the math to keep the game balanced.

* Find a way to retool save-or-die spells (from sleep to hold person to implosion) so they have counterplay. If a huge monster is attacking you and you've got low AC, you at least have the option to go on total defense until your friends arrive to save you. But if someone holds you, you just have to hope you roll well to break out. Players need options in these situations. Maybe do some Occult mindscape style resistance.

* Fewer feats. Fewer everything, honestly. Try to intentionally design character options to be more plug and play. For instance, if I want to make a paladin who rides a fast horse and focuses on speed rather than heavy armor, which of a dozen archetypes should I choose? What if instead of having classes say, "You get X, Y, and Z, and can swap out X for these 12 things, Y for those 4 things, etc.," you just say, "For X, choose one of these options, for Y, choose one of these, etc"?

 

[StormwindFallacy]

If we're doing this, I'd say what I want to change about PF is:

* No more numerical dependency on magic items. Make magic items provide interesting tactical options (oh hey, my sword can set a guy on fire), rather than simply giving you better bonuses. Cloaks of +1 and belts of +4 are boring. Nix them, and rejigger the math to keep the game balanced.

* Find a way to retool save-or-die spells (from sleep to hold person to implosion) so they have counterplay. If a huge monster is attacking you and you've got low AC, you at least have the option to go on total defense until your friends arrive to save you. But if someone holds you, you just have to hope you roll well to break out. Players need options in these situations. Maybe do some Occult mindscape style resistance.

* Fewer feats. Fewer everything, honestly. Try to intentionally design character options to be more plug and play. For instance, if I want to make a paladin who rides a fast horse and focuses on speed rather than heavy armor, which of a dozen archetypes should I choose? What if instead of having classes say, "You get X, Y, and Z, and can swap out X for these 12 things, Y for those 4 things, etc.," you just say, "For X, choose one of these options, for Y, choose one of these, etc"?

I mean, the complexity is why I like it. I love the complicated feat chains and weird hyper specific rules. If I wanted rules lite gameplay, I'd use Fate Core (and I do, from time to time: shockingly, 3rd edition D&D derivatives like 5e and Pathfinder aren't the only TTRPGs in existance). 5e is just too in the middle. It doesn't want to committ one way or the other. Pathfinder at least has the genitals to be complicated, and Fate Core has the genitals to be simple.