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

[Ahnehnois]

I wonder how many of these problems are a problem because of DMs who are not willing to stand athwart their game and say "stop."

I love all the options available for Pathfinder. But I have no problems limiting my players and telling them, "You may try this in this game, but not that." You don't have to have every option in every game.

Indeed. The rhetoric for 5e was all around modularity, but we really never saw much of that in they playtests, whereas PF is bringing plenty of modularity to the table.

 

[bert1000]

This thread title is misleading. Are there any proposed fixes in this thread? (Besides the always helpful -- play something else...)

 

[Wicht]

This thread title is misleading. Are there any proposed fixes in this thread? (Besides the always helpful -- play something else...)

Well sure, I proposed that DMs learn to limit the options available to players in response to the perceived problem of rule's bloat.

In response to the complaint that PF is 3.x remade and people don't like 3.x, which sees to be a number of people, I got nothing to help them.

 

[herrozerro]

This thread title is misleading. Are there any proposed fixes in this thread? (Besides the always helpful -- play something else...)

Strip out the offending parts has been offered. But I don't think it's a "fix".

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Well sure, I proposed that DMs learn to limit the options available to players in response to the perceived problem of rule's bloat.

Myself, I don't really understand the general problem with option 'bloat.' Every time I read 'bloat,' regardless of context, all I can think is "...shouldn't have eaten that much Indian before running a marathon!"

I know many DMs have their pet campaign settings with special thematics, but to my mind, more options are fun! Except when those options are needlessly inconsistent and imbalanced. Which of course is my issue with PF.

 

[Sunseeker]

LFQW. Alignment restrictions and other legacy quirks. Pretending to be a world-sim, but achieving no more believability than any other D&D edition/clone.

The thing that makes PF so problematic for some gamers is the same thing that makes it so popular with others: It's a clone of 3.5e, with the same fundamental structure. And as is clear to anyone who reads any of the periodic 'PF 2e' threads over on the Paizo forums, fixing one fan group's problems with PF creates problems for other fan groups.

Yeah, sadly this is it.

My biggest gripe is CR. It's still based off absolutely nothing other than how difficult people think it might be. There's no match behind it an in a game that is founded on math, things that aren't based on math are really, really jarring.

 

[Greg K]

Well sure, I proposed that DMs learn to limit the options available to players in response to the perceived problem of rule's bloat.

As a DM, I agree about limiting options. My solution for 3e begins with ignoring nearly every WOTC supplement that is not Unearthed Arcana or a dedicated monster book and utilizing DMG variants, UA variants, and several third party supplements.

 

[MerricB]

Yeah, sadly this is it.

My biggest gripe is CR. It's still based off absolutely nothing other than how difficult people think it might be. There's no match behind it an in a game that is founded on math, things that aren't based on math are really, really jarring.

Unpinning that is actually no real understanding of how powerful a player character of level X should be.

There was one fighter I had in my campaign that at first level took Power Attack, Furious Focus. Strength 20.
His attack was +6 to hit, 2d6+10 damage.

Meanwhile, the cleric was +1 to hit, 1d8+1 damage.

The disconnect between the capabilities of the characters is severe. Pathfinder is great in wealth of character options, but the variance of the end result is huge.

Cheers!

 

[Sunseeker]

Unpinning that is actually no real understanding of how powerful a player character of level X should be.

There was one fighter I had in my campaign that at first level took Power Attack, Furious Focus. Strength 20.
His attack was +6 to hit, 2d6+10 damage.

Meanwhile, the cleric was +1 to hit, 1d8+1 damage.

The disconnect between the capabilities of the characters is severe. Pathfinder is great in wealth of character options, but the variance of the end result is huge.

Cheers!

Right, and that is the true source of the problem, there's no underlying mathematics creating a foundation for the d0-modifying mechanics of the game. Namely: feats. There's no rhyme or rhythm to their power or requirements to get them.

 

[Minigiant]

Right, and that is the true source of the problem, there's no underlying mathematics creating a foundation for the d0-modifying mechanics of the game. Namely: feats. There's no rhyme or rhythm to their power or requirements to get them.

And then the thing holding back the fix is the disagreements of the fan base of how to fix the problems like feats, skills, and spells.

For example, one of the ideas a friend of mine had was to pull out out all the weapon specializing feats and skill feats from the basic pool. Then use another resource for weapon specs that was completely separate from feats which was based on class, race, and level. And make skills could from avoidable groups. One friend like it. Another hated it. And I thought the idea was good but his method of doing it poor.

Everyone had a fix. And most were simple in theory. But no one agreed and the fixes were so major that it really made you wary of new content. Because most people are poor game designers or lack time to design well.