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

[EnglishLanguage]

Alright, I confess I'm not really sure what the complaint is here. Of course magic is magical and able to accomplish non-mundane things.

I don't think the complaint is that magic is magical.

The complaint is that magic is the end-all-be-all option for doing anything because doing it any other way is vastly inferior.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I disagree, the game is a failure (maybe a bit too hard a term but one you used) if level isn't a measure of power.

I don't think it's feasible to adopt that conceit in any game that looks remotely like D&D. There's too many variables.

I will not argue small points spell by spell, but yes some abusive onse where fixed and others left (I can not find a ryme or reason)

Well, here's the real problem: it's called exception-based design. If there's one common set of rules that everyone uses, they can all be balanced relative to each other. This is how skills work and largely how combat works. But if instead, rules are dispensed in small, discrete packets that are distinct from the fundamental rules how How Stuff Works, then each one of those packets has to be monitored. This quickly becomes unfeasible. In PF, we call those packets "spells" (and also, to an extent "feats" and "class features"). The only real fix is to throw out this notion of exception-based design and create one centralized d20-based set of rules. Until then, you're just playing whac-a-mole with an endless set of new specific powers appearing and producing unintended consequences.

However, changing that takes us a long way from whence we came, i.e.

you have to start from scratch and fix the issues

but the problem with giving the wizards more features meant that now anything that uped a less powerful or versatile (or like the figher both) was trying to hit a moving target. if they wanted to stop prestige class shanagans then address that don't just boost the most powerful class...

The new abilities for wizards and clerics don't strike me as being all that powerful. All the other classes received upgrades, particularly with regards to higher-level advancement.

Honestly the Alchomist should be my favorite class, but it is full of BS non explanations...

Like I said, it sounds cooler than it is. I think people aren't all that hard on Pazio for this one because at least they were trying something new and not reprinting freely available content, but their approach simply does not work. As above, alchemy needs to be represented as a set of quasi-scientific laws, not a menu of discretely packed exception-based abilities.

the first 2 pathfinder DMs I had just out right said no to making new classes or converting

Understandable, but someone really ought to publish an official PF warlock to get everyone on boards. Again, I don't see why someone doesn't do that (though obviously I am not a lawyer).

one told me that to make warlock 'pathfinder' he would only give it X number of eldritch blasts per day...

That's BS. It defeats the whole point of playing it, the sense of having power at your fingertips, the ease of play that comes from not tracking this sort of stuff, the idea of changing the paradigm of magic use. If you're not going to have it be all at-will, you should just be playing a PF witch.

And it's not like the 3.5 warlock was overpowered. In fact, it was a fascinating case study in people crying out over something new and different but eventually most of them realized that the warlock wasn't that powerful, and indeed that its advancement inexplicably gets slower at higher levels. A 20th level warlock does less damage with a blast than a rogue does per sneak attack. The warlock is cool, but not game-breaking.

that sounds cool

A couple of key points that I used to expand the warlock concept:
*Each time the warlock gains a new grade of invocations, his pact creates a new level of drawback, selected from a diverse menu ranging from penalties to checks for insanity, sacrificing wealth to patrons, developing an uncontrollable fear of his nemesis creature.
*Eldritch blast advances in damage at a constant rate of 1d6 every two levels, but also improves in threat range and even (at level 20) crit multiplier.
*A lot more invocations, with a pool of invocations being restricted to being only eldritch essence and shape, and a broader pool that can be used for anything. Progression starts at 2 invocations and ends at 21.
*The extra invocation feat has higher prereqs and requires you to take a penalty on one saving throw in exchange for the new power.
*The warlock has medium fort and ref and poor will. What about this class suggests it should be strong-minded but otherwise feeble? Nothing in my book.
*Fast healing shuts off when the warlock uses invocations, meaning that he has to either not use them actively or rest to get the benefit of healing.
*Rate of scaling of energy resistance and DR revised to cover dead levels and match the PF power level.
*The 20th level PF capstone is being able to make iterative attacks with the blast.

***

I can see why DMs might not want to go off on creating new stuff, but to me creating classes to be PF-like, what with the no dead levels and increased power level, can be quite fun.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

Yeah, fans who think that 3.x is more realistic than other editions always get an eye-roll from me. Particularly with things like non-level-scaling AC built right into the game's basic rules; so you can't even avoid the gaminess by choosing a different character option!

That table is part of what's broken in Pathfinder. In any given game my players have as much wealth as they have earned, found, begged, borrowed, or stolen since the campaign began, minus whatever they have spent. Some are broke, some are wealthy, most fall somewhere in-between. I have never consulted a table for anything related to that, nor will I ever do so.

I too think that WBL is problematic, though probably for different reasons than you do.

I think it's better than not having guidelines at all, as was the case before 3.0, but WBL is just too vague. Which items the PCs have is just as important as the cash value of their stuff -- arguably more important -- and the game clearly expects the PCs to have certain specific items -- most clearly demonstrated by the fact that AC doesn't scale with level. But there's no mention of which items are expected, nor the expected +'s by level. As a result, new DMs are often under the mistaken impression that "It's all good, just throw whatever random loot at the party!*", while every experienced DM has a different idea of what the game expects PCs to have -- ranging from your "There are no expectations!" to "Players should feel lucky to find a +1 sword at 10th level!" to my own much more generous opinions.

*I myself was victim to this problem...or more accurately, my first players were.

Of course it is. If that were not possible the game would be a pretty fundamental failure. Level isn't a measure of how powerful a character is relative to other characters or external challenges, it's a measure of how good he is within his field of expertise.

This is one of those things that D&Ders are just going to disagree on. To my mind, any given level having a wide range of power levels is the fundamental failure. And half the point of playing a level-based game is to be able to use level as a measure of relative character power, IMO. (The other half being "It's fun to level up!")

I don't think it's feasible to adopt that conceit in any game that looks remotely like D&D. There's too many variables.

It may or may not 'look' like D&D to you, but 4e managed to do just this.

 

[Wicht]

I don't think the complaint is that magic is magical.

The complaint is that magic is the end-all-be-all option for doing anything because doing it any other way is vastly inferior.

Eh, if that's the complaint its simply not true... or it should not be true if the DM is on the ball.

There are definitely times when magic is the answer and is superior (or else why use it?) but at other times (cf. the wizard trying to open a lock) being good at a skill is going to be superior most often in game.

Again, if your game is unbalanced towards magic, there is likely a DM problem somewhere. I know a lot of DMs don't like hearing that (I can't be doing it wrong!) but if a set of DMs don't have the problem and another set do, then there is a difference in DMing style somewhere. (And not every system is going to be suitable for every DM style).

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is one of those things that D&Ders are just going to disagree on. To my mind, any given level having a wide range of power levels is the fundamental failure. And half the point of playing a level-based game is to be able to use level as a measure of relative character power, IMO. (The other half being "It's fun to level up!")

I think it's abundantly clear that the overall effectiveness of any given D&D character is determined by many things other than level. Choice of class, and choice of smaller-scale options are definitely among those things. However, other considerations, including ability scores, equipment, and how well a character's abilities match to the challenge at hand all are also important.

To be concrete, is there any version of D&D where we can say we have two level 10 characters, specify nothing else about them, and know that they are equal? Of course not. Even if both characters are fighters with the same ability scores and equipment, that still isn't going to be true. Let alone if they are of different classes with different aptitudes and perks.

To suggest that all these other factors are irrelevant is ludicrous. To remove them is unfeasible. Thus, trying to say that level represents some all-encompassing power measure is simply not true.

It may or may not 'look' like D&D to you, but 4e managed to do just this.

I don't buy that at all. For one thing, as above it's obviously possible to create two 4e characters of the same level that are very different on some of the other points outlined above (equipment, context, etc.). However, even if we hold all of those things constant (for some reason), there are plenty of worthless powers in 4e books, and plenty of cases where one power is better than the other. And there always will be, as per the above notes about whac-a-mole exception-based design.

On the whole, powers aren't very meaningful, because they're limited in scope compared with the spells of earlier edition. The playing field is smaller; the difference between picking the best and worst available powers probably isn't as big. But within that playing field, it seems obvious to me that imbalance runs rampant (and that's before you consider some of the actual mistakes like wacky skill challenges). And then there's the whole PC vs NPC thing.

Nope. Not buying into this at all. (And that's without even addressing the looks like D&D part).

 

[Wicht]

I disagree, the game is a failure (maybe a bit too hard a term but one you used) if level isn't a measure of power. Yes I want Character A and Character B to play different, but when that difference is Monster A of the same level is a cake walk for CHaracter A and a life or death struggle for character B, and Character C can't even hope to hurt it... well that makes the game hard. not even in game but out of game.

Level is a measure of power, its just not a completely objective level of power, nor can it be in any game with meaningful variety.

The only solution here is for the DM to be aware of the flexibility of the system and to learn to adapt. But that's one of the reasons to have a DM, to make those adjustments when necessary. System mastery is not just a desirable skill on the part of the players. The DM should really make it a goal to learn what the CRs represent and what they are not. They are a baseline of difficulty. They are not a guarantee (nor can they be) of total compatibility with any given character.

If your characters are more powerful than the baseline, then you need to up the challenges. If the characters are weaker than the baseline, then you need to hold back some.

Now, if the problem is that you have a character who just plain outperforms all their companions, that is a group problem, not a rules problem. [Aside: some think 4e fixed this; but I note that the fix - flattening the potential differential in character abilities, made the game blander for many participants and has been largely deemed an undesirable solution in the long run]. I see two solutions here. Firstly, you can attempt to address it from the player's side and have the players strive to keep their characters balanced with one another. As a player I would find that unsatisfactory (actually as a player I don't care much about this issue). Secondly, you can address this from the DM side of the screen and have the DM analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the characters and play to those. I think this the better solution if its an issue, but as with most solutions, it requires more thought, skill, and work from the DM side.

I was playing in a 3.5 game years ago and there where 9 PCs, three of us had leadership and we had 3 regular NPCs with us most of the time (although 2 of them were non combatants in every meaning of the word) so we were traveling 15 people at a time... one character was a rogue X/dagger master Y he could throw so much damage it wasn't even funny, including a hombrew variant on psy strike (expend focus to add Xd6 damage) from his 'elemental monk' training. But his AC was Dex only... so like 15 or 16 we also had a wizard with a similar AC (I think 16 or 17 with mage armor) but we had a paliden with a thirty something and most of us were in the mid to high 20's... if a monster missed the knife fighter on anything but a 1 they could not hit the paliden, if they had a chance to hit the paliden then the knife fighter was auto hit... this drove the DM nuts

Magic missile works for DMs too.

 

[Wicht]

Understandable, but someone really ought to publish an official PF warlock to get everyone on boards. Again, I don't see why someone doesn't do that (though obviously I am not a lawyer).

Blame WotC for not making their stuff OGL. The Warlock is closed content and therefore off-limits for using officially.

If you want a PF one you are going to have to use one of the unofficial versions and that's all there is to that.

Alternately, I think, as a rule of thumb, assuming the class was balanced, you can simply add an extra level (ie start at level 2 instead of level 1) to the older class and it should balance out fairly well in game play.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Blame WotC for not making their stuff OGL. The Warlock is closed content and therefore off-limits for using officially.

But, as I noted above, what's their legal recourse if someone publishes a class that has all at-will magical abilities and similar rationale? Maybe they'd have to change the names of things around or something, but as I understand it, WotC can't copyright the really important stuff. Again, only lawyers really know how this works.

Alternately, I think, as a rule of thumb, assuming the class was balanced, you can simply add an extra level (ie start at level 2 instead of level 1) to the older class and it should balance out fairly well in game play.

I wouldn't assume that. It needs substantive revision to fit in the PF landscape.

 

[Wicht]

But, as I noted above, what's their legal recourse if someone publishes a class that has all at-will magical abilities and similar rationale? Maybe they'd have to change the names of things around or something, but as I understand it, WotC can't copyright the really important stuff. Again, only lawyers really know how this works.

Depending on how you went about it, their responses could be varied, anywhere from ignoring you to a Cease and Desist letter to a Lawsuit. Granted, you can't copyright rules, and a writer could certainly build a class that mirrors the Warlock pretty well I would think. The question for a publisher to ask is twofold: how badly do I want such a class and how much headache is it worth?

If you haven't seen a warlock mirror, I would guess its because there hasn't been anybody sufficiently motivated to do it, either because they themselves don't like the class, or because they have things they would rather be working on more. And on the remote off-chance WotC did decide to lawyer up about it, even the fact that they likely can't win the case doesn't mean that a small publisher would want to mess with the expenses and headache it would entail.

The latter is why most close content remains closed. You don't make enough to make the potential headache worth it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The latter is why most close content remains closed. You don't make enough to make the potential headache worth it.

I think you're probably right about that. I think it's a shame. To go back to where [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] started, with this question of "why can't PF take the stuff about 3e that I liked?", that is an unsatisfactory, if true answer.

To be fair, I have no financial stake in gaming; one can't begrudge people who do for being cautious around a litigious entity like WotC. I really wish that they'd do the right thing and open that content up, but it doesn't seem likely.