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

[Ahnehnois]

Group 1 - Control Group - Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue. That's the baseline that the game was made for.

Just to go back to this for a second, if you instead replaced this with a druid, a witch, a barbarian, and a ranger, that group is actually better than the control group. The largest actual class imbalance (one that has carried forward through several versions of the game) is, somewhat oddly, always in favor of the nature guys. Comparable "wild" characters usually get some significant extra benefits over their more urbane counterparts.

Personally, I've always been cool with it; works fine for my setting and my games. PF has even added to it. In 2e, you just had the mage and his specialists, but now in PF, there's a witch and a sorcerer that are both superior to the wizard (while being more "wild"), to the point where they perhaps approach the existing kings of the hill, the druid and the ranger.

Why doesn't anyone complain about that?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You may notice that a substantial part of the balance between the classes in the card game stems from the way a particular character's abilities interact with the locations they choose to go to. Another substantial part comes because each class's resources are subsets of their resources in the full Pathfinder game. In other words, the "hand of the GM" is pretty strong in setting the environment in which the characters are, as you put it, balanced.

Please explain what about this is helpful in anyway? Do you believe every poster who has this problem just has a bad DM? Do you maybe not understand wwhat a fix is?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just to go back to this for a second, if you instead replaced this with a druid, a witch, a barbarian, and a ranger, that group is actually better than the control group. The largest actual class imbalance (one that has carried forward through several versions of the game) is, somewhat oddly, always in favor of the nature guys. Comparable "wild" characters usually get some significant extra benefits over their more urbane counterparts.

Personally, I've always been cool with it; works fine for my setting and my games. PF has even added to it. In 2e, you just had the mage and his specialists, but now in PF, there's a witch and a sorcerer that are both superior to the wizard (while being more "wild"), to the point where they perhaps approach the existing kings of the hill, the druid and the ranger.

Why doesn't anyone complain about that?

I have sort of

I complained Druid was the most powerful class and barbarian and ranger are the most powerful non casters... I have never seen a witch in play


So you want to fix the Druid maybe? I bet everyone saying we are being ignored would work with that

 

[Ahnehnois]

I complained Druid was the most powerful class and barbarian and ranger are the most powerful non casters... I have never seen a witch in play

The witch is quite strong; the spell list of course is taken down from the wizard's a notch, but hexes are very nice, and it's really the most dual purpose class in terms of offensive magic and healing that I've ever seen. I've used it (though only as an NPC). I actually should do a rewrite of it. Probably wouldn't change much.

So you want to fix the Druid maybe? I bet everyone saying we are being ignored would work with that

That depends on whether or not one thinks the druid should be the most powerful, and what kind of fixes.

However, I think you could probably get widespread agreement that wild shape is still a headache, and needs some kind of limit on how many forms you could assume. I also think that with any divine spellcaster, the idea of memorizing isn't really appropriate, and switching to spontaneous casting would take away the whole choosing your spells on a whim factor. Those are both areas where the character isn't all that powerful in one typical situation, but where they may be able to cherry-pick abilities that fit the situation.

PF also still has the Natural Spell feat, which is an overpowered feat that we've already seen decried a few times lately.

Some people have issues with the animal companion, but I don't. PF also has a choice of companion or domain, which I think is a good trade-off.

And then there's the raw numbers. Druids have the durability (hp and saves) and combat ability (BAB and proficiencies, though those are largely unimportant) of a cleric, but with two more skill points and much better skill options. Of all the spellcasters, they are the one that gets by far the most other "stuff". A druid without spells wouldn't be a great character, but he's be a lot better than a commoner or even a warrior. A wizard (who has his entire capacity stored in a vulnerable physical book) is pretty much a commoner without those spells. I'm not really in favor of a lot of changes here, but there's a case to be made for some kind of shift. Perhaps the other classes need more versatility (which is more my style).

***

In rewriting the druid, I left a lot of macro-level stuff the same, but I switched to spontaneous casting and mixed Wis/Cha dependency for spells, added to wild shape a provision where you get a couple of forms you know, but emulating any other creature requires some fairly tough checks. I implemented medium saves and changed druids to having medium in all three.

I added natural spell in as part of wild shape, but made it a quasi-metamagic thing, requiring an extra cost for each component ignored or modified. I added a 20th level capstone that removes that cost, meaning that the level 20 druid gets the ability that everybody thinks is too powerful, which to me is the right approach.

I did a few other minor shifts, but I left the basics intact. I'd still say it's quite good, but there are definitely some aspects of it that needed to be toned down.

 

[Umbran]

I might be getting the metaphors mixed up here, but of all the people participating on this thread, who is telling the soccer player to play football? I could be wrong, but my impression is that they are saying: if you want to play football, then either 1) think of ways that you don't need to kick a ball or 2) we lied, we can't fix it for you as long as soccer is firmly in your mind.

If you are playing soccer, and finding some problems with it, one would be tempted to look at other games with folks running around the field to fix the problem. I'm just saying that you have to be careful when you do that. Looking at a game where much of the primary ball movement is in picking up the ball and running with it may not be useful.

So, you say, "I'm playing in the 3.x branch of d20, and my non-spellcasters are not having a good time." Fine. I note that 3.x has strong functional divisions between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Unless you wish to discard that division, looking at a game that *does* discard it is probably not going to be very fruitful. 4e doesn't solve the problem, it *avoids* the problem.

This doesn't say the issue cannot be addressed, or that 4e is better or worse. It just means that you have to be careful of where you search for answers.

Perhaps the confusion is whether the "fix" must be something in the rules, or the gaming group social contract, or a reframing of wants/desires in the unsatisfied individual, and different people are placing that onus differently.

I don't think there's only one place where the solution must be. There's more than one way to address the problem. I'm just noting that if you want to address it in the rules, you probably want to look at games with more similar structure for inspiration for solutions.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

It's a game mechanic describing a fantastical world. There's no "objective" truth to be found. Subjectively, a power has more in common with a spell than a magic item does.

Yes, it's a game mechanic, the objective truth is whatever the game mechanic says. Rogue powers are mechanically not magic. Magic items are mechanically magic.

In any case, calling it magic or not is fluff, not mechanics.

4e's keyword system begs to differ. If it's magic, it has either the Arcane, Divine, Primal, or Psionic keywords. Rogue and Fighter powers contain none of these, they have the Martial keyword, which is not magic.

If a character with the mechanics of a 4e rogue appeared in PF, it would definitely be magical, and thus not a rogue.

Unless the game called it a Rogue. Besides, Pathfinder already shamelessly copy/pasted things from 4e that aren't being called magic, so I don't see why the Rogue suddenly would.

 

[Dungeonman]

Unless the game called it a Rogue.

So your REAL problem is that Pathfinder called the class a "Rogue"? If Pathfinder called the class a "Specialist" you'd be OK with that? Should I be upset that 4E stole the name "Rogue" because it doesn't match my conception of another incarnation of the "Rogue" from previous editions, you know that were around for years before 4E existed?

Under all that abrasive language, I personally find it very hard to understand what you actually want, or if you even understand what you actually want, or if you're just arguing for the fun of it.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

So your REAL problem is that Pathfinder called the class a "Rogue"?

Don't read a random sentence in my post and assume that's all I said.

My problem with the Pathfinder Rogue is that it's poorly balanced and gets out-Rogued by the Wizard.

The sentence you read was in response to a 4e Rogue not being a Rogue if ported to Pathfinder, to which my response was it would be a Rogue if it was called a Rogue.

 

[Dungeonman]

The sentence you read was in response to a 4e Rogue not being a Rogue if ported to Pathfinder, to which my response was it would be a Rogue if it was called a Rogue.

Oh, I read it, and understood exactly what he meant:

The PF rogue does not exist in a 4e context, and vice versa, so why compare them? If a character with the mechanics of a 4e rogue appeared in PF, it would definitely be magical, and thus not a rogue.

To which you responded "Unless the game called it a Rogue". The implication is that a PF Rogue is comparable to a 4E Rogue because they share the same class name (which is an illogical thing to say that ignores the whole point of the quote you responded to) or you were playing semantic games (which ignores the spirit of the point of the quote you responded to) or did you mean something else that presumably helps others understand the point of your numerous posts on this thread?

 

[Wicht]

Please explain what about this is helpful in anyway? Do you believe every poster who has this problem just has a bad DM? Do you maybe not understand wwhat a fix is?

The more this sort of thread occurs, the more I am convinced that many of these issues are not intrinsically rules-based, or at least the rules themselves are not the primary culprit. I hold forth as evidence the fact there are active groups and experienced DMs who do not have these problems.

I would not say that they are absolutely a DM problem either, though one should never discount that the DM is a contributor.

It seems to me that two potential culprits are play-style and/or player styles.

As I have pointed out several times now, groups in which the clerics and wizards primarily buff themselves are playing sub-optimally. And yet "experienced" players keep holding it forth as an example where game-balance breaks down. The practice indicates to me a certain set of ego-centricism on the part of the players and a lack of in-game cooperation. A game meant to be cooperative has become competitive. That right there is an issue that falls outside the purview of the rules. It would be akin to complaining that a Monopoly game in which everyone gives everyone else interest-free loans constantly never seems to end.

If that sort of experience is what you want, I would say that there are probably better rulesets; indeed what you want is a system that is less swingy and is balanced optimally for character vs. character interaction. This is not to say Pathfinder can't handle this (I am far from convinced as to the ability of wizards to defeat any and all comers; as I say the average fighter kills dozens of wizards in their adventuring career) but it is to say that it is not the focus of the rules and never has been.