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

[Umbran]

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.

And there is an observation to be made there - optimal play is perhaps not only defined in therms of "what gets my character the highest effectiveness by some measure of numbers".

What, overall, is/are the goal(s) of the game? Optimal play should be considered with respect to the goals.

 

[Wicht]

And there is an observation to be made there - optimal play is perhaps not only defined in therms of "what gets my character the highest effectiveness by some measure of numbers".

What, overall, is/are the goal(s) of the game? Optimal play should be considered with respect to the goals.

Yes, absolutely.

As a cooperative game, Pathfinder fairly hums for me... I can use it for other things as well (and have), but there is no doubt that its optimal mode is full cooperation between the players (imo).

 

[EnglishLanguage]

The implication is that a PF Rogue is comparable to a 4E Rogue because they share the same class name

My implication was that if the 4e Rogue was moved to PF and was called a Rogue, it would be a Rogue, and would be just as non-magical as the 4e Rogue, in response to the 4e Rogue would never be called Rogue because being from 4e automatically makes it magic somehow(despite 4e explicitly stating the Rogue isn't magical).

I'm not sure what part about that is difficult.

This topic is slowly starting to make me realize why Enworld has the reuptation it has....

 

[Dungeonman]

My implication was that if the 4e Rogue was moved to PF and was called a Rogue, it would be a Rogue, and would be just as non-magical as the 4e Rogue

If that's your implications, you could have just said so. Before 4E, there were separate limits on the mundane, vs limits on the extraordinary, vs limits on the magical or supernatural. I understand that 4E avoided/discarded those limits. If you imply that a 4E rogue would be ported to PF with its identity intact, then I think you've ignored or misunderstood what PF players were trying to explain to you.

This topic is slowly starting to make me realize why Enworld has the reuptation it has....

I'm too new to know what reputation Enworld has, but maybe I'm building up a reputation for prefering people who say what they want in a helpful concise way. Makes the whole communication thing easier.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

To me, I think it's probably selective enforcement. From what I've seen, these things arise from either incomplete understanding or utilization of the rules as they are.

I'm too new to know what reputation Enworld has

Perhaps it's about generating wordy and circuitous and charged arguments out of seemingly innocuous topics. We have more subtle forms of trolling and threadjacking than some other boards, but they're still there.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

If that's your implications, you could have just said so.

I didn't need to imply it because it's what I outright said.

Before 4E, there were separate limits on the mundane, vs limits on the extraordinary, vs limits on the magical or supernatural. I understand that 4E avoided/discarded those limits.

It does.

If you imply that a 4E rogue would be ported to PF with its identity intact, then I think you've ignored or misunderstood what PF players were trying to explain to you.

Oh no, I know for a fact the 4e Rogue would be completely gutted and have all it's fun mechanics taken out before being ported into Casterfinder.

I'm too new to know what reputation Enworld has, but maybe I'm building up a reputation for prefering people who say what they want in a helpful concise way. Makes the whole communication thing easier.

reading what I'm writing is a good way to help communication.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So to get this straight pathfinder is soo hard to DM (and 3.5 also) that gm that run savage lands dead lands D&D 2e and 4e Wod and CoC with less problems some how just fail to run it right

And far from an isolated incadent this happens all the time, and as such the inly way to fix it is to "play better"

Did I sum that up right?


Maybe I should just give up here but please someone tell me I am miss reading this. I (and others) came here with problems and are basically being told "sorry that is user error"

 

[Dungeonman]

reading what I'm writing is a good way to help communication.

OK...

Oh no, I know for a fact the 4e Rogue would be completely gutted and have all it's fun mechanics taken out before being ported into Casterfinder.

What I'm reading is a very strong emotional complaint that a rogue wouldn't be fun for you in Pathfinder, which is fine, but unfortunately that layer of meaning is buried under abrasive overstatements, and THAT's the problem I was refering to for those who actually read what I'm writing.

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please abandon the snide and personal commentary. Thank you.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Maybe I should just give up here but please someone tell me I am miss reading this. I (and others) came here with problems and are basically being told "sorry that is user error"

It depends on what degree of statement you're making; if you're saying a wizard is simply better than a fighter, or that primary spellcasting effectively obsoletes d20-based skill and combat prowess, that isn't really supported by anything on the page or through the open playtest process. So what else would explain that statement?

If you're saying that either nonmagical abilities should be able to accomplish anything of substance that spells can currently do, or that all the really interesting spells should be banned outright and magic should be reduced to the level of nonmagical abilities, there's not really a discussion to be had on that.

If you're saying something a little more realistic, along the lines of asking what's up with some spells that maybe still need to be fixed, or why druids have so much stuff, or whether the high-level combat feats in PF are really up to snuff, then there's a discussion to be had.