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

[Steely Dan]

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).

Well, the 4th Ed Rogue does use the Martial power source, which is described as non-traditional magic.

 

[Dungeonman]

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

Did Pathfinder ever state that its goal is optimal play (by standards of 4E players)?

I'm not saying PF is perfect or can't be improved. But if PF was "fixed" to suit the subjective goals of 4E players, the law of unintended consequences might result in the discontent simply being shifted from one group to another.

Let's say that there was a thread "So what do you think is wrong with D&D in general?" and someone complained (over and over and over and over) that D&D didn't properly simulate a science fiction rogue, and therefore D&D needed to be fixed to accomodate a sci-fi rogue archetype with laser guns and HUDs. My question would be: where is the onus on the fix if the D&D never claimed the goal of modelling sci-fi?

If a person wanted to complain that D&D needs a sci-fi rogue archetype, or PF needs better caster balance, that's understandable. But is that complaint reasonable if not tempered with the understanding of what the system's goals actually are, and what are you doing to the game as a whole, and are you being fair by shifting your discontent to someone else's lap, and therefore what exactly are you fixing and why? I'm not sure how much "big picture" thinking is going on here.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

What I'm reading is a very strong emotional complaint that a rogue wouldn't be fun for you in Pathfinder

Actually, Pathfinder is pretty reliable in gutting noncasters. I'll need to find it, but someone on the Paizo forum noticed their new class, the Brawler, had a capstone that was ineffective against anything of it' level.

The developer's response was to tell him to shut up and stop putting him against things of his level.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Did Pathfinder ever state that its goal is optimal play (by standards of 4E players)?

Word of developers was they noticed a lot of problems with the main chassis of Pathfinder, but they decided against fixing them because that would create the situation of having those problems fixed.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Well, the 4th Ed Rogue does use the Martial power source, which is described as non-traditional magic.

Which is why they do such magical things as hitting people,, hitting people harder snapping necks, giving someone a concussion, and being really intimidating I assume.

 

[Imaro]

Word of developers was they noticed a lot of problems with the main chassis of Pathfinder, but they decided against fixing them because that would create the situation of having those problems fixed.

Do you have a citation for this? I thought certain concessions were made because it was suppose to(initially) stay largely compatible with 3.5...

 

[Imaro]

Which is why they do such magical things as hitting people,, hitting people harder snapping necks, giving someone a concussion, and being really intimidating I assume.

But you just claimed it is whatever is stated in the book... so if the book claims it is "non-traditional" magic... then isn't that what it is?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Word of developers was they noticed a lot of problems with the main chassis of Pathfinder, but they decided against fixing them because that would create the situation of having those problems fixed.

There are certainly problems with it, but the fixes to those problems would involve going a completely different direction than 4e went, and their desire to maintain compatibility is certainly justifiable.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Do you have a citation for this? I thought certain concessions were made because it was suppose to(initially) stay largely compatible with 3.5...

I'll see if I can find the quote, but they essentially said that they wouldn't change the problems they found with 3.5 being moved into Pathfinder because those problems were sacred cows and taking those out was not an option.

 

[Wicht]

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"

You are misreading it.

I must admit that your antagonism towards Pathfinder (and Paizo) is nearly palpable. You have expressed in more than one post your not so hidden desire for the elimination of the game and the collapse of the company. I am not sure what sort of fix would satisfy you other than a completely different game.