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

[Steely Dan]

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.

You assumed incorrectly, assumption cam be a dangerous road.

 

[Umbran]

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

No, but if you look at my statement, that would be circular. "Optimal play should be considered relative to the goal, which is optimal play," doesn't make much sense.

I ask again - what is the goal of the game? What are you trying to achieve during play?

 

[EnglishLanguage]

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?

It's Steely Dan doing his usual thing of taking things out of context.

The PHB never calls Martial maneuvers magical, and if you go by the logic he did, Extraordinary Abilities are also magical because they had similar wording before it was edited.

 

[Imaro]

It's Steely Dan doing his usual thing of taking things out of context.

The PHB never calls Martial maneuvers magical, and if you go by the logic he did, Extraordinary Abilities are also magical because they had similar wording before it was edited.

[MENTION=57812]Steely Dan[/MENTION] ... is there any way you or perhaps you, [MENTION=6774827]EnglishLanguage[/MENTION] could quote the actual definition of the martial power source?

 

[Steely Dan]

It's Steely Dan doing his usual thing of taking things out of context.

"Usual", you don't now me, creepy, what are you talking about?

And it is not out of context, at all, the 4th Ed PHB clearly states that it is not magic in the "traditional sense"; it's magic, just not fireball type magic, pretty self-explanatory, sorry if I am not helping your anti-3rd Ed/PF-the sun rises and sets on 4th Ed's heiny crusade.

 

[Dungeonman]

No, but if you look at my statement, that would be circular. "Optimal play should be considered relative to the goal, which is optimal play," doesn't make much sense.

It doesn't have to be circular when "optimal play" is a variable subjective to the person.

His Optimal Play is that a rogue is equally effective as a wizard in all 3 pillars. Her Optimal Play is that a rogue acts like a relatable human being but can transcend his mundaneness with magic as inspired by Bilbo and the Ring or whatever. PF never states its goal that any two classes shall be equally effective in all 3 pillars. So His Optimal Play should be considered relative to PF's goal, which allows for Her Optimal Play. Just as an example.

I ask again - what is the goal of the game? What are you trying to achieve during ]play?

That'll have to be the generic "you" as I haven't played PF. I did play 3.X.

But let's say a stated goal of PF is to have fun (bad example though, I doubt they would be so vague). Then someone says "It's not fun for me to be a Rogue in PF." For that person, PF doesn't fulfill its stated goal. From there, we can go places. Unfortunately, the arguments don't go that way. They get obfuscated with overstatements. For example, that the Wizard outbeats the Rogue. What does that mean? Is D&D a PvP battle? I know what they're inferring, but online communication is hard enough, we don't need more obfuscation.

 

[Wicht]

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.


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

As I read what you write, I can't help but think you don't think Pathfinder is fun and so you should probably not play it.

Is it necessary to be antagonistic towards those who do like it?

 

[Jacob Marley]

@Steely Dan ... is there any way you or perhaps you, @EnglishLanguage could quote the actual definition of the martial power source?

I don't have my 4e books on me. So, from Wizards. Make of it what you will.

Power sources are a way of describing the magical rules and flavor of our world while grouping classes who share some fundamental aspect of their approach to their power. The D&D world already contained the notion that some characters used arcane magic while others used divine magic; we just extended that notion to cover all our characters and to organize our class creation as the game develops over the years.

Martial classes get most of their personal power from skill that may start as innate but increases as a matter of constant training. Compared to all the other power sources, the martial power source doesn't tend to look or feel magical. But since it's the type of highly skilled weapon training that occurs in a world that's full of magic, there are effects created by highly skilled martial characters that would certainly seem magical if they were occurring in our world. Unlike all the other power sources, the powers used by martial characters don't have obvious magical special effects, no flashing auras, or looming spirits, or rays and bolts, or even after-effect images of an incredibly fast sword. Martial powers look like powers that a warrior or rogue in our non-magical world might use, even if they accomplish things that people in our world would have almost no chance of accomplishing.

It seems clear to me that the martial power source is non-magical within the fictional 4e D&D universe.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

Right so just no fixes just personal attacks... Perfect


Maybe you should go back to the last 3 times I tried pathfinder or better yet when I was beta testing the damn thing...

I want a game with equal options both in breath and width for anyone who wants them...

That means simple weapon users and simple casters along side complex weapon users and complex spell casters with all being as much fun and as powerful as each other (more or less)

I have listed on this thread my complaint very well multi times and basicly been told the problme doesn't exsist


By the way I am a subscriber to piazo for there card game and have asked a few times about it going forward

 

[Wicht]

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.

Can you find a quote to substantiate this rather sizable attack on their design ethics?