Author Topic: Is Pathfinder really that bad?  (Read 47810 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

winter_soldier

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 122
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2009, 12:49:57 AM »
Hmm....got a look at some of the new classes today. The Cavalier seems to be a less-good (ha ha...) version of the 3.5 Knight, and the Oracle is this wacky spontaneous Divine caster. Really not bowled over, fingers crossed for the Inquisitor being awesome.

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #41 on: November 17, 2009, 02:01:30 AM »
Honestly, I think you're very lucky to have a DM who was reasonable enough to go through the mechanics with you to make the epic rogue concept work in a game :)  And likewise, the DM was lucky that you'd be willing to play an epic rogue instead of a spellcaster, so it goes both ways.

I'm fortunate that the PCs in my highest level campaign have all discovered the lower threshold of optimization; so there's a charger build, a DMM: Persist melee cleric, a crusader/wiz/abjurant champion gish, and a  ftr/rogue/assassin who relies on stat dmg.  It means that they are all roughly on par and they each do a ton of damage per round, but it's pretty easy to anticipate their tactics and to balance encounters accordingly.  The risk, of course, is that most challenging encounters are often pretty close to "rocket tag", which is unfortunate. 

I am pretty lucky, that is true.  Although, as you note, it goes both ways.  Generally, I find it best to treat my players as adults and to be treated as one in turn.  If you're in the NYC area feel free to stop by and see how it works for us. 

Side question:  what's the build for the assassin guy?  Does he just use poison, or is there a more interesting stat drain option that's not on my radar? 

Actually, that brings up a PF change I'll house-rule into my 3.5 games, which is that you die at your negative con score, so if you have a con of 23 then you die at -23, and stabilizing is a DC 10 con check, +1 DC per failure.  I enjoy knocking PCs out of the fight much more than killing them, so hopefully those changes will help accomplish that :P
Not to bring us back to bashing Pathfinder, but this sort of signals my disappointment w/ it.  The people I game w/ regularly -- which comprises about 20 people in 3 separate states, whom I have met in the course of high school, college, and graduate school -- all use this as a house rule.  We've been using it forever, like since 2000 at least, maybe earlier.  I guess I was hoping for more from Paizo's designers than stuff that was so obvious that even we had adopted it. 

Although I do really like their skill system ...

When I get the chance I'm going to read through the other comments people have left about what they like about PF.  I seriously do appreciate it.  It's really nice to know what people think they did well in the system, either for when/if I get involved in such a game or if I want to lift something from the book. 

Operation Shoestring

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 937
  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #42 on: November 17, 2009, 02:18:53 AM »
- con score isn't enough to matter much more than -10.

- HD + Con score maybe.

Akalsaris

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1143
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #43 on: November 17, 2009, 02:31:31 AM »
Yeah, here's my thoughts on the pair:

Cavalier:
-Seems to be pretty solid (d10 HD, full BAB, 4+int skills, all martial weapons, shields and heavy armor, good Fort save), I'm disappointed that there's no taunt ability built in like the Knight, but on the other hand there's a lot of customization among the orders.  Having the mount built into the class from 1st level was a good move though.   3rd level is probably a good dip point.

For those who haven't seen the preview, it's basically a fighter shell with more social skills, a built-in mount, and scaling att/dmg bonuses against a foe you call out, as well as different oaths you can swear for slight benefits.  Very much in the flavor of Sturm from Dragonlance.  There are several different paths, like the sorcerer bloodlines, called orders.

The one that caught my eye was the Order of the Shield - the 8th level ability grants the Standstill feat and lets you make an attack that deals normal damage and still stops the opponent, which kicks ass; while the 15th level ability lets you and your mount move up to your speed and make an attack as an immediate action, then you're staggered for one round.  It's like a melee celerity!

The Order of the Sword is the other stand-out - adding your mount's strength to your own on a charge can give some solid low-level damage potential, and the Knight's Challenge is a pretty hefty boost to damage 1/day.

Overall it looks solid, but I'm not sure if it competes well enough with the paladin class.  

The Oracle:
It's essentially a divine sorcerer using the cleric spell list (d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, 4+int skills, simple weapons and armor, good Will save), with special paths ("revelations") that give customized spells and bonus abilities.  Every oracle has a special curse, which is a little like a 3.5 flaw: for example, you're blind beyond 30ft, but you gain darkvision and eventually blindsight.  

I'm hoping dearly for a Summoning path, but the preview only had the 4 elements and battle (what, not Heart?) revelations, and Battle is where it is all at in the preview.  Most of the revelation abilities are usable 1/day+1/5 levels, which I'm not a huge fan of, but there are some pretty unique abilities tucked away in there.  At a guess, I'd say the cleric is still superior to the oracle overall, but not as far and above as the 3.5 cleric is to the favored soul.

Of the upcoming classes, I'm pinning my hopes on the Summoner, but the Alchemist could be interesting too.

Edit: Oh, responses to my posts!

Operation Shoestring: Good point - I'll start with the PF version, and if lethality is still too high, I'll tack on HD to that.  Right now most PC deaths in the campaign have been vs. save-or-die's and ability score damage though.

Unbeliever: I might just stop by!  I'm in D.C., but I stop by NYC every few months to meet with friends and family.  The assassin's build is a Minotaur (Dragonlance +0 LA version) Rogue 3/Ftr 2/Barbarian 2/Assassin 6 or something, I believe.  She uses poisons and a wounding composite longbow (house-ruled to allow wounding ranged weapons), so with 5 attacks/round after haste the con damage add up very quickly. 

As for the -Con on death, it isn't a house-rule that I had ever encountered or used, so I was pretty impressed with it.  But if they are making changes that make sense and work well, then I'd say that's a good thing.  I mean, they made death from massive damage an optional rule instead of the baseline assumption, which is another thing that just about every game I've ever been in or ran does anyhow.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #44 on: November 17, 2009, 06:11:20 PM »
@JaronK
That's not really a rules issue.  I mean, there aren't a whole lot of mechanics around 12' poles and chickens.  There the DM could have a reasonable complaint, something along the lines of "that's sort of silly and not really heroic or in the theme of the game I (and hopefully the rest of you) want to run/play."  To this, you have a perfectly reasonable response:  "well, then, stop throwing traps against us that we have no way of finding, dumbass." 

Of course, that's all a far cry from the creative solutions that JaronK is referring to. 

Well, my point is that different people have different ideas of what's broken/unbroken, so it's a lot easier to start from a reasonably balanced system where you don't have to worry about little bits of creativity being broken.  Because let's face it... a Rogue being creative is one that triggers traps via a chicken tied to a 12 foot pole, while a Wizard being creative is one that is using Celerity + Shivering Touch + Spectral Hand to kill a dragon on one shot.  And that's really lame, because it means you actually can't play as creatively with a Wizard (since you'll probably break the game wide open) as you can with a weaker class.  That's not really fair in general... players should be able to think creatively and should be thinking about their solutions to problems in terms of "what will work best here" not "what will be fair and get past the DM without him getting annoyed here" or "what will work here and still make the Fighter feel like we need him here."  After all, the former is roleplaying, the latter two are metagaming.

I guess I'd hope any system that bills itself as 3.75 would fix those balance issues to the point where the classes actually are close in power at a good power level, removing the easily broken stuff along with the classes that just can't do as much.  And Pathfinder doesn't do that... in fact I'm really not sure it moved in the right direction other than in a few small specific areas (polymorph), so it's a disappointment for me.

JaronK

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #45 on: November 17, 2009, 06:50:31 PM »
I'd push you on that definition of "creativity."  It strikes me as if you're talking about 2 different things there.  The rogue example doesn't really have anything to do w/ the rules set.  It would be identical under 3.5, Pathfinder, White Wolf, Shadowrun, Burning Wheel (ok, well, maybe not BW ...).  Conditional on there being things like poles and chickens and traps the rules surrounding them -- including classes, feats, etc. -- isn't all that relevant.  That kind of creativity is of a more general kind.

The wizard example is, however, firmly based on the rules, namely those spell descriptions.  It's very "rulesy" for lack of a better term.  Maybe the former is more "game world" or "narrative" creativity and the latter is rules or mechanics creativity? 

That's not really fair in general... players should be able to think creatively and should be thinking about their solutions to problems in terms of "what will work best here" not "what will be fair and get past the DM without him getting annoyed here" or "what will work here and still make the Fighter feel like we need him here."  After all, the former is roleplaying, the latter two are metagaming.

Hmmm, I have to think about this a bit.  A certain amount of metagaming, of a certain sort, is something I would heartily endorse.  Metagaming on the level of "what kind of stories are we interested in telling?" or "what would be fun?" is what I'm gesturing towards.  I think saying that something would ruin the game (whatever that means, I appreciate it is ambiguous) is a reasonable thing to take into account, even though it involves metagaming. 

Here's a banal example.  In my games we generally abstract away from little bookkeeping things, which means that we don't worry overmuch about food unless it's a plot point (e.g., a Dark Sun campaign, lost at sea) and we also essentially use a loose form of "magic marts," sometimes explained by our character's ability to trade w/ other adventurers or the armories of kingdoms, magewrights we know, and so on.  We also don't pay tolls.  That's b/c we don't find the idea of doing any of that, generally, interesting, making allowance for item-oriented quests.  We'd rather spend the limited time we have to play on more interesting things and leave the bookkeeping for email.  That's what we prefer, and are pretty explicit about, though it is a bit of metagamey. 

I share share your disappointment w/ PF's rules mods. 

Akalsaris

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1143
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #46 on: November 17, 2009, 07:28:29 PM »
JaronK, considering you're the one who came up with the tier system, do you think that PF has improved inter-class balance credibly from 1st -15th level? 

T5 classes such as fighter and monk might have shifted to T4, T4 classes such as the paladin, rogue, and barbarian now strike me as T3, the ranger hasn't really changed much at T3ish, while cleric and druid appear to have dropped to low end T1 instead of high end T1.  And sorcerer maybe got higher on the T2 scale.  I think the changes to the skills system helped a number of classes with flexibility and roles, more than almost anything else.

And as a sidenote, you know it's not fair to blame PF for wizards being more powerful, then pointing to celerity and shivering touch abuse.  Use core examples of creativity that were untouched by PF, like PAO and planar binding :P

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #47 on: November 17, 2009, 07:38:04 PM »
T5 classes such as fighter and monk might have shifted to T4, T4 classes such as the paladin, rogue, and barbarian now strike me as T3, the ranger hasn't really changed much at T3ish, while cleric and druid appear to have dropped to low end T1 instead of high end T1.  And sorcerer maybe got higher on the T2 scale.  I think the changes to the skills system helped a number of classes with flexibility and roles, more than almost anything else.

That's all that inspiring a set of shifts, though, is it?  The trusty fighter and monk, who have been w/ us for what, a decade plus, got bumped up a tier -- and even then they are still depressingly at T4.  I'll channel for JaronK and say while those are moves in the right direction -- and all of them you point out are -- they're depressingly incremental for this whole new relaunch that was some time in the making. 

At least that's the critique. 

juton

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
  • Jack of all trades, master of nothing.
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #48 on: November 17, 2009, 09:09:00 PM »
Tier 4 isn't bad. Tier 4 is competent but not versatile. I like competency. Tier 3 is competent and versatile, Tiers 1 and 5 are flat out broken. The point of re-balancing isn't to make everything Tier 1, but everything should move closer to the centre. The PF Fighter should be able to operate around the level of a 3.5 Barbarian. The Paladin may actually have a use now, even if it can do one thing well that's a huge improvement over being able to do nothing.

Right now if we have a set of classes that can at least do the job they set out to do (not 100% on Monk yet) well then we have a decent game. What's infuriating is the things they changed but didn't fix, like they changed the description of Moment of Prescience but didn't prevent it from being used for initiative.

Braithwaite

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #49 on: November 17, 2009, 09:37:54 PM »
I'm not sure fighter or monk moved to T4, in fact I would guess that neither one did. I do think that Paladin made the jump, and rogue may have jumped to T3.

Unfortunately, while Clerics and Druids moved down in T1, wizards moved up. Their average HP almost doubled. Their 20 starting Int combined with the changes to the skill system gave them a huge improvement in skills. They get class abilities which aren't awful, especially at the formerly vulnerable low levels. They can craft more easily. Specialization became more powerful, because you can still use key spells/items from opposition schools. Worst, the item familiar ability lets them pick general utility spells for every day while still being guaranteed to have the exact spell that wins a specific encounter once per day.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2009, 09:52:37 PM by Braithwaite »

juton

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
  • Jack of all trades, master of nothing.
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2009, 11:16:57 PM »
I'm not sure fighter or monk moved to T4, in fact I would guess that neither one did. I do think that Paladin made the jump, and rogue may have jumped to T3.

Unfortunately, while Clerics and Druids moved down in T1, wizards moved up. Their average HP almost doubled. Their 20 starting Int combined with the changes to the skill system gave them a huge improvement in skills. They get class abilities which aren't awful, especially at the formerly vulnerable low levels. They can craft more easily. Specialization became more powerful, because you can still use key spells/items from opposition schools. Worst, the item familiar ability lets them pick general utility spells for every day while still being guaranteed to have the exact spell that wins a specific encounter once per day.

A PF fighter should be about equal to a (core) 3.5 Barbarian by level 5 purely by the numbers. It may be able to just eek past around level 9. Of course the Barbarian got stronger, but if you are using old adventure paths then the challenge is static.

Wizards are an interesting case, their buffs are because I reckon most Paizils have the hardest time playing a Wizard. They (not an optimized Wizard) have low AC, low HP and have to deliberate whether or not to use any particular spell, because once it's gone it's gone until tomorrow. I personally don't think Wizards have gotten significantly more powerful, but they're definitely more survivable at lower levels, although their HP didn't double (unless your Wizard starts with an 8 CON). They got a bunch of doo-dads, which would be awesome on a fighter but are redundant on a Wizard. I thought I would love being able to select one spell on the fly through arcane focus, but I found that I nearly never used it, and it's never saved my ass. The improvement to skills is nice, but really past level 7-9 skills are redundant on a Wizard most of the time. Making specializations easier to use is nice, but if you play smart you are banning the crap schools so how did that really set you back?

The key failure with Pathfinder's Wizard is that too many good survived un-nerfed. What could they take away from the Wizard? Lowering the HP would be rediculous, getting rid of the feats would just encourage using PrCs. I haven't seen a familiar played in over a year, so losing them probably wouldn't be a lose. A Wizard is literally a spell delivery mechanism, since Pathfinder hasn't made it harder to deliver those spells and a few beneficial tweaks I guess I have to agree that Wizard has been improved, although slightly and not enough that it exasperates the already substantial gulf between them and fighters.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #51 on: November 18, 2009, 01:03:16 AM »
I'd push you on that definition of "creativity."  It strikes me as if you're talking about 2 different things there.  The rogue example doesn't really have anything to do w/ the rules set.  It would be identical under 3.5, Pathfinder, White Wolf, Shadowrun, Burning Wheel (ok, well, maybe not BW ...).  Conditional on there being things like poles and chickens and traps the rules surrounding them -- including classes, feats, etc. -- isn't all that relevant.  That kind of creativity is of a more general kind.

The wizard example is, however, firmly based on the rules, namely those spell descriptions.  It's very "rulesy" for lack of a better term.  Maybe the former is more "game world" or "narrative" creativity and the latter is rules or mechanics creativity? 

Creativity just means using the tools given.  Anybody can do the 12 foot pole with a chicken thing, and it won't break most games.  But Wizards can get creative with the spells they get, and that can shatter the game, leading to that mentality of "if I actually use my abilities as written I'm being a munchkin, so how can I weaken myself to make the game fun?"  And that's a problem.  With classes like the Wizard, the tools you're given are so powerful that just using them creatively breaks the game, and that sucks, since it means you can't actually be all that creative.

@Akalsaris:  I'm not that familiar, but I don't think the classes really moved much.  Fighters didn't get that much more flexible (they still just hit stuff a lot for the most part), Wizards still do crazy stuff (some options were removed to be sure, like Polymorph, but by no means did they get everything).  The changes just weren't all that much, though many were in the right direction... if someone's going to claim they're building 3.75, I expect to see some serious rebalancing.

JaronK

Akalsaris

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1143
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #52 on: November 18, 2009, 01:46:47 AM »
T5 classes such as fighter and monk might have shifted to T4, T4 classes such as the paladin, rogue, and barbarian now strike me as T3, the ranger hasn't really changed much at T3ish, while cleric and druid appear to have dropped to low end T1 instead of high end T1.  And sorcerer maybe got higher on the T2 scale.  I think the changes to the skills system helped a number of classes with flexibility and roles, more than almost anything else.

That's all that inspiring a set of shifts, though, is it?  The trusty fighter and monk, who have been w/ us for what, a decade plus, got bumped up a tier -- and even then they are still depressingly at T4.  I'll channel for JaronK and say while those are moves in the right direction -- and all of them you point out are -- they're depressingly incremental for this whole new relaunch that was some time in the making. 

At least that's the critique. 

I'll agree with that. 

Braithwaite

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #53 on: November 18, 2009, 10:54:26 AM »
A PF fighter should be about equal to a (core) 3.5 Barbarian by level 5 purely by the numbers. It may be able to just eek past around level 9. Of course the Barbarian got stronger, but if you are using old adventure paths then the challenge is static.

Maybe. If I were going to argue it, I would say that you are basing the Tiers off where other classes are. And also that it is an open, build dependant question as to whether fighters were helped or nerfed.

Wizards are an interesting case, their buffs are because I reckon most Paizils have the hardest time playing a Wizard. They (not an optimized Wizard) have low AC, low HP and have to deliberate whether or not to use any particular spell, because once it's gone it's gone until tomorrow. I personally don't think Wizards have gotten significantly more powerful, but they're definitely more survivable at lower levels, although their HP didn't double (unless your Wizard starts with an 8 CON).

L1 10 con wizard. 3.5=4 hp. PF=7 hp (including favored class)
hp per level 3.5=2.5 hp PF=4.5 hp (including favored class)

As I said, almost double.


  They got a bunch of doo-dads, which would be awesome on a fighter but are redundant on a Wizard. I thought I would love being able to select one spell on the fly through arcane focus, but I found that I nearly never used it, and it's never saved my ass. The improvement to skills is nice, but really past level 7-9 skills are redundant on a Wizard most of the time. Making specializations easier to use is nice, but if you play smart you are banning the crap schools so how did that really set you back?

I use arcane focus all the time. It lets you dumpster dive through your spellbook. Worst case it is an extra spell of your highest level known per day, + a free masterwork item that you can enchant without feats. Best case it lets you walk around a corner, see a demon, and bust out your unprepared spell of demon slaying.

Past 7-9 Wizards always ruled, and still do. PF they rock much harder until 7-9. My PF wizard started with 12 HP, cast daze at will with DC 16. Was a better skillmonkey than the monk or bard. Had 5 first level spells, so 1 save or die per encounter with a spare.

Well, lets assume I banned evocation. Under PF, I can still use contingency, and the double spell slot cost doesn't affect me at all, because I am not casting it on an adventuring day. Lets assume I hit level 7 or so, and find a staff of fire. Is it a tactical tool for battlefield control and wiping out mooks, or useless vendor trash from a banned school?


A Wizard is literally a spell delivery mechanism, since Pathfinder hasn't made it harder to deliver those spells and a few beneficial tweaks I guess I have to agree that Wizard has been improved, although slightly and not enough that it exasperates the already substantial gulf between them and fighters.

I have to disagree with you. Wizards got more love than any other class except for maybe paladins.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2009, 06:25:22 PM by Braithwaite »

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #54 on: November 18, 2009, 11:32:34 AM »
I haven't devoted much time to the study of Pathfinder's mechanics, which is why I've been asking about them.  I like the changes to Rogue a bit, though I don't know how much of a power upgrade they really represent.  The little bit of Bard I saw completely underwhelmed me. 

I question, though, how much Fighters really moved up in the world?  They got a couple of little +1s here and there ... [yawn].  And, I worry that PF's feats -- either b/c they're weaker period (power attack, combat expertise), or require a greater investment -- make the net change to Fighter negligible.  Although w/ some of PF's feat changes I guess the end result is a little bit better. 

That was my initial take when I read it.  I zeroed in right on Fighters, Barbs, and Paladins to see what they had done there. 

Tshern

  • Clown Prince of Crime
  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5726
  • Aistii valoa auttavasti
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #55 on: November 18, 2009, 05:02:14 PM »
Polymorph actually just moved up a level, Draconic polymorph of SpC is still there.

Handy Links

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #56 on: November 18, 2009, 05:03:41 PM »
I'm going to simplify it for you: it's worse than you think.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Glutton

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #57 on: November 19, 2009, 03:09:29 AM »
 I've been playing a bard in our campaign under PF rules and i must admit the changes have been extremely valueable and, most importantly, fun. The changes alone to bardic music make it useable every fight and powerful enough to make it feel like youre making a difference. The fact it doesnt require concentration, can be kept up as swift or move action, and is one feat away (not a PF feat but still) from being able to spellcast while singing, is amazing and makes you feel like you're doing some serious buffing and debuffing out there. Also the change to Bardic Knowledge is awesome, having a clear definition of what it is now prevent so much arguing with you DM about what you know about things.

 The real crux of pathfinder is: is it more fun? Do your characters feel like they are doing more and fit in more organically? I'd say yes. With the increase of skill useage (hell I put a point in profession Sailor for, get this, fun & roleplaying), ease and increase in class features, you might be doing less actual damage/healing/crowd control in a round, but you feel like you are doing more.

 A big consideration is the campaign you run, as the Paizo printed ones are very strong imo for skill useage, and not overly challenging to a charop user, so you can go all out with goofing around with character concepts.

Sinfire Titan

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5697
  • You've got one round to give a rat's ass.
    • Email
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #58 on: November 19, 2009, 12:27:50 PM »
Funny story:  I was trying to articulate my concerns w/ the PF ruleset to somebody, which admittedly I may not have been doing a very good, and he was like "I'm not going to delve into the math and stuff."  It left me somewhat mystified as to how else one goes about evaluating a ruleset, at least for such a number crunchy-heavy game like D&D. 

People don't like to think in numbers. Even when shown the math, there will be people who reject it as an opinion (I reference Aelryinth and Giacomo as the most known offenders).


My problem with Pathfinder is that the Developers asked for playtest results during the Beta and then rejected everyone who didn't say it was fun. They ignored a majority of the facts and numbers presented by optimizers and chose to side with their fanboys instead of doing some actual work. Had they listened to CO my opinion would be higher.


[spoiler][/spoiler]

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Is Pathfinder really that bad?
« Reply #59 on: November 19, 2009, 03:09:17 PM »
Much of what Pathfinder introduced isn't exactly new, or at least didn't need a revised system for. The Bard was doing fine as he was (despite a bit of a need for optimization knowledge) and the casters still overpower everyone else.

Frankly, I really don't understand what in PF attracts some people.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!