The Pathfinder Touch

[Lago PARANOIA]

Pathfinder game balance philosophy summarized:

[*] Have a gap in the rules or a theme or tactic that people want to explore? Make it a feat!
[*] When adapting old material or revising material that people are complaining about, nerf it. Assign nerfs not on how objectively abusive the power is but by how much fanboys complain about them.
[*] If you can't nerf or fix a hole in the rules that people ostensibly want/use, instead implement a hole bunch of rules changes such that people can't figure out what's going on. It's a way of deleting something from the rules without admitting that you're deleting it. See: Fly, Stealth, Polymorph, etc.
[*] All levels must give something. And by something, we don't mean anything that will advance core character schticks or will even be noticeable, but something to fill in the blanks. The philosophy of 'no empty levels' is an editing and accounting trick, not something that's supposed to benefit players.
[*] Game effects that are not obviously or trivially abusive or overpowered don't really need to be addressed. Because obviously no table will ever allow the abusive interpretation or combo because Rule Negative Two, bitches.

You might notice that the Pathfinder Touch isn't much different from the 4E D&D Touch. This should tell you something.

[Neon Sequitur]

I haven't played Pathfinder, but this is pretty much spot on with respect to 4E.

Which I enjoy playing anyway.

[ishy]

I wonder what brought this on.

---

I must say though, referring to 4e when it comes to RPG design is basically like godwin's law everywhere else.

And there are key differences between the 'pathfinder touch' and the '4e touch'. For example: PF is all about giving shitty options because roleplaying while 4e is so anti-roleplaying mechanics that they actively trolled their players about it.

---

Honestly burying people under crap options seems to be a major theme, see most archetypes. Occasionally there is something really good hidden in the crap, because they have no clue what they are doing (except in stealing stuff from other people).

The all levels must give something reminds me off the 3.5 dead level articles which held up the barbarian as the perfect example of class design.
I do think many people hate dead levels, but filling it with crap is really annoying.

But I don't think the stealth critique is valid. They were testing a new stealth system because they realised their current one is crap.
Not sure what happened to it.

But seeing Jason Bullman post, during pathfinder beta, that the monk was supposed to be inferior to other martials in a straight fight, because monks can move around on the battlefield, pretty much destroyed any faith I had in pathfinder.

[hogarth]

You might notice that the Pathfinder Touch isn't much different from the 4E D&D Touch. This should tell you something.

How shocking that Pathfinder -- a new edition of D&D -- should feel like a new edition of D&D. You, sir, owe me a new monocle.

[sabs]

And yet, Pathfinder is the 2nd most fun I've ever had playing D&D.

[Voss]

And yet, Pathfinder is the 2nd most fun I've ever had playing D&D.

All things considered, that qualifies as damning with faint praise. Given what they started with (a fully functioning and previously revised system, with all the problem areas known and identified), ending up with something shittier than 4e, 1e or even 2e would be fucking criminal. That it still has so many problems is laughable in itself, but that is a direct consequence of the accumulation of minor random changes for no other reason than random change.

[Aryxbez]

And yet, Pathfinder is the 2nd most fun I've ever had playing D&D.

Then what pray tell, makes Pathfinder worth all the crappy micromanaging, re-learning of a similar system, and overall lesser D&D experience, assuming you're not going to go Full-Silva on us?

[sabs]

Simply put? If you can't find a 3.5 game anymore, then Pathfinder is definitely more fun than 4E. I would rather stop roleplaying than play 4E. But Pathfinder, at least I can make a character that doesn't intrinsically suck. Although, this does depend on the level of system mastery you're going for.

[codeGlaze]

And yet, Pathfinder is the 2nd most fun I've ever had playing D&D.

Then what pray tell, makes Pathfinder worth all the crappy micromanaging, re-learning of a similar system, and overall lesser D&D experience, assuming you're not going to go Full-Silva on us?

IT'S SO EVOCATIVE!!!111

[name_here]

Well, one thing Pathfinder has going for it is that it's basically a whole bunch of stuff bolted onto 3.5, and it's quite likely that you'll play with people who have completely missed the changes to the underlying rules. Also, a lot of the new stuff looks somewhat interesting, like the Summoner. Though, granted, since it took me less than four minutes to find an ability that was literally useless until fixed by errata (it was a damage-transfer to the summon that kicked in after you were knocked into the negatives, which would instantly banish your summoned creature) I'm much less confident that it's actually well-implemented

[nockermensch]

And yet, Pathfinder is the 2nd most fun I've ever had playing D&D.

Then what pray tell, makes Pathfinder worth all the crappy micromanaging, re-learning of a similar system, and overall lesser D&D experience, assuming you're not going to go Full-Silva on us?

IT'S SO EVOCATIVE!!!111

Design Challenge: Create a Pathfinder character whose answer to any situation is bears.

[erik]

And yet, Pathfinder is the 2nd most fun I've ever had playing D&D.

Then what pray tell, makes Pathfinder worth all the crappy micromanaging, re-learning of a similar system, and overall lesser D&D experience, assuming you're not going to go Full-Silva on us?

Honestly, I think it would be about the same in reverse. What if the progression went 3e -> 3.Pathfinder -> 3.5? What would have made 3.5 worth the crappy relearning of a similar system if it came out after Pathfinder?

I found that the worst shit in relearning in 3.5 vs. 3e wasn't the big stuff, it was the tiny changes that you totally wouldn't notice right away and certainly would not expect. That's the shit that riled me up.

[ishy]

I would rather stop roleplaying than play 4E.

Roleplay or rollplay?

[Voss]

The sad thing is I actually felt the need to run a search for that. It is a joke (nonexistent) product, but I honestly wasn't actually sure, which says a lot about how I view 4e products.

[OgreBattle]

Threads like this make me want to go back and finish that D&D 4.x heartbreaker. I keep on thinking "can't be that hard, can be done in a day, really." then I'm distracted by something else.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Then what pray tell, makes Pathfinder worth all the crappy micromanaging, re-learning of a similar system, and overall lesser D&D experience, assuming you're not going to go Full-Silva on us?

IT'S SO EVOCATIVE!!!111

Design Challenge: Create a Pathfinder character whose answer to any situation is bears.

Do I have to stat it completely? You might be able to throw together a respectable druid with a triple threat of animal companion, wildshape, and summoning. I think Bearnado is a build I could dig up somewhere.

Nowhere near as hilarious as King Potamus, though.

[Voss]

Summoner with a bear-form construct works too.

As does a bear obsessed illusionist, particularly if he continually talks to a bear skull and can change the visual aspects of his spells to be bears. Color spray would just be a carpet of tiny bears that overruns and confuses people.

[codeGlaze]

Sir bearington or the Barbearian?

[hogarth]

Honestly, I think it would be about the same in reverse. What if the progression went 3e -> 3.Pathfinder -> 3.5? What would have made 3.5 worth the crappy relearning of a similar system if it came out after Pathfinder?

I was going to say that, but you beat me to it. Pathfinder is not really any worse than 3.5E; it's just annoying to relearn stuff.

[NineInchNall]

[*] Game effects that are not obviously or trivially abusive or overpowered don't really need to be addressed. Because obviously no table will ever allow the abusive interpretation or combo because Rule Negative Two, bitches.

This is just the general consumer-base's perception, actually. Pointing out a problem with the rules only and always earns you, "But that's why there's a DM." Can it really be labeled a "Pathfinder" thing if most of the people you ever talk to also share the same sentiment?

[infected slut princess]

A DUDE WITH A GUN THAT SHOOTS BEARS

[Sigil]

All guns can shoot bears, that's not special.

[Leress]

A DUDE WITH A GUN THAT FIRES BEARS

Fixed it for you.

[Neon Sequitur]

Grizzly bears with owl heads.

[TiaC]

A DUDE WITH A GUN THAT FIRES BEARS

Fixed it for you.

But how do you get the bears to work for you in the first place?