User talk:Quantumboost/Reasons Why Pathfinder Is Not Good

I like this. This is all I needed to know to tell one of my friends that we aren't playing PF. Karuma 16:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, Pathfinders includes it's own internal balance fixer that is a shout back to AD&D: the game provides a slow, medium and fast experience progression, and a lot of problems can be solved by putting heavy casters on slow progression, fighters and their ilk (cavalier, barbarian, monk, etc.) on fast progression. Try it.
 * Right now, Zeta (my primary campaign world) uses a huge number of rules from Pathfinders. What I have kept from Pathfinders are the races, skills, combat system (at least parts of it, the rest is homebrew) and classes. From 3.5 I have taken the spells, feats, items, traps and monsters. And this is in addition to many homebrew elements I needed to make Zeta work.
 * So far the closest we have gotten to a balanced game anywhere (and I include video games in this theory) is D&D 4.0, which has proven time and time again to be vomit worthy. I reccommend Pathfinder as a game if your world fits the following three points:
 * Magic is a powerful force, and those who command it are beings of unrivaled raw power.
 * There is no such thing as an "atypical -insert class name here-".
 * Monsters are deadly and things to be feared.
 * It is these above reasons the I use a lot of PF in Zeta, and also, despite promting in other talk pages, I will never post Zeta as a campaign setting on this site. I am working on Varanost, which started as my attempt to recreate Zeta using only 3.5, but that started to fail very quickly and became it's own world.
 * In short, balance does not a fun game make, and it would be prudent if we could keep in mind that part of the reason D&D is so much fun is the lack of balance. Thank you.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 18:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Spaz, it's nice that you can still prove that you fail at elementary logic, elementary reading comprehension and life in general, in one fell swoop. You truly are an inspiration to the idiots of this world that they can always aspire to something greater. Hurrah for you.


 * More seriously, separate experience tracks for advancement don't fix anything at all. It could be argued as a limiter if all campaigns started at 1st level and ended at 20th level, but in practice, this almost never happens. Additionally, since when, with any group, will the idea that 'oh, hey folks, you wizards get to start at level X, but you fighters at level Y, where Y > X' would fly? Oh, that's right - in your bubble universe. Cool story, bro.


 * Secondly, your 'criteria' for using PF are actually... well, meaningless. Nobody wants to play a sidekick, and so if one bunch of people are strictly better than another, all you're doing is creating hurt feelings and ruining someone's fun. If this is your cup of tea, sure, but I don't consider this a feature worth implementing. Secondly, all adventurers are 'atypical' - that's what makes them adventurers! If PF takes this away, it's a steaming turd - oh wait, we knew that already. Lastly, monsters being 'deadly and something to be feared' means nothing in a system with CR in it, which, as far as I can tell, PF still is. So you can take your criteria and shove them.


 * Lastly, yes, balanced does a fun game make. Perhaps if you give up the needle and try to think a little before you type, you might even realise why having a game where some characters become irrelevant while others rule the world is a lame experience for everyone concerned. But then again, I hardly expect it. - MisterSinister 21:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting me. I had no idea that I and all the people I game with could not exist, as it was entirely unclear to me that we did not have fun playing the terrible and unfun games we were playing. I had no idea that fun and taste were entirely defined and non-subjective concepts, and until your response I had no idea that I had never had fun with any game once in my life prior to D&D 4.0, at which point I had so much fun that I never wanted to play again. I will now take the lessons of your response and apply it to the rest of my non-existance, then share it with my non-existant gaming group and listen to their fictional laughter.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 05:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, you can totally have fun playing Pathfinder, SC. This means nothing at all of the system's virtues. If you had a fun enough group of friend, you could hypothetically enjoy getting your balls pounded flat. My own dim view of Pathfinder stems from this: I see no reason to learn it over 3.x. It made a lot of changes just to make changes, the effects be damned, then claimed they'd fixed D&D 3.x's problems when they hadn't in the least(so the designers are either incompetent or dishonest to their fanbase, but that's another rant). There's a lot of minor changes that equate to most things functioning a little bit differently for no reason whatsoever, and I don't feel motivated to learn the system when I already know one that's mechanically more solid, leaving less time spent haggling over rules and more time spent playing the game. --Genowhirl 06:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is how I see it: D&D 3.5 spawned two sequels- Pathfinder and 4.0. Between the two, I would choose PF every time. I see that 4.0 is by far the more balanced of the two, and arguably the most balanced game in history. But PF chose to stay more true to the source material, and it even seemed to want a return to AD&D (a weird direction that I'm guessing came from playing too much Hackmaster), thus making it closer to 3.0 if anything. So, if a hardcore 3.5 player wanted to "upgrade" and switch to a new system, I will point him towards PF everytime.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 18:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're very good at posting giant, meaningless blocks of text, and also very good at ignoring the points of others. Unfortunately, you're not very good at making pathfinder or pathfinder fans look good. Karrius 20:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)