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

[Crothian]

Sorry, but, I'm not buying it. Not without a heck of a lot of fudging going on. Which Adventure path if I might ask?

Council of Thieves of course. People spend time and play casters very intelligently which is why those classes get the reputation that they have. Luckily, the same principle can be applied to other classes and while they may not be as effective they do work well. It helps to play a rogue like a rogue and not try to play it as a tank or a caster even though one might have an awesome use magic device skill and lots of scrolls and wands.

 

[Crothian]

Because they have zero ability to heal for one, and the first failed skill check, which there will be one, will result in the party getting ganked. Never minding things like incorporeal undead, plants, elementals or any host of other creatures that rogues just can't really deal with all that well.

There other other ways to heal in the game then a cleric. There are probably too many of them. But the best strategy is not get hurt or to retreat before things go bad. This group played intelligently. They did not get trapped anywhere and had an escape plan. They did not always succeed at the first time in a fight and while the NPC changed tactics and so did the PCs. They also used hireling and would hire a wizard or cleric if one was absolutely needed. Pathfinder has more options for dealing with monsters that typically give rogues problems and a well prepared group knows when and how to handle that. One option they tried to always have available was retreating. I cannot stress that enough. So, while it may not have worked at your table with your idiosyncrasies it did work at mine.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sometimes I think going without a healer is sort of like going for it on fourth and short in football. All the numbers suggest that it's more likely to lead to a good outcome than punting, but coaches (at least at the pro level) simply aren't willing to take even this eminently justifiable risk.

Likewise, it's apparent that damage prevention and damage dealing are more important than healing, and that they can obviate the need for healing to a great extent, but some people just aren't willing to take the risk of going sans healer.

Heck, while I'm on it, it also seems like people think wizards are the king of everything, and people think quarterbacks are in football as well. And yet, the reality is that both games are won in the trenches. [Switches off NFL draft for the night].

 

[Hussar]

Council of Thieves of course. People spend time and play casters very intelligently which is why those classes get the reputation that they have. Luckily, the same principle can be applied to other classes and while they may not be as effective they do work well. It helps to play a rogue like a rogue and not try to play it as a tank or a caster even though one might have an awesome use magic device skill and lots of scrolls and wands.

Ah well that would explain it. I did say that at the outset that if the adventure is geared for a certain class that it really doesn't disprove my point.

 

[The Black Ranger]

Sorry, but, I'm not buying it. Not without a heck of a lot of fudging going on. Which Adventure path if I might ask?

Question?

How much Pathfinder do you play?

 

[Wicht]

It should never, ever be a problem to play a game by the rules. If playing the game by the rules gives bad results, then those rules should be changed. I should't have to ignore the rules in order to play the game. At least, that's how I feel about having rules in the game. They are there to be used. Telling me to ignore the rules, without actually being able to tell me which rules to ignore and when, doesn't help me. How can it?

Ignoring options is not the same as ignoring rules.

As far as I am aware, there is not a great deal of rule ignoring going on at my table. And the rules have never given us a "bad" result. I have never seen the druid, clerics or wizards be a problem and our fighters and rogues do very well.

I do, however, ignore a lot of options. There are just too many to use for any single campaign. Gunslingers, for instance, have never been seen at my table.

 

[Wicht]

Ah well that would explain it. I did say that at the outset that if the adventure is geared for a certain class that it really doesn't disprove my point.

Have you read the adventure in question?

 

[Hussar]

Have you read the adventure in question?

No I have not. I was going by the assumption from the title that it might be pretty heavily geared towards rogues. It's not?

 

[Crothian]

Ah well that would explain it. I did say that at the outset that if the adventure is geared for a certain class that it really doesn't disprove my point.

I'd read the AP before jumping to conclusion instead of judging it by its title. But adventures are very important. I would not have suggested we do one that the group would have automatically failed at. That's not fair to the players. As a GM I can find adventures that even a group of the most optimized characters can fail at but I don't see the point in doing that. So, yes, I will run adventures for a group that they have a chance to succeed at and have fun playing. I'm not going to punish a group just because they want to play non casters.

 

[billd91]

I'd read the AP before jumping to conclusion instead of judging it by its title. But adventures are very important. I would not have suggested we do one that the group would have automatically failed at. That's not fair to the players. As a GM I can find adventures that even a group of the most optimized characters can fail at but I don't see the point in doing that. So, yes, I will run adventures for a group that they have a chance to succeed at and have fun playing. I'm not going to punish a group just because they want to play non casters.

It is true that Council of Thieves is a particularly good campaign for players who don't want to heavily invest in magic wielders. It's set in one city so no world- or plane-traveling magical power is necessary. My players got through it with a monk, a rogue, a barbarian-ranger cos-playing gigolo halfling (yes, that's what he was), and a witch. It also didn't hurt that this particular AP lends itself particularly well to a ranger's favored enemies and investment in well-chosen weapons, something that works particularly well for rogues and fighter-types, pays of extremely well. The campaign shows how well a good, fairly general, setting and selection of opponents doesn't have to put martial characters at the mercy of a spellcaster's reality altering abilities.