Too many buffs/skills/debuffs

[deadsanta]

I really feel like the ability creep in CRPGs like Pathfinder is getting out of hand. Just fighting rando mobs in WOTR and they show up with 15 passive and active abilities, dozens of resists and immunities and buff/debuff like mad. Forget about the bosses, every fight is reading 40 lines of abilities and then casting your buffs while stealthed, and then the fight is either a win or a wipe in the next 30 seconds.

I feel like this game could be much more fun if buffs and debuffs and mob/player abilities and skills were more limited. I have the most fun with the Zen archer guy, mainly because you have like 2 buffs and 5 choices of abilities to use, total. Spread over 6-8 characters and pets, that's really all you need for tactical choice and variety, the 40 or so I actually have to choose from on my chars is just exhausting to consider. Every. Single. Fight.

The alternative is to switch on the ultra dumb AI and have it blow me the fark up with area spells and waste cooldowns on trash mobs. There has to be a better balance.

[PocketYoda]

Messaggio originale di Hammer of Sigmar:

I felt a lot more overwhelmed with baldurs gate 2 than with pathfinder... but i understand what you mean

No way Baldurs gate 2 was childs play compared to kingmaker.. It felt like you needed a university degree to get past the character level up screens..

[Peelsepuuppi]

I disagree.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Messaggio originale di deadsanta:

I really feel like the ability creep in CRPGs like Pathfinder is getting out of hand. Just fighting rando mobs in WOTR and they show up with 15 passive and active abilities, dozens of resists and immunities and buff/debuff like mad. Forget about the bosses, every fight is reading 40 lines of abilities and then casting your buffs while stealthed, and then the fight is either a win or a wipe in the next 30 seconds.

I feel like this game could be much more fun if buffs and debuffs and mob/player abilities and skills were more limited. I have the most fun with the Zen archer guy, mainly because you have like 2 buffs and 5 choices of abilities to use, total. Spread over 6-8 characters and pets, that's really all you need for tactical choice and variety, the 40 or so I actually have to choose from on my chars is just exhausting to consider. Every. Single. Fight.

The alternative is to switch on the ultra dumb AI and have it blow me the fark up with area spells and waste cooldowns on trash mobs. There has to be a better balance.

This is probably the biggest reason I don't like Pathfinder. 5e is so much better.

[AΩ]

I think a lot of people like that aspect of the game though. There are many who like 'less' (5e based games that are just D&D with training wheels and people don't feel overwhelmed); and those who like less but with higher difficulty (think AD&D); and those who like the breadth of customization that Pathfinder/3.5 offers. Personally I enjoy having all those different things to pay attention to and it doesn't seem so boring and monotonous to me, it keeps it from feeling like a hack and slash. There are already other 5th Ed games (Baldur's Gate 3), and its nice that they are making something for those who enjoy Pathfinder as it is/was. Honestly I look at this game and feel like they could add more of that in to squeeze in as much of the pen and paper feel that myself and many others enjoy.

There are ways to customize the difficulty of the game, so perhaps changing that would make it more enjoyable without just wanting the devs to change it to your liking and potentially ruin it for others who like it the way it is.

[CHAO$$$]

In the first game there was a mod that allowed you to cast all prebuffs in basically 1 click.

The complaint is valid but it comes down to the game being faithful to the original Pathfinder and that just happens to have a ton of buffs.

Also having a metric ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of tools is part of this game's unique appeal in a world where every game gives you less and less tools because at some point game designers decided that making people use more than 4 buttons is too much to ask from the average muppet.
Maybe this game just isnt for you. Lots of dumbed down experiences available for you.

[NamelessOne]

"Triangle to win"... Worst part of modern gaming.

You don't need to use all buffs all the time, just the right ones.

Even in the middle 80s d&d was more complicated than what OP and others seems to want. But there already is a game for people who prefer simplicity, it involves paper, a rock, and a pair of scissors.

[PocketYoda]

Messaggio originale di NamelessOne:

"Triangle to win"... Worst part of modern gaming.

You don't need to use all buffs all the time, just the right ones.

Even in the middle 80s d&d was more complicated than what OP and others seems to want. But there already is a game for people who prefer simplicity, it involves paper, a rock, and a pair of scissors.

Developers always throw those enemies at you that needs every buff known to man.

Not true 2nd edition while it could be complex it was also quite forgiving.. Its why its still loved to this day.. its was also very easy to understand.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Messaggio originale di DanteYoda:

Messaggio originale di NamelessOne:

"Triangle to win"... Worst part of modern gaming.

You don't need to use all buffs all the time, just the right ones.

Even in the middle 80s d&d was more complicated than what OP and others seems to want. But there already is a game for people who prefer simplicity, it involves paper, a rock, and a pair of scissors.

Developers always throw those enemies at you that needs every buff known to man.

Not true 2nd edition while it could be complex it was also quite forgiving.. Its why its still loved to this day.. its was also very easy to understand.

2e was the last D&D edition I played on the TT. I was in grade school. I'm in my forties now.

I haven't played D&D or any TT rpg since, and now that I'm getting back into crpg's (last one I truly loved was Ultima 7) I have found 5e to be the best new edition.

I tried Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Pillars of Eternity. I didn't find PK to be complex as much as it just felt bloated. There's too many useless feats, too much of it is tied up in 'trees' that you need to take just to get something you want, and many of them have so little impact that they're a waste other than being a stepping stone to something else. And there are far too many 'traps' - ways in which you can unintentionally gimp your character by taking the wrong feat or set of feats or multiclassing wrong.

In 5e there are fewer feats, but they're much more impactful to your character and it's difficult to actually break your character and make it useless later on. The absence of these 'traps' is one of the biggest reasons I prefer 5e over 3.5/Pathfinder.

And finally, PK is heavily dependent upon pre-buffing before every fight. It's necessary. Because every encounter is tuned so that you need to. But not every class can buff, so if you didn't build a party to stack ridiculous levels of buffs on everyone, you tend to fall behind or can't progress. In Baldur's Gate 3/5e this isn't totally necessary. There ARE buffs of course, but I found that I can play non-buff classes just fine and still progress using other abilities. It's not strictly dependent upon buffs, and I like that, because I feel that buffs/enchantments are just one playstyle and shouldn't be mandatory as it feels really limiting and railroading.

Overall, I feel 5e is the superior rpg system mechanically, offering lots of meaningful choices without getting bogged down in minutiae and bloat, and without constant dead ends in your build path.

Some people love the labyrinth that is character progression in games like Patfinder - and Path of Exile - to them, that IS the game itself. They care less about the story elements, the characters, the immersive elements of the world, and so forth - and more about just spending hours with a calculator trying to see how high they can get some arbitrary number like Damage Per Round as high as they possibly can. And that's what games like this are for. There are all types of games out there, and some appeal to the obsessive bean counters and others do not

I just wish I had known all that before I spent money on the PK extended edition. I hated it. Every minute of it. I'll never play another Pathfinder game as long as I live as I have exponentially more fun in 5e games like BG3. I would almost play Solasta too, but it's production value is so low it looks like a kids project compared to BG3.

As far as I'm concerned, BG3 is the greatest CRPG since Ultima 7.

[Elley]

So sad people actually complain about having too many options.

[PocketYoda]

Messaggio originale di pandariuskairos:

Messaggio originale di DanteYoda:

Developers always throw those enemies at you that needs every buff known to man.

Not true 2nd edition while it could be complex it was also quite forgiving.. Its why its still loved to this day.. its was also very easy to understand.

2e was the last D&D edition I played on the TT. I was in grade school. I'm in my forties now.

I haven't played D&D or any TT rpg since, and now that I'm getting back into crpg's (last one I truly loved was Ultima 7) I have found 5e to be the best new edition.

I tried Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Pillars of Eternity. I didn't find PK to be complex as much as it just felt bloated. There's too many useless feats, too much of it is tied up in 'trees' that you need to take just to get something you want, and many of them have so little impact that they're a waste other than being a stepping stone to something else. And there are far too many 'traps' - ways in which you can unintentionally gimp your character by taking the wrong feat or set of feats or multiclassing wrong.

In 5e there are fewer feats, but they're much more impactful to your character and it's difficult to actually break your character and make it useless later on. The absence of these 'traps' is one of the biggest reasons I prefer 5e over 3.5/Pathfinder.

And finally, PK is heavily dependent upon pre-buffing before every fight. It's necessary. Because every encounter is tuned so that you need to. But not every class can buff, so if you didn't build a party to stack ridiculous levels of buffs on everyone, you tend to fall behind or can't progress. In Baldur's Gate 3/5e this isn't totally necessary. There ARE buffs of course, but I found that I can play non-buff classes just fine and still progress using other abilities. It's not strictly dependent upon buffs, and I like that, because I feel that buffs/enchantments are just one playstyle and shouldn't be mandatory as it feels really limiting and railroading.

Overall, I feel 5e is the superior rpg system mechanically, offering lots of meaningful choices without getting bogged down in minutiae and bloat, and without constant dead ends in your build path.

Some people love the labyrinth that is character progression in games like Patfinder - and Path of Exile - to them, that IS the game itself. They care less about the story elements, the characters, the immersive elements of the world, and so forth - and more about just spending hours with a calculator trying to see how high they can get some arbitrary number like Damage Per Round as high as they possibly can. And that's what games like this are for. There are all types of games out there, and some appeal to the obsessive bean counters and others do not

I just wish I had known all that before I spent money on the PK extended edition. I hated it. Every minute of it. I'll never play another Pathfinder game as long as I live as I have exponentially more fun in 5e games like BG3. I would almost play Solasta too, but it's production value is so low it looks like a kids project compared to BG3.

As far as I'm concerned, BG3 is the greatest CRPG since Ultima 7.

While i 100% agree with you i also feel 5th edition went the opposite for me. Its so dumbed down its kinda like the watered down lite milk alternative, while i totally agree with you on pathfinder its super bogged down in its own depth.. I understand both groups of people love them but for me i'm not keen on either sadly..

BG3 is DoS reskin to me, i hated DoS, Solasta is an amazing proper take on 5ed to me.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

The combat in mechanics in Solasta are superior so far to any other crpg - but there are signs that BG3 will move closer to a 5e system over time (the latest update finally fixed Disengage to work like RAW). The problem in Solasta isn't combat, which they execute pretty faithfully, it's everything else in the game that suffers from it's low budget. BG3 can fix its mistakes and become better over time, but Solasta is stuck with low production values, at least until the sequel. They also have a Dungeon Maker which is a huge draw for me, hoping BG3 eventually adds something similar.

[PocketYoda]

Messaggio originale di pandariuskairos:

The combat in mechanics in Solasta are superior so far to any other crpg - but there are signs that BG3 will move closer to a 5e system over time (the latest update finally fixed Disengage to work like RAW). The problem in Solasta isn't combat, which they execute pretty faithfully, it's everything else in the game that suffers from it's low budget. BG3 can fix its mistakes and become better over time, but Solasta is stuck with low production values, at least until the sequel. They also have a Dungeon Maker which is a huge draw for me, hoping BG3 eventually adds something similar.

I agree 100% again Poor solasta was a product of lack of money.. I feel BG3 is the opposite its a product of too much money..

Some of kingmaker i loved but other aspects just pulled my immersion away every time i got into it, its been a few years i should try pathfinder now as it is probably a better product than release..

[Peelsepuuppi]

Messaggio originale di DanteYoda:

Messaggio originale di pandariuskairos:

The combat in mechanics in Solasta are superior so far to any other crpg - but there are signs that BG3 will move closer to a 5e system over time (the latest update finally fixed Disengage to work like RAW). The problem in Solasta isn't combat, which they execute pretty faithfully, it's everything else in the game that suffers from it's low budget. BG3 can fix its mistakes and become better over time, but Solasta is stuck with low production values, at least until the sequel. They also have a Dungeon Maker which is a huge draw for me, hoping BG3 eventually adds something similar.

I agree 100% again Poor solasta was a product of lack of money.. I feel BG3 is the opposite its a product of too much money..

Some of kingmaker i loved but other aspects just pulled my immersion away every time i got into it, its been a few years i should try pathfinder now as it is probably a better product than release..

That's for certain, but your immersion breaking moments are still there.

[elbentzo]

Messaggio originale di pandariuskairos:

Messaggio originale di DanteYoda:

Developers always throw those enemies at you that needs every buff known to man.

Not true 2nd edition while it could be complex it was also quite forgiving.. Its why its still loved to this day.. its was also very easy to understand.

2e was the last D&D edition I played on the TT. I was in grade school. I'm in my forties now.

I haven't played D&D or any TT rpg since, and now that I'm getting back into crpg's (last one I truly loved was Ultima 7) I have found 5e to be the best new edition.

I tried Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Pillars of Eternity. I didn't find PK to be complex as much as it just felt bloated. There's too many useless feats, too much of it is tied up in 'trees' that you need to take just to get something you want, and many of them have so little impact that they're a waste other than being a stepping stone to something else. And there are far too many 'traps' - ways in which you can unintentionally gimp your character by taking the wrong feat or set of feats or multiclassing wrong.

In 5e there are fewer feats, but they're much more impactful to your character and it's difficult to actually break your character and make it useless later on. The absence of these 'traps' is one of the biggest reasons I prefer 5e over 3.5/Pathfinder.

And finally, PK is heavily dependent upon pre-buffing before every fight. It's necessary. Because every encounter is tuned so that you need to. But not every class can buff, so if you didn't build a party to stack ridiculous levels of buffs on everyone, you tend to fall behind or can't progress. In Baldur's Gate 3/5e this isn't totally necessary. There ARE buffs of course, but I found that I can play non-buff classes just fine and still progress using other abilities. It's not strictly dependent upon buffs, and I like that, because I feel that buffs/enchantments are just one playstyle and shouldn't be mandatory as it feels really limiting and railroading.

Overall, I feel 5e is the superior rpg system mechanically, offering lots of meaningful choices without getting bogged down in minutiae and bloat, and without constant dead ends in your build path.

Some people love the labyrinth that is character progression in games like Patfinder - and Path of Exile - to them, that IS the game itself. They care less about the story elements, the characters, the immersive elements of the world, and so forth - and more about just spending hours with a calculator trying to see how high they can get some arbitrary number like Damage Per Round as high as they possibly can. And that's what games like this are for. There are all types of games out there, and some appeal to the obsessive bean counters and others do not

I just wish I had known all that before I spent money on the PK extended edition. I hated it. Every minute of it. I'll never play another Pathfinder game as long as I live as I have exponentially more fun in 5e games like BG3. I would almost play Solasta too, but it's production value is so low it looks like a kids project compared to BG3.

As far as I'm concerned, BG3 is the greatest CRPG since Ultima 7.

I hate to be that "git gud" guy, but if you find you have to pre-buff before every fight in PF:KM then you have absolutely no idea how to play the game. I finished the game about a dozen times on every difficulty from Normal to Unfair, and I can 100% guarantee that even on Unfair you don't have to fully buff before every fight if you know how to actually play the game, use your abilities, use your position (and in the high difficulties -- yes, also how to build your character).

Also, for a guy who will "never play another pathfinder game as long as I live", you sure do spend A LOT of time on the PF:WotR forums.

[NamelessOne]

Everyone I know hates BG3, and only the casual tt players prefer 5th. The core gamer in my area prefers 1ed pf, 3.5 D&D, or 2nd Ed ad&d.

Sure, 5th is the most popular, but that's because it's so stripped down that anyone can play it. Which is fine. But a lot of people prefer the depth of options, and actually like the ivory tower game design. People who take the time to learn the system are rewarded. While in 4e and 5e, (and 2e PF) everyone is roughly the same, regardless of how much you know and tweak your character, the guy who shows up never having opened his book and has the other players tell him which dice to roll (and picks his "options" by how cool the names are) isn't going to be much worse off.