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.

[Tozobi]

Messaggio originale di 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.

The reverse is also true. Anyone who thinks PF 1e and older DnD editions are full of depth is wearing rose tinted glasses.
Yes, you have a bazillion skills, feats, abilities etc. And more than half of them are useless clutter, as they are vastly inferior to specific subsets of theirs. Just because a DM can modify combat and out of combat skill checks to be easier so as to cater to roleplaying and allowing the party to play whatever class/archetype they like, does not mean that all those options are viable. Most serious encounters and skill checks would obliterate a non-optimised party within seconds, if the DM were to use them without holding back against said party.
And this is key to understanding that the same is true in CRPG adaptations which do not have a human GM. If you do not use specific builds, you will be punished for it - severely. You can look at the 30+ class options and hundred feats in PF:WOTR, and then see how many of them you will ever use if you hope to beat most encounters without constant reloading.

TLDR: Useless clutter content does not equal depth. It is just an artificial learning curve. Not that I am against it, but thinking that this is not the case is just ignoring facts.

[Zartanyen]

Messaggio originale di Easo:

Worst part probably is buffing before fights. It really feels like a chore.
Please do note that billion abilities for everything comes from the historical D&D and it's thinking, streamlining is a more modern thing.

You kidding me? Obviously didn't play 2ed in a high powered group, cleric was all heals and damage spells, mage was like a video game mage all damage. DM be like anyone taking fly,jump,feather fall Haste? We all lol and do a shot and get on with the game, I haste the human barb and guy might go full rage irl for me costing him a year of his life.

Only time I have really seen buffs or debuffs really used to a extent like this game would be convention battle royals were you would get like triple hasted thrikreen throwing like 100 throwing stars or some crazy builds along those lines that needed the buffs to make them what they were.

[Frostfeather]

I thought about this a bit and... I'd literally like to see 3-4 times more possible buffs/skills/debuffs/feats/spells.

Part of the problem people have, I believe, is mistakenly thinking they need all possible buffs. By adding more, and making it even more so that you can't have everything, it might partially alleviate that through realizing you can never have everything. You just use what you have in your group - sometimes, not always - and you'll be fine with proper strategy.

But the main reason for adding more would be to give more options to the players who want them, of course.

[Indure]

Does this game have a lot of buffs, yes, but people overexaggerate the problem.

People act like you need to be 100% buffed all the time against everything, but you don't. Protection buffs only need to be casted when you need the specific protections. And eventhough there are hundreds of buffs that provide bonuses to attacks, many of them don't stack.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Messaggio originale di Tozobi:

Messaggio originale di 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.

The reverse is also true. Anyone who thinks PF 1e and older DnD editions are full of depth is wearing rose tinted glasses.
Yes, you have a bazillion skills, feats, abilities etc. And more than half of them are useless clutter, as they are vastly inferior to specific subsets of theirs. Just because a DM can modify combat and out of combat skill checks to be easier so as to cater to roleplaying and allowing the party to play whatever class/archetype they like, does not mean that all those options are viable. Most serious encounters and skill checks would obliterate a non-optimised party within seconds, if the DM were to use them without holding back against said party.
And this is key to understanding that the same is true in CRPG adaptations which do not have a human GM. If you do not use specific builds, you will be punished for it - severely. You can look at the 30+ class options and hundred feats in PF:WOTR, and then see how many of them you will ever use if you hope to beat most encounters without constant reloading.

TLDR: Useless clutter content does not equal depth. It is just an artificial learning curve. Not that I am against it, but thinking that this is not the case is just ignoring facts.

I've said exactly the same thing 100 times - quantity isn't quality, and having a 1000 feats doesn't make a game "complex" in and of itself.

It's like, if I had two piles of loose string, one weighing five pounds and the other twenty pounds, is the twenty pound pile more "complex" because it's four times heavier? No, because quantity doesn't equal complexity.

The same is true for Pathfinder. There are far too many deadend feats and 'traps' that can invalidate an entire build.

Pathfinder is bloated, not complex. It needs to be pruned. And if you did that, what you'd end up with is 5e. 5e is what you get when you discard all the dead weight in 3.5.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Messaggio originale di Indure:

Does this game have a lot of buffs, yes, but people overexaggerate the problem.

I don't think that they do.

[Divolg]

Messaggio originale di pandariuskairos:

I don't think that they do.

Yes, yes they do.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Messaggio originale di night4:

I thought about this a bit and... I'd literally like to see 3-4 times more possible buffs/skills/debuffs/feats/spells.

Why not 100, or 1000, or 10,000 times more? Why not 1,000,000?

Where do you draw the line? When is it too much?

To me, and millions of other players, Pathfinder has already crossed that line.

[Frostfeather]

Messaggio originale di pandariuskairos:

I've said exactly the same thing 100 times - quantity isn't quality, and having a 1000 feats doesn't make a game "complex" in and of itself.

It's like, if I had two piles of loose string, one weighing five pounds and the other twenty pounds, is the twenty pound pile more "complex" because it's four times heavier? No, because quantity doesn't equal complexity.

The same is true for Pathfinder. There are far too many deadend feats and 'traps' that can invalidate an entire build.

Pathfinder is bloated, not complex. It needs to be pruned. And if you did that, what you'd end up with is 5e. 5e is what you get when you discard all the dead weight in 3.5.

How is string complex under any circumstances? If it's woven into a ball?

As for Pathfinder, those "trap" Feats are for playstyles you're not using or roleplaying you're not doing, or something along those lines. You don't "invalidate an entire build" with a Feat.

Just because you're not using the options doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.

[Frostfeather]

Messaggio originale di pandariuskairos:

Messaggio originale di night4:

I thought about this a bit and... I'd literally like to see 3-4 times more possible buffs/skills/debuffs/feats/spells.

Why not 100, or 1000, or 10,000 times more? Why not 1,000,000?

Where do you draw the line? When is it too much?

To me, and millions of other players, Pathfinder has already crossed that line.

I would like more than 3-4 times, but I'm talking into account realistic restraints of budget and time. You might want to consider those things in the future.

But I'll give you a free "life pro-tip". People often ask for twice what they're hoping to settle for, and ~3-4 times what they'll begrudgingly settle for. I'll let you do the math on that.

[Divolg]

Messaggio originale di pandariuskairos:

To me, and millions of other players, Pathfinder has already crossed that line.

Oh yes, cause you deffinitely have the authority to speak for million other players.

[elbentzo]

Messaggio originale di Divolg:

Messaggio originale di pandariuskairos:

To me, and millions of other players, Pathfinder has already crossed that line.

Oh yes, cause you deffinitely have the authority to speak for million other players.

Why do you even bother talking to this guy? Just a couple of posts ago he wrote he will never play a Pathfinder game as long as he lives, yet he spends all his time on this discussion page saying how much the game sucks. He's a 2 bit troll, why feed him and waste your own time?

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Messaggio originale di Divolg:

Messaggio originale di pandariuskairos:

To me, and millions of other players, Pathfinder has already crossed that line.

Oh yes, cause you deffinitely have the authority to speak for million other players.

Authority has nothing to do with it. Millions of people play D&D 5e. Like, three people play Pathfinder.

[PocketYoda]

Messaggio originale di ToveriJuri:

Messaggio originale di DanteYoda:

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.

Thats what worries me.. Although now i know what to look for and i can completely ignore the kingdom aspect.

Messaggio originale di Zartanyen:

Messaggio originale di Easo:

Worst part probably is buffing before fights. It really feels like a chore.
Please do note that billion abilities for everything comes from the historical D&D and it's thinking, streamlining is a more modern thing.

You kidding me? Obviously didn't play 2ed in a high powered group, cleric was all heals and damage spells, mage was like a video game mage all damage. DM be like anyone taking fly,jump,feather fall Haste? We all lol and do a shot and get on with the game, I haste the human barb and guy might go full rage irl for me costing him a year of his life.

Only time I have really seen buffs or debuffs really used to a extent like this game would be convention battle royals were you would get like triple hasted thrikreen throwing like 100 throwing stars or some crazy builds along those lines that needed the buffs to make them what they were.

Second edition had a lot less buffs etc to be effective.. Pathfinder went over board imo.. well D&D 3.5 did..

Sure you'd run into the odd thing you couldn't slaughter in 1 min at high levels.. ( i hated high level content as your characters are gods)

[Divolg]

Messaggio originale di pandariuskairos:

Authority has nothing to do with it. Millions of people play D&D 5e. Like, three people play Pathfinder.

Facts apparently have nothing to do with it either. Pathfinder is the second most popular tabletop rpg in the world.