Why are the exact problems people have with Pathfinder?

[veekie]

You're overrating their competence there. The designers are each pushing their personal agenda as far as they can take it and still get away with it.

[Bauglir]

That's basically my impression. It's nice that they're able to get paid for doing that, I just wish they were more up front about it. If they said, "This is a game we think is fun", instead of "This is an objectively better game, and here's why", I'd have a little more respect for the way they've handled things.

[veekie]

Objectively better game...I don't think that was actually officially claimed at any point. However a large number of the more rabid fans DO claim it(because it was competing with 4E, which DID make such claims), which could be the source of that.

[Bauglir]

That's possible, I suppose. It seems like an attitude inherent in the way they've acted, though, and less in explicit statements. Things like having a beta, but only taking from it advice that you want to, regardless of the arguments for anything else, where they'll set up a system that should support an "objective" (in the sense of being backed up by data in some capacity, since I readily admit that there are people for whom Pathfinder is better) standard and then undermining that system. I might not be entirely rational about it, but eh.

[WarlockLord]

Sean K Reynolds.  Insists on turning out crap options for real roleplayers.

[akalsaris]

Well, I'm a fan of Pathfinder as a whole since I like the campaign setting and their modules are quite good - since I'm the DM about 80% of the time, that's worth more to me than whether PF fixed 3.5's balance or not, which of course they did not.

If I had to narrow down what I'd like them to change, I'd have to agree with Unbeliever that the designers are really too fond of class abilities giving situational +1 or +2 bonuses that rarely ever make any difference. There's also a tendency with a lot of their materials to give 15 different options, of which 2 are actually worthwhile to take. Barbarian rage powers, witch hexes, and oracle mysteries are all good examples of this tendency.

[Libertad]

Since it looks like folks have covered the negative aspects, I'll chime in with some stuff I thought that Pathfinder did better than Core 3.5:

Skills: Listen, Search, and Spot are now Perception.  Hide & Move Silently are now Stealth.  Gather Information is now part of Diplomacy.  Also, taking ranks in cross-class skills is a lot more viable: Your maximum ranks are equal to your level, and are bought on a 1-for-1 basis.  Class skills get a stackable +3 bonus.

The Paladin class buff: The Paladin needs all the help he can get.  Still not as awe-worthy as the Tome of Battle classes.

The artwork: the rules system changes don't "wow" me, but the illustrations are very detailed; they're like cotton candy for the eyes!

Better Half-Orcs and Half-Elves: You don't get hit with Int and Cha penalties if you're Half-Orc, plus you get the effects of Diehard once per day.  Half-Elves aren't just for Diplomancer builds anymore; skillmonkeys and multiclass builds benefit from them, too!

[StreamOfTheSky]

I agree with you on the art, half-races, and paladin (obviously).

Skills are double-edged.  Removing the x4 at first level thing was for the best and it's certainly nice to be able to afford cross class ranks.  If you look at just the skill system, it's quite nice.

I just dislike the ramifications of those changes.  Something being a "class skill" is meaningless now.  If it was just for one level, it is no different than having it as one for 20 levels.  You can cheaply  gain class skills via traits as well.  Even if you don't get it, it's a difference of 3, which is puny.  Basically, PF completely obliterated the niche protection the skilled classes had in 3E, especially for the rogue.  Those classes had a leg up in skills in 3E precisesly BECAUSE of the draconian, penalizing cross-class skill system.  Trying to buy up ranks in a cc skill was costly, and you would never be nearly as good at it as someone who had it as a class skill, no matter how hard you tried (unless you started taking levels in a class that got it, of course).  It was tough, but IMO more realistic, and again, it made that distinction really mean something.
You want to strip that niche protection out, fine.  But for gods' sakes, you just eliminated a major if not THE major reason to play the skill monkey classes.  At the very least, you need to do something to not just buff them, but to give them a reason to exist.  "Be a jack of all trades" doesn't freaking cut it anymore in a system where anyone can easily surpass your MAD ass at various skills and between a party, all skills can be covered, sometimes by multiple PCs.  PF seems to have been completely oblivious to the game balance ramifications of their change.

Rant over, I should also mention that the skill consolidations are mostly good, but I hate some of them.  Perception is way too good, and putting search in there really REALLY puts the nail in the coffin for rogue's trapfinding.  PF basically ensured the entire party would be awesome at doing the rogue's job.  Just balance wise...diplomacy is one of the best skills, and gather info is campaign dependent but when used is often pretty handy.  Did they really need to be more incentivized by coming as one package?  Yet slieght of hand is still it's own skill, as is heal, as is a lot of other crappy ones.  Oh well, it took me all of 10 minutes to figure out a more balanced set of skill combos, at least they were on the right track.

[TSS]

You want to strip that niche protection out, fine.  But for gods' sakes, you just eliminated a major if not THE major reason to play the skill monkey classes.

There was a reason to play those classes?

At the very least, you need to do something to not just buff them, but to give them a reason to exist.

Now this I can agree with.

[akalsaris]

Eh, I personally like how easy traits make it to get class skills. In 3.5 I always hated how difficult it is to get some skills like Balance, Heal or Spellcraft without multi-classing.

I think skill consolidation helps the high skills classes as much as most other classes. It used to be quite difficult to build a 3.5 rogue that had all the good rogue skills up to date without a high Int, while in PF you can pretty safely dump Int as a rogue and still have all the useful skills. Likewise for rangers and bards. Then again, high Int classes like witches and wizards all do very well with the PF skills system as well. And yeah, Perception is over-used, no question there. It's basically a skill tax in PFS at least.

Just as an aside, in my own experience in a few PF games, the party rogue typically still has the best Perception check in the party, since he's the only player who has felt the need to invest his money in magic items to boost it, while the rest of us have our own party roles to spend our money on. I mean, sure, the druid could beat him at it if he invested the time and spells and gold, but that's nothing new.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The cleric beating him at it is new, though.

And why is only the rogue investing in a +5 perception item?  It's the best skill in the game, and unlike UMD, there's an actual printed item that boosts it.  I'd get that for any character.

Rogue's int dependence was lessened about as much as anyone else's (casters had it lessened the most; no need for the concentration tax is huge).  He still can't "dump" it.  If he goes below 10, he's throwing away one of the main selling features of his class to begin with.

And I have seen rogues be the best at numerous skills in PF.  But, other than the dex-based ones (even then, plenty of others can best them at stealth and the like), if a rogue was the best at a skill, it was only because other PCs intentionally didn't max out their ranks in order to avoid making him feel like the worthless gimp he is.  Which you basically agreed with.

[Solo]

Question: Does anyone have a link to the blog post where Jason Buhlman talks about how broken full sneak attack rouges are?

[Tubercular Ox]

So, ah, should I take this to mean you guys won't be participating in 5th?  Cuz I'll admit when I first heard about it a part of me hoped you guys would be there.

Yes, derailing the thread, but it seems like being able to target the question at people who've already proven willing to talk about pathfinder is more useful than broadcasting it to the whole board.

[Solo]

So, ah, should I take this to mean you guys won't be participating in 5th?  Cuz I'll admit when I first heard about it a part of me hoped you guys would be there.

Yes, derailing the thread, but it seems like being able to target the question at people who've already proven willing to talk about pathfinder is more useful than broadcasting it to the whole board.

I prefer to work on Legend.

[Nytemare3701]

So, ah, should I take this to mean you guys won't be participating in 5th?  Cuz I'll admit when I first heard about it a part of me hoped you guys would be there.

Yes, derailing the thread, but it seems like being able to target the question at people who've already proven willing to talk about pathfinder is more useful than broadcasting it to the whole board.

I prefer to work on Legend.

Interesting. I'll have to give it a spin sometime. I'm really not that enamored with d20 as a base for a system though.

[veekie]

So, ah, should I take this to mean you guys won't be participating in 5th?  Cuz I'll admit when I first heard about it a part of me hoped you guys would be there.

Yes, derailing the thread, but it seems like being able to target the question at people who've already proven willing to talk about pathfinder is more useful than broadcasting it to the whole board.

Will be giving it at least the same amount of attention I paid to PF when it first came out. Which was a damned sight less attention than I gave to 4E initially.

[Unbeliever]

+1

The design team will have to demonstrate some actual skill, talent, or thought in putting together this game.  So far all I've seen is platitudes that are meaningless and a frenzied attempt to throw anything at the wall and see what sticks.

For me, I play D&D 3.5 right now b/c I still like the game and b/c it's relatively easy for me and mine to play -- we all know what we are doing.  And, we don't seem to have the problems that seem to get so much airplay on these forums -- which is part of the reason I think they're exaggerated.  If I'm going to learn a new system, it's going to have to actually have something to recommend it.  That was Pathfinder's problem -- it doesn't have enough to warrant the change and comes with its own annoying baggage.  I expect 5E will even be worse in this regard, if the missteps in 4E are any indication.  And, I mean this in a non-polemical way:  regardless of what you think of 4E's game design, one of the big things they trotted out was online support and management tools, and they were both terrible and horribly supported. 

[Solo]

And what is your opinion of Legend?

[Nytemare3701]

And what is your opinion of Legend?

I know it wasn't directed at me, but I felt the urge to chime in. Something about Legend "feels" off. I'm not sure what it is. I tried reading the rulebook and it felt like "just another homebrew". It's probably something on my end. Can you give me anything that actually makes it better than what I'm already used to playing? (E6 3.P)

[Unbeliever]

And what is your opinion of Legend?

The last time I looked at it it felt very unpolished and incomplete.  Perhaps something similar to what Nytemare is referring to.

But, that was some months ago.  So, I'll be happy to take a look at it again.  It will just take me a while.  I have to write up the house rules for our Planescape 3.5 revival game, finish my Rifts to M&M conversion document, and oh yeah, do my requisite 60 hours of work a week.  I'll get to it eventually, though.