Pathfinder 1E Could Pathfinder take D&D's place...

[TheAuldGrump]

Now, I am personally a little concerned about Paizo. Rules glut is a problem that has plagued every edition of the game and both Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat strike me as rules glut. Plus, there's the issue of incremental redesign (the Stealth issue) which also concerns me. Pathfinder is plenty complex -- just about right, by many accounts -- but there's a tipping point for many folks. I have reached mine for rules already: neither UM nor UC will see my table, and probably not the Advanced Race guide, either. Personally, I'm very curious about the Beginner Box and it's "simplifications" and see how they impact play.

In a lot of ways both Ultimate books are closer to Unearthed Arcana than most of the splats for 3.X.

I think that the Archetypes, classes, feats, and spells will see further support, but I do not expect to see Words of Power or piecemeal armor in an Adventure Path. It did seem that UC was more heavily laden with less mainstream options. But some of those will work quite well in my homebrews - I have one for the Reformation era (Commonplace Guns) and one for the French & Indian War (Guns Everywhere).

Not 'rules glut', but just options that a GM can decide to add to his games. (I used very little of UA, but still thought that it was one of the best 3.X books that WotC made. )

The Auld Grump, my fantasy includes things what go *BOOM!*

 

[Arevashti]

If you are referring to Lorraine Williams, then no. She was in charge during the "setting glut" era of 2E (not to mention the CCG and Dragin Dice debacles) that led to D&D's near extinction. AD&D came about under Gygax while 3E came about under Dancey -- like them as personalities or not, no one can argue that they were not passionate about D&D.

Ah. Gotcha. Couldn't quite recall the exact timing.

Now, I am personally a little concerned about Paizo. Rules glut is a problem that has plagued every edition of the game and both Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat strike me as rules glut. Plus, there's the issue of incremental redesign (the Stealth issue) which also concerns me. Pathfinder is plenty complex -- just about right, by many accounts -- but there's a tipping point for many folks. I have reached mine for rules already: neither UM nor UC will see my table, and probably not the Advanced Race guide, either. Personally, I'm very curious about the Beginner Box and it's "simplifications" and see how they impact play.

I'm inclined to agree about at least a good portion of the content of those books. There's relatively little that I'd personally allow from either. (Equipment, spells, and standalone classes, pretty much. All else would be subject to case-by-case approval.)

But, to some degree, I'm also inclined to agree with TheAuldGrump in that it's akin to Unearthed Arcana. I don't really mind cherry-picking it, because I can get enough cherries to make jam.

 

[Ettin]

It's easy enough to tell that you weren't being entirely serious. But simply taking jabs at people is not humor in and of itself. In other words, if it was meant to be funny, it fell flat.

You are investing way too many words into not getting a joke.

Not 'rules glut', but just options that a GM can decide to add to his games. (I used very little of UA, but still thought that it was one of the best 3.X books that WotC made. )

I don't know why, but most people I know (myself included) have that attitude and it is great.

"I loved Unearthed Arcana! I just didn't use it."

It must feel like the guy getting mixed messages from the girl he's into. Is he in the friend zone or not?

 

[Arevashti]

You are investing way too many words into not getting a joke.

You didn't make a joke. You made a snide remark (three times) and called it a joke. And accusing me of "not getting it" doesn't change that.

 

[Ettin]

But you didn't make a joke. You made a snide remark (three times) and called it a joke. And accusing me of "not getting it" doesn't change that.

If you're reading this as a snide remark and not just being silly with semantics I'm not sure I can help you.

 

[Arevashti]

And you're reading this as a snide remark and not just being silly with semantics I'm not sure I can help you.

Well, let's see:

Things I don't like = Evil faceless corporation only in it for the money!
Things I like = By the fans, for the fans!

In other words, company A is not actually impersonal, company B is not actually "by the fans, for the fans," and the only reason that anyone would say so is pure bias.

Unless some sort of double-entendre was meant (in other words, while the above interpretation could apply, so could the interpretation of "jeers to impersonality, cheers to fans running the show"), that's not a joke. It's just a snide comment. And even if it is a double-entendre, it's not all that funny.

 

[Ettin]

I'm just going to back away slowly now.

 

[Androrc]

I'm just going to back away slowly now.

If you aren't going to admit you made a snark remark when confronted about it, please do.

 

[rangerjohn]

I think you're confused. They're paired off correctly, but each one should be the other way around.

I hate to bring up mathematics in an emotional coversation. But the whole point of an equal sign is it doesn't matter which side of the equation the value is on. They are equal they have the same value. Forget I mentioned anything. I typed this after reading what I quoted. Didn't realize just how emotional it was going to get.


If a = 4 and b = 3, then a + b = 7, 4 + b = 7 7 = 3 + a etc.

 

[Ettin]

I hate to bring up mathematics in an emotional coversation. But the whole point of an equal sign is it doesn't matter which side of the equation the value is on. They are equal they have the same value.

This made me think of an apt image for this and the last page.

Amazing how off-topic a terrible math joke can make things, isn't it?