Search results

Anecdotal evidence: Truly the most incontrovertible variety of evidence. Even if you're 100% honest and 100% of those people have stayed with Pathfinder, you're not the standard. I do not see much "new blood" in any Pathfinder Society group; it's nearly always older guys and maybe some of...

Paizo's current problem is that they've married themselves to an older system and that's one of their chief aspects. If they want to expand they will have to ditch 3.5 at some point and come out with an improved system. But, in their current model, that will mean that they'll lose people that...

There is a serious problem when a book meant to give more options to martial classes, the least powerful classes, gives even more power to the most powerful classes. Obviously there's a significant share of Pathfinder buyers who see no problem with caster supremacy, but it really does need to...

This is completely wrong, though. Fighters are Defenders with a bend towards Striker, Rogues are Strikers with a bend towards... well, Striking, since that's all they did in combat, and so on. It's just that a 3.x caster was every role, possibly, and that's really not very good for a...

I think my biggest problem with Pathfinder, aside from the fact that they're clinging desperately to cheesecake like it defines the genre, is the fact that Ultimate Combat had spells in it. A book. Focused around non-casters. Had caster options. Goddamnit.

But that's not all a cleric is, at all. They buff, they do damage, they do plenty of things that are not healing in the slightest. Leader is a better term because what does a good leader, IRL, do? Care for and inspire the people they're leading. But they control far better than most, while...

Defender, striker, leader, and controller are hard to understand? How? What they're primarily focused on is right there in the name. A defender defends things. What does a striker do? He hits things. What does a controller do? Controls things. Leader's the vaguest of the bunch, to be sure, but...

Except those don't explain what they do nearly as well as Defender, Controller, Striker, and Leader. Each one of the role names tells you what a class from that role does by default; keeping legacy class names for roles would just be confusing. A Rogue would have Rogue as a role, and so would...

Come up with better names that people can grok easier? In any case, the roles are nearly always more of a suggested type of play rather than a you-must-do-this-always. Fighters and wizards can be built to focus on damage, rogues can be built to focus on control, Paladins can be built to focus...

If you run a red light you should accept the possible consequences, yes, and try not to repeat the mistake because even if nothing bad happens it's not because of what you did. Was that supposed to disprove my point or something because it kinda failed horribly.

Are you serious? Comments like this are what edition war derails are made of. Conversely: If I stated, "Pathfinder isn't Pathfinder, at least not in my opinion, it's just a dumb game for socially stunted manchildren," would you take that as a jest? Or would it be OH MAN SERIOUS ABOUT AR PEE GEE...

"I'm just being purposefully insulting towards something, not trying to start thread fights." Yeah, I bet you're not trying to start fights by being deliberately provocative.

Pathfinder won't supplant D&D unless they start trying to appeal to a larger market than what their current model has them doing. Their refusal to expand to different systems appeals to a certain niche in the market they already have, to be sure, but means that they're not going to get a much...

Poor baby feels compelled to try and defend his labeling of abstracts as absolutes It is also pretty funny that you try and make it seem like I'm the one off-target when your pedantic GNS argument has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Wow, it was actually more tolerable when entitled nerds were pronouncing 3.X the best ever and that Gygax loved 3.X and would have hated 4E and that only WotC is in it for the money than now when a bunch of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals want to use fancy terms to pigeonhole their pretend...

The only hint of realism present in most fantasy is the idealized depiction of medieval times. Few people actually want anything more than the illusion of realism simply because being almost certain to die if you get any serious wound is boring for players, dying of another outbreak of the Black...

Are you honestly equating being snarky to being just as bad as justifying rape? Wow.

Pretty much nothing was 'good' against late-era plate except firearms, sometimes longbows from point-blank range, and sometimes crossbows. At least, until you got into hand-to-hand with them, and then you'd basically rely on trying to stick a specialized, very stout dagger into their joints...

The problem with rape as a serious topic is that it merits serious thought and an extremely thoughtful and mature environment, not a scene where anyone is free to just put forth their interpretations of it like "if she enjoys it it's not rape," so unless you can guarantee people will treat it as...

Oh man good troll, way to mockingly defend horrible people's 'right' to romanticize rape The BoEF and Salvatore references really sealed it, mentioning two of the worst things to happen to fantasy writing = priceless Oh and if you weren't trolling and this is actually your really sheltered...