Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="enrious" data-source="post: 5666466" data-attributes="member: 2126">Oh, I agree GL and my advice to you is the same anyone evaluating Pathfinder vs. 3.x is simple.This assumes you have some experience with 3.x.Take a look at a given item in the PRD (Pathfinder SRD) and read it for yourself.  Try to figure out the impact it'll have.Ask some 3.x folks what they think the impact would be. Then ask people who play Pathfinder what their experience with it is.  Try to figure out what the effect will be for your group.  Or naturally people who've done both may be good resources.But here's who I'd avoid, the people who only play 3.5 and/or played Pathfinder at the beginning and quit playing it.  It's the same reason why you should never ask me about 4e - I tried it at the beginning and never again, but I have no idea if the criticisms I had about it are still valid or if indeed they ever were and simply shown to be fine over time.Likewise, looking back at Frank's "review", and understanding that it was done before the game was even released, some things (like the monster-can't-be-used-as-is complaint) were valid until say the Bestiary was released (which gave you three ways to do mitigate that) but others were at best only half the story (such as the power attack example).Let me give you a better example of what I mean to illustrate my point in this post.In Frank's post, he is lambasting various changes and says, "gives single classed characters (like spellcasters) bonus hit points or skill point for no reason".Sit down and play a Pathfinder campaign and you'll immediately see the reason (vs. 3.x) - multiclassing is way, way, way reduced.Is that a good thing or is it a bad thing?You tell me, it's your game.But my point is that it was disingenuous to say that the change was done "for no reason".  In fact, take a look at the rest of his criticisms in that paragraph and you realize that looking over all the changes listed, Pathfinder had a coherent reason to make those changes (the wisdom of them is open for debate and I disagree with some of them), but it's not like they were made after too many late-night Taco Bell runs.Note that I don't dispute the accuracy of the changes he describes, but reading it you can hardly think he's unbiased - and that bias renders it fraudulent, even if factually accurate because you only get half the story.Which is why I'd encourage you to ask around, hit up those 3.x and Pathfinder players.  Find out for yourself.Heck, both the SRD and PRD are available freely online (and the PRD is constantly updated with new material from new sourcebooks, unlike how WotC treated the SRD) - so you could see for yourself why in Pathfinder there's less use of Prestige Classes (in my experience) than in 3.x, but it's up to you to decide if that's a good or a bad thing for you.  And note, that the reason came out after the game was initially released, so someone who never played after the playtest wouldn't likely to know.<img src="http://www.bespokeventures.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/the_more_you_know2.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /></blockquote>

Verification