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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vael" data-source="post: 5430529" data-attributes="member: 57043">My view of Pathfinder remains the same as 3.5: If asked, I'll play it, but I'm not interested in running it or spending much money on it. Yeah, there are occasions I miss Vancian casting (those moments don't last too long, but they happen), but to be honest, I would rather play 3.5 over Pathfinder, because of the more interesting subsystems like Incarnum or Tome of Battle.However, I DM 4e. I like to DM 4e, it's versatile, PCs are fairly well balanced and I can run the game without the headaches that 3.5 induced and Pathfinder hasn't really cleaned up.To discuss WotC's direction of late ... to me, the problem is that 4e is fairly mature, robust and varied system. Which means that more waves of PC classes and feats and magic items are approaching an oversaturation. I already think there are too many feats and magic items, there's a lot of stuff in 4e to sort through these days.This isn't to say I don't want more stuff, I can name a bunch of new races, classes and such that I'd love to see in the game. But 4e seems to have the most of the general bases covered.From a DM's perspective ... while more monsters and adventures are good, there are two major needed things: more support for upper level play, and tools for more varied campaigns. I'd be interested in seeing a 4e take on Kingmaker, because while the concept was intriguing, I was displeased with Paizo's execution and mechanics. Tools for intrigue, building strongholds, PCs as community leaders, that kind of stuff.</blockquote>

Verification