Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6293652" data-attributes="member: 2303">I'd unify mechanics more. Combat maneuvers were a huge step in the right direction, but with ACG they diversified them in a bad way, making it too big an investment in feats to stay good at them. And there are subsystems, like feint, that could be part of the combat maneuver rules.For some reason, saving throws have half the spread of most other things in Pathfinder. BAB ranges from 1-20, skills from +0 to +23, saving throws have a spread of 2-12 for no real apparent reason (attribute modifiers taken out of the calculation).The skill rules could use 2-3 times the page count they got in Pathfinder. I don't want more skills, I want more rules for how the existing skills work, especially at higher levels. A lot of the perceived superiority of casters in Pathfinder is becasue of the skill rules are weak, IMO. Pathfinder skills feel lacking next to 3.5, and things like Stealth and finding traps are almost back in 1E land - the rules are so lacking that you HAVE to have house rules/interpretations.Then there are a some small niggling bugs that crop up - like the rule that human rogues cannot sneak attack when in dim light. Rogues, stay out of the dark alleys and in the bright light of high street!Otherwise, I don't see a lot of revision room in Pathfinder - it runns fairly smoothly and has about as many options as a class system can have. Adding more options through archetypes is nice, but ultimately runns into a grey wall of lost class distinctions.I feel this is pretty much what Pathfinder already did - you are describing the evolution from 3.5 to Pathfinder. It could do with another iteration, but the end result would only be a little different. Many times when people criticize Pathfinder for being too little, too late, I feel they have not really realized all the little spell changes they did from 3.5, the many spells who had reduced durations.I support this.</blockquote>

Verification