Pathfinder 1E Broad philosophy suggestions for Pathfinder (cross-posted at Paizo's boards)

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wulf, might I ask what the "hard problems" for 3.5 were, in your (or your friends) eyes? I'm very interested in seeing your view on it.

Smoothing the power curve, prolonging the sweet spot, high level play/high level prep.

The Math stuff-- not the fluffy, creative, wouldn't-it-be-cool-if stuff.

Here's a good list of stuff ENworlder's collected as their big gripes. (Not all of this qualifies as hard stuff.)

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=222801&highlight=fixing

 

[Treebore]

Infinite Summoning? I thought that was ruled on long ago. A summoned creature cannot summon other creatures.

I agree to even try to fix the 3E problems high level play will need to be seriously overhauled. However doing that will create complaints of compatibility with old 3E. If Paizo succeeds I would say great! Let them cry! An improved 3E is more important than backwards compatibility when it means staying compatible with inferior rules.

I say move forward, not run in place.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm starting a new thread with version two of this philosophy. Here it is: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4329582#post4329582

 

[joela]

trailblazer

That's exactly the change I recommended for Trailblazer. (See Magic, see Dispel Magic thread below.)

That's the second time I've seen that word. What's it referring to?

 

[RangerWickett]

I think it's a joke on what you might call Pathfinder's second edition.

 

[joela]

second

I think it's a joke on what you might call Pathfinder's second edition.

there's a second edition in the work?

 

[RangerWickett]

I meant if there were hypothetically to be a 2nd edition some day. As in, "Pathfinder's nifty and all, but they're going to need to change a lot because this whole 'backward compatibility' thing is going to ruin the game. When they do go ahead and fix the core problems, they could call it 'Trailblazer.'"

Or at least, that's how I read it.

 

[joela]

Prpg2

I meant if there were hypothetically to be a 2nd edition some day. As in, "Pathfinder's nifty and all, but they're going to need to change a lot because this whole 'backward compatibility' thing is going to ruin the game. When they do go ahead and fix the core problems, they could call it 'Trailblazer.'"

Or at least, that's how I read it.

Got it. Cute

Hmmm. Since PRPG is OGL-based, couldn't you and Wulf team up or something and release such a version?

 

[RangerWickett]

Got it. Cute

Hmmm. Since PRPG is OGL-based, couldn't you and Wulf team up or something and release such a version?

The reason pathfinder interests me is because the company making it has the resources to make it pretty and distribute it. I can houserule the hell out of things if I want, but I don't have the infrastructure to make it worth my while. Paizo does. Hence why I am trying to help them go down the path I like, rather than just doing this on my own.

I hate gaming with paper print-outs of rules. I like books.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think it's a joke on what you might call Pathfinder's second edition.

No, it's the name of my own Pathfinder-compatible product, already well underway.