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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Windjammer" data-source="post: 5266517" data-attributes="member: 60075">I'm of the minority opinion that Pathfinder is not an improvement over 3.5 at all. I appreciate the occasional nod to Monte Cook's houserules (canonized in his varios Malhavoc Books of Might), but the package deal strikes me as thoroughly unattractive. I never understood where power attack was (apparently) too overpowered or why combat maneuvers' success chance was way too high. Here as elsewhere Pathfinder tried to fix problems I never had. On the other hand, Pathfinder's wording of extant rules is not always an improvement over 3.5 either. Grapple isn't simplified, it <a href="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/config/app/images/grapple-flow-a1.gif" target="_blank">still</a> (?) <a href="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/config/app/images/grapple-flow-d1.gif" target="_blank">requires </a><a href="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/config/app/images/grapple-flow-a2.gif" target="_blank">three</a> flow charts.Then again, Pathfinder introduced new rules and worded them so poorly that even small entries like the Dazzling Display feat required their own FAQ after release, which is to me one indication of many that the designer competence at Paizo which was never great during the era of its Dragon print run hasn't improved drastically enough to hold a candle to 3.5.Finally, the change to canonical D&D elements like turning undead didn't make sense to me either. I'd have been happy for PF to offer some of these "improvements" as alternate class features, but kicking them out of the game makes the end product poorer than 3.5 in my opinion.The book is pretty though. I always wince at the ugly art of my 3.5 books. However, in the end, I remain unconvinced that Pathfinder is in any regard a superior rules system.</blockquote>

Verification