Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BobTheNob" data-source="post: 5333757" data-attributes="member: 82425">Its funny that the OP hates errata. I am the opposite. I LOVE errata, cause it shows that the game designers care about the game. With 4e, the errata that has come out has been (mostly) on the money.An earlier post pointed out that Pathfinder doesnt have errata because, well, its like a big book of errata. 3.0 was (to me) an overtly abuse prone system because when the issues started arising and the abuses became apparent, what did the producers do? Release another source book! with its own issues and power creep. Its like trying to smother a fire with petrol.I found 3.5 woeful (like a band-aid on a bullet wound), and pathfinder to be the big book of errata 3.0 needed in the first place.I think PF is good, but I am a 4e man because, unfortunately (and this is entirely opinion) 3.0 was too flawed in the first place, and PF, as good as it is, is a house built on sand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BobTheNob, post: 5333757, member: 82425"] Its funny that the OP hates errata. I am the opposite. I LOVE errata, cause it shows that the game designers care about the game. With 4e, the errata that has come out has been (mostly) on the money. An earlier post pointed out that Pathfinder doesnt have errata because, well, its like a big book of errata. 3.0 was (to me) an overtly abuse prone system because when the issues started arising and the abuses became apparent, what did the producers do? Release another source book! with its own issues and power creep. Its like trying to smother a fire with petrol. I found 3.5 woeful (like a band-aid on a bullet wound), and pathfinder to be the big book of errata 3.0 needed in the first place. I think PF is good, but I am a 4e man because, unfortunately (and this is entirely opinion) 3.0 was too flawed in the first place, and PF, as good as it is, is a house built on sand. [/QUOTE]

Verification