Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5996806" data-attributes="member: 17106">I do. Prestige classes and dips are a rather large part of the system (not necessarily for the better). Playing by the book 3.5, dips and prestige classes are pretty normal for everyone; few of the core classes are playable through 20th.Incidentally, PF put most of the prestige class abilities into base classes and provides a big list of special abilities to choose from (commonly including cross-class ones), which kind of helps with this. The point is that you get more flexibility in character creation and class choice doesn't restrict you as much.&nbsp;Then why do people play it and enjoy themselves? Or are you saying they don't?Class based is an obvious way to go if you don't get the advantages of point buy.&nbsp;Most of PF's design decisions are to keep the 3e mechanics to maintain compatibility and avoid 4e's mistakes. You are somewhat right in that PF has made some backwards steps, such as 4e-like but class specific metagame mechanics like &quot;rage points&quot;. Which is one of the reasons people still play 3e. For an &quot;aberration&quot; I think it's doing pretty well.First, I was responding to the assertion that the 3e fighter &quot;failed&quot;. My response is not intended to be any more &quot;factual&quot; than the original assertion; it is speculative, but is more specific and substantive refutation. There are plenty of facts easily available on ENW that offer modest support to my point, but no one knows for sure.Second, notice the part where &quot;you believe&quot; some stuff about the fighter? It may be a fact that you believe it, but I don't see any other factual support for the original (3e fighter failed) statement from any of these posts, which was assertively stated and is a significant point. If you want to add some facts to support it, I won't apologize because I haven't done anything wrong, but I may be more inclined to actually pay attention to whatever point it is you are trying to make.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 5996806, member: 17106"] I do. Prestige classes and dips are a rather large part of the system (not necessarily for the better). Playing by the book 3.5, dips and prestige classes are pretty normal for everyone; few of the core classes are playable through 20th. Incidentally, PF put most of the prestige class abilities into base classes and provides a big list of special abilities to choose from (commonly including cross-class ones), which kind of helps with this. The point is that you get more flexibility in character creation and class choice doesn't restrict you as much. Then why do people play it and enjoy themselves? Or are you saying they don't? Class based is an obvious way to go if you don't get the advantages of point buy. Most of PF's design decisions are to keep the 3e mechanics to maintain compatibility and avoid 4e's mistakes. You are somewhat right in that PF has made some backwards steps, such as 4e-like but class specific metagame mechanics like "rage points". Which is one of the reasons people still play 3e. For an "aberration" I think it's doing pretty well. First, I was responding to the assertion that the 3e fighter "failed". My response is not intended to be any more "factual" than the original assertion; it is speculative, but is more specific and substantive refutation. There are plenty of facts easily available on ENW that offer modest support to my point, but no one knows for sure. Second, notice the part where "you believe" some stuff about the fighter? It may be a fact that you believe it, but I don't see any other factual support for the original (3e fighter failed) statement from any of these posts, which was assertively stated and is a significant point. If you want to add some facts to support it, I won't apologize because I haven't done anything wrong, but I may be more inclined to actually pay attention to whatever point it is you are trying to make. [/QUOTE]

Verification