Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Empirate" data-source="post: 5943459" data-attributes="member: 78958">[MENTION=6695391]dazzlerdal[/MENTION]: first off, welcome to ENWorld!Secondly, although in principle I find attempts at game design to be a unique and interesting thing to do with one's free time, and love to read about other people's thoughts and results, you're not giving us much information about what you want to accomplish. Not only do you not state what aspects of 3.5 'need' 'fixing' in your opinion - we're even left in the dark as to what the purpose of your post is in the first place. Are you hoping for applause, criticism, a heated debate or what? And on what aspects of your post?That said, I'll go out on a limb and presume you want criticism. I'll try.You implicitly seem to want better game balance. This not only is what most 'fixes' are about (who invented that holy cow, btw?), it is also implied in statements such as "a fighter or wizard will be just as good as a sorcerer or barbarian...".You do not accomplish that in the slightest with your proposed 'fix', since what (potentially) breaks the game is a combination of strategic versatility (ability to pick your battles/problems), tactical versatility (ability to pick modes of attack/coping well suited to the specific battle/problem at hand), and 'narrative' versatility (ability to render story-changing aspects of the game moot with mechanical means, such as avoiding overland travel through instant transportation, being immune to surprises, generating goodwill in NPCs, being independent of social/legal constraints, providing basic much-needed resources yourself etc.).All of these are available in the game through magic to a high degree. Very few of these are available through application of numerical benefits (attack bonuses, skill bonuses etc.). You adress the latter, but fail to take the former into account.You're also interested in making the game more fun, and more interesting. What is fun and what is interesting varies hugely among different players and groups. Changing certain mechanics may appeal to some, but not to others. To avoid a long, abstract argument like above, I'll just say the fun provided by your 'fix' is in no way better than the fun provided by regular 3.5. It's different. To me personally, your 'fix' does almost nothing to make the game 'better' in any way (the skill merging, which is basic Pathfinder stuff, is good, but it's also very minor).</blockquote>

Verification