Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgoroth" data-source="post: 6020408" data-attributes="member: 6674889">..Pathfinder was great in some ways, but terrible in others, and yes, I think it's mostly due to the unneccesary over-nerfage of options. Definitely concur that all options should be viable. In PF you needed high system mastery to even build a decent barbarian (since e.g. a fighter or an alchemist would kick your butt without even trying very hard). I think not balancing the options is a result of not giving enough playtest time to iron out the bugs before printing, or just not opening up the online tools to the playerbase to fix broken kruft. Have some faith in the players a bit. There is NO way any company can iron out in advance, all the bugs, but if errata are allowed, they need to be OPTIONAL and COMMUNITY-DRIVEN. In the era of PDFs and online auto-errata, there is NO excuse for the mangled mess of krusty feats and useless magic items and terrible classes such as 4e had. I'm not saying PF is necessarily better -- I've only played a dozen or so archetypes so far), but many more options are fun and viable to me, whereas in 4e I just could not get away from the system mastery aspect to have fun in it. On the other hand, if I wanted to play, say, a 2WF in PF, I'd pick the archetype for the fighter and be done with it, but that doesn't mean it didn't suck, in practice it played boringly and very static and so on (a side effect of the full attack action / 5 ft sludgeVery good point to bring up, but the solution IMO is a framework where the community can vote on and propose fixes to items/feats/builds/whatever, and the errata can be applied optionally or in tandem, so that existing campaigns and characters are not broken 1/2 way through (this happened to us countless times...and derailed our campaign too often to continue. errata can be quite disruptive, especially when sometimes the fixes are worse than the problem).</blockquote>

Verification