Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5724766" data-attributes="member: 6957">Addressing in order:1. That some critics call outdated. Using the term critics without a limiter suggests unity of opinion, I doubt that you will even find a parity in the case of Pathfinder. I will be willing to bet that a greater percentage of folks consider Palladium's systems to be dated and in need of repair than those of Pathfinder. And with good reason - Palladium has been around longer, with no meaningful updates that I know of.One thing that both systems do have in common is that there are folks that likes each, just the way they are.2. I disagree - there were indeed meaningful changes to the rules, from the handling of skill points to the balance between classes and prestige classes, and embracing alternate class abilities.3. Oddly enough, I don't particularly like the Pathfinder setting - a bit too much of 'something for everyone' for my tastes. Understandable, and my annoyance is only when taking the setting as a whole. An adventure path is typically within a self contained area (with a very recent exception), so it is possible to ignore those parts that I do not feel mesh well.Rifts isn't a setting, it is a meta-setting, containing a myriad of sub settings. Again, not to my tastes, but I can understand why many folks like it. I had the same problems with Spelljammer and Planescape. Also, in a lesser degree, with the Pathfinder setting.4. Actually, I have seen very few fans, devoted or otherwise, defending the systems in Palladium. I have seen a fair number defending the settings and metasetting, which in me estimation do not need defending, since most complaints are about the systems and the publisher, not the settings.... I think that even the fans of Rifts admit that there are some serious issues, but they feel that it is worth it. And since they are having fun, they are right. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The fact is that in the case of Pathfinder folks don't want the changes that some critics want to make. Using myself as the nearest example: I hate 4e, why the heck would I want Pathfinder to be more like a game that I hate? If it were more like 4e then I would not play it. And given that it is currently outselling 4e, at least in some areas, a majority of folks agree....At a guess - You do not want Pathfinder, you want some other, largely different, game. You are playing Pathfinder because the folks that you want to game with are running and/or playing Pathfinder. Which has the side effect of rubbing your nose in the areas of the rules that you do not like, every time that you pick up the dice. 5. Very different levels of 'successful'. Palladium was a solid second or third tier publisher, Paizo may well be the top dog right now, at least until WotC figures out how to retake the #1 spot. I suspect that they will, but I have no idea of how. Maybe 5e?I think that Palladium was an attempt to have a more detailed and complex first edition AD&D with better integration.The first time that I ever encountered Siembieda (finally remembered the spelling, I think that I have spelled it three different ways in this thread, all wrong until now) was when he was doing material for RuneQuest. Ironically, RuneQuest is in many ways a simpler system than AD&D of the same time. And was, in my opinion, more realistic than either AD&D or Palladium.The Auld Grump, there, on topic this time.</blockquote>

Verification