An analysis of the Pathfinder classes, CRs, spells etc. in the way the PHB classes are being analyzed in TB.
In other words, since Pathfinder seems to the future of 3.5 (like it or not), it would make sense to do a version of TB that deals with PF with same way that TB currently deals with 3.5.
Did that make sense at all?
Yes. Page 12 of the TB book but on PF classes.
Out of curiosity, say you take a bird's eye view of the two systems. What would you say are the signs TB is system-driven in approach, and what are the signs PF is style-driven in approach?TB is primarily a systems-driven approach, and PF is primarily a style-driven approach.
At a guess, it would be something like the following:Out of curiosity, say you take a bird's eye view of the two systems. What would you say are the signs TB is system-driven in approach, and what are the signs PF is style-driven in approach?
Totally, and I very much see all those things in both. Though I wonder if a PF aficionado might not object that PF didn't also offer system-level fixes, just . . . different.Helpful?
I can't wait to see if the TB monster book compares brings additional aspects to compare!
Exactly! I'm not fishing to either. Sometimes getting the whole thing in one place you can see the forest for the trees, you know?I assume you mean you're looking forward to the "mechanics" chapters of the book . . .
We're on the same page, I have the same reaction to what PF did to fill in many of those dead levels of the classes. As far as hostility, heh, I saw passion! I enjoy reading your commentaries on using Trailblazer every time you post, it articulates things I see better than I'm capable.I just find Pathfinder to completely fail at fixing my issues with 3.x. In most cases, it exacerbates the problems I perceive.