My piazo problmes Forked Thread: Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[GMforPowergamers]

Forked from: Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

please tell me that is a joke...I would rather D&D die then let piazo hold the reigns...

Do not derail this thread into Paizo-bashing or cheering, please. Whether you love or dislike Pathfinder, this thread isn't the place for it.

Ok I will fork it to resbond with my thoughts...and cross my fingers that it can remain an exchange of thoughts with no fighting...

And what is the reason behind this?

Please tell me this is a joke, or at least a gross exaggeration.

Ok it is an exaggeration, becuse I could always hope Piazo got there act togather, but I feel at this time they do not...

I remember Dragon pre piazo and post piazo...infact the piazo days are when I let my subscription laps...I had one since the early 90's but have almost every issue from like 88 on... I just felt the writing wasn't as good.

Now let me catagroze this...I have always had some good and some bad with dragon, even in TSR days there were whole issues I couldn't use, but every two or three months there were the OMG how could I NOt use this stuff...
With piazo it was 3 or 4 months of blah followed by an ok issue...atleast in my eyes...and I really disagreed with alot of sage advice...welll to be fair that started with WotC era...

Well you have Ed Greenwood signing on, Elaine Cunningham doing work for them. MANY of the old designers from 3rd edition (Sean K reynolds to na,e a few) working on Paizo...

and maybe that means they will get better but so far I don't see it

Pathfinder is going to be MORE like D&D in everything but name.

Yea it took every problme with third, through some 2e problmes on for fun and then made them worse...then said "Look no sacred hamburger"
I have tried to like pathfinder I really have, but if I want to play 3.5 I have my own house rules...and I have books they can't even address...
and did I mention I hate pathfinder it is makeing sweeping changes well still trying to be backwards compatable...the result (In my eyes) is a mess

WOTC at this point might as well stamp Dungeons and Dragons on Chutes and ladders. To them it is just a brand.. the integrity is gone.

I would rather play D&D chutes and ladders then pathfinder...not an exageration at all...



Pathfinder would have been 500 times better if it was completly compadble with 3.5 atleast then I could say "It is just the older D&D living on...instead of this frankinstien's monster of horrid ideas

 

[avin]

I had hope Pathfinder had fixed grapple to a simpler mechanic and revamp 3.5, fixing it.

Count on me to praise Paizo's fluff (book of monsters and their manual of planes are top on my buying list) but not for playing Pathfinder...

 

[DaveMage]

I really don't think we can judge Pathfinder until we see the final version in about 6 months.

I'm optimistic, but even if I decide to stay with standard 3.5, I will use the Pathfinder RPG as an "Unearthed Arcana 2" book of options.

Winner = me.

 

[roguerouge]

Some unsolicited rhetorical advice: When you're making an argument for a position, take care to use concrete examples to support each of your points. What were your specific problems with Dragon during this era? What are your specific problems with their use of second and third edition? For every observation you make, include two or three examples. In addition, do the best that you can with your presentation. It fosters better communication with your readers and bolsters your authority as a writer. Perhaps you might copy and paste your message into a word processing program and let the checker help you with grammar and spelling issues. I often find that posting in haste on the interwebs leads to presentation errors too. But the better you do with your presentation, the more likely readers are to stay with you through your entire argument.

Good luck!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I really don't think we can judge Pathfinder until we see the final version in about 6 months.

It's as fair to judge Pathfinder based on what we have seen so far as it is/was to judge 4e based on previews.

Totally fair game.

 

[DaveMage]

It's as fair to judge Pathfinder based on what we have seen so far as it is/was to judge 4e based on previews.

Totally fair game.

I think it's certainly fair to decide if you like something about the beta or don't at this point.

However, since they are still changing things (and some significantly), I don't think one can judge the final game until it's out/previewed.

For example, I can look at what they have changed for the Cleric and say "that sucks" or "awesome", but that doesn't mean that the final cleric will look anything like this one. Hence, I can't judge the (eventual) Pathfinder Cleric until the game is out (or the final version is previewed).

At least, this is what I meant by my post above. I have no problem with anyone disliking what they are seeing so far, but I also don't think we can judge something that doesn't exist (the final version).

 

[malraux]

It's as fair to judge Pathfinder based on what we have seen so far as it is/was to judge 4e based on previews.

Totally fair game.

I'd argue both are unfair actually. Sure, its ok to decide now that you don't like where pathfinder is headed, but its kinda unfair to be absolutely certain that you aren't interested.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd argue both are unfair actually. Sure, its ok to decide now that you don't like where pathfinder is headed, but its kinda unfair to be absolutely certain that you aren't interested.

ok...but part of (the part with facts instead of opionions) my problem with pathfinder is the lack of backwards compatbility...

by redesigning the classes and races they make the game HARDER for 3.5 fans...

Lets say I want to play a Elan warlock/Swordmage...I need to make it up almost intirely...becuse all of the PHB stuff is diffrent...infact I might as well throw out my 3.5 book and just use the Pathfinder stuff...if I want a NEW game based on the old I will play 4e...not pathfinder...


As for my exact problmes with the system...I dislike the modfications to wizard, and fighter. I really dislike the change to feats (Becuse that means more work if I want a feat from complete _______)

They have not fixed save or die, and there is still a HUGE power jump between martial and spellcaster classes...

For example, I can look at what they have changed for the Cleric and say "that sucks" or "awesome", but that doesn't mean that the final cleric will look anything like this one. Hence, I can't judge the (eventual) Pathfinder Cleric until the game is out (or the final version is previewed).

but how much of cleric can you change before it becomes a new thing all togather???


see I think they are trying to make a new thing and keep all the old and in doing it they are ripping themseves in half going in diffrent directions

 

[xechnao]

It's as fair to judge Pathfinder based on what we have seen so far as it is/was to judge 4e based on previews.

Totally fair game.

I think they are a bit different things here. You expectations about Pathfinder are on fixing some details. 4e's anticipation was about its broader nature. Curiosities of a different scope and effect.

 

[avin]

I really don't think we can judge Pathfinder until we see the final version in about 6 months.

I was under impression not too much was going to change from the free beta. I guess somebody from Paizo said that.

The changes on basic classes pleases me, so I should explain better: I would play Pathfinder gladly, my restrictions are on DMing it