Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 4676384" data-attributes="member: 957">Lots of people were saying that to me a year ago.It turned out that not a single "prejudgment" was wrong.The problem was that the whole argument wasn't that I didn't know what I was talking about.  The argument that was that I didn't have the complete picture and there was going to be some magic solution in the missing pieces.  But that turned out not to be the case.  In more than 90% of the examples we did in fact have the full context.  And when there was something else, it was pretty negligible in terms of mitigation of the concerns.  Quite simply it was not a matter of insufficient data.  It was a matter of you either liked the 4e design approach or you did not.And the same applies to PF.  I believe that a perfectly open-minded person who does not like PF now, has a 99% chance of not liking PF in August.  Yes, there are still changes coming.  As I understand it, major re-tooling of the bard and monk are still waiting to be unveiled.  But the design approach of the game is not changing.I think Golarion is the best campaign setting I have seen in 20 years.I think the PF ruleset is a decent re-tooling of 3.5 that has more going for it on the basis of being a fresh spin than it does on actually being a mechanical improvement.  My biggest concern is that the open design approach seems to be going not toward constant refinement of ideas nearly so much as toward giving in to the loudest screams for whatever makes the screamers feel their alter-ego reach the quickest route to maximum "leet"ness.PF is good.  I like it.  Right now I play beta.  Ultimately I expect to play 3.5 with PF influences.  But I like PF now.  If you don't like PF now, you probably won't like it later.  That is reasonable and a fair judgment.</blockquote>

Verification