Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Just Keeps Looking Better

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It does have about 15 pages worth of errata — but I figure that 15 pages worth of relatively minor errata (most of which I never would have noticed in play if it hadn't been pointed ot to me) for a whole, five-book, box set isn't half bad. I've actually considered not using much of the errata, which would make the game far more lethal.

In a way, that's a good sign, right? That they had the time and ability to notice flaws and mistakes?

 

[joela]

I believe you are right.

Ditto.

 

[AllisterH]

That's fair enough, of course. To each their own. But, and I don't know whether you realised this or not - evidently, I suppose - the Pathfinder RPG classes can be more readily used with many or all of those more powerful classes that came later, because they are themselves a bit more powerful. Some of it's just rebalancing, as well.

Time will tell, as with any system, but it's very promising, not least because it's the biggest open TTRPG playtest, ever. The benefits of that might just pay off. We'll see.

Um, why does everyone keep saying that the latter 3.5 base classes are more powerful than the PHB classes?

On the CHAR-ops boards, (arguably the people who would know best), the consensus was that outside of a few base classes (Bo9S melee classes, the artificer and the archvist), the vast, VAST majority of the classes were just plain underpowered compared to their equivalent PHB class.

Where does this belief that things like the Scout and the Dread Necromancer come close in power to the PHB classes?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Um, why does everyone keep saying that the latter 3.5 base classes are more powerful than the PHB classes?

On the CHAR-ops boards, (arguably the people who would know best), the consensus was that outside of a few base classes (Bo9S melee classes, the artificer and the archvist), the vast, VAST majority of the classes were just plain underpowered compared to their equivalent PHB class.

Where does this belief that things like the Scout and the Dread Necromancer come close in power to the PHB classes?

No idea. I wasn't agreeing with that view, in fact. Just saying that, for those who do think that way [about all the later classes], there's a bright side to Pathfinder's (*slight*) bumping up of power, for the base classes themselves. And. . .

I'm actually inclined to agree that the Bo9S is - well, parts of it are - a power-up, and the Artificer and Archivist (more the latter, basically because I'm more familiar with it) are definitely over the line, compared to most PHB classes.

But yeah, I should've specified: '(. . .) those more powerful classes - *like x, y and z* - that came later.' My bad.

 

[CleverNickName]

Don't know. I looked at it last year and it seems all the classes have become more powerful than 3.5. I had enough of 3.5 power creep.

Well, you know what they say: one man's power creep is another man's teleporting fey pact eladrin warlock...

I played a demo game of C&C last year at Free RPG Day. It reminded me a lot of the BECM days of D&D, a lot closer to the beating heart of what fantasy roleplaying really means to me. If I couldn't play 3.5E/Pathfinder, C&C would be my next choice.

 

[Krensky]

While I may not agree with Wulf's arguments on some matters I found them to be at least worth consideration. Other ideas are being used enthusiastically. (Pretty much everything except the ten minute adventuring day article has been absorbed - Three out of four, a better ratio than most.)

I have been using his encounter budgeting since he first described it on these boards. It does seem to work more smoothly than the standard CR system.

Slightly OT but:

After much reflection, I've put Wulf in the same mental room as Harlan Ellison. Brilliant work in his field, highly opinionated, a willingness to say what he thinks and damn the critics, public, or polit society, and he occasionally says things that do bad things to my blood pressure. He's doesn't strike me as being as much of a curmudgen as Ellison though.

I'll be buying Trailblazer, and I've enjoyed pretty much everything of his I've read.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Slightly OT but:

After much reflection, I've put Wulf in the same mental room as Harlan Ellison. Brilliant work in his field, highly opinionated, a willingness to say what he thinks and damn the critics, public, or polit society, and he occasionally says things that do bad things to my blood pressure. He's doesn't strike me as being as much of a curmudgen as Ellison though.

Can we agree on Recalcitrant?

It's right there in my custom user title.

 

[Malacoda]

These days I find running 3e to be a tedious chore, and Pathfinder doesn't seem to solve this in any way, from what I have seen. Still, despite what I consider to be a ton of positive changes in 4e, I am not quite sold on it yet, and have had my curiosity for Trailblazer piqued by this thread.

I am going to be running a 4e campaign soon, but I think I may be picking up the Trailblazer PDF as well, to see what Wulf has put together.

 

[Krensky]

Can we agree on Recalcitrant?

It's right there in my custom user title.

That'll work.

 

[GlassJaw]

These days I find running 3e to be a tedious chore, and Pathfinder doesn't seem to solve this in any way, from what I have seen. Still, despite what I consider to be a ton of positive changes in 4e, I am not quite sold on it yet, and have had my curiosity for Trailblazer piqued by this thread.

I am going to be running a 4e campaign soon, but I think I may be picking up the Trailblazer PDF as well, to see what Wulf has put together.

I hope I don't get a slap on the wrist from Wulf by speaking out of turn but I'll just say Trailblazer has been the most fun I've had with 3ed in well, ever. Seriously. The rules support the way we play and not vice versa. Monsters are scary and challenging, combat is exciting and dynamic, and the sense of wonder is back.

And we aren't even using close to what the final product will be. I'm not claiming to be a neutral voice by any means but seriously, TM makes 3ed feel brand new all over again.