Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4799252" data-attributes="member: 7635">Here is the problem Pathfinder found itself in IMHO.Compatibility and Innovation are a slide-scale. The further from Compatible you move, the further you can move toward innovation. Pathfinder was forced to hover somewhere in the middle; it needed to keep the underlying math problems (iterative attacks, save progressions, etc) to keep it compatible with other 3.5 material, which limits its ability to &quot;fix&quot; such problems as flurry of misses and &quot;roll a 20&quot; saves. At best, you create some patch (Vital Strike). At worst, it ignores it. I would have much preferred a SAGA like approach which irons out bab/save/defense math, allows some rebalancing of classes without adherence to the 3.5 progressions, and fixes spells and such to keep the classes viable WITHOUT going with the 4e system. If it hovers too close to &quot;compatible&quot;, it ends up just being a fancy-house rule document. If it goes to close to innovative, it stops being &quot;3.5+&quot; and starts becoming its own system (which loses its original purpose; being the successor to the 3.5 core books).I'd have preferred the latter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 4799252, member: 7635"] Here is the problem Pathfinder found itself in IMHO. Compatibility and Innovation are a slide-scale. The further from Compatible you move, the further you can move toward innovation. Pathfinder was forced to hover somewhere in the middle; it needed to keep the underlying math problems (iterative attacks, save progressions, etc) to keep it compatible with other 3.5 material, which limits its ability to "fix" such problems as flurry of misses and "roll a 20" saves. At best, you create some patch (Vital Strike). At worst, it ignores it. I would have much preferred a SAGA like approach which irons out bab/save/defense math, allows some rebalancing of classes without adherence to the 3.5 progressions, and fixes spells and such to keep the classes viable WITHOUT going with the 4e system. If it hovers too close to "compatible", it ends up just being a fancy-house rule document. If it goes to close to innovative, it stops being "3.5+" and starts becoming its own system (which loses its original purpose; being the successor to the 3.5 core books). I'd have preferred the latter. [/QUOTE]

Verification