Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arkhandus" data-source="post: 4427362" data-attributes="member: 13966">The thing is, Pathfinder is based on 3.5, which IS a complete game.&nbsp; It's just a revised version with new stuff.&nbsp; And has at least some compatibility with existing 3e supplemental material.&nbsp; It's a &quot;beta&quot; similarly to 3.0 being a heavily tested, but still slightly quirky, predecessor to 3.5, or 3.5 as a revised version of 3.0 that was still not quite fixed.&nbsp; Personally I prefer 3.0, but even I have to admit that 3.5 at least managed to improve or clarify a few things besides all of its mucking-up.Pathfinder is supposed to be an upgrade/revision for some of the problems in 3.x, although the way Pathfinder addresses some of those problems certainly won't please everyone.&nbsp; No moreso than 4e with its changes turning off some D&amp;Ders while making others glad to have a version of D&amp;D that better fits their personal preferences.&nbsp; That doesn't make either inherantly bad.4e is a whole other game built largely from the ground up, with bits and pieces of 3.5, d20 Modern, Star Wars Saga Edition, and other stuff.&nbsp; And little content for each part, like only a few ways to handle any given class, and very limited multiclassing rules.&nbsp; And less compatibility with peoples' existing 3.x/d20 materials.&nbsp; While it's great for some people, it definitely has the look of a much less &quot;complete&quot; game in the PHB.They can't play many of the races, classes, or general concepts they like, unless they go to the work of trying to adapt those things into 4e's much different design on their own.&nbsp; Or wait around several years and spend more money then.&nbsp; This isn't a problem for everyone, of course, but for some it's a huge drawback of 4e compared to 3.x, Pathfinder, True20, d20 Modern, Mutants &amp; Masterminds, or earlier editions of D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arkhandus, post: 4427362, member: 13966"] The thing is, Pathfinder is based on 3.5, which IS a complete game. It's just a revised version with new stuff. And has at least some compatibility with existing 3e supplemental material. It's a "beta" similarly to 3.0 being a heavily tested, but still slightly quirky, predecessor to 3.5, or 3.5 as a revised version of 3.0 that was still not quite fixed. Personally I prefer 3.0, but even I have to admit that 3.5 at least managed to improve or clarify a few things besides all of its mucking-up. Pathfinder is supposed to be an upgrade/revision for some of the problems in 3.x, although the way Pathfinder addresses some of those problems certainly won't please everyone. No moreso than 4e with its changes turning off some D&Ders while making others glad to have a version of D&D that better fits their personal preferences. That doesn't make either inherantly bad. 4e is a whole other game built largely from the ground up, with bits and pieces of 3.5, d20 Modern, Star Wars Saga Edition, and other stuff. And little content for each part, like only a few ways to handle any given class, and very limited multiclassing rules. And less compatibility with peoples' existing 3.x/d20 materials. While it's great for some people, it definitely has the look of a much less "complete" game in the PHB. They can't play many of the races, classes, or general concepts they like, unless they go to the work of trying to adapt those things into 4e's much different design on their own. Or wait around several years and spend more money then. This isn't a problem for everyone, of course, but for some it's a huge drawback of 4e compared to 3.x, Pathfinder, True20, d20 Modern, Mutants & Masterminds, or earlier editions of D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification