Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ShadowX" data-source="post: 4118969" data-attributes="member: 3720">Except that through both BoEM and Pathfinder one can see the problems addressed and the design goals and that they match so very well with the concerns of the 4e design team.&nbsp; For a specific counter-example, look at the BoExM where Monte flat out states that he finds save or die spells less than compelling and tried to alter them.&nbsp; Or how similarly Pathfinder handles skills compared to SW Saga or 4e.&nbsp; I think the &quot;canon&quot; for 3rd edition problems is pretty well established and thus, Pathfinder and BoExM are just less drastic attmepts at fixing them compared to Fourth Edition.&nbsp; Unfortunately, like many others I feel that the major problems (which is to in no way imply that 3e is broken) can't be rectified without an overhaul.As for the products themselves, as someone aptly put it, they remind me more of splatbooks than revisions of the core rules.&nbsp; And I must disagree that BoExM takes a larger leap than Pathfinder.&nbsp; I was sorely disappointed with BoExM as it suggested a rather common house rule (more feats) and then turned many class features into feat trees.&nbsp; Then you have Monte splitting up spells into more spell levels, a tactic that just increase bookkeeping and has little payoff.&nbsp; At no point did anything strike me as innovative and overall it felt like very shoddy design work or in many cases non-work.Pathfinder strikes me as a more legitimate stab at correcting the deficiencies of 3e and I could see myself actually using some of this for any future 3e game I play as I would any other splatbook.&nbsp; I think even the little content released for Pathfinder has some issues, but I am interested in how it shapes up.&nbsp; Unlike Monte, Paizo is tackling harder and more worthy issues such as the nonuniformity of certain systems like trip, grapple, turn undead, etc. and I respect them for the attempt.&nbsp; Maybe through this open beta the combined might of the D&amp;D community can change 3e for the better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ShadowX, post: 4118969, member: 3720"] Except that through both BoEM and Pathfinder one can see the problems addressed and the design goals and that they match so very well with the concerns of the 4e design team. For a specific counter-example, look at the BoExM where Monte flat out states that he finds save or die spells less than compelling and tried to alter them. Or how similarly Pathfinder handles skills compared to SW Saga or 4e. I think the "canon" for 3rd edition problems is pretty well established and thus, Pathfinder and BoExM are just less drastic attmepts at fixing them compared to Fourth Edition. Unfortunately, like many others I feel that the major problems (which is to in no way imply that 3e is broken) can't be rectified without an overhaul. As for the products themselves, as someone aptly put it, they remind me more of splatbooks than revisions of the core rules. And I must disagree that BoExM takes a larger leap than Pathfinder. I was sorely disappointed with BoExM as it suggested a rather common house rule (more feats) and then turned many class features into feat trees. Then you have Monte splitting up spells into more spell levels, a tactic that just increase bookkeeping and has little payoff. At no point did anything strike me as innovative and overall it felt like very shoddy design work or in many cases non-work. Pathfinder strikes me as a more legitimate stab at correcting the deficiencies of 3e and I could see myself actually using some of this for any future 3e game I play as I would any other splatbook. I think even the little content released for Pathfinder has some issues, but I am interested in how it shapes up. Unlike Monte, Paizo is tackling harder and more worthy issues such as the nonuniformity of certain systems like trip, grapple, turn undead, etc. and I respect them for the attempt. Maybe through this open beta the combined might of the D&D community can change 3e for the better. [/QUOTE]

Verification