Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5733515" data-attributes="member: 48965">I thought my point was pretty clear...&nbsp;&nbsp;I find this complaint flawed and nitpicky... &quot;The BB isn't that good because they didn't post an AoO rules download online... even though I can readily get it online.&quot; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Or, *sigh* instead of &quot;strange&quot; it could be simplifying and minimizing the amount of things a new DM and players have to remember and keep track of. As to the rule being different from core, I'll give you that... but it is compatible with the core rules. If I play in a corebook game and choose never to have my caster cast when he is adjacent to an enemy... I'm not breaking any rules of the Pathfinder corebook. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Now it's my turn... what's your point? You keep shifting what you are talking about. The main issue with classes in the red box is that they were sloppily done and contained numerous errors... not that they weren't essentials or that the mage and warpriest had to many powers...IMO&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Doesn't matter if, for an evergreen product, it's not there now... does it?I don't think WotC even put an official eratta out for their starter set... the fans did if I remember correctly. So yeah, another point for Paizo.&nbsp;&nbsp;Wait aminute, so you're okay with &quot;wrong rules&quot; in D&amp;D 4e, as long as it is &quot;playable&quot; but not in the PF BB... okay...<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />&nbsp;---&nbsp;&nbsp;No one claimed PF BB was perfect... but I'm sorry IMO, the Pathfinder BB blows the Red box starter out the water in quality, replay value, extras and production. WotC could actually take some lessons form their starter since it encapulates most of what people have claimed a starter set should be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 5733515, member: 48965"] I thought my point was pretty clear... I find this complaint flawed and nitpicky... "The BB isn't that good because they didn't post an AoO rules download online... even though I can readily get it online." :confused: Or, *sigh* instead of "strange" it could be simplifying and minimizing the amount of things a new DM and players have to remember and keep track of. As to the rule being different from core, I'll give you that... but it is compatible with the core rules. If I play in a corebook game and choose never to have my caster cast when he is adjacent to an enemy... I'm not breaking any rules of the Pathfinder corebook. Now it's my turn... what's your point? You keep shifting what you are talking about. The main issue with classes in the red box is that they were sloppily done and contained numerous errors... not that they weren't essentials or that the mage and warpriest had to many powers...IMO Doesn't matter if, for an evergreen product, it's not there now... does it? I don't think WotC even put an official eratta out for their starter set... the fans did if I remember correctly. So yeah, another point for Paizo. Wait aminute, so you're okay with "wrong rules" in D&D 4e, as long as it is "playable" but not in the PF BB... okay...:confused: --- No one claimed PF BB was perfect... but I'm sorry IMO, the Pathfinder BB blows the Red box starter out the water in quality, replay value, extras and production. WotC could actually take some lessons form their starter since it encapulates most of what people have claimed a starter set should be. [/QUOTE]

Verification