Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wayne62682" data-source="post: 5218430" data-attributes="member: 40455">So let me ask this as well:&nbsp; Did Pathfinder address the &quot;system mastery&quot; design flaw?&nbsp; In other words, are there still &quot;newbie trap&quot; choices in the game like Toughness was in 3.5?&nbsp; From the little I've seen with the rulebook at the local book store (no FLGS for me *sob*), all of the core classes are now viable choices to level to 20 without forcing a Prestige Class - in 3.5 this was one of the major issues people had with it (not me, as I loved the dozens of splatbooks) at higher levels; you really HAD to take a PrC if you wanted to get anything cool.Basically, if I can convince my friend to play, only two players (not counting myself as I would be the GM) will have played 3.5.&nbsp; The other two are only familiar with 4E (and one of them with old AD&amp;D).&nbsp; When I played 3.5 I was always a complete powergamer and typically frequented the WotC CO boards on a daily basis.&nbsp; I would create characters and pore over a dozen sourcebooks to make the best combination.&nbsp; I left my 3.5 gaming group and didn't play for nearly two years because nobody else did this, so I would have a character with optimal feats from a couple books, and someone else would have a standard PHB Fighter with only PHB feats, and I'd just overshadow him completely.Does that still exist in Pathfinder?&nbsp; My worry is that the players will make poor optimization choices (because they don't know any better) and end up with unplayable characters at the higher levels.&nbsp; This is something I vividly remember from 3.5 - if you simply chose &quot;flavor&quot; feats and class combinations, towards the end of the game you were basically being carried by the rest of the group because you were unable to contribute anything to level-appropriate challenges.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wayne62682, post: 5218430, member: 40455"] So let me ask this as well: Did Pathfinder address the "system mastery" design flaw? In other words, are there still "newbie trap" choices in the game like Toughness was in 3.5? From the little I've seen with the rulebook at the local book store (no FLGS for me *sob*), all of the core classes are now viable choices to level to 20 without forcing a Prestige Class - in 3.5 this was one of the major issues people had with it (not me, as I loved the dozens of splatbooks) at higher levels; you really HAD to take a PrC if you wanted to get anything cool. Basically, if I can convince my friend to play, only two players (not counting myself as I would be the GM) will have played 3.5. The other two are only familiar with 4E (and one of them with old AD&D). When I played 3.5 I was always a complete powergamer and typically frequented the WotC CO boards on a daily basis. I would create characters and pore over a dozen sourcebooks to make the best combination. I left my 3.5 gaming group and didn't play for nearly two years because nobody else did this, so I would have a character with optimal feats from a couple books, and someone else would have a standard PHB Fighter with only PHB feats, and I'd just overshadow him completely. Does that still exist in Pathfinder? My worry is that the players will make poor optimization choices (because they don't know any better) and end up with unplayable characters at the higher levels. This is something I vividly remember from 3.5 - if you simply chose "flavor" feats and class combinations, towards the end of the game you were basically being carried by the rest of the group because you were unable to contribute anything to level-appropriate challenges. [/QUOTE]

Verification