Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6290732" data-attributes="member: 58416">I can agree with that.&nbsp; As a company, I currently have a good opinion of Paizo.&nbsp; I like that they appear to be willing to work with other companies.&nbsp; A good example is Munchkin Pathfinder; Paizo (along with Steve Jackson Games) worked together with a different company to make a product.&nbsp; That product turned out (in my opinion) to be very good.&nbsp; While it's still Munchkin, there are some tweaks to the rules and artwork and a few other things (such as plenty of 3.5 and Goblin-related puns) which gave me a chuckle.If I can offer a few more things about PF that I liked, I would also add: The Beginner Box was very good; changes to some of the most problematic 3.5 spells seems to help.---------------------------------------------------------------------However, this thread is about what I feel is wrong with Pathfinder, so back to that...I'll again say that something about the PF Bard doesn't seem to work.&nbsp; On paper, it looks like you get a lot of new abilities to make you better.&nbsp; In actual play, it seems weaker than the 3.5 Bard.&nbsp; In particular, the signature ability of a Bard (perform) doesn't seem as good.For some reason, I have a hard time remembering the cosmology and divine set up of Pathfinder.&nbsp; This may simply be due to not playing PF much.&nbsp; However, when I have played, there's little about the deities and similar things which seem to grab me and cause me to remember them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 6290732, member: 58416"] I can agree with that. As a company, I currently have a good opinion of Paizo. I like that they appear to be willing to work with other companies. A good example is Munchkin Pathfinder; Paizo (along with Steve Jackson Games) worked together with a different company to make a product. That product turned out (in my opinion) to be very good. While it's still Munchkin, there are some tweaks to the rules and artwork and a few other things (such as plenty of 3.5 and Goblin-related puns) which gave me a chuckle. If I can offer a few more things about PF that I liked, I would also add: The Beginner Box was very good; changes to some of the most problematic 3.5 spells seems to help. --------------------------------------------------------------------- However, this thread is about what I feel is wrong with Pathfinder, so back to that... I'll again say that something about the PF Bard doesn't seem to work. On paper, it looks like you get a lot of new abilities to make you better. In actual play, it seems weaker than the 3.5 Bard. In particular, the signature ability of a Bard (perform) doesn't seem as good. For some reason, I have a hard time remembering the cosmology and divine set up of Pathfinder. This may simply be due to not playing PF much. However, when I have played, there's little about the deities and similar things which seem to grab me and cause me to remember them. [/QUOTE]

Verification