Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 6295616" data-attributes="member: 221">Well the definition of "fixed" is probably in the mind of the reader, but... Post #20, #24  and #26 offer advice on making magic items less boring. I myself expounded upon this theme in posts #191 and #198Post #29 suggests getting rid of features you find troublesome by just ignoring those options (the game is modular after all). Post #67 makes a similar suggestion. And I say something very similar in #70 – you don't have to use every option. #77 admits that this is how he keeps his game going smooth. #90 agrees. The fact that this is an unsatisfactory "fix" for some does not preclude it from being a very sensible fix for some of the problems brought up, especially in regards to games being bogged down. Post #48 points out, quite rightly, that player attitude determines a lot of the approach to the rules.Post #82, #83 and #86 points out the “hubs” of Golarion.Now, about post #95 EnglishLanguage begins the “Wizards are Overpowered” argument, which has devolved (though this followed a complaint that PF was just 3e and that was its real problem; a “problem” for which there is admittedly no solution except to play a different game).  But there was still helpful advice after...In #124 I had a suggestion for dealing with wizards accumulating skills through gear.Posts #170 and #172 points out why there might be rather specific archetypes in the books. (not really a “fix” but an apology for the thing bugging EnglishLanguage).In post #196 I point out why the wealth/level tables et. al. are not “broken” and can be useful when doing actual design work but that they should likely be ignored during game play. In post #198 I try to actually address one posters issues and was roundly attacked and insulted for doing so. But I did point out how to make your characters more skillful if this is an in-game problem. But the anger which greeted this post made me think that a lot of the “fixes” people are looking for is actually masking a desire for a different game with different rules.Posts #199 and 200 are a back and forth examining some of the issues. I offer some Dming advice in #206. And in #215 and 220 I identify a problem with a certain mindset which will create in-game complications. Post #241 offers adventure design advice. In post #228 I offer Henry some advice on how to make monsters on the fly.Post #234 offers some fixes (I don't necessarily agree with them, but they are there). Post #245 offers advice on how to deal with endless rules discussion (which sadly could not be used because the DM was part of the problem)I think Ahnenois offers some sound advice in #249 and #252There's an interesting discussion of magic items in #s 262-268.Then in #269 Oxybe rekindled the dormant wizard argument.  But in #295 I offer some ideas on making the game grittier, if that's what you want. And it was posts #315 and 320 which began the 3e vs 4e argument concerning magic which still rages right now. Now it does seem to me that there are two sorts of complaints that cannot be fixed in this thread and that any desire to see them fixed is misguided. The first is the complaint that Pathfinder uses the 3e engine. If that bugs you, the only fix is a different game. The second complaint that cannot be fixed is the sort that requires a complete rewrite of the classes, which is again, just a different game. If what you want is a different game, then its not very useful to ask advice as to how to fix the game, in fact its slightly disingenuous.</blockquote>

Verification