Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sylrae" data-source="post: 4545906" data-attributes="member: 48520">well, pathfinder is a 3.5 revision. some of the people here are making their own 3.5 revision{society of 3.5 revisionists, anyone?}. If pathfinder deals with a particular issue(something in 3.5 you dont like for whatever reason) in a way that you like, why bother reinventing the wheel? I can understand the PoV of liking standalone houserules, that dont rely on other rules modifications, and require nothing but the standard 3.5 books. That works great if you only want to houserule a few things. (in which case I would probably post it under the 3e house rules forum and wouldnt bother putting it here) If you want a system overhaul, however, you're going to want your rules to work together, and to take eachother into account, or youll have all sorts of new problems that exist because you ignored how your other rules modifications would affect things. Therefore, it seems the logical approach would be to list what your system is going to assume, and that way, if someone wants to use it without those assumptions, they can rework the system/rule to not use them. I guess I'm saying that if someone's goal is a comprehensive revision, standalone mechanics are in some cases going to be counterproductive (while in others it may not matter). I agree with you about pathfinder not being flawless, thats why I'm doing my own 3.5 revision, and drawing from various sources, including pathfinder, 3.5, 3rd party 3.0 and 3.5 books, and online resources, in addition to my own work. When its finished, I'll go through the whole thing and figure out what can be reprinted (IE, put online for free download) and what is a copyright violation of some sort. Then I'll put a slimmed copy without those things up for anyone who wants to use it. Since my main goal is for my own games (and the games of personal friends), I'll naturally include references to the other mechanics I'll be using, including any changes to said mechanics in my rough work...</blockquote>

Verification