Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 4552642" data-attributes="member: 5122">My problem with Pathfinder is the designer's apparent willingness to add fiddly new subsystems, when the last thing 3.5 needs as a fix is a bunch of fiddly new subsystems.One example is the rage points system for barbarians in the Beta.&nbsp; It's absolutely horrible to use, as a DM.&nbsp; While I can't say for sure, I don't think I'd particularly enjoy it as a player (although apparently many Pathfinder barbarian players do).Now this is an interesting example, because the designer actually did listen to the playtesting DMs on this, and settle on a compromise rage system.&nbsp; (It's more complex than 3.5, but not by much.)But from what I've seen, the fiddly new subsystems mentality has continued through other classes and into feats and skills, and for better or worse, posts like, &quot;I play the new rogue and I think it pwns!&nbsp; Don't change a thing!&quot; seem to receive as much consideration, or more, as more thoughtful theoretical and systematic playtests.Meanwhile, as someone else mentioned, little is being done to fix high-level play.&nbsp; There are many changes to individual components -- feats, spells, class abilities -- that, taken as a whole, help quite a bit.&nbsp; But more needs to be done.&nbsp; A lot more.Finally, while I don't mind a little power bump in the core classes, to keep them on the level with stuff like the beguiler, in some cases it's been way overdone, and I'm not seeing any acknowledgment of that.&nbsp; (Rogue, I'm looking at you again.)So that's the direction in which I see Pathfinder heading.&nbsp; And as much as I love Paizo and adore -- I can't think of another, less girly but still apt, word -- them for keeping the spirit of 3.5 alive, unless things change it's looking like Pathfinder is just going to be another source for my homebrew 3.75 rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 4552642, member: 5122"] My problem with Pathfinder is the designer's apparent willingness to add fiddly new subsystems, when the last thing 3.5 needs as a fix is a bunch of fiddly new subsystems. One example is the rage points system for barbarians in the Beta. It's absolutely horrible to use, as a DM. While I can't say for sure, I don't think I'd particularly enjoy it as a player (although apparently many Pathfinder barbarian players do). Now this is an interesting example, because the designer actually did listen to the playtesting DMs on this, and settle on a compromise rage system. (It's more complex than 3.5, but not by much.) But from what I've seen, the fiddly new subsystems mentality has continued through other classes and into feats and skills, and for better or worse, posts like, "I play the new rogue and I think it pwns! Don't change a thing!" seem to receive as much consideration, or more, as more thoughtful theoretical and systematic playtests. Meanwhile, as someone else mentioned, little is being done to fix high-level play. There are many changes to individual components -- feats, spells, class abilities -- that, taken as a whole, help quite a bit. But more needs to be done. A lot more. Finally, while I don't mind a little power bump in the core classes, to keep them on the level with stuff like the beguiler, in some cases it's been way overdone, and I'm not seeing any acknowledgment of that. (Rogue, I'm looking at you again.) So that's the direction in which I see Pathfinder heading. And as much as I love Paizo and adore -- I can't think of another, less girly but still apt, word -- them for keeping the spirit of 3.5 alive, unless things change it's looking like Pathfinder is just going to be another source for my homebrew 3.75 rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification