Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 4116880" data-attributes="member: 22424">I disagree, and here's why...Okay, so they've identified many of the same flaws in 3.5e as the 4e design team. This is hardly a surprise: almost the same list of issues has been compiled by many DMs over the last eight years. The key question (for both 4e and Pathfinder) is: what are they going to do about them?For 4e, the answer has been "take the game apart and rebuild from the ground up in a different form." For Pathfinder, it appears to be "work around the edges to create something that is 95% the same, but with the rough edges smoothed out."Personally, I would have gone with the former approach; I believe some of the key issues are so fundamental to the game that fixing them properly requires a rebuild from base components. That said, I don't care for many of the design choices taken in the development of 4e. Consequently, it looks like Pathfinder will end up being closer to a game I will like.However... having looked at the Pathfinder document, I get the feeling that it probably does nothing for my 'must have' issues (multiclass spellcasters need fixed, and LA races are too weak), doesn't go far enough in some key areas (removal of Trained/Untrained skills, Favoured Classes, and the like), and introduces yet more power-creep. All-in-all, I suspect this isn't the game for me either - I'll probably stick with 3.5e over this game instead. As with 4e, though, I will keep an open mind until I get a chance to play.You wouldn't. However, there are thousands of pages of feats, spells and prestige classes out there, only some of which are now rolled back into the Pathfinder core. The rest will still be useable. Sure, no-one will take a feat giving the ability to cast cantrips at will... but that still leaves 99%+ of "Complete Mage" (or whatever) that they might use.</blockquote>

Verification