Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gamerprinter" data-source="post: 5433003" data-attributes="member: 50895">Perhaps, I am misremembering the experience, I played AD&amp;D 2e, for the longest of any edition of the game - from the late 80's up until about 7 years ago, before I switched to 3x. I can't agree that feats seem more complex than weapon and non-weapon proficiencies, kits are no simpler than the plethora of new classes just a different flavor. Kits seem more like archetypes for Pathfinder.I will say, that I've only really played the basic 3x game, since I never had more than six books - not the endless splat scenario that others have. So all the exotica in classes and features, including the awful Bo9S, is something alien to my 3x game. And I won't touch 4e at all.Looked at as a whole, 3x is probably more complicated, but as said, I never played the larger 3x, only ever the basic game, so in my eyes isn't more complicated than 2e.Final point, I never understood the game better than Pathfinder. As a developer, PF is the perfect balance of rules and fluff to create my game. Though I was a successful DM in all editions, I never could 'wing it' as well as I do now with Pathfinder. Is it because I understand the game better, or that is easier for me to understand? I think both, so I can't agree with your point of view, based on that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gamerprinter, post: 5433003, member: 50895"] Perhaps, I am misremembering the experience, I played AD&D 2e, for the longest of any edition of the game - from the late 80's up until about 7 years ago, before I switched to 3x. I can't agree that feats seem more complex than weapon and non-weapon proficiencies, kits are no simpler than the plethora of new classes just a different flavor. Kits seem more like archetypes for Pathfinder. I will say, that I've only really played the basic 3x game, since I never had more than six books - not the endless splat scenario that others have. So all the exotica in classes and features, including the awful Bo9S, is something alien to my 3x game. And I won't touch 4e at all. Looked at as a whole, 3x is probably more complicated, but as said, I never played the larger 3x, only ever the basic game, so in my eyes isn't more complicated than 2e. Final point, I never understood the game better than Pathfinder. As a developer, PF is the perfect balance of rules and fluff to create my game. Though I was a successful DM in all editions, I never could 'wing it' as well as I do now with Pathfinder. Is it because I understand the game better, or that is easier for me to understand? I think both, so I can't agree with your point of view, based on that. [/QUOTE]

Verification