Let me just say I love these rules. Our group went over them the night they came out, we have one thing that we were thinking let me know if you guys think the same. These new base classes are great, very powerful and seem like a lot of fun. But with these classes why would anyone want to use any of the 3.5 stuff produced before Pathfinder? I would rather run any of these classes to 20 then play most of the Prestige Classes from the previous books. So yeah you can use the previous books but why would you when the wizard has all his specialist effects why would you even play the Archmage?
I’m just worried we are heading into more power gamming with how powerful these base classes are imagine how powerful the prestige classes are going to be.
My brother keeps saying how this is going to make all our 3.5 books obsolete I think he is crazy but what do you guys think?
I just downloaded and reviewed. There is some power creep, but honestly, I think most of the prestige classes are unneccessary clutter anyway. I guess I'm not a huge fan of them and the ones I have used are homegrown and very plot connected. As the DM for my group, I want prestige classes to be just that and I'm old school enough (having played all of the editions up until now, AD&D the most as a kid, 3 and 3.5 as an adult)that I've never been a big fan of class blocks that look like 2/3/4/2/2 in terms of levels/classes/prestige classes, so I'm good with it. I regularly have had to bump up monsters anyway and I like that 1st level characters get more relevant and overall, LOVE the product, PAIZO ROCKS! I'm gonna use all my 3/3.5 books and see no problems with this, but haven't tried it yet.
well Id argue that something as broad as 'Archmage' should not need a PRC, its the odd paths, the strange hidden secrets that merit such. If you only want to be a more powerful spell caster, Wizard 20 should be the best option. If you want to warp fate and fortune, or turn a mans bones into your puppet, or bond with a being from the celestial plane those are more PRC worthy.
There is quite a bit of power creep, but it's arguably in areas that were sub-standard before. The new Pathfinder fighter looks about equal to an old 3.5 sorcerer now, for example.
Any easy fix would be to require Pathfinder classes to use the xp table 1 step slower than the "original" classes: then you have a "built-in" level adjustment, so to speak.
The new base classes are different and probably more powerful than the old base classes. This is actually one of the design goals: To make the base classes so appealing that you want to play them to level 20. So they have to compete with the prestige classes to be attractive. This does lead to a power creep. It is a fine line to walk. But I think if players think twice now before taking a prestige class, it is worth it. Many folks complained about the abundance of splat books from WotC. This is meant to counter this development.
Stefan
|
I definitely feel that core classes should be more attractive, and I approve of their attempt to add capstone abilities to them, and reduce the number of 'dead levels'. They aren't just competing against prestige classes, they are competing against other base classes, which causes players to cherry-pick a few levels of this class or that, etc.
Power creep should be watched, and kept to a minimum. If boosting a Rogue 10 slightly makes it as attractive to a Rogue 5 / Wazoo Class 5, then that's not a bad thing. It just shouldn't go too far, so that Rogue 5 / Wazoo Class 5 is now a suboptimal choice ...
|
All of youi are correct, but did you also consider the consequences for other 3.5 base classes which will not gain the luxury of a PRPG upgrade? Scouts and swashbucklers used to be very popular in my group and were among my favourites, too.
Look at the last pages of the alpha rules and you will see how much effort converting these classes will mean.
Then look what is being said about monsters. Correct: all of your monster books will be invalified, too (another area for doing conversions).
Unfortunately most of my 3.5 books are about base classes, PrC, and monsters.
So where is the announced compatibility to my 3.5 books if the mechanics fit, buit the balance is gone?!
Cheers,
Guenther
PS: Sorry, I had found this thread just after already having opened a new thread about the same topic.
Director of Game Design
|
Hey there all,
There is a bit of a power upgrade for some the classes in the PFRPG A1, but this was done for exactly the reasons cited in this thread. Many of the core classes are so unattractive at higher levels that all of the other options were obviously superior. This seemed flawed to us and so we have taken steps to rectify it. Let me know what you think.
As for not upgrading other classes from non-OGL sources, I am afraid that there is little that I can do about that. They are no open after all.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Jason thanks for comeneting on this thing I hope you will make a complete conversion chart for us to convert our 3.5 WOC products to Pathfinder (mostly the mosters)
The way they design the new rules, I also think that the goal of the Pathfinder RPG rulebook is not necessarly to be use with other 3.5 rulesbook but to replace them if you wish so. You will be able to play the Pathfinder adventures with the Pathfinder RPG OR with the 3.5E core and splat books with little conversion effort... I don't think they are trying to balance the power levels of all the 3.5 WoC Non-OGL splat books but instead try to create their own unique (and hopefully better) game...
|
|
I would contend though that the new base classes are slightly more powerful than the core classes for the most part. That's why they are popular.Scouts and swashbucklers used to be very popular in my group and were among my favourites, too.
Not with our group. Their niche were popular and people just wanted to play something new.
Same as paladins are a popular mix of fighter and cleric, e.g. Scouts were a popular blend of rogue and ranger who excelled in our long time wilderness campaign.
Some people dislike these additional base classes and PrC, but my players and I love them for the extra flavour they provide.
Cheers,
Guenther
I just downloaded and reviewed. There is some power creep, but honestly, I think most of the prestige classes are unneccessary clutter anyway. I guess I'm not a huge fan of them and the ones I have used are homegrown and very plot connected. As the DM for my group, I want prestige classes to be just that and I'm old school enough (having played all of the editions up until now, AD&D the most as a kid, 3 and 3.5 as an adult)that I've never been a big fan of class blocks that look like 2/3/4/2/2 in terms of levels/classes/prestige classes, so I'm good with it. I regularly have had to bump up monsters anyway and I like that 1st level characters get more relevant and overall, LOVE the product, PAIZO ROCKS! I'm gonna use all my 3/3.5 books and see no problems with this, but haven't tried it yet.
I agree on almost every point.
Prestige Classes should be an option if you want to do a very specific special training for your character. For those specific purposes they should be a good choice, but under normal circumstances, you go best with base classes. The question shouldn't be "which PrC?", but "PrC or not?"
When there's no reason not to take a PrC, it's too powerful. When there is no definite answer if it's better to take a given PrC or not, than it's probably perfectly balanced. Plot-Reasons should be the deciding factor.
Of course, the wizard shouldn't be more powerfull than the majority of arcane PrCs, but when you compare them with the wizard as it is, there's simply no reason not to take a PrC. And I think that's not good.
|
(...)As for not upgrading other classes from non-OGL sources, I am afraid that there is little that I can do about that. They are no open after all.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Would it be legal if we fans would "try" to do these classes the PFRPG-way and post them here, or would that be illegal as well?
I think fan based changes would prob be ok I see em all the time .but not 100% sure.
Would it be legal if we fans would "try" to do these classes the PFRPG-way and post them here, or would that be illegal as well?(...)As for not upgrading other classes from non-OGL sources, I am afraid that there is little that I can do about that. They are no open after all.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I'd guess that it would depend on how similar to WoTC's classes, and how universal the concept. There should be no problem with a pathfinder Charismatic, agile fighter to replace swashbuckler, but Duskblade is probably out.
Jason thanks for comeneting on this thing I hope you will make a complete conversion chart for us to convert our 3.5 WOC products to Pathfinder (mostly the mosters)
The moment the PFRPG requires a conversion chart for me to convert all my 3.5 stuff to Pathfinder is the moment when I decide not to purchase this product.
Would it be legal if we fans would "try" to do these classes the PFRPG-way and post them here, or would that be illegal as well?(...)As for not upgrading other classes from non-OGL sources, I am afraid that there is little that I can do about that. They are no open after all.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Fan conversions of non-OGL stuff works just like fan films based on Star Wars or Star Trek. If its posted as fan material and not for profit or published in a book it's perfectly OK.
|
Contributor
|
Jason thanks for comeneting on this thing I hope you will make a complete conversion chart for us to convert our 3.5 WOC products to Pathfinder (mostly the mosters)The moment the PFRPG requires a conversion chart for me to convert all my 3.5 stuff to Pathfinder is the moment when I decide not to purchase this product.
Our sincere hope is that no conversion chart is necessary. :)
Example: a 3.5 Valeros (as written for RotRL) will be doing something very different with Power Attack than the PFRPG Valeros, since Valeros as written focuses on Dex instead of Str.
3.5 Valeros uses his BAB for Power Attack. PFRPG Valeros uses his puny 14 Str mod for Power Attack.
I am sooo not in favor of this kind of fundamental change.
I think conversion chart was the wrong word (teachers like charts sorry) I just want like a page or 2 of detailed info on proper conversion
I think conversion chart was the wrong word (teachers like charts sorry) I just want like a page or 2 of detailed info on proper conversion
Po-tay-toe...po-tah-toe. :)
|
|
I think conversion chart was the wrong word (teachers like charts sorry) I just want like a page or 2 of detailed info on proper conversion
Then have a look at the final pages of A1. There are two alternatives (superficial or detailed and cumbersome). Basically you have to do
A) minor adjustments (skill adjustments, increasing hit points)B) major changes (filling up feats & special abilities).
|
|
Our sincere hope is that no conversion chart is necessary. :)Jason thanks for comeneting on this thing I hope you will make a complete conversion chart for us to convert our 3.5 WOC products to Pathfinder (mostly the mosters)The moment the PFRPG requires a conversion chart for me to convert all my 3.5 stuff to Pathfinder is the moment when I decide not to purchase this product.
My hope, too.
For as much as I love your products: my 3.5 collection is larger and supposed to stay in use for a long time!Please fix the glitches in the rules, but don't try to turn 3.5 into 1e.
|
|
As for not upgrading other classes from non-OGL sources, I am afraid that there is little that I can do about that. They are no open after all.
Well, okay, I understand that. But if you make PRPG characters more potent you will invalidate all the other core classes that you can't update from books folks already own and they might want to use. That's not backward compatible.
-DM Jeff
|
|
As for not upgrading other classes from non-OGL sources, I am afraid that there is little that I can do about that. They are no open after all.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
In a good world no upgrades are needed because the new classes would be 100% compatible. ;-)
Seriously: Do I assume correctly that all 3.5 monsters will require upgrades/ adjustments, too, in order to stay on par with the upgraded classes?
Cheers,
Guenther
Put me firmly in the camp that despises what Prestige Classes quickly became in 3.0/3.5!
Pretty much immediately after the 3.0 DMG came out...where Monte Cook explained that Prestige Classes were a tool for DMs to use to expand his plot/world...the splatbooks turned them into just another form of 2e's Kits. The vast majority are overpowered and serve no purpose other than to fill pages in the newest splatbook.
My last campaign allowed no prestige classes and by the end of it (around 11th level) my players were happier without them.
To me, anything that makes the core classes more appealing than a prestige class is a good thing. In my opinion, prestige classes should be a bit LESS powerful than the core classes simply because of the cool plot elements that the character should be able to take advantage of by taking the Prestige Class.
I would be able to accept some power creep in the lower levels if it was balanced with a toning down of the power in the higher levels. I know that this may bother a lot of people but I think that it may help to extend the sweet spot a little more. Most people seem to think that the mid levels, for what ever reasons, are more fun. I do not know if I 100% agree with that but it seems like a common opinion so addressing it may be good for the game overall.
I do agree strongly with what DM Jeff said about maintaining an equal power level between the original classes and the new classes though. I am just willing to budge a little more in the lower and higher levels to make the game more appealing if it brings in more player to the new Paizo game system.
|
On the Prestige Class issue, I think that much of what is currently implemented via PrCs in 3.5 could be better handled by increasing the options for class abilities in the core classes. Prestige Classes, IMO, should fill specific roles that are directly related to a particular thing (ideally for some sort of story reason), rather than existing as simply one variation on a core class.
This is just some 2 cents here, more of a ramble than anything.
I think that base classes should be the single best way to do what that base class is meant to do. Nothing should out-fight a fighter, out-wizard a wizard, or out-druid a druid.
That being said, what a base class is meant to do needs to be laid out in very clear terms. What is a fighter? What is the "goal" of a fighter? To be the absolute best on the battlefield in respect to arms and armor? A man feared for his absolute knowledge of weaponry?
What then is a wizard? A studious arcanist who gains ever greater control over the forces arcane? A spellcaster who chooses a branch of arcane magic, or even none at all, to specialize his knowledge in?
PRCs should enable a person to break out of the mold, or do something new, but not neccesarily better, with what they have. To me, PRCs that work well are multiclass fusion (Geomancer, Daggerspell Shaper), Superspecialist (Frost Mage, Dread Witch), and Transformative (Acolyte of the Skin, Bonded Summoner). I don't like "Be yourself but better" PRCs like Archmage, Frenzied Berzerker, or Assasin. I suppose I prefer my PRC to be what I am, not a title given to me. A rogue, a fighter, and even a wizard can all be "assasins". But say frost mage, and nobody is looking at the guy in full plate, or the sneaky halfling; their eye is on the dude in navy blue robes.
As for power creep: hard to say. If you elevate everyones power, is it actually creeping? Relative to each other, no. Relative to what came before, yes.
Anyhow, Im going to be picking and teasing at the Alpha rules for my own benefit, so whatever I dont like, I wont use! Huzzah!
I agree that the new skills/feats should be spread out, there's just too many, by tenth level a rogue won't know what to do with her skills and a fighter with his feats, this upgrade shouldn't be involved in making higher level even more complex by improving low-level play, despite it popularity.
Keep them every third level, as suggested above.
Over the last half a dozen years it has been pretty conclusively demonstrated that a lot of iconic options are a lot more powerful than a lot of other iconic options. Power discrepancies which include "everything you can do, I can do better" (Cleric vs. Fighter; Druid vs. Monk). If the game is to be made "more balanced" that by necessity involves either powering up the weak options, weakening the stronger options, or a mixutre of both.
Any solution which involves the powering up of anything is in essence a form of power creep, so two out of three acceptable solutions to the basic predicaments of life feature some amount of power creep. Power creep is something we should keep in mind as something to limit where possible, but we have to acknowledge that it is going to happen.
-Frank
consider the consequences for other 3.5 base classes... which will not gain the luxury of a PRPG upgrade? Scouts and swashbucklers used to be very popular in my group and were among my favourites, too.
Then look what is being said about monsters. Correct: all of your monster books will be invalified, too (another area for doing conversions).
How does the upgrade to the fighter invalidate the scout or swashbuckler? While the fighter has improved, it hasn't improved to the point where no one would want to play anything else.
How does it invalidate monsters? If the fighter is more powerful, at the very worst you're going to just throw higher CR monsters at the party.
|
|
How does the upgrade to the fighter invalidate the scout or swashbuckler?(...)
How does it invalidate monsters?
Please read the last 3 pages of A1 and you will see. The short version being: The new classes gain HPs and feats at such a rapid pace that you have to upgrade all non PRPG classes and monsters in order to keep on using them (in a balanced PRPG game). .
And there you have another answer: According to this recommendation of Paizo's the new classes seem to address the relative weakness of base classes *in general* in comparision to PrCs. Apparently they are not supposed to rectify any supposed weakness of e.g. the fighter class in comparision to other base classes.
Back to topic: I really recommend to read the conversion tips at the end of A1. They provide the closest to a grand picture of the impacts Paizo's PRPG proposals would have on existing 3.5 material.
Cheers,
Guenther
Please read the last 3 pages of A1 and you will see. The short version being: The new classes gain HPs and feats at such a rapid pace that you have to upgrade all non PRPG classes and monsters in order to keep on using them (in a balanced PRPG game). .
That's a bit of a twisted version of what it says.
What it really says:
Option 1: You can use stuff for NPCs and monsters easily as is. They may be slightly less powerful, so you may want to make some small adjustments where they're warranted.
Option 2: You can do a full conversion if you feel strongly about it; in general that's just adding some feats, skills, and hp to NPCs or monsters with character classes; unclassed monsters not so much.
I don't see the "waaaah" in this....
|
Director of Game Design
|
Most of the changes made to the rules up to this point are designed to add a bit of power to the base classes, at the point where many would start looking into clearly superior pclass or other base class options. I do not feel that this unduly adds power to a class, rather it brings it up to par with the one of the current most popular paths (1 base class for 2 levels, 1 base class for 3 levels, prestige class for 1 level, etc).
Many of the power changes are universal as well, meaning that they apply to some of the non-core classes (increased HD, feats, skills). If you really boil it down to basics, the core classes only got a few select upgrades here and there, nothing too dramatic. In some cases, these abilities outright replaced others (domains for example) netting little in the way of change.
Against monsters and existing material, you really can run it as is for the most part. The characters have a bit more staying power to continue adventuring longer, but the challenges are just as dangerous. Most of the add ons are still just options, you still only have 1 standard action per round, and the damage curves were not altered.
Just thought I would toss out some of the thoughts going on behind the scenes. Keep up the comments though, I am listening.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I see to much power creep in the feat progresion table.
please keep it one feat per 3 levels.
That aint good for backward compatibility.
Please change this Jason.
Also some of the specialist wizard abb's are way to strong too.
For the rest I am not scared of the P-creep.
beat me to it :(
After looking over the Alpha release I see that damage curves have indeed not truly changed, which is good f9or converting old monsters, but I still feel that both skills and feats should be every third level, whatever about power creep, it just simplifies the game and makes choices later on in the game as valid and hard to decide upon as the first few.
Jason just to let ya know some of us love the change to feat progressions and also like the skill set up.nice work there.
The power creep is a problem in PF-Alpha, because it screws up compatibility and makes PF more an alternate 4.0 rather than a refinement of 3.x.
One of the flaws with 3.5 is that the Challenge Rating system is a little arbitrary and produces uneven results. PF-Alpha magnifies that problem rather than fixing it. It will be impossible to use non-PF 3.5 NPCs and critters – and even traps -- without substantial conversion and the amount of such will progressively increase the higher in CR you go. Unnecessarily. Look:
FEAT PROGRESSION
This is the biggest problem area. Here are some of the ramifications.
-The obvious direct power comparison. Race, class and level being equal, PF characters will be more powerful than 3.5 characters. Okay, easy conversion, right? Give the published 3.5 character a few more feats, problem solved. Well, its an easy convert but one that shouldn’t be necessary. It solves exactly none of the imbalances in 3.5 and does nothing but up the median power level of the campaign. It doesn’t even help with the acknowledged problem of low-level survivability since the effects don’t become noticable until the campaign enters the non-problematic 3.5 “sweet spot” range around 5th or 6th level!
-Prerequisites. Here is where it starts getting tricky. A buttload of 3.5 prestige classes and feats were balanced with the expectation that certain benefits would be unavailable until a certain level due to the mathematics of feats. A typical four-feat prereq prestige class previously impossible to access until 6th level for humans or 9th level for nonhumans can now be accessed at 5th level by humans and 7th by nonhumans, with the benefits that each level of that class provides becoming available one or two levels sooner than its designers anticipated. This is a problem.
-Synergistic Feats. Lots of feats, especially later WotC published ones, synergize with others in their particular subsets so that each one a character takes causes some or all the others the character already has become more incrementally powerful. Frankly, I think this is one of the best way to handle feats, as they then scale as the character rises in level and follows that subset to higher levels of specialization, and I’ve advocated their use in PF elsewhere. Examples include Heritage Feats, Luck Feats, Combat Form Feats, and other examples published by WotC. All of these feats were figured on the assumption of a 1feat/3level progression. Now those feats become significantly more valuable than their designers ever intended them to be, with the benefits of a set of 5 feats becoming available at level 7 instead of 9; 6-feat synergies available at 9 instead of 12, etc.
NET +2 RACIAL ABILITY SCORES
Obviously this is a boost. It does help marginally with low-level survivability and, being a fixed modifier, becomes less significant at higher levels. I’m not as opposed to this as to feat progression, but it still strikes me as irritating extra conversion work for what I see as primarily Monty Haul-style munchkin appeal – “Our system is better because using it your character will be tougher than a 3.5 character!” Why not just play Iron Heroes and give them 3.5 magic items?
HIT DIE MODIFICATION
I’m unsure about this one. I understand the need for more healing and greater survivability, but I’m dubious this is the best answer. The damage output of the 3.5 unlimited spell list arcane spellcaster far outstrips any other class’. The single biggest check on them was their frailty. Anything that narrows the survivability gap between arcanists and martial characters without nerfing the arcanist’s offensive power is … extremely … suspect. That said, I’m not sure that I’m opposed to it. Yet.
I have felt some of the power creep but I don't think more feats will be the problem. Mostly this is because of the new combat feat system. By stating that you can only use one combat feat per round you automatically get rid of those fighter that go: "I dodge against that guy, move past that other guy with mobility, then I powerattack a third guy and cleave the guy I just moved past."
I like the combat feats presented in PFRPG since I think they ad alot of opptions, but still maintains simplicity in any combat situation.
Power creep is something we should keep in mind as something to limit where possible, but we have to acknowledge that it is going to happen.I respectfully disagree. We can stop power creep right now if we want to ('we' in the sense of Paizo, who have put an incredible amount of work into this and who have my undying respect, and soon my money, for going this route; really, I'm very grateful). Instead of making classes more powerful as a way to balance them, make them less powerful. Do that. Consistently. Don't add stuff, take stuff away and redistribute it. In the long run, it's the better design choice. Power creep is irreversible, once it's in the game. If you want something to be more powerful, you can just add a level or two. Easy solution to the latter, no solution to the former.
Easy to say, almost impossible to do. I'm reminded of an episode of "Common Sense" (episode 116, "Voting for Cake") in which Dan Carlin argues that the reason some problems go unaddressed for so long is that the solution is going to be unattractive no matter what, and nobody who runs on a platform of doing things nobody wants to be done to solve a problem that hasn't yet really become problematic will never, ever succeed. This is the same issue, and you can really see it in balance patches for computer games.
Clerics are powerful. Fighters are not terribly powerful. If you make clerics less powerful and bring them in line with fighters, neither the cleric players nor the fighter players are going to be happy. Given the option between PHB classes and nerfed Pathfinder classes, no player is going to take the less powerful Pathfinder class, unless you're the sort of person who makes wizards with low intelligence scores, and if you do that sort of thing you better be min/maxing the hell out of the rest of your character or you're a liability to the party.
Most of the changes made to the rules up to this point are designed to add a bit of power to the base classes, at the point where many would start looking into clearly superior pclass or other base class options. I do not feel that this unduly adds power to a class, rather it brings it up to par with the one of the current most popular paths (1 base class for 2 levels, 1 base class for 3 levels, prestige class for 1 level, etc).It seems to me that this is incentive-based design, the assumption that people will make certain choices only if there's a power increase in it for them. Granted, a lot of power gamers will take that option, if it's offered, but incentive-based systems, in various fields including government and corporation, have been proved to be ineffective. People either (a) hack the system, to get something out of it that it wasn't designed to give them, or (b) the system designers guess wrong as to what will be an incentive to people.
Either way, it's a flawed design philosophy. You are, with every good intention in the world, literally trying to trick people into making the choices that you'd prefer (i.e., play the core classes rather than the prestige classes). This is not a long-term solution. You will simply have to continuously build more "incentives" (i.e., power-ups) into the game to get people to make more and more of your preferred choices. Wizards has been on this exact hamster-wheel for about 10 years now. Please, please, please, don't repeat their mistakes.
Wizards has been on this hamster-wheel for a very good reason; it's a hamster-wheel that goes a long way. The entire RPG business is based on incentive-based design. You put out a new book, that book has rules that let you do something new and awesome, and you buy the book because you want to do that awesome thing. Nobody is going to buy a book that doesn't do anything interesting or new; there's no reason to.
The real issue here is that a LOT of people seem to confuse options with power. If I get two of something, and all the things I have to choose from are equally powerful, it makes no difference if I'm choosing from ten or a hundred things. Of course, game balance is a delicate game, and a lot more delicate if you don't want to lean heavily on errata, so it's inevitable that some of those options might be slightly better than others. That's why it's a creep.
You seem to think that the best way to get PCs to not take prestige classes isn't to give them good reasons to not take prestige classes. I ask you, then; exactly how can you make them want to do this thing without offering incentives? Do you propose to sit them all down and explain to them how much better the world would be if they all just took a single base class, even though their characters will stop getting fun new toys and will become less effective? That'll happen right after everybody becomes a communist pacifist. Do you propose that prestige classes simply be banned for use by players? They were never supposed to be used by players, but everybody loved them so much that they were assimilated into the player arsenal. If you ban them in the Pathfinder RPG, everybody will wave their hands, ignore that rule, and use prestige classes from all the other d20 books they have which will be totally compatible. The horse is out of the barn; closing the door doesn't do any good now unless you can get the horse back in the barn, and that won't happen unless you give the horse a reason to want to go back in the barn.
Easy to say, almost impossible to do. ---skip--- The horse is out of the barn; closing the door doesn't do any good now unless you can get the horse back in the barn, and that won't happen unless you give the horse a reason to want to go back in the barn.
Good post, I agree whole heartedly, I'm especially all for the changes to the fighter.
My onlt worry power creep wise is this feats every second level thing, feats and skills at every third level would keep the power curve and validity of options more worthwhile, aswell as easing backwards compatibility.
Choice and options are good, but too many of them causes alot of problems, especially at high levels, and we dont want to make high level play any more difficult.
The stronger classes like Warlock
You lost me.
-Frank