Incidentally "3.75" is never used in any marketing by Paizo.
But that is exactly my point. I know they didn't use "3.75" for marketing. I had to use it for want of a different word than "Pathfinder" to describe the rule set.
Matthew Trent wrote:
The Pathfiner System is very good but it is by no means perfect and the fine folks at Paizo would probably be among the first to admit it. What is however very excellent and well done is the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. I won't presume to speak for anyone else by claiming that a lot of people share my belief that its a great setting. I know many of my friends like it quite a lot - to the point where they don't want to play other settings.
The Pathfinder rule set is, hands down, the best P&P RPG rule set out there. This is not true for the Campaign Setting.
In fact, I would use your description of the rule set to describe the Campaign Setting: "very good but (...) by no means perfect".
While the Campaign Setting has many good points - I especially like its overall mature feel - it is by no means as good as many older or contemporary settings.
In my opinion, its main flaw is the artificial feel of how the world was put together. It has countries/regions that are too theme based. You have a vampire land, a devil land, a demon land, a goody-two-shoes land, a pirate land, a wild magic land, a science-fiction land, a revolution land, a witch land, a viking land, a barbarian land, an orc land, a paladin land, a fake-religious-cult land, etc, etc. These different locales just scream "theme based campaign".
Contrast that with campaign settings that have a much more organic composition, like the 3.5 Forgotten Realms (incidentally, a large part of why 4e destroyed the FR setting is the forceful introduction of "theme based campaign" regions).
And, sure, the 3.5 FR also had some cliche regions (which Golarion also has: a pharaoh land, a dinosaur jungle land, an Arabian Nights land, an elf land), but they were the distinct minority and generally didn't disturb the picture of an organic campaign setting.
Oh, and then there's the tall elves...
If ever there was a bad design decision to single out, then it would be the tall elves. Even after well over 3 years of playing Pathfinder, I still have to shake my head incredulously every time I see them...
Matthew Trent wrote:
We could also mention the absolute impossibility of implementing the Pathfinder System into a persistant single server non-instanced world that is the stated design goal but that would only be rehashing what's already been said.
Well, for my part, I'm not insisting on a 100% total implementation of the rules. My wish would be that the mechanics implemented are as close as possible to the rule set, while taking into account that it is a real time game. Just like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights adapted their respective editions to fit the computer game environement.
There are a lot of rage powers that can only be activated "once per rage".
At level 17 the Barbarian gets the class feature 'Tireless Rage' which removes the penalty ('fatigued' condition) after raging, so the Barbarian can leave and enter rage repeatedly to use the "once per rage" rage powers over and over.