I also find EZG's reviews quite thorough and very helpful. Like others, they're some of the first that I look for when checking out a product. Hats off man, such hard work and thoughtful analysis is highly appreciated!
Good time to start. Itchy's spot on about everything. My dad got me rolling in a group when I was 8 or 9, and I start running stuff with school friends in early high school. Worked well for me, and hopefully it does for you. :)
Why even bother playing a nonspell casting class than Or...you know, bother having classes at all. Sounds like walls-down mix and match to me, for which there would be little point to classes. And THAT makes me think of...not breaking down the arcane/diving wall per se, but learning things specifically by school or domain. Imagine an Elder Scrolls-esque system where a caster has access to say, the arcane schools of evocation and transmutation, and simultaneously the divine domains of fire and destruction, or some such. Perhaps the caster has primary and secondary focuses that combine these arcane and divine schools, so he progresses fastest in some, secondarily in others, and has few to no spells from non-focus schools/domains. You could have a freeform combination Battle-mage/warpriest a la Dungeon Siege done more fluidly than the current rules allow, at least that's the way that I envision it. But that's at least a little bit off-topic. In context as it is, it makes little sense to me to just throw the gates open and let everyone take everything. Eliminates all sorts of flavor, and as a player/GM, I'm more interested in role-playing than in combat/spellcasting optimization and experimentation. So, you know, grain of salt and all that.
Why care about balancing races? There are a lot of intangible benefits/penalties to being races, depending on region, the attitude of the GM, etc. I for one don't need it to be "mathematically sound", that sounds like we're moving into more clear-cut board/miniature game rule territory. And I don't think that lawful/neutral/chaos should EVER be done away with. If anything I wish more people role-played better and the alignment system was even deeper (this will never happen), but it's the difference between a devil and a demon, good bards and clerics, and everything else. This would make no sense to get rid of.
"Funny" aside, I think that intentionally avoiding combat optimization for the sake of roleplaying becomes ever more important to me as both a player and a DM/GM. I've had campaigns grow so tired because of combats devolving into complete boredom. Lately, with getting into Pathfinder, I've attempted to infuse more and more life into characters, and I think that the wealth of options really helps Pathfinder succeed here. A recent example is an oracle of Pharasma who's nearly blind as a bat (well ok, not quite, he's got the "clouded vision" curse), has most of his skills stacked up as a scholar, and with a relatively low strength score, is destined primarily to be relegated to utility use. ...however, he fits very well in the dark fey campaign of which he is a part, and since the campaign intentionally places combat as a secondary emphasis, I find myself having all kinds of fun designing, playing, and explaining the character.
Speaking of Catholicism. This is slightly off-topic but well worth the read.
I think I would find the Pathfinder pantheon supplanted by Christian saints, canons, etc., to be very boring. I've never had to "tone down" my campaigns, even though by and large I've played with people of similar spiritual beliefs. Actually, I think playing with the 3.5 Heroes Of Horror sourcebook helped pushed me into some of the darker, grittier fantasy that I now enjoy. I think that this is really personal preference, and something that every DM needs to gauge with their parties at the outset of an adventure. I must say that I'm pleasantly surprised by how diplomatic and thoughtful a lot of the discussion has been here, interesting topic.
Jumping in late here, and I haven't read every post in the thread. I'm 25, a practicing Catholic, and was raised by a Catholic/Lutheran Father/Mother (respectively) who MET by playing AD&D in college. Faith and gaming have never been at odds for me and in fact, I often enjoy the fantasy setting as a means to explore moral dilemmas, create particularly obvious black and white good/evil dichotomies (unlike the wash of grey in our lives), etc.. I remember having a high school friend whose parents were dead set against him playing 3rd edition with me because they were a "Christian household", but numerous other comparable (playing Diablo) or much stupider (getting drunk and arrested in high school) things were "Ok", and "a part of growing up". That always rankled me. I guess I'd turn it around as well. "How a game like Pathfinder be deemed "religiously dangerous?"" Only, as I see it, if one begins to take it too seriously or spends too much time/money on it. Even though it's just a game, everything can relate to one's faith or lack thereof. From my perspective, it's quite harmless entertainment that has a ton of perks. |
