General Likes or Concerns

[das schwarze Auge]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Athletics is not currently a skill, so I am assuming that you are talking about Acrobatics. To be honest, since fighters typically wear heavy armor, it did not make much sense to me for them to be spinning about combat... but I could be persuaded otherwise. Any other thoughts on the matter?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Jason, you might be surprised at how agile a person in armor really is. I've seen some amazingly acrobatic feats by folks wearing what would be considered medium to heavy armor types. Well-fitting armor on a person accustomed to wearing it isn't much of a hindrance, though certainly endurance takes a bit of a hit since you tend to sweat a lot more in heavier armors due to the poor ventilation.

[Hypersmurf]

deathsausage wrote:

Possible balance issues:

Infinite 0-level spells. (acid ignores hardness, thus acid splash every round would take about ten minutes to burn through a door the rogue can't pick)

This is incorrect, based on a passage that admittedly isn't worded as well as it could be.

When you attack something with hardness, you subtract that hardness from the damage dealt. Generally, things with hardness are objects, but it's possible to have a creature with hardness - consider the Animated Object, a creature with the Construct type.

When you deal Cold damage to an object, the damage dealt is divided by four before you subtract the hardness.

When you deal Fire or Electricity damage to an object, the damage dealt is divided by two before you subtract the hardness.

When you deal Sonic or Acid damage to an object, you don't divide the damage at all; apply it normally. What is 'normal'? Don't divide, and if there's any hardness, subtract it.

Consider the following passages from the FAQ, for what they're worth:
Hardness applies to acid and sonic attacks. These
attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to
objects, and thus would deal normal damage to an
animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You
would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever
damage a Melf’s acid arrow spell deals to the
animated table in your example.

and

Hardness applies to all types of damage unless specifically
stated otherwise by the effect. (Page 165 in the Player’s
Handbook is sometimes misinterpreted to suggest that hardness
doesn’t apply to acid and sonic damage; in fact, the phrase
“apply [damage] normally after a successful hit” simply means
that the damage isn’t halved or quartered, as other energy
damage is.)

-Hyp.

[Azzy]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

A small note on Fighters having Acrobatics.

We have been chatting about it here in the design pit, and this change may get implemented. I am still going over it, but I think it makes a good amount of sense.

While we're on the topic of fighters and skills (and I whole-heartedly support Acrobatics being added to the fighters skill list), may I bring up another issue of failed support for a very common fantasy trope?

The "aristocratic warrior" (whether knight, samurai, etc.) trope is so common in fantasy that it's beyond surprising that it hasn't been supported by the D&D core rules (outside of the paladin--which allows no flexibility outside its specific "holy warrior" trope). To the end of ameliorating this without creating a (or several) unnecessary, additional base class(es), I'd suggest adding Diplomacy and Knowledge (nobility) to the fighter's skill list as well.

I also agree withe the poster that suggested adding an option to the Armor Training ability that supports unarmored fighters. If we can cover as many warrior tropes as possible, there's no need for needless, additional base classes or prestige classes to address the lack.

[lordzack]

I think that Trapfinding should either be a feat that rogues have automatically, or a function of Perception that you need Disable Device to use.

[Lazaro]

Likes: Everything really, it's something diffent(and I finally have a reason to make Level 20 fighter).

Concerns: Nothing really, except I perfer to see spellpoints or something similar, instead of the same old vancian system.

How will psionics be treated in the game?

[yellowdingo]

PATHFINDER RPG: It looks Beautiful... Should play well...lots of art with girls wearing tatoos where their underwear should be (Yes I know free and easy is confortable)...We will see.

Warden Xian(Fighter-Druid) shows up in Sandpoint with a Steampistol, a Heat Metal spell, and a raging ambition to build up the Wardens as Nature's Police force. His first task is to review civilized activity and its effect on the environment.

Goblins scrounging the local Midden? Good Place to start.

[David Walter]

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

A few comments from what I've observed at a glance, but haven't acutally playtested yet.

Fighter: I like the idea of the armour specialization, but I think I feel it leaves out the swashbuckling character who doesn't wear armour. I would make it available as a defensive bonus for a character that doesn't want armour, and I'd also consider making some feats to help such a character as well. What about a defensive parry type bonus that helps improve a fighter's defensive abilities, but doesn't focus on armour, and more assumes that the fighter has improved at dodging and parrying blows.

In my game I had also made some house rules for a parry that were as follows. A character using his full attack action may chose to delay one or more of his attacks to be used later in the round as an immediate action for parrying. When the opponents attack roll hits, the PC and opponent make opposing attack rolls and if the defender wins he parries and attack does no damage. I think this rule needs some work, but I'd like to see some options for parrying worked into the game that go beyond the defensive fighting rules.

Rogue: I like a lot of the changes to rogue. If feels like a better class now. I think the "bleeding wound" ability is too powerful for a regular talent and should be an advanced talent. I also think that "stand up" is a lame name, and should be maybe "kip up", which I think is the martial arts term for that move. The death attack the rogue gets at 20th level seems a bit useless. Anything a 20th level PC will be fighting will likely be able to make a DC 20-30 Fort save on anything but a natural 1, so this ability will be frustrating, as it will rarely work. If it was something more along the lines of- 3 times per day when a rogue makes a sneak attack the rogue can add an additional 50 damage to his attack (in addition to the 10d6) then it would be useful.

Us dms will also have to do some work on the monsters to help them keep up with these new powered up PCs.

I'm sure I'll have more comments as I...

Something I wanted to note about the fighter, is that they can choose to have Light Armor as a specialty, which a GM could say also applies to an unarmored state. Toss in a combat feat or two regarding parrying or dodging while unarmored and you are set. Though, most of the swashbuckler types I have seen in game tend to wear light armor, rather than none at all, which works out kinda well.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

The Last Rogue wrote:

One of my biggest dislikes with 3.5 is buffs. They just seem like such a mechanical add-on and as such they are a boring spell (my opinion, of course).

I wonder if I am alone on this, if Paizo feels similarly, or what?

I have not yet read the PDF through, so if it mentions this excuse the post.

I like buffs a lot but there needs to be some kind of a limit or they end up with two significant problems. Problem one is that they come to dominate the game. Buffing up makes the players so much more powerful that the DM either responds by making the monsters tougher to compensate or the PCs roll over them with ease. If the DM makes the monsters tougher then the players are actually forced to buff to have any chance at all.

The other problem is that its essentially an accounting nightmare once you start talking about mid to high levels where the players are going to have 8-13 general buffs up (buffs that are effecting everyone) and then each of them is going to throw on a few more buffs from their personal resources, like spells or magic items.

Even if your not crazy in this regard, like my group, their just is not much fun to be juiced out of the system beyond a certain amount of buffs. Its cool when the Wizard Hastes the party and the cleric cast bless and you can easily toss on maybe two or three more spells and its still cool and fun for everyone. But when its a list of 8 or 9 spells its just not fun any more. What started as fun seems like a chore.

[CyricPL]

Mactaka wrote:

Athletics: Consolidate Jump, Climb, Swim into one skill. Make it a class skill for Fighters.

Acrobatics: Tumble, Balance, maybe Escape Artist (or even put EA under theft)

I concur with this.

Also, perhaps add "unarmored" as an option for the (then ironic) armor ability that fighters gain? Allowing for a more swashbuckling fighter. Of course, there's no armor check penalty to go down, but since the PC in question doesn't need any equipment to use the ability it seems a fair trade-off to lose it.

[deathsausage]

Hypersmurf wrote:

Consider the following passages from the FAQ, for what they're worth:
blah blah blah

Well smeg. Consider me corrected, and slightly miffed at some of my past PCs. Although not much, I used the same batch of tricks.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

John Robey wrote:

Note that I realize that "backwards compatibility" was a big goal for you ... I think this may not be the best place to focus your efforts, however. SWSE, for instance, completely blows 3.5 out of the water both in terms of ease of GM preparation, and speed of play -- and one of the primary claims of That Other Game(tm) is that will do the same. As such, since those are the benchmarks against which the game is going to be measured, you need to find ways of providing the same benefits first, then also being backwards compatible when you can.

I really like SWSE as well - its a big reason I'm going 4E. But, if they were to go this route then why not just save me the trouble of having to convert their adventures and just go 4E in the first place?

This seems like a recipe to insure that they manage to alienate both their 4E customer base and their 3.5E customer base. I honestly can hardly fathom why they would want to do something like that. It seems near suicidal from a marketing perspective - everyone ends up unhappy. Since they have decided to stick with 3.5 they should try and remain true to 3.5 except where the rules are such a problem that its worth taking the plunge to introduce something better.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Kruelaid wrote:

I WOULD like to see a little more in the game that allows agile unarmored fighters evade attacks as they increase in level. This is an area where the system is weak.

Would a Paizo inspired 'swashbuckler' style class fit? Or do you really think it should be an alternate version of the fighter?

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Lazaro wrote:

How will psionics be treated in the game?

They'll be snuck into the rules one day while James is off getting a Latte.

[username_unavailable]

Hi there . . . I'm a new visitor 'round these parts, but I found a sweet hat, so I'm feeling more comfortable. I'm intrigued by what I see in Pathfinder, and will definitely start trying to get some game time in on it in the near future.

I like that all the classes see a little more fleshed out, and that the wizards and clerics seem to have some more options. I do have some concerns though:

• As some of the above posters have mentioned, the usefulness of power attack, and other related feats seems to diminish based on ability score improvement. Obviously, calculating the pros and cons of using power attack is something that has slowed 3.x combat down for years, but a solution that equates higher Str with lower attack probability is not necessarily the right solution, in my opinion. Now, of course, it could be argued that creatures with 45 Str just shouldn't take Power Attack, but this then precludes such high-Str creatures from using Cleave . . . or at least put them in a situation where the use of that feat requires the use of a very-likely-to-miss attack the round before - thus, the second attack gained off Cleave (if the first hits) is burdened by a larger and larger cost as the Str of the user increases.

Possible fix: cap Power attack at a reasonable trade-off. Maybe -5/+5.

• The combat feats seem like a really cool idea, and as a fan of fighting video games like Street Fighter II, I like the "feel" of comboing attacks together. What I am not crazy about is the fact that many of these attacks not only require a previous attack to have been used, but also require it to have hit. So, if I, the fighter, miss with either of my initial two attacks, I need to start again from the top in order to "charge up" my third attack. In a situation where a fighter will hit 75% of the time, the odds of comboing three successful attacks in a row are 27/64 or 42% . . . and that's only if some other party member doesn't drop the foe, for example. At best (in a situation where the Fighter can only miss on a "1") such attacks are only 85% effective. A powerful feat that's only useful 4 out of 10 times in a typical fight seems suspect to me, especially when it is supposed to be an ultimate expression of power.

• Finally, I think the new cover system looks neat; however I don't like the idea of having to haul out a book to reference a chart in the middle of a combat -- right after the big bad guy has ducked behind a pillar and started chanting something, for example. Consulting the rules takes time and breaks tension, and that's not what I think you're going for in an action-based combat system. Turning undead needed simplifying for just this reason, and I like what you've done with it . . but in the same way, I feel cover has reverted. 3.5 made cover relatively simple, such that it followed a pretty static set of rules . . . is such a solution maybe in the cards for Pathfinder as well?

[BM]

After a brief read and a eaten post (As a newbie here may ask why previewing leads me to the homepage?)

Likes:
Combat Feats
The redone Classes
The turning-heal Mechanic

Dislikes:
Auto-scaling skills

Suggestions:

I like combat feats, but right now, most of them require you to use one in the previous round and several of them are full round actions. This means an enemy can walk away to stop the set-up for the later combat feats. Also, they lead to the static "I move a five foot step and use full-attack/a full round combat feat." So my proposal is this:

Turn full-attack into a standard action. Then re-rule combat feats as "You can apply one combat feat to one attack" with the exception of the combat feats that are currently full-round actions allowing them to be standard actions.

This does several things. First you can pull off a entire combat feat tree in one round.(and makes room for four part trees.) Second, you make fights more dynamic. Third, you give classes that have full BAB a power boost at high levels, which is where non-full spellcasters(the ones that have full/good BAB) need it the most. At low levels this changes nothing as none of the classes have more than one attack.

Concerns:

IS there any thing going to be done about CoDzilla? I know Paizo will try something but without going in the spells (Which given that this is supposed to backwards compatible, I can't see happing) there is nothing that stops them. Futher more, I realized while writing the above suggestion that with Druid and Cleric having good BAB, they would benafit from the combat feats as well will steal the thunder from fighters. The only thing I can come up with is droping their BAB down to poor BAB, puting in lines with other full casters. The one problem with this is the image of the two classes which both of them have a history of being better in a fight than arcane casters. So, I would give the Cleric a bonus to hit with their favored weapon. +1 per 5 levels of Cleric sounds good. This allows them to hit as often as before, but keeps the number of attacks down. Druids can just use wildshape (Provided its still in.)

Questions:

When will we get see the other classes?

I have other ideas that I think can make the game better but I don't know if they are the type of changes that Paizo wants to make or if they are in the scale of the changes that Paizo wants to make(And I think I have said a enough in one post). I like some of the key ideas behind 3.5 and I like where you are taking it. I hope to be of some help.

[moorg]

*Thought I made a post already, guess it didn't go through*

I spotted this project after finding out about it on the Necromancer Boards. Well, you wanted feedback, so here we go...

Races: Very well done. I like what you've done here. You got the essence of the Races down, and you'll even get people to play a Half Orc, other than just for the +2STR, or just to play a Half Orc.

The one thing that stands out here is the Gnome. I like how you've looked back at the roots of the Gnome to make them stand out more, but without making them too faelike as to take away from their D&D past. Though if you did go that extra step, I wouldn't mind. The only real issues here is that the Reptilian side of "Hatred" and the "Defensive Training" doesn't seem to fit with the fluff you presented. The anti goblin side kinda fits the new "faelike" Gnomes, when you look at the legends behind them though. Maybe these could be looked at more when developing the book from either a mechanical or fluff perspective, perhaps a bonus to Charm spells might be appropriate for the Fae fluff.

The rest of the Races are spot on. Nice work.

Classes: Again, I really like what you've done here. But again there's one thing that stands out to me that could be looked at, and that's the standardisation of Hit Dice. In most cases this works perfectly fine, but it doesn't seem to fit with the Wizard.

I can see why you want to make it more durable, but I still think it should stick to the old D4 Hit Dice. This isn't for traditions sake though. It's more due to the existence of the Sorcerer Class.

The Wizard is a Bookworm that studies for all his arcane knowledge. The Sorcerer is born with it, not forsaking other things for their Magic like the Wizard does. Yet they have the same base HD and the same base Skill Points. I always thought that it didn't seem right though.

I'd understand if you just left things as you have them now. But I personally think this is an opportunity to separate these Classes a bit more by making the Sorcerer more durable, while keeping the Wizard as fragile but more learned without having to rely solely on their INT score for their Skill Points. Even if their extra Skill Points could only be spent on Knowledges (if fact, I think that would work well).

But maybe this is just a personal thing.

The other Classes you've given us so far, they're great. Nice work. Can't wait to see the others.

Skills: I like the Skills you've merged together, they work well. Not so sure about the complete eradication of "Rope Use" though. Getting rid of the skill is fine, but instead of getting rid of it completely, you could merge parts of it with Survival and Theft. It really is the area that the Ranger and Rogue should specialise after all.

Also, not sure how the Fly Skill will play out. Seems odd, but might be fun to play around with.

Feats: Some nice ideas here, but I don't really like the "One Combat Feat At A Time" rule. It takes away most of the point of even having some of those Feats. I can say honestly I'd be steering away from most of these getting only a few in a 20 level progression when I have a choice. Also requiring to use certain Feats in previous rounds makes these less appetising.

Also, Power Attack and Deadly Aim always being at full power takes away my desire to use them.

This section is really my only real dislike about what you've done. I don't think the "Combat Feats" idea works well at all. Maybe if you made the list less discriminating, for instance I don't think Dodge should be there, though I can see why you don't want some things comboing.

Also, maybe if you've built up to a specific level (ie Great Cleave), if you could maintain that level instead of being reset back to Power Attack, that might make Combat Feats more worthwhile.

The Other Sections: They're all good. I don't think you need any input there.

Overall good work. It's just the Combat Feats that need some work. All my other input is mostly personal taste.

[Dario Nardi]

My brain seems to have caught fire. This is exciting!

By opening up the design and testing process to fans... talk about ownership and buy-in -- unlike a few other companies out there, may they remain nameless as well as heartless.

Here are some impressions:

ARTWORK AND DESIGN: Very nice. Plus, you managed to get a blond with breasts on the front along with the dragon. Reminds me of "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things" (Yes, that's a real book!)

GOALS: I wouldn't embrace it unless it was backward compatible!

RACES:

I like that the races are beefed up a little. PLEASE ADD SOME RACIAL FEATS. :-) With more feat slots, racial feats are now viable options.

I was jarred at first by elves with Int +2 and Gnomes with Cha +2 but I understand why. It upholds their traditional favored class. Frankly, I've sometimes felt that elves should favor bard, what with all their singing and dancing and innate sense of magic, while gnomes should favor wizard, given their tinkering and all. But you mention the gnomish connection to the fey, which makes Charisma more sensible, and elves are known to be hauty and aloof. I can live with this.

For halflings, a +2 Charisma... please convince me. Maybe they're just terribly cute??? How about Dex +4, or is that too powerful?

Thank you for the half-orc love.

Humans... with more feats per level, 1 bonus feat is worth less. Maybe if you gave humans 2 bonus class skills? Otherwise they feel a little weak to me.

I hope a few more races will get treatment somewhere. Lizardfolk, gnolls, hobgoblins, and of course goblins (he he).

CHARACTER ADVANCEMENT: Three different advancement rates. Yay for choice. More feats but not every frack'n level. Yay for sanity!

HIT POINTS: I vote to ADD CONSTITUTION SCORE TO STARTING HP. Why? So you can say, when a PC's hitpoints fall to below his Con, he's actually suffering bloody wounds rather than just scrapes and such. Sort of like the bloodied condition in 4th Edition, but more realistic and more for role-play (describing combat).

CLASSES:
Cleric with healing aura -- can you say genius!
Orisons and cantrips at will -- awesome idea. Simple fix to crossbows and 15-minute days.

Wow, a fighter than doesn't suck. And with all those feats, he is just as rich in options as a spellcaster.
Armor training: Please allow a "unarmored" option for those swashbuckling fighters (unless you feel those are actually rogues).
And as others have said, more class skill options to allow fighters to move around more skillfully.

The rogue talents are great. I will leave it to others to figure out whether they are balanced.
Sneak attack simplified, yeah!
I agree with another poster, "Stand Up" is not so glamorous a name for the ability.

Wizard: I like how specialization is more meaningful. But I worry that the school powers are a little too hardwired.
Arcane bond with an object -- about time :-). In addition to wand, etc. you might have "orb" as an option, like that Other Game people will be playing ;-)
I like another poster's idea, that the familiar grants a +3 to a skill of the player's choice, with the choice of animal more of a role-play feature. No this is no deal breaker.

Other classes: Please let's have a 12th class that is a gish character. Hexblade, battle sorcerer, rune blade, whatever the inspiration... a character with arcane magic and a trusty weapon.

SKILLS
I like how skill ranks are simplified, and characters get more skills over time. How about a 4th category, "Untrained class skill"?

I'm not totally convinced about the new skill list. I'd put Disable Device and Open Lock together.

I find writing "Knowledge (arcana)" annoying compared to just writing "Arcana." Can we get rid of the Knowledge prefix?

Also, Concentration could be a version of Auto-Hypnosis. And personally, I use Concentration when a character is trying to recall or commit to memory some detail they read or saw. I could use an Int check but that's not quite the same.

Fly is a skill: Yeah!
"Thievery" sounds better than "Theft," IMO.

I didn't read through all the skill descriptions. I'm assuming they are sane until proven otherwise in play-testing.

FEATS
Ok, this section perturbed my ebullient heart. Fats with +2 bonuses aren't so special. But I understand the goal of backward compatibility.

As for feats that set up the use of other feats... more tactical fun.
But I like feats the way they work now in 3.5. Everyone loves feats.
Please don't change them unless it's truly a broken, odd, or lame feat (Toughness, Power Attack, etc).
And please add some racial feats :-)

What's this about only 1 feat at a time? Are they basically powers?
I understand that limiting feats to 1 at a time discourages min-maxing. A noble goal. So I'm open to it. But not that much. If I'm using Spring Attack, then I cannot Dodge or benefit from Mobility? Cry.

COMBAT
Please eliminate iterative attacks. Just give some kind of bonus instead (to the martial characters only, since casters don't need to slice with their daggers for 1d4+ 1/2 their level!)

Grappling is definitely simpler. Thank you!

Simplified turning rules are very welcome :-)
And ooh boy, evil clerics are very dangerous!!!

Overall, I ask you: If any combat maneuver needs 2-3 paragraphs to explain it (besides grappling), then is it really simplified? I made an index card once of all the combat options in 3.5. They didn't quite fit, but almost. I suspect they can be simpler.

SPELLS AND MAGIC
Overall, the idea of specialist powers is very nice.

But I'd like a more flexibility. Maybe just say: At the various levels, the wizard PC picks 1 spell from his school of specialization, and he can use that once per day as a spell-like ability? Simple and flexible, though making NPCs might then take more time. Don't want that!

RUNNING THE PATHFINDER RPG
Need more time to digest this.

[Alex Draconis]

I liked the art and the look of it. I take it that's a placeholder cover?
I won't mind if that's the cover, it's pretty good, but I think you guys can manage something even better. Needs more color.

Still thank you so much for not making dragons look freaky like some sort of modern art project. They actually look good!

[Stormhierta]

Looking forward to seeing some Psionics support for Pathfinder.

I like the changes alot, in general, but with a few beefs.

1. Halflings would do better with a +2 to Charisma rather than Intelligence. Gnomes are crafty, halflings are hearty. That should help differentiate them a little more.

2. Give the Fighter 4 skills + Int modifier, add in Acrobatics AND make "Light Armor Mastery" also count for no armor whatsoever, or give them a "No Armor Mastery" which gives them a certain armor bonus. Making the Fighter class work for Nobles, Knights, Guards and more is important if you ask me, and part of that really IS skills. As someone suggested, adding Perception, Knowledge (nobility) and Diplomacy might not be a bad idea either.

3. Combat Feats requiring build-up: Either make them into one feat with different options available at different BAB-levels, or remove build-up. This way it just eats up those otherwise "customizable" extra feats.

4. I've said it before - remove all the +2/+2 to skills feats and replace with "Talented - pick 2 skills, you get a +2 bonus to those skills." Easy, saves place and more useful.

5. If you're keeping Skill Focus, IMPROVE IT! Feats should, generally, add OPTIONS for players, not just flat bonuses. The same goes for Dodge, Weapon Focus and so forth. Options! :D

[Wayne Ligon]

Has there been any discussion on what core 3.5 spells to drop, if any? Are any of the most problematic spells (the usual suspects: teleport being the main one) going to be revised or dropped outright? How will you deal with the multiple-buffing problems?

I'll echo 'get rid of the +2/+2 skill feats'.

1: They really just look like they are there to take up space. Make it one feat and let me or my GM choose the related skills.

2: A +2 bonus is... not really something I want to bother spending a precious Feat on; if I want skill bonuses that badly, I'll buy or commission a stat-boosting magic item that will not only help that skill but all other related skills. Make it more worth my while to choose a skill bonus. Either boost the skill bonus, and/or make it count towards the prerequisite for a prestige class or something.

3: I'd suggest that the feat make those two skills into class skills for me if they are not. I've trained in them specially, above and beyond what I've done in other things. That training or natural talent should be recognized.

[John Robey]

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

John Robey wrote:

Note that I realize that "backwards compatibility" was a big goal for you ... I think this may not be the best place to focus your efforts, however. SWSE, for instance, completely blows 3.5 out of the water both in terms of ease of GM preparation, and speed of play -- and one of the primary claims of That Other Game(tm) is that will do the same. As such, since those are the benchmarks against which the game is going to be measured, you need to find ways of providing the same benefits first, then also being backwards compatible when you can.

I really like SWSE as well - its a big reason I'm going 4E. But, if they were to go this route then why not just save me the trouble of having to convert their adventures and just go 4E in the first place?

This seems like a recipe to insure that they manage to alienate both their 4E customer base and their 3.5E customer base. I honestly can hardly fathom why they would want to do something like that. It seems near suicidal from a marketing perspective - everyone ends up unhappy. Since they have decided to stick with 3.5 they should try and remain true to 3.5 except where the rules are such a problem that its worth taking the plunge to introduce something better.

Fair enough; except that 4E is far removed from SWSE and nowhere near as good a system from what I've seen. How about we aim for a new goal of "a better system that can still IMPORT 3.5 material without breaking"? That is to say, you can run an adventure with a Pathfinder-built hobgoblin stat block, or a quick-fixed hobgoblin stat block from Red Hand of Doom, and they'll both work. Seems to me that would be the best of both worlds.

-The Gneech