First of all I like what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder and I haven't graced Paizo with any of my money since Dragon/Dungeon got cancelled. I'm still miffed at WoTC for that. I really like the sound of the Pathfinder magazine but since I don't live in the US its kinda expensive to get at $20 US per magazine and I only pay money for PDFs if they're alot cheaper than the real copy (50% or less).
Anyway back to the original topic. I would rather play 3.5 than 4th ed but I'm the DM. Virtually all our 3.5 games collapsed around level 11 as I got sick of running games at that power level and it was taking to long to design anything. Simply put I would rather play 3.5 but DM 4th ed. High level 3rd ed games suked let alone epic levels. Pathfinder has powered up all the classes and fixed some of the more broken spells that tended to be banned in my games anyway. Essentially the game wasn't any fun and took to long.Pathfinder doesn't seem to do enough to fix higher level games. In essence I would rather play 3.5 but DM 4th ed. Some things I did like from 4th ed that could be used in Pathfinder.
1. Eliminate multiple attacks. Give martial classes a bonus to damage equal to their level or something. Also have higher level martial feats worth taking.
2. Make save or dies weaker by giving the classes better saves. In 2nd ed save or dies kinda sucked at higher levels as they only had a 10%-20% chance of success if that. Maybe double classes saving throws or steal some ideas from 4th ed and have the saves remain like they are at 1st level but have all saves regardless of classe increase at +1/+1/+1 every 2 levels.
3. Cap power attack at -5.
4. More feats. Let martial classes have feats for sword and board, 2 handed, light weapons (improved weapon finesse?), or even 1 weapon and an empty hand (Dueling Feat: +1 to hit +1 AC)
|
To each their own, I would say. However, the four reasons you shoot down Pathfinder seem rather easy to fix in your own home campaign. For myself, I'll be doing quite a few house rules with Pathfinder - primarily carry overs from 3.5.
Obviously, one problem Paizo faces is to reinvent 3.5, but not so much that you can't pull out a 3.5 splat book and drop it into the game mid-session (with minimal adjustment).
That said, allow me to comment on your complaints.
1. No More Multiple Attacks.
I like this. Star Wars Saga Edition (SWSE) took this on, and added multiple attacks via feats. It took a while to get used to, but in the end, it streamlines game play massively.
2. Make Saves or Dies Weaker.
Sorry. Don't connect here. IMO, classes already have impressive saves. Also, Paizo runs the risk that if it were to re-invent this system, it may not be so backward compatible.
3. Cap Power Attack at 5.
Not sure what this is intended to fix. For consistency, i.e., combat expertise, sure. But on the other hand, I really never understand why combat expertise was capped. (Feather in your cap for this feat that gives a boost beyond defensive fighting.)
4. More Feats.
There be lots of feats out there. Feats upon feats upon feats. Between Pathfinder and all the splat books that exist, I think you'll be satisfied. If you want to widen your horizons, go to d20 Modern, where there exist feats for nl unarmed combat. And I think dueling does exist. (Also, check out Dragon Mag. Lots more feats there.)
In the end, I can understand the issue of "why bother" with Pathfinder. I'm not here to convince you to bother. Only - aside from the saves perhaps - your complaints are already addressed, or relatively easy to address in your home campaign.
As for you complaint about high-level game play
Hey y'all:
My biggest beef with 3.5 is high level play also. I ran my Shackled City campaign until 16th level and it actually had me in tears at one point I was so frustrated. I've told Jason that this is one of my top priorities (the other was fixing mechanics and spells that were simply broken) for the Pathfinder RPG. Since we are still a year away from the release of the final rulebook, I really think that we can attack this problem as a community. Just because we haven't solved it yet doesn't mean that the Pathfinder RPG can't before we send it to the press next year. This exact problem is one of the main reasons why we went with the open playtest...I want to get the largest number of brains working on these problems. Jason was under a very crazy time crunch to get the Beta out by GenCon, and that didn't allow a lot of creative time to tackle the toughest problems. But now we have time going forward. I would encourage all of you to help us tackle this problem. Otherwise I will only be playing campaigns to about 12th level or so before starting a new one. And that would be really, really sad to me. :/
-Lisa
Hmm, I am not sure what your issue is with multiple attacks. In my group, players often role several dice at once, different colors for each attack. Tis fast and fairly easy.
Save or Die spells are being addressed.
More Feats for figthers are also being addressed. The first attempt, Combat Feats, was not a success, but I am sure that Jason and the rest at Paizo are working on another solution.
Whether you stay or go, is your choice. But as has been mentioned to others, tis a tad early to jump ship now. If you stay, and work with everyone else, you have a chance to influence where the game is going. If you run the Beta release, and give feedback about what isn't working for you at 11th level and up, you are doing something about it, rather than just complaining about it.
Don't get me wrong I really like the Pathfinder system and want to run it. Realistically I only have time to run 1 system and at the moment I'm leaning towards 4th ed.
I would like to play 3.5 over 4th ed but thats not an option (I'm the DM). I can generate NPCs and stuff relativly quickly but high levle play in 3rd ed is to much effort. I like alot opf the DM stuff of 4th ed but don't like the classes so much (bland and kinda boring IMHO).
I'm going to hang around but to I want to play a high level game of D&D without the suck and this seems like one of the few things 4th ed done right.
How often has a cobat ended in 1-3 rounds or eve the surprise round in 3.5 at higher levels. I realy like the system at level 1-11 or and alot at level 5-9 or so. If 4th ed doesn't work for our group Pathfinder is plan B. I showed one of my players the system and he kinda like it but made the comment "apart from powering up all the classes and fixing some abuive spells you banned anyway whats different?"
I suspect 4th ed will get boring fast and alot of the time our coe group is DM+3 players and 3.5 seems to work slightly better with a smaller group.
|
Yes, I agree that High Level play needs a major overhaul. I also think that the staff at Paizo are probably all ears to anyone who has ideas or ways to fix it. Thanks for bringing this topic to the forefront, it needs to be in everyone's minds. As for your choice to not stay with Pathfinder, I can only say that 4.0 probably is the only viable system that takes high level play seriously. Perhaps by you playing 4.0, you will be in a unique situation to let many of us know as to what you thought of that system's high level play. As of this moment, I think there are very few in the 3.5 system who have played epic level (competently or regularly) and thus we are amateurs in this. If 4.0 does in fact play epic level at a liveable and progressive pace, it would be interesting to know "how that felt as a DM as well as a player". Even I was almost seduced at the idea of playing Legendary characters within a fun gaming system, but Paizo is too rich in creativity and pulse to abandon. These guys here care, and if you have a beef about their products, you will get quick responses from the entire staff without paying a D&D Insider fee.
So, the best of luck. I hope to hear your successes with Epic Level games.
Cheers,
Zux
This actually getting old. yeah 3.5 sorta breaks down at higher levels but 4th solution is the same that any good DM would do.
1. If your baddy monster is the stuff of legend and the main bad guy, okay stat him up completly, make adjustments to make him unique.
2. If he's important, but only needed a few nights, then go by the book, stats are there.
3. If he has "minions" as 4th calls them don't stat them. Hey theres an idea. make up hit points say 10, attack option pick 3 types of weapons and move on.
4. If the big bad is what we have to kill tonight, do the say as 3. or 2.
What makes 3.5 or 3.P so cool is that I can do what 4th did, simply say well this critter is only important for three stats attck, get killed, and what rank he fits in. or I can make a complet perfect and fully stated monster who has a life of his own, say my Beholder loves to sing hip hop (you know 'jump jump jump around!' well I can give him ranks in that, it'll never come up in play but the rules are there for it. I've only gotten my group into Epic levels once, and while it wasn't easy as a DM, who ever said a DM's life is easy, or should be. Its like the guy who loves his car want's it in perfect conditon all the time. Knows how to take apart the motor and put it back together blindfolded, but takes it to the shop every weekend because he does not want to get his hands durty, so he looks at someone else do his hobby.
If you leave Pathfinder that's too bad, but from what I hear about 4th, not the setting or company, all its doing is what any DM can do with 5minuts of prep time.
TTFN Dre
|
|
4. More feats. Let martial classes have feats for sword and board, 2 handed, light weapons (improved weapon finesse?), or even 1 weapon and an empty hand (Dueling Feat: +1 to hit +1 AC)
Just buy a copy of this! It has feat trees like the ones you're describing.
Simply put I would rather play 3.5 but DM 4th ed.
This is also a powerful sentiment for me and my biggest temptation to switch to 4e. The reason I am NOT considering cancalling my subscription is that I have not seen the quality of other companies 4e modules yet. Let alone the campign settings. Furthermore it is advertised that it is easy to make 4e adventures without a lot of prep. If that is true, conversion of a PfRPG to 4e should be easy.
Even if I go 4e, I will be using Pathfinder Adventures.
Keep in mind that the changes to this system are less than 6 months old and are in flux. The Paizo management has already said that fixing high level play is one of their #1 priorities (IMO they are very very close to having fixed low level play). The Beta is in the can but likely will not resolve the issues you bring up.
The system as it is right now, and even when the beta is released is an incomplete product. I can't make any promises about what's going to happen with high level play but based on Lisa and James' comments I have a feeling it will be significantly different than it is now in 16 months when the final product is released. So whatever you decide to do now, I strongly recommend you check into the finished product when it's released in August of '09 to see if it's resolved your issues.
-- Dennis
I'm no expert on epic play but I did run my PCs through the epic adeventure and ran a few higher level games up to level 30.
It was awful and the Sorcerer managed to cast 17 spells in a single turn. I has some ideas I'll post later regarding high level play. I have to go to work now.
|
I've DM'd 2 epic games now, both extensions of the first Dungeon Adventure Paths. The PCs just finished off Age of Worms, and the group before that was the general saviors of Cauldron. (Hey, there was still 3/4ths of a city left, that's kinda saving it...)
The big problems with 3.5e, from my POV? Warrior-types with way too many attacks at once. (Half-Silver Dragon Kobold Paladin dual-wielding Small-sized bastard swords... with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. Yeesh.) Hideous amounts of prep time for high-level NPCs, especially rogues with one or two prestige classes. (I LOVED the Alpha 1 skills system just for that reason, and I'm still somewhat less than pleased at its removal.)
If it weren't for my probably downright freakish ability with mental math, keeping all of the modifiers at Epic levels would get kind of ridiculous, not that 4e has improved on this, AT ALL. (My players need calculators and/or laptops, I just do it in my head.) That's not likely to change no matter what the Paizo crew does with Pathfinder. From about 16th level on, fighters are likely to have attack modifiers of above +25, making the die roll less important to their total success in combat rather than the min-maxing of bonuses. It's just a weakness of the system, unless we want to suddenly convert high level and Epic gaming to the d30 or d100 system.
Power Attack isn't an issue, it's a standard tactic at Epic levels, especially for monsters. It's the best way to up damage potential without relying upon constantly active magical effects or amulets of mighty fists.
Save or Dies? I don't need them weakened, I need more of them and especially a way to up the DCs of spells to a major degree. When the Rogue has a Ref save of +25 and the Archmage's spell DCs are, even with Meteor Swarm, a 30, Evasion makes Reflex saves and breath weapons essentially useless against an Epic party. Yes, I can scorch the barbarian with the meteor blasts, but so what? The Cleric just drops a Heal on him and then uses some Quickened spell as his next action.
And all of this is without discussing the absurdities of Epic magic item creation. The recommended amount of gear for 20th level PCs alone is enough to drive any DM to the point of insanity, just with the core rules.
All that being said, do I still enjoy Epic gaming? Yeah, all things considered, but it has a lot more downsides than low-level gaming. More math in game, more prep time out of game, just... more. Of everything.
I hope Jason and the rest of the Paizonians have some good ideas as to what to try. I'll offer up my group as a high/Epic-level mechanics test, but they've all got at least one prestige class at this point, most two, so the core class mechanics won't get that much of a workout.
OK I'm back. In 3.5.
Monsters need to be able to whittle down the PCs and be more or less immune to save or die effects. High level combat in D&D tends to be over quickly win or lose as the PCs can't really absorb the amount of damage monsters deal out and similar deal for the monsters. The power level is to crazy. Most of the dsamage dealing spells are balanced but theres a few that are overpowered. I think this was due to the following changes from 2nd ed to 3.5.
1. Spells lost their casting times. Weapons were often quicke in 2nd ed or you could throw daggers to interrupt spellcasts.
2. Spells were easier to interrupt in 2nd ed. 1 hp of damage and a spell was ruined. 3rd ed you got to make concentration checks.
3. Magic resitence was a static number in 2nd ed. High MR monster made great foils for spellcasters and high level non spellcasters were useful.
4. Full attacks etc. In 2nd ed it didn't matter how far you moved you still got multiple attacks.
5. Saving throws. In 2nd ed failing a high level save was rare. In 3.5 spell DCs scaled faster than saves or could be penalised in other ways.
There a few more but I have brain fart now.
BTW I've decided to buy Pathfinder regardless just to throw some money Paizos way since I haven't boughtr Paizo stuff since Dragon and Dungeon went away (non US customer makes the Pathfinder Dragon/Dungeon replacement stuff to expensive here).
I suspect we'll like 4th ed but may get sick of it fast.
As for you complaint about high-level game play
More Feats for figthers are also being addressed. The first attempt, Combat Feats, was not a success, but I am sure that Jason and the rest at Paizo are working on another solution.
What do you mean Combat Feats are not a success? I find them cool and good. Haven't playtested them yet, but they look sound and giving more interesting options to martial characters to do in combat (one of the highlights of 4e).
What do you mean Combat Feats are not a success? I find them cool and good. Haven't playtested them yet, but they look sound and giving more interesting options to martial characters to do in combat (one of the highlights of 4e).As for you complaint about high-level game play
More Feats for figthers are also being addressed. The first attempt, Combat Feats, was not a success, but I am sure that Jason and the rest at Paizo are working on another solution.
My players have also been enjoying the combat feats. I've found some of them to be a tiny bit too much for 1st level (e.g. overhand chop) but not so out of whack that they need to be tossed completely. The buzz going around seems to be that combat feats didn't make it into the beta.
I'm no expert on epic play but I did run my PCs through the epic adeventure and ran a few higher level games up to level 30.
It was awful and the Sorcerer managed to cast 17 spells in a single turn. I has some ideas I'll post later regarding high level play. I have to go to work now.
I have to ask... how did the sorcerer manage to cast 17 spells in the same round?
|
PF must diverge from tne 3.5 play experience in terms of how it plays. Which means, it must be less like 3.5 while at the same time retaining a general compatibility with 3.5. Tall order.
PF _MUST_ speed up DM prep-time and play, and it _MUST_ better enable high level play, which is a good way to begin to address how DM-prep and play can be sped up. This is how, I think the high level play issue can best be conceptualized - not as something largely independent to be fixed (like polymorph) but as the first step in addressing the wider issue of DM-prep and play speed. If PF fails to address this issue, it may not fail but its success will be more limited.
Excellent post and observations!
A big improvement could be made to high-level play and prep-time, simply by putting clearer rules in a more intuitive order.
As an example, our group of PCs were recently hit by Acid Fog, looked up the description, and were told it was similar to Solid Fog, looked up that description, to be told it was similar to Fog Cloud. That's a lot of unnecessary page-flipping, just to find out that it reduces movement and visibility, as well as dealing the damage. Could the first spell not have simply said that outright?
|
Owner-Manager - Tyche's Games
|
In essence I would rather play 3.5 but DM 4th ed.
Funny, I go the other way. I am willing to play 4E but I would rather DM 3.x. I just prefer the options available in 3E play for roleplaying. 4E is just too mechanical for me, yes, it has lots of good points but encouraging RPing does not seem to be one of them to me.
|
|
BTW I've decided to buy Pathfinder regardless just to throw some money Paizos way since I haven't boughtr Paizo stuff since Dragon and Dungeon went away (non US customer makes the Pathfinder Dragon/Dungeon replacement stuff to expensive here).
Good call. Hey, with your experience with high level play you'll be an asset when they go to target making high-level rules easier during the beta playtest.
-DM Jeff
1. My players have also been enjoying the combat feats. I've found some of them to be a tiny bit too much for 1st level (e.g. overhand chop) but not so out of whack that they need to be tossed completely. The buzz going around seems to be that combat feats didn't make it into the beta.
2. I have to ask... how did the sorcerer manage to cast 17 spells in the same round?
1. If that happens I will just keep using them, because they are what martial characters should have had from 3.0e! And if some turn out to be overpowered I will house rules the needed nerf myself.
2. If I was guessing, he had Automatic Quicken Spell Epic feats, and a couple of those epic feats that allows you to cast more then one quicken spell per round. He also had improved metamagic feats so could cast all other metamagic with only +1 to spell level and probably couple of Epic spell level slots so he could metamagic lvl 9 and 8 spells with multiple matamagic feats.
Then he probably caster TimeStop and cast many, many buffs. Then he caster quickened split rays and that feat that lets your casted spells to repeat itself in the next round.
That is how I would cast 17 spells in one round at epic levels :D (of course you would need to be about lvl 30+ for all these Epic feats)
2. If I was guessing, he had Automatic Quicken Spell Epic feats, and a couple of those epic feats that allows you to cast more then one quicken spell per round. He also had improved metamagic feats so could cast all other metamagic with only +1 to spell level and probably couple of Epic spell level slots so he could metamagic lvl 9 and 8 spells with multiple matamagic feats.Then he probably caster TimeStop and cast many, many buffs. Then he caster quickened split rays and that feat that lets your casted spells to repeat itself in the next round.
That is how I would cast 17 spells in one round at epic levels :D (of course you would need to be about lvl 30+ for all these Epic feats)
Automatic quicken spell is not a problem - you can still only cast one quickened spell, unless you have multispell (which still only allows you 1 more per round per acquired feat). I think multispell can be game breaking - especially if you allow timestop to be quickened/chained. I would rule against that simply because "quickening" is in a sense a "time effect" so there'd be interference. Many rules are poorly written (look at pun-pun...say no more). The intent, I would argue, of the spell casting rules is 1 spell per round + 1 if you have a quckened spell. If you're epic *perhaps* one or two more (say, multispell X 2) - so 4 *spells* per round. If you allow 1 timestop + 3 quickened spells, assuming timestop gives max of 5 rounds (might be as low as 2), that's still only 9 possible spells over the combat round, including the timestop...which is already insane. 17 spells in a round is just outrageous and clearly an exploit of some rule loophole(s) (assuming one can actually do that, and that the OP didn't mean 17 spells in a combat...) I have no idea what "quickened split rays" is - SRD? - or the repeating spell thing you mentioned (for free?! - but it sounds like it violates the basic casting rules I refereed to above so I would simply ban it.
Spell Sequencer, or something like that?
Split Ray is a feat that lets you fire two rays instead of one. So you could count it as two spells :D
And repeat spell is similar to quicken (takes +4 slots) but it repeats the spell you cast automatically in the next round without you needing to cast it. It also ignores the one quickened spell per round rule.
They spell is not cast in the same round but the poster might have been thinking about that one when he was saying 17 spells.
And Epic rules are broken so...
Spell Sequencer, or something like that?
Arcane Fusion was the spell that came to my mind.
Well, no matter what, I still think that übermunchkins can pull 18 ;)
A big improvement could be made to high-level play and prep-time, simply by putting clearer rules in a more intuitive order.As an example, our group of PCs were recently hit by Acid Fog, looked up the description, and were told it was similar to Solid Fog, looked up that description, to be told it was similar to Fog Cloud. That's a lot of unnecessary page-flipping, just to find out that it reduces movement and visibility, as well as dealing the damage. Could the first spell not have simply said that outright?
Have a shameless redirect to my earlier rant.
Bon appetite!
Heaven forbid that one spell Cloud Conjuration or something could have ALL the effects listed in one place, scaled to caster level.
Applied also to Bigby's Hands, and a hundred other spells. These things really scare newcomers to the game, by the way.
As an example, our group of PCs were recently hit by Acid Fog, looked up the description, and were told it was similar to Solid Fog, looked up that description, to be told it was similar to Fog Cloud. That's a lot of unnecessary page-flipping, just to find out that it reduces movement and visibility, as well as dealing the damage. Could the first spell not have simply said that outright?
Amen Brother! Preach it!
Look up how a Krenshar's fear effect works some time. Depending on where you look up the conditions, you can end up in all 3 core books. How hard would it have been to spell out the effects in the MM entry?
Some things I did like from 4th ed that could be used in Pathfinder:
1. Eliminate multiple attacks.
2. Make save or dies weaker.
3. Cap power attack at -5.
4. More feats.
1. Check out the Overhand Chop feat tree, and my personal fave, Vital Strike, in the Pathfinder Alpha document.
2. Save or dies have been nerfed completely in Alpha 3.3. Power Attack is capped at -STR bonus.
4. Yes!
From what I can tell, it seems like Pathfinder is already more to your liking than 3.5!
4. More feats. Let martial classes have feats for sword and board, 2 handed, light weapons (improved weapon finesse?), or even 1 weapon and an empty hand (Dueling Feat: +1 to hit +1 AC)
There's already way too much pointless feats. I don't mind adding some good ones, but I'd like to see the bad ones fixed first.
|
|
There's already way too much pointless feats.
True. Trouble is, it doesn't matter how many feats you add, if people don't use them. You see players gravitating to the same ones every time, because they're the pre-reqs for the popular Prestige Classes.
If your next class requires feats A, B and C, then if you pick feat X, you've just delayed your career by 2 or 3 levels. Unless your DM is using the 'story-based' variant from UA.
A big improvement could be made to high-level play and prep-time, simply by putting clearer rules in a more intuitive order.As an example, our group of PCs were recently hit by Acid Fog, looked up the description, and were told it was similar to Solid Fog, looked up that description, to be told it was similar to Fog Cloud. That's a lot of unnecessary page-flipping, just to find out that it reduces movement and visibility, as well as dealing the damage. Could the first spell not have simply said that outright?
Have a shameless redirect to my earlier rant.
Bon appetite!
Heaven forbid that one spell Cloud Conjuration or something could have ALL the effects listed in one place, scaled to caster level.
Applied also to Bigby's Hands, and a hundred other spells. These things really scare newcomers to the game, by the way.
I think it is called "Trying to keep the page number of a book under 1000."
I hate it too but do not see what can be done about it (except cutting out all the extra spells and making one instead).
Can I just interrupt with the maxim 'less is more'? Thanks. :)
Seriously though, we need to prune a *lot* of spells, feats and so on - even if they do work. Why? Mostly because it puts people off when they see how much there is to learn, but also - if you have fewer options to start with it will become easier to fix, and identify problem areas. Besides, what would be the point in just adding dozens of spells and feats that are readily available in already published material? If Pathfinder truly is 3.5 backwards compatible, then you'd just add back in what you wanted, wouldn't you?
We need to be reducing options for high level play - not increasing them. Surely as we journey up the pyramid of power it's getting to a point, rather than plateauing out?
|
|
I think it is called "Trying to keep the page number of a book under 1000."
I hate it too but do not see what can be done about it (except cutting out all the extra spells and making one instead).
I don't see that elegant design and reasonable page count are mutually exclusive. All of the "line" spells and conditions that are scattered are accompanied by headers and a few other descriptive lines. The idea is simply to consolidate these into one area.
I lent out my 3.0 core books to my sis-in-law's now-ex boyfriend, so I can't reference them, but I believe that this was done halfway already in the 3.5 books. Anyone else recall "Lesser Restoration" being alphabetized under "L" rather than neighboring "Restoration" as "Restoration, Lesser"?
In the Pathfinder RPG, I'd like to see this done with things like "Magic Circle Against Evil" too--how about instead making it "Protection from Evil, Expanded" and alphabetized as such?
Amen Brother! Preach it!
Look up how a Krenshar's fear effect works some time. Depending on where you look up the conditions, you can end up in all 3 core books. How hard would it have been to spell out the effects in the MM entry?
I can do it without opening up any books. It's easy!
Step 1: Open up http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/krenshar.htm
Step 2: Click on the hyperlink for "scare"
Step 3: Click on "cause fear" and/or "frightened" as necessary
;-) <-- This symbol means I'm kidding.
Seriously, if Paizo offered a hyperlinked version of the rules like d20srd.org, I'd be so happy...
Amen Brother! Preach it!
Look up how a Krenshar's fear effect works some time. Depending on where you look up the conditions, you can end up in all 3 core books. How hard would it have been to spell out the effects in the MM entry?I can do it without opening up any books. It's easy!
Step 1: Open up http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/krenshar.htm
Step 2: Click on the hyperlink for "scare"
Step 3: Click on "cause fear" and/or "frightened" as necessary;-) <-- This symbol means I'm kidding.
Seriously, if Paizo offered a hyperlinked version of the rules like d20srd.org, I'd be so happy...
If they did, what would be left to sell then?
Seriously, if Paizo offered a hyperlinked version of the rules like d20srd.org, I'd be so happy...If they did, what would be left to sell then?
Let me put it this way: if Pathfinder is released under the OGL and is successful, then I'm pretty sure it's inevitable that someone will take the rules, remove the Product Identity, and package the Open Content in a way that's available for free on the web. There are multiple web sites hosting hypertext versions of the d20 SRD, for instance. I'm sure Paizo has considered the possibility. So if someone else is going to host the rules on a web site anyways, why wouldn't they do it themselves? (The answer, presumably, is that doing so would take resources that they don't have.)
I don't see that elegant design and reasonable page count are mutually exclusive. All of the "line" spells and conditions that are scattered are accompanied by headers and a few other descriptive lines. The idea is simply to consolidate these into one area.
Hallelujah!
Furthermore, and as is evidenced by that rant of mine, I think that schools of magic could be a useful organizational tool for special case spells, rather than vestigial flavor baggage for a single class.
Let me put it this way: if Pathfinder is released under the OGL and is successful, then I'm pretty sure it's inevitable that someone will take the rules, remove the Product Identity, and package the Open Content in a way that's available for free on the web. There are multiple web sites hosting hypertext versions of the d20 SRD, for instance. I'm sure Paizo has considered the possibility. So if someone else is going to host the rules on a web site anyways, why wouldn't they do it themselves? (The answer, presumably, is that doing so would take resources that they don't have.)
A Pathfinder built-and-managed SRD site? I wouldn't begrudge them putting a link to the Paizo store on every page. I think this would please everyone.
Didn't Arcana Unearthed do something with normal, lesser, greater spells? It's been a long time, and I'm not quite sure what happened to my books - they may have gone away with my 3.0 stuff - but I do remember thinking the arrangement was fairly elegant at the time.
Yes, Arcana Unearthed has this feature. Monte Cook, author of Arcana Unearthed, joined the design team right before the Beta was sent to print. Let's see if they do anything with Spells in the PfRPG Beta. I think that the Beta will be very exciting.