I just downloaded Experimental Might 1&2 from RPGNow.com. I am interested in how to port some new ideas into my True20 game and my new setting. I am a huge fan of what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder to keep the OGL alive but 3.5e has left me a little cold. Too many rules and DMing a high level game is a pain in the rear. Hopefully Pathfinder can make higher leve gaming more fun...but that is for another thread.
However, what I am reading about in Monte's new books might be worth looking into for Pathfinder. The books contain combat schools (Fighting Domains), feat groupings (bonus feats, oblation feats, uberfeats), and this isn't merely adding new feats but adding ways to use feats that are IMO very interesting and would go a long way to making fighters more attractive without making them Wuxia (not my thing, sorry).
Then there are clerics, druids and wizards with a full 20 levels of spells which is extremely intuitive.There are spell-user disciplines which are basically spell-like abilities for clerics, druids and wizards. These are an excellent idea and add some nice color to the classes.
There us a lot like in there books and I really think that Paizo should take a look at these books and potentially include some of these both as core rules and potententially as optional rules in Pathfinder.
Hopefully this will happen with Monte on board.
As an aside, looking at what Monte Cook alone could do with some good variant rules for the classes. I have to believe the 4e was largely a money-making endeavor from WoTC. If Monte alone could do overhauls with 3.5e rules I imagine that with WoTC's battery of skilled designers a lot could have been done with the 3.5e rules that didn't require a new addition of the game to fix what was broken.
There were hints that with Monte on board, Beta would see some parts of the BoXMs. They just didn't say what.
I don't have a link, but I'm quite sure it was Vic who said it.
There were hints that with Monte on board, Beta would see some parts of the BoXMs. They just didn't say what.
Yes. But I also remember someone else stating that Pathfinder will not have 20 spell levels.
|
Yes. But I also remember someone else stating that Pathfinder will not have 20 spell levels.Which is fine by me, that's one of the changes I like less, especially from a compatibility standpoint, who wants to update spell lists for existing characters into that system? ugh...
From a tinker's perspective I see how this makes sense, if you like to create a lot of spells on your own and want them as balanced as possible.
But I would like to keep on using the dozens of books with spells in them without having to assign them a new level under a 20 spell levels.
|
From a tinker's perspective I see how this makes sense, if you like to create a lot of spells on your own and want them as balanced as possible.
But I would like to keep on using the dozens of books with spells in them without having to assign them a new level under a 20 spell levels.
Me, too. Compatibility to 3.5e is a key issue to me and apparently to Paizo, too.
Regarding the OP: I don't get all of your reasoning. 3.5e is supposed to be too complicated and so additional rules from Monte's supplements are to be included?
- Günther
|
I think what he means is that the Rules from Monte replace what was there. For example, Iron Heroes was a far simpler version of 3.x but I had friends who thought they were additional rules and would say "how can it be simpler by using more rules?"
You don't use additional rules, you replace the unnecessary rules.
There were hints that with Monte on board, Beta would see some parts of the BoXMs. They just didn't say what.Yes. But I also remember someone else stating that Pathfinder will not have 20 spell levels.
Was that someone from Paizo?
Personally, I liked a lot of the new fighter feats, and I liked the idea of fighter's getting "more" out of a feat if they take it as a fighter feat, but I wouldn't want to see some of the bigger changes, like the "mantles" or whatever they were called for the spellcasters, and the healing changes.
I like a lot of the bits a pieces, just not the big picture (which didn't mean they were bad, by any means, just a fairly big departure from standard d20 fantasy roleplaying).
Personally, I liked a lot of the new fighter feats, and I liked the idea of fighter's getting "more" out of a feat if they take it as a fighter feat, but I wouldn't want to see some of the bigger changes, like the "mantles" or whatever they were called for the spellcasters, and the healing changes.
I like a lot of the bits a pieces, just not the big picture (which didn't mean they were bad, by any means, just a fairly big departure from standard d20 fantasy roleplaying).
Same here: While all of it looks fabulous, most of it doesn't really fit the Pathfinder core rules, as it's quite different from 3e.
Still, some of the concepts, especially for fighters, would be fine in PF. Maybe the different "fighter domain" (though they would need a different name. Maybe fighting styles).