Since Paizo has backwards compatibility in the forefront while making decisions for Pathfinder, I was wondering today if there is any specific material they had in mind.
I was reading the thread on Paladins, and most feel they need extra oomph. From my experience, my feat choice is what always made my Paladins, and now they are virtually all gone. Even simple feats like Extra Smiting, Chain Spell, or Close-Quarters Combat cannot legally be included in Pathfinder Core.
So here are my questions:
1) Designers: Are there any feats, spells, prestige classes, etc. from previous 3.5 sourcebooks that you would have liked to include in the Pathfinder Core Rules? If there is, can you even tell us (legally)?
2) Others: What are some things you would seriously considering house ruling into the Pathfinder Core?
One of the core concepts driving Pathfinder is backward compatibility. Unless a rules mechanic has been changed that prevents the feat from working properly you can use any feats from any 3.x material you have. Granted some things may not work due to changes between 3.x and Pathfinder, and those things will fall into 2 categories: needs minor adjustment and hopelessly incompatible. Everything else is fair game unless you happen to be a "Core Purist" and consider splat book material an "abomination".
I understand that, and with that being said, what feats would you include in your core rules for a beta test (or normal play)? It really does seem unfortunate that feats like Extra Smiting can't be retooled and included in the core feats, because it would go very nicely.
And not only that, there is a huge amount of published 3.5 material that probably shouldn't be used at all. If the Pathfinder team has something to say about previous feats and spells, or anyone else, I believe this is the time to discuss them.
Saddly, while you can work out problems in core 3 ed. with Pathfinder, ( and as long as now i like a lot what i see), there is no hope for all the broken feats coming from the many slatbooks ( even from WoTC ), many of them are completly insane and will ruin any balance in game ... i'am always very carefull before letting my players take feats from these sources ...
At most, i think that most feats not broken in 3.5 will remain ok even in Pathfinder ..... but if a feat was broken in 3,5 and not in the core-book, it will remain broken even in Pathfinder ..
I don't think they have the time, or inclination, to go through tons of 3e material and tell us what is useful and what is not.
It isn't really necessary, anyway: Use the material you have been using for years now, the game is supposed to work with all that. While they can't give us those feats (though I guess stuff like extra smite evil would not be a problem, since it's an easy enough concept and easily thought up by oneself), they certainly don't want to invalidate them.
So play your paladin with extra smiting and whatever you want, and then give feedback on how you think the PF stuff meshes with your favourite non-core material.
Everything else is fair game unless you happen to be a "Core Purist" and consider splat book material an "abomination".
Yep - that's me :)
Daron's question is important for two reasons, neither of which has to do with stress testing.
One, to find out what, if anything, the designers are *assuming* would be present in a home game that cannot be included in the core rules for one reason or another.
Two, to find ways of *including* any potential bare spots in the core rules, since that is where they would be, a) most useful and b) available for "Core Purist"'s.
Stress Testing - it's a good idea. Play with every option you can think of. If it was broken before, and still is, no point in mentioning it. If it wasn't broken before, but is now, that should be mentioned and we should consider whether it would ever make sense with the new rules. If it was broken before, but isn't now - that's great! If it was broken before, but is much worse now - *THAT* may be the best place to check if it is a system error, or completely the option's problem. All that though is a whole other thread of questions, IMHO.