It's a mini-booklet published by some D&D fans. Basically, the writers have given melee classes the mechanics so that they can compete with spellcasters--and the rules don't require a separate subsystem, like that seen with Tome of Battle. It's a great system that I've been using for awhile now, and it's very well-balanced.
Nothing?
Well, if nothing else, thank you for posting this. Theres a lot of great ideas and thought in there for me to pick apart and scavenge!
Although at this point, the design process appears to be down to "paint and polish" rather than "bolt and buckle". Still, good stuff there. Again, thanks for posting the link, I stopped going to other forums after 4th edition's genesis. Good to see interesting things still happen there too.
|
Nothing?
i am using parts of this already, the feats a offer to fighter types and make sure that the BAB for the feats only count for those classes and only allow them to take the feats at char levels(so 1,3,6,9,12,15,18) limited the power creep. i looked at other parts but have not used anything more from it.
Nothing?
(a) You're not the first person to bring it up.
(b) Don't expect a quantum leap in power for the melee classes -- based on what Jason has said to date, it ain't gonna happen. Personally, I'm going to stick with the Tome of Battle; I might not like some of the flavour, but it's close enough for my purposes.
(c) I don't think Jason checks the "General Discussion" board on a regular basis. So posting something on this board is a little bit like shouting into the void.
Some of us (like me) like shouting into the void, though. HELLOOOOOOO!
Although at this point, the design process appears to be down to "paint and polish" rather than "bolt and buckle".
That's a shame. If that's the case, then Pathfinder isn't going to be the fix that I had hoped for.
Creative Director
|
Although at this point, the design process appears to be down to "paint and polish" rather than "bolt and buckle".That's a shame. If that's the case, then Pathfinder isn't going to be the fix that I had hoped for.
Pathfinder's first goal isn't to "FIX" 3.5, though. We don't want to build a game that's so different that it's alien to those who are used to 3.5. Ideally, someone could pick up a Pathfinder RPG adventure next year and run it using the 3.5 rules without ever having seen the Pathfinder RPG rulebook, or vice versa.
Also, the book's already bursting at the seams. We don't want to cut material we've already been working on and playtesting for months, and that means we just don't have any room to add new stuff. In addition, as mentioned above, we're well beyond the point now where drastic new rules subsystems are going to be added.
Now, all that said, I strongly suspect we'll be doing additional expansions to the rules now and then. Not as often as WotC did with books like Complete Warrior, but expansion rulebooks will indeed happen. And eventually, some day in the far future, we'll perhaps be doing a 2nd edition of the Pathfinder RPG at which point we can look at making more drastic changes or not.
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
I liked reading this. Interesting take on the rules, some of which would be neat to use. Not necessarily in PF right now, though.
If you want a PDF of all their material it is HERE.
We are already discussing Pathfinder 2E? Nooooooooooooo
Like sometime after the 5th edition of a surprisingly still popular fantasy role playing game? In any game we all know new editions come. The question is how much do they break from prior editions and how well do the implement lessons learned during the last one.... Some fail vary badly at it.
Regardless, we (the OGL using community) still have more excuses then ever to collaborate and continue to tinker. Paizo is doing us the awesome favor (for which, I think, we all will be buying enthusiastically) of providing a stable ongoing reliable platform to gather around, and to bring new players to. From that base we can keep growing, and use other OGL material to improve our games the way we need them to work.
Personally I've always kind of liked the DC based spell casting that was presented in d20 Advanced Magic :-p .
Like sometime after the 5th edition of a surprisingly still popular fantasy role playing game?
No. He said far future. Not 15 months from now ;-)
My only question is when do they switch to roman numerals?Like sometime after the 5th edition of a surprisingly still popular fantasy role playing game?No. He said far future. Not 15 months from now ;-)
As soon as they think more folks will buy it like that
Oh I think your giving them to little credit, the current setup is actually fairly brilliant in its own way. A new PHB/DMG/MM every year. All they have to do is add/alter the rules in any of those books to create a 4.something, and again the year after.
At least Paizo's focus is on adventures and not on spamming rules supplements, although a few solid supplements (or collections) down the line wouldn't go amiss (nudge nudge).
It's a mini-booklet published by some D&D fans. Basically, the writers have given melee classes the mechanics so that they can compete with spellcasters--and the rules don't require a separate subsystem, like that seen with Tome of Battle. It's a great system that I've been using for awhile now, and it's very well-balanced.
Hmmmm, a whole set of 100+ new feats is, indeed, a separate subsystem. Just not like ToB.
The main problem with the Feat system is tactical micromanagement. Feats become an endless series of addenda to the general (combat) rules. Next, special weapons are invented (*cough* spiked chain *cough*) to take advantage of the Feat rules.
Soon everyone is saying, "If this class can do this, why can't that class do it, too? If this weapon can do this, why can't that weapon do it, too?" Everyone wants to build their characters with a collection of favorite Feats and exotic weapons from a dozen splat books and house rules.
Oops. Did I say that out loud?
=)
It's a mini-booklet published by some D&D fans. Basically, the writers have given melee classes the mechanics so that they can compete with spellcasters--and the rules don't require a separate subsystem, like that seen with Tome of Battle. It's a great system that I've been using for awhile now, and it's very well-balanced.Hmmmm, a whole set of 100+ new feats is, indeed, a separate subsystem. Just not like ToB.
The main problem with the Feat system is tactical micromanagement. Feats become an endless series of addenda to the general (combat) rules. Next, special weapons are invented (*cough* spiked chain *cough*) to take advantage of the Feat rules.
Soon everyone is saying, "If this class can do this, why can't that class do it, too? If this weapon can do this, why can't that weapon do it, too?" Everyone wants to build their characters with a collection of favorite Feats and exotic weapons from a dozen splat books and house rules.
Oops. Did I say that out loud?
=)
Yeah, I used these "new feats" back when they came out. My players ended up actually ignoring or forgetting parts of them, simply focusing on the bits and pieces of them they wanted; half of the feats effects were just random side effects that seemed tacked on in a rather "video-gamey" way. Then again, these are MY players, so they can't be the influencing factor on whether or not they're good. I think the system is good "in theory" but is a little over-loaded. We were also just too used to the old system, be it broken or not. : )