"Mithral nerf" is like "power attack nerf". It isn't.
You've clearly never seen a correctly built 3.5 Power Attack character in play. It's not a small difference. Here's the short version: take a two-handed weapon character, look at 3.5 PA, and assume that a correctly built character using it will always power attack for his full base attack and still hit with nearly all of his attacks. (Because they would, but the why is a longer explanation.)
I think it was a necessary change, because once you had seen such a character, the implication was that any other 3.5 warriorish build was so far weaker as to be not just sub-optimal but silly. I'm glad that playing archers/dual-wielders/etc. are more viable again -- but let's not pretend it wasn't a giant nerf.
What about replacing the cleric entirely with a wooden frame to hold the full plate upward and cast cure spells upon any ally touching it? :o)
Zmar, please consider submitting this idea for the first round of RPG Superstar 2011.
Huh, did I miss something? Clerics without Full Plate aren't Clerics? o.OIncoming: The Much Anticipated Return of the Cleric Heavy Armor Proficiency Flamewar, or: how Paizo killed the class by stopping them from wearing Full Plate.
Film at eleven.
I had a cleric once I never dressed heavier than a chain shirt, even though she was proficient.
I suppose I ought to be executed now?
What dex did you have??? If you happen to have a very high dex, there is no reason not to use lighter armor if your dex needs it.
"Mithral nerf" is like "power attack nerf". It isn't.You've clearly never seen a correctly built 3.5 Power Attack character in play. It's not a small difference. Here's the short version: take a two-handed weapon character, look at 3.5 PA, and assume that a correctly built character using it will always power attack for his full base attack and still hit with nearly all of his attacks. (Because they would, but the why is a longer explanation.)
I think it was a necessary change, because once you had seen such a character, the implication was that any other 3.5 warriorish build was so far weaker as to be not just sub-optimal but silly. I'm glad that playing archers/dual-wielders/etc. are more viable again -- but let's not pretend it wasn't a giant nerf.
I have to agree, shock trooper was the key feat for a barbarian, and the lion totem version from complete champion was broken. You take a minus to AC instead of to hit, you could charge and get a full attack action, and there was an entire host of feats that upped your power attack damage output. So if at higher levels you got everything, you where getting a 1:4 or 1:5 minus to AC damage ratio! In the end, after a charge, your target was most likely dead, and you didn't need to worry about AC any more. It was broken, and I am glad things were toned down. I just wish we had more options to make rather than all or nothing when it cam to using the feat.
|
I just wish we had more options to make rather than all or nothing when it cam to using the feat.
Whoever says that the "slider" Power Attack was cool obviously never had a player at the table who would break out a calculator and a spreadsheet before every attack in order to caluculate the most optimal hit-to-damage ratio at given condidtions.
Thanks heavens that's behind us.
"Mithral nerf" is like "power attack nerf". It isn't.You've clearly never seen a correctly built 3.5 Power Attack character in play. It's not a small difference. Here's the short version: take a two-handed weapon character, look at 3.5 PA, and assume that a correctly built character using it will always power attack for his full base attack and still hit with nearly all of his attacks. (Because they would, but the why is a longer explanation.)
I think it was a necessary change, because once you had seen such a character, the implication was that any other 3.5 warriorish build was so far weaker as to be not just sub-optimal but silly. I'm glad that playing archers/dual-wielders/etc. are more viable again -- but let's not pretend it wasn't a giant nerf.
Power Attack -- > Improved Bull Rush -- > Shock Trooper is the base. Subtract to armor instead of to hit. Add Leap Attack Oneshot everything you charge.
Add Combat Brute and Sudden leap Maneuver for x6 second-turn charges... and we could go on.
I KNOW HOW IT WORKS thanks :D
The point is that have a PC that either one-shots everything he touches from level 6-8, or is frustrated by the DM tired of this (and who interpose terrain, fly or whatever to hamper you) it's not what I call a SmartAss Move (TM).
The current power attack ENDED THIS CRAP and made PA more viable for the casual player. Now it's sort a stance, you hit less and deal more damage, or hit more and deal more damage.
AND does not work for Two Handed only. For the casual player is STRONGER because you have a better deal for each penalty to hit.
Said this, I see we essentially agree in facts - I don't call it a nerf because I see it more from the casual player perspective ;)
I just wish we had more options to make rather than all or nothing when it cam to using the feat.Whoever says that the "slider" Power Attack was cool obviously never had a player at the table who would break out a calculator and a spreadsheet before every attack in order to caluculate the most optimal hit-to-damage ratio at given condidtions.
Thanks heavens that's behind us.
4 options vs. 20 options, vs non. I am not saying one should have a total slide option, like before, but being FORCED to take a -3 or -4 to attack vs. still taking a -1 on a hard to hit target is more reasonable.
AND does not work for Two Handed only. For the casual player is STRONGER because you have a better deal for each penalty to hit.
Other than the poor design choice of making it so you can no longer choose the penalty to take.
I just wish we had more options to make rather than all or nothing when it cam to using the feat.Whoever says that the "slider" Power Attack was cool obviously never had a player at the table who would break out a calculator and a spreadsheet before every attack in order to caluculate the most optimal hit-to-damage ratio at given condidtions.
Thanks heavens that's behind us.
Yes, let us all sacrifice a cow at the altar of "less choices."
3. A base line set of direct damage spells for arcane casters should have been part of the game since day 1. 'Energy Missile I', 'Energy Missle II', etc. It works for Summon Monster, it would have worked for direct damage also. Energy type chosen by the caster at the time of memorization, checks spell resistance, gives reflex save for half, etc. Arcane casters should be the premiere damage dealers in the game, single target and area of effect. That's one of the perks they deserve for not being able to wear any armor, the worst hit points in the game, the worst saving throws (strong will save column is moot when its based on wisdom, a dump stat for many arcane casters), the worst possible weapon selection in the game, and the worst base attack bonus in the game.
If arcane casters are the premiere damage dealers in the game, where does that leave barbarians, fighters, paladins, and to a lesser extent monks, rogues, and rangers? Arcane casters already can hit large groups of enemies better than warrior types (except for the always-fun firestorm that divine spellcasters get), and they can do that damage regardless of their lack of armor, their hp, their saves (even if Wisdom is their dump stat, they have the good progression to manage without it), poor weapon selection, and worst BAB. They can do significant damage to a single target as well if they like (especially when using things like Persistent Spell, Bounce spell, empower spell, etc. on good single-target spells like scorching ray).
Arcane casters should be the premiere damage dealers in the game, single target and area of effect.
God no. They're already the best at just about everything that matters.
3. A base line set of direct damage spells for arcane casters should have been part of the game since day 1. 'Energy Missile I', 'Energy Missle II', etc. It works for Summon Monster, it would have worked for direct damage also.
Because if casters need anything, it is more wastes of limited spell slots and selections.
Other than the poor design choice of making it so you can no longer choose the penalty to take.
AND does not work for Two Handed only. For the casual player is STRONGER because you have a better deal for each penalty to hit.
See, the first time i did see the new PA, I had your same opinion.
After I've seen it in actual play, how it works for newbies and veterans, and how removes a small metagame element, I changed my mind.
If arcane casters are the premiere damage dealers in the game, where does that leave barbarians, fighters, paladins, and to a lesser extent monks, rogues, and rangers?
3. A base line set of direct damage spells for arcane casters should have been part of the game since day 1. 'Energy Missile I', 'Energy Missle II', etc. It works for Summon Monster, it would have worked for direct damage also. Energy type chosen by the caster at the time of memorization, checks spell resistance, gives reflex save for half, etc. Arcane casters should be the premiere damage dealers in the game, single target and area of effect. That's one of the perks they deserve for not being able to wear any armor, the worst hit points in the game, the worst saving throws (strong will save column is moot when its based on wisdom, a dump stat for many arcane casters), the worst possible weapon selection in the game, and the worst base attack bonus in the game.
Exactly where the melee classes are today: doing excellent single target damage (they already do this, no change needed) and a) tanking (fighters, barbarians, paladins, cavaliers, etc.) or b) scouting and high mobility combat (monks, rangers, rogues, inquisitors, etc.).
A place for every class and every class in its place.
A base line set of DD spells for arcane casters establishes consistency across spell levels and energy types. This helps with future spell development because now you have a solid base line of 'damage at a given spell level' to compare against.
DJF
As I bolded above, you actually originally said arcanists should be the best at both single target and area effect damage. At least, that's how I read it. Hence my comments.
Your idea has merit, but already damage has been given a fairly standard base line. It's the disparity between elements and the different emanations/bursts/spreads/areas of effect that vary between levels. A few more elemental spells for acid, cold, sonic, and electricity would certainly suit me more, for example.
I'm also in the camp of "the things that bug me about Pathfinder come from backwards compatibility," especially in the realm of monster design. What I would have liked was a simpler mode for the game default (much as I gripe about 4E, they made building -- and more importantly TWEAKING -- monsters much easier), that could easily "import" 3.x statblocks as well.
The buff/debuff game is something I was hoping would go away, and didn't. If I never see another casting of bull's strength, cat's grace, bless, and inspire courage, it'll be too soon.
Finally, I don't like how dark/badass/overwrought Pathfinder is or tries to be all the time; this is actually the worst thing about just about all gaming right now -- AAAHH 11 ISN'T HIGH ENOUGH LET'S TURN IT UP TO 12!!!!1!
-The Gneech
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Back onto the original topic, the worst thing, practically, for me is the deep-change-without-surface-change, relative to D&D 3.5.
I understand why the design team made that decision, but it's very frustrating.
I play in a couple of D&D 3.5 games. When I run d20, I run a modified D&D 3.5 game. I also play characters in Pathfinder play-by-post campaigns, and have GM'ed in both a play-by-post game and the Pathfinder Society. None of that's going to change.
It's not quite like playing in two different game systems, because they are so similar. But they are different, in hundreds of ways that are not immediately obvious. How does grease work? How does Power Attack work? How do Paladin's Smite work? How does Appaise work? How do favored classes work? Even for things that, as it turns out, remain the same between rules systems, I have no confidence that I can rely on my experience.
Why didn't they change the names for the things that changed!!!
(So that stat blocks in the 3.5 material could be run under Pathfinder rules. Yes, I know.)
What this means is that I am always looking up everything, to some extent in my D&D games, and much moreso when playing Pathfinder.
The particulars of how the two systems are different, and what parts aren't different enough, seems secondary to this fundamental problem.
Yes, let us all sacrifice a cow at the altar of "less choices."I just wish we had more options to make rather than all or nothing when it cam to using the feat.Whoever says that the "slider" Power Attack was cool obviously never had a player at the table who would break out a calculator and a spreadsheet before every attack in order to caluculate the most optimal hit-to-damage ratio at given condidtions.
Thanks heavens that's behind us.
And here I thought it was the alter of "Math is hard, M'kay."
What about replacing the cleric entirely with a wooden frame to hold the full plate upward and cast cure spells upon any ally touching it? :o)Zmar, please consider submitting this idea for the first round of RPG Superstar 2011.
Well, when we are at it, I could offer all manner of replacements. The Gramophone of the Bard, The Evil Plush Bear of the Druid, The Key. The Carousel of the Weaponswinger (seriously, it can replace all the other classes not worth mentioning).
Everyone knows that the only class worth playing is the wizard ;)
You dirty rollplayer! The only class worth playing is commoner, surviving by your wits and not things like class abilities! :P
Everyone knows that the only class worth playing is the wizard ;)
Bah! We need moar POWAH! Ur class Sux! Ur game sux! I'm back to playing Mario looser! :D
|
Yes, let us all sacrifice a cow at the altar of "less choices."I just wish we had more options to make rather than all or nothing when it cam to using the feat.Whoever says that the "slider" Power Attack was cool obviously never had a player at the table who would break out a calculator and a spreadsheet before every attack in order to caluculate the most optimal hit-to-damage ratio at given condidtions.
Thanks heavens that's behind us.
"Less choices" for optimizers = quicker, more streamlined play for everyone else... the majority of players got the positive end of that trade, I think.
One thing I dislike is that you still have to be evil to be an assassin. To me, I don't see how killing a kobold tribe for treasure is less evil than killing a person to be in an assassin's group. There isn't really a point to have an evil PrC when most parties are good.
"Less choices" for optimizers = quicker, more streamlined play for everyone else... the majority of players got the positive end of that trade, I think.Yes, let us all sacrifice a cow at the altar of "less choices."I just wish we had more options to make rather than all or nothing when it cam to using the feat.Whoever says that the "slider" Power Attack was cool obviously never had a player at the table who would break out a calculator and a spreadsheet before every attack in order to caluculate the most optimal hit-to-damage ratio at given condidtions.
Thanks heavens that's behind us.
Damn dirty optimizers! Ruining our game with its rules based in numbers.... How dare they try to.. use number to gain a combat advantage...
There isn't really a point to have an evil PrC when most parties are good.
What about for use by antagonists?
There isn't really a point to have an evil PrC when most parties are good.What about for use by antagonists?
I was never a fan of alignment restricted classes, but it it has to, I don't see why an assassin can't be neutral.
Damn dirty optimizers! Ruining our game with its rules based in numbers.... How dare they try to.. use number to gain a combat advantage...
If you are referring specifically to PA, is not a matter of mere optimization. For me too optimization is part of the fun and the combo above, Sudden Leap included, was used by one of my players. She enjoyed it very much, and was not broken IN THAT KIND OF CAMPAIGN.
Nevertheless, the gain, OVERALL, IMHO is greater this way, for the reasons explained above. I admit that allow to choose the penalty (say, from -1 to -4 at level 12) could have been a good compromise and is indeed a good houserule.
Nevertheless, the feat could be not so simple for a newcomer (it has not a two-line text, but far more ) so I could see why they did choose to go this route.
What dex did you have??? If you happen to have a very high dex, there is no reason not to use lighter armor if your dex needs it.Huh, did I miss something? Clerics without Full Plate aren't Clerics? o.OIncoming: The Much Anticipated Return of the Cleric Heavy Armor Proficiency Flamewar, or: how Paizo killed the class by stopping them from wearing Full Plate.
Film at eleven.
I had a cleric once I never dressed heavier than a chain shirt, even though she was proficient.
I suppose I ought to be executed now?
Yeah, after I played 3.0 for a few months, I took to sticking with light armor or no armor, just to keep my speed (and skills) up, regardless of class. (Hey, my AC may suck, but if combat gets that bad, at least I can run away! :) )
Recently, in another thread, I commented my disbelief that some people sometimes regard Dex as a dump stat, particularly for clerics. When you wear light armor, every point counts!
So if DeathQuaker is to be executed, is there room on the chopping-block for me?
|
|
Damn dirty optimizers! Ruining our game with its rules based in numbers.... How dare they try to.. use number to gain a combat advantage..."Less choices" for optimizers = quicker, more streamlined play for everyone else... the majority of players got the positive end of that trade, I think.Yes, let us all sacrifice a cow at the altar of "less choices."I just wish we had more options to make rather than all or nothing when it cam to using the feat.Whoever says that the "slider" Power Attack was cool obviously never had a player at the table who would break out a calculator and a spreadsheet before every attack in order to caluculate the most optimal hit-to-damage ratio at given condidtions.
Thanks heavens that's behind us.
Damn those other players, not giving us the 5 minutes per turn we need to consult our statistical flip-chart for hit-ratio vs damage output for a given AC taking into account crit threat range and crit multiplier to maximize our damage output, or the 5 hours it takes us to make a character while we figure out at exactly what level our skill ranks in Diplomacy and Bluff will offset our ability penalty from dropping to CHA 7! Can't they see that onerous arithmetic is the true meaning of D&D? Where's my large monkey-gripped spiked chain, I need to trip a b*tch.
Damn those other players, not giving us the 5 minutes per turn we need to consult our statistical flip-chart for hit-ratio vs damage output for a given AC taking into account crit threat range and crit multiplier to maximize our damage output, or the 5 hours it takes us to make a character while we figure out at exactly what level our skill ranks in Diplomacy and Bluff will offset our ability penalty from dropping to CHA 7! Can't they see that onerous arithmetic is the true meaning of D&D? Where's my large monkey-gripped spiked chain, I need to trip a b*tch.Damn dirty optimizers! Ruining our game with its rules based in numbers.... How dare they try to.. use number to gain a combat advantage..."Less choices" for optimizers = quicker, more streamlined play for everyone else... the majority of players got the positive end of that trade, I think.Yes, let us all sacrifice a cow at the altar of "less choices."I just wish we had more options to make rather than all or nothing when it cam to using the feat.Whoever says that the "slider" Power Attack was cool obviously never had a player at the table who would break out a calculator and a spreadsheet before every attack in order to caluculate the most optimal hit-to-damage ratio at given condidtions.
Thanks heavens that's behind us.
Where's Luzzo, I want to show him what "reductio ad absurdum" as a logical fallacy looks like.
Damn roleplayers and there needing to spend 15 minutes per each of their turns espousing what their character is doing and having the longest, most pointless conversations with every NPC in earshot because, you know, being boring as hell and doing nothing related to anything is real roleplaying. Never mind spending 5 hours to create a character to get the perfect balance of "bland" down just to prove he isn't an optimizer.
Damn those other players, not giving us the 5 minutes per turn we need to consult our statistical flip-chart for hit-ratio vs damage output for a given AC taking into account crit threat range and crit multiplier to maximize our damage output, or the 5 hours it takes us to make a character while we figure out at exactly what level our skill ranks in Diplomacy and Bluff will offset our ability penalty from dropping to CHA 7! Can't they see that onerous arithmetic is the true meaning of D&D? Where's my large monkey-gripped spiked chain, I need to trip a b*tch.
Mr. Fishy laughed so hard bubbles came out.
Look I'm an optimizer and all but I thought previous power attack was kinda lame. Even in a game built entirely on math, it was still a bit too math-y.
I mean, you can have a game built on numbers and still go "Hah hah ok maths you are needlessly obtuse and dumb, you're gone."
I'm looking at you, THAC0.
Damn roleplayers and there needing to spend 15 minutes per each of their turns espousing what their character is doing and having the longest, most pointless conversations with every NPC in earshot because, you know, being boring as hell and doing nothing related to anything is real roleplaying. Never mind spending 5 hours to create a character to get the perfect balance of "bland" down just to prove he isn't an optimizer.
Dumped Charisma huh, put ranks in Diplomacy that helps.
One thing I dislike is that you still have to be evil to be an assassin. To me, I don't see how killing a kobold tribe for treasure is less evil than killing a person to be in an assassin's group. There isn't really a point to have an evil PrC when most parties are good.
It is because of the key idea, however thin line it is, that you are killing something intelligent for money and money alone. If there was no money you wouldn't even be considering things.
However the line is so thin I see your point.
I actually wouldn't mind PF PA if you could choose from the range instead of automatically upgrading your one choice.
That is what I am talking about.
One thing I dislike is that you still have to be evil to be an assassin. To me, I don't see how killing a kobold tribe for treasure is less evil than killing a person to be in an assassin's group. There isn't really a point to have an evil PrC when most parties are good.It is because of the key idea, however thin line it is, that you are killing something intelligent for money and money alone. If there was no money you wouldn't even be considering things.
However the line is so thin I see your point.
It'd be cool if they had more than just "We kill for money". They could have assassins range from the money grubbing mercenaries to the hashashin that killed for ideals and to protect their people. Both are assassins but for different reasons.
It'd be cool if they had more than just "We kill for money". They could have assassins range from the money grubbing mercenaries to the hashashin that killed for ideals and to protect their people. Both are assassins but for different reasons.One thing I dislike is that you still have to be evil to be an assassin. To me, I don't see how killing a kobold tribe for treasure is less evil than killing a person to be in an assassin's group. There isn't really a point to have an evil PrC when most parties are good.It is because of the key idea, however thin line it is, that you are killing something intelligent for money and money alone. If there was no money you wouldn't even be considering things.
However the line is so thin I see your point.
They might make a political assassin PrC at some point.
They might make a political assassin PrC at some point.It'd be cool if they had more than just "We kill for money". They could have assassins range from the money grubbing mercenaries to the hashashin that killed for ideals and to protect their people. Both are assassins but for different reasons.One thing I dislike is that you still have to be evil to be an assassin. To me, I don't see how killing a kobold tribe for treasure is less evil than killing a person to be in an assassin's group. There isn't really a point to have an evil PrC when most parties are good.It is because of the key idea, however thin line it is, that you are killing something intelligent for money and money alone. If there was no money you wouldn't even be considering things.
However the line is so thin I see your point.
Eh, I don't think there is a reason to. The mechanics to the assassin are great. All they have to do is remove that pesky alignment restriction (or make it any neutral) and it'd be perfect.
What dex did you have??? If you happen to have a very high dex, there is no reason not to use lighter armor if your dex needs it.Huh, did I miss something? Clerics without Full Plate aren't Clerics? o.OIncoming: The Much Anticipated Return of the Cleric Heavy Armor Proficiency Flamewar, or: how Paizo killed the class by stopping them from wearing Full Plate.
Film at eleven.
I had a cleric once I never dressed heavier than a chain shirt, even though she was proficient.
I suppose I ought to be executed now?
Ineptus, I find your questioning of the decision about the cleric in a chain shirt ... "ironic". Especially given your proclivity for playing skill-monkeys regardless of class. Reasons for the chain shirt are for the same reasons as several of your characters: better ability to climb, jump and swim; retaining full movement rate; minimizing encumbrance load; ease of enchantment (after getting a mithril shirt first, of course); ability to stay further back from the meat shields, especially at higher levels.
4 options vs. 20 options, vs non. I am not saying one should have a total slide option, like before, but being FORCED to take a -3 or -4 to attack vs. still taking a -1 on a hard to hit target is more reasonable.I just wish we had more options to make rather than all or nothing when it cam to using the feat.Whoever says that the "slider" Power Attack was cool obviously never had a player at the table who would break out a calculator and a spreadsheet before every attack in order to caluculate the most optimal hit-to-damage ratio at given condidtions.
Thanks heavens that's behind us.
Given that at higher levels more of the foes than not fall behind AC against attack bonuses, not being able to "dial" the PA is a good thing. Seeing as how several players I have had to deal with are hideously bad at arithmatic, it means that you only need two lines per melee weapon: normal, and PA. Since this goes both ways, it also means that the BBEGs cannot dial their PA in return once they guesstimate *your* AC.
Everyone has mentioned something I dislike- no game is perfect, but what I found most DISAPPOINTING about Pathfinder was the direct importing of Table 15-29: Estimating Magic Item Costs. That clunky magic item pricing table/system absolutely sucks. I totally hated it in 3.5, and finding it in my new Pathfinder book made my heart freeze.
Why do I hate it? It's difficult, everything is priced like every medieval monarch has an infinitely large portable hole filled with gold coins, and worst of all, if you bother building your own Broom of Flying, for example, you'll discover most of the items in the book don't follow the table- they are priced so much lower, it's as if the designers couldn't be bothered to follow their own rules.
Has anyone ever bothered to calculate how much 55,000 gold pieces WEIGH?! How the bloody `ell does the magic merchant even carry all that gold?
This game needs a completely revised magic item pricing system, scaled way back, to a more "realistic" medieval economy.
(Luckily, I have already created a viable alternative for my house rules, so I know it's possible to create a better system.)
So it's okay to talk like that about rollplayers but not role-players Mr Fishy?
Never said either was right. Just one was funnier. Defensive much?
The first and biggest mistake:
1. Making Pathfinder "3.5 compatible". This means that some of the biggest failings of that system can never be resolved in Pathfinder, no matter how much it gets "tweaked". Not only does the game wind up keeping a lot of 3.5's problems, but at the same time, Pathfinder is just different enough to where anything 'ported over from 3.5 feels unbalanced and/or underpowered.
Now, moving on...
2. Lack of innovation. The rules were cleaned up and in some cases simplified...but nothing in Pathfinder is truly new. I really haven't seen anything out of the game yet that hasn't been done in some other form (albeit not quite as effectively).
3. Magic still gets ridiculous at high levels. To me, an adventure game should be an adventure game, no matter how long you play it. 3.5 and Pathfinder eventually stop being an adventure at some point and become all about one-shotting everything. One of my friends plays in a high-level game where they have repeatedly (and permanently) turned dragons and demons into kittens. They barely fight anymore.
4. "Humanocentric." Yes, one of the game designers actually used the H-word on the forums (and yes, I do consider it a dirty word). Aren't we tired of Lord of the Rings yet? It's 20-freaking-10, and tons of people like playing exotic and/or bestial races. Deal with it.
5. Vancian spellcasting. Apparently, some people still like it. God knows why, but apparently they do. However, for the rest of us, how about a little less of it? In fact, how about a supplement that provides rules for making all spellcasters spontaneous (even partial ones like Paladins and Rangers), if people want to ditch Vancian from their game?
6. How about giving the Witch an attack? Why does she have no 0th-level damage spells? Why does she have no damaging hexes? I don't think it's cool to create a class that's hardlined almost 99% into a support-only role (and seriously, eliminate Slumber, it's broken).
7. For that matter, why do we have a dedicated "leader" class in the Cavalier? 3.5 toyed with ideas like these (which never ever got played), and 4E more or less hardlined them into the game. Pathfinder seems to be taking a few pages out of both bad ideas, which leads me to my next point:
8. If you make classes more flexible, you don't have to make as many classes. Some of the classes in Pathfinder are very customizable. Most of them really aren't, at least not to where having two of them in the party would feel sort of like two different classes. One of the worst things I've found in an RPG is to have multiple characters filling the same "effect roles".
Truth be told, Pathfinder isn't getting better as more books have come out. It's just more of the same, and I'm seriously thinking about dropping it if there isn't some real progress soon. I mean, I'm starting to see better and more interesting stuff from the 3rd party publishers than I am from Paizo, and that's just shameful.
9. Of course, it would also help if they put out more than one book every half a year.