Y'know I have no idea what the state of 3.5 is but I very rarely have seen Pathfinder and 3.5 together at the same table. Back when I was sold on the Beginner Box and decided to research the main game and how it was different from 3.5 I found threads on other forums doomsaying about Pathfinder since it started up until at least two years ago so I guess there are enough 3.5 players to keep that going at least.
Y'know I have no idea what the state of 3.5 is but I very rarely have seen Pathfinder and 3.5 together at the same table. Back when I was sold on the Beginner Box and decided to research the main game and how it was different from 3.5 I found threads on other forums doomsaying about Pathfinder since it started up until at least two years ago so I guess there are enough 3.5 players to keep that going at least.
You don't see 3.5 because Pathfinder's basically phased out 3.5; nothing phased out 2nd Ed because there wasn't a big-name alternative (although Castles & Crusades is basically D&D 2.99 in all honesty), and 3rd Ed was substantially-different system. 2nd sorta phased out 1st Ed, but there are enough differences between 1st and 2nd to be considered entirely-different in approach (especially where Psionics were concerned).
DMs trust Pathfinder to be much more balanced than 3.5 (3.5 had a handful of absurdly broken options outside of the PHB, while the majority of non-PHB options were pretty awful, with Prestige Classes running all over Kingdom-Come in terms of power). Along with this, Pathfinder Classes are universally more robust than their 3.5 counterparts.
The significantly-fewer number of hardbound books players need to play tons of races & classes in Pathfinder also helps dissuade both players and DMs from using 3.5 material: 32 Classes & 37 Races between 7 books in Pathfinder (the CRB, APG, UM, UC, ARG, ACG, and UE) vs 31 Classes & 23 Races between 14 books in 3.5 (PHB, PHBII, CAr, CAd, CWr, CDv, CCh, CSc, CMg, RWi, RDr, RSt, RDe, and MIC), and that wasn't even the tip of the iceberg of 3.5 material (just the comparable material - 3.5 had 20 more base classes spread out among other books, Greyhawk or otherwise). You also have stuff still coming out for Pathfinder, while 3.5 is a set-in-stone amount.
And then, of course, there's the whole fact that, combined with the above two aspects, you don't need to do any mental gymnastics (however minor or major they may be on a case-by-case basis) in order to convert things if you simply use Pathfinder-only stuff.
Basically, what's happened with 3.5 to Pathfinder is what happened from 3rd to 3.5 - players and DMs naturally just stopped using the older things due to power, available material, and immediate ease of use.
That's not to say there's NO holdouts who only use 3.5 stuff - there are, just like there are people who only use 3rd Ed stuff.
It's admittedly easier to keep a library of 3.5 or 3rd Ed stuff because no new material is coming out, so you know what is available and you don't need to worry about keeping up with new material ever.
Some people also don't like the power upgrades in 3.5 or Pathfinder, thinking they're "broken" (which is a little... odd, considering that the Cleric and Wizard are really no worse than their 3.5 versions, and the Druid is actually a might bit weaker).
But, when all is said and done, they're a very small minority compared to the groups who either mix 3.5 and Pathfinder, or just go straight Pathfinder.
Creative Director
|
Don't tell me you lost your draft copy...Yes, the amazing Tome of Battle and last but not least the mega adventure The Red Hand of Doom, which had one of the best plot twists I have seen in an adventure.Oooh! Oooh! What was the plot twist in question? :-P
I have no idea where it is. It's been 10 years since I wrote it though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea where it is. It's been 10 years since I wrote it though.Don't tell me you lost your draft copy...Yes, the amazing Tome of Battle and last but not least the mega adventure The Red Hand of Doom, which had one of the best plot twists I have seen in an adventure.Oooh! Oooh! What was the plot twist in question? :-P
Red Hand of Doom was such a discover for me. It prompted me to look further. THen I found the Shackled City hardcover and that led me to Paizo. So thanks!
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the amazing Tome of Battle and last but not least the mega adventure The Red Hand of Doom, which had one of the best plot twists I have seen in an adventure.Oooh! Oooh! What was the plot twist in question? :-PHi James,
During the D&D 3.0-3.5e era there was some wonderfully designed published adventures, Cooke's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Cordell's The Sunless Citadel and Logue's The Eyes of the Lich Queen. Exhibiting interesting ways of incorporating themes, breaking the Encounter Level mould, and providing thought provoking NPCs with Meepo being a pertinent example.
Yet myself and my long-running gaming group (25 yrs+) have never really experienced the explosive power of storytelling until you and Richard Baker wrote the famous adventure The Red Hand of Doom.
Spoiler:The plot twist in question is when the players discover Urikel Zarl's (aka the Ghostlord) phylactery in the ruins of Rhest.
I Gmed RHOD a couple of years ago, fleshing out and extending the adventure somewhat, providing 2 years of gameplay fighting hobgoblins and ogres before the players get to Rhest, where the literary bomb is dropped when they find out an ancient evil exists potentially more powerful than the Red Hand Horde.The plot twist's effect is amplified by the fact that the Ghostlord is a myth, a campfire story, an allegorical tale explaining a complex idea like corruption. Not taken seriously by anyone (except high-level casters and in RHOD there are very few), just viewed as a playful distraction from the harsher realities of ordinary medieval life. Such a thoughtful concept, that really connected with the players in my gaming group on a deeper level.
Lord Jarmaath of Brindol is neck deep in cut-throat politics and is pre-occupied with a looming war that is coming towards his city and doesn't believe the adventurers about this 'Ghostlord.' Granting real player empowerment as they have to face the Ghostlord alone, risk everything on a children's story about the bogeyman. Great writing James, absolutely loved it.
Wow! Thanks for the kind words! :-)
Y'know I have no idea what the state of 3.5 is but I very rarely have seen Pathfinder and 3.5 together at the same table. Back when I was sold on the Beginner Box and decided to research the main game and how it was different from 3.5 I found threads on other forums doomsaying about Pathfinder since it started up until at least two years ago so I guess there are enough 3.5 players to keep that going at least.You don't see 3.5 because Pathfinder's basically phased out 3.5; nothing phased out 2nd Ed because there wasn't a big-name alternative (although Castles & Crusades is basically D&D 2.99 in all honesty), and 3rd Ed was substantially-different system. 2nd sorta phased out 1st Ed, but there are enough differences between 1st and 2nd to be considered entirely-different in approach (especially where Psionics were concerned).
DMs trust Pathfinder to be much more balanced than 3.5 (3.5 had a handful of absurdly broken options outside of the PHB, while the majority of non-PHB options were pretty awful, with Prestige Classes running all over Kingdom-Come in terms of power). Along with this, Pathfinder Classes are universally more robust than their 3.5 counterparts.
Actually for the most part the mentioned anti-Pathfinder threads are mostly around Pathfinder rules being badly written and actually increasing the gap between casters and martials. One review document floating around made a big deal about how Power Attack was nerfed and that CMB/CMD made grappling worse.
Although the funny thing was that by the tail end of the threads (2012) there was a lot of discussion about Pathfinder games they're playing along with how Pathfinder will be dead in a year.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually for the most part the mentioned anti-Pathfinder threads are mostly around Pathfinder rules being badly written and actually increasing the gap between casters and martials. One review document floating around made a big deal about how Power Attack was nerfed and that CMB/CMD made grappling worse.
Although the funny thing was that by the tail end of the threads (2012) there was a lot of discussion about Pathfinder games they're playing along with how Pathfinder will be dead in a year.
Yeah, but there are always "these rules are badly written!" threads. People love to shout "THEY CHANGED IT, NOW IT SUCKS!"
I dare ANYONE who says PF rules are badly written to take one long look at 1st and 2nd Edition rules and not say the same damn thing, because if they say "no, they're fine," they are a blatant LIAR.
More to the point, the "Martial/Caster Disparity" thing is literally as old as the game. In some ways it wasn't AS bad in 1st and 2nd Ed, due to casters needing to regain spells on a spell-by-spell basis, and it could take literally DAYS to go from 0 spells to 40 at lv20. That being said, we're talking a difference of 100% Broken in 3.5 to 95% Broken in 1st and 2nd Ed. Casters were always walking gods if built properly.
Rather, the "Martial/Caster Disparity" is really a lot less of an issue in PF than in earlier editions - since the majority of Casters are actually 3/4 BAB, 6/9 spellcasters, most of the spellcasters you run into aren't absurdly more-powerful than martials. They may be SLIGHTLY more powerful on a class-by-class basis, but for the most part 6/9 spellcasters and full-BAB Martials are pretty balanced in power now.
Take the Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Oracle, Witch, Driud, Shaman, and Arcanist out of the equation (plus the original Summoner), and the remaining 22-23 classes are all pretty even in terms of overall power (also assuming you're counting Unchained Rogue in place of the Original Rogue, which you really should).
|
I have to disagree about the martial/Caster disparity being as old as the game. Having played every edition it truly stands out with 3E. In 2E Fighter had the best saves, could get a army by 9th level. More importantly where the only ones who could really specialize in weapons. Casters were still powerful yet also more fragile as well as one hit and your spells failed to go off.
I do agree about the way some of the rules were written in 2E. Then again I don't see how anyone can say that D&D is rules heavy. Even PF at most were talking rules medium. Sometimes one can't always play rules light rpgs and actually need to break a sweat and learn some rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree about the martial/Caster disparity being as old as the game. Having played every edition it truly stands out with 3E. In 2E Fighter had the best saves, could get a army by 9th level. More importantly where the only ones who could really specialize in weapons. Casters were still powerful yet also more fragile as well as one hit and your spells failed to go off.
I do agree about the way some of the rules were written in 2E. Then again I don't see how anyone can say that D&D is rules heavy. Even PF at most were talking rules medium. Sometimes one can't always play rules light rpgs and actually need to break a sweat and learn some rules.
True, and I agree overall. There was far more balance in 1e and perhaps even 2e in regards to caster/martial disparity.
However, I'd also say by lvl 20 (1e really was written more for the upper end of 12-18th level to tell the truth) and wish spells and the like, Casters were walking zones of destruction that no warrior could really match. A smart caster didn't have to cast spells that the Martial had saves against, which normally meant they could take out the martial at lvl 20 without the martial even being able to save...and from a Loooong distance (miles upon miles) to boot if they were clever enough about it.
Of course, up close a martial was a sizeable threat to the caster and could take them out rather easily as well.
That said, there was a major difference between now and then.
It's called rule 0 and rules lawyers. In previous editions the GM had far more power. It was taken for granted that the GM had the final say and could change rules as needed/desired to fit their game and balance.
The 3e rulebook even points this out and officially categorized rule 0.
Some try to claim that Gygax was all for rules and strict adherence, but this was only true for tournament games. If one ever wonders HOW any of the characters he ran homegames for survived....it was because Gygax was constantly bending the rules of the game (which is how some UA rules came to be, some AD&D rules came to be, and all sorts of other things).
Previously, when someone came and claimed RAW or RAI and insisted one had to adhere to it, they were typically shunned at large by everyone. Rules Lawyers were considered worse than just about any other player. They were worse then the munchkin and powergamer (sometimes combined), though half the time they were one and the same.
Now days, unlike then, it seems rules lawyers (and on these boards, occasionally the powergamers and their "builds") are held up on a pedestal.
Which is where you see the differences. It's not so much that there was not a caster/martial disparity, as much as the approach to the game (with rules and rules lawyers) has changed.
I don't think a future 2.0 or whatever has to be backwards compatable and going away from it could even be a massive hit (2E to 3.0 for example).
BUT.
The game still has to be recognisable as D&D/PF or whatever. This means BAB and fort/ref/will can stay along with things like vancian casting.
I think you oculd get away with rewriting the combat section of the book, feats, skills, magic items and reduce or eliminate things like magic mart and wans of cure light wounds.
Encounter guidelines might actually work in a world where wands of CLW either do not exist or can't be bought for cheap.
I bailed out of PF as a DM in 2012 and I think the last book/PDF I nought was Ultimate Campaign and I barely read it. The main reason was I was an early adopter of 3.0 and 12 years of 3.x just burnt me out. I went back to 2E and clones like Castles and Crusades/ACKs. I ifnd houseruling 2E more fun than trying to fix 3.x type games. Basically I dump THACO and use ascending ACs in 2E and dump some racial restrictions and level limits. The changes form AD&D to 3.0 I liked just without the 3.x mechanics.
So ended a 10 year history of buying Paizo product back to Dragon and Dungeon. I'm not really after adventures paths any more as I will never likely get around to playing the ones I already have and after Skull and Shackles none of them interested me. Something about shards, winter, demons and techno magic yawn.
I like Paizo as a company and I would buy a 4th version of 3.x rules but it would have to be a rewrite keeping things I liked about 3.x (the mechanics) while dumping the things I hated (complexity and math).
Make the game look like 3.x, use BECMI or 5E type numbers. Have buff spells be fixed and not scale would help and do not let them stack except for the most minor of effects. Most of the classic 3.x buff spells did not exist in AD&D or did not stack or only granted a +1 bonus (bless, prayer, magic weapon). No buff spell or combination of buff spells should grant more than a +2 or 3 bonus to dice rolls. .Star Wars Saga IMHO was the zenith of 3.x mechanics IMHO and even that game could use a tweak.
People who work for companies almost always have pre-defined opinions of how things should be handled, and will then take steps to prove the validity of their viewpoint to their co-workers and customers (to some extent).
...
At any rate, Tome of Battle is clearly an example of: "hey I think martials should have cool powers built into the class in the next edition, let's see how the market receives it in an experimental supplement".
Unchained is a pretty clear transitional work, where our collective response to experiments within will help Bulmahn, Seifter, Mona or whomever press their beliefs into the next iteration (whether it's called "Revised", "2E", etc). Things like "hey, look the community prefers multi-classing via feats versus the traditional 3.x era multi-classing, it looks like we can go that direction and not have to worry about balancing based on class dipping". Or things like "hey folks like the stamina pool, we can make that part of the core rules for martial characters".
...
I'd also suspect something else with regards to magic, although it could be Occult Adventures is the experiment here so it's not needed in a future supplement that follows Occult Adventures.
On some levels I completely agree with you and others I disagree with you. The basic idea of Unchained being a book to test ideas, I definitely agree with you but I believe you ascribing ideas of designers wanting to push ideas onto gamers more than is there. Having been a playtester for a number of games and having used books like Unchained for various other games (i.e. Pathfinder Alpha and Beta, 3.5's ToB: Bo9S, Exalted 1e's Player's Guide, Mongoose Traveller [hard to believe that was 8 years ago]), I'd sooner describe something like this as throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks. "If the fans like it, run with it. If not, well it was a good test."
To me OA doesn't feel like an experiment as much as giving fans of a certain style of play what they want, hitting some of the last few points before closing up PF1e. Like Magic of Incarnum, OA feels like a stand alone book that does not have much impact on the rest of the game, so if players/gm's want to skip it, they're not going to be behind. Having said that, I would not be surprised if an AP next year is about Vudra. (But that is pure speculation, I have no direct info on this one way or the other.)
If Paizo is going to do another test book, I'd expect it to be the spring 2016 hardcover. (Again, no direct info. Only speculation)
|
|
To be fair, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, (possibly) Magic of Incarnum, and Star Wars: Saga Edition were used by WotC back in the day to be testbeds for certain concepts of Fourth Edition.
Dale: Actually, I think Pathfinder Unchained's the experiment, and Occult Adventures is gonna be the "integrate into everything we can" release.
|
Star Wars: Saga Edition
Ah - the 'Jedi are top tier except that they die horribly to grenades' edition. :P
No one bothered actually shooting them - they just used TWF to chuck grenades at them since the lightsaber didn't help against them, and everyone else was hugging cover to get evasion and a bonus to reflex saves.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the only time I hear of a 'bleak' future for Pathfinder is on these forums.
I keep in touch with my old boss at the hobby shop I worked at, and he says PF is selling like crazy- beating 5th ed by miles.
At other local bookstores, you go in one day and a PF book is in stock, the next week, it's been sold, and the next week, they've restocked. That is pretty antidotal, but it says something.
Also, I don't know any players personally, who are talking like they are straining horribly with the rules, or feeling crushed under the weight of "bloat".
The sky is always falling online.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me OA doesn't feel like an experiment as much as giving fans of a certain style of play what they want, hitting some of the last few points before closing up PF1e.
I highly doubt OA is the beginning of the "last few points before closing up" Pathfinder's initial version.
Psychic stuff is something PF has kind of avoided thus far, possibly because it was such a broken, garbled mess of corner-case rules in 3.5 that they didn't want to touch it, and possibly because Dreamscarred Press pretty much jumped right on that idea as soon as the PFRPG was announced, meaning that for Paizo, it was kinda having their cake and eating it, too - fans could have their updated Psionics books if they wanted them, and yet Paizo didn't have to do the dirty work of making a broken sub-system into something functioning.
Occult Adventures is a chance to add in "Psychic" things and Lovecraftian urban-fantasy elements into the mix without actually redoing what Dreamscarred has done with Psionics - it's still in the same general motif, but taken in a gritier sorta way (Psionics feels polished like Marvel Comics; OA feels like The Shadow and 20s/30s occult-laden pulp-fiction).
There are still other areas they can pursue, though: ritual-based magic vs traditional casting, planar adventuring and/or space travel, other genres like Westerns, etc.
I could see:
Planar Adventures - duh
Multiverse Adventures - Parallel worlds, Deep Space, & Time. Now with free TARDIS
Dragon Adventures - You wanna play a dragon? You know you wanna play a dragon.
Frontier Adventures - Wild/Weird West stuff, maybe even Steampunk.
Exotic Adventures - climate & adventuring rules for Deserts, Jungles, Tundras, etc.
And those are just things I can think of off the top of my head that they can still explore as far as "Adventures" books go.
---
Also, this is a bi-annual thing.
Mythic Adventures came out in 2013; Occult Adventures is coming out in 2015.
Assuming Pathfinder keeps this trend up, even with just Planar Adventures, Multiverse Adventures, and Dragon Adventures, that's 6 more years (2017, 2019, and 2021) worth of stuff (obviously, this is all complete theory, and no-one outside of Paizo knows what exactly they're gonna do with the Adventures line next, if they'll do anything, really).
Other things that we'll probably see are a Bestiary 5, maybe Bestiary 6, a few more Codex books (PLEAAAAAAAASE Dragon Codex), more "variant options" books like the Ultimate Campaign & Pathfinder Unchained, and maybe even an "Ultimate Hybrids" which adds more hybrid classes to the mix and has even more rules for multiclassing or even official rules for gestalting/dual classing.
Adding onto chb's post there, I think a likely candidate for a next book might be something that expands on adventuring the way Ultimate Campaign expanded on downtime. Expanding on rules for environments (and adding lots more), more rules involving skill checks, revisiting exploration rules, etc.
They can expand pathfinder into something much bigger if they put their minds to it. I'd rather they keep going than shelving things and starting again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the only time I hear of a 'bleak' future for Pathfinder is on these forums.
I keep in touch with my old boss at the hobby shop I worked at, and he says PF is selling like crazy- beating 5th ed by miles.
At other local bookstores, you go in one day and a PF book is in stock, the next week, it's been sold, and the next week, they've restocked. That is pretty antidotal, but it says something.
Also, I don't know any players personally, who are talking like they are straining horribly with the rules, or feeling crushed under the weight of "bloat".
The sky is always falling online.
I've noticed this, too.
Reddit is where people go in droves to talk about Pathfinder and how much they love the game.
Giant in the Playgrounds is where people go to talk about Pathfinder and make some general observations & critiques of the system while explaining simple fixes or just saying "y'know, it's a little weird, but every game has it's oddities, and it's nowhere near the unbalanced mess that 3.5-proper was".
The official Pathfinder forums are where a surprisingly small percent of the playerbase goes to complain about every way that PF isn't their perfect game, declare that [X] book is BLOAT! & ruined Pathfinder FOREVER & proclaim that Pathfinder will be dead by the year's end, and go "OH EM GEEEEE!!! FIFTH EDITION!"
... It's really, really weird to see, honestly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm waiting for a solid genre book- additional tips and material for immersing PF into different style worlds.
Steampunk, an Ancient Greek styled setting, planar campaigns, the far east... and so on. All of these setting would favor some classes over others flavor wise, remove some entirely, and have plenty of room for all new ones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the only time I hear of a 'bleak' future for Pathfinder is on these forums.
I keep in touch with my old boss at the hobby shop I worked at, and he says PF is selling like crazy- beating 5th ed by miles.
At other local bookstores, you go in one day and a PF book is in stock, the next week, it's been sold, and the next week, they've restocked. That is pretty antidotal, but it says something.
Also, I don't know any players personally, who are talking like they are straining horribly with the rules, or feeling crushed under the weight of "bloat".
The sky is always falling online.
I've noticed this, too.
Reddit is where people go in droves to talk about Pathfinder and how much they love the game.
Giant in the Playgrounds is where people go to talk about Pathfinder and make some general observations & critiques of the system while explaining simple fixes or just saying "y'know, it's a little weird, but every game has it's oddities, and it's nowhere near the unbalanced mess that 3.5-proper was".
The official Pathfinder forums are where a surprisingly small percent of the playerbase goes to complain about every way that PF isn't their perfect game, declare that [X] book is BLOAT! & ruined Pathfinder FOREVER & proclaim that Pathfinder will be dead by the year's end, and go "OH EM GEEEEE!!! FIFTH EDITION!"
... It's really, really weird to see, honestly.
I always picture the comic shop owner on The Simpson's writing those over-the-top negative posts. "Worst book ever!"
Giant in the Playgrounds is where people go to talk about Pathfinder and make some general observations & critiques of the system while explaining simple fixes or just saying "y'know, it's a little weird, but every game has it's oddities, and it's nowhere near the unbalanced mess that 3.5-proper was".
Well, except Snowbluff :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Psychic stuff is something PF has kind of avoided thus far, possibly because it was such a broken, garbled mess of corner-case rules in 3.5 that they didn't want to touch it, and possibly because Dreamscarred Press pretty much jumped right on that idea as soon as the PFRPG was announced, meaning that for Paizo, it was kinda having their cake and eating it, too - fans could have their updated Psionics books if they wanted them, and yet Paizo didn't have to do the dirty work of making a broken sub-system into something functioning.
Woah Woah Woah.
3.5 Psionics was better balanced then everything before and after it except for Tome of Battle. Similarly, Dreamscarred Press did a wonderful job with Ultimate Psionics, which is also better balanced then every Pathfinder product before and after it (not hyperbole). The DSP Psychic Warrior is easily my pick for the best designed and balanced class.
3.5 Psionics was better balanced then everything before and after it except for Tome of Battle.
Idk, I've heard that Binder and their Vestiges were pretty balanced, except for the online vestiges. But 3.5e psionics had Complete Psionics and it's horrible lack of balance, so that even's it out abit.
That depends on what you're balancing them against. They were really stable but in my opinion tended to weigh a bit weak against the game overall. Psionics was better balanced in general.Idk, I've heard that Binder and their Vestiges were pretty balanced
3.5 Psionics was better balanced then everything before and after it except for Tome of Battle.
This, plus Tome of Magic had Shadowcaster which wasn't well balanced.
And we dare not speak of the other class, which is just... ugh.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That depends on what you're balancing them against. They were really stable but in my opinion tended to weigh a bit weak against the game overall. Psionics was better balanced in general.Idk, I've heard that Binder and their Vestiges were pretty balanced
3.5 Psionics was better balanced then everything before and after it except for Tome of Battle.This, plus Tome of Magic had Shadowcaster which wasn't well balanced.
And we dare not speak of the other class, which is just... ugh.
Hey.
The samurai as presented in Complete Warrior may have been a deranged lunatic who screams and charges and dual-wields his daisho, and he may have been a total disgrace and downgrade compared to the samurai from Oriental Adventures, but at least he's playable. That... thing we got as the third class in Tome of Magic was not playable.
Like, at all.
=p
Could you name this third class?
Uttering its name summons it from the blackest of abysses, with the fetid smell of a million rotting corpses and sound of a thousand screaming goats heralding its rise, to feast upon mind and flesh alike of every man, woman, child, and creature unfortunate enough to gaze upon it's horrid visage.
It is It That Shall Not Be Named.
So, no - we can't. You're free to look it up yourself; but whatever foul destiny befalls you from doing so will be of your own making.
I'm so increadibly happy with Unchained, that I hope it's the foundation of pathfinder 2.0 or 1.x or however you want to call it.
The new action economy, for example, is awesome. It brings a lot of compatibility isues with older content (like spellstrike or swashbucklers), but it really really really makes the game so much more dinamic for classes without that issue. So I'll guess that if they rebuild a game from scratch, *knowing* what the action economy will look like, they'll iron out all those glitches to begin with.
I'm pretty much going to use like 90% of Unchained. If they make a "unchained" PHB and "unchained" player guide/Class guide with unchained versions for all (or most) classes, I'd be happiest man in the world and would buy them in a heartbeat.
[Insert here YMMV and all kind of disclaimers]
Have we learned nothing from Harry Potter? To break his power, we must say Lord Voldemort's name proudly and loudly. Otherwise he has control over our actions and our fear will not end.
thaX, you can find information about the here.
And yes, it was the mostly poorly designed class Wizards published. It simply did not work. Mathematical models of the class actually proved that you had to roll higher than a 20 (before adding in modifiers) on a d20 to succeed at the class's basic functions once you got above a certain level.
Have we learned nothing from Harry Potter? To break his power, we must say Lord Voldemort's name proudly and loudly. Otherwise he has control over our actions and our fear will not end.
thaX, you can find information about the here.
And yes, it was the mostly poorly designed class Wizards published. It simply did not work. Mathematical models of the class actually proved that you had to roll higher than a 20 (before adding in modifiers) on a d20 to succeed at the class's basic functions once you got above a certain level.
You are one brave soul, cursed for an eternity for uttering the darkest and most dangerous word of power.
May Nethys the all seeing eye show you mercy.
Also mathematical analysis collected over a period of many years, shows that there is a 100% chance that the class that cannot be named will drive any GM into utter madness.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe, and this is the last I will say about this, that the Tome of Magic was actually released before the whole rush to get things out before the 4dventure folly, test market or not.
I think that it was trying to introduce some alternatives that were in line to what the Warlock had done in a previous release. It was... lackluster in that respect, even if Shadowcasters did get a following at some point.
As far as that one class whose true name I shall not repeat, it was universally ignored. I had one GM rip the pages that had it out of the book and had a ceremony with a back yard grill to burn them. (Pretty green flames!!)