| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you really so afraid that Paizo could do anything you don't like just for people like me stating our own preferences?
Pardon? I'm actually fine if Paizo does things I don't like, they do it all the time already. Even if they do something like make a second edition using mechanics I hate, that's fine. Since I have the luxury of being able to continue playing 3.P with Third-Party and my own homebrew long after Paizo moves on (I kept playing 3.5e for years before I even knew PFRPG was a thing).
But, that does not alter the fact that there are flaws in many arguments. When someone says something that is unrealistic in my opinion, I say so and provide reasoning for my disagreement. Simple as that.
When someone says something that is unrealistic in my opinion, I say so and provide reasoning for my disagreement. Simple as that.
Indeed, there's a lot of reading intent going on here...
Could the Pathfinder rules be tidied up? Sure.
Could that be done while maintaining backwards compatibility with published material, which is one of the stated reasons why Pathfinder has its own rulebook in the first place? Far more challenging.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, there's a lot of reading intent going on here...
Could the Pathfinder rules be tidied up? Sure.
Could that be done while maintaining backwards compatibility with published material, which is one of the stated reasons why Pathfinder has its own rulebook in the first place? Far more challenging.
One thing I do find interesting with PFRPG right now is that, they are trying to tidy up stuff without a second edition.
For example;
Could they do it without inventing a whole new raft of bugs that would have some people demand a third edition which radically changes things yet again?When someone says something that is unrealistic in my opinion, I say so and provide reasoning for my disagreement. Simple as that.Indeed, there's a lot of reading intent going on here...
Could the Pathfinder rules be tidied up? Sure.
Could that be done while maintaining backwards compatibility with published material, which is one of the stated reasons why Pathfinder has its own rulebook in the first place? Far more challenging.
*Compares various D&D editions*
My takeaway:
1. There will always be bugs.
2. So long as you're learning from past mistakes, the new bugs are lesser and less in number than the old. PF is itself proof of this.
|
But, that does not alter the fact that there are flaws in many arguments.
Well, then show me where are the flaws in mine. I already showed that WotC published such adventures, and the most successful RPG here in Germany does it (to a degree) all the time. So, it can be done, it has been done and it supports the opinion that rules aren't an defining integral part of an adventure. That Paizo prints a lot of rules in their adventures for a reason and probably never will do otherwise is no counterargument in any reasonable way. Because if they didn't publish the rules part with the adventures, those would still stay the same.
Could that be done while maintaining backwards compatibility with published material, which is one of the stated reasons why Pathfinder has its own rulebook in the first place? Far more challenging.
I think it depends on what you're trying to clean up.
Are you going to be able to turn fighters into a class that dwarfs wizards in terms of power? Probably not. But if you want to add the stamina pool from Pathfinder Unchained to fighters, that can be done without wrecking previous adventures. A 5th-level fighter in the old edition would still be about the same as a new 5th-level fighter; you'd just have to figure out what the character's stamina pool is when running it in a new game.
Indeed, there's a lot of reading intent going on here...
Could the Pathfinder rules be tidied up? Sure.
Could that be done while maintaining backwards compatibility with published material, which is one of the stated reasons why Pathfinder has its own rulebook in the first place? Far more challenging.
One thing I do find interesting with PFRPG right now is that, they are trying to tidy up stuff without a second edition.
For example;
Pathfinder unchained is a book that is 99% attempts to fix bugs in the system.
Occult adventures fixed and revised the possession rules.
Horror adventures having revised mechanics for insanity.
Horror adventures having alternate rules for vampires and werewolves.
Another way to look at it is the possibility that the developers are experimenting with what would work in a new edition...which would be a good idea, in my opinion. It's a lot easier to put out a new monk and see how people like it as opposed to radically changing the monk in a new edition and hoping it doesn't become one of the big complaints of the new edition.
Well, then show me where are the flaws in mine. I already showed that WotC published such adventures, and the most successful RPG here in Germany does it (to a degree) all the time. So, it can be done, it has been done and it supports the opinion that rules aren't an defining integral part of an adventure. That Paizo prints a lot of rules in their adventures for a reason and probably never will do otherwise is no counterargument in any reasonable way. Because if they didn't publish the rules part with the adventures, those would still stay the same.
To an extent "You can convert any RPG to any other". But, that doesn't mean such a conversion will work. Different systems have rules for different things, because different thematics and mechanics lead to other mechanical chooses when it comes to designing a game. For example, something as simple as a healing surge system, can cause to an adventure being harder to convert to 3.P because 3.P assumes a certain number of encounters per adventuring day. The more different the mechanics, the more hiccups and the more preparation that will be required for a GM to do before play converting and balancing the homebrew content and trying to get mechanics to work in a game with completely different design assumptions and themes.
If there are no rules at all in the adventures, then the person has to even homebrew from scratch. In which case they may as well be a person trying to convert lord of the rings or transformers to PF.
Another way to look at it is the possibility that the developers are experimenting with what would work in a new edition...which would be a good idea, in my opinion. It's a lot easier to put out a new monk and see how people like it as opposed to radically changing the monk in a new edition and hoping it doesn't become one of the big complaints of the new edition.
I'm relatively sure that when comments like that came out about Unchained, the dev's were quick to say that isn't true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't like a new edition.
I would ADORE a cleaned up edition. Kinda like Unchained.
A "Core rulebook MK II" that buffs and debuffs feats, spells, classess and other stuff. Core rules that make two weapon fighting more viable, double weapons marginally useful, new methods to move and full attack (im the the small group that full attacking and multiple attacks are fine, but that we need more ways to close distance without costing an important action).
A new feat line that makes fighting one handed less bad. An offensive-Defensive re-balance, damage can get a little too high sometimes and non-AC stats are a little to hard to acquire.
More ways to implement and use stamina pool. Non-multiclass methods for non-casters to gain limited spellcasting.
Yeah, I would love those.
|
|
To an extent "You can convert any RPG to any other". But, that doesn't mean such a conversion will work.
I'm talking about using Pathfinder adventures in other rpg systems, though. And as you said yourself, you can do this from scratch. I'm the first to admit that it is much more work to do this for 4E or 5E than it would be for 3.5 (depending on how lazy you are, you don't need to change anything for 3.5). But no matter what, if done right, such a conversion WILL work. And the adventure will still be the same.
If you want to do this work or if you have the time to do so, is another question. But given that a new edition of PFRPG most probably won't try to reinvent the wheel 4E-style, to say that this would invalidate all the old APs is as wrong as to say the same about PFRPG and the 3.5 APs. And would still be wrong even if PF 2.0 would take a step away from the backwards compatibility dogma.
A fighter is only as good as the weapons and armor it carries, basically. The arhcetypes give it more depth, sure, but at the cost of the removal of other abilities. If you could layer an archetype ON TOP on the standard class, that would be more interesting.This was straight on top... and it wasn't an archetype. This was homebrew I made to straight buff fighters. Were you thinking of something else?
I... actually was talking about the class in general, without going into homebrewed stuff. I haven't seen your work.
Sure, everyone can "fix the fighter", but I'd like Paizo to do it in a way that doesn't make generic...
Which person said they would have a big problem with a 3.5 to pathfinder style revision? Most I see just don't want a radical change that renders their past material paperweights.
Yeah, 3.5 forced me to rebuy all books :(
I wouldn't like a new edition.
I would ADORE a cleaned up edition. Kinda like Unchained.
A "Core rulebook MK II" that buffs and debuffs feats, spells, classess and other stuff. Core rules that make two weapon fighting more viable, double weapons marginally useful, new methods to move and full attack (im the the small group that full attacking and multiple attacks are fine, but that we need more ways to close distance without costing an important action).
A new feat line that makes fighting one handed less bad. An offensive-Defensive re-balance, damage can get a little too high sometimes and non-AC stats are a little to hard to acquire.
More ways to implement and use stamina pool. Non-multiclass methods for non-casters to gain limited spellcasting.Yeah, I would love those.
I'd like an Unchained version of the feats, basically merging all similar feats into ONE single feat that scales according to your levels and meeting the prerequisites.
Have TWF, ITWF and GTWF merged into a single feat. Seriously, once I start using TWF, why WOULDN'T I pick the upgrades?
I... actually was talking about the class in general, without going into homebrewed stuff. I haven't seen your work.
Sure, everyone can "fix the fighter", but I'd like Paizo to do it in a way that doesn't make generic...
I was specifically asking you a question... which you responded to... with a response that made no sense with the question.
I was specifically asking you a question... which you responded to... with a response that made no sense with the question.I... actually was talking about the class in general, without going into homebrewed stuff. I haven't seen your work.
Sure, everyone can "fix the fighter", but I'd like Paizo to do it in a way that doesn't make generic...
Question, what is your view on Material Unlocks in the vein of skill unlocks of the unchained rogue except with the idea of "Allow you to use a special material to do something supernatural without it making players feel like the fighter is the supernatural one" it had things like adamantine cutting spells, planar boundaries, and time, while someone wearing angelskin armour could actually take on angelic traits eventually?
Well, guess I got a natural 20 on my Acrobatics check, because I dodged the question without even noticing XDDD
I have never heard of Material Unlocks before now. Is there a link to the rules that you can provide?
I have never heard of Material Unlocks before now. Is there a link to the rules that you can provide?
I can, but it's homebrew on another site and stuff. But it was more simply wondering about the concept since you were saying how the fighter class being so tied into it's gear when it comes to class features is a negative, and this "fix concept" increases that tied to gear further.
I have never heard of Material Unlocks before now. Is there a link to the rules that you can provide?I can, but it's homebrew on another site and stuff. But it was more simply wondering about the concept since you were saying how the fighter class being so tied into it's gear when it comes to class features is a negative, and this "fix concept" increases that tied to gear further.
Oh I see now... I think :P
To me, it still doesn't solve the problem. Sure, your gear may improve alongside you, but... lose the gear and you lose the feature. Furthermore, tying it to a special material can limit your weapon or armor choice. Finally, the fighter depends more on its gear than other classes, more than an arcane bond or a sacred weapon.
Doesn't matter if your gear stronger, the other classes' gear gets stronger as well.
The fighter doesn't need better gear, it needs better use with the gear.
Anyway, my advice for wanting a new edition, is go try another game. Fantasy Age, 13th Age, and D&D 5 all try different things and are worth looking at. Or if you want to go further afield Earthdawn 4E is looking pretty good. Paizo is going to keep publishing Pathfinder 1 for a long, long time.This suggestion is kind of poisoned though. At the moment, what binds me most to Paizo as a customer is that I like their system, their setting and their adventures good enough to use them excessively for my own games.
Now I could change the system (I really like 13th Age, for example) while still using their setting and their adventures. There may come a time though (and probably soon will) when I start playing in my (new) homebrewed setting using my own adventures. If I don't use Pathfinder rules at this point of time, that means that they'll basically lose me as a customer. Being a single person, that may not mean much, but as I like to give my money to them, I think I should probably tell them how to avoid this beforehand. What they do with this information, is up to them, of course.
I'm not here for the system. I'm tired of the d20 system, and Pathfinder didn't do enough to fix the fundamental flaws. I'm here for the adventure paths.
My advice was to people who didn't want Pathfinder 2.0 to be just a mildly revised and consolidated edition. If you are truly looking for a game that will make fundamental changes, you need to look elsewhere. Paizo's primary customer base makes it unlikely to do any major changes.
If you want a Pathfinder 2.0 that is more like Pathfinder Unchained, then stick with it. Paizo will continue to serve your needs.
I for one still manage to keep giving them money. I'm planning on running Iron Gods using Fantasy Age soon, so I just ordered all the Iron Gods extras I didn't previously own (pawns and item cards). At this point my core RPG subscription is just inertia, I haven't been particularly interested in a new rulebook since Mythic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main reason for a new/revised/2nd edition for Pathfinder won't be because of bloat or sales. It is my contention that it will be because of competition and the need to update and modernized the ruleset to compete against those that have already move beyond what the current ruleset has.
Vancian casting getting the axe (or the 5th edition treatment), feats re-envisioned to work a lot of current stock into class features, each class having x pools to work with (grit, panche, arcane, mana, ect), mirror classes (Vancian vs. Spontaneous casters and such) getting other features/powers to set themselves apart.
When (not if) a new version of PF does get done, it should be the best system of rules that is out there while expanding on the setting it supports.
Backwards compatible? That would tether the ruleset to a lower standard.
Make it shine, have the PFS Scenarios re-released with the new rules, provide hardbacks of past AP's with the re-works and come out with a kick arse PFS season that sees a PFS character (contest won) that becomes a GOD.
Why do just a clean up job?
Oh, PFS is another reason I don't think Paizo will be doing a new edition any time soon since a second edition would ridiculously screw over PFS players.
|
|
Fallacious assumption that newer is objectively better instead of just different.
Yeah, but on the other hand, that you can do some things much better than 3.X did and Pathfinder still does , has already been well established.
The real problem is that objectively better doesn't necessarily translate to better sales numbers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be a dingus, but about half of that real problem is that better has no objective standard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be a dingus, but about half of that real problem is that better has no objective standard.
Agreed, you will have qualify what's better in which respect. For example, I think it's save to say that classes in 4E are objectively better balanced than their PF counterparts. That doesn't make 4E the objectively better system though.
edit: and just not to cause the next edition war: On the other hand, it's also safe to say that PF is better than 4E when it comes down to backwards compatibility. Again, that doesn't make PF the objectively better system though.
Not to be a dingus, but about half of that real problem is that better has no objective standard.Agreed, you will have qualify what's better in which respect. For example, I think it's save to say that classes in 4E are objectively better balanced than their PF counterparts. That doesn't make 4E the objectively better system though.
edit: and just not to cause the next edition war: On the other hand, it's also safe to say that PF is better than 4E when it comes down to backwards compatibility. Again, that doesn't make PF the objectively better system though.
Nice try, but one half hour after your post, the first shot in the next edition war was fired. At this point, there had been so many edition wars on so many fronts that Imperial historians started using the term "Nth Edition War." :P
And those some thing you improve will likely make some other things work worse from many people's perspective. When you are talking a game, mechanics are not perfectible except in a micro sense.Fallacious assumption that newer is objectively better instead of just different.Yeah, but on the other hand, that you can do some things much better than 3.X did and Pathfinder still does , has already been well established.
The real problem is that objectively better doesn't necessarily translate to better sales numbers.
Nothing is perfect because nothing like perfect exists. Should we all take our iphones and throw them out in favor of rotary phones?
Never change anything and leave certain core things the same are completely different animals.
False Dichotomy.
You see them as different animals, but on the spectrum of things they are pretty close together compared to "fix fundamental flaws in the system".
The boards can't even decide if there is a problem with fighters/rogues/monks, but having just wrapped Wrath of the Righteous with a Fighter, I can say my character, while potent compared to low level mortals, was basically just a spectator while the sorcerer practically solo'd the last two books.
I do find it odd how few people in this thread are RPG subscribers.
Yes, because liking the existing rules of a game is reasonably equivalent to wanting to ban all technology after 1927. Defining the way you want a game to work as objective progress and anyone who likes it the way it is as rotary-phone luddites is just the spirit of badwrongfun taken to a systemic level.Nothing is perfect because nothing like perfect exists. Should we all take our iphones and throw them out in favor of rotary phones?And those some thing you improve will likely make some other things work worse from many people's perspective. When you are talking a game, mechanics are not perfectible except in a micro sense.Fallacious assumption that newer is objectively better instead of just different.Yeah, but on the other hand, that you can do some things much better than 3.X did and Pathfinder still does , has already been well established.
The real problem is that objectively better doesn't necessarily translate to better sales numbers.
No, but given the general fail at math trend in the 'Luddite' arena, I don't take their preferred rotary methodology very seriously.
Just to be serious for a second, I think that mostly, we are running into generation gaps frequently in these discussions. I would say the trend towards old players has something to do with the conservative nature of the tabletop gaming niche. It's a worry though because, in the long run, it will only end up hurting us as our hobby slowly dies off with the player base because we alienate and belittle younger generations. I mean, how frequently do people trash talk about mmo Gamers and the like? I hope we don't end up killing what we love with overly toxic attacks against people who like equity.
Edit: first paragraph is a joke.
Never change anything and leave certain core things the same are completely different animals.
False Dichotomy.
You see them as different animals, but on the spectrum of things they are pretty close together compared to "fix fundamental flaws in the system".
The boards can't even decide if there is a problem with fighters/rogues/monks, but having just wrapped Wrath of the Righteous with a Fighter, I can say my character, while potent compared to low level mortals, was basically just a spectator while the sorcerer practically solo'd the last two books.
I do find it odd how few people in this thread are RPG subscribers.
Which has nothing to do with this? Whether or not you choose to support your friendly local game store, buy things online cheaper, or directly from Paizo has little to do with how you feel about the game or how strongly.
This is why Pathfinder will never substantially change. It's core fanbase is the never change anything group.
Or .. the core fan base didn't care for what was being offered at the time and chose to stay with what they liked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To an extent "You can convert any RPG to any other". But, that doesn't mean such a conversion will work.I'm talking about using Pathfinder adventures in other rpg systems, though. And as you said yourself, you can do this from scratch. I'm the first to admit that it is much more work to do this for 4E or 5E than it would be for 3.5 (depending on how lazy you are, you don't need to change anything for 3.5). But no matter what, if done right, such a conversion WILL work. And the adventure will still be the same.
No it wont. I forget the exact numbers, but a while ago someone put together a stat for the number of goblins a 1st level fighter could kill on average if they come 1 at a time by edition. 1st and second edition it was somewhere between 1 and 2. In 3rd it increased to over 2 and 3.5 went up a little more. Pathfinder increased to just over 3. In 4th it was over 20. The numbers rebalancing completely changes the type of story an encounter is.
I don't know if its time for a new edition of Pathfinder but I'm starting to feel like the newer classes have left me feeling rather cold about the current direction of PF. Furthermore in running my Mummy's Mask game I'm finding a party with a Warpreist, Psychic, Summoner, Kineticist, Magus, and Sorceror have completely overwhelmed the encounters as written and now require extensive rewrites on my part to attempt to create a challenge. So far I'm unsuccessful. On top of that I find myself having to extensive research inbetween games to try to understand what all these feats and abilities do across so many sources. Needless to say, I am now struggling to find enjoyment in this game.
I do find it odd how few people in this thread are RPG subscribers.Which has nothing to do with this? Whether or not you choose to support your friendly local game store, buy things online cheaper, or directly from Paizo has little to do with how you feel about the game or how strongly.
True, but when I see a subscriber tag I know they are all in. If I don't, I have no idea how much they spend on Paizo products.
This is why Pathfinder will never substantially change. It's core fanbase is the never change anything group.Or .. the core fan base didn't care for what was being offered at the time and chose to stay with what they liked.
If nothing in the past 15 years has come out that they have liked, it is unlikely that anything new will entice them to look for fundamental changes now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, but when I see a subscriber tag I know they are all in. If I don't, I have no idea how much they spend on Paizo products.I do find it odd how few people in this thread are RPG subscribers.Which has nothing to do with this? Whether or not you choose to support your friendly local game store, buy things online cheaper, or directly from Paizo has little to do with how you feel about the game or how strongly.
Yes, you don't know. It's that old saying about assuming, eh?
If nothing in the past 15 years has come out that they have liked, it is unlikely that anything new will entice them to look for fundamental changes now.This is why Pathfinder will never substantially change. It's core fanbase is the never change anything group.Or .. the core fan base didn't care for what was being offered at the time and chose to stay with what they liked.
Or they are happy with this system after having looked at the others? I mean, you just said
I'm not here for the system. I'm tired of the d20 system, and Pathfinder didn't do enough to fix the fundamental flaws. I'm here for the adventure paths.
Just because you aren't happy and have gone elsewhere doesn't mean that other people are somehow mired in the past because they don't share your beliefs about the system. I didn't care for the latest few editions from WOTC for various reasons. I don't see any need to spend money to support a system I don't like. It's not a matter of "never change anything"; rather, it's sticking with the particular edition that you prefer.
When Shadowrun made massive changes, I stepped away from them. Not because I was afraid of change or just couldn't change, but rather because I did't care for the way the game and system went. Same with HERO. I've heard countless stories of that with Vampire: The Whatevering and their associated books.
Now, there are third party products that have come out that I'm all over. I think that qualifies as something new in the last 15 years. But just because the newest shiny comes out doesn't mean everyone has to jump on board. Your mileage may vary. Play what you like, but don't assume other people are <insert negative here> because they didn't change games with you.
I'm not here for the system. I'm tired of the d20 system, and Pathfinder didn't do enough to fix the fundamental flaws. I'm here for the adventure paths.
That is one of the big difference on the two positions.
I'm in it for the system and I don't use adventure paths. So major changes to system would kill my interest in it; I don't want all the books I've bough over the years (Paizo or 3PP) to become invalidated.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do find it odd how few people in this thread are RPG subscribers.
I'm a former charter subscriber who had to drop those subscriptions for financial reasons. Now I'm only waiting for after the end of Evil AP to resubscribe. In the meantime I also started to spend quite some bucks on 3PP material and other systems which makes subscriptions less worthwhile because a subscription may mean that you spend money for products you don't especially like instead of other material you'd probably prefer more.
So at the moment, I'm buying the APs (probably will buy the Evil AP as well, but I'm not sure enough about that to resubscribe immediately, I'm buying the ruleboks and other stuff depending on how interested I'm in.
Still don't know exactly what that has to do with the topic at hand. Only in so far as a new edition would probably made me spending more money on Paizo stuff.
I mean, how frequently do people trash talk about mmo Gamers and the like?
I agree with the sentiment, though back at the 4E war it irritated the hell out of me that if I compared 4E with MMOs people immediately thought that there was an offense implied. Because at that time, I probably spent more time with MMOs than with tabletop RPGs and still don't think that it was wrong to try to cater to the MMO crowd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, there are third party products that have come out that I'm all over. I think that qualifies as something new in the last 15 years. But just because the newest shiny comes out doesn't mean everyone has to jump on board. Your mileage may vary. Play what you like, but don't assume other people are <insert negative here> because they didn't change games with you.
I didn't say liking Pathfinder was bad. That's not what I'm arguing about at all.
There's three major answers to the "Does Pathfinder need a 2.0" question.
Option 1: No, you like Pathfinder just fine the way it is.
Option 2: Yes, it needs a revised Core that brings it more in line with the errata and expanded material now out.
Option 3: Yes, it needs to fix fundemental flaws inherent in the base system, such as the martial caster disparity.
I'm arguing that if you are in camp 1 or 2, you will be fine. The majority of the Pathfinder fans don't want major changes, and Paizo is unlikely to release a radically different Pathfinder 2.0.
If on the other hand you want Option 3, you are going to need to look for a different game system. And there are already several that might meet your needs.
Now, there are third party products that have come out that I'm all over. I think that qualifies as something new in the last 15 years. But just because the newest shiny comes out doesn't mean everyone has to jump on board. Your mileage may vary. Play what you like, but don't assume other people are <insert negative here> because they didn't change games with you.I didn't say liking Pathfinder was bad. That's not what I'm arguing about at all.
There's three major answers to the "Does Pathfinder need a 2.0" question.
Option 1: No, you like Pathfinder just fine the way it is.
Option 2: Yes, it needs a revised Core that brings it more in line with the errata and expanded material now out.
Option 3: Yes, it needs to fix fundemental flaws inherent in the base system, such as the martial caster disparity.
I'm arguing that if you are in camp 1 or 2, you will be fine. The majority of the Pathfinder fans don't want major changes, and Paizo is unlikely to release a radically different Pathfinder 2.0.
If on the other hand you want Option 3, you are going to need to look for a different game system. And there are already several that might meet your needs.
Alternately, you can join in the conversation on the varied caster/martial threads and look to see what changes are being introduced. Sure, they don't have that little PAIZO sticker on them, but many of them work. Or you can look into the myriad of 3PP that address the problem.
The disparity isn't unique to Pathfinder's system and has been spotted since I was a wee little gamer nearly forty years ago and up to this day. Changing systems isn't always the answer. Sometimes you can fix the system you are in; maybe just in homebrew, maybe the designers fix the system in a way you like. But tossing the whole thing out isn't necessary.
Heck, I can remember in the 2E(THAC0000000000!) days, having my 6th level thief thief watch the Invisible 5th-level mage scale a wall via Spider Climb and Wraithform past a locked door and go, "why am I even here?"
Alternately, you can join in the conversation on the varied caster/martial threads and look to see what changes are being introduced. Sure, they don't have that little PAIZO sticker on them, but many of them work. Or you can look into the myriad of 3PP that address the problem.
The disparity isn't unique to Pathfinder's system and has been spotted since I was a wee little gamer nearly forty years ago and up to this day. Changing systems isn't always the answer. Sometimes you can fix the system you are in; maybe just in homebrew, maybe the designers fix the system in a way you like. But tossing the whole thing out isn't necessary.
I have paid attention to the martial/caster threads. I get tired of reading the same thing over and over. I've also offered my suggestions on how to homebrew things. I ran a Pathfinder campaign from 1-20, and incorporated things from the Complete Book of Experimental Might (which is really a great book and apparently a steal right now) to help martials out. I'd look at adapting classes from Iron Heroes to help things out.
But I'm tired of fighting the system, so my next campaign is going to be Iron Heroes using the Fantasy Age rules. It's a lot less work to adapt in the things my players are interested in playing than to make a giant homebrew document for Pathfinder. If that doesn't satisfy I'll try something out.
I'll keep an eye on Pathfinder developments, and could come back if my prediction is wrong and there are major changes in PF2. Meanwhile, I'll still subscribe to the APs and the campaign setting line.
Edit: I will also note my last campaign was Kingmaker using Dungeon Crawl Classics. While it was fun, the caster/martial disparity is even bigger and becomes more prominent earlier. The variable results from casting checks is awesome, but there's little reason to play anything besides a cleric, wizard, or elf.
Could they do it without inventing a whole new raft of bugs that would have some people demand a third edition which radically changes things yet again?When someone says something that is unrealistic in my opinion, I say so and provide reasoning for my disagreement. Simple as that.Indeed, there's a lot of reading intent going on here...
Could the Pathfinder rules be tidied up? Sure.
Could that be done while maintaining backwards compatibility with published material, which is one of the stated reasons why Pathfinder has its own rulebook in the first place? Far more challenging.
*Compares various D&D editions*
My takeaway:
1. There will always be bugs.
2. So long as you're learning from past mistakes, the new bugs are lesser and less in number than the old. PF is itself proof of this.*Looks at fifth edition with bugs that make 1st edition look goods*
*shakes head*
Nope. . .3.5 had by far the least bugs of any edition of D&D ever released. 4th edition was a massive step backwards and 5th editions bounded accuracy means that inherently, at its very heart the system is a bug.
Your response looks a lot like flamebait in the form of brash opinion stated as fact...but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you simply forgot to add "IMO."
That said, two questions spring to mind:
1. Which factors do you think led to 3.5 being the least buggy edition, including PF?
2. Do you primarily play 3.5? Why or why not?