Live Stream Notes with 1.6 previews


General Discussion

151 to 181 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Ediwir wrote:

SO WHO’S EXCITED FOR MONK POWERS???

Seriously tho this was just me jotting down some notes on the stream. There’s plenty to talk about, and there hasn’t been a single alignment paladin since 2004’s Unearthed Arcana, so can we please move on after almost 15 years?

Now, the stream hinted at making Ki Strike ‘feel powerful’ and we already know powers are in for a general boost with the Focus mechanic, so what’s everyone thinking? A damage boost feels a bit flat, maybe some sort of conditional effect?

Unfounded speculation here, but I'd assume a ki strike would do more damage and be more accurate than a normal one. So, maybe it raises or adds a damage die on top of an attack bonus. If focus is introduced in 1.6, then it probably plays with that so monks don't need charisma.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand the upset. A "Holy Warrior" class that is Paladin when LG, Redeemer when NG, and Liberator when LG seems pretty much in line with past class options. We had this in 3.5. The only revolutionary aspect of this change is that it's supported in core.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
The Archive wrote:
Of course though, whatever they do decide to do with paladin alignment-wise, that doesn't really matter if the class chassis itself isn't getting an overhaul.

Yeah. I've got to say, the reveal that the big, huge, bestest change was just opening paladins to any good was incredibly disappointing. I'm really hoping they're burying the lead and there is some actual functional improvement to make the paladin a paladin. But the fact that they're calling the LG version the Defender makes it sound like they're keeping the horrible idea that paladins are all about defense. Or even worse, tying each alignment to a specific arbitrary combat style.

It's not that I don't like the alignment change. I actually like the idea of paladins being Any Good and anti-paladins any evil. Neutral paladins is still a bit of a bridge too far to me. Although there is room for Hellknights for any lawful and maybe some similar any chaotic thing, but those are getting further from paladins. But the core of the class is in much bigger need of change than alignment options. And from the brief description, it sounds like they're making these sub-versions all have specific narrow focuses, limiting choice and options. Why would a NG paladin have to be about redemption? Why does LG have to be about defense? It just sounds arbitrary and unnecessarily limiting, which is one of the biggest problems that Paladin has currently, so it's just making it worse.

But then again, I haven't seen the actual update, so maybe there's actual improvements to the class. But based on what's been talked about, I'm not holding my breath.

The titles of the subclasses seem related to Torag for LG, Sarenrae for NG and maybe Cayden Cailean or Milani for CG

I do not think they are limiting the kind of Paladin people can play beyond what the alignment states


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In hindsight, I'm not really sure I'm going to like the whole "subclass" thing. It sounds more like a shoehorning than anything. This means generalists are no longer possible (except Wizards, but that's besides the point), and it most likely also means that classes who attempt to snag abilities or feats outside of their chosen subclass (read: niche) are going to be penalized for not instead furthering their chosen subclass. The Druid Orders were a precursor to this. I'd have no reason to select something along the lines of a Druid Animal Companion or Wildshape options if I could instead select something that instead furthers my chosen Storm Druid specialization outside of RP purposes.

And Paladins being removed from the game in exchange for alignment subclasses of their own, I suppose was to be expected for testing and conceptual purposes, but I'm almost certain the amount of "purists" that occupy these boards will be long gone and make these forums much more quiet, and by relation have much less of a playtest pool to work with. (I've already seen a dozen posts that made these claims that were once avid posters of this forum, so we'll see if they truly did give up on the game in time.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
I don't understand the upset. A "Holy Warrior" class that is Paladin when LG, Redeemer when NG, and Liberator when LG seems pretty much in line with past class options. We had this in 3.5. The only revolutionary aspect of this change is that it's supported in core.

Every time it was done previously, these had different features and many people actually enjoyed the paladin variants more when the powers were markedly different from the classic Paladin. As others have stated if it is only a different name and alignment on basically the same chassis, it is underwhelming. Many people want say a CG paladin that has its own identity and is not a copy of the LG one

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:

The things that makes me hate the paladin as LG only is that I have to ban it in every single campain where the rest of that party isn't LG. That is because I like to give players meaningfull choices on witch direction to take in the campaign, and even witch of multiple faction to join. With a paladin in there, it's either his way or the highway. The third option would be havin a party with one of the pc being a high level commoner.

LG paladins work for a cliche filled AP on railoads, non for anything where meaningfull choices are presented, because those choice for a paladin where already made on character creation.

Really it depends on the player and not the Class. I have seen Rogues played as the worst possible obnoxious and stupid would-be burglars and con-men who get the whole party in jail because of their shenanigans. I have seen Barbarians played as zero-INT and WIS trigger-happy brutes who will charge rather than have to think or wait, completely destroying any possible subtle plan the other players might have preferred.

And obviously all of this under the guise of "acting in character", aka My Class made me do it.

But even for the paladin, I do not think LG has anything to do with it. Really, whatever the alignment, the mere concept of holy warrior devoted to following a strict code of conduct opens the way for this kind of abuse

(Bolding mine) *Nods*

Yep, because the specific kind of Sword of Damocles ("any good plus Code of Conduct" passes while "LG plus Code of Conduct" is a step too far) looming over the player's head isn't the problem so much as having a Sword of Damocles of any kind at all (you know, beyond the whole "don't be a jerk to the other people at the table" and "be a participant in the adventure" that every player should follow, independent of class). The 3.5 Tome of Battle Crusader had no Code of Conduct and his only restriction was "can't be TN". And that was too much. That's why, while I'm...

And yet I honestly think that having holy warriors devoted to following a strict code of conduct brings a whole lot to the game


This update sounds interesting! I like the subclass option for (I guess now) every class. This is close to what archetypes were in PF1 and its open for future content. Sounds nice.

Also yay for Holy Champions of more alignments!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I think with that level of fanaticism you should seriously consider stepping back from role-play or at least D&D inspired ones and maybe try some other hobbies for awhile. There is to much obsession behind your words and its not healthy. I

Well, that's just marvellous, really, really fantastic stuff, I mean, with that approach, it's sure to help the situation, people's views and what-not, all very positive and constructive...

As for the topic at hand; non-LG paladins have a bit of legacy:

-1st Ed AD&D, you have the Anti-Paladin (Githyanki), and there is a Dragon article with paladins of all the alignments ("A Plethora of Paladins").
-2nd Ed AD&D, there is the Speciality Priest of Horus, which is a CG Paladin.
-3rd Ed, you have Paladins of the extreme alignments in UA.
-4th Ed, went for whatever.
-5th Ed, is sort of vague, yet implied, and as usual, seems to encourage deciding for your table/world. I think of the Oath of Devotion as the classic LG Paladin, the Oath of the Ancients as the NG Green Knight, and the Oath of Vengeance as the LN Avenger.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
it never made sense that Serenrae could be the Patron of a Paladin, but incapable of being one herself

Well, since a god would have Mythic tiers she could have just taken "beyond morality" and taken Paladin levels back in PF1...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

SO WHO’S EXCITED FOR MONK POWERS???

there hasn’t been a single alignment paladin since 2004’s Unearthed Arcana, so can we please move on after almost 15 years?

Actually, Paladins for Every Alignment was a thing as far back as Dragon 106 ("A Plethora of Paladins") from way back in 1986.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Feros wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
It does seem in general a theme of 2e is that the traditionalist portion of the customer base is not one there is much interest in serving anymore.

That is very much the feeling I've gotten. This isn't so much just Paladin, mind you it is just that this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm not saying it was malicious on Paizo's part either. I just think someone crunched the numbers and did a gains/lost analysis and said, "We can make more money, or gain more players, if we follow this more open path. We'll probably lose some of the older players, but newer players are better and we're pretty sure gains will exceed losses."

Or... Quite simply... Paizo realizes that we might bail, but we're not as important to them.

It's just the way the cookie crumbles. It is, after all, a business.

I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario. If they continue to cater to the old guard, they lose potential new customers. If they go exclusively to get new customers, they lose the gamers that made the company prosper in the first place.

Paizo has to change the system to make it easier to bring in new customers and players or the company will falter and collapse. As you say, it's a business. That doesn't mean they don't think of us as important, but rather they have to measure the changes they have to make to survive with what has gone before.

If they didn't think of old gamers as important the changes could have been far more radical than they are currently.

It seems pretty much every decision is going against the traditionalist group. I’m not seeing much leaning the other way.

This is my analysis as well. They're willing to say kind words to us, but I see no action to actually do anything for us. So it's an actions speak louder than words situation.


Data Lore wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

SO WHO’S EXCITED FOR MONK POWERS???

there hasn’t been a single alignment paladin since 2004’s Unearthed Arcana, so can we please move on after almost 15 years?

Actually, Paladins for Every Alignment was a thing as far back as Dragon 106 ("A Plethora of Paladins") from way back in 1986.

Unofficial non-canon material doesn't count. Nor do unofficial optional rules from UA.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I think with that level of fanaticism you should seriously consider stepping back from role-play or at least D&D inspired ones and maybe try some other hobbies for awhile. There is to much obsession behind your words and its not healthy. I

Well, that's just marvellous, really, really fantastic stuff, I mean, with that approach, it's sure to help the situation, people's views and what-not, all very positive and constructive...

As for the topic at hand; non-LG paladins have a bit of legacy:

-1st Ed AD&D, you have the Anti-Paladin (Githyanki), and there is a Dragon article with paladins of all the alignments ("A Plethora of Paladins").

Unofficial non-canon material.

Quote:
-2nd Ed AD&D, there is the Speciality Priest of Horus, which is a CG Paladin.

Specialty priest, not a Paladin.

Quote:
-3rd Ed, you have Paladins of the extreme alignments in UA.

Optional, non-canon material.

Quote:
-4th Ed, went for whatever.

This was one of 4ths many, many problems.

Quote:

-5th Ed, is sort of vague, yet implied, and as usual, seems to encourage deciding for your table/world. I think of the Oath of Devotion as the classic LG Paladin, the Oath of the Ancients as the NG Green Knight, and the Oath of Vengeance as the LN Avenger.

I do not play 5th specifically due to this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

SO WHO’S EXCITED FOR MONK POWERS???

there hasn’t been a single alignment paladin since 2004’s Unearthed Arcana, so can we please move on after almost 15 years?

Actually, Paladins for Every Alignment was a thing as far back as Dragon 106 ("A Plethora of Paladins") from way back in 1986.

And they were distinctly different from each other.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I find the alchemist change the most interesting...I remember people being annoyed that mutagens weren't available until 4th level, which meant that playing a straight Jekyll and Hyde character from level one was impossible.

I like the subclass idea in general...that is sort of how I am seeing the Paladin variants falling out as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feros wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Feros wrote:


I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario. If they continue to cater to the old guard, they lose potential new customers. If they go exclusively to get new customers, they lose the gamers that made the company prosper in the first place.

Paizo has to change the system to make it easier to bring in new customers and players or the company will falter and collapse. As you say, it's a business. That doesn't mean they don't think of us as important, but rather they have to measure the changes they have to make to survive with what has gone before.

If they didn't think of old gamers as important the changes could have been far more radical than they are currently.

It seems pretty much every decision is going against the traditionalist group. I’m not seeing much leaning the other way.

I like many of the changes they have made though far from all (Resonance, the Hero Point system, much more are on my "Yech" list). I have gone through all the edition changes over the years and have found things that are good and not-good in each version. I admit to being willing to let go of traditions if they restrict games choice, so I rather like the new changes.

All that said, I get where the traditionalists are coming from: wanting to play the game they have been playing for a long time with just continual support. It would be great if that was viable, but sadly it looks as if that model is not economical going forward. As Jason Bulmahn put it in his post upthread, they understand the price for making any of the changes they are making. Finding the balance of what has to change with what they can keep the same is what the Playtest is all about.

Oh come on. They didn't find a balance. They literally tossed every tradition. Come on, call a spade a spade.

I was a huge supporter of PF2 but they don't and apparently never did, care about us. They wanted to keep us as customers but they couldn't let us keep one thing of actual consequence.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Data Lore wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

SO WHO’S EXCITED FOR MONK POWERS???

there hasn’t been a single alignment paladin since 2004’s Unearthed Arcana, so can we please move on after almost 15 years?

Actually, Paladins for Every Alignment was a thing as far back as Dragon 106 ("A Plethora of Paladins") from way back in 1986.
And they were distinctly different from each other.

You mean in contrast to the ones you did not read, who are instead exactly identical inside your head?

Every time an update shows up I get back to my rants. And every time a sneak peek shows up, i shut my mouth and wait for Monday, at which point I get to rant about things that exist rather than yelling at ghosts.
I suggest you do the same.

Can some mod please close my thread, now? This was supposed to be a handy help for those who can’t watch the stream, but it has gone extremely downhill and I do not think any discussion is possible anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I think with that level of fanaticism you should seriously consider stepping back from role-play or at least D&D inspired ones and maybe try some other hobbies for awhile. There is to much obsession behind your words and its not healthy. I

Well, that's just marvellous, really, really fantastic stuff, I mean, with that approach, it's sure to help the situation, people's views and what-not, all very positive and constructive...

As for the topic at hand; non-LG paladins have a bit of legacy:

-1st Ed AD&D, you have the Anti-Paladin (Githyanki), and there is a Dragon article with paladins of all the alignments ("A Plethora of Paladins").

Unofficial non-canon material.

Quote:
-2nd Ed AD&D, there is the Speciality Priest of Horus, which is a CG Paladin.

Specialty priest, not a Paladin.

Quote:
-3rd Ed, you have Paladins of the extreme alignments in UA.

Optional, non-canon material.

Quote:
-4th Ed, went for whatever.

This was one of 4ths many, many problems.

Quote:

-5th Ed, is sort of vague, yet implied, and as usual, seems to encourage deciding for your table/world. I think of the Oath of Devotion as the classic LG Paladin, the Oath of the Ancients as the NG Green Knight, and the Oath of Vengeance as the LN Avenger.

I do not play 5th specifically due to this.

Okay, so you don't agree with the precedent; regardless, non-LG Paladins have been a thing that have existed, and people have wanted for decades.

For me, as a Planescape-person, I like my Pallys LG, only, considered "sinister agents", by some.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Quote:
-3rd Ed, you have Paladins of the extreme alignments in UA.
Optional, non-canon material.

This is incorrect, everything in 3rd Ed's Unearthed Arcana and Dragon magazine material is "100% Official", totally canon, just optional/variant material.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not completely sure why "canon" matters for a set of mechanics which exist, since surely the Summoner and Gunslinger existed in PF1, but that didn't stop a great many tables from banning or otherwise eschewing them.

For me "canon" matters more for stuff like "friendly Octopus people exist and Ravounel is now an independent nation" than "this specific combination of mechanics is available to those who want it." Since those who don't want that specific combination of mechanics can pick something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Feros wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
It does seem in general a theme of 2e is that the traditionalist portion of the customer base is not one there is much interest in serving anymore.

That is very much the feeling I've gotten. This isn't so much just Paladin, mind you it is just that this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm not saying it was malicious on Paizo's part either. I just think someone crunched the numbers and did a gains/lost analysis and said, "We can make more money, or gain more players, if we follow this more open path. We'll probably lose some of the older players, but newer players are better and we're pretty sure gains will exceed losses."

Or... Quite simply... Paizo realizes that we might bail, but we're not as important to them.

It's just the way the cookie crumbles. It is, after all, a business.

I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario. If they continue to cater to the old guard, they lose potential new customers. If they go exclusively to get new customers, they lose the gamers that made the company prosper in the first place.

Paizo has to change the system to make it easier to bring in new customers and players or the company will falter and collapse. As you say, it's a business. That doesn't mean they don't think of us as important, but rather they have to measure the changes they have to make to survive with what has gone before.

If they didn't think of old gamers as important the changes could have been far more radical than they are currently.

It seems pretty much every decision is going against the traditionalist group. I’m not seeing much leaning the other way.

With all this I don't seem to see anybody even consider that maybe this isn't just a cold numbers marketing decision, but maybe this was how Paizo felt the game should best proceed. Maybe they decided to think hard about what kind of game they wanted to make and what big and small changes they's make (Like veering away from the 3.x chassis) and they did these things because they thought it would make a better game and world, something they would be more proud of, despite breaking old traditions, rather than just that it would make them more money.

Just a thought.


The Raven Black wrote:
graystone wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Finally, we're one step closer to LE Paladins of Ragathiel with the Orphanage Scorcher archetype.
I want a paladin of asmodeus! Nothing is better than being techically corrrect. ;)
You can have those already with Paizo PF1 stuff
Rob Godfrey wrote:
graystone wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Finally, we're one step closer to LE Paladins of Ragathiel with the Orphanage Scorcher archetype.
I want a paladin of asmodeus! Nothing is better than being techically corrrect. ;)
That already exists, Tyrant Anti-Paladin. :p

I might be mistaken but we're in the playtest section talking about PF2 right? So why does it matter in the least what you can do in PF1 for this discussion? I know for myself, I'm fully aware what could be done in the old system but I was talking about the NEW one.

Feros wrote:
I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario.

Might be better not to equate 'old gamer' with 'wants LG only paladin'. I started this game out with the old d&d pamphlets for chainmail and I don't want that...


Are Warded Touch and Hospice Knight stricken from the feat list to instead give us actual choices that go beyond making your character functional?

I feel like this edition now parallels 5e too much, with your choice being made early level and the rest of it is just padding and waiting.

This doesn't feel like customization, but rather more like having most of the work done for you.

When I first read the description for how feats worked, I was under the impression that all the class features were gone, and you instead picked them ala cart in the vein that talents/ rage powers/ revelations worked, and there would be a large robust list of choices.

Archetypes would let you mix and match at a feat tax.

You still got to choose your skills and how to fight.

This is not what I wanted. It's 5e, but with more paperwork and your choices after the initial really don't influence your capabilities much.

Hopefully there will be some opening up of that. I presume not, Paizo seems dead set on giving you a specific package of choices that really only give you a binary or trinary of options, level gated to determine what challenges to put in their APs at those levels to ensure they can push APs out faster and with less headache.

PF2 is a game for those who enjoy the Golarion setting and the Golarion stories, any home setting is going to have to play so much like Golarion that it's gonna feel pointless to try anything new or experimental.

I've decided since getting defamed by the staff that I'm not giving Paizo any more of my money, but this play style also doesn't cater to mine.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

One glaring example of traditionalists being respected is Vancian spellcasting sticking around. I'll bet nearly anything that if the devs were making a game that didn't have a legacy of Vancian spellcasting, there's no chance they'd use it. Too complex, fiddly, and doesn't match broad fantasy tropes well. There's plenty being left in primarily to keep traditionalists being kept happy, they're just getting less attention because they're not being removed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:
I feel like this edition now parallels 5e too much, with your choice being made early level and the rest of it is just padding and waiting.

it feels almost diametrically opposite to 5th Ed, for me, in many, many ways.

I think that is intentional.

The Playtest, so far, feels more like a cross between 3rd and 4th Ed, with some entirely revolutionary concepts, to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Paladin_Knight_marshmallow wrote:
I feel like this edition now parallels 5e too much, with your choice being made early level and the rest of it is just padding and waiting.

it feels almost diametrically opposite to 5th Ed, for me, in many, many ways.

I think that is intentional.

The Playtest, so far, feels more like a cross between 3rd and 4th Ed, with some entirely revolutionary concepts, to me.

I'm unfamiliar with 4th edition, but what I understand is that it also had very limited choices in favor of more robust expansions on the core idea they forced on the class.

Rangers getting 8+combat styles is long gone, seemingly to enshrine the fighter as the guy who can fight using any style.

I don't see the roots of 3.x in this system much at all, could you elaborate?


HWalsh wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Feros wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
It does seem in general a theme of 2e is that the traditionalist portion of the customer base is not one there is much interest in serving anymore.

That is very much the feeling I've gotten. This isn't so much just Paladin, mind you it is just that this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm not saying it was malicious on Paizo's part either. I just think someone crunched the numbers and did a gains/lost analysis and said, "We can make more money, or gain more players, if we follow this more open path. We'll probably lose some of the older players, but newer players are better and we're pretty sure gains will exceed losses."

Or... Quite simply... Paizo realizes that we might bail, but we're not as important to them.

It's just the way the cookie crumbles. It is, after all, a business.

I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario. If they continue to cater to the old guard, they lose potential new customers. If they go exclusively to get new customers, they lose the gamers that made the company prosper in the first place.

Paizo has to change the system to make it easier to bring in new customers and players or the company will falter and collapse. As you say, it's a business. That doesn't mean they don't think of us as important, but rather they have to measure the changes they have to make to survive with what has gone before.

If they didn't think of old gamers as important the changes could have been far more radical than they are currently.

It seems pretty much every decision is going against the traditionalist group. I’m not seeing much leaning the other way.
This is my analysis as well. They're willing to say kind words to us, but I see no action to actually do anything for us. So it's an actions speak louder than words situation.

The problem with traditions is that, more often than not, they do not evolve as life evolves (voluntarily or involuntarily), shackle people to something for identical arbitrary reasons, and serve more as a point of nostalgia that people hold on to when things appear to be taking a turn for the worst (but may not actually be, in reality). Consider how things were 10 years ago (PF1), 15 years ago (D&D 3.X), 20 years ago (AD&D 2E), or even longer (D&D 1E). Much as time passes and people/things change, so too must the rules and editions of the game to accommodate those changes. Could you imagine if Pathfinder 2 was really just a "republishing" of "OG" 1st Edition D&D to appeal to people whom simply just want more nostalgia? How many people would like/hate it? Would it just be an attraction of traditionalists, or would those who wanted to "live" back in those times become interested by the apparent curiosity? And more importantly to the traditionalists, were those times better? Or were they just appropriate for what was acceptable at the time, and when the future editions were released, everyone was fine with those changes because, much like life changes necessarily, so to were those changes made out of necessity?

I mean, let's look at one aspect of arbitrary tradition as an example. Back in 1st Edition D&D, the GM rolled all the dice and it was more of a story-driven, perspective experience where all the player had control over was the character's decisions (AKA how Gary Gygax ran D&D), which the GM translated into their effectiveness through the dice rolls (and more-or-less the kind of story the GM wanted to tell if he was fudging). As future editions came out, this concept changed for one reason or another, which means the tradition of the GM being the final arbitrator of the rules and results of player actions changed as a result of evolution. Maybe players wanted more apparent control over their fate by being the one to roll the dice and be more accepting of what the result is. Maybe the GMs got sick and tired of doing all the rolling and decided to pawn some of that responsibility off on the players. But the fact of the matter is that this was a change of tradition that eventually sparked future editions that, for the most part, would be for the better, and as a result of people evolving, the editions changed to accommodate those evolutions.

Of course, some things don't evolve over time. The main idea of D&D (and Pathfinder) has always been to have fun. Throughout all of the editions, I'm almost positive that this concept has not (and won't ever be) changed. The unfortunate reality is that, tradition which doesn't evolve will eventually become obsolete and die out, simply because evolution is necessary to life. It's why 5E is the bees knees compared to everyone and their grandma playing D&D 1st Edition; evolution from tradition isn't always a bad thing, and is more often than not the answer to the question of how, and not the answer to the question of why.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey there folks,

I see that overnight a few folk decided to start arguing with each other over who is gaming "right". I'll be referring a few posts to moderation.

And since the discussion is reviving old arguements again and anyone with any differing point of discussion is being drown out...

This thread is locked

151 to 181 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Live Stream Notes with 1.6 previews All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion