1,059
edits
Changes
m
I'm done, point made
::::Oh, you can totally have fun playing Pathfinder, SC. This means nothing at all of the system's virtues. If you had a fun enough group of friend, you could hypothetically enjoy getting your balls pounded flat. My own dim view of Pathfinder stems from this: I see no reason to learn it over 3.x. It made a lot of changes just to make changes, the effects be damned, then claimed they'd fixed D&D 3.x's problems when they hadn't in the least(so the designers are either incompetent or dishonest to their fanbase, but that's another rant). There's a lot of minor changes that equate to most things functioning a little bit differently for no reason whatsoever, and ''I don't feel motivated to learn the system'' when I already know one that's mechanically more solid, leaving less time spent haggling over rules and more time spent playing the game. --Genowhirl 06:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::This is how I see it: D&D 3.5 spawned two sequels- Pathfinder and 4.0. Between the two, I would choose PF every time. I see that 4.0 is by far the more balanced of the two, and arguably the most balanced game in history. But PF chose to stay more true to the source material, and it even seemed to want a return to AD&D (a weird direction that I'm guessing came from playing too much Hackmaster), thus making it closer to 3.0 if anything. So, if a hardcore 3.5 player wanted to "upgrade" and switch to a new system, I will point him towards PF everytime.--Change=Chaos. Period. [[User:Spazalicious Chaos| SC]] 18:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
