PFPRG design assumptions are well known. There’s been enough preview material released on the Web to fill a 180 page splatbook. Beta has been out for a year.

It’s incredibly reasonable to say, based on available evidence, that the PFRPG playtesters (and by extension the designers) didn’t see Scott’s issues with the 3.5 system as problematic – the fan base saw them as features, so the designers designed as such.

That’s perfectly fine – I want people to have fun playing the games they want to play.

But when you answer Scott’s reasonable critiques with:

“The non spellcasters definately got a kick up in playability, flavor, feats and overall improving them. Spell casters did get some powers that made them much more interesting than just another wizard with really different specialization powers from school to school.”

I’m left wondering if you actually understand Scott’s point.

Non-spellcasters getting “a kick up” in playability is insufficient to redress the power differential between spellcasters and everyone else – and that’s before we add in things that make them more powerful. As best as I can tell, spellcasters have access to abilities that allow them to “break” the rules of the game in a controlled way – it’s part of retaining Vancian magic and keeping a distinction between spellcasters (who get to break the rules) and non-spellcasters (who can, at most, tweak the rules through situational feats).

If you enjoy that, great! Play it! But pointing out that non-spellcasters got a “kick up” as a defense against Scott’s critique that nonspellcasters needed to be significantly reworked is a virtual non sequiter.

Like Scott, I play 4e. Like Scott, I want Pathfinder to be really successful because they employ a lot of great people and do great work. But I’d also have liked a reinvention of 3e that made all classes contribute equally to the adventure on a mechanical level. PFRPG won’t do that – though I’m optimistic Trailblazer might!

I acknowledge that the final rules may have changed matters (and I hope they have), but the degree of change necessary to meet the developers’ stated goal of making melee classes comparable to spellcasters is not a small one. As of beta, Pathfinder rules went in the other direction, and wizards were still king.

I’ll see whether I can flip through a copy at Gencon, or borrow one from a friend. I’d love to review the final product, but I’m not about to pay upwards of $50 for a game that, based on the beta version, isn’t for me.

@Matt: Pathfinder was a little bit easier on the preparation front than 3.5, but still a lot heavier than 4e, 1e, or Cyclopedia D&D.

Anyway just look over the final printing and after giving it a fair shake then make an actual review rather than “I think D&D 5th edition is going to suck even theough we have NO information about it yet.

Of course, I also liked 3e when it came out; it was the years of playing it, and dealing with the problems, that led to the jaundice. In a couple of years I might feel the same about 4e.

I don’t know that I’d say Pathfinder did a bad job. I think from Paizo’s perspective it accomplished some of what it set out to do. (Not the making melee characters more equal to spellcasters, though. I don’t know how they could possibly claim that.) It’s just that I’m not very interested in what it does. I’d sooner just play 3.5, or perhaps one of the spinoffs like True20 or Microlite 20.

I do kind of feel that Pathfinder is borderline plagiaristic, but hey. Open license. And clearly there’s some kind of a market for it.

Little bit conflicted, I guess. :p But I wish them well with it, because I think a success, even a temporary one, will be good for the industry.