I think their design goals are to pander to what they perceive as 3.5's fanbase as hard as possible. That is why you see all those classes with no dead levels, with abilities with really flashy names. They look cool which is what Paizo thinks its fanbase wants, and they might have a point.Lago PARANOIA wrote:So I've been wondering.
What are exactly the design goals of Pathfinder? Aside from a few odd quirks to the game engine (no technically empty levels, we have prestige classes, swift actions out the ass etc.) I don't actually see an overarching design philosophy to the game. Unlike, say, 4E D&D. Granted, 4E D&D's design goals were retarded, but you couldn't say that it was lacking in vision.
What exactly is Pathfinder's endgame? Like, if for some reason the USSC ruled the d20 SRD unconstitutional and the game designers were forced at gunpoint to shit out another game with the Pathfinder brand, what would the game look like?
From what I saw in my brief foray into the PFS, most pathfinder players don't know how to play a wizard at god tier. Their classes remain balanced through level 10 because they don't take advantage of proper battlefield control and save or sucks. I think Paizo knows this on some level so they don't try and shake things up by printing powerful fighters or weak wizards. That's why you get things like the summoner having a bard's BAB and spellcasting despite the fact that it gets ninth level spells, and in this case gets them 2 levels earlier.