It always just annoyed me seeing those prestige classes where you could take them, yeah, but it would still leave you weaker than if you had just stuck with your base class, and it was basically like going “Yeah, I’d like to give up on being my character for this number of levels please?”

It used to be in later supplements and such of AD&D you had options of class kits where you could take certain subclasses and get certain benefits or detriments. Like a paladin could sacrifice his lay on hands and become an undead hunter or an inquisitor, getting abilities which made him immune to level drain and allowed him to do paralyzing strikes on undead, or granted him the ability to dispel magic at will and treat evil spellcasters as a favored enemy.

Fighters could have things like Kensai, mages could be specialists (that one never changed.) thieves could be bounty hunters, things like that.

If you ever played Baldur’s Gate 2, they had a bunch of class kits for each class.

usually stuff like class kits popped up in things like the Complete book of Warriors, or the Complete book of Thieves.

Pathfinder archetypes are functionally identical, and that’s a good thing. Gives a whole lot more personalization than just going “I wanna play a fighter” with the DM handing you a sheet that says “Ok, here’s your fighter, it’s the exact same one everyone else plays because it’s optimized to be the best.”

Yeah, I got alot of vitriol for 4th ed D&D.

But the man’s right, there’s nothing new under the sun. I mean I myself am currently shamelessly stealing Pathfinder’s Traits system as an excuse to inject non-weapon proficiencies back into the game.

(That’s the thing I love about Pathfinder, yes it’s 3.5 to an extent, and yes it has it’s flaws, but at it’s most basic, it takes some of the good things from 2nd Ed and brings ‘em back. Archetypes? BEEN DONE! Class kits! Look ‘em up for those of you unfamiliar.

“Everything is just another brick in the wall. Some bricks come from other locations and even other ages but they all can be used again to build something new and wonderful. Regardless of how much they have been used. Tis the fun of creating after all. Taking someone else’s brain child and using it to make something new and unexpected is one of the greatest feelings in the world.” -Nikola Tesla

It is one of the longest coherent sayings he ever spoke. And apparently inspired the Song through its context.

Tolkien robbed Norse and Germanic myth.

Indiana Jones was born of old republic serials and 20′s pulp fiction.

Superman? Sorry, I think this guy called Nietzsche got you topped by about 80 years on that count.

Harry Potter? Well according to some, there’s an entire genre of “private school fiction”

Twilight? Well, everyone has to have their smut somehow, even if it’s not good smut.

Don’t worry about being original. You can’t be entirely original, it is physically impossible, I know from experience, there is someone out there who thought of it too. But that doesn’t mean you can’t combine unoriginal ideas in new ways.

Ideas are like blocks. They’ve got a bunch of different sides and look generally like one another, but what an individual block looks like doesn’t matter as much as what you make from it.

If you don’t have any problem with the “roll-to-hit-AC” method, then there’s no real reason to use something else. As you pointed out, there are countless variations of combat resolution out there, and more can be invented rather easily. Ultimately, it depends on the rest of the mechanics in your system, and the “feel” you’re going for. Do you want quick and simple resolution, or complex and involved?

I’ve played numerous RPG systems, and while D&D’s To Hit and AC mechanic might not be perfect, it’s one of the simplest and probably my favourite. I also enjoy systems like Savage Worlds or Conan where you have to hit your opponent’s Parry or Dodge ability, and armor works as Damage Reduction. However, simplicity trumps simulation in my books– don’t get me started on Werewolf: the Apocalypse…