Chris Braga's page

Chris Braga wrote:

Just like it's inevitable there will be a 5E someday.

Well... That isn't inevitable, unless you assume that the game will still be going strong by that time. I am not suggesting it won't be, but without that assumption 5th Edition isn't inevitable.

Fair enough. Maybe by that time Pathfinder 2.0 will be inevitable. ;)

On a more serious note, what exactly is 'inevitable' about 4E now?

It was inevitable that there would be a 4E someday. Just like it's inevitable there will be a 5E someday. The game evolves, not always for the better, and it's impossible to expect everyone likes the direction it takes.

The holes in people's logic often astounds me. We have all seen the same amount of 4ed material. however, a consistent theme of the pro 4ed crowd is that the game looks great. Therefore, they believe that there is enough information to draw a positive opinion of the material. However, in the same breath, many of those supporters then proceed to chastise the anti 4ed crowd that we are only looking at previews and its too soon to say that the game will not be good.

So, there is enough information to support your opinion, but not enough to support one you don't agree with? Lets try to have a little consistency and respect for one another's views, shall we? if you are biased at least recognize it and own up to the fact.

I am biased. I do not like 4ed. It is an informed opinion. It has nothing to do with any silly psychobabble fear of change. it has to do with a complete rejection of 4ed design sensibilities. I do not expect to change my opinion a few weeks after release like many of the pundits seem to claim. Angst has nothing to do with my decision.

rant over. have a nice day :)

This seems to be addressed to me. Please see my answer to KaeYoss.

Let me add that you too seem a bit quick to label me under "4E crowd". (Though if you don't and you were really just speaking in general terms, then forgive me for misreading). Let me point out that I didn't say anything in favor of 4E. I just objected to the polarization. You seem to have good reason to not like 4E and I wouldn't think about trying to convince you otherwise, because

1) I don't know what is going to change,
2) I respect your opinion, and
3) I don't care what anyone else plays.

oeweeeeeeeee

Please leave that two-copper psychology where you found it. Sometimes when someone says that he doesn't like to change because he has payed for all these books and wants to keep using them, it's exactly that.

The implication that it's "angst" is insulting.

I agree with you. I realize I worded it poorly. Like I said in a later post, I meant to say having spent $1000s is no excuse to bash 4E. There always will be a new edition and lots of us will have spent $1000s on the previous one. But of course it's a valid reason not to switch.

Now you say that everyone who says he doesn't want to throw away books unused is parrotting generalities?

With all due respect, but now you are twisting my words. I said that if you claim that "4E is catered to a younger, inattentive MMORPG player base", then you are parroting a generality. It has nothing to do with whether you want to throw away your books unused.

I had a couple of coppers to spend on some psycho-babble myself, and I say that you feel threatened by people who don't want, like you, to eat up anything wotc puts out with a big spoon and feel you have to invalidate their arguments with personal attacks.

So because I object to someone who claims 4E is catered to immature MMORPG kids, naturally I must be someone who eats up anything wotc puts out with a big spoon? Funny.

I apologize if the angst thing came over badly. I realize now that it was a generalization not unlike the one I am objecting against. What I am struggling with is finding an explanation why there is so much bad blood on these boards over something that is inevitable and we have yet to see in full. But you are right and I'll refrain from the psychobabble.

For what it's worth, I am very likely going to switch to 4E. However, the funny thing is that I will do it because I have a lot of issues with 3.5 - so, ironically, I am looking forward to 4E because I DON'T eat up anything wotc puts out with a big spoon.

However, I don't like everything I hear (lots of mini's needed, lots of conditions to keep track of, no easy converting of all the great Paizo stuff I never got a chance to play). So when the time comes, I will buy the books, read them and then decide what I'll do. And I won't need a big spoon to do so. ;P

Chris Braga wrote:

Some people complain they still have $1000s of unused books in their closets, others that they won't have any more goodies forthcoming to spend $1000s on. Whatever argument, it's just a cover up for the real reason: angst for change and the unknown.

As one of those people who have invested thousands of dollars in 3.X, I just wanted you to know my saying "I'm not switching to 4E because I've invested thousands in older editions" isn't because of angst over change and the unknown. It's because I just don't feel like spending thousands more on a new edition of the game.

I hear ya. What I meant to say was that while it's a perfectly understandable reason not to switch, having spent $1000s on 3.X is no reason to bash 4E.

We have no more support for 3.5E, you 4E folks get all the goodies now.

IMHO it's this kind of polarization that causes the most trouble. Why is it "us" vs "you"? WE are all in this together. None of us even knows what the rules are yet.

Some people complain they still have $1000s of unused books in their closets, others that they won't have any more goodies forthcoming to spend $1000s on. Whatever argument, it's just a cover up for the real reason: angst for change and the unknown.

At least have the decency to wait until you've actually read the rules before you form an opinion and parrot generalities like "4E is catered to a younger, inattentive MMORPG player base".

My point is that D&D emphasizes playability over realism. I don't see how the educational value of any of its rules matters.

But hey, it's your game, so if you want 1-2-1, go for it!

Chess doesn't pretend to directly mimic a battlefield.

And as we all know, batlefields are made up of squares. ;P

1-1-1 is just easier, like not using facing or giving weapons bonusses against certain types of armor. I've been using it as a house rule for years and it never felt unrealistic.

I don't get the kids argument. If that bothers you, just about everything should. I mean, how are they supposed to grasp the concept of gravity if D&D lets you fall from a 100 feet high cliff in full plate armor, then stand up and walk away. :)

Anyways, you can always house rule it back.

Bugleyman and James Keegan said what I wanted to say. Let me add that as a newcomer to these boards, the level of drama has baffled me. I have a WoW background, and I'm familiar with the guild theatrics, but I never imagined it could be like this in a message board.

It seems to me that Paizo is trying to enforce the rule "if you can't keep it civil, don't post." Nothing seems more reasonable. If for whatever reason this rule or anything else on these boards fills you with hatred, loathing and whatnot (as you stated in the "I'm sorely disappointed" thread), you really should take a hard look at your own reactions.

D&D is a game. Paizo is a games company. The boards are filled with people who want to talk about games. Noone is out to get you.

Keep it fun. Chill out. Get some fresh air. Get laid. Slaughter a smurf.

Good start. I love the idea of having the goblins blow themselves up on a natural 1.

Two quick questions though:

- Are you assuming a party of four PCs?

- Do we know anything about how the difficulty scales in 4E? I know 400 XP worth of critters constitutes an average encounter for four lvl 1 PCs (EL 1) and 800 XP for four lvl 4s. But would 800 XP be roughly equivalent to an EL 4 encounter now? In other words: will an 800 XP encounter be considered "very difficult" and a 1000 XP one "overpowering" for a group of four lvl 1s?

If it's roughly the same, a direct conversion for four PCs would be something like first 400 XP (EL 1), then 500 XP (EL 2) and finally 600 XP (EL 3) for a total of 1500 XP. But since it's one extended encounter this is probably too harsh, so your numbers (for a total of around 900 XP distributed over several rounds) seem perfectly fine.

I'd let the Minions with their dogslicers deal 1d4 damage instead of a fixed number like the Kobold Minions. That way they can crit and critting makes the little buggers happy like newborn puppies.

Stats something like

GOBLIN MINION Level 1 Minion Small Natural Humanoid XP 25

Initiative +3 Senses: Perception +1, darkvision

HP A minion dies when hit by an attack that deals damage
AC 15; Fortitude 12, Reflex 13, Will 11

Speed 6
m Dogslicer (standard; at-will) - Weapon
+5 vs AC; 1d4 damage.
R Anything they can get their hands on (standard; at-will) - Weapon
+5 vs AC; 2 damage.

Goblin Tactics (immediate reaction, when a melee attack against the goblin minion misses)
The goblin minion shifts one square away from the attacker.

Alignment: Evil Languages: Goblin
Skills: Stealth +5, Intimidate +1
Str 10(+0) Con 14(+2) Dex 16(+3) Int 8(-1) Wis 12 Cha 8(-1)

Equipment: leather armor, dogslicer, dogteeth necklace

I'm not religious, but the stance the OP and Chrischie are taking reminds me of a well-known biblical story. It's the one about God sparing a depraved city because he discovers that its streets harbor one pious person.

I like that a lot better than condemning a fantastic company because you discover that its forums harbor one uncivil board.

If all these nice people who are speaking up for Paizo can't convince you that these message boards are filled with helpful, mature people, I'm afraid nothing can. It really is your loss. Paizo's products are so marvelous, their production standards so high and their support so awesome that I will even consider not switching to 4E if Pathfinder doesn't too.

Just to be fair, I have to add that yesterday I DM'd six players through a couple of encounters using the 4E rules and it was a blast. Keeping track of all the combat conditions wasn't half so hard as I imagined.

The feel is more cinematic, which takes some getting used to, but all in all this is still the D&D we love.

As an example of the changes, take a dwarf fighter. In 3.5 she would have, say, Power Attack and Cleave.

In 4E she has the ability to either push an enemy one square back with each succesful strike or deal her Str bonus in damage to an adjacent enemy. Once per encounter she can do a Passing Blow, which is kinda like a one-shot Cleave but without having to down the first target. And once per day she gets to deal a great blow, which inflicts three times her weapon damage (not multiplying the strength bonus).

Apart from that she has a good reflex save, more skills, a cool racial ability that allows her to regain 25% of her hit points once per fight, and the ability to 'mark' anyone she attacks, so they have a -2 penalty to attack anyone else and provoke an attack if they make a 5 foot step (or in 4E parlance: if they shift). To top this off, she gets a +2 on her to hit roll when making an AoO, stopping the enemy in his tracks if the AoO was triggered by a move.

So basically a fighter still is a fighter. She still hits people with sharp things from up close and soaks damage. It's just that in 4E she has a lot more options, but after a couple of encounters these become second nature. And that goes for every class. Even better (from a DM's point of view:): playing the monsters is so much easier than in 3.5, there's just no comparison.

Now that I can make a more informed judgement, I changed my vote from undecided to Yes-planning and staying with 4E.

I was all pumped up for the new edition, but now I'm not so sure anymore.

3.5 has many flaws, especially at high levels when things get way too complex. Staring at a lvl 15 NPC Druid's spell list while keeping track of every silly situational combat modifier and stuff like fly and the grapple madness of his Animal Growthed dire lion companion... it's just too much.

Everything I heard before DDXP about 4E sounded like pure bliss was just a couple of months away. But now that I've read the reports and ran several combats using the pregenerated PCs and a lot of 4E kobolds, a bad feeling has entered my gut.

4E as it stands will bring more combat conditions and modifiers to the table than ever before. It's not just "I give you +1 bonus to attack next round", it's "I give you a +1 bonus to attack next round against the guy I just hit. He's not difficult to remember. It's the mini with the 'slowed', 'cursed', 'marked', 'bloodied', 'on fire' and 'been peed on by my dog' markers."

Don't get me wrong. 4E has a lot of great ideas. For instance I love that it gets rid of the "round per level" effects. But this change, like many of the other improvements, can just as easily be incorporated into 3.5. Just make rage last a whole encounter, Mage Armor the whole day etc. and nobody will need to ask how many rounds or hours have passed.

I don't know. From my playtesting and what I've read from those that went to DDXP, it just feels like a completely different game. A game where every class has 'at will' powers that basically do the same thing (roll an attack, deal damage, apply a condition), where a lvl 4 human NPC mage is a completely different beast than a lvl 4 human PC mage, where casting a magic missile is no longer cool but mundane, and where 16 zombie minions constitute an average encounter.

So I guess the option I'd like to vote for is missing, namely 'Yes-I was undecided or planning on converting to 4th, but now I'm hoping Paizo will marry the best of 3.5 and 4th together and sire 3.75.'