|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Paizo Pathfinder® GameMastery® Planet Stories® Paizo Games | |||||||||||||||||||
| About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
 Recent Posts
I am curious, for those who are wishing for stuff like the Complete series, Races of, and environment books (Sandstorm etc) to be re-written by Paizo - is your wish simply that they be written to be Pathfinder RPG compliant (as opposed to D&D3.5), or is it that you feel those books held some promise but were flawed in some serious way and you would like Paizo to re-write them as a "better" product?Mostly for Pathfinder RPG compliant part, and a bit on the fix the flaw part. Either. Honestly I just like the books and don't think they need to change even if flawed (however I should mention I never actually got to try any of them), but if someone is offering I might as well see what I can get out of it. Interesting, the reason I ask is that Pathfinder was meant to be backwards compatible, and yet people still want official conversions; a Pathfinder Freeport Companion was created despite there being a d20/3rd Era version already, and there are threads asking about conversions of classes, spells etc, and now in this thread wanting WotC books to be redone. So I wonder whether Paizo were actually that successful with backwards compatibility, and if they knew conversions would still be wanted whether they may have decided to be less constrained by thoughts of compatibility and made more bold changes. Anyway, somethinng for another thread I think!
I am curious, for those who are wishing for stuff like the Complete series, Races of, and environment books (Sandstorm etc) to be re-written by Paizo - is your wish simply that they be written to be Pathfinder RPG compliant (as opposed to D&D3.5), or is it that you feel those books held some promise but were flawed in some serious way and you would like Paizo to re-write them as a "better" product?
Honestly? If Pathfinder is going to be so popular an RPG, I would like to see the core book re-written to correct some stuff, make some stuff make more sense, tone down Channelling and make it a Swift action, and include Reserve Points or something like that so healing ability is distributed. Although I am a big fan of Eberron (and am just getting into Dark Sun) I would actually prefer these not to be rewritten by Paizo - I have the 3.5* & 4e books and wouldn't want to feel I would need to buy them all again for some minor rules tweaks. *For Dark Sun I just bought the Dungeon and Dragon magazine PDFs that update Dark Sun to 3.5
Emphasis mine. The Run Feat is correct, you do lose your Dex Bonus to AC when running.
That's not what the OP is about in fact he's the exact opposite. He's the latest in a long line of posters who want to advocate for the social acceptability of walking into town with shambling undead and cram it down every GM's throat. That is not at all the impression I got from the OP, it just sounds like he wants a necromancer who maybe animates the corpses of fallen foes to fight other foes and not immediately be labelled Evil and thus lose his character. Walking into town with undead should have consequences, just like those druids who walk into town with animal companion Velociraptors, Crocodiles, Tigers and the like should have consequences. That shouldn't mean druids or necromancers aren't viable PFS characters.
No, I said I have no problems with Pathfinder's rules. CMB/CMD is easy. Much easier than 3.5's rules. Really? In reference to Grapple rules, do you feel the PF rules are easier than 3.5? Or are you just talking about the general CMB/CMD mechanic across all Combat Manouevres? I personally feel PF grapple is as complicated as 3.5, but made a little more difficult by spreading the rules across several chapters of the book, making some things less intuitive and making things seem simpler by making a blanket statement ("Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform") that actually makes things vague (they had to errata the fact that you can actually full attack following dispute on that matter) rather than spelling out exactly what you can and can't do in a grapple as 3.5 did.
I was considering making my next PFS character a necromancer so this does interest me. Looking at the latest PFS Guide I find these relevant quotes: PFS Guide v4.1 page 8:
PFS Guide v4.1 page 27:
If a character has become wantonly evil as defined above, the GM should escalate the report to the convention coordinator, or the local venture-captain or venture-lieutenant. If they agree with the GM, then the character is deemed wantonly evil and considered removed from the campaign. Again, these measures should be taken as a very last resort.
So, even if a GM believes your character is acting evil by casting certain spells, he should inform you and only if you persist should he consider an alignment change. And if that change is to be Evil, the GM should escalate the issue to the Venture Captain (if not you could appeal I guess).
But the prism pentad series was written by the author of the setting, and you can get used copies of the books for a few cents... so I can second (or third, or .. ) the recommendation to read at least The Verdant Passage, the first novel in the series. I was looking at the graphic novel as I could read that pretty quickly, however novels take me quite a bit longer as I am a slow reader. If I only got the Verdant Passage is it a self contained story in itself or would I feel I had only read the first part of a story? Thanks for pointing them out BTW!
I just wanted to clarify the question where it asks you to rank a number of options 1 to 5. I literally looked at all the options and ranked one of them as number 1, one of them as number 2 etc until I had given five of the options a ranking. I then left the remaining options with "No Answer". Have I completely misinterpreted how that section was supposed to be answered? Was I actually supposed to Rate (not Rank) each of the options on an individual basis? If I have got it wrong I will do it again.
If Paizo wanted to stay with it's current product lines, they cannot produce anything concerning 4e. Does the current version of the GSL only limit you to not producing an OGL version of a specific product, rather than product line now? Though I recognise at the time Paizo were making their decision it was likely the Product Line version. Also even then, there are effectively ways around it using other companies, e.g. Expeditious Retreat produced the 4e Freeport Companion under licence of Green Ronin to get around the GSL clause (as GR still wanted to produce OGL versions of Freeport Companions).
Ok, you have a thing called a CMB. Combat Maneuver Bonus. It is your Base Attack plus your Strength mod (and size mod, if applicable). Your opponent has a thing called a CMD, combat maneuver defense. It is ten plus your BAB, STR mod and DEX mod (and size mod, if applicable). Roll a d20 and add CMB. If it's higher than the opponent's CMD you succeed. That's it. End of story. You missed out that you take an AoO unless you have IMproved Grapple, and that if you take damage from the AoO that damage is added to the DC. Also if you are a humanoid and don't have two free hands you suffer a -4 penalty. Also you didn't indicate what the Grappled condition was. To maintain a grapple, you make the same check every round. Again you left out that if your opponent failed to break out of the grapple your get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Also what about all the options like Damage, Moving and Pinning? To break a grapple, you roll your CMB or Escape Artist against the grappler's CMD. You don't mention the option to reverse the grapple, or perform an action that only requires one free hand. You also don't indicate what the rules are for casting a spell whilst grappled. Sorry to sound like I am having a go - but you are grossly oversimplifying how Pathfinder Grappling works. It is a much more complicated beast than the 4e Grab, though depending on the person that is no bad thing. I personally prefer the complexity of the 3.5 Grapple over 4e Grab, though I actualy have more issues with the PF grapple rules than either of those.
Personally, by a literal reading I would say yes, you could sneak attack with the ranged attack as long as you threaten with another weapon and so are considered to flank the opponent. However, I am pretty darn sure that wasn't what was intended :-) and I think most GM's would rule against you. But then again, as has been pointed out, you provoke an AoO, take a -4 penalty unless you have Precise Shot, and will need to draw another weapon (or have Improved Unarmed) to try this a second time, so really it's no big deal anyway. My agreement with the OP is based on my agreement that Flanking is a state based upon position and the ability to threaten, with no requirement to actually attack. Although this may not be spelt out explicitly other rules such as the feats mentioned strongly imply it.
Its funny, I am not the biggest fan of D&D 4e preferring 3.5, also D&D Next has just been announced, and yet I found myself yesterday ordering the D&D 4e Dark Sun books from Amazon. I had heard of Dark Sun previously but no mention of it grabbed me, however recently I saw some posts and photos from a group in my Meetup group who have been playing 4e Dark Sun and something piqued my interest. I started reading a few reviews and suddenly I was grabbed! Its a harsh sword and sorcery setting with city states rather than nations, rulers who use forbidden magic, and somewhere the gods have forsaken and where magic items are very, very rare! Cool! No setting since Eberron has grabbed me this much (not Glorantha, Anglerre, Spinward Marches, Mars or Golarion) - Dark Sun makes me want to play possibly in spite of the game system, whereas most other settings I will play because I like the system. So, I have bought the books and am awaiting their arrival. Has my order been made in haste? Will I be happy with my purchase? Is Dark Sun just that great of a setting?
IMO crafting enhances role playing greatly. Why is it not allowed? I have on character who draws, one who carves wood, one who writes stories. Why is one character allowed to use his skill (Profession) to cook a meal, while another is not allowed to use a craft skill to paint a nice picture? What is the ultimate goal of your character painting a nice picture, carving wood or drawing? If its purely for roleplaying purposes to show a bit of colour in your character, simply describe how your character paints a picture, draws a picture or carves a little figurine - no need to spend skill points on Craft skills to allow that sort of roleplaying. However if you're trying to gain some mechanical or financial benefit then it gets trickier - if you want to paint a picture to sell, then I would simply describe it and use the Craft skill as the day job roll. If you want to carve a wooden soldier to gain the favour of a young street urchin I would simple describe that and hope the GM gives a circumnstance bonus to your Diplomacy etc. Having played 4e I know that a craft skill is not required to roleplay the colour of a character.
Some mook stat blocks of basic savage humanoid type enemies at various levels. Or possibly an entire supplement devoted to CR-adjusted mook statblocks. To keep things interesting and viable at higher levels. D&D Next will apparently present all monsters as single versions with rules on how to scale them up or down, so rather than Ork Warrior 1, Ork Fighter 2 / Rogue 1, Ork Fighter 4, Rogue 2, XYZ class 5, you will get just Ork. 4e did have some nice simple rules in a similar vein (though not as advanced as D&D Next sounds like it might be) that allows you to quickly scale a monster up or down by a few levels to make it a suitable challenge for your PCs. I used it alot when I ran my 4e campaign and it was nice - no having to unpick feats and skill points to level a character down, and no having to choose feats and read new class abilities when you level them up.
Same as aboveAnd I am with you, I enjoyed the 3rd edition grapple rules. One reason the 4e teaser video annoyed me. Now you see, whilst I had no problem with the 3.5 Grapple rules I can accept that others did, and so the 4e teaser video didn't bother me at all, I just thought it was a humourous jab at an aspect of the rules that other people found a bit too complicated for what they wanted from the game. 4e's Grab mechanic seemed a bit too simplistic to me as you couldn't escalate IMmobilised to Restrained, however experiencing it in play and thinking about how it works it could actually be a cool grappling system - someone grabs you, you can grab them right back, then as its only a Minor action to sustain you can attack them and the try to escape, or try to escape, sustain the grapple and then move them. I also like the fact that you can try to wriggle out, or brute strength your way out of a grab to escape. So while 4e's Grab isn't perhaps all that 3.5's Grapple was, it is still a rather elegant mechanic and a lot simpler ruleswise.
in PF you can totally grapple things you can't touch (since in PF being smaller makes you easier to grab). This is one of the reasons why I prefer the 3.5 Grapple rules (amongst several), I actually exploited this weird rule when playing RotR and felt "dirty" for doing so :) Anyway, one thing I like about 4e is the distributed healing - the ability for everyone to recover some hit points by themselves irrespective of class, and even recovering some in a fight via Second Wind is just great! Whilst a cleric can be a boon, in 4e it isn't anywhere near as necessary, and also done without the "happy stick" of Wands of CLW (a concept I detest). I am not a big fan of having everyon recover all Hit Points overnight (one of the big turn offs of 4e for me) but if the game has an assumption that default play will be like that, at least 4e does it right by just saying it happens, rather than apparently how 3.5 and PF are expected to be played - with the happy sticks! In my Freeport game I just started using Reserve Points from Unearthed Arcana and it pretty much does what I want - a bit like healings surges in 3.5, but not quite as beneficial. The use of Reserve Points has already allowed what would have been a TPK to turn into a mere complication (the PCs were dragged away and thrown into a cellar where they recovered in a few minutes enough so that they could over power the two guards left with them.
I really don't understand how you link the concept of Minions to the implication that of those Minions being evil for evil's sake. In 4e Minions are simply combatants who are less important to the narrative (4e is actually rather Narrative in its leanings) and likely to be taken out of the fight by a single well landed blow (if you want a Simulationist reason maybe they are well trained but lack combat experience). As already stated Minions in 4e can be on the PCs' side, i.e. on the side of the heroes, and 4e even provides extra rules for such hirelings including extra abilities they can add to the PCs' abilities. E.g. Trailblazer (Aura 5): Allies in the aura gain a +2 power bonus to Dungeoneering checks and Nature checks. Minions, as well as allowing for genre conventions of the heroes mowing their way through a swathe of nameless foes, can also allow for the PCs to hire on extra guards / mercs / soldiers and have them actually have a mechanical impact on the game (rather than their effectiveness be handwaved by the GM) whilst at the same time not getting the game bogged down in too much book keeping. But then my games focus more on the RP, character development, and intellectual stimulation over the hack & slash. ^_^ Roleplaying, character development and intellectual stimulation are not mutually exclusive to the idea of minions or mooks - games such as FATE which are much more focused on the narrative and roleplaying out the aspects of the character (pun intended) and is much less of a hack & slash tactical war game than Pathfinder has rules for Minions.
Its fine if you don't want to use the rule, but is counting out a 1 then 2 then 1 then 2 really difficult? I promise no snark intended, but there is no extra effort in preserving that 'realism'. As I stated in my post, for me, yes, there is an "extra hassle /effort /time" in calculating the diagonal movement rule in 3.5 and PF - its not much, but it is noticeable. I personally always play RAW so when I run 3.5 or PF I run the diagonal rule and accept the extra effort, however when I play 4e I use the 4e movement rules where diagonals only count 1 and it has absolutely zero impact on my sense of verisimiltude, so as there is no "cost" for me, even the slightest benefit means it has a great cost: benefit ratio. I can't even imagine how that can be a difficulty, especially for gamers. I found the 3.5 Grapple rules fairly okay, but I can accept that people have different levels of ability, comprehension, or patience for detailed rules, and so accept that some people may find grapple difficult. I think you just need to accept that for people other than yourself counting diagonals can be difficult to varying levels of degree (for me, its only very slightly more difficult, as for me the issue is remembering teh number of diagonals moved - I am good at maths but not so great at keeping more than one number in my head especially when being distracted by AoOs and all the numbers mentioned therein).
The Conan vibe is perfectly doable with low level "minions" who can be dispatched with ease by powerful heroes. Creating one hit point minions adds nothing except the ability for low level characters to do the same thing as powerful characters. I guess I want my characters to earn the ability to mow down minions. Fair enough, although I personally would have more of an issue playing a 12th level character facing CR 2 or 3 characters as "Minions" as in most cases those "minions" would not be a credible threat and the PC could walk through them knowing his AC was high enough with enough of a buffer of HP that he can take any hit. The 4e Minion rules allow for level appropriate threats that get taken down easily. And they do that regardless of the level of the PCs - so yes, if I want that Conan vibe at level 3 I can get it (my last 4e campaign I ran only lasted from level 3 to level 6). This is why I actually liked Star Wars d20 RCR, the NPC classes only had Wounds equal to Con score, no matter their level. So you could have 12th Level Thugs who were still a credible threat but could still get taken out in one laser blast. The example you give below is just as "confusing" for the 4e model as soon as you introduce difficult terrain, which effectively duplicates the whole "oh, that's right, that square counts as 2 squares" problem. If you can manage difficult terrain in 4e, you can manage diagonal movement in PF. Difficult terrain is just an extra complicating factor, its the problem of remembering how many diagonals I have moved, difficult terrain can just change the the rule of "every even number diagonal counts for two". In 4e the example would go something like this
But yes, I can handle it (I run 3.5 and PF RAW) but I can find it ever so slightly more difficult, with no real gain in realism for me because at most it results in maybe only gaining one or two extra square or so (see my example above in PF that would be 12 squares but in 4e 10). So, in summary its not a matter of being able to handle it or not, its the ease of play versus the benefit the rule provides (which can vary by player). I am sure that you would be able to play Rolemaster but I am sure that you can agree that heavy chart referencing in combat may make things slightly more time consuming and / or difficult and that PF's HP system, while potentially less realistic is easier, no?
PFS is a great way to join the community and play the game. I would suggest find a group you can play with first, play a character to reaffirm your understanding of the core rules and also the extra rules imposed by PFS. Once that is under your belt, ask to GM a PFS scenario, preferably low level (i.e. for level 1 to 2 characters) and when you do be upfront about your level of experience GMing PF. In terms of knowing encumbrance and how other classes work etc, I would tend to assume players know how their characters work but say up front "I trust you to let me know how your classes work, but if you're unsure we can look it up" the player should have the books that detail every aspect of their class, so don't worry if you don't have Ultimate Magic as if a player is playing a Magus, they should have the book with them. I have just GMed my 4th PFS session under PF rules (I GMed under 3.5 rules in season zero) and I still haven't read the PF core rulebook all the way through, so I am still unsure of how some classes work. I did have someone playing a Samurai and I did have to be explicit when he stated his character was challenging an NPC "OK, tell me how that works". I am also upfront by saying "I am currently playing in a D&D 4e game, run D&D3.5 normally, and only play Pathfinder in PFS, so I may confuse a few things or get a rule wrong - if I do, and its not a big deal, let it go and maybe tell me at the break, however if its a big deal call me on it" In the session I ran I did make a mistake thinking that someone grappling in PF could make an AoO* and someone reminded me of the rule (pointing at my own condition cards!) and it all moved on. *In my defence I know in 3.5 you can't make AoOs when grappling as you don't threaten, but I remember noticing that in PF you do threaten when being grappled and thus can give flanking bonuses. What I forgot was although you PF allows you to threaten it still prohibits AoOs.
Well, I already have a 4th level character but chose not to apply the Quest for Perfection credits to him, because I want to play through the remainder of his 4th and 5th level (as those are the scenarios easiest to get to play in). Theoretically should I have applied the QfP chronicles to this character? Anyway I chose to apply the QfP chronicles to me as yet uncreated 5th character (I never played my first character, and my third and fourth are now dead). I did this because I hate 1st level and want to get to 2nd for the extra buffer of hit points. I guess although its seems many people would be okay with it, if I want to be by the book I will have to apply the First Steps credits to another character I have yet to create :( Either that or not run the First Steps trilogy for my group by alternate level 1 to 5 scenarios (that may be my best option I guess). Thanks for the replies.
Te first is the minion love. I really can't fathom that. The entire concept of minions is absurd to me, so absurd that it totally destroys verisimiitude to me. Minions create a "Barnaby Jones" reality to me. Minions can also create a Conan the Barbarian or Star Wars vibe as well, so to many people they allow those types of genres to be re-created - where the heroes can dispatch unimportant thugs with a single swing of a sword / shot of a blaster, and yet when they face the major villains and the henchmen it becomes a more protracted conflict with injuries being suffered on either side. So while I can understand Minions not being genre appropriate in every type of fantasy game, I don;t find the concept absurd. Really? No kidding? Counting "1, 2, 1, 2" etc... actually qualifies as MATH to some people? Weird. As I mentioned up thread, for me its never an issue with the actual maths, more a case of remembering the number of diagonals crossed, especially if movement is interupted by Attacks of Opportunity. Player: "Okay I move 1 forward, then 2 diagonal, then 3, 4 forward, then 6 diagonal.."
Okay I know that if I GM a higher level scenario e.g. 3 to 7 and I don't have a character in that range yet that I can hold onto the GM reward Chronicle sheet and apply it to my character when they do reach level 3. However, what about GM reward Chronicles that could be applied to your current character now, but you want to postpone so that you could either keep playing current level, or because you want to apply GM Chronicles in a different order than the chronilogical order in which they were earned. The situation I have is that I just ran two Level 1 to 5 scenarios at Conceptionm 2012. I applied the GM reward Chronicles to a character I have not yet created (as my character died in a scenario the previous day). However, I have been asked to run some PFS for a local group and thought it would be a good idea to start with the First Steps trilogy. However as the First Steps scenarios are only for Level 1 characters, if I applied my two con Chronicles to my new character first, I could only apply ne of the First STeps Chronicles to the character before he hits level 2 and becomes ineligable for the other First Steps Chronicles. So in summary, assuming I do not play my new character until after I have run the First Steps scenarios, can I apply the Chronicles in the following order:
Even though I GMed them (and thus earned the chronicles in the following order)?
I like the idea of minions, and depending on the type of fantasy you are trying to recreate in PF or 4e, they absolutely can have a place in the game. Personally in PF I would tend to just create appropriately leveled foes and just say they have minimum hitpoints (as if they rolled 1s for each hit dice) - that would leave you with mooks who have no more than around 10 hit points, enough for a solid enough hit to take down in one go. As for diagonal movement, I am good with maths, I understand the logic behind it, but I find that its not always easy to remember whether that diagonal I just moved my mini was his second or his third, and therefore whether it shoudl cost 5 feet or 10 feet of movement. TBH I have found few players ever move full out in a diagonal manner, and therefore the difference in the two methods rarely comes out to be 1 or 2 squares, something I can live with. As for area of effects in 4e, I don't think my fireball is square, more that the blast reaches into those squares to a greater or lesser degree meaning foes in those squares take damage (or not). Neither PF or 4e are particularly accurate when it comes to modelling areas of effect powers, apart from splash weapons most AoE powers have a uniform power throughout the area, rather than it being worse getting caught at ground zero, rather than on the periphery. Neither do the rules account for the force of a blast hitting a solid wall and rebounding effectively creating a worse effect. Although I was used to Shadowrun having such rules I don't begrudge PF or 4e for taking a less realistic and easier approach.
He had his mount grapple him to give him the pinned condition. Basically offering no resistance. Would this action be legal? If you give yourself up to be restrained because you know you are likely to lose control and try to attack your allies you would actually be better off just being Grappled in PF rather than Pinned as it as as easy if not often easier to get free once Pinned than just Grappled. It doesn't make sense but those are the rules in PF (3.5 didn't have this problem).
I can see your point, but I think you perhaps underestimate the number of people who complained about the complexity of the 3.5 grapple rules. For those people, I think the 4e Grab rules do the job well. Like you I presonally did not have an issue with it (I actually have more issues with the PF grapple rules in terms of adding unnecessary IMHO complexity and making it unintuitive).
4E, (in many peoples opinions, including mine) did not do any of these things. It did not fix grapple. I am curious, as grapple is a bit of an area of interest to me, but what was your problem with grapple that 4e did not fix? For many the problem with D&D3.5 grapple was the complexity of the rules, IMHO 4e's Grab maneouvre is a much simpler and easily resolved action and so I believe it solved the complexity problem. However, I do think 4e perhaps made Grab too simplistic by not having the option to improve the Immobilised condition to Restrained. However having seen it in action and had my wizard affected by it I am beginning to see it is still quite a powerful move, and really is a fairly elegant solution, especially as sustaining a grab is only a minor action and escaping a grab is a Move action.
I don't think a full SRD online for free is necessary for people to be able to try before they buy. A quick start game distributed for free is often enough to get a feel for whether you like a game, and many companies do that (from Shadowrun to M&M to Kerberos Club FATE Edition). And in case people aren't aware, WotC has a free quick start for 4e available as well though I must admit its hard to find on their site:
That page has PDF copies of 27 page Quick Start Rules and the updated & improved Keep on the Shadowfell scenario along with Khyber's Harvest the Free RPG Day 2009 product. Hopefully WotC will at least do a quick start for 5e, maybe even give away the core game (i.e. what I imagine will be the first few chapters in the core book) and let the promise of rules modules and options entice people to buy the book. Alternatively they could do what Mongoose have done with Legend and sell the core book PDF for just $1 :)
The funny thing about 4E criticism is that much of it is unfounded and based in the the relese of the "Core" books. I think its more a case of when people say "4e isn't D&D to me because I couldn't play a Bard/Gnome/Druid/Half-orc etc" often those who know previous editions say something along the lines of "Well then original D&D must not feel like D&D to you!" and a 4e player may say something to the effect of "You do know that Gnomes etc are all in PHB2 (or other book), yes?" Its not so much someone saying its their fault they didn't like 4e, but more explainig either that those rules either don't define what D&D is in general, or informing the person that time has passed and now the rules they were wanting are now there. Put it this way, if someone's first experience of D&D was 4e and they loved the Warlock and Warlord classes, then they got persuaded to try D&D 3.5 and they didn't like it with the comment "D&D3.5 doesn't feel like D&D because it doesn't cover the basics like the Warlock and Warlord class", would you think "D&D3.5 doesn't feel like D&D" is a fair criticism?
Actually, I think a fair number of 4Ed players ARE asking themselves the question 'why did I just shell out hundreds of dollars for an edition that lasted less time then the two editions that it succeeded, and claimed to improve upon. You seem to think that you speak for all 4ed players. I am not exactly a 4e fan, but I can enjoy the game and have probably bought over a hundred dollars of 4e stuff. And I personally am not asking that question at all. I am eagerly awaiting 5e personally. If anything I may think "why did I waste all that money on 3.5 books now that loadsof people have moved onto Pathfinder?" - though I didn't really because I am trying to play 3.5 when I can find the players. I'm indifferent to what WoTc does now I don't think you are personally, if you were indifferent to what WotC are doing I doubt you would even be posting here, much less with as much emotion as you seem to be doing. [...]because Paizo already has a superior product. And I'm above all, Objective Do you not see the irony here? :) Many people feel 4e is superior to Pathfinder, others think they are difficult to compare, but I think we can all agree that there is no definitive measure of overall superiority of an RPG, because different RPGs appeal to different people's tastes. So no, I don't think that above all you're objective, but that isn't a bad thing, I know I'm not either. Paizo [...]now has the BEST fantasy RPG available Another example of how subjective you can be, especially as now you seem to have broadened the spectrum to all fantasy RPGs, including RuneQuest, Legends of Anglerre, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay etc. If you had said Paizo now has the most popular fantasy RPG available I would probably agree based on my own experience, but "best"? No.
And, as others have said, this (to some extent) is what worries me -- because I can't understand how that would work mechanically. Do we assume that the 1e-style person can do things without skills? I am not sure about a character without skills working alongside a character with skills, but I could see how both could work in terms of an optional module for skills. Maybe the character only gets to make Ability checks (effectively untrained skill checks) but gets "background" bonuses if the GM agrees, e.g. "Yeah Dave, your fighter's background indicates he was trained in scouting about, make a Dex check with a +2 bonus. Eric, make a Stealth check". Regarding other stuff, that I can see completely possible, for example imagine in PF if someone wanted to play a very simple Fighter, rather than give them the options of Favoured class etc just say Fighter has 3 skill points per level + int. Rather than let the player choose feats give them feats that are not optional in use, e.g. Weapon Focus +1 attack with chosen weapon), Toughness (extra HP), Improved Initiative (+4 Initiative MOd), Dodge (+1 Dodge bonus to AC), Iron Will (+2 Will Saves) etc.
I guess an argument could be made that in terms of RPGs, too much choice can actually be a bad thing; the reason being RPGs require other people to play them. So whilst I love buying new games because they all sound cool, I rarely get to play most of them, instead they sit on my shelf unused :( Because whilst I want to play...
I struggle to find 4 players interested in playing anything but maybe D&D and M&M who also suit my playstyle. Meanwhile friends want to play:
So yeah, whilst choice can be great, and I am always a sucker for a new game, finding players can be tough with so much choice, to the point that I have bought, read and then sold games (Earthdawn, Masterbook Bloodshadows & Necroscope) without having played them beyond a couple of sessions. Anyway, just food for thought and why I really want 5e to be a success and loads of people want to play it, because then players will be easy to find, and hopefully with the proposed modularity it can still be a game I want to play.
I would ask whether the players feel that they need to nova to beat the encounter - if their perception is that they need to, then maybe the encounters need to be toned back abit. You may feel the encounters aren't overpowered and the players just want to easy, so give them encounters they can overcome easily without going nova so they get used to the idea and then maybe ramp things up again.
I think you are being a little unfair to WotC here. I can agree that the GSL may have been an attempt to bring the D&D market back under one publisher, but I cannot believe for one minute that WotC felt it would being the entire RPG industry under a single product. There is absolutely no way that the GSL could have "killed" products like Savage Worlds or Shadowrun or even Mutants & Masterminds (that never used the d20 licence, just the OGL and never looked like they were going to go to a 4e like system). The press release seem to me to have the stated goal of consolidating the D&D & D&D clone market, nothing more beyond that really. And If WotC having a monopoly over D&D is bad, then Iguess so is White Wolf and their monopoly over World of Darkness, or Catalyst Game Labs and their monopoly over Shadowrun. I can see why some people feel the OGL has come back to bite WotC in the backside; the OGL has created an immense feeling of entitlement it seems, and now that WotC want to go back to a model that companies like White Wolf use they get accused of bullying tactics. I can see why some WotC and Hasbro staff wish the OGL had never existed.
Based on WoTC's track record I can predict that a single system that attempts to feed everyone's desires is destined to fail. Cool, I imagine quite a few people share that prediction. Personally I predict they will create a very flexible system that may for many capture the essence of all editions, but many people will continue to play the edition they prefer due to existing system mastery or not wanting to buy new books. I.e. I predict D&D Next will be successful, but not as successful as I hope it will be.
I really don't agree, first of all you can't possibly know how many people releasing 5.0 will please and so cannot possibly say that what you are doing would please more. Your suggestion only tries to please 3.x and 4e players whereas D&D Next is also hoping to please 0e, 1e, 2nd players too, so it could well please more if successful. Also, your suggestion results in two potentially competing lines of the game within the same publisher, not a good idea IMHO, better to have a single core game that can be tweaked any which way using modules than have a choice of 4.5 or 3.75.
Thanks for the clarification Not a problem, I have often found that some of the issues I had with 4e actually weren't as bad as I originally envisaged once I got the full rules pointed out to me. If someone unfamiliar with 4E hears a similar accusation about that game, they would need to find an already-invested gamer who owned the physical books, or had a subscription to the DDI. I agree that this is true, luckily I have the PDFs of the Deluxe PHB, DMG and MM to also call upon :) However the Catching Yourself rule is also mentioned in the free D&D 4e Quick Start rules available on the WotC website here. That PDF does a fairly good job of giving you the very basics of 4e and worth a read for those who haven't had a chance or desire to read the full 4e rules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
