DigitalMage's page

Is Paizo going to automatically withdraw money from your account when the book comes out? If not, what do you care what they are writing and what other people are buying?

People may care because if Paizo are writing and publishing epic level material that is time, effort and money that Paizo aren't using to write and publish material those people may be interested in.

As for me, I am maybe not the right person to ask this question of as I doubt I will be buying any more Pathfinder RPG books (just stopping at Core, Bestiary PDF, GM Screen PDF and APG PDF) but...

I am not interested in Epic level content as I only use PF RPG to play in PFS which I doubt will ever progress to include epic tier (it doesn't go beyond level 12 as it is).

Also, I have never played in a game of D&D3.5 or Pathfinder RPG where characters got to a level any greater than about 7. Even if I stuck with a campaign for a significant length of time I cannot see characters leveling beyond 12 or so.

I was wondering whether anyone has used the concept of Reservce Points from Unearthed Arcana in either their D&D 3.5 game or Pathfinder RPG game, if so how did it go?

The idea is you have an number of reserve points equal to your max hit points, and these can be used to recover from HP damage by transferring from reserve points to HP at a rate of 1 per minute. It effectively gives a PC twice as many HP per day, but with the normal maximum HP for any particular fight.

I think 4th edition is closer to AD&D than pathfinder is. When you're looking at the history/tradition are you evaluating each vs 3.5 or vs something older? (I mean Pathfinder is obviously much closer to 3.5 than 4th edition is, so those who began playing around 3.0/3.5's release would no doubt judge Pathfinder to be truer to D&D's tradition. I have no clue about 2nd edition).

Interestingly I really got started with D&D with 3.5* and yet 4e feels like D&D is as much as 3.5 did.

Some of the mechanics I have issue with and overall prefer 3.5, but also like a lot of what 4e did - I dislike Vancian magic and so 4e's At Wills and Encounter powers make for a much more fun game for me personally.

*I did actually play a handful of sessions in older editions, not quite sure what it was, but I thought the system was patched together and clunky and the players annoyed me to the point that I set myself up for a heroic death and made it clear to the GM that I wanted my character to stay dead as I wouldn't be returning.

The only other session I played (again no idea what edition) was at an overnight D&D game at GenCon US back in 1997 I think. It was a stereotypical dungeon bash and was a bit boring IMHO.

It was tested out in the late 3.5 era. Several Eberron adventures used it as well. I for one am glad to see its use being limited. I could see how for certain types of encounters it would work quite well, but as a general format, it was not good.

THe Dawn of Defiance scenarios for Star Wars Saga Edition also did this.

DigitalMage wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

Good question. I'll just say this, we all saw what happened to the PDF's of previous editions,

I hate the fact that WotC pulled PFS but it wasn't edition focussed, they pulled all PDFs including the 4e ones.

That doesn't exactly make the situation better!

Oh yes I agree re it being a bad move by WotC and one that won't stop piracy. However I was more trying to indicate that using what they did with PDFs as an inidicator as to what they would do with DDI for 4e once 5e comes out may not be so accurate.

If WotC had just pulled previous edition PDFs then yes I think that would clearly indicate that they would pull DDI for 4e as soon as 5e comes out, but that isn't what they did; their motivations were completely different.

For Space Opera there is Star Wars d20 (Revised Core Rules or Saga), though both are out of print now.

For modern day you could potentially look into Mutants & Masterminds, its d20 based though simplified a bit (e.g. no Attacks of Opportunity) but has the rest of the d20 crunch - abilities, skills, feats etc. I am only familiar with the 2nd ed but 3e is out now.

Good question. I'll just say this, we all saw what happened to the PDF's of previous editions,

I hate the fact that WotC pulled PFS but it wasn't edition focussed, they pulled all PDFs including the 4e ones.

For me in the UK, at conventions Pathfinder is very popular, though it is pretty much exclsuively PFS (which is okay as that is what I play). It is more popular than say LFR it seems.

In my local Meetup group though, not many seem to play PF (though I found another one last night and even though at the first mention of 4e he called it a heresy and WoW we got along :)

In my Meetup group I just finished running a 4e game, have just started playing in a 4e game and there are at least two other 4e campaigns going on as well. There is also a 3.5 campaign in Ravenloft going on. But no PF.

That is not to say PF players aren't out there, my old weekly group play PF, and I have played a couple of PFS scenarios with a couple from that group and two other players.

But generally in my locality it seems to be 3.5 or 4e in terms of D&D (with a bit of 2e on offer as well).

As for 4e and roleplaying - I think it all comes down to the GM, players and possibly the scenario being run (if it is published). The 4e campaign I ran - I structured it and ran it just as I would any other rpg campaign I would run. We averaged maybe one fight a session, with some sessions having a couple and a couple of sessions having no combat.

We had a Warforged who was different and seeking out his creator, a young House Orien member who was seeking status, got married and had a child, and we had a Changeling spy who had to confront someone who had resurrected a past identity he had used.

4e seems to offer the same tools for non-combat roleplaying as PF does with perhaps the exception of crafting skills, which is because 4e purposely doesn't focus on that aspect of adventuring, and when it does it isn't in a manner to do things cheaper than simply buying them.

Could you guys have a talk with the Mongoose crew - you're lucky to get any bookmarks in one of their PDFs :)

Icons by Adamant written by Steve Benson.

That should have been Steve Kenson! I was posting from my phone :(

You might also have simply used a charisma check instead.

Oh yeah, I could have done, but when I actually reflected on it, I shouldn't have been asking for any sort of test to determine how well he performed because it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference.

In the situation the bard player was basically wanting to sing about a village that had recently succumbed to a mini-mournland (Eberron reference) and was looking to see if mentioning the village and its fate provoked a reaction. As long as he mentioned the village in the song, it didn't matter how badly or how well he sang, what mattered was actually whether he made his Insight check to notice any looks of recognition on the faces of his audience.

But yes, in general if the quality of performance was importance I may have asked for a Charisma check assigning a +2 or +5 bonus for having a relevant background.

I see this brought up a lot, but really, if there's nothing in the system itself built into what special skills your character is good at, then what are you doing outside of Magical Tea Party with some minis combat on the side?

[...]
If my character has a non-combat proficiency that he's good at, that at some point in the game I'm going to be spending in-game time doing(blacksmithing, crafting, etc), then I want something in the mechanics to justify my skill level, and the time my character has invested in getting good at that skill. Just because it's not in combat, doesn't mean it should be hand-waved away with an automatic success.

I think the key thing is whether that thing you're going to be spending in-game time doing is actually going to have an impact on the game on a regular basis - if its not then perhaps the need for mechanics isn't there.

So with 4e there are a number of non-combat skills that are there and do have an impact mechanically and also on the plot, stuff like Diplomacy, Theivery, Bluff, History, Nature etc.

However skills like Profession (Farmer) were jettisoned because they don't normally have an impact on the type of story D&D 4e focuses on, and if they did it would be only once in a blue moon.

So when a player says their character was a veteran farmer before becoming an adventurer, rather than forcing the player to "waste" precious in game resources (skill training slots) on such a skill to justify their background it is better just to say "okay you were a veteran farmer", and if it should ever come up as an issue in-game allow the GM to simply ask for an Intelligence check or something assigning a bonus for having a relevan background, sort of like Savage Worlds' Common Knowledge checks. I just wish 4e had spelled this option out explicitly like SW did as often it isn't seen as an option because it isn't codified in the rules.

Now Crafting is a thorny issue because in 4e as opposed to 3.x, crafting is not one of those things that the game focuses on. It is a design change and one of the differences that may not be liked by everyone, but in 4e if you craft an item (and you can) there is no skill check, though you may need a feat and a ritual for magic items, but you don't make it any cheaper than if you bought it either. This allows the wealth by level calculations to stay stable and also focus on the adventuring rather than the crafting.

I am not necessarily saying 4e's way is better, but there is method behind the madness :) And having GMed a 4e campaign I think there was maybe only 3 or so occassions when I wanted to ask for a perform check or something, but in the end on analysing what the goal of the player was, how well the bard played didn't make a bit of difference only that his song had a certain content so as to provoke a reaction. And so I can accept how 4e handles things.

EDIT: I think "fluff" skills that might come in handy could be handled in 3.x and 4e, but in both I would prefer a seperate pool of points to assign to those skills, seperate from the skill points you spend on Stealth, Perception and Knowledge (Arcana) - sort of like Shadowrun 3e's active vs knowledge skill points.

Of course in 3.x Crafting maybe an active skill whilst in 4e it may be a fluff skill :)

THERE...a friend of mine convinced me to try it out again, and i did. Session lasted for six or so hours and it was quite fun. Combat was dynamic and there was even a little roleplay.

Cool, I assume you are someone who was quite anti-4e previously considering the nature of your post, so fair play to you for actually giving it a go and even more kudos for actually enjoying it as that shows that you didn't go into the game intent on hating it :)

1. It has an MMO feel, a slight one, but still it has it. Nothing wrong with that. It kidna suits the game

I was going to ask what specifically you found about 4e that gives this feel, but I think you and some others have highlighted things that could give that feel (raids, encounter powers = recharge powers etc). Still if you do have any other insights it might be interesting to hear them.

I only ever played City of Heroes so my MMO experience is limited and I am always curious to hear about how 4e gives that MMO feel.

3. I am sorry all you 4E lovers/defenders out there, but it does not feel like D&D. At all.

I don't think you need to apologise at all, simply for the fact that those people who love or defend 4e probably do feel like it is D&D :)

I only got into D&D with 3.5 (having only played a couple of sessions of previous editions, not sure which ones), and while I prefer 3.5 to 4e, I still feel overall both are D&D.

Of course the key thing is, "what D&D is" cannot ever be objectively defined, and so while one person may feel 4e is not D&D and therefore not like it for that reason, others may feel the opposite - and they are both right! :)

4. Roleplay was there, but it was not that backed up with mechanics...nor were non-combat skills. Maybe i am just used to having a lot more covered with mechanics, but it bothered me.

Out of interest, was your DM running a published scenario, or a self written game? Also how did 4e's non-combat skills not do the job, were some missing? Were those that were there lack explicit rules to do certain things?

It's like Trek vs. Wars.

I actually use the analaogy of Star Trek's various incarnations, Original Series, Next Gen, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise etc all do things a bit differently and because of those differences some people prefer different shows, and some will even go so far to say that those differences make some of those shows not feel like Star Trek anymore. But for most people, whether they are watching Kirk, Picard, Sisco, Janeway or Archer it feels like Star Trek and its fun.

Icons by Adamant written by Steve Benson.

That's harder to do if they know the next town down the road has 2185 inhabitants (1996 humans, 82 dwarves, 55 elves, 27 halflings, 24 gnomes, and a half-orc named Bubba), is ruled by Lord Mayor Albrecht Lichtenstein (Wiz7, a former adventurer), and is currently afflicted by a minor grain shortage.

I just hope for players learning the basics, not the intricacies. Basically when I mention the Sovereign Host in an Eberron game it is nice if the players at least know that it is the most widespread religion and is made up of a number of deities. The sort of background info their characters would know.

I would still like them not to know the secrets of the setting so I can still wow them :)

You have a quote for that?

Pathfinder RPG core book page 555:

If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die.

Having read how PF has changed ability damage I have just noticed another thing! In PF now if your Strength or Dexterity suffers damage equal to its rating you fall unconscious, whereas in 3.5 you would have been Helpless or Paralysed respectively.

There might be times where the difference is important!

Ability damage doesn't subtract from your scores, at least not any more.

It adds ability damage. Your score remains constant.

I guess if I look at it that way it sort of makes sense, although the character sheet could do with a change to relfect that, i.e. boxes for ability damage to be recorded as well as Temp Adjustment. If you record damage starting at zero then it makes sense to have a every 2 points = -1 modifier.

But as ability damage works in PF, if you have a 12 and lose 1 point, your modifier does not change.

Ah! I understand now, well that is crap IMHO. Did 3.5 work like that? Is the PF text perhaps badly worded and the intention was that ability modifiers should drop in line with ability score?

"For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability" is technically not incorrect, every two points will result in a -1 whether your original score is odd or even. However it needs an addendum to indicate that if your score was originally even then even 1 point could lead to a modifier reduction.

And he is responsible for the travesty that is star wars d20 revised edition and vitality and wound points among other things. His prior work with TSR and early wotc nonwithstanding, he made a great many f******s.

Its all a matter of perspective. I actually like Star Wars d20 RCR, it was my first d20 game (yes, before D&D even) and I preferred it to Star Wars D6 which required too much dice adding.

I particularly liked the Wounds and Vitality rule - it allowed for effective Mook rules, encouraged genre emulation in terms of heroes not wearing armour but stormtroopers doing so, and also made 1st level character fairly sturdy. In fact I was shocked when I did buy D&D3.5 that 1st level characters didn't get their Con Score added to HPs.

So it just shows that what someone doesn't like, others will.

Enhancement penalties to stats affect a person with a 13 in a state the same way they do a person with a 12 (until they hit 0 anyway)

Maybe I am missing something, but why wouldn't most people not know that it would affect a 13 the same way as a 12?

The Evasion and Pursuit Rules:

** spoiler omitted **

I dunno if it existed in v3.5 (I'm thinking not), but I find this little tidbit in the "Other Rules" chapter is often overlooked by the groups I've played in.

It was in there DMG p20, it seems a direct copy & paste.

Evasion & Pursuit in the 3.5 SRD

I have never really felt the urge to write my own campaign world, mainly because I would then have to spoon feed it to my players - ideally my players would read up on the basics of the setting so they know the nations, gods, important organisations, level of tech etc.

I also don't like having to do conversions so although Eberron is my favourite D&D setting if I was going to run a Pathfinder RPG game I would likely use the Freeport setting as there is a PF RPG companion for it that I have (no conversion necessary).

Thanks! That makes sense.

Apologies if this has been asked before, but I wonder if anyone could enlighten me as to what the letter codes for scenarios mean?

What I mean by that is what does the D stand for in D0: Hollows Last Hope and D1: Crown of the Kobold King? Is it an indication of a linked set of scenarios, the location in which they take place etc?

Is there a key to what the letters stand for?

I prefer portrait style.

Yes, its definately a matter of preference, I guess this may be a reason I stand up a lot to GM anyway (but then I have to duck to read the GM screen :( )

Its a nice looking screen I must admit, and "hardback" screens seem to be the way to go ever since Vampire: The Requiem (that was the first screen where I saw the sturdier construction).

My only criticism is like the nWoD, Mongoose RuneQuest and Travellers screens is that it is portrait style. I much prefer the landscape styles that are lower meaning less of a barrier between GM and players and also has a wider space behind the screen - see M&M2e deluxe screen, D&D4e screen and Deadlands Deluxe Screen for examples.

I must admit, the amount of errata, even before Essentials came out, meant that "it" (a nebulous it meaning the 4e system) seemed to be becoming a revision of original 4e).

Now Essentials seemed to be a way to make 4e easier to get into, with certain variants on the original classes being more like the pre 4e classes, however that by itself does not make it not 4e, especially as they relabelled the classes Mage, Slayer etc. It was more akin to Paizo's archetypes I guess (though at this point I am maybe talking out of my arse, not being familiar with either Essentials or Paizo's archetypes :)

However, because WotC also incorporated all the errata to date into Essentials, as well as dropping explicit support for Rituals, and changing the pacing mechanic for magic items, it does seem like Essentials has become 4e revised - at least to some people.

Now, had WotC not have extra stock of the original PHBs out there and had reprinted it incoporating all the errata to date before Esssentials came out, then I think Essentials would not have been seen as a 4.5 as much as it perhaps is.

Having said all that, Essentials from what I understand is very much compatible with original 4e, its just that if someone is playing a PHB Wizard the GM may not be able to adjudicate the rules around Rituals with just the Essentials books.

Essentials and 4e may contain some differences but if those differences means its a "stealth 4.5" and that such a comment is being made to depict WotC in a bad light, then I think that poster should consider Paizo as just as bad if not worse by promising to keep 3.5 alive (3.5 Thrives!) and putting the 3.5 OGL Compatible logo on books that just aren't as compatible as E4e is with O4e.

Personally, putting aside my nerdrage I don't think either Paizo or WotC are the devil.

Is Mists of Mwangi still availble in the 3.5 format? I was toying with the idea of running single session scenarios using 3.5 and as the old Mark of Heroes and X'endrik Expeditions RPGA scenarios aren't availabe I was looking at possibly the 3.5 PFS scenarios.

EDIT: DOn't worry I asnwered my own question by looking at the description:

"Note: This scenario has been updated for use with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Purchasers have access to both 3.5 and Pathfinder RPG editions, but as of January 10, 2011, only the Pathfinder RPG edition is legal for Pathfinder Society organized play."

I think we have to agree that anecdotal evidence centred around one area is never going to represent an accurate picture of the hobby and industry as a whole.

For every example of somewhere that 4e doesn't sell but PF is flying off the shelves there is a counter example..

When I last went into the LGS in town I saw a few 4e titles there, along with Traveller Dark Heresy etc, but I couldn't find any Pathfinder stuff at all - not even on the shelves further back. Equally, in our Meetup group there have been no games running using PF RPG, the D&D games running use 3.5 or 4e (and 4e has the most games going at the moment).

Then again, no one in my old weekly group moved over to 4e but they all went over to PF. Also the LGS in the next city over stocks both PF and 4e quite heavily.

So yeah, anecdotal evidence is representative only of the anecdote :)

an AP or adventure, especially one that shows off 4E strengths but is time consuming to design would work well. So a higher level muder mystery that is complicated by palace intrigues with lots of interesting skill challenges, colourful NPCs, and fascinating twists and turns to the plot could be an excellent adventure...and WotC ain't been doing anything like that so no fear of competition from them here.

Which ironically brings us back to potentially the reason why the OP started this thread :)

So yeah, there's got to be some difference that makes a system that's younger by a year have over twice as many 3PP products than 4e.

TBH I think the main thing that discourages 4e 3pps is not the lack of an SRD or the OGL, its the fact of how good, and therefore how widely used, the DDI tools are.

Without the ability for 3pp content to be added to the compendium, character builder and monster builder, people are less likely to buy such content I imagine.

DigitalMage wrote:

I still suffer a bit of nerdrage aimed at Pathfinder for "stealing" all the 3.5 players, but I recognise that it is nerdrage and try to keep the views on PF as objective as I can.

I know I am 4 days late. Could you explain that "stealing" comment to me?

Okay explanation time :) First off though, remember that this is my explanation of what is, by my own admission, a bit of nerdrage - it is an explanation of perception & experience rather than fact & hobbywide statistics, and based on emotion rather than rational thought.

Basically, when 4e came out quite a few 3.5 players would have converted over and decided to no longer run, and even perhaps play, 3.5. This would have been a blow to any people who wanted to still play 3.5 as the number of DMs and players would have lessened and I was worried as I had only really just gotten into 3.5 at that stage and I wasn't liking some of what I read about 4e .

However, due to the quite devisive nature of 4e it seemed as though quite a lot of 3.5 players would not actually be converting over, indeed none of the players in my weekly group wanted to. This came as somewhat of a relief to me as I imagined the pool of 3.5 players wouldn't shrink as much as I thought - I could still play 3.5 in my weekly group and I could still go to conventions and find 3.5 games being run.

Then Pathfinder was launched. Originally I was excited as it seemed as though it was going to keep a version of the 3.5 rules in print. However, Pathfinder moved on from 3.5, just like I imagine 3.5 moved on from 3.0 (I don't know I only got into D&D with 3.5).

Whilst some of the changes were good, some I didn't (and still don't) like. Also enough was changed that I felt I lost what little system mastery of 3.5 I had, needing to double check everything, and if I wanted to run or play in my preferred setting of Eberron conversion work would be needed.

Basically, like when 4e came out I just wanted to stick with 3.5. However this time it seemed that quite a few of the players who stuck with 3.5 when 4e came out now did decide to convert over to PF, the two GMs in my weekly group did and I don't believe any 3.5 is played there anymore. So, while I was saved the loss of players to 4e, I instead found I lost the 3.5 players to PF.

So, to use a provocative nerdrage phrase - Pathfinder seemed to "steal" a lot of what remained of the 3.5 players (so much so that to get a game of 3.x at a convention, PFS seems like the only choice and so I do play PF just for PFS). And marketing like this poster just fanned the flames of my nerdrage :)

Maybe his sympathies are with one of the other would-be 3.5 successors. Paizo isn't the only kid playing the post-3.5 game, they do seem to be the most successful at lining up the 3.x grognards though, and they are a grumbly lot.

Nah, my sympathies are with 3.5 :)

If all else fails, and you have to resort to Escape Artist or CMB check to escape wait to see if your opponent Pins you, then try to escape - its actually likely to be easier because your Escape Artist skill modifier will be higher and the opponent's CMD may be worse.

In my experience they take over 4 hours, more like 5 or 6 if everyone is roleplaying and you have 5 or 6 players. I can't remember the last PFS scenario I finished in 4 hours.

Mongoose have relinquished the RuneQuest and Glorantha licences but are keeping the MRQII system and rebranding it now as Legend (not Wayfarer as previously intended).

Planet Mongoose Blog Announcement

I am actually really excited about this new game. They will have learnt a few lessons from MRQII and so will likely clarify some of the sticking points.

Also it will be digest sized, which I love!

The name "Legend" allows for some cool supplement titles too in the vein of "X of Legend", e.g. Monsters of Legends, Arms of Legends, Vikings of Legend, and perhaps Heroes of Legend, Adventures of Legend etc :)

And it will be an open system, presumaby released under the OGL with the whole of the core line OGC apparently. Excellent.

Is anyone else excited about this?

And In your opinion, what might be some simple things, that might be worth taking from 4E and using them in a pathfinder game?

Some stuff I suggested on another thread but will repeat here:

Second Wind
Allow PCs to take a Standard Action in a fight (Swift Action for Dwarves) to recover a certain amount of hit points. The exact implementation details would need to be hammered out and a finite limit added so PCs wouldn't enter fights just to heal themselves!

Something like heal a number of Hit Points equal to your Character Level a number of times a day equal to your Con Modifier (minimum of 1).

Rituals
Ideally this would be a simple system that would allow magicians to cast existing spells they have learnt without preparing them, but at a cost in extra compoenents and time. Wizards would get this ability automatically and sorcerers could get it as a Feat and would need to learn each spell.

Something like duration increases so Swift/Immediate action spells take 1 minute, Move Action Spells take 5 minutes, Standard Action Spells take 5 minutes and 1 Rounds spells take 10 minutes, any spells that take longer to cast get multipled up by a factor of 10, so 1 minute spells also take 10 minutes, 10 minutes spells would take 100 minutes etc

NOt sure what monetary cost should be.

Such spells cast at rituals shoudl also require a Spellcraft check.

Okay I play Pathfinder but don't GM it so I cannot comment on it from a GMing point of view. I do however GM 3.5 so I have some insight.

In terms of 4e I just finished running a 26 session campaign using it and have just started playing in a campaign (even though I said I would give 4e a break a play some other games the chance to actually play in an Eberron game was too good to pass up :)

Strengths of Pathfinder
Skills have been consolidated from 3.5.

Familiarity because of the similarity to 3.5, although that similarity can also trip me up when I assume something is the same but it has been tweaked.

Spell durations are designed so as to be useful outside of combat too, though perhaps at the expense of making them too useful in combat (Sleep).

A core set of combat manouevres that everyone can at least attempt, without having to have specific feats or training.

Ability to multiclass allowing Classes to be building blocks.

Strengths of 4e
Skills have been consolidated from 3.5.

Easier to prep as a GM as NPCs do not have to follow the same rules as PCs. Also to level up or down monsters it is some simple maths that incorporates the assumption of feats etc that would give extra bonuses.

Its worth IMHO to start at level 1 as characters are tougher.

At Will and Encounter powers allow me to do cool stuff each encounter without worrying about whether I am "wasting" a spell.

Classes are more balanced, and non magic users also get cool powers too.

The similar structure of the classes make it much easier to learn to play a different class, yet the content in that structure is so different that the classes don't all feel the same.

Ability for "healing" by more classes than just the Cleric, even non magic users can do it as HPs reflect more of a measure of how long you can keep fighting - which can reflect morale as well as physical health.

Rituals - the ability to always have the option to cast certain "spells" with teh restriction being time and money rather than power slots.

Second Wind - a nice way for every player to get back on their feet during a battle.

Issues with PF
Some skills have not been consolidated enough from 3.5 (Swim and Climb), and some skills are just odd (Fly).

Grapple rules are IMHO a complete mess (worse than 3.5 which I was happy with).

Channelling make Cleric even more of the "must have class" for healing. Also in campaign where there may only be one or two combats a day, clerics can spam their channelling to ensure everyone starts the day at full HP, meaning a GM can sometimes struggle to run scenarios where the PCs are slowly whittled away, so they enter the final combat injured and weary.

Some feats are just odd, contrived for backwards compatibility with 3.5 e.g. Stealthy giving +2 to Stealth and Escape Artist. Such feats should IMHO have just been dropped and SKill Focus used instead.

Spells (apart from Cantrips) are all dailies, which means as a maic user I am always thinking I should save a spell in case we need to use it in a mroe powerful encounter later that day, but if such an encounter doesn't come I have lost the chance to use that spell.

It can sometimes be guess work as to which spells to prepare - especialy in terms of situational spells like Endure Elements and Faerie Fire and Entangle. Often some spells that could be really useful in an encounter simply aren't used because they weren't prepared because it didn't seem worth it.

Issues with 4e
Durations on powers are designed for use in combat, which is cool, but limits their usefullness outside of combat, e.g. Save Ends fo Sleep spell making it difficult to make some guards sleep while you hurry the rescued prisoners past them. To end of Next Turn for Keen Oil rather than until a successful hit.

This could be solved by more Sustained duration, e.g. Invisibility lasts indefinately but you need to spend a Standard Action to sustain it - so balanced for both in combat and out of combat stuff.

Too simplified in some areas, e.g. a simgle Save throw may work great for determining durations of some powers, but doesn't make sense when the ability to save should be influenced by factors such as Strength or Dexterity (e.g. in Dungeon Delve 1 a tapestry can be pulled down on a PC immobilising him, freeing oneself is a Save Ends, not accounting for strength).

Power and magic utem effects triggering on a hit against a foe, when the effect is nothing to do with the attack, e.g. needing to hit a foe to use a Rod of Repair to gain a boost to an Artificer's healing powers.

Some stuff like tripping require powers in order to even try it. This can be mitigated by DMG p42, but that could undermine the usefulness of the powers themselves.

HIt points resetting every night - this is a big one for me - I like to grind players down so they feel they are running on empty sometimes, but I also write scenarios that only have one or two combats a day. With the HP resetting each night (and often each encounter with short rests) if I want PCs to face the possibility of death I need to get them there in one fight - but that is a difficult line to balance on, its too easy to go over it with a Critical and find yourself with a death or two, so I tend to err on the side of caution and feel some encounters aren't challenging enough.

Due to NPCs having different creation rules, I am not comfortable changing or creating new types - I tend to stick with what is in the MM, maybe levelled up or down a bit. With 3.x if you're familiar with making a PC who by default can also make NPCs.

But perhaps my biggest issue with 4e is that, unless the players are very familiar with their powers the sheer number of them can lead to hesitation during combat whilst they try to figure out the best power to use.

Also the range of powers often focus some players into thinking they are their only options - rather than thinking what does my character need to do, and then figure out how to do that, players seem to go straight to their powers.

So many powers mean I as GM cannot hope to know what the rules are, so if a player is having difficulty with a power I can't just talk him through the process without reading up on the power myself. WHereas with 3.5 I knew how the combat moves like trip and grapple worked and so could talk a player through those.

Connected with the above, quite a few players I have played with don't describe in game how their power works only giving the mechanical effect. I as a GM struggle to add that description in myself because I don't know what how the power is meant to work (Monk powers are most difficult IMHO because the powers' names are quite abstract e.g. Rising Storm or Harmonious Thunder compared to a FIghter's Cleave or Spinning Sweep.

Summary
Both games give me something different. When I play 4e I can sometimes yearn for the crunch and combat manouevres of 3.x, but then when I play PF I can find myself wishing I had some At Will and Encounter powers.

Overall, its the fact that 4e is popular and supports the Eberron setting that has sold 4e for me, and its the popularity of PFS organised play at conventions that has sold PF for me. But if its a home campaign, and players are willing to play 3.5 that will be my choice over both PF and 4e - there is enough material out there that I can incorporate some of the best bits of both in 3.5 without also suffering some of the issues.

But for my money, the genuine reason why they decided not to convert was the shenanigans over the GSL.

Oh yes, there are loads of reasons why Paizo wouldn't and shouldn't create 4e Pathfinder setting and adventure material - everything from the GSL, to supporting their own system, to not having to "retrain" re rules mastery etc - but the 4e rules system isn't one of those reasons.

And as 4e fans feeling welcome, i hate this part of myself, but it is still there, and it doesn't want them to fell welcome. I am trying to supress it, but sometimes it resurfaces.

Cool, we can't always control how we feel, but we can control how we act on those feelings. I still suffer a bit of nerdrage aimed at Pathfinder for "stealing" all the 3.5 players, but I recognise that it is nerdrage and try to keep the views on PF as objective as I can.

So as long as you realise how you're feelings isn't necessarily beneficial and try to keep a lid on it I think the 4e fans will be okay :)

If anybody wonders what the "other side" feels about this...

Yeah, I didn't need to do more than just scan that Pathfinder review to realise that the poster is, putting it mildly, biased :)

However, I agree with RedJack and the others that I am not sure posting that link is going to help this thread, or do anything to make the 4e fans among us to feel welcome.

I admit the first blog article you linked was relevant as it talked about this very thread. Personally, I agree with his underlying point re 4e not having anything intrinsic to its design that would stop Paizo writing some really good scenarios for it, I just don't agree with the exact manner of expression.

I would suggest scaling back the challenge rating of encounters so that the PCs can deal with them without the need for healing so much, allow for overnight healing to be enough to keep them going (just).

Alternatively introduce the Reserve Points system from Unearthed Arcana, combine that with Damage Conversion and characters can even get an effective Second Wind in combat, plus healing non-lethal damage is a lot quicker than lethal.

The "Ultimate" titles remind me of the Star Wars d20 books - Ultimate Alien Anthology & Ultimate Adversaries :)

At least the naming convention identifies them as "core supplements" which is nice.

And once you pin your opponent, you no longer have the grappled condition.

Eh? Yes you do, and in addition you lose your dex bonus to AC (and thus also to CMD).

If you're pinned you don't take the -4 dex penalty though, so if you're ever grappled yourself, best to let yourself get pinned and then try to escape as it will be easier :)

@KaeYoss - Spoilered to avoid thread crapping too much.

No, for some unknown reason they don't...

Doh! Never noticed that before :)

Is it just me, or does the layout in the books seem reminiscent of 4e's stuff?

Yeah, that was my thoughts as well, and that is a good thing IMHO as one thing I was really impressed with in 4e was the layout.

Also paper minis are great, I have a load printed from PDFs for fantasy, modern, sci fi and super heroes; the fact that they stand up makes them much easier to pick up and move than flat disks.

NOT TAKING SIDES HERE.

I think both of you should probably drop it and let it go. As an uninvolved third party, the posts to this point really do speak for themselves.

If you've just got to keep going with this, there is always ENWorld.

Fair enough, I guess we are thread jacking.

@ KaeYoss - if you care to explain what you mean feel free to PM me (these forums do have Private Messages don't they?)

DigitalMage wrote:

We weren't talking about simply disagreeing, we were talking about people getting angry at even the suggestion that Paizo might incorporate some mechanics first seen in 4e, without even knowing the details of what those mechanics are and how they would be implemented.

Really? You're throwing out "nerdrage" and when someone acts on it, you back-pedal and go "only the raging nerds are nerdraging"?

Sorry, you have lost me. When you say "when someone acts on it" who are you referring to, yourself?

Also, what am I meant to be back pedalling on?

To summrise our conversation has gone:

Me: If Paizo were to get the D&D licence (and access to the 4e rules) I would hope they would create a 5e that would be a mashup of the best bits of both :)

You: And that wouldn't make anyone angry?

Me: Assuming Paizo got the D&D licence and wanted to use that brand name instead of using the Pathfinder brand, and they were going to take the opportunity to change some of the Pathfinder rules at the same time (so that D&D 5e is effectively Pathfinder 2e) then I see no reason why they shouldn't learn and possibly use some of the good mechanics that first saw print in 4e.

Still Me: Now if some Paizo fans are so entrenched in their nerdrage hatred at WotC that they couldn't evaluate those mechanics on their own merits, and instead would get angry just because WotC may have influenced Paizo's work, then TBH I couldn't care, and maybe Paizo shouldn't either.

You: Sure, everyone who disagrees is "entrenched in their nerdrage hatred". That's one option. The other is that the idea is just staggeringly bad. I'll go with staggeringly bad on this one.

Me: We weren't talking about simply disagreeing, we were talking about people getting angry at even the suggestion that Paizo might incorporate some mechanics first seen in 4e, without even knowing the details of what those mechanics are and how they would be implemented.

More of Me: You are willing to write it off not just as a bad idea, but a staggeringly bad idea, before even discussing what mechanics and design principles of 4e might be a good idea to include, or how they may be changed in their implementation to better suit the simulationist model of 3.x? Okay, thats your prerogative, I personally like to be a bit more open minded about such things.

And then you accuse me of back pedaling on something. Seriously, I have completely lost you - could you elaborate please?

Hmm, maybe I was a little over zealous in stating how essential a cleric is in PF, ironically when I GM I try to make it clear that a cleric is not essential and I will adjust threat level according to the party's capabilities (including healing ability or lack thereof).

Hmm, makes me potentially want to change my choice of character for my monthly PFS games, not sure how that will go down though.