Roman's page

Sash of the Daredevil
Aura moderate evocation; CL 9th
Slot belt; Price 14,000 gp; Weight 1 lbs.
Description
Made of fine white cloth, this sash is initially bland. The length of the band soon becomes lined with pictograms denoting the audacious exploits of its owner. Twice per day, when the wearer successfully engages in a risky task and chooses to take advantage of the sash, the item furnishes the proprietor with a bonus hero point that must be spent within three rounds. Wearer must declare the use of the sash before taking the action that would unlock the bonus hero point, but failure at the chosen task does not count against the item’s daily use limit.

Eligible risky tasks include meaningful uses of the following skills:

Acrobatics
Climb
Ride
Swim

In this context, the minimum DC for a task to count as risky is 20. Lower skill-use DCs denote tasks that are insufficiently bold to activate the item.

The risk deriving from skill-use must be real to trigger the item. This means that potential failure at the task must carry significant consequences for the owner, such as taking damage from falling off a tall cliff, drowning in raging waters, not making the jump across a deep chasm, losing control of a mount right next to the hostile villain and so on. If in doubt, the GM remains the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes meaningful consequences and whether the particular task is sufficiently risky to qualify.

A character cannot have more than one hero point derived from this item at a time, but the bonus hero point does not count against the normal limit of maximum simultaneous hero points.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, heroic fortune; Cost 7,000 gp

I really appreciate the time you take to critique my item. You have my thanks!

I have also attempted to run a game above 20th level in the past. It was workable, but I completely ignored the Epic Level Handbook and used my own very loose, very incomplete rules. That incompleteness was compensated for by a heavy focus on the story and minimal focus on the mechanics.

While I agree that it is possible to make the Epic Level Handbook work, I don't think it was a good ruleset for above 20th level play. I really hope Paizo does better.

Is Paizo planning to publish a book that would provide for character advancement and supporting material above level 20? I remember that we have discussed this several times in the past on this forum, but I have been out of the loop for a while, so I am wondering if there are any new indications either way.

Personally, I would be interested in seeing such a book, but only if it were well-executed indeed. Should it turn into something like the Epic Level Handbook in 3e, I would probably pass.

ShadowcatX wrote:

Seems to be a really good arguement against entering if you want to one day publish it yourself.

But quite frankly, if you can't cut it in Superstar, you're most likely never going to publish commercially anyway.

That's excessively harsh. I think it is perfectly viable for somebody to publish even if they could not cut it in the RPG Superstar contest.

To the OP: You have to accept Paizo policy on this and approach the matter with that in mind. If you have something you want to publish yourself, don't submit it to the contest unless you are willing to give it up for the chance to advance in the RPG Superstar.

I am also designing writing a roleplaying game of my own (and have been for a number of years now - it can be slow going if one wants to do it well and is only using hobby-time to work on it). Every year, I come up with a whole bunch of items for the RPG Superstar and pick one I am willing to give up. I have plenty of ideas, so submitting one is not going to make a big difference to my RPG. Really, the chance to advance in the RPG Superstar is very much worth one item.

My definition of a DMPC would be a character that fits one or both of these criteria:

1) The character is run by the DM and is a permanent (or at least persistent/long-term) member of the party - travelling with the PCs and partaking in their adventures/stories.

2) The DM is sufficiently emotionally invested in the character to give him spotlight that is unnecessary from the point of view of the plot, use him as a Deus Ex Machina and to twist the situation to protect/enhance the character.

With the definition out of the way, here is my position on the matter:

As a player, I dislike DMPCs of both of the above types, but I tolerate them, because some DMs enjoy playing them.

As a DM, I also dislike both of the above types of DMPCs, and seek to eschew their use whenever it is reasonably possible to avoid using them.

So yes, I agree with Sissyl and Dr.Death, in that I have yet to see a DMPC done well. Sure, some are less bad than others, and as I said, I tolerate them as a player in the name of DM's enjoyment of the game, but I would prefer it if the DMPC phenomenom were to go away.

I once played in a campaign, where a similar mechanic to that described in the original post was used. It was an Arthurian Legends setting and the GM had characters of missing players go into the Fairyland. At first, it felt a bit contrived, but the GM has managed to weave it very well into the campaign and sometimes stuff would even happen to them there to enhance the plot or generate side-plots.

Personally, when I know the absence of a player is going to be long-term, I have the character temporarily leave the group. For example, I had a cleric summoned by her church authorities to assist in performing an important ceremony/ritual, when her player left for a few months.

When a player's absence is expected to be short-term, I temporarily assign the character to another player for the session(s), though I retain the right to veto/choose actions for the character.

I do indeed tend to give general answers to general questions, but often I think the players are looking for sufficient background on the subject to gain as many additional clues to the plot as possible beyond what I already gave them. I am then at a dilemma as to how much more to divulge. At other times, I would just prefer more consistency than my ad hoc disbursement of information.

As to the specific questions, again, I ad-lib it and give out information essentially on a whim, paying general attention to the number rolled. I guess it works, but again, I would like to generate some additional consistency.

How do you deal with knowledge skills in your campaign? For example, if a player has many ranks in knowledge religion and asks you what he knows about vampire vulnerabilities. Let's say he gets a high result (e.g. 30+) - how much do you tell him? Do you ad-hock it entirely or do you have some sort of system/guidelines that you use to decide what to tell him?

How about if he asks you a more general question, such as... "What do I know about demons?" and rolls his 30+ on knowledge planes.

So what do YOU do with knowledge skills?

I am relieved to hear that the financial exposure of Paizo to this MMO is small. Don't get me wrong, I wish you luck and success in this endeavor, but my skepticism regarding the financial success of this project runs high. I am not personally interested in playing MMOs of any sort, but I am still rooting for you, because if you can pull this off (though I think that is a very big IF), it could be a huge boost to the Pathfinder community in general.

On a different note, I agree with Darak and FoxBat that OGL does not seem to prevent electronic games. I think people often confuse the OGL with the d20 license, which did have a clause against such games.

I have just learnt about the Pathfinder Online MMO. After reading all the information about it I could get my hands on, I am sorry to say that this is likely to be a major financial flop.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a Pathfinder RPG computer game, but Paizo has chosen just about the least financially-viable way to go about it. There are many issues here - I will mention some below:

1) Creating a new startup company to create the game is the first big mistake. Game development is a complex process and requires expertise and experience to do well. Paizo is an excellent PnP RPG company - it should have licensed/outsourced game development to an experienced CRPG developer (e.g. Obsidian Entertainment).

2) Making the game an MMO is another huge mistake. MMOs are particularly difficult, lengthy and expensive to develop. Proving the market first with a single-player game would have been a far less risky and cheaper strategy. Besides, the difficulties compound themselves when tied in with point 1.

3) Designing the game to be a sand-box experience, rather than concentrating on a tight-story focused game. A sandbox game may be successful, but Paizo is known for its good storytelling and adventures. To abandon its main strength, especially when it has decided to create its own startup to develop the game, is almost beyond comprehension. Unless, of course, it is the result of point number 2 - it is difficult (almost impossible?) to make a story-driven MMO.

4) Abandoning the PnP ruleset is yet another considerable mistake. The 3.5E ruleset of which this is a derivation is familiar and attractive to and legions of CRPG players and could attract them to the game. Heck, I too am with Pathfinder RPG because of the ruleset, not because of Golarion with which I have no experience (not saying it is bad, but it is not what would attract me to Pathfinder). Some changes are inevitable in the adaptation of the PnP ruleset to electronic format, but this is wholesale 'reimagining' of the rules. Of course, this relates to the game being an MMO, where PnP rules would indeed not work well.

I really hope the new startup company is as financially insulated as possible from Paizo proper, since I wouldn't want the highly likely financial failure of this project to kill or substantially damage Paizo.

A new Legends and Lore article on "Getting the Most Out of the Rules": http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111101

Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.

Which of course could lead to the discussion of what changes could/should be made to classes, short of a full revision.

Does anybody have a link to the source of that information? Thanks!

Anyway, although I can imagine some changes to core classes, I don't think I am ready for buying a Pathfinder revision yet. If Paizo is merely considering releasing the info through FAQs or on a website... well, it would depend on the direction of the changes.

For example:

1) Changes to restrict spellcasting are fine by me, so long as interesting spells stay in the game, even if many think them unbalanced. Perhaps spell lists could be revised to ensure that one needs to specialize to gain interesting spells from that specialization and be forced to forgo such spells from other specializations.

2) Hopefully, the changes will not add additional arbitrary concepts, such as 'per encounter' timing and such.

Gunslinger is banned in my games, but the reasons are not so much balance, as the very idea of a class that uses guns. No thanks, in my fantasy games that are without guns.

Legends & Lore Archive | 10/25/2011

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111025

I definitely prefer the 3rd option. I am somewhat partial to rules-heavy games, as I can ignore or gloss over the details of the particular rules I don't want to bother with and use the ones I consider appropriate for my campaign. :)

I'm wondering how much 3.5 material groups let into their Pathfinder games (ie. prestige classes, feats, spells etc.)?

It's the other way for me. I use 3.5E as the basis, include some Pathfinder elements, and use a lot of my own rules. I have also been working on my own system entirely for several years now.

I don't view new editions as a money grab, so long as they don't come too often. Sure, they are used by companies to boost sales, but I accept if I feel that the new edition improves the game - these companies need to sell games to survive after all.

Having said that, from my perspective, the time horizon for new editions should be fairly long. I did not feel 3.X had run its course yet at the time of the edition change to 4E. If I were a 4E fan, I would not be amused if the 5th edition came some time in the near future.

I think the word simulationism tends to throw people off the track. Since this term is now in wide use (and in wide misuse), though, it is probably too late to change the appellation for the style of game we prefer. This is somewhat unfortunate, as it will continue to lead to misunderstandings, but there is little that can be done about it.

Thank you for the data DigitalMage. Pathfinder might or might not be outselling 4E (we don't know for sure given the incomplete nature of the data), but either way it is probably too close for comfort for WotC, given how dominant D&D has been in the past.

I have to agree with the consensus here. Having all core races at 10 points is counterproductive, because they are not balanced well enough to ensure justify such equality. That, in turn, cascades across the system and distorts the costs of the various abilities.

It would be possible to choose one race, let's say humans, and have it at 10 points (or have 10 points be some sort of average for the core races) to provide a baseline to cost the other abilities around. Once you do it with more than one race, though, the math gets distorted. Note that even choosing one race or even the average to be the 10 point baseline can pose granularity issues, but at least it does not create distortions beyond that.

The new Legends & Lore article talks about preserving the past of D&D, especially monsters, spells and magic items: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111018

That is rather relevant and provides further support to the notion that Wizards of the Coast may want to draw back the more D&D tradition-oriented players to the game.

Not much time, but here is at least one:

Burrow (3 RP): The race gains the ability to burrow with a speed of 10'.

Note: This should probably fall in the monstrous category.

Tacticslion, I agree. An attempt by WotC at higher world consistency in the rules is absolutely essential if I am to have any real interest in a new edition of D&D. Indeed, judging from your post, I think what we look for in a new D&D game is virtually identical.

Anyway, to add something extra, many of the departures from the 'immersion function' (it is not a perfect term, but I have to call it something short...) to an 'unveiled game function' in 3.XE/Pathfinder are based on D&D traditions (e.g. hit points). For this reason, I find them more acceptable than I would have found them were they newly introduced. In other words, I accept some mechanical conceits as part of the heritage of the game. Of course, that's not to say that I would object to them changing to provide enhanced support for immersion, but I am not as bothered by them as by newly introduced immersion-hampering rules elements.

Honestly, the only people who should care about 5E are the people still buying WotC products.

Why? I currently don't buy WotC products, but that doesn't mean I will never do so again. Hence, I am still interested with what they might come up with.

What about just dropping the whole basic advancement for attacks all together? I mean really it's only to simulate that you can attack faster and more efficent that a peasant or lower level person (someone not as experienced as you in RP terms). I'm much more of a fan of the 1/2 level + Ability system than a standardized Basic Attack Bonus approach. Instead of it being BAB (hells, could throw out 1/2 level too if you want) go with more attacks at the same modified attack number. How this translates into "real-world" dynamics is that newbie Foot-Soldier Fred has the basics for swinging his sword, getting his shield into place, and has a good stance. He has a good swing, attacks at a normal pace and every once in a while can eek out a nice combo or attack sequence (like a 4E-style power). Then he sees Veteran Maximus taking on 3 to 4 of his buddies, making quick strikes and precise attacks while using intresting maneuvers. These attacks (plural mind you) are quicker and more accurate but use the same modifier, maybe one or two higher for added Strength or some other ability.

Just some things to ponder.

Also, I agree with losing the Enhancement bonuses to magical equipment that are mostly used to keep up with the math of high level play. Just put them into the regular advancement of the character and use magical items like they were magical. If it's a flaming sword, then it deals fire damage, maybe some additional fire damage on a critical hit and maybe it can shoot some fire X amount of times per day (or once a battle yadda-yadda).

I also think they should keep the Tier style system, basing feats and progression (if we're going vertically) as it helps people understand the kinds of games you can make and their impact on the greater world.

I have thought about removing progressions altogether (including attack progressions, saving throw progressions and so on) and having characters be differentiated more by interesting abilities than a boring (though effective) bonus. Having said that, I dislike the +1/2 per level system. If I were to prevent the scissor effect of differential progressions, I would get rid of the progressions completely. Some abilities might provide bonuses to specific types of things, so fighters, for example, could still improve their to hit probability, but a progression would not be assumed by the rules.

Having said that, I must say that I like the fact that fighters improve at fighting (e.g. to hit probability) faster than say wizards. Perhaps the rate of improvement difference is too rapid for base 20 levels, but I like it that there is a difference. In my opinion, the scissors should open, though it should happen slower and iterative attacks should not automatically follow from a high attack bonus - they should be given by special abilities.

If we wanted to avoid probability scissors, though, we could convert base attack bonus (BAB) progression to a base damage bonus (BDB) progression. I think this would make differential progressions for different classes more viable. AC could then work as DR and perhaps have its own progression (base armor bonus? (the new BAB?)).

Just some ideas for thought.

Instead of having players ditch their weapons/armor/items for a bigger 'plus', I would have the new RPG system ditch the entire conceit of 'pluses' for items. Perhaps there could be a few exceptions, but in general, I would not be sad to see the system of 'pluses' go completely despite its long D&D tradition.

On another note, to find some positive things about 4E that I would enjoy seeing in a future version of D&D, I should mention that although it was implicitly there before, I like that 4E made the power source of each class more explicit. I also much prefer its approach to epic levels to how they were done in 3E, though I guess that's not saying much, given just how bad 3E's implementation of epic levels was. I also like it that classes like the fighter and such have unique abilities of their own, rather than just feats, though I disagree with the implementation and the unitary resource management system. Still, in principle, it is a good thing.

Here is the latest Legends & Lore article to fuel more speculation. "Live Together, Die Alone" is about party cooperation: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111011

So here's a question for you (collective you), would you rather see 5E with rules and style akin to 3E/PF (BAB, Saves vs spells, robust skill set, multi-level class stacking) OR have something completly different than 3E/PF and 4E?

I wouldn't necessarily mind if the new edition were something completely different, but with some important stipulations:

1) The direction of the differences/deviations matters a great deal to me. It should strive to be more "simulationist" (for lack of a better term), rather than less so. It needs to have more inter-class diversity, rather than less so. It ought to... you get the picture. I am not opposed to change, but if it must be in the right direction for me or I will dislike it intensely and forgo buying it altogether.

2) Regardless of the changes, the new edition has to possess enough of the mechanical and flavor components of the 1E/2E/3E to be clearly recognizable to me as D&D. I know this is a somewhat nebulous requirement, but it is difficult to narrow this down.

There may be more, but that's what comes to mind immediately.

Anyway, although I started playing D&D long before that, 3.X edition was mechanically my favorite (settings were best in 2E), so if there is a starting-point edition that has to be chosen, I would pick that one. Having said that, I don't think there will be a starting point edition that 5e will be derived from, though the new edition will surely incorporate elements of the previous ones.

Roman wrote:

This is very interesting further evidence for the 5E is coming thesis. Thanks for the links!

I like how doing the same thing they always do to 5E speculation threads since day one of 4E is counted as evidence for 5E.

I was thinking more about the statement from Margaret Weiss.

This is very interesting further evidence for the 5E is coming thesis. Thanks for the links!

Well, the latest Legend & Lore article certainly touches a nerve, but in a good way. I have been ignoring things like wealth by level anyway, so it would be nice to have my approach worked into the baseline assumptions of the game. Personally, in a new game or a new edition, I would go as far as eliminating all of the +X items altogether, though in D&D +X items have a tradition, so it might only be feasible in an entirely new game if one wants to avoid upsetting those who like this tradition.

Roman wrote:

I am not sure settings and adventure paths are necessarily the best forward. It seems to be working for Paizo, so more power to them, but I doubt it is easier to make money that way than by concentrating on publishing rules. Plenty of people play in homebrew settings and/or run their own adventures. Personally, for example, I am not really interested in purchasing published adventures, because I create my own. It is difficult to judge what proportion of gamers does the same, but I would venture a guess that it is fairly substantial.

Two words: Rules bloat.

You keep making up new rules, and the number of books you have to carry to each gaming session increases. The amount you have to master increases, and can act as a barrier to new players joining and learning the game. Eventually, you WILL either run out of rules to publish, or people willing to buy them, or you have to amalgamate and simplify them into a new edition which your fans may not like. Publishing rules can make a more money faster, but has to run out of steam.

On the other hand, sell one set of basic rules, and as long as people play they will want adventures. As long as your rules are relatively unchanged, there is no need to re-publish the adventures for new rule sets. It won't make as much money in the short term, but the need never vanishes.

Right, but apart from not selling to people who make their own settings/adventures, the company might also encounter a problem with people being unable to run all the adventures at the speed they are being produced. Thus a backlog of unused adventures builds among the customers, which is likely to suppress their future demand for such products.

I am not saying the adventure-based business model cannot work. It does seem to be working for Paizo. I am merely suggesting that it might not be any easier to pull off than concentrating on sales of the rules.

For Tacticslion and Chuck Wright: I agree that strong settings can be important in supporting a ruleset. What I am more skeptical of is the notion that it is easier to make money selling settings than selling rules. It appears to be working for Paizo, which uses the ruleset (and perhaps the setting) to support its adventure path sales as its main money maker. WotC's strategy was just the opposite - it used the settings and the adventures to sell the ruleset, which was their primary source of funds. Paizo's strategy seems to be working, but WotC's strategy was also highly successful.

I am not sure settings and adventure paths are necessarily the best forward. It seems to be working for Paizo, so more power to them, but I doubt it is easier to make money that way than by concentrating on publishing rules. Plenty of people play in homebrew settings and/or run their own adventures. Personally, for example, I am not really interested in purchasing published adventures, because I create my own. It is difficult to judge what proportion of gamers does the same, but I would venture a guess that it is fairly substantial.

Rather long aside about the difference between 4E mentality and a 3.X/Pathfinder one

** spoiler omitted **...

I agree with what you wrote in the spoiler. Verisimilitude and or simulationism may or may not be the right terms to summarize them, but yes, the factors you describe are some of the major reasons why I do not play 4E. They are not the only reasons - things like lack of class progression diversity, more metagame references (encounter is NOT a defined a unit of time) and others also matter a great deal to me, but the foregoing are definitely extremely important.

If WotC wanted to get me to buy into the 5th edition, they would have to change their design philosophy and at the very least return to the 3.X/Pathfinder philosophy or even go further in that direction. Fluff is important to me too, but, as far as I am concerned, rules design philosophy is absolutely vital.

Roman wrote:

From what I have heard, when WotC converted Dark Sun to 4e, they returned it to the era before the Prism Pentad novels, which drastically altered the setting much to the chagrin of many Dark Sun fans.

Let me correct you:

"When when WotC converted Dark Sun to 4e, they returned it to the era before the Prism Pentad novels, which drastically altered the horrible changes TSR made to the setting much to the happiness and utter joy of many Dark Sun fans."

Nobody liked Prism Pentad.

That's exactly what I said, though with less vitriol towards the Prism Pentad. I wouldn't say that nobody liked Prism Pentad, but it drastically altered the Dark Sun setting and not in a good way, so WotC's return of the setting to the era before that is a huge plus.

I am a Dark Sun fan and although I did not purchase the 4e Dark Sun on account of not playing 4e, from what I have heard about the era return, I definitely approve of what WotC has done with it. Hopefully, if there is a 5e conversion, WotC will do a similarly good job with the setting.

Anyway, my point is that if WotC could do it with Dark Sun in 4e, there is no reason why they couldn't do the same with Forgotten Realms in 5e.

From what I have heard, when WotC converted Dark Sun to 4e, they returned it to the era before the Prism Pentad novels, which drastically altered the setting much to the chagrin of many Dark Sun fans. Upon the 4e conversion, WotC supposedly said that these novels represent only one potential future for Dark Sun. Hence, I think the Dark Sun conversion to 4e has been handled well.

Since Dark Sun has successfully paved the way, there is no reason why WotC cannot take the same approach with Forgotten Realms once 5e comes out and say that 4e Realms represent only one possible future, while returning the setting back to the pre-4E era. After all, there is a precedent for that already.

Mok wrote:

[stirring pot]

So a big part of the current talk about 5e on this and other forums is spawned from the recent news of Monte Cook coming on board at WotC.

Here is his first blog entry on WotC site, showing more of his role and what he's messing around with. In this case it's perception!

Link

[/stirring pot]

See! They're already stealing from Pathfinder! They're replacing Spot and Listen with Perception!

[stirrs more]

Rolling Spot and Listen into a single Perception skill is one of the changes Pathfinder RPG made to 3.5e that I dislike. I think it is a case of faux parsimony... Nevertheless, I should point out that IIRC 4e has also combined these two skills into Perception.

As to the resolution/skill system being proposed in the Legends & Lore articles, on the one hand I like it, but on the other hand I am a bit bitter, since I had designed a rather similar (there are differences, but the basic principle is similar) resolution/skill system for the RPG system I am working on myself, and now it will no longer be so original, plus it brings up questions if I want to publish it in the future. :(

Roman wrote:

Right, but the value of each of those criteria is subjectively determined by the individual. Hence, the resulting ranking of RPG systems in how 'good' they are would be subjective.

You can objectively say one game is easier to play or is more balanced by using certain metrics (ie number of rules, number of choices, length of turns, preparation time, mistakes made, decision trees, etc). Sure, individual people may assign different weights to those metrics but its entirely possible to find an objective measurement of good.

The individual differences in weights are what makes it impossible to find an objective measurement of how good a ruleset is versus another. What's more, the weights are not static even for a single individual - if a variable moves in one direction, its weight does not necessarily stay constant.

Roman wrote:

That may well be. I am unfamiliar with the extent of support WotC currently provides for its settings. From what I have heard, it seems that the flavor conversion of those settings to 4E has been a mixed bag, with Forgotten Realms violated, Eberron done OK and Dark Sun done very well. As to post-conversion support the settings have received, however, I lack the knowledge to comment.

There's simply not a lot of depth to any single setting released during 4e. Each settings gets a player's guide, a campaign setting with maybe an adventure or two. Compare that to Paizo where its all about their setting.

I see. Well, that's a bit sad, I have to agree. I don't use Golarion, but it does appear that Paizo does support it much more extensively.

Roman wrote:

I strongly disagree with the opinion that 3.5e/Pathfinder is a worse ruleset than 4e. There are no objective criteria to judge how good a ruleset is, since we assign different value to different ruleset features. For example, I assign a rather large value to mechanical diversity between classes, so that's one reason (though by no means the only reason) why I find the 3.5e/Pathfinder ruleset far superior to the 4e one. You might not be too bothered by that and might instead value balance between classes (which I also value, but often less than inter-class diversity) more, in which case your preferences would be the reverse of mine.

I dunno. You just listed a number of objective criteria right there. Rules complexity. Number choices. Balance. Ease of learning.

Right, but the value of each of those criteria is subjectively determined by the individual. Hence, the resulting ranking of RPG systems in how 'good' they are would be subjective.

Roman wrote:

Regarding your setting assessment, I also disagree. I think WotC has some very good campaign settings. Dark Sun was awesome, as were others. Golarion may or may not be good - I am not familiar enough with it to be able to judge, but I am familiar enough with the WotC settings to say that they have some real gems there.

I will rephrase that. WotC does have a number of great settings. I mentioned earlier that Eberron is still one of my favorites. However, WotC simply doesn't support their settings was well as Paizo does. I feel that's an objective fact based on the amount of material Paizo has produced for their setting.

That may well be. I am unfamiliar with the extent of support WotC currently provides for its settings. From what I have heard, it seems that the flavor conversion of those settings to 4E has been a mixed bag, with Forgotten Realms violated, Eberron done OK and Dark Sun done very well. As to post-conversion support the settings have received, however, I lack the knowledge to comment.

I strongly disagree with the opinion that 3.5e/Pathfinder is a worse ruleset than 4e. There are no objective criteria to judge how good a ruleset is, since we assign different value to different ruleset features. For example, I assign a rather large value to mechanical diversity between classes, so that's one reason (though by no means the only reason) why I find the 3.5e/Pathfinder ruleset far superior to the 4e one. You might not be too bothered by that and might instead value balance between classes (which I also value, but often less than inter-class diversity) more, in which case your preferences would be the reverse of mine.

Regarding your setting assessment, I also disagree. I think WotC has some very good campaign settings. Dark Sun was awesome, as were others. Golarion may or may not be good - I am not familiar enough with it to be able to judge, but I am familiar enough with the WotC settings to say that they have some real gems there.

I don't think 5E will be designed to be backward-compatible with all of the previous editions. Rather, the modular system, in my opinion, will be designed to allow players of 5E to emulate the playstyles of the previous editions, though without the backward compatibility.

Personally, I was more distraught by changes in the rules from 3.5E to 4E than by changes in the fluff, though the latter certainly didn't help. By corollary, I would be especially attracted to 5E if they switched to more simulationist rules, though traditional rules conventions also count for something. Whether they can do this with the modular approach remains to be seen, but if the Legends & Lore articles are anything to go by, they may stand a chance.

For myself, it varies from game to game and over time. At the moment, I the base of the game is core 3.5E, but heavily modified by a large amount of my own rules. On top of that, I allow non-core 3.5E options, but they have to get my approval (which is almost invariably given - there are things I would not permit [e.g. Tome of Battle], but players have not asked for them yet). Furthermore, I have my own options, including my own races and classes, that players can chose from too. Pathfinder materials are also allowed, though subject to my approval.

The somewhat anecdotal sales data and the huge emphasis on modularity in Legends & Lore articles are what lead me to believe that 5E will be aimed on reuniting the fan-base of the various editions.

Any attempt at content as a service, by which I mean either the necessity of a subscription and/or the ability of the provider to take the content away, would immediately kill any chance of me purchasing a new edition of D&D. Should they provide it as an option and still release the content through permanent channels, though, that would be fine by me.

Speaking of the OGL, I am skeptical that 5E is going to go that route. Indeed, I would guess that one of the reasons for the drastic changes imposed by 4e was to create more IP not subject to the OGL. That's also my guess for why WotC is more keen on making up new names for creatures/races/etc. rather than taking them from myths and legends (which is my preference). I guess one can never be sure, but I really don't think 5E D&D will be as open as 3.X edition.

A Man In Black wrote:

A successful 5e is good for Paizo.

Gorbacz wrote:

Not to mention the fact that a solid competition that you actually have to mind is better than a competition that is running around like a headless chicken tripping over it's own legs every 5 minutes.

This.

It would certainly be good for customers. I doubt, though, that it would be good for Paizo. A rising tide is not an apt analogy in this instance - that would be more suited to a game that grows the market by trying to reach out to new players. This could, perhaps, be said about 4e. If 5e is to be a game designed to draw back lapsed customers, it does not grow the RPG market (well it still does, of course, but it does not gain a bulk of its users that way) and the competition becomes much more zero sum. A good metaphor might be nearby plants competing for sunlight - they can still both grow, but they hamper each other... and it is just possible that manages to take enough sunlight to sun-starve the other.

I certainly didn't want to give the impression that Wizards of the Coast will have it easy. It is tough to design a game that will reunite the fan-base, given how disparate the wants of various gamers can be. One cannot rule out that the game will try to be good at everything and end up being good at nothing. Still, Wizards of the Coast does have some excellent designer talent - they may be able to pull off a game that can reunite the player-base to a significant extent.

It is hard to respond to something until it happens.

True, but one can anticipate, predict, preempt and prepare. :)

In any event WoTC's corporate attitude is what is hurting them in many regards. Customer Service/PR can hurt a company.

I don't know about now, but there used to be a time when WotC had good customer service. This may or may not have changed. Of course, Paizo's customer service and interaction with the community is outright superb.

Abandoning PFRPG is the worst thing they could do.

I agree. I listed it more to throw something more radical into the mix of possibilities, rather than because I thought Paizo might actually do that. This course of action would only make sense under very specific and very unlikely circumstances (e.g. being bought by WotC and recombining Pathfinder RPG with D&D).

I dont see a 5E in the immediate future though even though it comes up every month.

Well, that depends on what you mean by the immediate future. My guess would be that we will see an announcement in 2012 or 2013 and the game will be released in 2013 or 2014. Whether that's an immediate future is a matter of perspective.