Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sheriff Belor Hemolock

Scott Betts's page

Goblin Squad Member. 6,840 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,840 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

JoeJ wrote:

It's less work for me, mentally, to adjust the rules than to try and come up with an explanation for a world that doesn't seem plausible to me. For me, the game rules should always support the world, not the other way around.

No one is arguing that it should be the other way around. I'm saying that, occasionally, a given change to the rules justifies some change (or some consideration) in the game world. This is a game, after all.

I tend to dislike absolutes as a matter of course.


JoeJ wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

For me, it comes down to the feeling that the world makes sense. I have no problem with Vancian magic. It's a bit harder justifying magic that is Vancian when Bob the wizard casts a particular spell but not when Mary the sorceress casts exactly the same spell. It entirely reaches the WTF point for me when only some of Bob's spells are Vancian, and the rest are at-will superpowers.

I get that these are "feelings" and thus immune to the power of criticism, but we are talking about fantasy world magic, here. It makes perfect sense to you that people have the power to reshape the world around them through mysterious forces arbitrarily defined by powerful gods, but doesn't make sense that there might be more than one way to reshape the world around them through mysterious forces arbitrarily defined by powerful gods?

That's exactly right. I don't expect fantasy and science fiction to match the real world, but I do expect them to make sense within the contexts of their own worlds.

First we're given a division between divine and arcane magic, and between spontaneous and prepared casting. But do those divisions correspond? No. Both divine and arcane casters use both prepared and spontaneous casting. Now, since PF, we have a third kind of casting: at will. It too crosses all boundaries. Spontaneous and prepared casters can both cast at will, regardless of whether they cast arcane or divine spells.

How would a wizard explain to his apprentice why cantrips aren't limited, but spells disappear from your mind when you cast them? I don't mind having more than one way to wield magical powers. I do mind it when those different ways don't correspond to anything in-world that would account for it.

I wonder if you can think of some ways that the wizard might explain the differences to his apprentice. I can certainly think of some, but more importantly I'm sure that you can, too. It's not very helpful for me to come up with explanations for you, because you might be less inclined to accept them as they didn't come from your own personal conception of how the game works. But if you come up with an explanation of your own (which I'm certain you can do), it will probably make the differences easier to conceptualize.


Steve Geddes wrote:

Sure, but who are you discussing with? It seems like an odd conversation - kind of like hearing someone say "I like heavy metal music" and replying "But it's nowhere near as influential as classical!"

I like wizards with very limited magical resources. Replying that an opinion is not convincing just seems like a non sequitur to me. I never intended it to be convincing, it was just a point of view.

In this post Auxmaulous makes the case to thejeff that 5e's at-will cantrip casting is "troubling" and "worse than PF levels of power", and contends that it represents a design direction that will create trouble for 5e (or perhaps that will create trouble for him, but it's not stated that way). This goes well past simply stating an opinion on design aesthetics and goes will into the territory of making judgment statements about the value of a particular mechanic in 5e. I think it's a little odd that people are criticizing someone for continuing that discussion, especially when it involves leveling similar criticism at a different edition of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Betts was basically saying that I can't possibly like older editions because they are bad.

Except that I wasn't, because I don't believe they are bad.

See what happens when you guess at someone's motivations? I try to avoid getting upset about it, though; a simple correction is plenty.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I've seen this bandied about a few times now, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that it's anything more than, "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, so that's how it should be!"

In my case it's: "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, and that's how I like it!"

Does it have to be anything more? Stating one's preference doesnt have to be convincing to anyone else.

It doesn't have to be convincing to anyone, but I don't see any reason that people can't comment on how they don't believe it to be convincing. This is a discussion board.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Where have you been in the last 14 years of d20 gaming?

Playing d20 games. Where have you been?

Quote:
It isn't a case of "in my day". I ran 3rd ed (since 2003), I run PF - I went back to play in a 2nd ed game after 30 years - superior in almost every aspect for an older and non-modern system.

In your opinion, of course.

Quote:
Your awkward asymmetries and headaches are contrived

No, they aren't. I've played multiple pre-3e editions of the game. Or are you calling me a liar, Auxmaulous?

Quote:
and were told to you by other people,

No, they weren't. They were definitely confirmed for me by other people, but their reality was obvious to me even in very short periods of play.

Quote:
so please spare me the "1st/2nd ed/older systems were only good because of nostalgia" nonsense.

Go ahead and quote where I said that. I loved 2e when I was playing it. I probably even liked 1e.

Quote:
Older systems - less problems.

In your opinion. Not in the opinion of others. And that's the problem. You're arguing that at-will cantrips are a negative, even in 5e, and you have people telling you that in actual play they're fine and don't ruin anything (except, perhaps, your own personal sense of edition aesthetics).

Quote:
I'm looking to replicate that. That's my motivation.

We get that.

Quote:
Older systems - less character power/reliance on power/less break in verisimilitude. I'm looking to replicate that. That's my motivation.

And yet despite people telling you that cantrips are not a symptom of any of that in 5e, you insist they must be because that's how they were in the editions you hold near and dear.

Quote:
Please stop telling me how older editions ran

Because you'd like to have a monopoly on telling everyone else how they ran, just like you spent this entire post doing?

I, on the other hand, said nothing about how previous editions ran in any of my earlier posts in this thread. So, I don't know, maybe stop telling me that I'm telling you how older editions ran when I wasn't? That'd be cool.

Quote:
or what my motivation is for looking at and possibly tweaking 5e to emulate older editions

I didn't tell you what your motivations are. I mentioned what the motivations for others I've seen take this same position have been. But you should have no problem differentiating yourself if your motivations aren't the same. So far, though, your post has been very little more than you claiming that older systems are better because they have fewer problems, which is a lot like saying apple pie tastes better than peach pie because the flavor is better.

Quote:
and I will continue to not talk about 4e.

You mean you will continue to not pointlessly mention a game you don't like in a manner that is off-topic and incendiary enough to break this sub-forum's rules?

Cool.


JoeJ wrote:

For me, it comes down to the feeling that the world makes sense. I have no problem with Vancian magic. It's a bit harder justifying magic that is Vancian when Bob the wizard casts a particular spell but not when Mary the sorceress casts exactly the same spell. It entirely reaches the WTF point for me when only some of Bob's spells are Vancian, and the rest are at-will superpowers.

I get that these are "feelings" and thus immune to the power of criticism, but we are talking about fantasy world magic, here. It makes perfect sense to you that people have the power to reshape the world around them through mysterious forces arbitrarily defined by powerful gods, but doesn't make sense that there might be more than one way to reshape the world around them through mysterious forces arbitrarily defined by powerful gods?

This is an upgrade to the verisimilitude-uber-alles perspective on D&D that I've never seen before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Alan_Beven wrote:
Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.
Just don't want casters to have that level of flexibility with magic in my games.

What flexibility is that, exactly? The ability to consistently contribute meaningfully to combat encounters?

I've seen this bandied about a few times now, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that it's anything more than, "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, so that's how it should be!" I'm not a fan of tradition for tradition's sake, especially when it comes shackled to a host of headaches and awkward asymmetries.


thejeff wrote:
GypsyMischief wrote:

I don't want mages to be an out of the box gish, or come close to dedicated swordsman in terms of melee power, but I do want proficiency with a slightly wider berth of weapons than Staff, Sling, Club, Dagger and Crossbow. However, that universal to-hit progression thing is pretty nifty, that's pretty much exactly what I was going for. An adventuring mage is still an adventurer, and I feel as though adventurers worth their salt can swing a pointy stick to some effect.

@Scott Betts, I'm not looking for a gish, man, I just want to be a mage that can attack that guy standing in front of him with a sword, and not get laughed at when he rolls a 19 and still doesn't connect. Initially I wasn't complaining, I was just sayin' "Hey, what if we could assume that adventuring magicians have some competency with weapons, so that the early levels weren't so brutal." And then I got trounced, because the forums are a happy place.

Partly because it wasn't clear that's what you were saying, rather than "Why can't wizards also be fighters?"

Still, even that's always been possible if you're willing to devote some resources to it. And at early levels being a couple points behind in BAB isn't that big a deal. The fighter's advantage is coming more from str bonus and feats than BAB.

Yeah, I was confused by this as well. If a wizard is rolling a 19 and missing at early levels, what does the fighter have to roll to hit? An 18? That doesn't seem like a typical challenge.


GypsyMischief wrote:

I don't want mages to be an out of the box gish, or come close to dedicated swordsman in terms of melee power, but I do want proficiency with a slightly wider berth of weapons than Staff, Sling, Club, Dagger and Crossbow. However, that universal to-hit progression thing is pretty nifty, that's pretty much exactly what I was going for. An adventuring mage is still an adventurer, and I feel as though adventurers worth their salt can swing a pointy stick to some effect.

@Scott Betts, I'm not looking for a gish, man, I just want to be a mage that can attack that guy standing in front of him with a sword, and not get laughed at when he rolls a 19 and still doesn't connect. Initially I wasn't complaining, I was just sayin' "Hey, what if we could assume that adventuring magicians have some competency with weapons, so that the early levels weren't so brutal." And then I got trounced, because the forums are a happy place.

There have been a number of methods used to make the early levels less brutal on mages - most of them revolve around giving mages mage-y things to do.


Andrew R wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I think the best answer is to separate health care from employment entirely. Stop forcing the employer to subsidize health care at all, make them pay an extra amount for the individual to get their own insurance. Now it is no one's business but the insurance provider and insurance purchaser.
That defeats the ability to pool risk, unless you are prepared to accept a nationalized single payer system.
the insurance company pools risk within their clients

Oh god.


GypsyMischief wrote:
thejeff wrote:
GypsyMischief wrote:
I hope mages finally get to learn how to fight. I'm not sure where this trope of the magician being inept in melee came from, but it needs to be put down.
Sounds good to me. I also hope fighters get to learn to cast spells. I'm not sure where this trope of the swordsman being inept at magic came from, but it needs to be put down.
Well that was needlessly catty. I apologize for reading LOTR as a child and in turn desiring a magician who can wield a sword. I guess I should only want to play my fantasy games the way Gygax intended. Break out the THAC0, boys, and get that Dwarven druid out of my face, I don't like new things, rabble rabble rabble.

I don't know of anything in any edition since 3e that would in any way prevent you from playing a mage that could fight with a sword. In fact, every edition since 3e has featured advanced classes specifically for mages that fight with a sword. What, exactly, are you complaining about, here?


bugleyman wrote:
The OGL has been put to use re-creating pretty much every other version of D&D: Everything from OSRIC and Castles and Crusades (1st Edition) to Labrinth Lord (D&D) to god knows what else. All they do is change a few names.

And this is because they didn't have any other in-print option.

Quote:
I think it's highly likely someone will do the same thing for 5th edition unless they're given a better choice (i.e. the release of 5E under the OGL).

5e is the better choice. There is no market need for someone to create a confusing 5e clone, because 5e already exists and is receiving current support.

Quote:
Perhaps. However, I think the GSL fiasco demonstrated pretty conclusively that the terms of the license matter.

I remain convinced that the actual terms of the license didn't matter at all, except insofar as people misconstrued or misjudged the terms of the license (save, perhaps, large companies like Paizo for whom the license is actually untenable), especially after its revision. There are a number of small 3pps that worked within the GSL just fine.

Quote:
So in summary: By not releasing 5E under the OGL, WotC can make it inconvenient to support 5E. However, a determined party could still use the 3.5 OGL to do what Paizo has done with 3.5 (and what WotC apparently fears someone will do with 5E): Publish a viable D&D competitor. As someone who wants to see 5E succeed, that seems like the worst of all possible worlds.

But why would anyone do that? Given the choice between buying the version of 5e made by the official creators and with a huge support and player base, or the version of 5e made by a tiny company with very little to distinguish itself and almost no player base adoption, why would anyone choose the latter? Edition clones have only been reasonably successful when they clone a version of the game that is no longer in print.


idilippy wrote:
I'm confused, aren't we on the website for the most popular RPG system, one supported by literally dozens of 3rd party publishers, all if which is made possible because of the OGL? And isn't this game just one of many others that exist because of that same OGL? I have a very hard time reconciling those facts with your opinion that the OGL is something very few people are willing to put up with.

Plenty of people are willing to put up with the OGL for the system it was written for. I expect very few people are willing to shoehorn it into systems that it was not written for. We're talking about 5e, not 3.5. Especially once an actual licensing framework is released for 5e.


thejeff wrote:

And, as I've said before here, I'm not willing to cede the birth control argument. Birth control is health care. Going without sex, except when you actually want children is just not going to be a reality for the vast majority of women. Not just, or even mostly, single women, but especially women who are married or in long term relationships. Without birth control, women have children every couple of years at least. Without birth control, women die much younger, childbirth is still dangerous and carrying a child to term is a huge stress. Without birth control, women have much more trouble having independent careers and lives. Reliable access to birth control changes women's lives. It is health care.

And the better, more reliable forms are the more expensive ones. Condoms break. Women have much less control over whether condoms are used. IUDs (which HL didn't cover) are much more effective, long term and also work for women who can't use the pill for health reasons.

I am in total agreement with you, but we're arguing with someone who clearly has it in his head that sex isn't part of health and that contraception isn't important enough to warrant government involvement. Not a brilliant position, but not one that I expect he'll budge from, either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
zauriel56 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
zauriel56 wrote:
I disagree with the stance of the business but not the ruling. Why should rights be infringed upon because they own a business?
Why should a employee's rights be infringed upon because they have a job?
As someone previously stated you don't have to have sex. So women have a right to not get pregnant right? You know how you can do that? Don't have sex. If you want your cake and to eat it too you're gonna have to pay. Why is it there job to pay for something elective?

So you are utterly ignorant of the fact that a huge percentage of those women taking birth control medication are doing so for reasons other than to avoid pregnancy? And you've somehow managed to completely gloss over all of the people who have explained that to you countless times in the past few years?

That seems like a pretty enormous gap in your knowledge of the situation - one that, some might say, disqualifies you from having your opinion on the matter taken seriously.

Quote:
Look I'm a libertarian.

Oh.


bugleyman wrote:
The specific item in question (digital chargen tools) is kinda incidental to my point: The OGL cat is out of the bag. People who really want to put in the effort can already do 5E products using the OGL (see Frog God).

They can, yes, but they are forced to make some unpleasant changes to certain pieces of protected content to avoid stepping on 5e copyright toes (since 5e isn't covered by the OGL). This works out alright for a print product (like an adventure) because it should be at least mostly clear what a given reference means even if the language is slightly changed. It causes all kinds of problems, however, in a digital tool product where you would want the ability to, for example, search for specific named rules elements (monsters, feats, abilities, equipment, etc.).

Frog God is doing this because they have sought legal counsel to avoid breaking copyright law, they've decided to publish an almost entirely additive product so that they don't have to call out official published content very often, and because they really want to be first to the table.

The OGL cat is out of the bag, but at this point it's ugly and malnourished and very few people are willing to put up with its crap.

Trapdoor will be putting out a character creation tool soon, and there will be some kind of licensing structure available next year.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Dear WotC:

Over on the Lone Wolf forums there is a discussion about Hero Lab supporting 5E. The gist is that their hands are tied until you releases news on 5E licensing.

This is exactly what I feared would happen.

You should have learned from 4E and embraced the OGL early and publicly for 5E. Unfortunately, your failure to do so is already having negative effects on your potential customers. And for what? The OGL genie is out of the bottle. The good news is that it isn't too late to make it right. Release 5E under the OGL. Don't discourage third party support of your product by creating uncertainty. Don't hamstring 5E before it is even released. Please.

Sincerely,

A D&D fan
32 years and counting

Why would WotC voluntarily cheapen the value of its own licensee (Trapdoor Technologies) by allowing other digital tools companies the same level of rights access without the protections of a (robust) licensing agreement? Heck, it's possible that Trapdoor even has an exclusive license to develop D&D digital tools.


Solusek wrote:
What I read from his post was "the buzz of 5th edition leaks and within a few months it is announced at the 2012 Gen Con."

I read that, too. I also read, "So after another 4 years, 2012 will see the release of 5th edition." So who knows what the OP meant. He refers to 2012 as both the release and the announcement date. It's possible that he imagined the announcement and release happening in the same year, which normally wouldn't be inconceivable but which the two-year playtest process made an impossibility.

Quote:

I also remember in the early convention panels with the 5th edition dev team they were all about how modular 5th edition was going to be and how you could play it to be similar to any of the previous editions just by choosing which rules to incorporate in your game. Again, exactly as the original poster here predicted. Maybe WotC has gone back on that idea over the course of the playtest, but they definitely were saying that about the game in 2012.

Possibly. I wasn't following the modularity thing that closely back then (it's probably the least exciting part of 5e to me). Either way, it's certainly not the case at release that all rules options are considered equally official or canonical.


Zardnaar wrote:
4E died in 2012 and the playtest started.

Calling 4e "dead" in 2012 is overstating things. It wasn't receiving regular print releases but was still receiving active support, including through new organized play campaigns. Over the last couple of years we've seen a transition from supporting 4e, to supporting both 4e and 5e, to supporting only 5e in the last few months.


Steve Geddes wrote:
His dates may have been off, but the general thrust was pretty darn impressive, in my view.

I guess all that I took away from it was the idea of rules modularity, but the OP foresaw a much greater emphasis on that than we've seen so far - imagining a D&D where multiple variants of the game were treated as equally valid, as opposed to what we actually see in 5e, where variants are easily swapped out but are clearly indicated as differing from the norm (and, for instance, not supported by organized play). We are certainly seeing more uniformity than merely in the language used, and I very much doubt that 5e will free D&D from the edition treadmill. That would require a systemic change in how D&D is sold as a product, not merely a change in the game's rules.

Some hits, some misses. Better than many, certainly.


Solusek wrote:
Holy cow this prediction was SPOT ON. How could you know all this back in 2007!?

If by "spot on" you mean "off by two whole years", sure.


Raymond Lambert wrote:
I played the first half or so of the starter set. That, and reading the recent release of the free pdf is where I got the impressions I have. As a starter set, it seems to really be just a tutorial level or two. I wanted to buy a reach weapon and the GM said no because the starter set has no reach weapons and he us trying to gage the starter set on its own. I respect his experiment. It will only be about two games anyway. We cleared out the cave complex and we expect to finish thr starter set in one more game. So far, I hated what I saw in the stRter set and free PDF. I am trying to remember material will be expanded. Not a single attack of opportunity happened all game, even when I tried to position myself so they would provoke as they passed.me to get to others. I wad told once you are engaged, they can dance all around you and not provoke as long as they do not leave you.

Out of curiosity, was 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder your first edition of D&D?


Threeshades wrote:
Okay short is perhaps not the right word but its still very incomplete,

I think we'll kindly chuck the use of the word "incomplete", here. No one defines what is a "complete" tabletop game. Is the game playable? Yes. Is it free? Also, yes. It's silly to harp on the "completeness" of a game that isn't even released yet. (The worst is when people define "complete" as "containing my personal favorite handful of game elements.")

Quote:
it only contains the, at least to me, least interesting classes, so I can't say a lot about whether it is going to give me the material i would need for a fun game.

The Player's Handbook will contain a number of other classes. It's safe to say that you will eventually have everything you need for a fun game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Henry wrote:
What about races? I sitll want to play a Tiefling for example. I heard they are getting subraces now? So that's sort of stolen from Pathfinder.

In the same way that 75% of Pathfinder was "stolen" from D&D, sure. But it's totally cool as long as WotC isn't doing the "stealing", right?

Quote:
This free basic edition didn't have a few things in it though like feats did it? I didnt see any. Some guy was trying to argue you didnt have to spend more money to get into 5th. Not true at all. The basic edition is just that, basic. It wont have everything the PHB has. In other words its incomplete. I also dont see a DMG or a MM for free either. So saying 5th ed core rules are free is incorrect.

I don't think there's a single person left in this thread taking your criticisms seriously.

If you're going to PM nasty comments to someone just because they disagreed with you about a game, it might as well be me. I'm pretty sure I disagree with you way harder than bugleyman does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

3.5 player circa 2008: "Pathfinder is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Take my money!"

Pathfinder player circa 2014: "5th edition is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Doesn't sound revolutionary enough to satisfy me!"

Go figure.

In fairness, Scott, you could be talking about an entirely different group of people.

Also true. Treating both groups as monolithic entities is probably not the best way to go about it. Still, I feel like the former is by far the most common rationale for people switching to Pathfinder, and the latter is the most common criticism of 5e I've seen from Pathfinder players. So while they're probably not the same group, there's probably a lot of overlap.


thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
James Martin wrote:
I didn't see anything especially novel or improved over my current system or even 3rd edition.

Yeah, because Pathfinder is such a novel take on copy-pasting the SRD.

:P

3.5 player circa 2008: "Pathfinder is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Take my money!"

Pathfinder player circa 2014: "5th edition is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Doesn't sound revolutionary enough to satisfy me!"

Go figure.

Well, the difference may be that now they still have a supported system that they like to play? In 2008, PF was pretty much the only source for new material in basically the same system. It was definitely being pushed as 3.5 compatible.

Then it was "Make radical changes I don't like, continue without support material, or continue with support."

Could be. Do you think the current support factor has that much pull? I know current support is a huge deal for me, but I was under the impression that a huge chunk of the D&D community just didn't care that much about it after their chosen system reached a certain level of requisite material released (which Pathfinder certainly has, at this point).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
James Martin wrote:
I didn't see anything especially novel or improved over my current system or even 3rd edition.

Yeah, because Pathfinder is such a novel take on copy-pasting the SRD.

:P

3.5 player circa 2008: "Pathfinder is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Take my money!"

Pathfinder player circa 2014: "5th edition is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Doesn't sound revolutionary enough to satisfy me!"

Go figure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Henry wrote:
I'm sort of sickened by the same people who were so angry about 3.5 and 4th ed so close together who went to Pathfinder who are now turning around and giving money back to this new D&D.

Yes, that must truly be awful for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Hama, Scott please start a new thread. This is not the one for yet another caster vs martial debate.

It's cool, there's really no need to debate it. The discussion has been had, and the paradigm going forward is abundantly clear. Hama can make a thread if he wants, but I don't see much point in diving into the fray over caster-martial parity again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials.

No.

Fortunately, at this point there is basically zero industry support for your version of balance (save the shackles of the d20 ruleset).


Snorter wrote:
I'm rather concerned that your phone automatically expects you to be discussing bugs, than 'things of over-average size'...

On the bright side, they probably don't talk about big bugs all that often!


I'm going to take a break from defending my curiosity in the hope that this thread will remain open. If I don't respond to you, that's why.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
The tags for Pathfinder over there are a pretty recent thing maybe the last 2 years or so. Before that? It was pretty much 4E all day over there.

That's because prior to 2 years ago Pathfinder and D&D had separate boards.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Your post implies that there is something wrong with people who post here vs. ENworld,

Except it doesn't, and that's not at all what I'm trying to show. I've already explained what I think is the case. There's no need for you to imagine what my motives are, so why do you continue to do so?

Quote:
that our dislike or criticism of 5e is rooted in fandom or irrationality - as a blanket statement about these forums when that is patently false.

Again, also untrue. I don't even have an opinion on 5e; I didn't do any real playtesting with it, and I haven't read through the Basic PDF yet; I'm too busy with 4e and Pathfinder to dive into it just yet. So this isn't me trying to mount a defense of 5e, which I've never played. I'm just wondering at differences and why they exist. I see you doing a lot of protesting of that observation and very little attempting to explain why that observation holds true.

Quote:
Instead of making sweeping generalizations and assuming you are smarter than everyone else,

Oh, look. A personal attack. I'm sure that was "just an observation" though.

Quote:
why don't you ask individuals why they may or may not like the system or why they may or may not change?

Because I'm not interested in why they like or don't like the system. Plenty of people are telling us what they like or don't like, unprompted. I'm interested in why their reactions appear to be in contrast to reactions elsewhere. This isn't a tough concept to wrap one's head around.


Gorbacz wrote:
That's still a tiny fraction of what's being discussed compared to here.

Again, unsurprising given that this is the official forum for it. The point I'm making is that ENWorld is actually remarkably non-partisan with respect to editions of the game, and is just as full of Pathfinder threads as it is of 4e+ threads. It's not the stronghold of WotC-lovers that you want to (for some reason) make it out to be.


Pan wrote:
I dont think the reactions here are that negative. If anything they are rather lukewarm or neutral. It makes sense to me that PF fans are not that excited about a new D&D. People seem to be pretty content with 3E/PF and the huge libraries they built and 5E is not enticing enough to lure PF fans in; yet.

You may be right about the reactions being lukewarm, but my question revolves around why Pathfinder fans on one forum tend to have a [lukewarm/disappointed/negative/whatever] reaction to 5e's release, while Pathfinder fans on the other tend to have a positive reaction to it.

Both groups are Pathfinder fans, so why the tendency to react differently?

Quote:
Enworld in my experience tends to be a rather positive place which is why I enjoy reading there. Discussions tend to be more constructive even between folks with differing opinions.

That's been my experience as well, and probably has something to do with it.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Overwhelmingly meh, it seems, not negative.

Is meh negative? I thought it was indifference or apathy...

"Disappointed" is probably a more accurate way to describe it.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Yeah, two different websites and forums.

So, your point?
I guess if two things are different there's no point in exploring what those differences are or why they exist! How silly of me!
Well no, you have an agenda (and I get that) I just wanted you to come clean with the point you were trying to make.

I think my real question is why the Pathfinder fans here seem overwhelmingly disappointed in 5e, while the Pathfinder fans at ENWorld seem overwhelmingly pleased with it. Obviously merely liking Pathfinder isn't the differentiating factor, so I'm looking for thoughts on what that factor might actually be.


James Martin wrote:
ENWorld has been on the payroll of WotC in the past

You're going to have to elaborate on that one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Because EnWorld is where all the WotC fans went to after their own forums became borderline useless, while Paizo is the place where all the not-WotC fans went to after, you know after what.

Do you think EN World is just full of 4e fans, or something? Because that's the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from someone who doesn't spend any significant amount of time on EN World.

EDIT: Since this appears to be a common misconception (or piece of convenient mythology, take your pick) around here, let's back it up with some actual data. ENWorld has a shared D&D and Pathfinder sub-forum. At the moment, its first page is almost filled with 5e stuff, which makes sense given that the game was released today and has seen a huge amount of build-up over the last couple of months. But if you check the Wayback Machine from a year ago, you'll find 11 first page threads tagged as Pathfinder and 11 first page threads tagged as 4e and 5e combined (3 on 4e, 8 on 5e). In fact, if you add the threads tagged with 3e/3.5e, it becomes clear that the discussion on ENWorld has (in the past) actually tended to favor pre-4e D&D, at least in terms of breadth of topic (depth of topic/thread length is another matter, but often driven more by controversy and disagreement than anything else).

Quote:
So you're either surprised by something you shouldn't be surprised by or you are venting your frustration that there is some place in the multiverse where people aren't that big fans of whatever Mike Mearls does.

Or I think it's interesting that, despite both websites having significant Pathfinder-loving user bases, this one remains overwhelmingly negative and the other remains overwhelmingly positive.

But I'm sure it's much easier for you to pretend that possibility doesn't exist, Gorbacz.


Auxmaulous wrote:

Yeah, two different websites and forums.

So, your point?

I guess if two things are different there's no point in exploring what those differences are or why they exist! How silly of me!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting to see the reaction differences between those here and those at EN World. There are multiple threads at EN World filled with overwhelmingly positive reactions to the basic rules contents (with a handful of negative reactions) whereas here we have the opposite.


Pan wrote:

Theres an unboxing video available. Its unbearably long with Mearls and some guy. Ill head over to ENworld and get the link later when im home from work.

Dice are just a pack of typical gaming dice of a single color. Nothing special just a nice add in.

I seem to remember seeing posts from Mearls about the dice being speckled. Is that not the case?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ngc7293 wrote:
If it seems to be a "we made a mistake let's pick up where we left off at 3.5" then I would consider getting it.

I think you'll be disappointed, then. 5e is not an example of picking up where 3.5 left off. It discards many of the issues the designers originally identified as problematic from 3e/3.5 (some of which were already discarded in 4e) and takes far more cues from 1e and 4e. 5e isn't a continuation of any identifiable edition; it's its own beast.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'm not sure that I'd throw a fit, but I also don't know what you mean by a 'versioning framework'...?
See this article (which, hilariously, actually references D&D towards the end). And before someone starts in with, "But D&D isn't software!" - yes, yes it is.

This is something I've been messing around with in the back of my head for a while, too :)

If a table of players is the hardware, you can view an RPG and adventure module either as OS and application, or as game engine and data file. I'm tempted to define supplements as plugins.

RPGs have an API (the rules), they have defined interfaces (stat blocks, for one example), and anything designed to work with the API and rules is compatible with them. Anything that isn't needs "patching" manually in order to work.

Sometimes an upgrade of the RPG results in adventures and supplements no longer being compatible. Sometimes it's a minor enough change that many will run without modification.

That is exactly correct. The fact that D&D isn't (entirely) digital isn't important - what's important that D&D represents a system built on a platform, and can be analyzed (usefully!) in the same way that someone would analyze computer software systems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'm not sure that I'd throw a fit, but I also don't know what you mean by a 'versioning framework'...?

See this article (which, hilariously, actually references D&D towards the end). And before someone starts in with, "But D&D isn't software!" - yes, yes it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
If "edition" is no good... how about "release"? Or "version"?

I would honestly love RPG companies to use "version" to indicate "we threw out the old game and made a new one based around similar concepts" and "edition" to indicate "we put in some major changes but it's essentially the same game underneath."

Or we could switch to an actual versioning framework. That would be remarkable, but I think people who didn't understand what it meant would throw a fit.


Llacheu wrote:

I've followed the 5E testing closely. One of my play group actually did the whole test from start to finish while the rest of us declined. He loves 5E, but as a whole our play group is sticking with 4E for now.

We all use the online 4E CB, Compendium, etc and all subscribe to D&D Insider. We're a little nervous to see what they do with the current online tools when the move happens next month for the 5E official launch.

Mearls in on record saying that they plan on keeping the DDI tools active as long as enough people continue to pay for them. They're not planning on discontinuing them just because 5e comes out.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
There are actually quite a few areas where 4e and PF took similar steps. Consolidated skill lists are one thing; racial modifiers that make every race good at a variety of classes is another; both games made a go at somewhat codified rules for non-combat. (4e skill challenges and PF chase guidelines.) I'm sure there are more, but I don't regularly play PF so it's hard to remember.

Simplifying non-standard attack actions, giving magic-wielding classes the the ability to do low-power magic things all day, simplifying cross-class skills, and so on.

1 to 50 of 6,840 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.