deinol's page

Lyre of Building

By my calculations, assuming that you are skilled enough to take 10 on your perform check and always succeed, are a construct so require no food or sleep, the Lyre of Building will do the 30 years work of 10,000 men in 7,604 days (just over 20 years, not bad).

How long does it take to make 7,604 Lyres of Building and lyre playing constructs to match? ;)

I'd say if you were a 20th level wizard, you could wish for one...

True, although it doesn't fall under any of the "safe" wishes.

Let's say I'm a 20th level wizard. I have an Int of 30. What is the fastest way for me to build a pyramid the size of Great Pyramid of Giza? (Hint: This is 88.3 million cubic feet of stone.)

If I use all of my level 5 and up spell slots (27 of them) on Wall of Stone, it will take me 215 years to create a pyramid from scratch.

Using only the core rules, can anyone do it faster? Can anyone do it faster than the ancient Egyptians (~30 years)?

I object to simulationist because there are people here are using it in the wrong context. You're meaning symmetrical (it's not quite right, but it's closer).

Actually, the word you are looking for is universal.

But we aren't using it in the wrong context. Simulationist is a word made up by one guy. We are using his definition. You don't like his definition, but it lacks one without him. Do you have an alternative word to describe the type of player we are talking about?

I just think Mike Mearls knows how he thinks, and bringing him in would definitely bring a new vision to WotC's R&D.

Maybe I have a colored view of Monte, but I think he'll make a real difference.

Having read Iron Heroes, written by Mike Mearls and published by Monte Cook, I agree. The two work well together. I look forward to whatever project he is working on.

I just think that assuming he's there to write a brand new edition might be jumping to conclusions. It is just as likely he's there to innovate a new (or new to 4E) setting like Planescape or something entirely new. It is just as likely he's there to expand or tweak the 4E rules (Unearthed Arcana).

I suspect a 4.5 is more likely than a full on 5E though, if he is there to tweak base rules.

deinol wrote:

Is he? I'm a big fan, but what I know him best for is adventures and settings.

How is he not an innovator? He was one of the designers of D&D 3.0 whether you like or don't like that version is irrelevant, it was innovative.

Mostly because that is just one of the many projects he has worked on. Also because a lot of the "innovations" of 3E were only innovative compared to 2E. For those of us who were playing other games in the 90s, 3E felt like D&D catching up to the rest of the industry.

Particularly if you take a look at Wizard's 1993 Talislanta 3rd Edition by Jonathan Tweet. 3E's skill system, and the universal d20 mechanic, comes almost directly from there.

So I appreciate Monte's contributions to 3E. But I am a fan of his work on Planescape, his other adventures for 2E, Ptolus, Arcana Evolved, Eldritch Might, DungeonADay, etc. He's great at tweaking existing systems, and adding new subsystems. He's excellent at adventure writing.

My main point is that there are many reasons he might start freelancing at Wizards. While he is a big name in RPG circles, he's still just an RPG freelancer. That doesn't pay nearly as well as Stephen King or Tom Clancy. I mean no insult to him, but an "RPG Rockstar" probably only gets paid 5-10% more than any other freelancer.

The beginner box is great for wetting their appetite and getting them interested. But the only way they will keep comming back is if their DM's are successful at running the 'next' adventure. And sure 'in our day' we did it without as much help and figured it out through trial and error. But in an age where every child has more entertainment options in their pocket (literally) then I had access to in the entirety of my child hood, do you think they will have the patience for all the muddling around in the dark we did when we grabed hold of our first players handbook?

Back in my day, an entire encounter looked like this:

GUARD ROOM: 4 hobgoblins (AC 5 due to chain mail, HD 1 +1, hp 5 each, #AT 1, D 1-8, Save F 1, ML 8), each with 2d6 electrum, silver, and copper pieces. They are alert for danger, and when notified, they will pass the word to areas 29., 30., and/or 27., as required. The room is rather bare, having only 2 pallets, a stool, and a large water barrel.

The game has certainly gotten more complex over the years.

As it is, I'm sending a copy of the Beginner's Box to my 8 year-old niece and 6 year-old nephew for Christmas. We'll see how they handle it.

On the other hand, my nephew can beat me at Dominion, so I think they'll do fine.

I doubt seriously that Monte was brought in to work on 4e all by itself. He is an innovator.

Is he? I'm a big fan, but what I know him best for is adventures and settings.

If I were the manager at Wizards, and I wanted to produce some Planescape setting books, I would hire Monte just for that.

I really like Arcana Evolved, but while the rules are somewhat tweaked, the tweaks to setting are what makes it really interesting.

Well then, I shall have to resume purchasing it.

I don't subscribe to things except to Pathfinder AP's because I like to support my game store, otherwise I would have lots of PF subscriptions.

My game store always has Kobold Quarterly for sale.

Do they keep them shrink wrapped? I would flip through the magazine and see if articles caught my eye. You should definitely pick up #18 if they still have it, it was extra large and full of good stuff.

While we all have our own limits for what strains credulity, I would argue that any careful review by an informed reader will lead inexorably to the conclusion that the world as presented by 3.5/Pathfinder makes no sense at all.

See, that's another matter entirely.

What I'm talking about is consistency in how two characters interact. That's at a micro level.

How that extrapolates out to the macro level of how the world is represented is another matter entirely. Most of the published settings are still based on the worlds created for 1st edition. In Gygax's vision, 99% of the world's (humanoid) inhabitants do not even have class levels. Town guards are represented as "Men-at-arms", not even the skill of a first level fighter. PCs are rare, and exert a strong force on the world.

But Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk and I would even put Golarion as being derived (or inspired) from them, all are written with that sort of assumption. Even if they put in more higher level NPCs than the original game intended.

In fact, Eberron was created specifically to be a world with higher magics and more of the stuff that has been added to the game over the years.

But the truth is, at least 50% of all games are homebrew. They may steal ideas from published settings, but a lot of GMs still roll their own. And I would guess that the strong simulationists tend to more often be in the homebrew group. Or at the very least they heavily modify the worlds they use when they find aspects that break their simulation view.

There is a great set of books called the Magical Medieval Society that does take a look at the effects of magic on society would be. It really is anybodies guess. Although I suspect common magic would make the world more modern. High speed communication and high speed travel are really the main differences between modern times and five centuries ago. That and higher powered weapons. But flying wizards with meteor swarm are similar enough to bombers.

But while the rules may imply certain aspects to a setting, those are separate from them. I definitely agree that most published settings gloss over the impacts of magic on society.

Ah, I think I see what you mean. Though I don't necessarily see how that translates into a better game, there is a clear difference between the two approaches.

I never said it was a better game. In fact, a more gamist person will prefer the simpler system that is faster to create and resolve encounters.

On the other hand, a more narrativist player will prefer a game that gives more control of the story to the players. Fate or Dogs in the Vineyard or Mouse Guard do this. Although things like plot twist cards or action/hero points add more narrative control to the players.

The point is not which game is better. It is that there are many different styles of players and different games suit certain styles better than others. A game publisher should be aware of the different styles and know which one they are catering to.

So the real question for 5E is, will they try to shift more in the middle to satisfy both gamists and simulationists? Or will they embrace being gamist and go from there? Or add more narrativist aspects to the game? Which way is better is still highly subjective, depending on what you value in your game.

They're definitely making changes to the game. If they weren't, they wouldn't be doing 5e. I just think those changes will be aimed at getting back what market share they lost.

We don't have any actual confirmation to the rumors of 5E. For all we know, Monte could be working on 4E's Unearthed Arcana. A set of alternate or experimental rules for those who want to bend 4E a little more in different directions. Until they announce something, everything is just speculation.

Well, it was how they had done the layout to the adventure published in the BBGMG that I had liked and wanted to see more of. Each encounter is a single page, with a compressed stat block, map, treasure and room features. I think it's the layout of the map and stat block that appeals to me most, after comparing it to a recent AP.

Ah, but that kind of formatting comes at a cost: space. If they tried that in an AP, people would complain because the APs might only make it up to 10-12th level since there would be far fewer encounters per page.

But a few more level 1-3 modules would be nice. I think there have only been two or three since Pathfinder's release.

Then I respectfully submit that you know very little about physics. ;)

Seriously, that's not an insult -- I'm no physicist myself. But you're still confusing your perception of consistency for a objective difference.

Are there many objective differences? Absolutely -- but the presentation of an internally consist world isn't one of them. 3.5 just pays it more lip service.

It feels like we aren't speaking the same language.

When we say that the rules are 'the physics of the game', we mean that it has internally consistent rules that make up how elements within the game interact. It is an analogy to classical physics, not modelling actual physics.

In 3.X, you know how many feats a 5th level fighter is. Whether that fighter is an NPC bugbear or an orc or a PC elf. There is an internal consistency that simulationists like.

4E doesn't have that. Monsters and PCs have different rules for creation and interaction.

There may be areas where 3.X isn't internally consistent, although I really can't think of many. On the other hand, there are places where 4E is clearly not internally consistent. For someone who values simulation, that is enough to make them prefer 3.X.

deinol wrote:

Book of Fiends puts those two together, adds daemons, and is updated to 3.5. Still available through print on demand. I highly recommend grabbing that version.

Havent seen that one.

PoD only? or can you get Searchable PDFs?

I don't think they sell it anywhere but Green Ronin's webiste, but it is available via PDF. (I didn't find it when I searched Paizo's store.)

Edit: I forgot how expensive the print version was. It was the last GR book I had been hunting for, so I found it worth the price. In fact, I used the hunger daemons just last week against my party.

All of the monster names, stats, and combat sections are designated Open Content, so somebody could convert them for Pathfinder. (I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo has used one or two on occasion, but I'd have to double check.)

I used to buy this until it became about 1/3 4e. I just have no use for those articles so I stopped buying it. Has the ratio changed? $8 is steep if only portion of it is useful.

Even at 1/3 4E, which seems to be the high water mark for 4E, that leaves ~50 pages of Pathfinder or system neutral content an issue. A subscription costs < $30. Where else can you get ~200 pages of Pathfinder usable material for $30?

As others have said though, 4E content has diminished the last few issues.

I myself like a variety. Even material that isn't directly usable gets your mind thinking about new topics. I'd love to see some Call of Cthulhu or Eclipse Phase articles. ;)

Book of Fiends puts those two together, adds daemons, and is updated to 3.5. Still available through print on demand. I highly recommend grabbing that version.

deinol wrote:

Every simulation has layers of abstraction. As I said, most simulationists are looking for a game with the illusion of simulation.

Yeah, I got that. And still I have yet to find an RPG that presents such an illusion which stands up to even the slightest scrutiny -- so I find that particular criticism of 4E to be quite silly. YMMV.

All I can say is that for me, the uniformity of rules in 3E is part of what brought me back to D&D with 3E. I really liked the elegant way multi-classing was handled. I really liked that monsters and PCs worked the same, although I probably couldn't have vocalized that at the time. 3E's release brought me back to D&D after a decade of playing other games.

For those who thought 3E was a great leap forward from 2E, 4E felt like a half-step backwards. For those that felt 3E was more complicated and fiddly than it needed to be, 4E was a step back toward the game's roots.

Neither of those opinions are wrong. I can see the strengths in both styles. I actually like both games, depending on the style of game I want to play or run.

What do you think a ballpark figure would be for someone to do that? Let's say a session that goes 8 hours or so (so kinda like a 'normal' work day). I know obviously other hours get put into the planning of the session too. Also, it's clear that it would also depend much on the quality and experience of the GM, so I guess let's assume he's/she has 30 years experience and has written "a few" ;) awesome things of their own over the years.

A friend of mine was paid to run a game once a week for a group of kids. It was basically babysitting, but more fun. So whatever rates babysitting gets paid these days would be my guess.

I know some LARPs charge fees, but usually that barely covers site rentals and props. I don't know if anyone could really make a living doing it. But it certainly can offset costs.

deinol wrote:

It really comes down to simulationist vs gamist. A simulationist wants the game rules to be like physics, and apply equally to everyone. They use terms like verisimilitude and the like. Even if the game is just the illusion of a simulation, that illusion is what they are looking for in a game.

One would have to avoid thinking too hard in order to buy any RPG as a simulation -- but maybe that's just me.

Every simulation has layers of abstraction. As I said, most simulationists are looking for a game with the illusion of simulation.

deinol wrote:

Clark's a smart lawyer, I'm sure he'll figure it out.

Oh, I'm aware... and I didn't say he couldn't do it; I just noted that he needed to consider that point.

True. I figured you pointed it out more for other potential publishers out there than Clark's specific benefit.

Another suspicion I have is if there is even the illusion of monsters and PCs following the same rules, then it gives the players a sense of comfort, when they do not trust the DM, or do not want any type of DM fiat.

Actually, since it is more often the GM who decides the choice of system, I doubt the GM is picking Pathfinder because they don't trust the GM.

It really comes down to simulationist vs gamist. A simulationist wants the game rules to be like physics, and apply equally to everyone. They use terms like verisimilitude and the like. Even if the game is just the illusion of a simulation, that illusion is what they are looking for in a game.

A gamist doesn't care about simulating a world. They just want to play the game. So shortcuts in monster creation are fine by them.

Neither style is better or worse than the other. It is just a matter of taste. If a game focuses too much on one over the other, they loose the other half of the spectrum. I can see both sides, as they each have their strengths.

Oh yes I know that, but this is the first time you previewed a upcoming Pathfinder book before it was released. To me that is another little step. That's what I meant. :)

Other than the preview for Pathfinder RPG Core? ;)

Edit to add: I find the supplemental articles of more use. Things like Chaos Magic of the Proteans which acts as both a preview and expands material.

Neat to see the Dragons Empire gaz previewed in KQ. I guess that gives KQ closer ties to Paizo, being as they are getting to preview products ahead of time. :)

#7 Monsters of Osirion

#10 Pathfinder RPG Sneak Preview & Chaos Magic of the Proteans
#14 Prince of Wolves Stats
#16 Magic of Golarion
#17 Ambush in Absalom
#19 Tian Xia Preview

Kobold Quarterly has had quite a few licensed articles over the years. And the regular articles often use well known freelancers. Anyone who loves Pathfinder (or Dragon Age) should have a subscription to KQ.

Clark Peterson wrote:

As we speak, the Legendary Games Design Team is talking about good ways to support the Beginner's Box with Legendary encounters and short adventures. I think that would be fun.

You'll need to consider that the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License says: "You may not reference any Paizo products that are not listed in Exhibit B" and the Beginner Box is not listed in Exhibit B.

This is deliberate. To be frank, we don't want to encourage our audience to split themselves into Core Rulebook players and Beginner Box players; we want to encourage most Beginner Box players to eventually move on to the Core Rulebook so that they can fully interact with our existing community, play in the Pathfinder Society, and expand their game with the hundreds of PFRPG products that are already out there.

Our own support for the Beginner Box will generally include stuff designed to ease the transition to the Core Rulebook; for example, the free Beginner Box GM Kit we're about to release has a section on how to use published low-level Pathfinder RPG adventures with the Beginner Box.

While all of that is true, all they really need to do is not reference parts of the rules that aren't also included in the Beginner's Box. I'm certain it will be easy enough to write short modules for levels 1-3 or so that are easily compatible with both the Beginner's Box and the Core rules. Then they just have to say "suitable for any beginning player of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game." Or something similar. Clark's a smart lawyer, I'm sure he'll figure it out.

My wishlist: Master Monster Index and Master Monster Index by CR. ;)

The Magic Items index is not available from the PRD entry page (and quite a few other pages).

I can see it. Maybe you should clear your cache?

Looks like Spell and Feat indexes was added too. Awesome.

I came to this thread hoping for an assault on the home of the gods themselves.

I find it easiest to organize them on my shelf by level, since that really is far more important than publication order for these.

JJ pretty much cleared it up as best as I'm going to get it cleared up. With what you are saying it seems to me that you are thinking I'm trying for a different plane which isn't the case. Maybe if the subterrain worked as a passage to Hell or the Abyss but that's not necessarily the case.

No, I was thinking of the original Greek Underworld, which literally was accessed through caves. If you look at the wikipedia article, there are a ton of different underworlds throughout mythology you could use. But it was just a suggestion. There are all sorts of options, like Cavelands, Subterranean Realm, Tellurian, Chthonic, etc.

More than a landscape version of the current GM screen, I'd love to see a GM screen with slots that allowed GMs to insert their own charts and information. I like GM screens, but I have yet to find one that had exactly the information I wanted/needed on it.

That's my Canadian two pennies. :)

Back before I somehow lost my GM screen, I printed out some essential charts and taped them over charts I didn't need. (I don't use experience or wealth by level, so the entire right side was a canvas for me.)

The things I really wanted were the detect magic auras (and detect alignment) chart. I never remember how strong a particular spell is supposed to be. ;)

Mournblade94 wrote:

Just as a point, I got the email for Jade Regent 3 yesterday, and got charged for the AP today. That is fine, but if I get only one days notice for something like the Case, it will be a hit or miss on how close to pay day it is whether I have money freed up or not.

One day is fine for an AP, not for a case. Of course I am trying like some have suggested to buy Paizo Gift certificates to curtail this.

Just a note that you haven't actually been charged for that shipment yet; what you're seeing is an authorization; essentially, we're checking to see if your card *can* be charged. If it can, the proper amount is put on hold for us to officially charge in the next few days; if enough credit isn't available, you'd get an email letting you know that.

Of course, most banks put a hold on funds when an authorization happens, which can cause problems. Which is why I leave my subscriptions tied to a credit card. When the pre-authorizations happen I can then safely move money around as needed without having to worry about ill timed overdrafts.

deinol wrote:

You know what would be really cool? The ability to send an e-mail reminder to players to try and kickstart stalled games. Even if it was limited to usable once per month would be nice.

Because we're also a commercial site that relies on email for commerce, we're very particular about how much and what kinds of email we allow to come from our domain. Private messaging is on the to-do list, but user-initiated e-mail is not.

I understand that. I was thinking mostly a form e-mail that would have no user input. "DM X would like to remind you that you have been inactive for Y weeks in PbP campaign Z." You could put whatever limits required to make yourselves feel comfortable about it. Like they need to have posted more than twice in the thread, another reminder could not be sent until they had posted again, at least X weeks since the last post, etc.

Something similar using a private message system could work too.

Anyway, I understand it is unlikely. But it definitely would be nice.

Stuff about Darklands

I recommend any 3PP that is wanting to create non-world specific stuff should just call it the Underworld. It's real world mythology, so nobody can claim it as IP. But everyone will understand what sort of region you are talking about and can use the material in the Underdark/Darklands or whatever they call it in the game world they play in.

If you want to build your own world you may want to come up with some creative new name.

But I like Underworld for its connection to mythology, and it is easy to substitute Cloak of the Darklands* with Cloak of the Underworld or wherever you find you need to strip Darklands from a spell/feat/prestige class/race/OGL game mechanic.

*May not be an actual item.

Because if you're not buying WotC products, you won't be affected by a new edition releasing.

A new edition will quite likely bring back lapsed players.

I have 6 versions of the PHB, why not pick up one more? ;)

You know what would be really cool? The ability to send an e-mail reminder to players to try and kickstart stalled games. Even if it was limited to usable once per month would be nice.

Ok, that probably needs a FAQ.

Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.

Which does make it seem that any damage from spells ignores DR.

However, James Jacobs argued exactly what I said, albeit more eloquently. Of course, that post was marked as a FAQ and then marked as no developer response needed.

Skerek wrote:

I agree, but the problem is that it calls it out as energy damage without explaining the type.

This is NOT a problem since DR stops NO types of energy at all. So it does not matter WHAT type of Energy it is since DR does not stop ANY type of energy.

It stops Piercing, Slashing and Crushing physical damage from a non spell source.

He wants to know what kind of energy to know what kind of energy resistance will stop it. I say it needs no type as it is intended to be irresistible.

On the other hand, where do you see that piercing, slashing and bludgeoning from spells ignores DR? There is no reason to designate piercing, slashing or bludgeoning in a spell except to interact with DR.

I don't think anyone is particularly concerned with the breach termination.

What it comes down to is this: When either company discontinues the license, as they will do eventually when they move to a new edition of their respective games, do you want to destroy the inventory you've invested in, or continue to sell it?

I know which choice I would make. (I do actually have a GSL product, but it is only available via print-on-demand or PDF, so I have no stock to worry about. Any future products I may make are likely to be for Pathfinder.)

the main problem i'm seeing here though is what type of energy damage is this? and more to the point can it be resisted by either opponent or wielder?

I don't see why it needs a type. It is energy damage, so it can't be resisted unless something somehow has a resist X against all energy.

Since the source is enervation, a good house rule would be to make it negative energy damage if that makes you feel better. But then I'm sure there would be some broken builds. Like a Dhampir.

You should check out Talislanta 4th Edition. (Free download.) It is almost exactly like d20, except fighting is a skill. Ok, each category of weapon is its own skill. Armor is like DR. Ok, the game isn't level based. You spend XP to increase skills. 1XP * new rank level. Magic is also a skill. Well, a suite of skills.

Oh, before you jump to conclusions about how they stole ideas from d20, the essentials were all in the 1992's 3rd edition of Talislanta. Written by some guy named Jonathan Tweet. Published by Wizards of the Coast. Typesetting by Lisa Stevens (& Dave Howell.)

I just prefer 4th edition Talislanta as they streamlined the presentation and put a lot of stuff in one giant book. Too bad it is long out of print. I've got my copy though!

TOZ wrote:

BAB already IS a skill. Some classes just aren't allowed to put points in it every level. :)

which was kinda the point :) Honestly I would like to see armor as DR and "evasion" as a skill or more akin to saga's reaction. That I liked.

You should check out Talislanta 4th Edition. (Free download.) It is almost exactly like d20, except fighting is a skill. Ok, each category of weapon is its own skill. Armor is like DR. Ok, the game isn't level based. You spend XP to increase skills. 1XP * new rank level. Magic is also a skill. Well, a suite of skills.

M.Tyson Lane wrote:

...Uniformed Guard (ie Galtic)...

I first read this as "Uninformed Guard."

Is there really a difference?

Who's Diana's mother? Still Hypolyta, the queen of the Amazons?

Hmmm. I bet that courtship was awkward.

That's why Zeus usually courts the ladies in an irresistible form, like a bull or a swan. ;)

Hmmm...while I freely admit not having read the last N pages of license legalese, I do recall thinking the initial GSL was a poison pill as soon as I read it.

To be fair, the revision was a great improvement. At least you aren't prohibited from releasing other versions of the same product anymore. And they expanded the license to allow references to a few more books and more monsters like Drow.

Our best bet at that point would be to just say "forget your license" (just as one would with the 4ED&DGSL) and print it without the logo. Since nothing legally prohibits one from making compatible products (something WotC lawyers are familiar with since before WotC was owned by Hasbro) you're as legally protected as you would be under the license, provided you do not include the compatibility logo.

This misses the fact that the main point in agreeing to the GSL is to allow access to D&D's trade dress and style. That means getting to use the symbols for melee/ranged/special attacks. That means the color coding of powers/monsters/magic items. All of those would not be protected by the "game rules cannot be copyrighted" judgement. Transforming a product that uses the GSL and D&D's trade dress into a generic product would take a full editing pass and probably a relayout pass. Those are man hours that may not be worth it for smaller companies.

deinol wrote:

RedJack wrote:

While I'll certainly grant that the ability to continue to sell old product is of some substantive value, I do think you're greatly overstating exactly how valuable it is to an individual trying to keep a business afloat.

You aren't thinking like a business. What happens if you just got 10,0000 copies of your new book in the warehouse and WotC pulls a surprise announcement that 5E is being released and the GSL is now revoked? That's a lot of money down the drain.

No, you're not thinking like a business. Why do you have 10,000 copies siting in a warehouse? Why do a run of printing with a 10,000 unit surplus in the first place, especially as a 3PP?

Your first run should "sell out" before it's even printed--i.e. you print enough to cover what the distributors will handle, and what other stores have already committed to, and maybe, maybe a few hundred extra to pass out as swag and sell at conventions. Why would any 3PP have inventory other than incidental "giveaway" inventory in the first place? Esp. with the advent and developments in the field of print on demand and PDF distribution.

I was talking about a first printing. And yes, you should estimate demand and sell at least 50% of your print run upon release. But most publishers print more than the initial demand because A) buying in bulk reduces per unit costs, and B) if they sell out completely you lose sales while ordering the reprint or can't afford to reprint at all because the quantities required would be prohibitive.

The point is, unless they pre-announce that a license is ending far in advance, someone will have a product scheduled for release around the time of the license ending. With Paizo, you can at least keep it in your warehouse as long as is needed to sell out. With Wizards, you have to get rid of it in a short time frame.

The Castle Whiterock I purchased was directly from Goodman Games's website, as part of their clearance sale of all d20 stock.

But hey, don't take my word for it. There are 186 4E compatible products produced by 3PP. (Not all of those even use the GSL, I know the 8 from Open Design do not.) On the other hand there are 810 3PP Pathfinder compatible products released using the Pathfinder Compatibility License. I can't believe that the decisions of numerous 3PP were based purely on "feeling".

One thing I always thought could have been done better with 4E were common powers. In 3E, even the wizard only takes a few pages to describe. He picks spells from the spells chapter later, but certain spells are just common among arcane casters or divine casters. The 4E players guide feels bloated because each class needs a dozen or so pages of "unique" powers. If there instead was a common pool of martial, divine, or arcane powers that each class of a power type could draw on, then you could have a lot of basic powers that are essential and a fewer number of truly unique powers to each class.

That would also make it easier to build the archer fighter or a controller sorcerer. Or whatever other things you need. It also means new classes don't need to take up as much space, as you just have to concentrate on the unique abilities, instead of reinventing the wheel from levels 1-30 again.

One thing this discussion seems to overlook is how many lapsed players 3E brought back to the table. I played 1st edition AD&D. By the time 2E came out, I had moved on. I was playing various other games, from White Wolf to Palladium to Warhammer to Shadowrun. When I heard 3E was coming out, I read the articles describing some of the changes and it made me excited to try D&D again. I know many of my friends felt the same.

So while there were plenty of D&D players around, 2E was kind of a diminished brand. 3E really revitalized it and brought a lot of us back, along with a lot of new gamers in.

4E didn't have the same success. The 3E player base was much, much larger than the 2E player base on 3E's launch. So even if the same percentage of players stuck with 3E over 4E as the did with 2E to 3E, that was a far larger absolute number.