Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

4.0: PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

1,451 to 1,500 of 1,665 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>

CEBrown wrote:
Actually, I suspect my numbers are HIGH if you consider "Converting" to be "Play Primarily or Solely" - now, if you consider "Converting" to be "Play occasionally, along with other games" then the number probably gets closer to 80%.

And the solution to our disagreement is found! :P

Edit: And I start a new page! Wheee!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

Just thought I'd mention:

Wizards still hasn't given us either the license or the rules.

You know, in case you were wondering.

I was wondering, and I'm still utterly amazed that this can be the case when they've got finished galleys of the core rulebooks over at Wizards!

Taldor

CEBrown wrote:

Actually, I suspect my numbers are HIGH if you consider "Converting" to be "Play Primarily or Solely" - now, if you consider "Converting" to be "Play occasionally, along with other games" then the number probably gets closer to 80%.

Convert is a bad word, really. "Included in the bag o' games" is better. :-) More so than with any previous edition I believe the overlap is going to be awhile.

If you think on it from a consumer perspective, you're going to have *two* very well supported versions of DnD out after the middle of the year. You have your pick! Huzaah!

Pete


Not having 4th ed options seems to me to be short-sighted. The players I know are very excited about the new rules and even if the initial ones need adjusting 3.5 simply isn't good enough to stand the test of time any longer and what about the on-line games that Wizards are coming up with and Paizo could be involved with?

Bringing in a 3.75 seems too to be a complete waste of time and effort, as it will be neither fish nor fowl.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

Ben Parkinson wrote:
Bringing in a 3.75 seems too to be a complete waste of time and effort

I'd certainly not call starting your own game that is based on 3.5 a waste. Hell, if Paizo made it, I'd buy it sight unseen. WotC's 4E certainly hasn't earned that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The problem is, that Wizards made a game that the DESIGNERS thought was cool, and didn't actually bother to playtest outside Wizards.

Who the hell keeps the playtest group results a secret? Only people who are afraid do that. And quite frankly, after the direction I've heard they're going, this is not D+D, because Barbarians will have totemic animal powers that make them grow fangs and the like, Wizards are treated like movie scene characters, and...

YOU DON'T ROLL FOR HIT POINTS ANYMORE!

How the BLEEP! is it D+D if you don't roll for hit points anymore? Wizards is teetering on the brink of never getting another dollar from me on this alone.

Every edition has had a certain amount of "Power Creep!" that I've tried to curtail, and this one looks like it's so cinematic and over the top that there's no point in even playing it.

More hit points! More this! More! More! More!

Here's a hint, guys, if you want to make your game more storytelling oriented like your marketing department says.

LESS IS MORE! Every single decent writer in the world says this:

Purple prose and long winded descriptions put people to sleep. Their marketing schemes are, therefore, counterintuitive to design.

Want to make the game more intuitive? Don't make the best tactical strategy to run out and destroy the flankers, then circle in, because movement is now counted in squares, and the square root of two does not equal one.

Want to make the game more intuitive? Try listing variants in the sidebar. I hear Hero System has been doing this for years, and it's VERY effective.

Want to make the game more intuitive? Instead of making the world centered entirely on the PC's, assume that NPC's are doing things for and against each other, and let the chips fall where they may instead of playing out the vagaries of every single power group. You don't need a strategy of "The PC's are special!" When I run D+D, there's no such thing as an NPC. A tavern keeper could be a level 1 commoner, or he could be a retired 15th level adventurer with all the gear that connotes. A planet is not customer service. Points of light is dumber than dirt.

I urge Paizo to decide in favor of 3.5, and let Wizards collapse in the mire of it's own Froghemoth dung.


Callum wrote:
I was wondering, and I'm still utterly amazed that this can be the case when they've got finished galleries of the core rulebooks over at Wizards!

Presumably you're talking about art - art takes a lot, lot, lot longer than text (normally), and it's the kind of stuff that could be ordered well in advance. It's not terribly surprising that art is being put up already.

Andoran

That may be the case, but how long can 'soon' be before it is 'a long time from now'?

I mean, is the sun going to expand into the earth's orbit 'soon'? 'Cause I tend to think in days and weeks, not in geologic time.

So, when WotC STILL says it will be soon, are they thinking more or less than 30 days? Wouldn't you normally expect less than 30 days from when they FIRST said it?

I don't want to call them a liar, but it sounds like they've let people be mislead. I wonder why.

Qadira

Balabanto wrote:

YOU DON'T ROLL FOR HIT POINTS ANYMORE!

How the BLEEP! is it D+D if you don't roll for hit points anymore? Wizards is teetering on the brink of never getting another dollar from me on this alone.

So if 4E were a word for word reprint of 3.5 with the exception of the hit point roll it would not be D&D?

How does that work?


[Darth Vader]It's All Too Easy...[/Darth Vader]

crosswiredmind wrote:
Balabanto wrote:

YOU DON'T ROLL FOR HIT POINTS ANYMORE!

How the BLEEP! is it D+D if you don't roll for hit points anymore? Wizards is teetering on the brink of never getting another dollar from me on this alone.

So if 4E were a word for word reprint of 3.5 with the exception of the hit point roll it would not be D&D?

How does that work?

3.5 wasn't really D&D itself...

:evilgrin:


Oh my god, this thread is still here?

Weaboo fightan magics indeed.

Paizo Employee Master of Coin

crosswiredmind wrote:
Balabanto wrote:

YOU DON'T ROLL FOR HIT POINTS ANYMORE!

How the BLEEP! is it D+D if you don't roll for hit points anymore? Wizards is teetering on the brink of never getting another dollar from me on this alone.

So if 4E were a word for word reprint of 3.5 with the exception of the hit point roll it would not be D&D?

How does that work?

I haven't rolled for hit points in my games in years. The DMG very clearly presents rules for static hit point progression (I think its on page 192 or somewhere thereabouts. Advancing characters section, I think). 3.5 includes the option of not rolling for hit points, I assure you.


Dark Helmet: When will THEN be NOW?
Colonel Sanders: Soon.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

crosswiredmind wrote:
Balabanto wrote:

YOU DON'T ROLL FOR HIT POINTS ANYMORE!

How the BLEEP! is it D+D if you don't roll for hit points anymore? Wizards is teetering on the brink of never getting another dollar from me on this alone.

So if 4E were a word for word reprint of 3.5 with the exception of the hit point roll it would not be D&D?

How does that work?

I think you need to read Balabanto's posts in context.

That's the only way they ever make sense to me.

Qadira

Sebastian wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Balabanto wrote:

YOU DON'T ROLL FOR HIT POINTS ANYMORE!

How the BLEEP! is it D+D if you don't roll for hit points anymore? Wizards is teetering on the brink of never getting another dollar from me on this alone.

So if 4E were a word for word reprint of 3.5 with the exception of the hit point roll it would not be D&D?

How does that work?

I think you need to read Balabanto's posts in context.

That's the only way they ever make sense to me.

OMG - I hope that's not a self portrait Sebastian.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lilith wrote:
Callum wrote:
I was wondering, and I'm still utterly amazed that this can be the case when they've got finished galleries of the core rulebooks over at Wizards!
Presumably you're talking about art - art takes a lot, lot, lot longer than text (normally), and it's the kind of stuff that could be ordered well in advance. It's not terribly surprising that art is being put up already.

Oh, I don't think it has anything to do with the rules at all. Or layout, or artwork.

I think what's holding everything up is the GSL. The GSL dictates what rules can be used, and how they can be used.

So it doesn't matter if the rules for 4.0 are completely finished. They still can't be sent out to 3rd party publishers until the GSL - which explains how they can be used - is done.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

crosswiredmind wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Balabanto wrote:

YOU DON'T ROLL FOR HIT POINTS ANYMORE!

How the BLEEP! is it D+D if you don't roll for hit points anymore? Wizards is teetering on the brink of never getting another dollar from me on this alone.

So if 4E were a word for word reprint of 3.5 with the exception of the hit point roll it would not be D&D?

How does that work?

I think you need to read Balabanto's posts in context.

That's the only way they ever make sense to me.

OMG - I hope that's not a self portrait Sebastian.

I'm the cat!

(sadly, no, it is not me)

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

DeadDMWalking wrote:

I mean, is the sun going to expand into the earth's orbit 'soon'? 'Cause I tend to think in days and weeks, not in geologic time.

So, when WotC STILL says it will be soon, are they thinking more or less than 30 days? Wouldn't you normally expect less than 30 days from when they FIRST said it?

Theory: Maybe WotC is using Geologic definition of "soon" for when the GSL/Rules will be available and a Fruitfly's definition of "a long ways off" for when 4E is going to be announced.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When Dragon and Dungeon stopped I strongly considered Paizo products to keep me happy. Then 4E was announced in August. At that point I was concerned that a subscription to Paizo would convert to 4E at some point in the future and I did not choose to subscribe. I can appreciate WotC's desire to breathe new life into a product nearing the end of its product life cycle with a core aging market base. Targeting a new, younger generation with a new product breathes new cash flow. They also want to capitalize on the "Dungeons and Dragons" brand loyalty. In my opinion they have seriously fractured the market by creating the 3.5E vs. 4E schism. Market fragmentation (by introducing so many different campaign settings) was one of the key reasons TSR went under (at least that's what was said at seminars when 3E was announced and that was the reason for the OGL because the support costs for each setting didn't justify sales). WotC should have announced an entirely new product without the D&D moniker. Even if people saw many similarities, it wouldn't have created such a resentment in the aging market base and would have encouraged them to try out the new product without the preconceived notion that all of the existing product and brand loyalty would be thrown out the window or end up on the shelves at Half-Price Books at a fraction of the cost. They wanted to have their pie and eat it too.

Paizo created a new setting which has some appeal to me if I can ensure that the adventures are generic enough that they can be modified for my own campaign and if I know there will not be a conversion to 3.75 or 4E. You have to stick to some rules or at least put the bandages for tough rules out there as a package so that they are easy for DMs to apply or not apply by their choice. I used to buy a lot of Dungeon Crawl books until the 4E announcement came out, so even though I am just one person, I am sure that there are probably others out there that feel similarly and a drop in sales probably was noted. I for one would be perfectly happy if Paizo stuck with 3.5, but the possibility of a future transition is what keeps me from actually moving forward. If I knew that 3.5 was going to be continued in Pathfinder, then I am on board and will dig out my credit card. As it stands now, I'll buy the last remaining 3.5 products out there and rely on those and my creativity assuming that I can find a group in the future that hasn't converted to 4E+.


Balabanto wrote:
Wizards is teetering on the brink of never getting another dollar from me on this alone.

Wizards is teetering on the brink of getting dollars from me on this alone. No more playing the fighter just so I could roll an unfortunate series of 1's and 2's for Hit Points.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

CourtFool wrote:
Balabanto wrote:
Wizards is teetering on the brink of never getting another dollar from me on this alone.
Wizards is teetering on the brink of getting dollars from me on this alone. No more playing the fighter just so I could roll an unfortunate series of 1's and 2's for Hit Points.

Yes, rolling a 1 or a 2 sucks. But the feeling of rolling 10's makes up for that.

Qadira

Darkjoy wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Balabanto wrote:
Wizards is teetering on the brink of never getting another dollar from me on this alone.
Wizards is teetering on the brink of getting dollars from me on this alone. No more playing the fighter just so I could roll an unfortunate series of 1's and 2's for Hit Points.
Yes, rolling a 1 or a 2 sucks. But the feeling of rolling 10's makes up for that.

... and over the course of 19 die rolls they all average out to half the d# +1 unless you are on either short and pointy end of the curve.

The point is that this is the most ridiculous objection to 4E I have ever heard. To call it the defining factor in what is and is not D&D is just irrational.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
crosswiredmind wrote:
The point is that this is the most ridiculous objection to 4E I have ever heard.

It is not ridiculous to those of us who think that a bit of randomness is a big part of the game. While it is not a total wipe-out with me, the absence of random hitpoints has been as big a dissapointment with the new rules as anything else has been with me. It even slightly beats out my annoyance with the use of a 'square' as a distance of measurement.

On a slightly different note, I have noticed that many of you who are really excited about the new rules play in a lot of tournament style events. It is stated that this lack of random hitpoints is already a part of such events. That's all well and good and I see why that might be the case in competitions or such where everyone wants an equal footing going in. But it still changes much of the feel of the home games where everyone likes to laugh at both bad and good luck and a good roll of the dice brings a little thrill. I don't want my home game to have the flat feel I am afraid it is going to have with the new system.


Wicht wrote:

It is not ridiculous to those of us who think that a bit of randomness is a big part of the game. While it is not a total wipe-out with me, the absence of random hitpoints has been as big a dissapointment with the new rules as anything else has been with me. It even slightly beats out my annoyance with the use of a 'square' as a distance of measurement.

On a slightly different note, I have noticed that many of you who are really excited about the new rules play in a lot of tournament style events. It is stated that this lack of random hitpoints is already a part of such events. That's all well and good and I see why that might be the case in competitions or such where everyone wants an equal footing going in. But it still changes much of the feel of the home games where everyone likes to laugh at both bad and good luck and a good roll of the dice brings a little thrill. I don't want my home game to have the flat feel I am afraid it is going to have with the new system.

The option for roll-less HPs is already there in the 3E DMG, as I'd assume an option for rolling your HP will be in the 4E DMG. I suspect all that has changed is the assumed default.

Also, I'm pretty excited about 4E and can count the number of times I've played tourney style on one hand (hell, I don't need all my fingers even!) I still think 4E is going to be pretty fun, and the rest of my group is mostly psyched as well (strangely, its the three oldest players who mutter and grumble the most ... its almost as if the grognard is calling to them ...)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wicht wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
The point is that this is the most ridiculous objection to 4E I have ever heard.

It is not ridiculous to those of us who think that a bit of randomness is a big part of the game. While it is not a total wipe-out with me, the absence of random hitpoints has been as big a dissapointment with the new rules as anything else has been with me. It even slightly beats out my annoyance with the use of a 'square' as a distance of measurement.

On a slightly different note, I have noticed that many of you who are really excited about the new rules play in a lot of tournament style events. It is stated that this lack of random hitpoints is already a part of such events. That's all well and good and I see why that might be the case in competitions or such where everyone wants an equal footing going in. But it still changes much of the feel of the home games where everyone likes to laugh at both bad and good luck and a good roll of the dice brings a little thrill. I don't want my home game to have the flat feel I am afraid it is going to have with the new system.

Thank you, sir! You understand my position completely. The thing is, if a Rogue has 5 average, that translates into D+D parlance as a d10. What the BLEEP does a fighter get? A D 12? A d 20?

It may not even be possible to have randomly generated hit points. My concern here, of course, is tofu PC's.

In 2nd edition, there were monsters which the DM (Me) declared couldn't be affected by critical hits. Laughingly, the players referred to them as Tofu Monsters.

Now, we have Tofu characters, because on the inside, everyone is tofu. They're all exactly the same.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David Marks wrote:
Also, I'm pretty excited about 4E and can count the number of times I've played tourney style on one hand (hell, I don't need all my fingers even!)

I said many. I did not say all.

I am glad you are looking forward to the new edition.

I am still waiting for someone to sell me on it.


Balabanto wrote:

Thank you, sir! You understand my position completely. The thing is, if a Rogue has 5 average, that translates into D+D parlance as a d10. What the BLEEP does a fighter get? A D 12? A d 20?

It may not even be possible to have randomly generated hit points. My concern here, of course, is tofu PC's.

In 2nd edition, there were monsters which the DM (Me) declared couldn't be affected by critical hits. Laughingly, the players referred to them as Tofu Monsters.

Now, we have Tofu characters, because on the inside, everyone is tofu. They're all exactly the same.

While 5 would be close to what a fighter would a level (d10/2 = 5.5) the options for diceless HP in 3.5 included both the average value and 3/4 value. Without doing the math (hey, I'm lazy) I think 5 is about right for 3/4 of a d6. And you still probably will see less HP per character since Con doesn't have nearly as big of an affect as it does in 3E.

As for the tofu character comment, I never found the amount of HP a character had to be a very distinguishing feature. d10 characters generally end up about the same, and so on down the HP "tiers". It has always been a character's abilties (and personality) that has seperated them, at least IME.


Wicht wrote:

I said many. I did not say all.

I am glad you are looking forward to the new edition.

I am still waiting for someone to sell me on it.

No offense was taken, so don't sweat it. Maybe when 4E comes out I'll run a game on here and invite you to come play. ;)

Paizo Employee Master of Coin

Wicht wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
The point is that this is the most ridiculous objection to 4E I have ever heard.
It is not ridiculous to those of us who think that a bit of randomness is a big part of the game. While it is not a total wipe-out with me, the absence of random hitpoints has been as big a dissapointment with the new rules as anything else has been with me...But it still changes much of the feel of the home games where everyone likes to laugh at both bad and good luck and a good roll of the dice brings a little thrill. I don't want my home game to have the flat feel I am afraid it is going to have with the new system.

Then ignore that rule. If you play 4E, roll your hit points. It's that simple.

Taldor

Chris Self wrote:

Then ignore that rule. If you play 4E, roll your hit points. It's that simple.

What? Ignore a rule! The LawGiver will know! You are not of The Body! Landru! Help Us!


Pete Apple wrote:
Chris Self wrote:

Then ignore that rule. If you play 4E, roll your hit points. It's that simple.

What? Ignore a rule! The LawGiver will know! You are not of The Body! Landru! Help Us!

Watch out for the coming of the "Red Hour".

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chris Self wrote:
Then ignore that rule. If you play 4E, roll your hit points. It's that simple.

I hope it is that simple.

I must admit however that when I say I want to be sold on the new edition, I don't really see the argument, "just ignore what you don't like," as a real solid selling point.

There must come a point when you find yourself ignoring way too many things to make it worthwhile. If you are already in the 4e camp and want to make converts try a different tack, please, than just saying, "ignore that."

Owner - Dragon Snack Games

David Marks wrote:
I think 5 is about right for 3/4 of a d6.

Since you round down, it's 4.

Maybe in 4.0 you round up?

Qadira

Balabanto wrote:

Thank you, sir! You understand my position completely. The thing is, if a Rogue has 5 average, that translates into D+D parlance as a d10. What the BLEEP does a fighter get? A D 12? A d 20?

5 is the average expected roll for a d8.

Balabanto wrote:
It may not even be possible to have randomly generated hit points. My concern here, of course, is tofu PC's.

If a PC gets a flat number of HP per level then you can roll it as easily as you can add it.

Balabanto wrote:
Now, we have Tofu characters, because on the inside, everyone is tofu. They're all exactly the same.

And why do you jump to that conclusion? We know that each class has options, we know that each race has options or at least that each race has different level dependent abilities, we know that there will be a bunch of feats and your character will have more of them. So how is it even remotely possible that characters will all come out the same?

It isn't.

Qadira

Wicht wrote:
Chris Self wrote:
Then ignore that rule. If you play 4E, roll your hit points. It's that simple.

I hope it is that simple.

I must admit however that when I say I want to be sold on the new edition, I don't really see the argument, "just ignore what you don't like," as a real solid selling point.

There must come a point when you find yourself ignoring way too many things to make it worthwhile. If you are already in the 4e camp and want to make converts try a different tack, please, than just saying, "ignore that."

I could say the exact same thing to those trying to convince me that I should still play 3.5. The difference is that I do not want anyone to be convinced to switch or not switch.

When stuff like the rolling of hp is called the single defining characteristic of what is and is not D&D then I gotta say something - it is irrational. I am fine with those that just want to play an older edition in peace, but the constant barrage of "we don't need this crap" is intolerable.

You don't want 4E - fine by me. Can't you just go and play your game then and let the rest of us just talk about 4E.

This is the 4E forum - right?

Sorry for the rant but this crap is getting deep and I feel the need to grab a shovel and clear it the heck out.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

crosswiredmind wrote:
When stuff like the rolling of hp is called the single defining characteristic of what is and is not D&D then I gotta say something - it is irrational.

I'm not just going to agree with you, I'll raise a glass and toast it.

crosswiredmind wrote:

I am fine with those that just want to play an older edition in peace, but the constant barrage of "we don't need this crap" is intolerable.

You don't want 4E - fine by me. Can't you just go and play your game then and let the rest of us just talk about 4E.

This is the 4E forum - right?

Sorry for the rant but this crap is getting deep and I feel the need to grab a shovel and clear it the heck out.

I'll doubly agree with you. I'm tired of all the "4E is the 2nd coming of RPGs that will save us from the dark ages of 3.5" crap. Like I was saying before. Lets just agree to disagree.

I'm perfectly ok with those that want to play 4E as long as they're not shoving it down my throat or insulting my game (I'm lookin at you WotC).

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber
crosswiredmind wrote:


When stuff like the rolling of hp is called the single defining characteristic of what is and is not D&D then I gotta say something - it is irrational. I am fine with those that just want to play an older edition in peace, but the constant barrage of "we don't need this crap" is intolerable.

This is a public forum, and everyone is welcome to their opinion. Dismissing those opinions as irrational or intolerable is, in my opinion, somewhat rude. Name calling is not justifiable simply because their opinions differ from yours.

If that is the reason he doesn't want to play 4th edition, than I am glad that he expressed it. He should be allowed to do so without ridicule.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
crosswiredmind wrote:
You don't want 4E - fine by me. Can't you just go and play your game then and let the rest of us just talk about 4E.

That was uncalled for on two different accounts.

Firstly, I said I wanted to be convinced to play 4e. I never said I was against it. New editions are fine by me. I have nothing against them. But thus far, the sales pitch is annoying me more than it is persuading me. And those in the 4e camp are not persuading me off the fence with their well reasoned arguments

Secondly, I was talking about 4e. Criticism and argumentation can be a valid form of communication. I would think that you would appreciate that CWM.


crosswiredmind wrote:
I could say the exact same thing to those trying to convince me that I should still play 3.5.

As someone who has claimed people should stick to the cold hard facts, I ask you to point me to any time anyone has tried to convince you to still play 3.5.

I'll wait.


Disenchanter wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
I could say the exact same thing to those trying to convince me that I should still play 3.5.

As someone who has claimed people should stick to the cold hard facts, I ask you to point me to any time anyone has tried to convince you to still play 3.5.

I'll wait.

They're not. They're too busy inventing things they don't like about 4E like it's being "dumbed-down" and what not... Yawn... Have you checked out playing minis using the new rules? Pretty damn awesome I must say.

Paizo Employee Developer

Huh? What are they deciding on?

How can a 4.0 compare to this?


crosswiredmind wrote:


You don't want 4E - fine by me. Can't you just go and play your game then and let the rest of us just talk about 4E.

Amen to that.


xredjasonx wrote:
Have you checked out playing minis using the new rules? Pretty damn awesome I must say.

No I haven't. I don't like most mini games. They are too "dumbed-down." I am only slightly sarcastic.

If I got "my hands" on the Necromunda rules it would be a whole 'nother game.

I'd much rather Battletech myself.

Taldor RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

crosswiredmind wrote:
Balabanto wrote:

Thank you, sir! You understand my position completely. The thing is, if a Rogue has 5 average, that translates into D+D parlance as a d10. What the BLEEP does a fighter get? A D 12? A d 20?

5 is the average expected roll for a d8.

Hmm, have the laws of probability been revised since i last looked at them? Last time i checked, it was 4.5 for a d8, and 5.5 for a d10. Ooops... guess with usual "round fractions down", you made a little blunder here. Too bad.

crosswiredmind wrote:


Balabanto wrote:
It may not even be possible to have randomly generated hit points. My concern here, of course, is tofu PC's.
If a PC gets a flat number of HP per level then you can roll it as easily as you can add it.

Ok, give me a die that has an expected roll of 5, then. Hmm, would be a D9. Strange, i seem to have none handy. So either its a lame "reroll 10s" rule coming up (which is going to go SO well with players), or you shift the probabilities...

crosswiredmind wrote:


Balabanto wrote:
Now, we have Tofu characters, because on the inside, everyone is tofu. They're all exactly the same.

And why do you jump to that conclusion? We know that each class has options, we know that each race has options or at least that each race has different level dependent abilities, we know that there will be a bunch of feats and your character will have more of them. So how is it even remotely possible that characters will all come out the same?

It isn't.

It is.

Its not very likely, mind you, but the chance is definitely there. Part of the reason i don't play "core only" in 3.5 is that there would something like 3 fighter, 2 rogue and 1 monk build actually played.

The question is, can we fix it? And this i severely doubt in and by itself. But even if we presuppose that it can be fixed, the question "can we fix it by reducing complexity" is still a little tough to believe.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

All I can say is that, should Paizo decide to go 4e, they give us some good details for why shifting to 4e is good for them ... especially, I would hope, for ways of opening up or expanding on their adventures.

Honestly, if Paizo is excited, I believe that its employees will do a much better job making us suspicious folk excited, too.

Same thing goes if Paizo decides to stick with 3.5.

Heck, I just want to say that I remain quite pleased with how well Paizo keeps up its communication with its customer base ... something WotC could stand to learn.

Qadira

Disenchanter wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
I could say the exact same thing to those trying to convince me that I should still play 3.5.

As someone who has claimed people should stick to the cold hard facts, I ask you to point me to any time anyone has tried to convince you to still play 3.5.

I'll wait.

You haven't. You present well reasoned responses to 4E. You do not tend to wax emotional and you definitely do not wear tinfoil hats.

Qadira

TerraNova wrote:
Hmm, have the laws of probability been revised since i last looked at them? Last time i checked, it was 4.5 for a d8, and 5.5 for a d10. Ooops... guess with usual "round fractions down", you made a little blunder here. Too bad.

You are correct about 4.5 but I use real world rounding.

TerraNova wrote:
Ok, give me a die that has an expected roll of 5, then. Hmm, would be a D9. Strange, i seem to have none handy. So either its a lame "reroll 10s" rule coming up (which is going to go SO well with players), or you shift the probabilities...

If the flat add is five then the intention was that it was based on a d8. It's not hard to figure that out. If people can write sophisticated house rules for 3.5 then this house rule for 4E should be very simple to implement.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I think the flowers are pretty!

Qadira

kikai13 wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:


When stuff like the rolling of hp is called the single defining characteristic of what is and is not D&D then I gotta say something - it is irrational. I am fine with those that just want to play an older edition in peace, but the constant barrage of "we don't need this crap" is intolerable.

This is a public forum, and everyone is welcome to their opinion. Dismissing those opinions as irrational or intolerable is, in my opinion, somewhat rude. Name calling is not justifiable simply because their opinions differ from yours.

If that is the reason he doesn't want to play 4th edition, than I am glad that he expressed it. He should be allowed to do so without ridicule.

I will always dismiss an irrational opinion. I am interested in getting to the root cause of that opinion because that is where the real reason for the reaction is to be found. But, you cannot base any form of reasonable dialogue on irrational statements.

Further more he is not just saying I don't want to play 4E for reason X - he is raging against anything and anyone that even vaguely shows any possible interest in actually exploring what 4E might be. Anyone that says anything that can in any way be interpreted as curious about 4E is slammed as blasphemy against the true and pure D&D.

1,451 to 1,500 of 1,665 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / 4.0: PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED All Messageboards

©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.