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

Necromancer to Make Its Own Version of D&D?


D&D 3.5/d20/OGL

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Clark Peterson, thank you for saving me the time to read a bunch of threads and sorting through misinformation.

Cheliax

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Savage_ScreenMonkey wrote:


Im just not convinced that what Clark thinks is missing from 4e is a feeling that is widly held by the 4e community. I could be way off base here.Im not a 4e guy, so I know jack about anything thats just my gut opinion.

I think its going to depend a lot on what Clark thinks is missing. I also think that he should think very carefully about how he chooses to implement changes because there is a really significant danger of creating a game that is essentially incomputable with the rest of 4E. If he does that I think sales will essentially tank. I might even like what he has done but if I can't use it with the rest of my 4E material then I'm going to have to take a pass.

If, on the other hand, he supplements what 4E has done then I'm much more interested.

So for example he might decide to implement 'low level' D&D in his game. Now he can do that by redesigning all the classes and completely changing their power levels compared to standard 4E but I think that would be a big mistake.

A better option, IMO, would be to introduce negative levels. A 1st level 4E character has some pretty bucko hps and stats and such. Why not reverse engineer that so that a character starts off with significantly less stats at negative 5th level and maybe has no powers or feats few hps and does not gain any of the proficiency bonuses for using weapons. Then, over the course of 5 levels one could add all of these things back granting bonuses to stats that bring the character up to a 30 point buy, granting extra hps at each level and giving out the starting feats and proficiency bonuses. Couple this with templates and rules for reducing monsters in the same way and we can have low hp players fighting low hp kobolds and yet still be able to use all the rest of the material that everyone else is making for 4E once the players eliminate all the negative levels and become 1st level proper as 4E understands it to be. This method means that what NG is doing is still compatible with the...

You make some valid points. I think that for this kind of project to sell it needs to be more or less compatible with the current 4e rules set with a minimum of extra conversion work.


Clark Peterson wrote:

Hi everyone.

Not trying to hijack this, but I want to prevent the trainwreck from happening here that is happening at ENWorld and RPGNet.

*We arent making our own version of D&D.
*We arent going to compete with Pathfinder.
*I am not a newly converted 4E "hater."
*I havent "changed my tune" on 4E.
*I still like 4E.
*I play it.
*I want to support it (and I intend to support Pathfinder too).

What I said was this:
*I support the advancment of the game.
*BUT there are some things in 4E that I would like to change that I think could put back in the "soul" of D&D that I think is missing from 4E (your mileage may vary, and I am not trying to preach to you about how you should play D&D, I'm just talking about what I want and what I like).
*I am batting around the idea of doing a Monte-esque 4E rules supplement that would include those changes that I have in mind.
*One of the guys I batted it around with was Mona.
*This is still very embryonic and just me thinking outloud, really.
*It may not ever become anything more than me typing up house rules and putting them in my own binder.
*I pissed people off by using the phrase "anime" in a bad way and that was a mistake.

This all came about because I am a designer and I am bored waiting for the revised GSL :)

So, no, I dont hate 4E. I havent changed my tune. I havent given up on Pathfinder. :)

Save yourself the reading of the many threads on this :)

Clark

Hey clark, its entirely possible you won't see this, but i have one very quick question.

I really want to like E4, the simplisity of it has a sort of appeal to it, the ability to pull together an adventure in the space of about an hour, where an equivilant adventure in 3.5 should take me closer to five is cool, but despite this i find it increasingly difficult to like 4E

Now, having read your comments on the quoted thread and they seem to mirror some of my own feelings. I was just wondering what is it that you like about 4E?


Arnwyn wrote:

Fascinating, but I suspect nothing will come out of it.

In any case, while I own every single one of Necro's module products, after their "rah-rah 4e" they've become irrelevant to me (though not yet forgotten) for quite some time. Maybe that'll change... but maybe not.

(Needless to say, though - the flailing attack by the certain usual-suspect 4e cheerleaders over on ENWorld is quite a hoot to watch. Can't... accept... any... perceived... criticism of 4e...!)

Link?

Osirion

Just poke a round in a few thread you'll find em fast. Any of the (Forked Thread: When did I stop being WotC's target audience?) threads will do.

That place is not as friendly as it used to be to say the lest


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Just poke a round in a few thread you'll find em fast. Any of the (Forked Thread: When did I stop being WotC's target audience?) threads will do.

That place is not as friendly as it used to be to say the lest

I tend to avoid ENworld in general ;)


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Link?

See seekerofshadowlight's post. The "When did I stop being WotC's target audience?" and related threads are, indeed, particularly good examples.

So much so that you'll probably be able to pick out most of ENWorld's "usual suspects" very quickly.


Clark Peterson wrote:


What I said was this:
*I support the advancment of the game.

As do I.

Sadly, 4e is more of a lateral move than an advancement.

imo, of course.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
ghendar wrote:
Clark Peterson wrote:


What I said was this:
*I support the advancment of the game.

As do I.

Sadly, 4e is more of a lateral move than an advancement.

imo, of course.

I think we can call 4th the evolution of D&D. Evolution sometimes is a lateral process that can end in a dead end.

It might be that 4th turns out to be th Homo Sapins Sapiens of RPGs. The game best suited for a lot of environments aka playstyles and the one that can adapt best to new situations.

Or it might be that the game turns out to be the Neanderthal of RPGs. Perfectly adapted to a special environment and situation (namely: Ice Age) but not able to adapt to other environments or situtions. Also the Neanderthal could not compete with the Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the long run.

We will see how 4th turns out!


Regardless of the outcome of 4.0, I will continue to play, and love, 3.5 As I have enough books, modules (yes, I said it right), and supplemental material to last a lifetime that I purchased the "last go 'round" Wizards decided to change everything around. Dont get me wrong, I was eagerly anticipating 4.0, but having purchased and read the 3 core books, I feel the changeover was not necessary. With that, I feel I have enough imagination to continue on with 3.5 in the unforseeable future, despite the lack of future products for said game system. This Sunday, as with every Sunday for the past 27 years (since I was 12, you do the math), We will be playing D&D at my house. Whether it be Advanced D&D or 3.5, but that will be about it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
valshea wrote:
Dont get me wrong, I was eagerly anticipating 4.0, but having purchased and read the 3 core books, I feel the changeover was not necessary.

I'm still amazed how many times I read something like this.

Thank goodness us 3.5 fans have Pathfinder.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DaveMage wrote:
valshea wrote:
Dont get me wrong, I was eagerly anticipating 4.0, but having purchased and read the 3 core books, I feel the changeover was not necessary.

I'm still amazed how many times I read something like this.

Thank goodness us 3.5 fans have Pathfinder.

Amen.

Andoran

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

Clark has a new update on his web page. Looks like he is moving forward with his version of 4th ed, and he plans to have an open play test similar to what Paizo did.

Interesting times ahead.


Mr Baron wrote:

Clark has a new update on his web page. Looks like he is moving forward with his version of 4th ed, and he plans to have an open play test similar to what Paizo did.

Interesting times ahead.

Linky for us lazy folks?


Turin the Mad wrote:
Linky for us lazy folks?

Linky.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Seems like an Unearthed Arcana for 4e. Great idea for 4e folks.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mr Baron wrote:

Clark has a new update on his web page. Looks like he is moving forward with his version of 4th ed, and he plans to have an open play test similar to what Paizo did.

Interesting times ahead.

That makes me sad...oh, well, more money for Paizo!


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

DF: Well, as I said in the other thread, as long as we can get Slumbering Tsar for Pathfinder, I'm good. Money saved right now isn't a bad thing. :)

Cheliax

RedShirtNo5 wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Linky for us lazy folks?

Linky.

Whoa. That was a surprise. Not sure yet how I feel about it.

Founder, Legendary Games & Publisher, Necromancer Games, RPG Superstar Judge

Jason Grubiak wrote:

If Necromancer Games goes 4th edition or if they go Pathfinder they will make one side happy and the other side dissapointed. I think thats a safe assumption.

Dont worry. My goal is to support both if permitted. I love Pathfinder. And I would love to support 4E if a revised GSL shows up. I dont see a reason to pick one or the other.

Silver Crusade

Mr Baron wrote:

Clark has a new update on his web page. Looks like he is moving forward with his version of 4th ed, and he plans to have an open play test similar to what Paizo did.

Interesting times ahead.

+1


As someone who got into 3.x literally months before 4e was announced, I fell into a strange place.

I was a new gamer, learning a system that was getting phased out by the publisher. However, it was amazingly well supported and I got hooked on Malhavoc Press's stuff and Necro's stuff.

4e came out, and it just wasn't for me. Partly because I spent a bit of cash in a short amount of time on 3.x stuff and partly because I didn't care for a number of the changes from what I'd just learned.

Then Pathfinder comes along and I've been following it and incorporating it in my games.

So, I'm happy to see that Necromancer Games will hopefully be doing Pathfinder stuff as well as 4e. Mainly because I enjoyed the Tomes of Horror and the Mother of All Treasure Tables so much.

So, yay, I suppose and I look forward to seeing what comes out!

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Harden Sull wrote:
... I got hooked on Malhavoc Press's stuff and Necro's stuff.

I don't know what is in your hoard, but you should try to pick up The Lost City of Barakus! There are so may great "vintage" Necromancer adventures it's hard to pick just one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DitheringFool wrote:
I don't know what is in your hoard, but you should try to pick up The Lost City of Barakus! There are so may great "vintage" Necromancer adventures it's hard to pick just one.

Amen to that. I'm running two simultaneous PBPs in LCoB right now and they are both tons of fun.

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 3.5/d20/OGL / Necromancer to Make Its Own Version of D&D? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in D&D 3.5/d20/OGL

©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.