*Sees old post removed*
*Resists urge to rage*
Prob'by for the best. Thanks, scary dinosaur.
Back to the original topic, I think it'd be close. Wizards is a lot more well-known, but among the gaming experts there's a lot of derision for its ability to come across as a friendly gaming company. Whether or not it's actually friendly, it isn't very good at seeming so. :P
/\ A time travelling dinosaur, eh? That's an awfully creative direction.
Nerf it, JJ is redacting my posts BEFORE I even write them... ;)
I just hit the "Reply" button and James' hand actually leapt out of my monitor, slapped me across the face, wagged a finger at me, and stole my keyboard.
Now I have to use my mouse to type. Do you have any idea how long it'll take for me to rabidly defend WotC using only two buttons?
/\ A time travelling dinosaur, eh? That's an awfully creative direction.More like a dinosaur ranger with "Favored enemy (edition warrior)." ;-P
Forget wild shaping. Awaken is the druid power that most concerns me. *Backs away*
EDIT: Aha. Thoughtcha could stop me from commenting on druids in an edition thread, eh? 'Problem handling my request', indeed!
:P
|
/\ A time travelling dinosaur, eh? That's an awfully creative direction.More like a dinosaur ranger with "Favored enemy (edition warrior)." ;-P
RD MODE ON
But James, does it mean that your favored enemy are Edition "warriors" regardless of class, or Warriors only? Or perhaps some yet-unpublished Edition Warrior archetype or prestige class. The RAW is terribly unclear, and I am at a loss on how to run an encounter against you.
The RAW is terribly unclear...
Of course it is. Pathfinder's a failure, haven't you heard? You can't understand a thing now. We should all play video ga--er, '4E'.
Creative Director
|
/\ A time travelling dinosaur, eh? That's an awfully creative direction.More like a dinosaur ranger with "Favored enemy (edition warrior)." ;-PRD MODE ON
But James, does it mean that your favored enemy are Edition "warriors" regardless of class, or Warriors only? Or perhaps some yet-unpublished Edition Warrior archetype or prestige class. The RAW is terribly unclear, and I am at a loss on how to run an encounter against you.
My greatest power is the utilization of rules that no GM can rightfully comprehend.
So, what would a "5th Edition that is very similar to Pathfinder" MEAN?
Because the only thing I can imagine is that it would be based on the same set of rules that Pathfinder is--D&D 3.5. So... wouldn't this theoretical "similar to Pathfinder game" essentially be an OGL game? And therefore, wouldn't they avoid that because as far as I understood it, Hasbro wanted to get away from the OGL?
I'm sure there's some legality things I'm missing here... you can't copyright mechanics for one... but that was my thought, and I have trouble imagining how it would all happen.
Anyway, I think the competition would be much like the competition between most d20-based systems, with D&D getting a boost because of recognizability, but various edition wars already in progress would probably split the fanbase. How much the fanbase split would affect things... but my instinct is that ultimately it would much be business as usual, and people would pick the company they were loyal to/happy with and that would be with.
Paizo would continue to do well because the core of their profits are their adventures----indeed, if there was another popular 3.x-like system on the market, theoretically, their AP sales could go UP because you could probably use them for both systems with little difficulty. (Which is also why I don't see it happening.)
If "5th Edition that is similar to Pathfinder" means something else, by all means, please clarify.
|
I would be cautious but likely try it. I personally would hope that 5E would come prior to any attempt at 4E DL or 4E Ravenloft, but am very cusious as to what people think the "good" things of 4E are.
In my opinion it begins and ends with the MM1. I disliked/hated almost every aspect of 4E play. Especially lack of options, levelling/gearing up, and skill challenges. Not hating, just my opinion. So what would 5E be?
Paizo would continue to do well because the core of their profits are their adventures----indeed, if there was another popular 3.x-like system on the market, theoretically, their AP sales could go UP because you could probably use them for both systems with little difficulty. (Which is also why I don't see it happening.)
I don't have much to say about this thread topic, but thought I'd point out that you can very easily run Paizo adventures using 4th edition D&D. I've converted a bunch of modules, one post-dungeon AP and am currently working my way through Age of Worms.
In my view, the best thing about Paizo is their creative output - the world of Golarion and the adventures they run.
The big appeal for 4E (to me anyway) is ease of use for the DM - a typical Paizo module takes me about an hour to fully convert if I'm not too fussy about monster substitution, slightly more if I decide I want to more faithfully replicate the PC foes.
I don't have much to say about this thread topic, but thought I'd point out that you can very easily run Paizo adventures using 4th edition D&D. I've converted a bunch of modules, one post-dungeon AP and am currently working my way through Age of Worms.
In my view, the best thing about Paizo is their creative output - the world of Golarion and the adventures they run.
The big appeal for 4E (to me anyway) is ease of use for the DM - a typical Paizo module takes me about an hour to fully convert if I'm not too fussy about monster substitution, slightly more if I decide I want to more faithfully replicate the PC foes.
Charles nooooooooooooooo!
Get outta my head Charles!
So your solution to them [bleep] canning things to force a rebuy of books is that I can not buy it and continue to buy their rules? pft. Sorry, but no thank you. Crap on a customer and they stop being your customer. How we spend our money is the little voice we get with most companies.
And yes, FR. I loved FR. Past tense. The old one, before "rocks fall, we redid the campaign and stuck the same name on it". I didn't stick around to see how many campaigns they screwed up after that: one was enough. It showed me how they thought of the consumer and I moved on.
By "Old FR" do you mean before or after the two or three setting changing disasters that happened before 4e?
I can only assume you don't own any FR books save for the first few that were ever printed.
Wait no, not even those because TSR edited a lot of Greenwood's more bizarrely perverse parts. I assume you actually own zero FR books and only have things Greenwood sent you personally, so disgusted are you in changes to the setting.
Just wondering how that whole "consistency" thing is going.
|
Nerf it, JJ is redacting my posts BEFORE I even write them... ;)I just hit the "Reply" button and James' hand actually leapt out of my monitor, slapped me across the face, wagged a finger at me, and stole my keyboard.
Now I have to use my mouse to type. Do you have any idea how long it'll take for me to rabidly defend WotC using only two buttons?
You could probably get the message across to the nay-sayers with a webcam and one finger...
You could probably get the message across to the nay-sayers with a webcam and one finger...
Ideas are dangerous things.
By "Old FR" do you mean before or after the two or three setting changing disasters that happened before 4e?
2 points.
1) The FR from the time of going only went though one real RSE...and that was the Godswar...which while was...not very well handled...changed very little...and there was no time jump. IE material was still useful after it was published even if you choosed to ignore it..
Other than that...2 or 3? I only count one + the Spell Plague. What major events are you thinking of? Please do not mention the slew at the end of 3.5 as they were part of the Spell Plague changes...
2) None of them had a 100+ year time jump. The time jump is what makes it hard for alot of people to swallow...not me as I though everything they did in 3.5 to set up the Spell Plague and the 4th ed changes to the Spell Plague itself badly written...and very...author fiatish(IE the changes were far from consistent and mostly happened because..."We said so..." ).
True I guess you could run old Realms with the 4th ed...though...they did sorta have to blow it up and remake it to fit 4th ed so I don't know how exactly successful that would be...unless of course they lied...
But I really don't want to get in a debate here about the FR...as that would be off topic.
Actually I think that the 5E will be far closer to 4E than 4E was to 3E, becuase the WotC could have taken a lesson from making the change too radical.
If "5th Edition that is similar to Pathfinder" means something else, by all means, please clarify.
It would mean that WotC realized they made a mistake and attempted to dial back the "Way Back Machine".
Actually I think that the 5E will be far closer to 4E than 4E was to 3E, becuase the WotC could have taken a lesson from making the change too radical.
Agreed...unless 4th ed sales are not doing that well and/or they think they can get more people buying their stuff that they would loose from the die hard 4th ed fans. Than they will throw those fans under the bus.
|
What would people think if WotC looked at the success of Pathfinder and made a 5th Ed for DnD that was like Pathfinder, maybe with some overall improvements due to the fact Paizo has already done a lot of trial and error testing?snikt
What do you think you'd do?
I'd play it, like I do with all games.
I understand the lineage of D&D. I even made up a chart.
Windows still confuses me. The 9th major release version is somehow Windows 7. And that's ignoring the NT, Server, and CE varieties of Windows.
Yeah, but I only upgraded six times. Spot-on accurate for me! :D
I would like a game true to the D&D legacy like Pathfinder, but with "lower powered rules". I love the spirit of Pathfinder RPG, but it has too many rules/feats/options/powers and it got worse at high levels. I'm really bored with high numbers ("hey I dished 253 points of damage").
If a lower powered game true to the legacy of D&D/AD&D was released, be it pathfinder or wotc's D&D, I would go for it in a heartbeat.
in response to the post i would personally stick with pathfinder.
while i personally have nothing against D&D i LOATH wizards of the coast and what they did to the game.
while i could see some of you younger cats jumping on board i have no issues with that. Being an old dog though i can say me and some other RPG board gamers i know will never go back to WoTC. D&D was a good game with history and culture and WoTC chewed the game up and spit it into the faces of all its loyal fans and took advantage of them. They also screwed over Gigax which in my book i will never forgive. while i can see the need to evolve and make money off it, WoTC took the buisness end and ran with it and forgot everything else about RPG games.
It felt like "ok you guys bought all our huge amounts of rule supplements, splat books,story books, monster compendiums, campaign settings, merchandise and spent thousands of dollars. Now that we have you addicted and took all your hard earned money we're not making as much money cause you own all the books and new players aren't increasing our stock enough. SOOO we're gonna make everything obsolete and non compatible so you have to start all over again and we will rinse and repeat every so often so we can keep making money. Your offended you say? Well too damn bad. Upgrade or make all your own stuff. We will get enough suckers to stay profitable".
while Paizo still makes money at it they seem to have the old school fun and dedication that D&D USED to have. They genuinely seem concerned how there fan base feels and remain loyal to there customers. They have better support than ANY RPG company out there. they provide free updates to PDF's if any major changes or errata occur. They even go so far as doing playtests to include fans ideas and SHOW that they care what we think. while they can't make everyone happy they sure do try hard enough! And thats why i will remain loyal to paizo. while they put out great products i still feel heart, honor, and respect is more important than quantity OR quality.
|
|
D&D was a good game with history and culture and WoTC chewed the game up and spit it into the faces of all its loyal fans and took advantage of them.
Just wondering...did you have the same opinion when 3E came out? Because it was just as far a leap away, if not further, from the older versions as 4E is from 3E.
They also screwed over Gigax which in my book i will never forgive.
WotC didn't screw over Gygax, that was TSR.
It felt like "ok you guys bought all our huge amounts of rule supplements, splat books,story books, monster compendiums, campaign settings, merchandise and spent thousands of dollars. Now that we have you addicted and took all your hard earned money we're not making as much money cause you own all the books and new players aren't increasing our stock enough. SOOO we're gonna make everything obsolete and non compatible so you have to start all over again and we will rinse and repeat every so often so we can keep making money. Your offended you say? Well too damn bad. Upgrade or make all your own stuff. We will get enough suckers to stay profitable".
Again, 4E was no more a cause of this than was 3E.
Did someone seriously say WotC screwed over Gygax and then went on to praise TSR.
Seriously.
That...that's where we've gone?
|
|
but am very cusious as to what people think the "good" things of 4E are.
This would probably be best started in a new thread, but quickly and off the top of my head:
Consolidated skill list - PF did this to some degree but 4e's list consolidated skills that PF did not (e.g. Swim is part of Athletics).
Ability to recover given to everyone - this breaks the reliance on a healer class (though one is still beneficial), so a cleric doesn't have to waste actions in combat healing others, now everyone can take a Second Wind etc.
Easy DM Prep - not to everyone's taste but not having to build monsters using the players rules makes prep a lot easier, along with only focussing on the stats that will come up in play and leaving the other stuff to Gm fiat. Also the XP encounter budget is great and simple (I believe PF does something similar).
Monster Stats - no cross referencing needed for feats or spells, a monster's powers are spelt out in the stat block.
Pacing - At Will, Encounter and Daily powers provide a structure for pacing of powers that are somewhat lacking in 3.5 and PF IMHO. Each encounter a player knows they can use their Daily and Encounter powers, only worrying whether saving their Daily power for a worse encounter is needed. With 3.5 and PF a player can feel they need to keep saving spells just in case and then find out the plot provides a nights rest and they still have spells left.
Narrative focus - 4e seems to be more focused on the Narrative than Simulation. For me that is a draw.
Minions - I like mook rules and it can help to give a pulp and / or cinematic feeling to a game.
Character Structure - at least pre-PHB3 and pre-essentials, the structure of each class was the same which made it a lot easier to start playing a class you have never played before as long as you have played one class. The detail of the powers are different enough that it feels very different, but a player can easily understand what At Will, Encounter and Daily means - whether they are Martial Exploits or Spells.
Crits don't need confirmation - Something that the likes of M&M 2nd ed did - take out the confirmation roll and make the roll of a 20 exciting rather than excitment followed by disappointment when a threat isn't confirmed.
Rituals - Magic users need never run out of utility spells or find they haven't prepared the right spell, whilst at the same time not having magic being the first point of call to solve an issue - Thievery skill is quicker and cheaper than casting Knock continually.
Thats just off the top of my head. And I appreciated that not everyone will see those as plus points, but for many they are. And this is coming from someone who probably prefers 3.5 to 4e.
First off, from what I've read, 4th Edition isn't doing that badly. I can't see WOTC going back to their 3.5 rules, just because another company is making quite well with what they had.
Also, if WoTC wanted to Capitalize on Paizo's success with Pathfinder, a better method would be to re-release all the 3.5 (and earlier) PDFs.
This would have the advantage that it would start to "mend some fences" with the existing 3.5/PathfinderRPG crowd and not further upsetting their existing 4th edition player base.
|
Just wondering...did you have the same opinion when 3E came out? Because it was just as far a leap away, if not further, from the older versions as 4E is from 3E.
*note: this starts off topic... I promise to bring it home*
I did. I was very reluctant to try 3E. I had a bookshelf full of 2nd ed stuff. While I was intrigued by the changes proposed for 3E, it was no different than being a D&D player checking out the GURPS rules. And since I already had my fantasy based game, there was no reason to follow up on it.
Then my basement flooded while I was home from college and I lost my gaming collection. EVERY. SINGLE. BOOK.
So... I could track down every book and re-buy a system that was no longer seeing support, or I could give 3E a shot. I'm glad I did. Within a few games, I was a 3E fan.
So when 4E came around, I wasn't against it per se, But again, I had a shelf full of stuff. I was angry as I realized no one cared about my demographic and my favorite company wanted me to ignore my previous financial contributions and dive into whole new wallet gouging expeditions. Then Paizo came along. They hooked me through compatibility. Now, I rarely use my old 3.5 books. They are tricksy, precious!
So the answer to the OP is thus: If 5E were compatible with Pathfinder, I would be willing to give it a shot because that's not really a "new" game (though you could easily argue that PFRPG has come into it's own at this point). If it was not compatible with my current several thousand dollar game library (I have problems with impulse control), then I would probably give it a pass, just as I did 4E (and attempted to do with 3E before the spring runoff spat in my face).
Until the next flood, anyway. And then only if Paizo were planning to abandon support for PFRPG.
At this point, while I am not a huge fan of WotC practices, it is simply an old man's financial decision, and there is no level of quality awesomeness or business practice reversal that could cause me to jump ship.