Pathfinder RPG and Paizo in the Face of 5E


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,340 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

bugleyman wrote:
deinol wrote:
I definitely think that 4E's biggest flaw is that at launch it had few (if any) quality adventures to showcase the strong parts of the system...
I completely agree. Really, what were they thinking?

<sarc>That resistance was futile and Paizo would produce the quality 4e adventures? ;) </sarc>

Seriously I've no first hand experience to the quality of the 4.x adventures.


Matthew Morris wrote:

<sarc>That resistance was futile and Paizo would produce the quality 4e adventures? ;) </sarc>

Seriously I've no first hand experience to the quality of the 4.x adventures.

The first bunch was truly bad, especially "Keep on the Shadowfell."

And I remain convinced the game was Wotc's to lose -- and lose it they did. Paizo executed very well, but would not be where it is today if WotC hadn't screwed the pooch in so many ways.

We'll never know for sure, of course.

Shadow Lodge

deinol wrote:
I definitely think that 4E's biggest flaw is that at launch it had few (if any) quality adventures to showcase the strong parts of the system...

Has that really changed? Admittedly I don't follow 4E, but as far I can tell, they barely seem to put out any adventure stuff at all.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
deinol wrote:
I definitely think that 4E's biggest flaw is that at launch it had few (if any) quality adventures to showcase the strong parts of the system...
I completely agree. Really, what were they thinking?

I don't think they realized at the time how long it would take for freelancers to become comfortable with the system. But they probably should have taken care to put their best writers on Keep on the Shadowfell.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
deinol wrote:
I definitely think that 4E's biggest flaw is that at launch it had few (if any) quality adventures to showcase the strong parts of the system...

Has that really changed? Admittedly I don't follow 4E, but as far I can tell, they barely seem to put out any adventure stuff at all.

I really don't know. But they put out a ton of adventure material to DDI subscribers.


Kthulhu wrote:
deinol wrote:
I definitely think that 4E's biggest flaw is that at launch it had few (if any) quality adventures to showcase the strong parts of the system...

Has that really changed? Admittedly I don't follow 4E, but as far I can tell, they barely seem to put out any adventure stuff at all.

They're getting better, in my view. They aren't back up to paizo's level yet though.

Most 4E material is digital these days.


Diffan wrote:
internal cosistency stuff

I think you are misinterpreting what the 4E table of DCs means.

It doesn't work separately with DC level always equal to the level of the group. The table is meant to work with regular encounter building mechanics. That means you first set a level of the task and then how difficult it should be - easy means that an untrained peson can do it, moderate means that a trained person can do it and hard says that a trained person with assistance and with very good equipment can do it reasonably well.

There are suggested levels for certain tasks in the books to help with the orientation, but in general the DC shouldn't move about unless the tasks themselves change as well. The challenges SHOULD get more epic with progressing levels and things that used to be a problem SHOULD become easy, otherwise the PCs didn't progress at all.

At heroic levels a rogue is overcomming stuck wooden door, at paragon it could be stone doors at dwarven vault with an amazing lock, epic door could be a spell-warded crystal portal. It would be mighty stupid if the rogue who was a street thug encountered a problem and didn't get any better at solving it when he became a king of all thieves. Just like the monsters the tasks should grow with the PCs, not just the DCs for the same task.

There are reasons for traps, hazards, monsters and other stuff to be given a level. It allows the DM to judge easily how successful the group will be at the task given and there's a reason to have lava listed as lvl 23 or so hazard in 4E. What does that also say? That at top levels you get a fair chance to survive an encounter with it... well, just like in PFRPG, just in 4E you have 30 levels to reach similar level of power instead of 20. Both actually do similar things ;)


Dorje Sylas wrote:


So it's Warhammer 40K style then? Where they tell scale to take a hike and let you measure from the tip of model even if it's hanging a good inch over the models base. Where close combat is so abstract and swirly that you can't shoot into and yet totally regulated by which models that are in "base to base" physical contact.

Really Sarcastic: I just love the way Games Workshop manages 40k!

There are games out there that do abstracted combat off a grid just fine. The reason to use a grid (and get the minis revenue that Wizards abandond) is to at least try have some relation to the miniatures position and the character/monster's place in the game world. If its just a pop-out abstracted "story" positioning the they should go back to how 2e Player's Option: Combat and Tactics handled this.

I hope they don't. 2E left us cold. (in passing WoTC haven't abandoned minis, there is a new minis game and line being developed).

I wasn't suggesting it was everyone's cup of tea (I'm very hopeful that any 5E is less like 3.5 not more like it, largely because I think many differing systems is a plus for the RPG world). My comment was mainly a suggestion not to play PF as if it's 4E and not to play 4E as if it is filling the same function as PF. They have different goals, in my view, and playing a system with a gamist bent from a simulationist viewpoint is likely to be frustrating (or was for us, anyhow).

I think it's good to recognize ones preferences. If you fancy a simulationist game, I wouldn't recommend 4E. If you're not particularly fussed about system, I still think it's important to understand what the game is trying to achieve - it helps you get maximum enjoyment if your imagination is pushing in the same direction as the rules, in my view.


bugleyman wrote:

The first bunch was truly bad, especially "Keep on the Shadowfell."

And I remain convinced the game was Wotc's to lose -- and lose it they did. Paizo executed very well, but would not be where it is today if WotC hadn't screwed the pooch in so many ways.

We'll never know for sure, of course.

It's funny. I enjoyed DMing Keep on Shadowfell. Of course, that could be because we a) went entirely off the rails, b) I created a ton of actually interesting characters c) I tied the half-elf cleric of Ioun (we were using the Pregens) into the story by letting him know that the elf archer was his mother... and the evil orcus priest was his father, d) that the wizard had ties to Valthrun, and f) we skipped a lot of boring encounters via clever players, e) we went entirely off the rails (while staying on the rails). I think "a", "f", and "e" were really the most important parts, there.

Lather, rinse, repeat this for others.

We skipped the Pyramid.

The main problem I'm running into is that the characters, as-presented, are incrediboring. I mean... wow. They're about as flat as paper. The epic characters are so... underwhelming. I just think there could have been so much more they could have done in the path to actually make the world seem alive.

I think the biggest "problem" for 4E isn't one problem but three:
* Poor Sales Pitch - the "let's look at coming 4E" books (for twenty-two American dollars, thank you very much) did nothing but make their decision-making look poorly thought out, at best. This, combined with the over-all lackluster push made it really hard to get into.

*

(rant, sorry) Underdeveloped First Products:
- PH1, and the first three adventures are pretty badly written. The first MM wasn't terrific either. Effectively, they designed and published a book that worked well for one play style: Murder-and-Loot. They published adventures around this concept, books around this concept, and a game around this concept. While that play style is pretty popular, I know its a huge turn off for the various groups I've been in (that one guy notwithstanding). The fact that many, many conceptual options were completely stripped from the player's handbook with a distinct "it might come out later" teaser approach left me feeling like I'd purchased a half-complete product. I now have the PH2, the PH3, two (!) draconomicons, a manual of the planes, a DMG, a monster manual, and three different campaign-setting-related books (two FR and one Eb). And here's the problem with every one: none of them are complete books (Monster Manual being the possible exception). Forgotten Realms doesn't support any sort of player characters from Rasheman (to pull a random example) anymore. Why? Probably because they hadn't published the barbarian, sorcerer, or any other primal classes, so they didn't know what to do. I still can't translate my enchanter or illusionist despite all the books I have (one reason they did the Spellplague + time jump in FR), although I know a guy on the internet who recently made a non-damaging build (aside from magic missile) up through 5th level. Effectively, it feels like the game isn't a finished product, but a rushed-off artificially partitioned one. Why, precisely, should I purchase not only the Manual of the Planes, but four other books besides about those very planes that the Manual was supposed to take care of? That's kind of the point of a Manual - to teach you about stuff. They literally downgraded not only the abilities of the classes, but also the function of the books they were selling. And their first arc adventures were, in fact, terrible. Gah, I'm ranting. I should probably put this in a spoiler.

TL;DR - it really shouldn't have taken three player's handbooks to get what was considered automatic in the previous addition.

* Terrible Introductory Customer Relations - This one is personal, but regardless of what the question was, regardless of how politely I phrased it, regardless of what hoops I went through for Wizards, when I asked a question I was told in no uncertain terms to bugger off. <the next rant was nipped in the bud> That's pretty hard to swallow when you just spent close to a hundred dollars on someone's product, and you ask them a question about that product in order to make better use of it.

Anyway, I think those things really hurt wizards. I, like many people here, probably would have eventually quit gaming after a while had it not been for basically stumbling over Paizo twice. The first time I wasn't interested enough (and didn't have enough time) to really get into it. That, fortunately, changed. Humerously enough, Paizo (and the forums here) have revitalized not only my PF (and 3.X!) games, but also my 4E ones. Go figure.

Diffan wrote:
Does gaining 15 more levels cause a morphic change in your physical chemestry, or body compositiion, or gain you special resistances to heat or lava?

Er, Diffan? YES. More so (by far) in 4E than in 3.X! Look at the paragon paths. Look at the epic destinies! It literally says for a number of them that the characters are undergoing psychological and physiological changes as they grow in levels! That's one reason why you get various resistances (or vulnerabilities!) over time.

THAT SAID:
3.X (and by extension Pathfinder) is by no means perfect, and handling those high-level changes is something that 4E does do better. I've mentioned hit points as a problem for simulationism before on this thread. When things say you "take damage" from a sword swing, the natural presumption is that you take damage from the sword swing, i.e. that the sword actually hits you (especially with such things as armor class and the various 4E defense mechanics). But that's a problem across both editions - hit points aren't treated as hit points, but rather as health. Its why "cure" spells have never made any sense. Nor does taking "poison" damage and it not affecting you as much when your physiology is supposedly not changing (although, again, in 4E, for several paths, it explicitly says that it does). But that's true for every iteration of the game. Gygax encouraged us not to think of them as actual health-gauges, but we do anyway, due to the terminology used in, for, and around them.


Pax Veritas wrote:
All this stuff on editions which is pretty much true

I agree with you up there. 5e is a money grab, just like 4e was. If 4e fixed all the problems of 3rd edition, why is it necessary to make 5e. Right because 4e has its problems. So 5e will fix that. BUT lo and behold the system is STILL not perfect, lets put out 6e. Meanwhile everytime there is an edition change you get to learn NEW rules just when you become great at the old rules.

No thank you.


Pax Veritas wrote:
Quality, consistency, tradition, history, gaming culture, continuity, imagination creativity within a stable ruleset/milieu are all ways we can trust it will be easy to sit down and play a game with strangers or new friends; these aspects help us avoid fragmenting as a gaming community. I am so grateful that we can speak the common language of Pathfinder RPG now, and what a familar language it is

And when -- not if -- Paizo releases Pathfinder 2E, will they then be EVILLLL too? :P

Sorry, but your bias is pretty extreme.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Mournblade94 wrote:
I agree with you up there. 5e is a money grab, just like 4e was.

Just like 3E was. Just like 2E was. Just like AD&D was. Just like BECMI was. Pretty much anything beyond the original box was a money grab. Original D&D felt more like sharing a hobby with friends and making up the costs of production.


I've been lurking a long time on the thread, but decided to jump in.

I do NOT think of 4e, 5e or any e beyond as a money grab. As many have said before, it is issues that people have with a game that causes revisions.

Just because some people like 4e more than 3.x, does it make a 5e unecessary? I have played for over 20 years, almost specifically D&D. Maybe a different system here or there but always D&D was a favorite.

To me 4e feels like the next best evolution, and if there is a 5e, maybe we can evolve further.

I HATED vancian casting
I HATED rules bloat (I'm a rules lawyer, and use every rule in place, unless in rare occasions I decide to change it.) I can now use every rule WITHOUT slowing down my game
I HATED the disparity of class and race balance.
I HATED the 15 min adventuring day, based off either when the wizard was out of spells or the cleric out of heals.
I HATED static combats that were basically charge then irish box for a round or two before the fight was over.

For me, 4e was a fix to so many things. Do I think it's perfect, no, they changed things that I'd rather they hadn't. A 5e, if on the horizon, is an opportunity to fix the problems that people that play 4e have with 4e.

I play both PF and 4e, and they both play like D&D, one is a cleaned up 3.5 and the other took the game rules in a different direction, yet they both kept all the same feel of D&D. It's just a difference in simulationism over gamism, or vice versa.

What bothers me is all the people saying it doesn't "feel like D&D", and half of them say "I've been playing since the beginning of 3rd" almost in the same breath. So they speak from the experience of having only seen D&D as one edition. The "feel" of D&D is a LOT older than 3rd, and to me 3rd is the one that feels the least like it. Yet, it was, in its time, the best evolution then. I just think that any game, especially a game I love, should evolve, adapt and grow, and to do that sometimes you have to step away from the comfort zone.

Looking back over my post, I'm not sure I have a point as much as a rant. Meh, take it as you will.


Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
Post which was obviously a blatant money grab

;-)


ryric wrote:

MadScientistWorking, I think we've reached the point where we're not ever going to agree here, because to me, this:

MadScientistWorking wrote:
11 classes from which the viability and class mechanics which wildly swung in many different directions.
is one of the best parts about D&D. I want wildly swingy class mechanics, so that every time I play something new, the experience is very different. I want 5e to bring that back.

I'm curious as to why you feel the only way classes can be different is by making some be simply better then others.


bugleyman wrote:
Pax Veritas wrote:
Quality, consistency, tradition, history, gaming culture, continuity, imagination creativity within a stable ruleset/milieu are all ways we can trust it will be easy to sit down and play a game with strangers or new friends; these aspects help us avoid fragmenting as a gaming community. I am so grateful that we can speak the common language of Pathfinder RPG now, and what a familar language it is

And when -- not if -- Paizo releases Pathfinder 2E, will they then be EVILLLL too? :P

Sorry, but your bias is pretty extreme.

Depends on the state of the game when they release it. 4E at release felt like a bit of, maybe not an outright money grab, but definitely a incomplete product that simply wasn't worth the money I was putting down. As someone mentioned above, the fact that no pre-essentials book struck me as even attempting to be a complete book in and of itself bothered me. The essentials books I've seen do a much better job, but the earlier books, to me at least, partially came across as previews of DDI trying to get you to buy the DDI subscription.

EDIT: This by itself doesn't bother me, but they did this to the extent that they forgot the books might need to stand on their own at some point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pax Veritas wrote:
I agree completely that this is exactly the heritage view that PAIZO has taken with Pathfinder RPG, and its consistent with the origins and history of Dungeons & Dragons. Its like a naturalism that is the source of the rules, and the rules are just useful ways of describing it.

Gary Gygax thought 3e was a bad game.

Sorry bro. Your patron saint doesn't like your system of choice.

Also laffo forever at D&D having a "history of naturalism." D&D monsters were made from children's toys and imagination then rolled on a chart of random monster encounters. This whole "naturalism" thing was born in the last two years as a means of putting down 4e, nothing more, nothing less.


deinol wrote:
Mournblade94 wrote:
I agree with you up there. 5e is a money grab, just like 4e was.
Just like 3E was. Just like 2E was. Just like AD&D was. Just like BECMI was. Pretty much anything beyond the original box was a money grab. Original D&D felt more like sharing a hobby with friends and making up the costs of production.

I am not disagreeing with you. 2e was made so they could skip Gygax royalties. 3e was made to make it WOTC's edition. I do think TSR ran 2e in the ground and that is why 3rd was needed.

Many think 4e was needed. I don't. I do think it a money grab. Inherently I do not think a money grab is a bad thing as businesses need money.

I am hoping Paizo can stick with this incarnation of PAthfinder. I am not looking forward to a PAthfinder 2e.


sunshadow21 wrote:

Depends on the state of the game when they release it. 4E at release felt like a bit of, maybe not an outright money grab, but definitely a incomplete product that simply wasn't worth the money I was putting down. As someone mentioned above, the fact that no pre-essentials book struck me as even attempting to be a complete book in and of itself bothered me. The essentials books I've seen do a much better job, but the earlier books, to me at least, partially came across as previews of DDI trying to get you to buy the DDI subscription.

EDIT: This by itself doesn't bother me, but they did this to the extent that they forgot the books might need to stand on their own at some point.

Sounds like a reasonable answer. I honestly wasn't too pleased with some of the 4E PHB omissions, either.


Pax Veritas wrote:


Its like a naturalism that is the source of the rules, and the rules are just useful ways of describing it.

As I said I agree with most everything you said, but I have no idea where naturalism comes into play here. I don't even know how naturalism applies. The only time I hear this is when people object to science as having a naturalistic base. I cannot in my mind figure out how it appleis to editions.


I don't view new editions as a money grab, so long as they don't come too often. Sure, they are used by companies to boost sales, but I accept if I feel that the new edition improves the game - these companies need to sell games to survive after all.

Having said that, from my perspective, the time horizon for new editions should be fairly long. I did not feel 3.X had run its course yet at the time of the edition change to 4E. If I were a 4E fan, I would not be amused if the 5th edition came some time in the near future.

Liberty's Edge

Reading stuff like Wotc released 4E for a money grab while Paizo did it for the game cmakes mne just wonder sometimes. Do you really think that Paizo was going to release an rpg and not want it to be profitable. Or that they lose any sleep that PF and by extension Paizo is doing well. They want to make quality products and they want your money. Or do you expect Paizo to pay the rent, bills and salaries with just the sheer goodwill of the community. To think otherwise is being purposefully naive imo. Last time I checked Paizo was not a non-proft organization. Agreed with some other posters that for some in this thread their bias is showing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Reading stuff like Wotc released 4E for a money grab while Paizo did it for the game cmakes mne just wonder sometimes. Do you really think that Paizo was going to release an rpg and not want it to be profitable. Or that they lose any sleep that PF and by extension Paizo is doing well. They want to make quality products and they want your money. Or do you expect Paizo to pay the rent, bills and salaries with just the sheer goodwill of the community. To think otherwise is being purposefully naive imo. Last time I checked Paizo was not a non-proft organization. Agreed with some other posters that for some in this thread their bias is showing.

Actually memorax, yes, bias is showing through on all sides... and that's kind of what this thread is about: speak your bias and why it should be something that WotC and Paizo consider related to the possible release of 5E. "Bias" (i.e. a strong leaning or preference) is not wrong... only when it's used wrongly and comes with a closed mind.

That said, I agree with your point: companies are there to make money. That's what they do. To clarify, however, there's a difference between making money and making a purposefully (or at least noticeably) inferior product and selling it for just as much, if not more, than the superior product (in terms of quality if not essence, since we disagree on the essence part) you used to release.

Examples of inferior quality and an incomplete product:
To go back to the Manual of the Planes.
In 3.X: in 3.0 we got Manual of the Planes and Deities and Demigods plus setting-specific stuff; in 3.5 we got the Planar Handbook. That's three books in 3.X's run, and it pretty much covered everything.

In 4E: we got Manual of the Planes, Heroes of the Feywild, Shadowfell: Gloomwrought and Beyond, Heroes of Shadow, Heroes of Elemental Chaos, The Plane Above: Secrets of the Astral Sea, and The Plane Below: Secrets of Elemental Chaos. That's twice as many books in half the time, and, from what I've seen of TPA:SotAS and TPB:SoEC, those should have just been folded into the 4E Manual of the Planes, because the same sort of information that used to be in one book is now split into three (and possibly more, as 4E MotP would still be incomplete, but I haven't really looked at the others so I can't say if they fit).

Or, let's look at the Draconimicons. 3.X: the Draconomicon. That's it. (Races of Dragon and Dragon Magic were loose spin-offs at best, pretty much everything was in the Draconomicon). 4E: Draconomicon (Chromatic), Draconomicon (Metallic), and the hinted at Draconomicon (???). Really both the D(C) and the D(M) would have fit in the 3.0 Draconomicon.

It's been mentioned, but the Player's Handbook: the 4E PH1 had six out of the eleven classes the 3.X (3.0 or 3.5) had and one from the other supplements (warlock), and a new one (warlord) for a total of eight. Compare to eleven, you're coming up short by about a fourth. Further making it seem inferior is that, while in the 3.X books you had more than one method to cover given "rolls", in 4E you had only one controller - the wizard and the PH had a very high preference for martial characters (4 of 8) and strikers (3 of 8), which again made it seem somewhat lackluster in the diversity department.

In the PH2 they again introduced eight classes, however this time they neglected the entire front of the book: the PH2 wasn't a real PH - a Player's Handbook - because it required you to purchase PH1 in order to make it work. While this isn't a terrible thing, I, personally, would have far favored the PH2 (and 3, for that matter) if you could have purchased it and actually used it as an alternate PH (though really 3.5 had the same problem, only worse - it's DMG2 and PH2 were a complete mess and kind of all over the place, I have to say). The PH2 and PH3 really did close in a lot of the gaps in the system, but it's difficult to accept that it really took them three books to do so... or even two (since the PH3 introduced psionics which could be considered an optional/variant thing, except for the monk).

Again, all this isn't to say that 4E is a bad game, but when it came out it was incomplete, Wizards dropped the ball on customer relations, and their very expensive piecemeal-plan for books is something that I can neither afford nor am interested in affording. I hear 4E is getting much better... in fact, I see that it is, but it requires me purchasing a subscription, not to obtain something that I could keep, but to obtain temporary access to something that I will lose just as soon as Wizards shifts their focus again. That is a definite "no thank you" to me. I have purchased many books, and am currently playing two 4E games (on-again/off-again), but it's just not as finished a product as 3.0 (or 3.5 or Pathfinder).

To be clear: I prefer 3.X (including Pathfinder in that) to 4E for its consistency across how it handles creatures. Yes, I have a bias, and I'm not hiding it because that would be rude and disingenuous.

However, I also believe that I, and others, would likely have received 4E much better had WotC followed the simple steps of: 1) finishing their game before releasing it (and/or forcing a switch/dropping all old support), 2) have good customer service from the get-go, and 3) not attempted to sell booklets that were, in effect, advertisements as their means of getting the word out. I mean, I'm not usually one to enjoy watching commercials... why would I pay for one? It was a bizarre strategy to say the least, and it turned my entire gaming group sour based on that alone.

I was the one of my group that stuck with WotC and purchased the full set of 4E stuff, ... only to be treated rudely by their customer service group. I was the one that purchased and wanted to run their new modules to get an idea of 4E... only to be grossly disappointed by how very inferior they were compared to WotC's previous offerings. And now, on this board, I've been insulted by not one, but two people for lacking creativity when, what I've said, is my preference (noting that it was my preference) and that their new offerings were inferior to their old in terms of content and presentation/detail of the content. While I'm willing to ignore those things sent to me as any way reflecting the game they're for, I do hope you can see by such that pro-4E bias can come off just as arrogant as pro-3.X haughtiness as well.

WotC - regardless of how they're doing now - tarnished their own image by attempting to sell me advertisements that attempted to sell me an incomplete system while giving me terrible customer service. That's pretty hard to live down.

SEMI-AMENDMENT to the "Murder-and-Loot" comment earlier. This was not actually true. After looking over monster equipment, what I realized is that WotC presented (whether or not this is the intent) a game play style of Murder-and-Happen-to-Find-Treasure-Somewhere-Nearby,-but-Don't-Loot-the-Mon sters-'Cause-That's-Stupid-and-They've-got-Worthless-Equipment.

EDIT: added an important "not" before "attempted to sell" the advertisement books


Quote:
TL;DR - it really shouldn't have taken three player's handbooks to get what was considered automatic in the previous addition.

Surprise surprise. Writing classes and mechanics that aren't an atrocious mess like the previous edition is far harder than making a mechanically unbalanced mess.


Tacticslion wrote:


That said, I agree with your point: companies are there to make money. That's what they do. To clarify, however, there's a difference between making money and making a purposefully (or at least noticeably) inferior product and selling it for just as much, if not more, than the superior product (in terms of quality if not essence, since we disagree on the essence part) you used to release.

One's opinion of a superior vs. inferior product is completely subjective and has no validity. I thought the Player's Handbook, for example, was done really well. Those 8 classes kept me rivited for the year until PHB 2 came out with classes that are equally well written and not broken from the Get-Go (unlike 3E's PHB). I'd rather have a company playtest and make sure things work well rather than shoveling the crap onto the shelves as fast as possible.

Tacticslion wrote:


Again, all this isn't to say that 4E is a bad game, but when it came out it was incomplete, Wizards dropped the ball on customer relations, and their very expensive piecemeal-plan for books is something that I can neither afford nor am interested in affording. I hear 4E is getting much better... in fact, I see that it is, but it requires me purchasing a subscription, not to obtain something that I could keep, but to obtain temporary access to something that I will lose just as soon as Wizards shifts their focus again. That is a definite "no thank you" to me. I have purchased many books, and am currently playing two 4E games (on-again/off-again), but it's just not as finished a product as 3.0 (or 3.5 or Pathfinder).

Nothing is ever set in stone. It's not like there is some sacred rule (or Cow) that says "Hey, you'd better have 11 classes in the PHB. You'd better have the Gnome race in there somewhere..." in fact, I'd rather them put out fewer classes that work mechanically well than 7 out of 11 classes that are just piss-poor concepts and bad design. Quality over quantity and all that (my opinion, of course).

As for your DDI subscription, I'm not going to lie and say it's not a great tool, becuase it is. The Adventure Tools allow quick and easy Monster tweaking/creating. The Character Generator is really a boon for having all the info at your fingertips and I'd say 90% of the DDI articles have enhanced character/campaign designs dramatically. But none of that is required to play. You can use the books as they are with NO errata, class articles, adventures, and so forth and I'm sure your game will be effected very little by it. BTW, the Errata and Class Changes were free downloads.

"Tacticslion wrote:


However, I also believe that I, and others, would likely have received 4E much better had WotC followed the simple steps of: 1) finishing their game before releasing it (and/or forcing a switch/dropping all old support), 2) have good customer service from the get-go, and 3) not attempted to sell booklets that were, in effect, advertisements as their means of getting the word out. I mean, I'm not usually one to enjoy watching commercials... why would I pay for one? It was a bizarre strategy to say the least, and it turned my entire gaming group sour based on that alone.

Point 1: Could you define "finishing their game?" I have a hard time understanding what this means. Are we talking about mechanics or content or what? Last time I checked 3E had products that ran up until 4E's debut. And the last content was various mechanical additions to the game (or are we ignoring them?). As for forcing a switch or dropping all old support, they pretty much did that. Cutting PDFs, the change in all major stores, the shift in miniatures. And this was seen by the community as a bad thing.

Point 2: Ah yes, the infamous video of the troll getting crapped on and the Roll of the years and how D&D changed, highlighting the numerous mechanical hiccups of previous editions. The HORROR! The INHUMANITY! Seriously though, people really need to not take things so seriously. As a big fan (still) of v3.5 and PF I felt their videos were funny and true, making me relive some of those very moments they were point out. I can't discount the fact that it caused a lot of animosity, so maybe they should've gone another route. Still I thought the reaction was very clichè, highlighting the rabid-ness of NERD-RAGE.

Point 3: Heh if you bought the booklets then I think the fault lies with you, not them. I saw them when they came out, I read through them at the book store and I properly put them back on the shelf. Inside was nothing I found valuable, espically not enough for what they were charging. Though I can't blame WotC for selling them, as I'm sure a lot of people bought em'. Maybe some people even put them to good use.

Tacticslion wrote:


SEMI-AMENDMENT to the "Murder-and-Loot" comment earlier. This was not actually true. After looking over monster equipment, what I realized is that WotC presented (whether or not this is the intent) a game play style of Murder-and-Happen-to-Find-Treasure-Somewhere-Nearby,-but-Don't-Loot-the-Mon sters-'Cause-That's-Stupid-and-They've-got-Worthless-Equipment.

You could....you know.....just put the items ON the monster and it would stop this sort of thing (it's what I do). The reason they did it this way was so that DM's don't feel compelled to use these magical equipment on the monsters nor are they added into the monster's stats. If a monster has a special weapon, amulet, or some-such item then many DM's might feel fored to put that in their stat-block or somehow make it available for the Monster to use it against the PCs (which you can via DMG, it's just not the S.O.P). Besides, high levels of a monster is not indicative of good lootz and treasure all the time, every time.

Liberty's Edge

Tacticslion wrote:


Actually memorax, yes, bias is showing through on all sides... and that's kind of what this thread is about: speak your bias and why it should be something that WotC and Paizo consider related to the possible release of 5E. "Bias" (i.e. a strong leaning or preference) is not wrong... only when it's used wrongly and comes with a closed mind.

There is bias and their is "bias". Accusing one company of a certain type of behavior when another company that a poster likes does the same kind of makes me not want to listen to a person. How can one say wotc is profiet oriented when Paizo to a certain extent is the same way. Companies all companies want to make a profit. I could say the APs are a money grab. We really don't need them imo. Yet I'm not because it's a smart business move on Paizo part. Release adventire modules with some small amount of new material in them and it's guarenteed 140$ per person if they buy all of them including the map folio.

Tacticslion wrote:


That said, I agree with your point: companies are there to make money. That's what they do. To clarify, however, there's a difference between making money and making a purposefully (or at least noticeably) inferior product and selling it for just as much, if not more, than the superior product (in terms of quality if not essence, since we disagree on the essence part) you used to release.

If you mean by inferior product you mean not as complete as the previous product. Well you might as well accuse a whole bunch of other companies while your at it. We sell an ereader at the bookstore where I work. Each new version has new things incorporated in it. Guess what you can't upgrade the old ones. For the simple reason that they want you to buy more products. It's like people espcially gamers seem to be clueless eiter on purpose or not when it comes to business. Business is not supposed to be fair. If it was you would not be having those Occupy Wall street protests.

Tacticslion wrote:


Examples of inferior quality and an incomplete product:
To go back to the Manual of the Planes.
In 3.X: in 3.0 we got Manual of the Planes and Deities and Demigods plus setting-specific stuff; in 3.5 we got the Planar Handbook. That's three books in 3.X's run, and it pretty much covered everything.

Which is not limited to them. Gurps has a decent bare bones magic system. You can do almost everything with the core magic system alone. Yet surprise surprise their magic sourcebook has more than the core book. The days of receivng a complete product all in one gaming or non gaming are pretty much gone. You want to get a complete product either you have to buy various parts to complete it or are lucky enough to get it used.

Tacticslion wrote:


Stuff

So far you have shown me nothing that makes the 4E products bad products beyond the "Look I have to spend more money than I did under 3.5". How is that a bad thing. No one forcing anyone to buy those products. Why do gamers not expect a company to make a profit. I would do the same thing. One can say that Paizo is a bad company for not incorparting high level play from the start. You have a bare bones system in place yes. Yet for all their talk about wanting to get it right it's also an excuse to make another product for us to buy. Using your logic that makes Paizo similar to Wotc. They are not they are spreading out the rules to makes us buy more products. Look at the APS and some of the new rules and articles detailing gods in them. Paizo is not dumb. They do that so we have another reaosn to get he APS and spend more money

Tacticslion wrote:


Again, all this isn't to say that 4E is a bad game, but when it came out it was incomplete, Wizards dropped the ball on customer relations, and their very expensive piecemeal-plan for books is something that I can neither afford nor am interested in affording. I hear 4E is getting much better... in fact, I see that it is, but it requires me purchasing a subscription, not to obtain something that I could keep, but to obtain temporary access to something that I will lose just as soon as Wizards shifts their focus again. That is a definite "no thank you" to me. I have purchased many books, and am currently playing two 4E games (on-again/off-again), but it's just not as finished a product as 3.0 (or 3.5 or Pathfinder).

Well here is a little known fact. Your not going to get something for nothing no matter how much you think it's unfair. Want to read PDFs or ebooks you need to get a tablet or at the very least an ereader. Want to get better cable or internet service you are going to have to pay more for it. At most all you require is 10$ to get a quick subscription to DDI. How can people complin about that when spending so much money on the core PF book which is what 55-60% at lgs. Personally I don't think PF is complete. No support for psionics or detailed rules for high level play. Monsters as PCs should have been done from the start in the Bestirary not as an advanced races guide. Yet I will not begrudge Paizo for doing so. The need to make money and this is an expensive hobby. Gamers enter this hobby expecting they are not going to spend money. This is not a cheap hobby. The sooner the community understand that the better. Something tells me that if we see a 2E Pathfinder that the SRD will also no longer be free. Why sould Paizo not charge a mall fee to get access for their srd.

Tacticslion wrote:


However, I also believe that I, and others, would likely have received 4E much better had WotC followed the simple steps of: 1) finishing their game before releasing it (and/or forcing a switch/dropping all old support), 2) have good customer service from the get-go, and 3) not attempted to sell booklets that were, in effect, advertisements as their means of getting the word out. I mean, I'm not usually one to enjoy watching commercials... why would I pay for one? It was a bizarre strategy to say the least, and it turned my entire gaming group sour based on that alone.

Not saying Wotc did not screw up they did. They could have done better in terms of customer service. You keep bringing up how incomplete the game is and it's not that incomplete. You can run many games just with what you have with the core set. I rather they delayed the release of certain classes to playtest them further rather than get material that was not well tested.

Not to mention once again it's not just wotc that release stuff that requires more purchaes. Paizo does it. Computer companies unless you buy more extras give you a bare bones PC. A car unless you buy all the extras does not usually come equipped with all the extras. In some places if yiou buy a bed. they require to not only get the bed but also buy the bed sheets and pillows as extras. As for the promo booklets for 4E no one forced anyone to get those. You biught them of your onw free will. Your disappointment with them is in no ways wotc fault. That's like someone who hates 3.5 buying Pathfinder then complaning that they feel it's too much like 3.5.


memorax wrote:
Reading stuff like Wotc released 4E for a money grab while Paizo did it for the game cmakes mne just wonder sometimes. Do you really think that Paizo was going to release an rpg and not want it to be profitable. Or that they lose any sleep that PF and by extension Paizo is doing well. They want to make quality products and they want your money. Or do you expect Paizo to pay the rent, bills and salaries with just the sheer goodwill of the community. To think otherwise is being purposefully naive imo. Last time I checked Paizo was not a non-proft organization. Agreed with some other posters that for some in this thread their bias is showing.

If you are referring to me, nowhere did I say PAthfinder was not capitalizing on an oppurtunity. if I say 4e is a money grab, and then I say NOTHING about PAthfinder one cannot conclude that because I said nothing about it I think it is not a money grab.


Why are people trying to sell 4e in a Paizo Pathfinder thread? Is it becoming that hard to find 4e players?


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Why are people trying to sell 4e in a Paizo Pathfinder thread? Is it becoming that hard to find 4e players?

It's the opposite really. It's so much fun we're assimilating people to 4E like the Borg. "Resistance is Futile."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Why are people trying to sell 4e in a Paizo Pathfinder thread? Is it becoming that hard to find 4e players?

It's the opposite really. It's so much fun we're assimilating people to 4E like the Borg. "Resistance is Futile."

You're trying to turn people into drone zombies lacking individuality and joy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Why are people trying to sell 4e in a Paizo Pathfinder thread? Is it becoming that hard to find 4e players?

Thank you for reminding me why it is a bad idea to post to a thread I've haven't read.

Liberty's Edge

The thread has gone of the rails of the crazy train. Minus the crazy of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

4E, in the end, has one big failing that continues to cause it no end of problems. It is that when all is said and done, if anybody other than WotC had made it, it would be a wild success story, but because it was WotC making it, it is largely a failure because it was never going to match 3rd edition's numbers, even if they had done everything perfectly. It's emphasis on a single style of play and a digital subscription ensures that. That being said, I don't think that anything could really have matched 3rd edition's peak numbers. That is something that WotC is going to have to accept as they work on further refinements of 4E/development of 5E. If they work with what they have in 4E and use realistic expectations, than they will continue to do fine; otherwise, 5E may well be the signal that it's time for the brand name to die or move on to someone else.


Oh, look, it's one of "those" threads...
Lesson learned: Insulting something popular (4E)in an unrelated argument (what this thread was)has a tendency to derail the argument.
Who'dathunkit.
EDIT: In case it isn't clear, I'm not trying to be biting. Just a bit disappointed--Paizonians are really bad with threadjacking. XD


Tacticslion wrote:
Too many words.

And that's why I shouldn't write a post at 4AM. Or after only four and a half hours of sleep, as you'll see below. I'd really like to me more eloquent, but oh well. If you want, feel free to skip to the bottom.

EDITED: I removed a changed-by-me quote and a line from my post because it was a jerk thing to have in there in the first place, and I apologize. Kobold Cleaver has it accurately quoted below, so you know, you can read it there, but I wish to retract my statement as it was uncivil.

Diffan, you're often quite reasonable, and, as I said, most of that was subjective opinion, however, I'd like to go over each of your points, agreeing with some, disagreeing with others.

Diffan wrote:
One's opinion of a superior vs. inferior product is completely subjective and has no validity. I thought the Player's Handbook, for example, was done really well. Those 8 classes kept me rivited for the year until PHB 2 came out with classes that are equally well written and not broken from the Get-Go (unlike 3E's PHB). I'd rather have a company playtest and make sure things work well rather than shoveling the crap onto the shelves as fast as possible.

I actually agree with your basic point, Diffan - a good playtest followed by a good, complete product is what I'd prefer. When your entire game hinges upon being able to create a fantasy character, and you have a large number of people invested in long-running campaigns, you shouldn't design the "upgrade" for your product with the advice "kill the characters, make new ones" (because the new rules as presented don't support your old characters in any fashion), which is basically what they told us to do for upgrading to 4E (online the article telling you how to end your campaign, allow the characters to fail but have their descendents to pick up the quest, etc). That is what I meant by "incomplete". They have a presumed core of people who play the presumed core of classes and, more importantly, archetypes. I'm not talking about the non-core classes - I just mean those people who'd purchased the Player's Handbook, made their characters and been enjoying a campaign for several years. Half of the character concepts involved were entirely invalidated by the move.

In which I spend entirely too long belaboring my point.:
In moving from 2E to 3.0, all the basic archetypes were covered. That doesn't mean they were covered well, but they were covered: you could still create a druid, an elf, a dwarf, a fighter, a mage, etc. What happened with 4E was that many previously presumably core options were completely dropped and no longer supported. I don't simply mean classes, although I admit that's the standard I gave in my post above - I mean core character concepts that are considered iconic for the game. Those that utilize the power of nature? Neither cleric nor paladin really cover it, and ranger is now an all-martial class. A master martial artist sans armor and weapons? Fighter's a no-go on that. Magical powers sans study and without selling your soul? Nope. A performer of any kind? Nah. Anyone who gets their strength from their anger? Well, actually that one kind of can be "hand waved" easily enough by fighters (specific powers and whatnot) and rangers (hunter's quarry and the like). The savage, tribal whatever can be reasonably covered by ranger well enough. So that's... four out of five concepts entirely dropped. Again, you could just re-skin the cleric and say "your powers now come from nature!" ... but they don't provide any guidance for how you should do that. You could just say "you're a performer!", but then there's nothing in-game that says you're getting better. The sorcerer archetype could be covered by the warlock, but nothing in the fluff indicates that that's even reasonable.

Also, please, don't tell me (again) I'm lacking imagination for thinking there's a difference. First, yes, I could easily house rule anything I want. However, I could just as easily house rule 3.X as not being broken and call it a day. The Player's Handbook as much as admits that they're not done making the game yet. Page 54, a side-bar called "Power Sources" notes...

Player's Handbook, page 54, Sidebar: Power Sources wrote:


Other Power Sources: Additional power sources and techniques provide characters of different classes with powers and abilities. These will appear in future Player's Handbook volumes. For example, barbarians and druids draw on the primal forces of nature, monks harness the power of their soul energy (or ki), and psions call upon the mind to generate psionic powers. Future power sources include elemental, ki, primal, psionic, and shadow.

Hey, look. That sounds an awful lot like "We didn't include barbarian, druid, or monks, because we weren't done making them yet." (Incidentally, they weren't done making them yet, regardless of what that sounds like to you: "ki" isn't a unique energy source, it's been folded into psionic disciplines now. I admit that it also might just be that I don't have the supplement, but I've yet to see an "elemental" power - it seems that's been folded into "primal". I've seen a very few "shadow" powers, but those do, at least, exist.) As far as bards go, the fact that they made bards is a pretty sure-fire indicator that the bardic archetype wasn't covered. Same thing with the sorcerer.

Or, let's take the drow ranger discussion we were having on another thread. Drow were presented as being perfect for rangers in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide. They weren't. Certainly not any more so than, say, humans, who're pretty okay at everything. Or eladrin who don't note ranger in their favored class description. Or even dragonborn, who have a high strength, making them optimal dual-wielders. Now that drow apparently have wisdom as a flex-stat, that's not true anymore - a drow can outpace the the human or eladrin via his ability scores (though dragonborn might still better at dual-wielding, I don't know). But at the time - that is, when they were released - they didn't have that flex-stat. They could have made a viable ranger, sure, but their race wasn't at the time something that screamed "make me a ranger".

TL;DR: basic character classes (and the universal archetypes they present) weren't covered, were still under development, and, as typified by the drow, several times in 4E they've produced things that they had to revise later in order to fit the concept for which they were earlier presented.

All this, as well as pointing to the books and publishing format that I've mentioned before, is what I mean by "incomplete". I mean, the Player's Handbook (again, one of the first things that a new player will likely see) says in another sidebar,...

Player's Handbook, page 7, Sidebar: The History of D&D, last paragraph wrote:
Now we've reached a new milestone. This is the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons game. It's new. It's exciting. It's bright and shiny. It builds on what has gone before, and firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of play. Whether you were with the game from the beginning or just discovered it today, this new edition is your key to a world of fantasy and adventure.

See, that sounds, great, except for the "It builds on what has gone before" is objectively not true in that your character concept has a fifty-fifty chance to have just vanished and they've provided no viable replacement for it. Otherwise, yeah, it's accurate.

I mean, I could list entirely subjective reasons, and I have those too - warlocks not having any good paragon choices in the PH1, the lack of a decent martial "flavor" epic destiny (something that's still missing, three handbooks later), or the fact that the half-elves all look like they're trying to be rangers and nothing about the half-elf is optimized for ranger - but that's all purely subjective.

Here's the thing: 3.0 had issues with it, and that's completely true, but so did 4E. I don't know about you, but I've been able to take my paladin and solo through two solid pre-published adventures without help. I've run a game where a rogue solo'd an adventure with weak equipment, where every creature was at minimum one level above his (he died at the end, but that was through poor allocation of his healing surges and inability to use second wind more than once in an encounter; he'd already killed all the enemies before dying, but succumbed to ongoing damage). I've run another game where I've watched a wizard solo two more full pre-published adventures. These are based on the adventures as-written, not home-brew things. They cited their game as being a cooperative game, but I've watched it become a solo game with no conversion. That's kind of strange.

Alternatively, let's look at the pre-published adventures themselves. Look at the way that, let's say, the 3E-published Sons of Gruumsh or The Twilight Tomb or even The Color of Ambition (at the back of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting). Look at how those are set up. They are filled with characters and an environment with which the PCs can and should interact. There's certainly a lot of "go here, kill things" in them (especially Sons of Gruumsh), but a great deal of those modules also revolves around social interaction with potential and probable enemies. Let's compare the same level-range adventures published for 4E; in descending order: Thunderspire Labyrinth, Keep on the Shadowfell, and Kobold Manor (the last also in the back of a book). In all three instances, the game tells you that the proper response is: go there, kill stuff, retreat and/or break, go kill stuff, retreat and/or break, go kill stuff. Social interaction happens on a very limited basis inside the the "town" before you go kill things again (except for Kobold Manor, where you're presumed to have been in town before, much like The Color of Ambition). One (the 3.X stuff) supports several play styles (social interaction, magical duels, and the like) and works very well for most anything you want to do with it. The other (4E stuff) is expressly built for you to slaughter anything you don't meet in "town". These sets of adventures cover a roughly-equivalent level range (1st through 6th).

Again, I'm not saying that 4E can't support other styles (it can), but their prepublished adventures - the first ones anyone had the chance to see, before their game system was even out in the case of Keep on the Shadowfell - didn't support anything but Murder-and-Find-Vaguely-Related-Loot-Nearby. It even specifies things like Kalorel's rod being not magical and worthless. Nice.
[note: bold above is for emphasis, not anger]

Diffan wrote:
Nothing is ever set in stone. It's not like there is some sacred rule (or Cow) that says "Hey, you'd better have 11 classes in the PHB. You'd better have the Gnome race in there somewhere..." in fact, I'd rather them put out fewer classes that work mechanically well than 7 out of 11 classes that are just piss-poor concepts and bad design. Quality over quantity and all that (my opinion, of course).

Quite frankly, I agree - the number of classes isn't what's important. But the fact that they have invalidated several important archetypes is. And why not support the gnome? They certainly placed it in the Monster Manual... as a potential player race. That just seems like an odd choice from a design perspective. And why not include the drow, as they're a vastly popular player race? It's not like they refined it - at all - before publishing it in the FR PG.

Diffan wrote:
As for your DDI subscription, I'm not going to lie and say it's not a great tool, becuase it is. The Adventure Tools allow quick and easy Monster tweaking/creating. The Character Generator is really a boon for having all the info at your fingertips and I'd say 90% of the DDI articles have enhanced character/campaign designs dramatically. But none of that is required to play. You can use the books as they are with NO errata, class articles, adventures, and so forth and I'm sure your game will be effected very little by it. BTW, the Errata and Class Changes were free downloads.

Again, I'm not saying that DDI isn't useful. I think it's probably a great thing. I don't have it and am not going to get it, but it's probably worth it in the short run. My problem is that it's effectively (from what most people have said) a kind of prerequisite for continual playing of a supported game. Good to know about the erratta, though.

Diffan wrote:
Point 1: Could you define "finishing their game?" I have a hard time understanding what this means. Are we talking about mechanics or content or what? Last time I checked 3E had products that ran up until 4E's debut. And the last content was various mechanical additions to the game (or are we ignoring them?). As for forcing a switch or dropping all old support, they pretty much did that. Cutting PDFs, the change in all major stores, the shift in miniatures. And this was seen by the community as a bad thing.

Well, I've tried to do that above, so I hope that helps.

Diffan wrote:
Point 2: Ah yes, the infamous video of the troll getting crapped on and the Roll of the years and how D&D changed, highlighting the numerous mechanical hiccups of previous editions. The HORROR! The INHUMANITY! Seriously though, people really need to not take things so seriously. As a big fan (still) of v3.5 and PF I felt their videos were funny and true, making me relive some of those very moments they were point out. I can't discount the fact that it caused a lot of animosity, so maybe they should've gone another route. Still I thought the reaction was very clichè, highlighting the rabid-ness of NERD-RAGE.

... I... don't even know what this means in relation to what I was talking about. I've never seen the video you describe, and I've never heard of the things you're talking about on it. No, I mean my, personal, interaction with their customer service crew was pretty terrible. "What does X rule mean" (I've forgotten the question by now, I believe it was clarified in later errata) in the "rules question" area of the website = a no response for a few weeks. In another question-answer section (this one not dedicated to rules questions) "What happens when a cleric or paladin changes alignment?". Result: two emails informing me to kindly go away and don't bother asking irrelevant questions, and limit myself to one question per post, kthnxbai. I was not, at any point, rude or condescending, accusatory, or "raging". I posted in two different areas - one about rules, one not, and posted the correct kind of questions in the correct kind of area, and received a literal copy/paste of the same reply twice. That's what I mean by terrible customer service: terrible customer service. I've seen a number of D&D 4E videos (the flash animation ones that often end in the host/announcer's death), but I'm not sure I know what you're talking about above.

Diffan wrote:
Point 3: Heh if you bought the booklets then I think the fault lies with you, not them. I saw them when they came out, I read through them at the book store and I properly put them back on the shelf. Inside was nothing I found valuable, espically not enough for what they were charging. Though I can't blame WotC for selling them, as I'm sure a lot of people bought em'. Maybe some people even put them to good use.

"Good Use" isn't really possible. And no, I didn't purchase them, but nothing (aside from the art) that I saw in them made me interested in 4E. I, for one, can blame WotC for selling them precisely because many people likely purchased them. I don't blame WotC for wanting to make money - in fact, as a company, I respect that their purpose is to do so, because, you know, they need to feed themselves and their families. I do blame WotC for abusing fan-loyalty as a quick-way to do so.

Diffan wrote:
You could....you know.....just put the items ON the monster and it would stop this sort of thing (it's what I do). The reason they did it this way was so that DM's don't feel compelled to use these magical equipment on the monsters nor are they added into the monster's stats. If a monster has a special weapon, amulet, or some-such item then many DM's might feel forced to put that in their stat-block or somehow make it available for the Monster to use it against the PCs (which you can via DMG, it's just not the S.O.P). Besides, high levels of a monster is not indicative of good lootz and treasure all the time, every time.

Yes, it's what I do too, often enough. But your assertion that a high level creature doesn't necessarily have good stuff is kind of bizarre considering that 4E specifically tailors its levels around having good stuff. Then again, it does treat its monsters and NPCs fundamentally different from PCs... and that's something I really find breaks the immersion for me, but that's a personal preference thing. It seems that if two people had followed a similar track in power, but one has better items and one has better stats, the latter is the cooler one: he's more capable with less than the former. But again, I admit that's personal preference. Basically what you're saying is "feel free to house rule it", when I'm saying "I was totally free to house rule it before, too".

NOW ONTO THE TOPIC: What does all this have to do with Paizo in the face of 5E? Simply - regardless of what they do don't invalidate the basics of what they've done before (as 4E did), don't try to sell us advertisements (as 4E did), have good customer service (as WotC did not), and continue publishing things with high quality.

memorax wrote:
Minus the crazy of course.

WHO'S minus the crazy! I'm the crazy PLUS!

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Insulting something popular (4E)

If you mean me, I am not attempting to insult 4E (or anyone, really), although it could easily be taken that way. Rather, I'm trying to express my problems with 4E as a system compared to Pathfinder (and thus why I'm more heavily utilizing Pathfinder) and to explain what WotC did incorrectly when they went into a new edition (and thus what should not be done if they and/or Paizo create a new edition).

At Diffan, re:Borg: You know, resistance really wasn't futile. The borg were beaten so hard so many times, by the Federation, you'd think they'd learn by now. Except of course, they were eventually killed out by an unrelated group of creatures that the Federation (or more accurately, one rogue starship) also handily defeated.
At Kobold Cleaver: how's THAT for an unrelated argument?! :D


Tacticslion wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
I'm rude and quite possibly a troll, please ignore me.
Sure thing, buddy! :)

Um, no. That's not 'ignoring'. That's 'mocking'. And if he is a troll, it's feeding him.

Oh, and I wasn't referring to anybody in particular. Looks like a few people too many used 4E as an example of WotC's failings, and, unsurprisingly, the 4E-ers retaliated.
I just think this might've gone better if we could leave it at "I didn't like it". :P

Oh, and it's perfectly unrelated. I think the Reavers could wipe out the Borg. :)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
Summary: "Superiority" of 3.X's planar books vs "Inferiority" of 4E's planar books.

Let me add my perspective, from a GM who ran a 3.X planescape game.

In every edition, the Manual of the Planes has been a brief overview of the different planes. Not a lot of detail on each plane, but enough info to get you started.

In 2E, this info was greatly expanded by planescape boxed sets. To get a detailed view of different planes you wanted to pick up Planes of Law, Planes of Chaos, and Planes of Conflict.

In 3E, if you wanted that same detailed view, you picked up the above mentioned 2E boxed sets. Because besides the brief overview in the Manual of the Planes, there was no further information.

In 4E, they gave us the brief overview book. Then they expanded on the different planes in detail. To me, that is far superior to the 3E approach. Because you have a choice. You can get just the overview and be fine. If you want more information, you have specific books to expand your knowledge in particular areas.

So from my perspective, 2E and 4E have the superior planar books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Um, no. That's not 'ignoring'. That's 'mocking'. And if he is a troll, it's feeding him.

In which case, consider me entirely in the wrong (as I am for mockery), and I apologize on all accounts. I'm not usually the mocking type, and I suppose, especially with my lack of sleep, I've been more on edge and taking things more personally than I should be. Apologies all, especially to you MadScientistWorking.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Oh, and I wasn't referring to anybody in particular. Looks like a few people too many used 4E as an example of WotC's failings, and, unsurprisingly, the 4E-ers retaliated.

I just think this might've gone better if we could leave it at "I didn't like it". :P

But then there'd be no discussion! Discussion is fine, even disagreements. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree agreeably... I think that's a skill that we often lack as a community and that I did not showcase up there (apologies again, MadScientistWorking), however it's something that we should work on. Debate and speaking are, I think, perfectly fine in places like this. I hope I'm not doing something else wrong.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Oh, and it's perfectly unrelated. I think the Reavers could wipe out the Borg. :)

Not to mention Daleks! :)

EDIT:

deinol wrote:
Let me add my perspective,

I can see the appeal. Its still frustrating to have to spend more money for less individual packets of information. Nonetheless, I accept that this is personal taste and bow out of that area of the argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Oh, look, it's one of "those" threads...

Lesson learned: Insulting something popular (4E)in an unrelated argument (what this thread was)has a tendency to derail the argument.
Who'dathunkit.
EDIT: In case it isn't clear, I'm not trying to be biting. Just a bit disappointed--Paizonians are really bad with threadjacking. XD

The "original" purpose of the thread was wild speculation about what Paizo should do in the wake of unconfirmed future actions of WotC. I'm surprised it stayed on topic for 5 posts. Besides, comparing the strategies of Wizards and Paizo are about as on topic as you can get. At least without perfecting your divination skills.


I wouldn't call it 'wild'. From what I read, it was pretty even speculation about what would happen with a new edition, and what would result. A good read. It lasted at least two pages, by the way. I didn't read further than that.
And why is "original" in quotes? Was there some actual original purpose I wasn't aware of? :P

EDIT: Also, 'divination' is a school, not a skill. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Ok, original didn't really need quotes. I also know it went more than 5 posts, sometimes I exaggerate for effect. My point is that since the thread is speculating about what two companies will do in the future, the only unfounded speculation will be based on what they did in the past. Of course, the expectation that certain companies will simply repeat their pasts mistakes is a little silly. Still, just about everything that could be reasonably said about the topic happened already.

I used skill in the English use, as in competent excellence in performance - expertness, instead of one particular game's mechanical use. ;)


Tacticslion wrote:
I hope I'm not doing something else wrong..

FWIW, as a reasonably ardent 4E fan, I'm greatly enjoying your critique and discussion, so i hope you continue offering observations and opinions when 4E comes up. I'm only one person, but I struggle to see anything offensive in what you say - even your redacted post was pretty mild.

Liberty's Edge

Steve Geddes wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
deinol wrote:
I definitely think that 4E's biggest flaw is that at launch it had few (if any) quality adventures to showcase the strong parts of the system...

Has that really changed? Admittedly I don't follow 4E, but as far I can tell, they barely seem to put out any adventure stuff at all.

They're getting better, in my view. They aren't back up to paizo's level yet though.

Most 4E material is digital these days.

I agree with this. I prefer the core of 4e better (especially essentials).

The early modules WotC produced were pretty poor. Combine this with a bunch of different settings that didn't have a strong focus and I can understand why people were pissed off.

However, over the last six month the Nentir Vale (WotC's points of light setting) has received some love. The majority of their old setting generic articles from the dungeon and dragon magazines have been integrated together and its shaping up to be something cool. Not as awesome a Golarion though.

Liberty's Edge

A Man In Black wrote:
Roman wrote:
If 5e is to be a game designed to draw back lapsed customers, it does not grow the RPG market (well it still does, of course, but it does not gain a bulk of its users that way) and the competition becomes much more zero sum. A good metaphor might be nearby plants competing for sunlight - they can still both grow, but they hamper each other... and it is just possible that manages to take enough sunlight to sun-starve the other.

It wasn't an analogy, it was an expression. Of course it's not perfectly applicable.

Even if 5e is meant to bring back lapsed customers, those customers don't stop being potential Paizo customers. The goal is not to have more fanboys or more people who like Pathfinder best, but to have more people buying Paizo's books.

Also, Paizo is in the business of selling Golarion more than it's in the business of selling Pathfinder. (Or so I understand; I'm given to understand that APs, PFS-related goods, and setting books outsell rule books other than core, no?) Given licensing terms that don't leave them beholden to a licensor, there's no reason they couldn't go back to being setting people if 5e completely ate PF's rulebook business.

I hope they never stop producing Golarian content.


Steve Geddes wrote:
FWIW, as a reasonably ardent 4E fan, I'm greatly enjoying your critique and discussion, so i hope you continue offering observations and opinions when 4E comes up. I'm only one person, but I struggle to see anything offensive in what you say - even your redacted post was pretty mild.

Thanks, Steve! It is nice to hear. Still, I would prefer to be civil in all things, and I admit that my words were not that.

Normally, I try and write things with a wry (but not mocking), warm, friendly "voice", but that's kind of hard to get across online and, if I cross the line I'd like to fix it.

Anyhoo, that's kind of what I'm after - a critique of what 4E did wrong, and how WotC and Paizo can do better. I know I have my preferences - the verisimilitude (yes, Cirno, verisimilitude) of a rules-consistent world ("simulationist" in this conversation) is what I prefer, but there are lots of ways for more "gamist" (again, as termed in this conversation) to appeal to me and those like me, and pretty much WotC didn't do any of those.

As an example - if a 5E comes out, I'd hope that they at least have the eight classes presented in 4E, or enough archetype-style things to be able to satisfactorily imitate the basics of them.

Basically what Nik is saying!


Hasbro don't want a game like PF, or like 3.5 was. Even 4E was too much. They want a game for mass. Roleplay is for many, but not for all. Kids now play with consolles, ppl meet in internet and not in real life. They are tring to do something easier than a game like Descent, because they search dungeon crawling. Trying to copy a videogame with dices. Mmmhh... 4E didn't work, and I think that if they don't change at all, this will not work again.
A real improvement of play would be modular classes (every level you buy abilities, hp, spells, combat abilities, etc with points).
Armor as DR, active defenses, etc.
But this is more difficult to learn and understand. So, better is the game, less ppl will play it. This is why I change a lot of rules (starting from hit bonus and saving throws, so multiclass don't suck in BAB but don't have too much savin bonus).
I think that PF, whit great feedback from players, is on the right way. More work on internet, less waste of paper.


AlecStorm wrote:
Hasbro don't want a game like PF, or like 3.5 was. Even 4E was too much. They want a game for mass.

If this were true, why would we be seeing articles covering the entire history of D&D?

I'm sure there will be many things in 5E that don't trace to previous editions, but it looks like the focus is definitely on bringing 3E and 4E players together. They may have resigned themselves to the fact that the wider audience can only be caught with video and board games that will not be the flagship roleplaying product proper.

If "useful" speculation were possible instead of edition warsing, it would be looking at the gaps between 3E and 4E, and how to bridge them. Instead of highlighting the fact that yes, indeed, they are gaps.


I'm trying to figure out which classes were "core."

Was it the monk? He didn't appear in 2e, so maybe not.

The bard? He wasn't in 1e, or was but as a sorta strange "prestige class," so I'm not sure about that one. Ah, but he's not in Basic. Difficult.

Then again, none of those classes were in OD&D, that just had Fighting Man, Magic User, and Cleric, though Thief was added later, and 4e has fighter/rogue/wizard/thief, so it's generally ok there.

Well, it did lack half-orcs. But half-orcs weren't present in 2e, or in BECMI. It lacked gnomes, but gnomes also weren't around in BECMI, and in 1e they were just a variant of dwarves that were slightly weaker.

This is why I don't take claims of "4e was incomplete" very seriously. What constitutes as "Core" has changed in literally every edition. I mean heck, 3e's radical changes to how multiclassing worked meant I couldn't carry over my Half-elf F/C or my halfling F/T. Does that mean 3e was incomplete?


AlecStorm wrote:
A real improvement of play would be modular classes (every level you buy abilities, hp, spells, combat abilities, etc with points).

You want GURPS.

There are so many here that want GURPS.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
This is why I don't take claims of "4e was incomplete" very seriously. What constitutes as "Core" has changed in literally every edition. I mean heck, 3e's radical changes to how multiclassing worked meant I couldn't carry over my Half-elf F/C or my halfling F/T. Does that mean 3e was incomplete?

From many player's perspective, the game was indeed very incomplete, not because of an absence of any given race/class, but because the book was skewed toward damage dealing combat, with very, very few options to do anything else, other than play 20 questions with the DM. Rituals, the only other real player option spelled out, took too long to cast to matter in combat, which was and still is the default focus of the game, and were too expensive to boot. That is what made it an incomplete game to many. I know that I picked up the book, and was completely underwhelmed by the classes because of these reasons. There were a couple that looked ok, but none that really excited me. The 3rd edition PHB did a much better job supporting a wider variety of character concepts.

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,340 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder RPG and Paizo in the Face of 5E All Messageboards