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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Pathfinder RPG and Paizo in the Face of 5E


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1,301 to 1,340 of 1,340 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>

Pathfinder clung too hard to the 3.5 rule set, and 4E did not pay enough homage to previous editions of D&D, including 3.5, so both systems will have to adapt. In theory, you will see both borrow from each other, so Pathinder came after 4E, and then you will have 5E, then Pathfinder 2.0, yada, yada, until the world ends.

The advantage goes to Pathfinder for supporting one product, where D&D is a blip on the radar for Hasbro.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Which was what I was attempting and its not worth the effort on these messageboards. You'll end up with people who think its a legitimate reply to paint your comments as "concerns" - emotional reactions - and others who are unable to figure out the difference between "didn't" and "don't".

If you say so. I think there were plenty of people here, though, and not many who agreed with you. You might want to consider that you were, in fact, acting in a way which was not conducive to any kind of discussion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mournblade94 wrote:
deinol wrote:


But the way 3E class levels are atomic, and can be added together in any combination? That was revolutionary. Are you telling me that you've never had a member of your party level dip into fighter for an extra feat? Or rogue for some sneak attack? Multi-classing might not happen all the time, but the fact that the option is there, every time you level, is a fundamental change which made it far more common than it used to be.
i never allowed level dipping in my games unless there was a good reason for it. This is rather arbitrary I admit, but if I had a player who was a sorceror, I would not just let him 'dip' in fighter unless he could come up with a GOOD reason for the dip (which since I am DM I am the ultimate judge of what GOOD is).

It doesn't really matter if you allowed it or not. We are looking at changes to the system. The system allows it, that was a big change. In fact, by your argument, 4E fixed multi-classing back to reasonable levels from the roots of D&D.

Next time I run 4E, I plan to experiment with allowing any class to choose any power. Since class bonuses synergies best with their own powers, I doubt it will actually make much difference though.


Scott Betts wrote:

Definitely a popcorn night.

Hundo the Barbarian wrote:
I must be missing something because I fail to see why on a PF messageboard so many people are worried about a 5th ed.

I think you probably know perfectly well why.

Quote:
They (meaning WOTC) now know they made a HUGE mistake on the 4th trying to bridge the gap between true rpger's and the video game/magic players the way they tried. These groups of players are wired completely different and now WOTC sees this by how bad the 4th has epicly failed.

lol

Quote:
Set of dice 10 bucks, pad of paper and pen 5 bucks, imagination to play rpgs-priceless, for everybody else there is xbox.

There is no room for gamer elitism in this hobby. None.

Quote:
WOTC has alienated sooooo many true rpger's

As opposed to 4e players, who presumably are fake roleplaying gamers.

Typical.

Quote:
that even if they brought out a limited run of the AD&D books it wouldnt sooth the sting of the slap in the face we all felt.

Some of us didn't feel the sting you mention. You don't speak for all tabletop gamers, all D&D players, or even all Pathfinder or Paizo fans.

EDIT: Oh, and given that your only other post on the Paizo message boards (from six days ago) mentions that you hadn't played any RPGs since the 80's, I'd wager that you didn't feel any of the sting you're talking about either.

Double lol.

Scott why did you bite the hook?

Shadow Lodge

Mournblade94 wrote:


Scott why did you bite the hook?

Moth, flame, etc.


Kthulhu wrote:


3E also saw D&D unceremoniously dump a LOT of product lines, and license out most of what they didn't dump. Admittedly, trying to support all those lines was business suicide, but that move pissed off a lot of fans of any setting that wasn't Forgotten Realms or Eberon, and the people who preferred the Basic rules.

My gaming group and I were thrilled that Sword and Sorcery Studios picked up Ravenloft for 3e. Especially given their work with the Scarred Lands setting, which we were already playing, and their association with White Wolf, which knows a thing or ten about gothic horror... WotC didn't directly do Dragonlance, but from what I understood, Weis was pretty involved in it's direction during 3e. The DL fans in my group were pleased with what was presented, and we played several 3e DL campaigns.

It would have been business suicide for WotC to try and carry every campaign setting themselves, as you said. I never encountered any pissed off fans in person.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber

@memorax - I'm done with you. You seem to be more interested in insulting and slamming someone for having an opinion opposit of yours then actually coming up with an arguement for your opinion beyond "I like 4e'

@DigitalMage - I totally disagree with your statement that Paizo splintered the 3.5 crowd. Basically if you like 3.5, you had two options. Either continue to support a game system that isn't being supported by any game company [short of probably a few indepenants] or find a new game. That could be 4e or in this case, Paizo stepped up and made Pathfinder. Close enough to 3.5 to make the transition easier. Now, is it 3.5? No of course not. Would it have been better if they had just stuck with the 3.5 rules and made support for it, probably if you are a 3.5 purest. But ultimately, Paizo needed to look out for themselves. They were just screwed by Dragon by taking their two magazines away from them. Then WoTC came out with 4e and severly limited the OGL on it. So their option was to either continue to support a game system that wasn't getting any other support from the originators, or try and come up with a system that was their own, but familiar enough to 3.5 players to get them to come over to their side. Pathfinder didn't splinter 3.5 players, it gave them a place to continue playing what they like. Abit a little different

@Diffen - There are always going to be min/max players. And there will always be new game books to support them. All game companies are guilty of kicking out new rules just so they can feed those players. Paizo does it just like WoTC. Rule bloat is a by product of trying to keep a game system running and profitable by producing more books and moduals. I haven't been over on the WoTC boards since 4e came out, but I am sure there are huge discussions on there about one way to get an extra +1 out of an attack vs. another just like their was for 3.5. It is the nature of the community.

Some of you can whine that are two camps now. 4e players and 3.5/PF players. But the decision by WoTC to turn their backs on the core mechanics of AD&D, 2e, 3e etc. is what caused the rift. In my mind there is two separate games now. D&D/4e and Pathfinders. You can like both if you want. You can like one or the other. But you can't say that they are the same game and thus they are going to have their own supporters.

My opinion is that I don't like the game mechanics of 4e. I feel they are too simplistic. I think that is echoed by other people on this board. Remember, you are a Paizo site. A good chuck of us are on here because we play Pathfinder and a lot of us play Pathfinder because there is no more 3.5.

If you guys want to continue to bash me for my opinion, then fine. Go at it. But try and come up with a better arguements then, "Your opinion sucks" or "I like 4e so you are wrong". Put some thought behind it.


TClifford wrote:
Couple of points as I see it. Note: these are all my opinions based on 30 years playing and working in the industry.

An effort to establish extra credibility via longevity (ooh, and he worked in the industry!). Great start.

Quote:
1. You can debate the differences between 2e - 3e all you want, but at least the game was recognizable as D&D and was generally considered an improvement.

4e is instantly recognizable as D&D, unless you really hate 4e and refuse to see it as such for reasons unrelated to how much it looks like D&D. Of course, the same can be said of 3e: It's instantly recognizable as D&D, unless you hate 3e for reasons unrelated to how much it looks like D&D.

What you think goes without saying does not actually go without saying.

By the way, I think 4e was generally considered an improvement, except by a certain segment of the market which is significant, but not as significant as you would like it to be.

Quote:
2. 4e is a radical departure from the D&D formula and basically stripped it back to the original D&D rules, throwing out all the improvements that was found in 2e and 3e for streamlined play.

Sure, except for feats. And attacks of opportunity. And skills. And like fifty other things that are apparently very easy for you to ignore.

Quote:
3. 4e was implimented because WoTC saw a line that was starting to stagnate and wanted to 'improve' it and 'modernize' it.

Are you sure you've been playing and working in this industry for 30 years?

Quote:
To make it appeal to people use to MMOs like WoW and Everquest. To that extent they probably did. They might have even brought in some new blood, but I haven't really seen it.

I have. That's the problem with insular gaming circles, though. You don't really see anything different.

Take a trip to PAX sometime.

Quote:
Most of the people I know that play 4e only play it because that is what is being supported now by WoTC or they don't have alot of time to play so have to sacrifice roleplaying.

You don't have a very diverse or wide range of people around to game with. That's fine, not everyone gets that luxury. But don't make assumptions about the entirety of the hobby if you're confined to such a niche.

Quote:
4. If anything 4e splintered the 3.5 player base, fortunately for the good of Paizo. Pathfinder was just noted as being the number one selling RPG out there last quarter.

Based on interviews with hobby store retailers, a "metric" that doesn't factor in online sales, direct sales, bookstore sales, or subscription sales. But sure, that's a pretty good indicator that Pathfinder is doing very well.

Quote:
I can't believe there are some people on here at think that 5e would be a good idea because it will 'keep the brand name alive.' Really, what has WoTC really done with the liscense in the last couple of years.

A slew of novels, a popular tabletop roleplaying game, a line of extremely well-reviewed (and apparently solid-selling) board games, a movie being made for SyFy, a well-reviewed Facebook game, an in-development online retail game, and probably a bunch of stuff I'm forgetting. And this is all in the last couple of years.

Quote:
1 failed console game. 1 failed and 1 started Facebook game.

Oh yeah, you definitely keep up with the industry.

Quote:
They have basically pulled out of all gaming conventions other than GenCon [because they own it].

Except, you know, all the ones where they still have a major presence. Like PAX. A game convention held twice a year, each with double the attendance of Gen Con. WotC is one of the largest - if not the largest - sponsors of the convention, and their D&D organized play events there earn them lines out doors and around hallways. Thousands of people attended the celebrity D&D game run there by Chris Perkins (of WotC) for the convention's founders this last August.

By the way, WotC doesn't own Gen Con. Gen Con is held by Gen Con LLC, which is in turn owned by Peter Adkison, former CEO of Wizards of the Coast. He hasn't been with WotC for nearly a decade. WotC does own D&D Experience, a separate convention.

You're not connected. You're not keeping up on this stuff. You have your view, and you're happy with it, and that's all there is to it. Meanwhile, the world is going on outside.

Quote:
When was the last time you saw a TV ad.

I'm pretty sure WotC has accepted that TV ads don't provide the bang-for-the-buck they want. It's just not targeted enough. They do, however, buy loads of internet ad space on targeted websites, and do quite a lot of outreach.

Quote:
I know that the D&D movie was a bomb, but really we can't see a new attempt?

See above; you're getting your wish.

Quote:
What are they really doing to promote the D&D? Heck the Big Bang Theory has probably done more.

Actually, Community has probably done more, given that they aired an entire episode focused on a Dungeons & Dragons game. And episode that they produced with the support of WotC.

Quote:
All I see is a company that made 4e because they wanted to put their name on the product and wipe out anything that resembled TSR. A company that throws out way too many products for what you get. And now they see their bottom line dropping because the real money is with Core books. So time for a new edition.

And if that's what you want to see, that's what you'll see. Plainly, however, the reality is very different. If you had a more accurate view of what was going on outside the Pathfinder-land you're happy in now, that would be one thing. But you don't; you just pretend that you do.


sunshadow21 wrote:


EDIT: I would like to note that when I refer to classes above, I am referring to the original four classes, not the others that seem to change with every edition. Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard up until 4E had remained essentially the same in flavor and role, even if their execution had changed according to the specific ruleset. With 4E, most, if not all, of them underwent major surgery in their underlying purpose, role, and overall expectation of abilities for the first time.

I would have to add Ranger and Paladin to that list. They did not diverge from their core purpose. Ranger pretty much went from arcane spells to divine spells at 3rd edition. Paladin went from powerful class to lame class. PF made it a powerful class again. Still what a ranger was and what a paladin was remained consistent from AD&D to 3rd edition as with the four classes you mentioned.

My starting point is AD&D. I started playing in 1982, so my only exposure to OD&D at that time was from old Dragon articles. Now I am well versed in it. I treat it as an historical study. I have no idea why gnoll went from half troll half gnome to Human hyena hybrid.


Mournblade94 wrote:
Scott why did you bite the hook?

So that's what this thing in my mouth is. Delicious.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Ok, CHA to AC would be stretching it. "My teeth are so blindingly white that you miss me!"

The pick your stat bugged me about 4e as well. In defense of CHA adding to AC, one has to define how they view charisma. Winston Churchill is not a pretty man, but if we were to stat him up to D&D would he have a 12 Charisma? I think not. 16 minimum.

Charisma is a presence. If you want a reason to add CHA to AC, it can just be the presence of engaging that individual is so jarring to you that you have trouble hitting that individual. It is almost like a debuff.


Scott Betts wrote:
TClifford wrote:
Couple of points as I see it. Note: these are all my opinions based on 30 years playing and working in the industry.

An effort to establish extra credibility via longevity (ooh, and he worked in the industry!). Great start.

I caught that too, earlier, something about how I'm supposed to "learn something." I've only been playing for 20 years, so I guess I'm still a newb.

Experience is great and all, but can also work against learning new things, due to old habits and repetition, ingrained ideas and guarded opinions. Generally speaking.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber

@Scott Betts - All jabs at me aside, I yeiled to your knowledge of WoTC and their practices and concede that since I haven't really researched what they have done or been to the conventions you have, that I am totally wrong in my opinion of what WoTC has done to promote D&D. I am just going off of my experiences at game stores around the Central Ohio area and my attendance to Origins every year.

That still doesn't take into account that they could have done all of that and never had made 4e.

Ultimately, you have to admit that 4e and Pathfinder aren't the same game. They may be both about fighers, and wizards, and rogues, running around collecting loot in dungeons, but they are about as similar as Sword and Sorcery is to 3.5.


TOZ wrote:
Mournblade94 wrote:


i never allowed level dipping in my games unless there was a good reason for it. This is rather arbitrary I admit, but if I had a player who was a sorceror, I would not just let him 'dip' in fighter unless he could come up with a GOOD reason for the dip (which since I am DM I am the ultimate judge of what GOOD is).
Because he wants to.

Then the player must also provide another reason that I find acceptable in a game I am running for my campaign. I have had DM's tell me no before. They will get over it. Just because they want to does not mean I have to allow it.

Shadow Lodge

Mournblade94 wrote:


Then the player must also provide another reason that I find acceptable in a game I am running for my campaign. I have had DM's tell me no before. They will get over it. Just because they want to does not mean I have to allow it.

This just tells me that I need to either plan my characters progression from 1-20 in your games, or accept that if I get an idea for my character you don't like, will have to roll a new character to explore it.


TClifford wrote:
Ultimately, you have to admit that 4e and Pathfinder aren't the same game.

Naturally. But what does that have to do with anything else in this thread? :P


Kthulhu wrote:


And WotC was responsible for 3.0. And it was not a tweak, it was a rewrite. In fact, Gary Gygax absolutely hated 3.X. So...your point again?

That I hate edition changes. How does anything Gary Gygax say or doesn't say matter to the fact I hate edition changes.

I never said 3rd edition was only a tweak.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Mournblade94 wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Ok, CHA to AC would be stretching it. "My teeth are so blindingly white that you miss me!"

The pick your stat bugged me about 4e as well. In defense of CHA adding to AC, one has to define how they view charisma. Winston Churchill is not a pretty man, but if we were to stat him up to D&D would he have a 12 Charisma? I think not. 16 minimum.

Charisma is a presence. If you want a reason to add CHA to AC, it can just be the presence of engaging that individual is so jarring to you that you have trouble hitting that individual. It is almost like a debuff.

I should note that it's picking the higher stat that bugged me. nWoD for example picks the lower in a lot of cases. That mades more senst to me. You might be quick enough to get out of the way, but not know it's a threat, or smart enough to see the punch, but not quick enough to get out of the way.

And yeah I'm the one who argues Charisma = Mental Strength and Wisdom = Mental Constitution, remember? I know it's not the shiny teeth. I just don't see the 'he's so awesome I can't hit him!' or "His blandness makes him an easy target."

Still, the closest I got to 4e was the facebook ap. Which wasn't real D&D.*

*

Spoiler:
For starters, my virtual dice were rolling too high...


deinol wrote:
Mournblade94 wrote:
deinol wrote:


But the way 3E class levels are atomic, and can be added together in any combination? That was revolutionary. Are you telling me that you've never had a member of your party level dip into fighter for an extra feat? Or rogue for some sneak attack? Multi-classing might not happen all the time, but the fact that the option is there, every time you level, is a fundamental change which made it far more common than it used to be.
i never allowed level dipping in my games unless there was a good reason for it. This is rather arbitrary I admit, but if I had a player who was a sorceror, I would not just let him 'dip' in fighter unless he could come up with a GOOD reason for the dip (which since I am DM I am the ultimate judge of what GOOD is).

It doesn't really matter if you allowed it or not. We are looking at changes to the system. The system allows it, that was a big change. In fact, by your argument, 4E fixed multi-classing back to reasonable levels from the roots of D&D.

Next time I run 4E, I plan to experiment with allowing any class to choose any power. Since class bonuses synergies best with their own powers, I doubt it will actually make much difference though.

I actually posed no argument. I just stated what I did to curtail something in the system that annoyed me.

Taldor RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Scott Betts wrote:
4e is instantly recognizable as D&D, unless you really hate 4e and refuse to see it as such for reasons unrelated to how much it looks like D&D. Of course, the same can be said of 3e: It's instantly recognizable as D&D, unless you hate 3e for reasons unrelated to how much it looks like D&D.

I would disagree with this statement. One thing that the 3.5e/4e schism has taught me is that the definition of "D&D" is very personal to most people, and varies greatly from person to person. For some people, crucial elements of what makes a game "D&D" to them were left out of 4e. For some people, they were left out of 2e!

One person's taupe is another person's ecru.


Scott Betts wrote:
a movie being made for SyFy, a well-reviewed Facebook game,

I'll give you the facebook game as a positive, though in general I think facebook games severely lack. But SYFY? Do you really want to use that as a plus. Might our adventurers perhaps have to fight the Big Bad MANSQUITO? Or maybe they have to rescue the prince from the SHARKTOPUS!

In any case I am sure the special effects will be top notch.


TOZ wrote:
Mournblade94 wrote:


Then the player must also provide another reason that I find acceptable in a game I am running for my campaign. I have had DM's tell me no before. They will get over it. Just because they want to does not mean I have to allow it.

This just tells me that I need to either plan my characters progression from 1-20 in your games, or accept that if I get an idea for my character you don't like, will have to roll a new character to explore it.

The ideas I don't like are single level character dips. Ideas I don't like are anything that lacks creativity to get a level dip. Because I am a good communicator, most of my players in my campaign know what I accept. If you want to multiclass fine. IF you want that one level of ranger you need to tell me why your formerly bookworm wizard managed to get those abilities.

most backgrounds can accomodate this. Or a character concept of a rogue dipping off ranger. IT is far to circumstancial for me to say I would reject your idea.

Generally if you were to make a reasonable attempt to rationalize the dip than yes you would be able to. I have yet to have a player complain about my reasons for not allowing it. The one time it happened they came back at me with a better reason that had a low cheese factor.


Without spending the next day and a half reading trolling and wanking...

WotC fractured their fanbase. They fractured it so hard.

Seriously, that's all that needs to be said. They catered to some gamers, they betrayed others, they insulted others to their faces, and they alienated a whole lot of people. At least, those reactions is how various gamers felt when WotC did what they did to the rules, the Realms, the classes, the races, and the people involved on every level of the industry. They did good things, they did bad things, they did neutral things, but in the end they did things that fractured the fanbase. Those people who still feel slighted after all this time (like me because of what the looming 4th edition did to the store where I worked at the time) will not be returning to WotC no matter what they do for 5th edition. They could sh!t gold bricks and it wouldn't bring everyone back.

Fracturing the fanbase was the best thing that could have happened for the industry because now we see it's more than big enough for competing games. That's what Pathfinder is, competition for WotC's products. There are more than enough gamers to go around.

Pathfinder will be fine. I trust Paizo to not do something stupid. That's why they have my business.


ryric wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
4e is instantly recognizable as D&D, unless you really hate 4e and refuse to see it as such for reasons unrelated to how much it looks like D&D. Of course, the same can be said of 3e: It's instantly recognizable as D&D, unless you hate 3e for reasons unrelated to how much it looks like D&D.

I would disagree with this statement. One thing that the 3.5e/4e schism has taught me is that the definition of "D&D" is very personal to most people, and varies greatly from person to person. For some people, crucial elements of what makes a game "D&D" to them were left out of 4e. For some people, they were left out of 2e!

One person's taupe is another person's ecru.

But to every little kid out there that wants Dungeons and Dragons it is the book with Dungeons and Dragons printed on it. Even if that little kid doesn't realize he owuld like Pathfinder more, he wants that Dungeons and Dragons book to show his other geeky friends.

The mom buying a game for christmas is going to buy D&D not Pathfinder (Without prior knowledge).

No matter how long kids were playing Pokemon their mom's always called it POKEY MAN. Man that used to jar me.

I don't even like Pokemon.

Most mom's are not going to be RPG savvy enough to realize Pathfinder is D&D.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber
ryric wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
4e is instantly recognizable as D&D, unless you really hate 4e and refuse to see it as such for reasons unrelated to how much it looks like D&D. Of course, the same can be said of 3e: It's instantly recognizable as D&D, unless you hate 3e for reasons unrelated to how much it looks like D&D.

I would disagree with this statement. One thing that the 3.5e/4e schism has taught me is that the definition of "D&D" is very personal to most people, and varies greatly from person to person. For some people, crucial elements of what makes a game "D&D" to them were left out of 4e. For some people, they were left out of 2e!

One person's taupe is another person's ecru.

I have to agree with Scott here. As it is marketed and presented, D&D is 4e. Yea there are other editions of the game, but right now, that is the one.

That is what sucks for me. As someone that has been around for a long time, I can't enjoy the game I like any more because I don't like the rule set is is being used for it.

Fortunately I have Pathfinder to fall back on and now completely enjoy that. Still there will always be a soft part in my that pines for D&D.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber
Josh M. wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
TClifford wrote:
Couple of points as I see it. Note: these are all my opinions based on 30 years playing and working in the industry.

An effort to establish extra credibility via longevity (ooh, and he worked in the industry!). Great start.

I caught that too, earlier, something about how I'm supposed to "learn something." I've only been playing for 20 years, so I guess I'm still a newb.

Experience is great and all, but can also work against learning new things, due to old habits and repetition, ingrained ideas and guarded opinions. Generally speaking.

Still can't add anything constructive to add this conversation then attacking me huh?

At least Scott presented a case against my statements while taking shots at me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wanders into the thread.

Looks at last post.

Leaves.


Scott Betts wrote:

An effort to establish extra credibility via longevity (ooh, and he worked in the industry!). Great start.

Now, now. Don't be a jerk.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

Wanders into the thread.

Looks at last post.

Leaves.

I knew there was a reason that guy was president...


Arnwyn wrote:
Now, now. Don't be a jerk.

Funny, I thought the "look how long I've been around" post was officially jerky.

Shadow Lodge

TClifford wrote:

I have to agree with Scott here. As it is marketed and presented, D&D is 4e. Yea there are other editions of the game, but right now, that is the one.

That is what sucks for me. As someone that has been around for a long time, I can't enjoy the game I like any more because I don't like the rule set is is being used for it.

Yeah, but you're acting like this is a new thing. It's been happening ever since 1977. 1E came out, and products were no longer produced for 0E. Then, in 1989, 2E came out, and products were no longer produced for 1E. In 2000, 3.0 came out, and products were no longer produced for 2E. In 2002, 3.5 came out, and products were no longer produced for 3.0. In 2008, 4E came out, and products were no longer produced for 3.5. And that's ignoring the Basic line, which had four different editions itself, with no product support at all beyond 2000.

Of course, to claim that products are no longer being produced for any of those is somewhat of a lie. Official stuff, no, not being produced. But retro-clones such as Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Dark Dungeons, and the like allow for continued support and play using these older rulesets.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
TClifford wrote:

I have to agree with Scott here. As it is marketed and presented, D&D is 4e. Yea there are other editions of the game, but right now, that is the one.

That is what sucks for me. As someone that has been around for a long time, I can't enjoy the game I like any more because I don't like the rule set is is being used for it.

Yeah, but you're acting like this is a new thing. It's been happening ever since 1977. 1E came out, and products were no longer produced for 0E. Then, in 1989, 2E came out, and products were no longer produced for 1E. In 2000, 3.0 came out, and products were no longer produced for 2E. In 2002, 3.5 came out, and products were no longer produced for 3.0. In 2008, 4E came out, and products were no longer produced for 3.5. And that's ignoring the Basic line, which had four different editions itself, with no product support at all beyond 2000.

Of course, to claim that products are no longer being produced for any of those is somewhat of a lie. Official stuff, no, not being produced. But retro-clones such as Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Dark Dungeons, and the like allow for continued support and play using these older rulesets.

The transition from 3 to 4 felt a great deal more jarring (speaking for myself) than 2 to 3. I think I could have even forgiven 4e as a whole if they hadn't torn apart the spell system I had grown to love over the past couple of decades. I have been told that if you approach 4e as a board game it is immensely more enjoyable, for what it's worth.

In regards to the initial remarks about 5e being in the works: competition breeds more competition. I hope 5e is a wild success. I'll play it alongside Pathfinder and enjoy both. Then I'll go play some Hellfrost, and Deadlands, and L5R, then I'll top it off with some home-brewed amalgamation of 2e and 3e. Devoting oneself to a company is fine and all if that's your cup of tea, but there are lots of RPGs out there deserving of some consumer dollars. I hope Paizo continues to put more weight behind what the consumer base truly wants instead of what will turn the quickest buck. They have proven, thus far (I admit I only made the leap over recently... feeling disenfranchised by 4e turned me to a long binge of Savage Worlds) to be exactly what I look for in a company: receptive.

Shadow Lodge

Kagehiro wrote:

I have been told that if you approach 4e as a board game it is immensely more enjoyable, for what it's worth.

Maybe if you like board games, I guess.

I could approach PF the same way, but I don't think that says anything about Pathfinder as an RPG.

Osirion

ryric wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
4e is instantly recognizable as D&D, unless you really hate 4e and refuse to see it as such for reasons unrelated to how much it looks like D&D. Of course, the same can be said of 3e: It's instantly recognizable as D&D, unless you hate 3e for reasons unrelated to how much it looks like D&D.

I would disagree with this statement. One thing that the 3.5e/4e schism has taught me is that the definition of "D&D" is very personal to most people, and varies greatly from person to person. For some people, crucial elements of what makes a game "D&D" to them were left out of 4e. For some people, they were left out of 2e!

One person's taupe is another person's ecru.

I have to agree with this. What makes it feel like D&D does indeed change from person to person. To me 4e is not "instantly recognizable as D&D" as scott put it because many of the "keys" that Mark it as D&D to me are missing. These range from key mechanics down to flavor.

The truth is for me, if it was not for the logo on front I would not think "Oh this is D&D" when looking at 4e. I would think it was a fantasy game but its just missing to many key flags that mark it as D&D to me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Kagehiro wrote:

I have been told that if you approach 4e as a board game it is immensely more enjoyable, for what it's worth.

Maybe if you like board games, I guess.

I could approach PF the same way, but I don't think that says anything about Pathfinder as an RPG.

I enjoy a good game of Talisman now and then. Never cared much for the miniature/figurine approach to RPGs myself, apart from the odd encounter here and there where people are just struggling to picture mentally positioning in an encounter.

For me, PF is an excellent RPG. I was just trying to mitigate my distaste for 4e with what could loosely be called a potential redeeming quality.

Shadow Lodge

Kagehiro wrote:
For me, PF is an excellent RPG. I was just trying to mitigate my distaste for 4e with what could loosely be called a potential redeeming quality.

Yeah, I don't think anything is going to mitigate your distaste for 4E. Other than you changing your mind.

Honestly, I don't know why you would want to mitigate anything. I don't like 4E. I don't apologize for that, any more than I apologize for not liking green beans.


Chubbs McGee wrote:


Can I have a leg?

"Yes, yes you can. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow....well lets now worry about tomorrow."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will never stop feeling amusement (and some pity too) that people make "I Play D&D" such a core part of their actual identity that when a game comes out that they don't like, they feel it cannot be D&D since 1) I Play D&D and 2) I don't play this game, ergo 3) It cannot be D&D.

As for roleplaying...

Pathfinder concerns itself with telling me how to roleplay and then leaves me to try and make the game fun.

4e concerns itself with making the game fun and then leaves me to roleplay.

I vastly prefer the latter philosophy.

Edit: Also I'm amused at people still saying "3e is OBVIOUSLY D&D" when it's been stated that the literal creature of D&D felt differently.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TClifford wrote:

@memorax - I'm done with you. You seem to be more interested in insulting and slamming someone for having an opinion opposit of yours then actually coming up with an arguement for your opinion beyond "I like 4e'

So disagreeing with you is insulting you. Calling you out when you post stuff that is pretty inflammatory should just be ignored then. Not going to happen. As I said you dont get to demand what others get to say in responding to your posts. If you can post where I actually insulted you go right ahead. Otherwise if your going to do the verbal equivalent of posting something with both barrels blazing so to speak you lose the right to be offended when your called out for it. You can have it both ways. Post what you want then receive the feedback you want.

Paizo Employee Webstore Gninja Minion

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Locking thread.

Play the game you want to play. It's a big, wonderful ocean of gaming out there, no matter what iteration or media it is in.

1,301 to 1,340 of 1,340 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Pathfinder RPG and Paizo in the Face of 5E All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.