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

PaizoCon 2014!

WotC's big announcement


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

301 to 350 of 514 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I could.
I'm curious -- how would you do it? The main idea I've seen is "zones" -- something like (adjacent - close - medium - long) -- but I'd love to hear new ideas. I'm running a Zombie game in Savage Worlds right now and I'm trying to settle on whether or not I want to use a map long-term.

I'd just fudge the everloving hell out of it.


Chuck Wright wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Chuck Wright wrote:
Just because I could play Pathfinder like a strategic wargame doesn't mean that I could play 4E or Warhammer combat as a narrative only.
I could.
When I say "Warhammer" I refer to "Warhammer 40k". Since that game is nothing but a giant, complex board game. I call shennanigans

Oh, I thought you were talking about WHFRPG (which, notably, I know nothing about). You're right, no way you could play WH40K without a visual representation. The people you're playing with would probably have aneurysms.

Quote:
Heavily? Nope. Unless you think "simplifying the concept of AoOs" as "heavily deviating".

AoOs would have to be reworked. Spell/ability ranges and areas would have to be fudged. Reach would have to be handwaved. Adjustments to movement speeds and 3-dimensional movement would be imprecise/handwaved. The constraints that larger-than-medium creatures place on combat movement would often be lost. Some CMs would be wonky.

Essentially, anything having to do with movement or positioning would be a royal pain to track accurately, and would probably end up roughly estimated at best.

Cheliax

Sebastian wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:


Quote:
Yes, there are specific differences in terms of mechanics, and each game might lend itself a bit more to one style of play or another. But neither to the extreme that most folks feel.
With half of 4E's powers moving PC's and monsters around the "board", I could see it being rather difficult to not play 4E like a miniatures wargame. It is pretty much ingrained into the mechanics of the game.

You mean 4e combat, right?

Not 4e in general.

Also oh my god people preserve your quote tags.

You've got to understand, 4e killed Cory's dog, and he's still bitter. You could copy-paste any random post of his since the announcement of 4e and it will say basically the same (mostly incorrect) things.

Edit: Actually, that's not entirely fair. I'm sure some of the things he's said have been proven correct (e.g., 4e not selling all that well). Why he continues to grind an axe on the incorrect things baffles me. You'd think it'd be enough vindication to have seen 4e doing so poorly, without also making up additional reasons to hate and despise it.

I'm not hating. I'm just saying 4E's combat system is very tactical minis oriented, and it would be pretty hard not to play it that way. I did not say it killed my dog, and WotC should go bankrupt for it. I made a simple statement. Just because it is not a glowing accolade of 4E's many virtues does not mean that I think WotC and 5e fans should die in a fire. I do hope that WotC learned a lot from it's mistakes with 4th edition, and makes the next one a game I want to play.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Ciretose wrote:
3.0 was released in 2000. It was revised in 2003 to 3.5, a revision that built on rather than replaced the prior product, just as 2nd edition more or less built on rather than replaced basic.

I'm going to have to differ with you. AD&D's origin was in Original D&D, not Basic D&D (which didn't exist yet). There's a difference. Before AD&D2 came out, Basic had fully evolved into BECMI.

On the other hand, there are clear signs of 3E in the Rules Cyclopedia. In my opinion, the blending of the rules cyclopedia and AD&D2 led directly to 3E.

Really? How did I miss that all these years? Do you have any specific examples? I love my Rules Cyclopedia, but I never associated anything in it to 3E.

Talislanta on the other hand, had the d20 mechanic for years. Coincidentally, Jonathan Tweet worked on the 3rd edition of Talislanta seven years before writing 3E.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Scott Betts

Respectfully, even the designers are giving up on 4E. The war is over and it ended in surrender.

To the larger questions, why should we believe WoTC has anything more to offer than they have?

Yes Monte is back, but Skip Williams left in 2002 and Johnathan Tweet was laid off in 2008. So was David Noonan if you want to look to PHB II.

So who is on the team?

Mike Mearls, the team lead, is a nice guy who seems willing to at least indirectly admit they screwed the pooch with 4e. But he came on board in 2005 so he had no part in creating 3.5 and as a lead on the 4E PHB he had at least some part in the 4E debacle.

Greg Bilsland came on in 2007 and seems to be pure 4e. 'Nuff said.

Bruce Cordell goes back to TSR, which is a positive, but he also wrote for the 4E Forgotten Realms reboot debacle, which is a major negative.

Robert J. Schwalb seems solid, I really like Green Ronin stuff and while I haven't played it, Song of Fire and Ice got great reviews.

Jeremy Crawford seems to be straight 4e as far as I can tell.

Tom LaPille's linked in profile seems Magic the Gathering focused with no table top history I can see, which isn't encouraging and worries me about what they mean by "modular". I'm guessing they mean "Multiple Revenue Stream"

Rodney Thompson is encouraging, as he worked on the very solid (if thin) d20 modern stuff, plus and is another Green Ronin vet.

Miranda Horner seems to go back to TSR, but I don't know what she has done.

And of course, Monte Cook, which is a big deal on the one hand and on the other hand...we'll see. Monte had his own publication company where he could have put out whatever he liked, and before he was back working for WoTC it didn't seem like the people on here chomping at the bit for what might come from the Oracle of WoTC much cared.

Which is the point. WoTC put out 4E. If you liked it, sorry, they apparently don't anymore. If you didn't, what makes you think the next product will be any better than what these same people have been putting out for their respective 3PP's?

Nothing. You are buying into the mystery of "Brand" rather than looking at it objectively and realizing the "brand" is just a label. No different than stamping "Rolex" onto a cheap knockoff and calling it classy.

Aside from Monte, the best thing I can say about this group is I like a lot of what Green Ronin has done in the past and some of them seem to to have links to Green Ronin.

Which goes back to my point that I would be more excited about what Green Ronin was working on next than this group.

If you were not waiting with baited breath for what Monte was going to put on on his own, why would you be now that they attached a brand label to it?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Which is the point. WoTC put out 4E. If you liked it, sorry, they apparently don't anymore.

There's a difference between not liking something and recognizing that the product they produced didn't capture as wide of an audience as they expected.

I'm certain that the people who created, worked on, and played 4E were happy with their creation. But Wizards rightly realized that they were a smaller than projected market share. So they went back to the drawing board to figure out what to do. That's not disapproving or disliking. That's just reacting to the realities of the marketplace.

As it is, if the new system is really modular, it may be that there will be a 4E style option still available.

Andoran

deinol wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Which is the point. WoTC put out 4E. If you liked it, sorry, they apparently don't anymore.

There's a difference between not liking something and recognizing that the product they produced didn't capture as wide of an audience as they expected.

I'm certain that the people who created, worked on, and played 4E were happy with their creation. But Wizards rightly realized that they were a smaller than projected market share. So they went back to the drawing board to figure out what to do. That's not disapproving or disliking. That's just reacting to the realities of the marketplace.

As it is, if the new system is really modular, it may be that there will be a 4E style option still available.

If they could make 4e fit into the new system, it wouldn't need to be a new system.

4.5 would fit precedent pretty well, now wouldn't it?


Deinol wrote:

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Ciretose wrote:
3.0 was released in 2000. It was revised in 2003 to 3.5, a revision that built on rather than replaced the prior product, just as 2nd edition more or less built on rather than replaced basic.
I'm going to have to differ with you. AD&D's origin was in Original D&D, not Basic D&D (which didn't exist yet). There's a difference. Before AD&D2 came out, Basic had fully evolved into BECMI.

On the other hand, there are clear signs of 3E in the Rules Cyclopedia. In my opinion, the blending of the rules cyclopedia and AD&D2 led directly to 3E.

Really? How did I miss that all these years? Do you have any specific examples? I love my Rules Cyclopedia, but I never associated anything in it to 3E.

Ability modifiers were given on one table for all six abilities, though they hadn't yet come up with the idea of "plus or minus one" per two points of ability score.

Skills are actually called "skills" and not "non-weapon proficiencies". They're grouped according to abilities instead of character class, although they were still using the "roll under the appropriate ability" mechanic.

Special damage was being divided according to specific types, althoug they had yet to come up with fire, cold, electricity, etc.

There are other things, but those are what I can remember off the top of my head. I don't have the book handy right now.


ciretose wrote:
4.5 would fit precedent pretty well, now wouldn't it?

They already have a 4.5. It's called Essentials! ;D

Cheliax

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chuck Wright wrote:
In all honesty, I prefer* the Storyteller system from White Wolf (NWoD over OWoD system but I prefer the original Mage to the new Mage)

Blasphemy, though I won't burn you at the stake for admitting that old mage was better. :)


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

In my 3.5 game we use miniatures without a combat mat. If distances are important, we use a ruler. 5-foot steps and AoOs are easily dealt with. The benefit is that we don't have to worry about diagonals (as opposed to rows and columns). Areas of effect are precise, not dependent on squares. We don't have to change the mechanics at all.

But I have friends who play 4E and they point out that it would be very difficult to run 4E the same way. Squares are too important.

I'm not seeing it. :confused:

3 squares = 15 feet (for example)
Areas of effect would presumably be identical in PF or 4E (circular, not jagged).

What's the problem?


I'm referring to the way certain powers affect opponents according to square placement, rather than distances.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
ciretose wrote:
4.5 would fit precedent pretty well, now wouldn't it?
They already have a 4.5. It's called Essentials! ;D

Except for the part where Essentials only added stuff to the game and changed a few minor rules.

But trying to convince non-4E players of that seems to be impossible. It certainly had no effect on the Dark Sun game I'm in.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I'm referring to the way certain powers affect opponents according to square placement, rather than distances.

I just dont see what the difference is between 3.5 and 4th. It was one of the hardest things for us to get used to when we started playing 3.5 - the reliance on miniatures. Moving to 4th edition made no difference other than discarding Pythagoras Theorem.

"Adjacent ally" just means "within 5 feet"
"burst 1" just means "a five foot radius circle"
"One ally within ten squares" just means "One ally within fifty feet"

There's a translation required, but it can be done on the fly in either game, as far as I can see.


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

RE: Rules Cyclopedia and 3E.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Ability modifiers were given on one table for all six abilities, though they hadn't yet come up with the idea of "plus or minus one" per two points of ability score.

Skills are actually called "skills" and not "non-weapon proficiencies". They're grouped according to abilities instead of character class, although they were still using the "roll under the appropriate ability" mechanic.

Special damage was being divided according to specific types, althoug they had yet to come up with fire, cold, electricity, etc.

There are other things, but those are what I can remember off the top of my head. I don't have the book handy right now.

Other than the name change, I don't see any real difference between 2E's non-weapon proficiencies and RC skills. 3E's skill system is actually more derived from Talislanta (which Jonathan Tweet worked on before 3E).

But I do see your point. The Rules Cyclopedia is a very well put together collection of the BECMI rules. I still pull it out on occasion when I want to run a classic one-shot.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Will be really great if 5E is Pathfinder compatible.

Taldor

ciretose wrote:

@Scott Betts

Respectfully, even the designers are giving up on 4E. The war is over and it ended in surrender.

To the larger questions, why should we believe WoTC has anything more to offer than they have?
SNIP

Which is the point. WoTC put out 4E. If you liked it, sorry, they apparently don't anymore. If you didn't, what makes you think the next product will be any better than what these same people have been...

This.

I didn't like the 2nd half of 3.5 products. Lots of boring rules that brought nothing together with bland filler advice stuff.

I hated 4e.

Why should I even attempt to give a look at 5e at all ? Ciretose is right, it comes from the same people who have not hit my mark in now ... gee, quite a few years actually.

So I'll wait and check the reactions to the actual product when and if it come out, but since I have everything I need with Pathfinder, and my cash-flow is not infifnite, there is a safe chance that I will never buy it.

Cheliax

I'm just glad I didn't buy any 4th Edition books (except for all the Gamma World stuff, which is fun and I am glad I have now) after spending years collecting every 3.5 book ever released (or at least getting a PDF of it).

I was the first of my gaming group of 10+ years to discover Pathfinder, and we all disliked 4e immensely and so as a group switched to Pathfinder, with at first a mix of 3.5 & PF but as new books came out and niches were filled we've got everything we need for just Pathfinder (plus the awesome 3pp psionics stuff from Dreamscarred Press).

I loved the 2nd edition era Gamma World and seeing how the 4e rules worked thought that would be a good fit (and it is; we've been playing Gamma World when we can't get enough of our core group together for Pathfinder games and having a blast), so I have everything made for that, but none of the 4th Edition or Essentials books at all.

I did buy 4th Edition miniatures, but those I always used for Pathfinder (except I miss the 3.5 minis game and the cards that came with them; "dungeon delve cards" = blarghhh!).

My friend told me about 5e earlier today and is amazed they are already trying to do a new edition, but IMHO this announcement by WoTC seems about right on schedule. *

So; unnecessary expenditure of money avoided! Now that the death knell for 4e has been sounded, I look at my complete collection of PFRPG rulebooks, and my nearly complete collection of 3.5 rulebooks and sourcebooks (which, with a little tweaking, are all compatible with my PFRPG stuff), and my Gamma World box, and my travel cases full of minis from size tiny to gargantuan, and I am fully content that all my money has gone to the right people for the right reasons, and I have enough gaming material to last me until the end of days if I never decide to buy another gaming book again.

Except for the next 10 PFRPG rulebooks or so. Then I can stop. Maybe.

The big question is whether or not I care enough about the hobby as a whole to participate in the 5e playtest and give them my feedback. I like sticking with Paizo, and putting forward my creative energy and playtesting feedback into a game system I know and love. On the other hand, if I can help the next version of D&D get back to what I loved about it when it was D&D, and that makes the entire RPG community as a whole (including Paizo and Pathfinder) that much more successful, am I doing the Pathfinder community a disservice by not also sharing some of the energy and enthusiasm and love I have for Pathfinder with WoTC right now (since they are asking for it)?**

*:
3rd edition came out in 2000, 3.5 2002, 4th ed came out in 2008 (although it seems more like it came out in 2007 to my memory for some reason), so now 2012 seems like they are following the same pattern (or if the next edition, 5e or whatever it is going to be, comes out in 2013 then 4th Edition will have lasted the same amount of time as 3.5 Edition not counting 3.0, since 3.5 was 2002-2007, then 4th would be 2008-2013, allowing for the time between 3.5's Rules Compendium and the preview books that first shocked my friends and I into being very wary about 4e).

**:
All I know is that trying to actually sign into the Wizards website after making a new account is a pain in the ass - I made an account and logged in (I was in my account and clicked the email link and everything), but then when I went to post a comment or "like" a comment it would say that I wasn't logged in and asked me to enter my username and password again, which their site wouldn't recognize.

The only thing I was able to do was submit to change my password, which I did and then clicked the email thing again, made sure I had a new password and that I was logged into my account, and then the whole thing happened all over again, repeat same thing about 5-6 times until I gave up.

If that is the sort of thing I have to put up with in order to participate in WoTC's playtest I would rather just stick with Paizo.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:
Yes Monte is back, but Skip Williams left in 2002 and Johnathan Tweet was laid off in 2008. So was David Noonan if you want to look to PHB II.

Basically, what I'm getting from you is that you want 5th edition to be 3.x redux. I think that would be a huge mistake. It would alienate 4e players, and it would have to sucessfully lure 3.X players back from Pathfinder. In short, it's a strategy that would almost certainly be doomed to failure.

Besides, does anyone out there really believe that Pathfinder/3.X/d20 is the ultimate perfect system? I know I don't. Yes, it improved from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder...but that doesn't mean that it's perfect.

Frankly, I'd feel better about 5e if they fired Monte right now, especially since so some of the problems inherent in 3.X seem to have come from his philosophy regarding "system mastery" and "trap options".

3.X/d20 is also the system of choice for the tedious nitpicking of minutia; something that I hope that 5e de-emphasizes. It's also the edition that pretty much eliminated the rule of cool...if you want to do something cool, now you have to check to see if it's an ability provided by a feat, and if you don't have that feat...you don't get to do it. It provided a huge number of options, but in doing so, it began to restrict the imagination in some ways.

I guess may basic point is that I think that making 5e into 3.X redux would be just about the worst direction that WotC could take this new edition. If they really look back at previous editions for inspiration, I'd rather they skip the whole 3.X era and look at the pre-d20 editions.


I think that the best thing about 4E was when it did something else than power prescribed movement. It had a good improvisation capacity. Too bad that it was pushed behind all the power glut.

Andoran

Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Yes Monte is back, but Skip Williams left in 2002 and Johnathan Tweet was laid off in 2008. So was David Noonan if you want to look to PHB II.

Basically, what I'm getting from you is that you want 5th edition to be 3.x redux. I think that would be a huge mistake. It would alienate 4e players, and it would have to sucessfully lure 3.X players back from Pathfinder. In short, it's a strategy that would almost certainly be doomed to failure.

Besides, does anyone out there really believe that Pathfinder/3.X/d20 is the ultimate perfect system? I know I don't. Yes, it improved from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder...but that doesn't mean that it's perfect.

No, my points are:

1. Why would I think this group of people are more likely to put out a good product than any other publisher? They have been putting out mediocre or worse material for a significant amount of time now.

2. If they do put out a "good" system, how can I believe they are going to support it for more than a few years, given the track record, and more importantly, the business model they are using?

Pathfinder is imperfect, but the company that makes it has a business model that assures it will be well supported not only by them, but by 3PP, as they primarily make money off of adventures and setting material.

They make rules so that you will want to buy adventures/modules and setting books.

WoTC makes rules so you want to buy rule books.

One model will always try to improve the existing game, moderating power creep, addressing shortcomings.

The other model has to keep putting out "The New" to keep you buying new rule books beyond core.

What makes 3rd edition (in all it's iterations) great isn't the game itself, it is the OGL. It allows tons and tons of variations from 3PP with press evolution forward. Pathfinder is very different from 3.0, but if you pick up a 3.0 book and learn it, switching to pathfinder is as simple as running d20 Modern, or Mutants and Masterminds, or Star Wars, etc...

The idea that a "one size fits all" game is going to come out of a company dependent on making new rule books in order to be profitable isn't a realistic one.

So, as I said, I would be more excited about a potential Green Ronin project than something from a company that has been putting out mediocre or worse material while shutting out outside influence for a long, long time.

And even if they do put out a good system, the odds that it will be well supported with quality modules, adventure and setting, are slim considering how Hasbro seems to feel about OGL. They don't have the in house staff to do it, and others who got burned won't do it.

I'm not closed to new systems, but expecting WoTC to put out a new unifying product is like expecting Microsoft to go open source.

It's not in their DNA.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'm psyched that Rodney Thompson is on board. He was one of the main guys behind Star Wars Saga Edition, and I loved that game immensely. I know a lot of old-schoolers hated it compared to WEG d6 version, but I liked how stripped down and streamlined it was. When I want to play Star Wars, I want to play fast, epic, cinematic encounters and storylines; leave all the overly technical stuff to the Trekkies (yes, I went there).

I loved the idea of only have a small handful of core classes(5 maybe?), but tons and tons of talent trees and prestige classes to shape any kind of SW character imaginable, rather than trying to make 50 different classes to cover every niche.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

@Josh M

Funny, I prefered SWRev over Saga. Different strokes.

I doubt that 5e will be 3.x redux. I will be curious to see how they make good the 'take the good from everything in the past' promise.

Doubt I'd get anything that's not PF compatible though, money's tight.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I'm referring to the way certain powers affect opponents according to square placement, rather than distances.

Agreed - this is the same reason why you can't bull rush opponents in 3rd Edition or earlier editions, or use any other effects that involve movement.

Wait, what?

squares = distance. A power that pushes 2 squares knocks someone back 10 feet. That is, in fact, precisely how I describe it when running my 4E game, in which most of the combats take place without a battle map.

Without, thus far, having the system collapse around me.

Big important fights get battlemaps and minis and all that. I treat most other combats - random encounters, dealing with lackeys, etc - as skirmishes, and don't bother with a map.

Yes, it involves the players often asking questions about positioning, who they can reach, whether they can use certain attacks, etc - just like it did in every other edition.

4E certainly is designed with the battlemap in mind. But it can definitely be played without one. And what issues there are with doing so tend to be more related to Opportunity Attacks and the like, rather than forced movement. (And, I admit, I often handwave such OAs in skirmishes. But I imagine it would be exactly the same when running 3.5 without a battlemap, as well.)


Matthew Morris wrote:

@Josh M

Funny, I prefered SWRev over Saga. Different strokes.

I doubt that 5e will be 3.x redux. I will be curious to see how they make good the 'take the good from everything in the past' promise.

Doubt I'd get anything that's not PF compatible though, money's tight.

I liked Revised, but it was a little clunky for our group. I really didn't dig the Force use as a separate list of skills though. Also Force use costing hp? Didn't make sense to me. Made sense in a balancing way to limit Force users from just going buck-wild with their powers, but that's all.


Kthulhu wrote:
Frankly, I'd feel better about 5e if they fired Monte right now, especially since so some of the problems inherent in 3.X seem to have come from his philosophy regarding "system mastery" and "trap options".

While I don't fully agree with that (I think firing him might be overly drastic and many of his ideas were good), I do worry about exactly that philosophy and hope that it doesn't take over the 5e design -- the idea that system mastery makes sense and should be rewarded. I mean, don't get me wrong, I can be as optimizer-ish as anyone (probably why I like to whip out Battletech on occasion), but to me this concept just breaks down when you think about it.

It's one of those "player" vs. "character" knowledge situations -- in fact, made far worse because (a) it's completely metagame, and (b) this is a case where the character would know -- a person who was born into fantasy world X would, presumably, have an understanding of the rules and physics of the world - not the theory behind it necessarily, but at least the cause-and-effect that exists. As a result, the character, as part of their training, would presumably know not to waste their time with clearly inferior options (based on talking to trainers, experience, etc.) -- especially those for which they are not suited.

I'm not saying that everything needs to balance perfectly (especially in light of what the attempt to do just that ended up looking like), and I love that you can take different options and make characters with different strengths and even abilities -- and I have no problems what-so-ever that the game allows you to design characters that have varying levels of ability because those characters are trading one type of ability for another (especially with a point-buy system)....

But, ultimately, allowing (and defending) trap options completely destroy that idea of balance because players who lack that meta-knowledge do something they think should be cool, and suffer for it -- especially in comparison to someone with metagame mastery who is more powerful than the things meant to challenge the party.

Ultimately, this acts as a barrier to entry against new players, (alienating the "noobs", as it were) -- and, I suspect at least some of the backlash to this was the reason we ended up with the "everyone's equal, little to no variety" design of 4e.***

*** = Before someone jumps in to defend 4e, please note, I am using a short-hand about the character powers, I am stating my opinion, and whether or not you agree with that opinion, is irrelevant to the salient part of the discussion (eg - "system mastery" a la Monte Cook)


Look I know it is contentious to say this, and it breaks my heart to consider it a real possibility, but this whole announcement thing has a ring to it that sounds like they want to release a game that has more, smaller books, card packs (like Gamaworld, which in its market were successful), and a “feel” of modularity, even if they do not really know what that is supposed to mean. I don’t think their efforts will be in Game Design.

I think their efforts will be in Marketing.

The game of Dungeons and Dragons moved out of the hands of Game Designers a long time ago. It is in the hands of Brand Management Teams, and Project Management Professionals, and if you don’t know what the goal of these kinds of people is, it is not making a game that is fun to play.

Paizo is a company, I don’t know how large a company they are, but they are a company. For now, the company has put the emphasis on the Pathfinder line, where we all like it to be, quality products that enhance our game play experience. Let’s all hope that they can keep it that way, and with luck, we will always be able to Play Dungeons and Dragons in the way that we like best, no matter what it says at the top of the Player’s Handbook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

Look I know it is contentious to say this, and it breaks my heart to consider it a real possibility, but this whole announcement thing has a ring to it that sounds like they want to release a game that has more, smaller books, card packs (like Gamaworld, which in its market were successful), and a “feel” of modularity, even if they do not really know what that is supposed to mean. I don’t think their efforts will be in Game Design.

I think their efforts will be in Marketing.

The game of Dungeons and Dragons moved out of the hands of Game Designers a long time ago. It is in the hands of Brand Management Teams, and Project Management Professionals, and if you don’t know what the goal of these kinds of people is, it is not making a game that is fun to play.

Paizo is a company, I don’t know how large a company they are, but they are a company. For now, the company has put the emphasis on the Pathfinder line, where we all like it to be, quality products that enhance our game play experience. Let’s all hope that they can keep it that way, and with luck, we will always be able to Play Dungeons and Dragons in the way that we like best, no matter what it says at the top of the Player’s Handbook.

I think the modularity that WotC proposes will be in game design. I believe that what they want to compete with is the entirety of the post-4E OGL explosion. They saw OGL versions of pretty much every edition of the game come out after they pulled the PDFs off the market, and they want that market share back.

I believe what they want to do is create a system (not a series of splat books) that can be used to create (or recreate) every edition of the game, reaching back to the beginning.

Honestly, if people have a choice between the (free) OSRIC system (recreating AD&D1) and a system that does the same thing with the Dungeons & Dragons banner across the head of it, a lot of them (probably most of them) are going to buy the "real" thing.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Look I know it is contentious to say this, and it breaks my heart to consider it a real possibility, but this whole announcement thing has a ring to it that sounds like they want to release a game that has more, smaller books, card packs (like Gamaworld, which in its market were successful), and a “feel” of modularity, even if they do not really know what that is supposed to mean. I don’t think their efforts will be in Game Design.

I think their efforts will be in Marketing.

The game of Dungeons and Dragons moved out of the hands of Game Designers a long time ago. It is in the hands of Brand Management Teams, and Project Management Professionals, and if you don’t know what the goal of these kinds of people is, it is not making a game that is fun to play.

Paizo is a company, I don’t know how large a company they are, but they are a company. For now, the company has put the emphasis on the Pathfinder line, where we all like it to be, quality products that enhance our game play experience. Let’s all hope that they can keep it that way, and with luck, we will always be able to Play Dungeons and Dragons in the way that we like best, no matter what it says at the top of the Player’s Handbook.

I think the modularity that WotC proposes will be in game design. I believe that what they want to compete with is the entirety of the post-4E OGL explosion. They saw OGL versions of pretty much every edition of the game come out after they pulled the PDFs off the market, and they want that market share back.

I believe what they want to do is create a system (not a series of splat books) that can be used to create (or recreate) every edition of the game, reaching back to the beginning.

Honestly, if people have a choice between the (free) OSRIC system (recreating AD&D1) and a system that does the same thing with the Dungeons & Dragons banner across the head of it, a lot of them (probably most of them) are going to buy the "real" thing.

that's a very good point


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

@Terquem are you trying to say that Mike Mearls and Monte Cook aren't game designers? Have you seen Iron Heroes or Arcana Evolved?

I can understand not agreeing with some of their designs, but to claim they aren't game designers seems incredible. Do you really think the marketing department is sitting there telling them what to write?

Silver Crusade

Josh M. wrote:
Personally, I'm psyched that Rodney Thompson is on board. He was one of the main guys behind Star Wars Saga Edition, and I loved that game immensely.

I'm also a big Star Wars Saga Edition fan. I played one or two sessions of the Revised, and while I thought it was alright, I personally think Saga was better.

Although I thought that Saga had some issues within it, it wasn't anything that I couldn't fix by house-rules (and in the game that I ran, I borrowed some stuff from 4E rules, such as using Str or Con for Fort defenses, Dex or Int for Reflex, and Wis or Cha for Will, etc).

---

As to 4E/5E: I've been doing a lot of thinking over the past few days. Specifically, about 3.5/Pathfinder and 4E, and why I didn't seem to like 4E as much as 3.5. Mechanically, 4E has a lot of improvements on the mechanical side of things: defense scores instead of saving throws, using half-level to attack rolls vs BAB, etc.

The biggest gripe I think I had was the way they designed the classes. It wasn't like 3.5 where "Here is the class; using the rules, design the way you want your character to be". It was more like "Here is the class we designed; select one of the ways we think the class should be played and play it that way".

Case in point: with the release of the first 4E Player's Handbook, the Fighter had one of two fighting styles: Two-Handed or Sword & Board. While more options came out in future books, you really needed those books in order to play that style; creating it yourself, while not difficult, wasn't trivial.

So if I wanted a 4E Fighter that wore light armor, and fought with a Rapier and had a hand free (like a Duelist), there wasn't any mechanical support for it. Oh sure, I could fight that way, but it was clearly inferior to going Sword & Board. (Although, I suppose in later supplements, this would be a Brawler build, but I digress).

Alternatively, what if I wanted to play a two-weapon fighting Rogue, who attacked with 2 daggers in the same round? Unless I was a Half-Elf or Revenant, Hybrided with Ranger, or Paragon Multiclassed into Ranger to get Twin Strike, I was pretty much out of luck. What if my character concept didn't involve being a Ranger at all?

4E class design just wasn't to my liking. Sure, maybe it was designed that way to allow balance (and producing more builds in future books was how WotC planned to make more money), it just always felt more like you picked what class you wanted to play, then you were handed a half-finished character and told "just fill in the missing details". And Essentials, in some ways, felt even more like this mentality.

I realize that all of the above is subjective. And perhaps not everyone felt the same way. Which is fine. The edition wars up until now have been pretty much subjective in a lot of ways. If you like 4E, and consider it better, I respect that opinion. It's mostly just different play styles.

Going forward: Considering how short of a time span they developed this new "edition" or "iteration", I get the feeling that WotC started from 4E in terms of the at-will/encounter/daily aspect as its core rules, but adding in rules to build character classes to model previous editions (like, Wizards maybe having one or two at-will powers, and then a lot of dailies they can memorize to mimic Vancian spellcasting). This might explain why they brought Monte on-board, and why they're releasing it so soon after he was hired. Being a designer of 3rd edition, he could offer his opinion on how successfully the mechanics emulated 3rd edition.

Of course, this is just pure speculation on my part, and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong.

Cheliax

I am probably going to buy some if not all 5th Ed. books. I haven't played 3.5 at all - I went from Skills&Powers straight to PF Beta, but I bought all the books nonetheless. Now they are of use to me, since PF is (somewhat) backward compatible. I also bought all 4th Ed. books and now I am using Shadowfell a lot, even if I am ignoring the crunch side of things.

To be honest, I feel that PF is great and it brought a new life to my gaming, but it also has its disadvantages. The main disadvantage is that the other great 3rd Ed. era 3PPs are not publishing PF compatible products. To them - in my opinion - Paizo is their equal and it is probably embarrassing to them to accept Paizo as the industry leader. I think this is why there are no Green Ronin products, for instance.

I may be wrong, of course.


A lot of it has to do with the wording of the GSL - you can't make OGL compatible versions of anything you print that's GSL compatible, for example.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
A lot of it has to do with the wording of the GSL - you can't make OGL compatible versions of anything you print that's GSL compatible, for example.

This actually isn't true with the revised GSL. By the time they made the change most 3PP had already decided to go a different route. Particularly once they realized that the nature of the character builder made it so very few 4E players would use 3PP material even if there were more.


Curse the digital age!


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Look I know it is contentious to say this, and it breaks my heart to consider it a real possibility, but this whole announcement thing has a ring to it that sounds like they want to release a game that has more, smaller books, card packs (like Gamaworld, which in its market were successful), and a “feel” of modularity, even if they do not really know what that is supposed to mean. I don’t think their efforts will be in Game Design.

I think their efforts will be in Marketing.

The game of Dungeons and Dragons moved out of the hands of Game Designers a long time ago. It is in the hands of Brand Management Teams, and Project Management Professionals, and if you don’t know what the goal of these kinds of people is, it is not making a game that is fun to play.

Paizo is a company, I don’t know how large a company they are, but they are a company. For now, the company has put the emphasis on the Pathfinder line, where we all like it to be, quality products that enhance our game play experience. Let’s all hope that they can keep it that way, and with luck, we will always be able to Play Dungeons and Dragons in the way that we like best, no matter what it says at the top of the Player’s Handbook.

I think the modularity that WotC proposes will be in game design. I believe that what they want to compete with is the entirety of the post-4E OGL explosion. They saw OGL versions of pretty much every edition of the game come out after they pulled the PDFs off the market, and they want that market share back.

I believe what they want to do is create a system (not a series of splat books) that can be used to create (or recreate) every edition of the game, reaching back to the beginning.

Honestly, if people have a choice between the (free) OSRIC system (recreating AD&D1) and a system that does the same thing with the Dungeons & Dragons banner across the head of it, a lot of them (probably most of them) are going to buy the "real" thing.

@ Jerry Wright 307 Great Insight!

The problem is that I don't see how they can include 4th edition. There are mechanics and terminology WOTC can continue to use to make it appear 4th-like and then WOTC could state that they included elements. However, I believe the powers systems has got to go in 5e. With 4e, WOTC threw the entirety of D&D past under the bus; I believe it now 4e's turn.


They have mentiond they are "exploring options" or something like that for supporting the character builder and other things.

I get the impression 5E is going to be a step back. But they could include rules for powers. They'd have to modify them, of course, but the general effect of them could be simulated in any system, given the right approach.


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

Actually, you can easily have a more old school feeling game and also include an optional 4E power system. We could call the supplement "Tome of Battle".


That sounds reasonable. I really think you are right about post-4E OGL crowd. I started to wonder if pleasing that group is more important than pleasing the 4e faction. I sure they will make an effort that includes powers similar to D&D Essentials but exclude the original AEDU structure.


Kthulhu wrote:
I think that would be a huge mistake. It would alienate 4e players,

From a cynical business perspective — that would be a huge mistake for WotC how?

If 4e players are alienated by the new edition, what are they going to do? Subscription access to the Character Builder would still require paying subscription money to WotC, and there's no OGL for 4th that will let a third party pump out replacement game rules or replacement digital tools. WotC can continue to collect revenue from 4e players even if zero 4e players make the switch to a new edition.

3.x/Pathfinder is the biggest segment of "D&D" fandom that has both money to be made from and alternatives to giving WotC money. That makes them the obvious priority market the new edition must appeal to, from the business perspective. The fans of older editions and "old school" gaming are the second-largest such segment.

The cynical business conclusion would be to take 3.x, revise it to be more compatible with AD&D, and keep collecting subscription fees from such 4th edition fans that didn't follow the trademark and move on to the new system.


deinol wrote:

@Terquem are you trying to say that Mike Mearls and Monte Cook aren't game designers? Have you seen Iron Heroes or Arcana Evolved?

I can understand not agreeing with some of their designs, but to claim they aren't game designers seems incredible. Do you really think the marketing department is sitting there telling them what to write?

I think that they are game designers

I do not think that the Marketing "Department" is telling them what to write

I suggested that people other than the Designers will drive the focus of this effort

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
see wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I think that would be a huge mistake. It would alienate 4e players,
From a cynical business perspective — that would be a huge mistake for WotC how?

Well, if you alienate the 4e players, and (as we've seen on these forums) a substantial number of 3.X players aren't even willing to give you a chance, then you've just chopped your potential fanbase into a significantly smaller fraction of what it could have been.

WotC really shouldn't worry about the 3.X players, because not enough of them (us) are willing to give 5th edition a chance. 5e could be the greatest game ever, and many of them would sit in the corner sulking about how it was made by the same horri-bad people who cancelled Dragon and Dungeon.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I even have my doubt about that. It's quite likely that those who now shout that they will never again buy anything from Wizards will end up as some of the loudest 5th Edition fans, once the rules are out.

Taldor

Yeah ? maybe.

Want to know how many 4e products I bought ?

2 actually :
- Empire of the Ghouls by Open Design (and only because I took the wrong version)
- lost city (because the lure of the subject was too much)

And that's it. Two products and none from WOTC. On the other end, I have two full bookshelves of 3.0/3.5 products.

But if really it is good, really, really damn good, and I hear it consistently and long enough (after the honeymoon is over on the forums)I might give it a look and I might change opinions. Maybe. As a secondary product.

But for the future, it is certain however that I will keep playing and buying Pathfinder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Yora wrote:
I even have my doubt about that. It's quite likely that those who now shout that they will never again buy anything from Wizards will end up as some of the loudest 5th Edition fans, once the rules are out.

Yes, I remember THIS EXACT SAME THING being said by some of the more antagonistic members of the 4E fan base about 3.5 players and 4E.

And look how THAT turned out.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Yes Monte is back, but Skip Williams left in 2002 and Johnathan Tweet was laid off in 2008. So was David Noonan if you want to look to PHB II.

Basically, what I'm getting from you is that you want 5th edition to be 3.x redux. I think that would be a huge mistake. It would alienate 4e players, and it would have to sucessfully lure 3.X players back from Pathfinder. In short, it's a strategy that would almost certainly be doomed to failure.

Besides, does anyone out there really believe that Pathfinder/3.X/d20 is the ultimate perfect system? I know I don't. Yes, it improved from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder...but that doesn't mean that it's perfect.

Frankly, I'd feel better about 5e if they fired Monte right now, especially since so some of the problems inherent in 3.X seem to have come from his philosophy regarding "system mastery" and "trap options".

3.X/d20 is also the system of choice for the tedious nitpicking of minutia; something that I hope that 5e de-emphasizes. It's also the edition that pretty much eliminated the rule of cool...if you want to do something cool, now you have to check to see if it's an ability provided by a feat, and if you don't have that feat...you don't get to do it. It provided a huge number of options, but in doing so, it began to restrict the imagination in some ways.

I guess may basic point is that I think that making 5e into 3.X redux would be just about the worst direction that WotC could take this new edition. If they really look back at previous editions for inspiration, I'd rather they skip the whole 3.X era and look at the pre-d20 editions.

Have to agree everything here. 3.5 was a great game in its time but in the end the whole idea of system mastery was a dead end. It's cumbersome and tries to describe everything in the universe, which it simply can't. 4e stripped everything down to its essentials and you got a more streamlined game. I hope that 5e builds on that. Who really wants another version of 3e? 4e players don't want it and I doubt PF players will want it either. Personally, this notion of modularity may be nothing much when it comes to it from a rules perspective - what may be changing is the medium of delivery.


ShinHakkaider wrote:

Yora wrote:

I even have my doubt about that. It's quite likely that those who now shout that they will never again buy anything from Wizards will end up as some of the loudest 5th Edition fans, once the rules are out.
Yes, I remember THIS EXACT SAME THING being said by some of the more antagonistic members of the 4E fan base about 3.5 players and 4E.

And look how THAT turned out.

If predictions are made about a game before they rules come out, you will naturally find some preditions wrong.

I think the unstated optimism I read in Yora's post indicates that you should read an "If the 5E rules are good enough" at the beginning.

Even people who swore they'd never buy another WotC product might come back if they see 5E as something they like.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Yora wrote:
I even have my doubt about that. It's quite likely that those who now shout that they will never again buy anything from Wizards will end up as some of the loudest 5th Edition fans, once the rules are out.

Yes, I remember THIS EXACT SAME THING being said by some of the more antagonistic members of the 4E fan base about 3.5 players and 4E.

And look how THAT turned out.

It turned out true. There are quite a few 4e converts out there who swore the game wouldn't be for them. It's amazing what actually playing the game does for one's opinions of it.


I agree with Yora that we should have an optimistic wait-and-see attitude about 5e.

Also, let me take a moment to comment about "actually playing the game" for 4e.

I came from 1e and 2e skipped 3e and started playing 4e in 2008. I didn't have the baggage of expectations that others had about 4e. I heard it was different and bought the core rule set from Amazon.com. I kept an open mind and read through the ruleset. The first problem is that is it was a slog to read cover to cover and next I wasn't particularly impressed with the artwork. I was shocked comparing 1e/2e to 4e but I am big believer in playing a game before you judge it.

At the very beginning, it just didn't feel right. The tone and aesthetics were off to me. The mechanics had some high points but from artistic perspective this was not a masterpiece. With the release of Essentials, I dumped the core rule books into a Half-Price Bookstore hole. If at this point, it was the only game in town I could have lived with it as an improvement.

In 2010, I discovered Pathfinder. All of can say is "WOW" instead of the previous "WTF" as I was reading 4e core. This led to the discovery of the whole OSR movement which led to OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, and Labyrinth Lord. I was so excited about what I found with Pathfinder, I wondered what I could have missed from 3e. So, I promptly used eBay and found out.

I really hope that WOTC can succeed with 5e because it will be good for the RPG industry. However, the GSL isn't going to cut this time around. So, if 5e fails, that's ok too. OGL has already created a continuum of complexity from the variety of game systems and add-ons. In essence, you can create any game you want. This is simply amazing!


I wanted 4th Edition, but still didn't like or play it.

301 to 350 of 514 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / WotC's big announcement All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.