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.
And I'M saying those SAME things were said about/to 3.5 players (before Pathfinder). The inference being that even though those people didn't like 4E they almost would have to start playing because it was the only REAL game in town (being that D&D is the 800lb gorilla of RPG's).
Doesn't make the statement any less antagonizing.
I'm one of those people that was not initially enamored of 4E despite being part of a play test group here in NYC. I still bought the gift box set and ran a few games before making up my mind that I didn't like the ruleset and would not be supporting it or playing it anymore.
I still had people telling me and others like me that for all of our dislike that eventually we'd come around and play 4E.
And now their beloved game is about to be replaced. And I'm still playing the game that I want to play. Which is, I might point out, NOT the game these people said that I'd be playing.
I'm not optimistic about me ever becoming a customer of WOTC's RPG offerings again. I've said it before and I'll say it again: 5E will have to be AMAZING to make me even want to plunk down money for the core book(s) this time much less fully support it.
And I'm still playing the game that I want to play. Which is, I might point out, NOT the game these people said that I'd be playing.
I know what you mean, I love playing 3.5 and am happy to stick with it. No PF, no 4e, and most likely no 5e.
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.
Yeah, it convinced me it wasn't D&D. It might live down the block, but I wanted a game living in the same house.
|
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 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 it were that great a game, it wouldn't be #2 to a 12 year old game and it wouldn't be being phased out now.
I tried it, it wasn't as good for my group. Apparently this is a shared opinion, since despite having every market advantage it is now the world's 2nd most popular role playing game and it is being replaced.
Is it just me, or do the Monster Manuals (I, II, III, IV, etc.) sound like Led Zeppelin's early catalogue?
If it keeps on warring, the thread is going to lock.
4E is now dead and gone.
That's interesting. Announcing the development of a new edition means that the old one is not only dead, but also gone!
Fascinating!
If it were that great a game, it wouldn't be #2 to a 12 year old game and it wouldn't be being phased out now.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 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.
Out of curiosity, is Pathfinder a 12 year-old game that is exceptional for its longevity and ability to continue to compete, or is it a new game that is exceptional for its dramatic rise to popularity?
I'm cool with one or the other, but let's not try and have it both ways, hmm?
...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a WoTC hater. I still prefer the old Monster Manuals (3.5, II, III, IV, etc.) to the PF Bestiaries. I like the PF stat blocks, but when it comes to ecologies and societies, the old MMs have Paizo beat cold. Even some of the later supplements like Dungeonscape were a great blend of mechanics, GM advice, and fluff. (By the way, what is that Buhlmahn kid doing now? He has some potential. I think Paizo should look him up.) The "Complete X" and "Races of the X" are also some of my favorites from the 3.5 days. Add to that fantastic art and cartography, and WoTC was putting out some amazing work. Let's face it: if WoTC hadn't created such a...
Bestiaries are indeed sometimes annemic when it comes to monster info (better than early MMs for 4E though, Monster Vaults for essentials were indeed an improvement). I think it's parly because a lot of fluff is in various revisited books and articles in Adventure Paths.
And about actually playing the game, There are also those, who had high expectations, but didn't like it when reading and even less when playing. I can have fun playing that game, but it wasn't my preference. It works both ways.
|
|
If it were that great a game, it wouldn't be #2 to a 12 year old game and it wouldn't be being phased out now.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 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.
Out of curiosity, is Pathfinder a 12 year-old game that is exceptional for its longevity and ability to continue to compete, or is it a new game that is exceptional for its dramatic rise to popularity?
I'm cool with one or the other, but let's not try and have it both ways, hmm?
I've been consistent saying Pathfinder is a natural evolution from 3.0, making it a version of a 12 year old game.
The changes they made were not revolutionary. I would argue they were on par or even less of a change than 3.0 to 3.5.
I don't think Paizo did anything new or exciting. I think they simply continued the market plan that WoTC abandoned, specifically stay open source to grow the player base, focus on quality of supplements and setting releases as your primary profit driver.
If WoTC had stuck with this, not only would they have been better off, we all would have been better off. Paizo was trying to be a 3PP of supplemental material for the DnD brand. They released Pathfinder because they had to, not because they wanted to.
Pathfinder is just an update to 3.5. Most d20 system games are just updates of 3.5. The more people who were playing d20 systems meant more people who knew how to play (regardless of game of entry) meaning more potential customers and a rising tide for all ships.
4E failed for a couple of reasons, the biggest one being that WoTC tried to go it alone and throw it's weight around assuming everyone would fall in line behind the 800 pound gorilla. It worked for a little while, but as time passed they lost market share because they couldn't grow the game base of their version in the closed market they created.
Meanwhile the open market had all the players who knew the old rules, and all the new products from everyone else in the game who were in the same boat as Paizo, locked out of WoTC and not wanting to go bankrupt.
Recipe for disaster, served cold.
|
|
...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a WoTC hater. I still prefer the old Monster Manuals (3.5, II, III, IV, etc.) to the PF Bestiaries. I like the PF stat blocks, but when it comes to ecologies and societies, the old MMs have Paizo beat cold. Even some of the later supplements like Dungeonscape were a great blend of mechanics, GM advice, and fluff. (By the way, what is that Buhlmahn kid doing now? He has some potential. I think Paizo should look him up.) The "Complete X" and "Races of the X" are also some of my favorites from the 3.5 days. Add to that fantastic art and cartography, and WoTC was putting out some amazing work. Let's face it: if WoTC hadn't created such a...
Bestiaries are indeed sometimes annemic when it comes to monster info (better than early MMs for 4E though, Monster Vaults for essentials were indeed an improvement). I think it's parly because a lot of fluff is in various revisited books and articles in Adventure Paths.
And about actually playing the game, There are also those, who had high expectations, but didn't like it when reading and even less when playing. I can have fun playing that game, but it wasn't my preference. It works both ways.
This is one area where Paizo is trying to split content to make money, which I understand and don't personally mind as the two products to me are separate.
The bestiary is a quick reference for the GM, and they they are releasing other books that go more into detail of specific types of monsters over time in the setting line.
Doesn't bother me, I generally don't buy the setting stuff due to budgeting and I personally find it more important to have the layout work better for play than to have all the "fluff" in one volume.
YMMV.
|
|
I still prefer the old Monster Manuals (3.5, II, III, IV, etc.) to the PF Bestiaries. I like the PF stat blocks, but when it comes to ecologies and societies, the old MMs have Paizo beat cold. [...] The "Complete X" and "Races of the X" are also some of my favorites from the 3.5 days.
This makes me happy as I have bought all the 3rd ed Monster Manuals, the Races of and Complete series second hand when PF was taking off and I decided to stick with 3.5. I have yet to get around to reading them yet (though I have referenced them) but it makes me feel all warm inside that I probably made a good decision. :)
|
|
The changes they made were not revolutionary. I would argue they were on par or even less of a change than 3.0 to 3.5.
[...]
If WoTC had stuck with this, not only would they have been better off, we all would have been better off.
I am really not certain that WotC would have been better off if 4e had literally just been the same content as what is now in PF. I can imagine many people would have complained about WotC money grabbing by tweaking a few rules just enough to justify selling everyone the same books over again.
Seriously, I really think people see WotC as a faceless company (especially now its part of Hasbro) and that tends to skew their perception of what WotC do. I am not saying everyone is like this, but quite a few I imagine are.
So Paizo does it, they are "saving" 3rd edition gaming. WotC do it I imagine they would be branded "money grabbing".
Well, the expectations were mostly Star Wars SAGA-like, while the result was far more different.
The change was perhaps too big.
Saga is overall very similar to 3rd Edition, but much more streamlined.
Races are a lot simpler: You get +2 to one ability, -2 to another, maybe darkvision and one special ability like swim speed, natural armor, or a bonus to a single Defense. Half-Orcs and Half-Elves would be standard for Saga, and nothing like dwarves or gnomes with their 20 traits.
The best thing is that there are only five classes (Soldier, Scout, Scoundrel, Noble, Jedi) and that you can select your class features from Talent Trees.
On every uneven level, you select one Talent from your classes Talent trees, some talents have another talent from the same tree as prereqisite, but that's it.
On ever even level, you gain a bonus feat, just like a fighter in D&D.
When you take levels in prestige classes, you can select from a different set of Talent Trees, which often includes some from your base class, and some new ones.
For example the Jedi Master Prestige class can select talents from the Trees of the Jedi Class or trees unique to the Jedi Master Prestige class.
Saga introduced the Defenses instead of Saves, which I think made it to 4th Edition. The calculation is very easy as 10 + 1/2 character level + Ability modifier + equipment and special class bonuses.
Since it's a star wars game and most combat is done with pistols and rifles, your Reflex Defense is also your Armor Class. Armor increases your Reflex Defense against attacks, as it makes hits glance off without penetrating. It also increases your Fortitude Defense.
Instead of suddenly dropping dead when your out of hit points after being shot in the chest 20 times, there is also the Condition Track. Every time you are hit by an attack that deals damage of a greater number than your Fortitude Defense, your condition worsens by 1 step. For each step you get an increasing penalty to all rolls and defenses until you fall unconscious when down the condition track by 5 steps.
There is a very high chance that you will get 5 hits over your Fortitude Defense before you run out of hit point, at least at higher levels.
From what I understand, Force Powers are quite similar to how Tome of Battle Works, but I never read that one myself.
With Skills I think they went one step too far. It is very similar to Skills in Pathfinder, except that you select your trained skills at first level and they all increase by 1 every level. Just as if every time you level up, you decide to put all your points in the very same skills you picked on 1st level. However, the skills you did not select increase by 1 for every 2 levels. High level characters can use all skills, but someone who has it as a class skill and a trained skill will have much higher numbers than a character who doesn't. Writing from memory hear, so it might not be 100% accurate.
I think the way pathfinder handles it is better.
I think the simplified Races, and the Classes and Talent Trees are the things that would best in a D&D game.
Defenses and the Condition track might be something to look into, but I wouldn't transport them in a 3rd Edition game just as they are now.
But the 5th Ed. team does include one of the main designers of Saga, so apparently they want to use the experience they made with the system.
Compared to 3rd Edition, character creation is much faster and your character sheet is much shoter. But you are not really loosing options for what things you can all do with your character (that is not magic).
I'd also add that magic was skill based. You had a suite of powers that were practically encounter (typical jedi tricks like force lightning, push and so on) based that had better effect the higher DC you could pass. Similar system coul easily be transformed to more vancian-like system here you'd memorize spells, but there could be fewer and still useful thanks to spellcraft mastery.
Classes were also built with extensive multiclassing which meat the abilities often relied on total heroic level, not just class level.
I like the idea of the condition track. I adopted a critical hit system in my game to simulate things like disabled limbs and such because in D&D, there's no difference between 100 hit points and 1 hit point. Penalties that accrue based on damage taken seems a better idea.
But defenses instead of the saving throws for some reason doesn't sit well with me (one of the things I don't like about 4E). To me, it's a philosophy that I don't want to get into. I like the d20 roll versus the effect.
I agree with you about the skills. I don't like 4E's skills (and, I guess, SW Saga, now that I know about it.) There's a tendency to simplify skill systems that seems retrogressive to me, especially since I began gaming with a system that had virtually no skills, and developed them over the years. If anything, I want greater complexity in a skill system, not less.
But I don't like talent trees. It seems a needless complication in character creation, and why should one particular character type get a specific talent tree that others don't get (one of my pet peeves with the d20 Modern system)? It would be better to use the progressive feat system that Mike Mearls used in Iron Heroes - you can add feat slots to existing feats to make them more effective as the character davances in level. Talents could be neatly popped into the feats section and thereby remove a step from chartacter creation.
I don't see how adding another step to character creation makes its faster.
I really enjoyed the Talent Trees in Saga. They were essentially Class Features you selected yourself; like how in 3.5e a Rogue gets Sneak Attack at 2nd level. In Saga, you can choose whether to have Sneak Attack, or other possible options. So, it's entirely possible to have a party of characters who are the same class, and built completely differently with different things they are good at. The system greatly encouraged multiclassing to get the features you wanted your SW character to have.
It didn't so much "add a step" as much as open up player's options. Instead of picking from 30+ classes based on class features, you were picking from 5 classes and their talent trees.
The talent trees were meant to combine freely. You take a level in said class to get the talent, rather than taking universally available feats while staying itn one class.
The classes were more like themes or roles you play in-game. That's why there were only five classes. One was largely about social interaction and leadership (noble), one about weapons and direct combat (soldier), one about underhanded dealings and debuff (scoundrel), one about Outdoor skills and stealth (scout) and one about supernatural (jedi). Similar idea was, I think with D&D Modern. Typical D&D classes could be created by mixing these - A rogue would probably be covered by scoundrel/scout, ranger by soldier/scout, monk by scout/soldier/jedi, bard by noble/scoundrel and so on. D&D Modern hd the dvision even more obvious with the classes based upon abilities, so for Wizard you'd probably go pure intelligence (I think that magic was a matter of PrC), for Ranger with Strength/Dexterity and some minor constitution perhaps. These systems were mean for muslticlass combinations rather having each kit cemented to a class as it appears in the D&D. So you could imagine yourself as a rogue, but determine whether your skills are more dex/trap/stealth oriented or gamble/bluff/feint ointed by taking more levels in class representing the particular area and rounding out the character with other classes. The class it self bore crunch while the fluff was comming from what the whole thing looked like.
The definition of the class was different it was just a general area of expertise and class as understood by D&D would actually be one of the talent trees for the class.
Aside from that I also like the fact that my character can train something and not know much about something else, so please no universal skill increase I'd say.
But I don't like talent trees. It seems a needless complication in character creation, and why should one particular character type get a specific talent tree that others don't get (one of my pet peeves with the d20 Modern system)? It would be better to use the progressive feat system that Mike Mearls used in Iron Heroes - you can add feat slots to existing feats to make them more effective as the character davances in level. Talents could be neatly popped into the feats section and thereby remove a step from chartacter creation.
Talent Trees are your class features. The classes don't have anything else. They are more talent boxes, as you often have 4 talents to chose from which you all can pick first, or only a single one that requires one of the other three.
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.
But if 5E is compatible with 3.5E and thus by extension with Pathfinder, 5E will be able to compete with Pathfinder on a product by product basis, with DMs having no obstacles to using material written for one game with the other. That would be very different from the current situation, where people generally buy material for both games only if they are actually playing both games.
Out of curiosity, is Pathfinder a 12 year-old game that is exceptional for its longevity and ability to continue to compete, or is it a new game that is exceptional for its dramatic rise to popularity?
I'm cool with one or the other, but let's not try and have it both ways, hmm?
Pathfinder as a brand is exceptional for its dramatic rise to popularity.
The mechanics and foundation of the Pathfinder RPG are 12 years old.No doublethink required.
|
Saga is overall very similar to 3rd Edition, but much more streamlined.
Races are a lot simpler: You get +2 to one ability, -2 to another, maybe darkvision and one special ability like swim speed, natural armor, or a bonus to a single Defense. Half-Orcs and Half-Elves would be standard for Saga, and nothing like dwarves or gnomes with their 20 traits.
The best thing is that there are only five classes (Soldier, Scout, Scoundrel, Noble, Jedi) and that you can select your class features from Talent Trees.
On every uneven level, you select one Talent from your classes Talent trees, some talents have another talent from the same tree as prereqisite, but that's it.
On ever even level, you gain a bonus feat, just like a fighter in D&D.When you take levels in prestige classes, you can select from a different set of Talent Trees, which often includes some from your base class, and some new ones.
For example the Jedi Master Prestige class can select talents from the Trees of the Jedi Class or trees unique to the Jedi Master Prestige class.Saga introduced the Defenses instead of Saves, which I think made it to 4th Edition. The calculation is very easy as 10 + 1/2 character level + Ability modifier + equipment and special class bonuses.
Since it's a star wars game and most combat is done with pistols and rifles, your Reflex Defense is also your Armor Class. Armor increases your Reflex Defense against attacks, as it makes hits glance off without penetrating. It also increases your Fortitude Defense.Instead of suddenly dropping dead when your out of hit points after being shot in the chest 20 times, there is also the Condition Track. Every time you are hit by an attack that deals damage of a greater number than your Fortitude Defense, your condition worsens by 1 step. For each step you get an increasing penalty to all rolls and defenses until you fall unconscious when down the condition track by 5 steps.
There is a very high chance that you will get 5 hits over your Fortitude Defense before you run out...
That sounds extremely similar to d20 Modern. Interestingly, character classes work much less well conceptually (in my view) outside a medieval-type setting, probably because the D&D classes are tailored specifically to that setting and don't translate well outside it. Hence the broad classes and talent trees. Whether that's carried back to 5e is moot, of course.
|
Commenting as a store owner I haven't moved a 4E book in months, but with 5E on the way I can't help but think... was 4E WotC's "new coke". I'll stock 5E but the way I see it Paizo has the run of my bookshelves and it will take quite an effort from WotC for that to change.
That's a fairly apt comparison. Although, to be fair, 4E didn't fail quite as badly as New Coke did.
...
That sounds extremely similar to d20 Modern. Interestingly, character classes work much less well conceptually (in my view) outside a medieval-type setting, probably because the D&D classes are tailored specifically to that setting and don't translate well outside it. Hence the broad classes and talent trees. Whether that's carried back to 5e is moot, of course.
I think that SW Saga is indeed a bit polished (reballanced and revised) and SW flavoured d20 Modern. The similarities are not accidental.
When I play modern games, I alsways use Saga without the Force and refluff blasters as guns.
|
|
I've got a steampunk game in my mind, but I've struggled with finding a satisfactory system as d20 Modern feels a bit bloodless and PF just doesn't work (and nor does Iron Kingdoms, before anyone mentions it, not to be sarky but just to save you typing). I might pick up Saga and have a look to see if it can be adapted.
Yeah, in PF Alpha (iirc), they tried to do something similar with the skills and people blew up about it.
When I play modern games, I alsways use Saga without the Force and refluff blasters as guns.I got a chance to look at a friend's Saga corebook. While I was reading it, I was wishing they had done d20 Modern more like Saga.
Although I still have a problem with the skill system...
Well, I really think that d20 Modern was to Saga what 4E was to Essentials. Perhaps if modern was more popular and 4E and Gamma world didn't come around there would be some Modern Revised or soething. How would Gamma World look when compared to Modern? Is it like 4E to 3.5?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Commenting as a store owner I haven't moved a 4E book in months, but with 5E on the way I can't help but think... was 4E WotC's "new coke". I'll stock 5E but the way I see it Paizo has the run of my bookshelves and it will take quite an effort from WotC for that to change.That's a fairly apt comparison. Although, to be fair, 4E didn't fail quite as badly as New Coke did.
Would that make 4.5 (essentials) Diet Coke?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Essentials is the "same Coke" in a white can, and we know how that went.People thought Essentials was an anemic diet version of 4E?
Well I don't know about that. My thoughts were, for the sake of analogy.
3.x = Coke.
4.x = New Coke, not as successful as intended, resulting in a change in direction.
4.x essentials (I gather*) simplified classes so it's New Coke slightly different, like how Diet Coke uses the New Coke formula (Coke Zero uses the Coke Classic formula, IIRC)
Soda aside, I much prefer Coke zero over Diet Coke.
*
Some did... I wonder whether the Essentials creation was also part motived by whatever problem brought the 5E announcement...
Soda aside, I much prefer Coke zero over Diet Coke.
If ever there was a reason to distrust a man, this is it. ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find Diet Coke gross.
I find Diet Coke gross.
Nobody's perfect. ;)
|
|
Seriously, I really think people see WotC as a faceless company (especially now its part of Hasbro) and that tends to skew their perception of what WotC do. I am not saying everyone is like this, but quite a few I imagine are.So Paizo does it, they are "saving" 3rd edition gaming. WotC do it I imagine they would be branded "money grabbing".
I think this is true, but I also think that it is one of the most major problems that WotC have to fight out from under with 5ed. In other words, I think that there are a lot of cool gamers working at WotC, but you have trouble seeing them. Post the appropriate question here and you'll have the CEO of the company giving you a personal answer within the day!
Public perception of your company is key, and with their actions over PDF's, the OGL, and the marketing of 4ed by attacking and sacking the players of 3ed, they have seriously damaged their image. WotC need to regain the 'cool gaming company' image. The DnD brand has become increasingly corporate over the years, maybe not so much with the WotC purchase but certainly since the Hasbro purchase.
That's as important to the success of 5e as anything they do with the mechanics. That, and an excellent organised play scheme.