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

Thoughts on 5th (next) edition D&D...


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

101 to 150 of 272 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Both editions are ludicrously unrealistic.

This. But I would say all editions. The only thing that really varies is the amount of lip service paid to "simulation."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Maccabee wrote:
memorax wrote:
One can also say that Pathfinder plays lie a video game as much as an rpg. If some insist on using the 4E = MMO reference.

I'm sorry, I have to call BS on this. If Pathfinder plays like a video game at all, its because most RPG's and MMOs base a lot of their tropes on established "D&D-ism's". Pathfinder is emblematic of much of what makes D&D special. I understand you have a knee jerk reaction to people here talking smack about 4th, but seriously, that dog will not hunt.

I'm a big fan of people trying to describe how 4e is like WoW-on-paper. It starts with the implicit assumption that if 4e has any similarities with WoW, those similarities must be bad, and then it's all downhill from there. It usually goes something like, "But 4e has cooldowns just like WoW!" followed by, "So what? Is there something wrong with cooldowns?" followed by, "They don't belong in my D&D!" followed by, "Sure they do, here's a list of cooldown mechanics in your favorite edition of D&D," followed by gibbering.

4e is emblematic of much of what makes D&D special. Pathfinder is emblematic of much of what makes D&D special. You, and the specific game you like most, do not get to unilaterally declare that something is or isn't D&D-special (whatever that means).

"WoW-on-paper" is just the current edition war's meaningless go-to attack of choice. We had "Diablo-on-paper" back in 2000, and it was stupid then, too. Here's an idea: if you really played 4e for years and have enough experience with it to identify its strong and weak points, then you ought to have enough wherewithal to describe those weak points instead of hitting it with a WoW-sized bludgeon.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Tales Subscriber

Some interesting (to me anyways) things that I have just done in actual gameplay in the last few months playing 4e:

- had two entire 5 hour sessions that were entirely roleplaying in which my characters manufactured weapons and did musical performances on numerous occasions
- did a dungeon delve in the traditional style of play with interlinking rooms on multiple levels. No linked linear combat encounters.
- had a character die. A brutal unforgiving death that had no story link.
- did a number of fights with NO battle map. Yep did old school draw it on paper roughly style combats. We even worked out a complicated mathematical formula to translate squares to feet. (hint multiply by 5)
- had fun

These are all things that allegedly you cannot do in 4e.


JoãoFalcão wrote:
memorax wrote:
One can also say that Pathfinder plays lie a video game as much as an rpg. If some insist on using the 4E = MMO reference.

I really dont get it. Honestly, I am baffled.

Diablo for instance. Theres this big temple that leads into hell. Out of nowhere. You go down, kill stuff and loot and finally kills the big demon. Why its related to 3.x to you guys?

Outside of adventures? Random loot tables, for one. Random loot is what Diablo is all about: go out, kick @ss, load up on magical junk until your inventory/bag of holding is maxed out, then head back to town to sell 90% of it for stuff you actually need. (In D&D, this means the Big 6.)

JoãoFalcão wrote:
3.x was the dnd experience. It had simulation and immersion and the books and systems were built to provide a game that was concerned if I believed or not in what was presented. Not that the game emulated reality, but that the reality presented made sense on itself.

Seriously, go preach it on dragonsfoot.org and see how much agreement you get.

Me, I can't imagine how anyone playing 3.x very long can say that it makes sense even within its own context. Everything from "mundane" warriors who can swim through lava to the way that spells are arbitrarily assigned to schools to Oaths and Codes and alignment restrictions, to dextrous types needing to pay a special feat tax to aim with something other than their non-existant mighty thews. (Weapon finesse.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
You, and the specific game you like most, do not get to unilaterally declare that something is or isn't D&D-special (whatever that means).

You fought the good fight Scott, but I really don't think you're going to change anyone's mind about 4th edition at this point any more than you could change someone's mind about 2nd edition (because that too was the edition people loved to hate)...

People have indelibly made up their minds...

Shadow Lodge

I know I have!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Outside of adventures? Random loot tables, for one. Random loot is what Diablo is all about: go out, kick @ss, load up on magical junk until your inventory/bag of holding is maxed out, then head back to town to sell 90% of it for stuff you actually need. (In D&D, this means the Big 6.)

That is a holdover from 1st and 2nd edition...

Granted, people tended not to sell magic items with the frequency people did in 3rd/4th edition, but the tables were random none-the-less...

"Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Me, I can't imagine how anyone playing 3.x very long can say that it makes sense even within its own context. Everything from "mundane" warriors who can swim through lava to the way that spells are arbitrarily assigned to schools to Oaths and Codes and alignment restrictions, to dextrous types needing to pay a special feat tax to aim with something other than their non-existant mighty thews. (Weapon finesse.)

Um...

Again, everything you bring up (with the exception of the use of feats) are holdovers from 1st and 2nd edition...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
Again, everything you bring up (with the exception of the use of feats) are holdovers from 1st and 2nd edition...

Doesn't make 3.x [or D&D in general] feel any less like Diablo. Besides, there are plenty of 3isms reminiscent of Diablo [and video rpgs/mmos in general]. Cleaving through a small horde of goblins...with a spear. "Krusk rage for 5 minutes, but then Krusk all tuckered out." Speaking of cooldown powers, anyone want to play a binder or martial adept? Want to play a Diablo amazon? Take that feat that lets you attack any and all foes within X range! [I'm sure there's a PrC for that too.] I could go on and on.

And while I'm at it, I thought of a few more 3.x [or general D&D] nonsensicals. "I can stun you with my fist...but only X times per day." Also, a sickle is a simple weapon; but give it an oriental name, and suddenly it's an exotic weapon! (See: kama.) Also, spiked chains. 'Nuff said on that. Several-ton lizards flying without magic. I'll finish with a couple of my rogue favorites: "I can roll defensively...once per day" and "My mind is slippery because...'slippery' sounds roguish?" Again, I could go on and on.


Digitalelf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
You, and the specific game you like most, do not get to unilaterally declare that something is or isn't D&D-special (whatever that means).

You fought the good fight Scott, but I really don't think you're going to change anyone's mind about 4th edition at this point any more than you could change someone's mind about 2nd edition (because that too was the edition people loved to hate)...

People have indelibly made up their minds...

Then why do people still like to argue and make it a point to come to the 4E sub-forums just to say how much they dislike 4E or that 4E is a Pen-Paper MMO or well.....half a million other reasons that it doesn't suit their fancy? All it does is just make those of us who do enjoy the game :facepalm: at the ridiculousness of such a declaration.

Obakararuir wrote:

You do bring up valid points Diffan, but I really think that you miss the point I was trying to make.

My issue wasn't with the mechanics, 4E is a great system mechanically speaking. The way it was presented, coupled with the mechanics, coupled with my previous experience lead to game play that didn't seem like D&D to me. I felt like I was playing another game, not like I was playing D&D.

I agree with the presentation, even if I thought it was easier to use than previous editions. The mechanics, well you've lost me there as you even say it's greatly balanced and a good system, which I don't think D&D has to lose to be like D&D (IMO). Perhaps some people like the flaws of the older system, that it's some sort of intrinsic quality the game has dispite fully knowing that it's flawed? I just don't understand that sentiment, personally. And of course, your play expeience is going to vary greatly depending on your group and the atmosphere provided. I didn't have a very good inclusion with 2E/AD&D, and it has stained my opinion of the edition ever since.

Obakararuir wrote:

I don't consider Diablo 1 & 2 and NWN to be MMOs, they can't support over a thousand people on one lobby / server.

As far as gained abilities go, I was speaking on 3.0 and 3.5. I played 4E before I even knew of Pathfinder. 3.5 didn't give abilities every level. I was actually turned off at how much more powerful the classes were in PF... then it grew on me.

I figured any game where I can randomly talk to strangers in mass quantity an MMO. By mass quantity, I mean more than 100 or so. Still, by your definition I had been using WoW and Guild Wars (and I did do Star Wars for a teenie-tad). But I know the tropes and I see the comparions for tags of monsters and classes. But these terms were still there in pre-4E editions. DPR (damage per round) I believe started in 3E. Tank is used to describe any heavily armored individual (be it a monster or PC). Skill Monkey pretty much describes the Rogue, Bard, or Monk. So perhaps it's because I've been using this terminology since before 4E came out, it wasn't anything big and generally understood as common Lingo'.

And there were at least 3 classes in the PHB that gave abilities at every single class level. The Barbarian gets 20 levels worth of stuff as does the Monk. The Druid and Rogue aren't far off with only having 2 dead levels, the druids being 17th and 19th level! Then you get into supplemental classes like the Factotum, Dread Necromancer, and Tome of Battle classes and, while not all of them gain class [u]features[/u], they still gain Maneuvers, Spells, and other stuff at each new level. Also, what's non-D&D about gaining stuff at each level anyways? Shouldn't there be some reward (aside from the numerical crunch) of gaining a level in a heavily laden Level-Based Game?

Obakararuir wrote:
Honestly, the first thing to turn me off with 4E was the super-fey/elf. I may be remembering this incorrectly, but they gave the impression that they were superior to elves on a genetic level. Live longer, look cooler, that sort of thing. It was not a greivence with the mechanics that the race's implementation resulted it, it was a grievence with the very existance of the race in a game that I had sentimental attachment to. They could have plugged those stats on an ogre, drow, aasimar, druegar, any of those and I would have been fine. But I had never heard of these creatures and all of the sudden they exist, that they are even on the same level let alone possibly superior to elves, and they have existed for thousands of years just didn't sit well with me. I would be more willing to accept their existance in Shadowrun, Pathfinder, or another game that I was less attached to at the time.

Funny you mention that because I was just re-watching Record of Lodoss War (a D&D-based Anime) which one of the characters was a High-elf, and had the ability to "minor teleport" through the woods. So even in the 80's, there has been at least some nod to elves that are "high" and thus, possibly better educated and more fey-like than their more natural cousins who enjoy the primal aspects of the planet and gods. Frankly, the trope is pretty common and popular even since Tolkien. And then you have WoW with the Blood Elves, and the Night Elves and the High Elves. Really, I'm suprised it took D&D this long to make a severe distinction between their own variants in a way that wasn't just a minor Bonus/Penalty to stats and proficient weapons.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
Then why do people still like to argue and make it a point to come to the 4E sub-forums just to say how much they dislike 4E or that 4E is a Pen-Paper MMO or well.....half a million other reasons that it doesn't suit their fancy? All it does is just make those of us who do enjoy the game :facepalm: at the ridiculousness of such a declaration.

Because we're gamers, and we like to make our opinions known! ;-p

However, I still assert that neither side is going to have any effect upon the other in regards to changing that opinion...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

4E kicked me!


The hound deserved it!


WOTC trying to catch a slice of the massive WoW buck with 4e was not a bad idea. It made perfect business sense.

I think where people tend to have problems was how they did it. You aren't going to get WoW players to play a tabletop rpg by trying to replicate how WoW plays. You may as well just keep playing WoW in that case. What they should have done was focus upon and market to the WoW crowd what a tabletop rpg does BETTER than any computer rpg. Of course that probably isn't just minis based combat...


Rockheimr wrote:

WOTC trying to catch a slice of the massive WoW buck with 4e was not a bad idea. It made perfect business sense.

I think where people tend to have problems was how they did it. You aren't going to get WoW players to play a tabletop rpg by trying to replicate how WoW plays. You may as well just keep playing WoW in that case. What they should have done was focus upon and market to the WoW crowd what a tabletop rpg does BETTER than any computer rpg. Of course that probably isn't just minis based combat...

Except that I don't think they set out to make a WoW PnP game. I believe that the devs sat down and really tried to make a great RPG that didn't fall into the traps and problems of the other editions. So that meant more balance across the board, a more defining aspect for how spells work and apply to the world, and provide great character aspcts at all levels of play. You just don't get those aspects by staying with the 3E system.

Their marketing could have been much better, I'll grant that. And I think the layout for their books gave people the illusion that it was MMO-ish by the color coded "Powers" and general A/E/D/U mechanic as it applies to all classes, which for some reason feel that means that all the classes are the same. And the lack of "tables". But a game is going to play differently depending on how the group runs it. Like it was mentioned earlier, group (A) might run 4E with a TON of combat, little RPing, no environmental impacts or exploration, and has little use for things like Martial Practices or Rituals while group (B) has a TON of RPing, moderate combat, great immersion for their characters into the setting, and a lot of opportuinities to do stuff besides just kill monsters and take their loot.

Like Obakararuir mentioned, it's all in who you play with and how you play. Those same aspects above can be applied to virtually any edition of D&D OR any RPG in general. 4E is just an easier target because the gamist elements are far easier to see.

And to wrap this all into the original topic, how these thoughts play into the design goals of D&D:Next, take the best parts that 4E gave us and couple them with a modular approach to plug-in play mini systems and you might have a winner. The question then is, what should be a core/staple aspect and what should be supplemental? I hope wizards retain at-will spells, I hope paladin's remain alignment free, I hope fighters and other melee/non-magical classes get stuff to do besides doing a basic attack every round, I hope wizards/spellcasters don't out-pace and break the game by 9th level, and I hope that the system remains free of the Base Attack Bonus math and progression (which I've come to really really hate).

If those aspects are "Core", and other things like Minis, Grids, Opportuinity Attacks, and Martial Powers are supplemental then they might just get me to play a little.

Andoran

memorax wrote:
JoãoFalcão wrote:


The difference lies where you make a profit by respecting your costumer or not.

How exactly did Wotc perosnally disrespect anyone. I'm no longer as huge a fan of 4E or Wotc yet never did I feel disrespected by them or their products.

Quite a bit of their marketing leading up to, and shortly after the release of, including a bunch of their YouTube videos, was pretty dismissive of (and occasionally insulting to) old school gamers.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Maccabee wrote:
Honestly, if TSR/Wizards could recover from the money grovelling, D&D hating disaster that was Lorraine Williams, then anything is possible.

TSR didn't recover.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
memorax wrote:
JoãoFalcão wrote:


The difference lies where you make a profit by respecting your costumer or not.

How exactly did Wotc perosnally disrespect anyone. I'm no longer as huge a fan of 4E or Wotc yet never did I feel disrespected by them or their products.

Quite a bit of their marketing leading up to, and shortly after the release of, including a bunch of their YouTube videos, was pretty dismissive of (and occasionally insulting to) old school gamers.

This is one aspect of the issues people have with WOTC that I don't quite understand.

It's like getting offended by "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising", because it implies that bards are weak and useless, or paladins are easily misled.

Or getting upset at "The Big Bang Theory" for implying that some nerds don't know how to relate to others, especially women.

Instead both are done from the standpoint of people that have experience with the trope, and use it to make a joke, or poke fun at aspects that people have bemoaned in the past. Oh, but if someone happens to disagree with what the joke is about, it must have been a personal attack by the company itself, dismissing the people as not worth their time.

Or it could have just been gamer nerds, making gamer jokes, about gamer issues that have been brought up often in the past. In an attempt to connect with their audience. Did they misjudge people's reactions, it seems that way. Did they do it to upset people or tell them they are horrible gamers, playing horrible games? I seriously doubt it.

Andoran

houstonderek wrote:


Quite a bit of their marketing leading up to, and shortly after the release of, including a bunch of their YouTube videos, was pretty dismissive of (and occasionally insulting to) old school gamers.

Their marketing could have been better yet your still have not convinced me that while very annoying is proof postive that they intended to disrespect anyone. Since some people are bothered by the ads some are not. It's not universal across the board. One can say "well they bother me" except your not the representive of the entire fanbase. As for the ads it's years after the fact at this point get over it. Seriously. If your still bothered by and ad that you saw years ago you need to find something that is truly bothersome to worry about. Like world hunger or the fight against cancer.

Those ads as far as I'm concerned are not any worse than people coming into a 5E thread and saying that 4E sucks. Or bashing 5E when they have no desire to play let alone buy 5E. The irony is either lost or ingnored by many posters.

Andoran

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
Did they do it to upset people or tell them they are horrible gamers, playing horrible games? I seriously doubt it.

I am almost tempted to run down all of those old vids of the 4e dev front people going on and on about how they can't believe anyone thought "x was fun" and how people that liked "y were doing it wrong".

But, I won't bother. It happened. If you didn't see it, it's probably because you agreed with what they were saying.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that 4E is ending speaks loudly to its merits or lack thereof. If the general gaming community had supported it more highly, and its parent corporation were making money off of it hand over fist, do you think 5E would be coming out now? Who knows what the final 5E will look like; but as far as I am concerned it will have a long way to go to beat out Pathfinder.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


Quite a bit of their marketing leading up to, and shortly after the release of, including a bunch of their YouTube videos, was pretty dismissive of (and occasionally insulting to) old school gamers.

Their marketing could have been better yet your still have not convinced me that while very annoying is proof postive that they intended to disrespect anyone. Since some people are bothered by the ads some are not. It's not universal across the board. One can say "well they bother me" except your not the representive of the entire fanbase. As for the ads it's years after the fact at this point get over it. Seriously. If your still bothered by and ad that you saw years ago you need to find something that is truly bothersome to worry about. Like world hunger or the fight against cancer.

Those ads as far as I'm concerned are not any worse than people coming into a 5E thread and saying that 4E sucks. Or bashing 5E when they have no desire to play let alone buy 5E. The irony is either lost or ingnored by many posters.

No, the irony is a bunch of 4e fans crying about WotC making the edition change, abandoning 4e, and sounding exactly like 3x fans did four years ago.

Oh, and go on WotC's boards and try to have a civil Pathfinder discussion. Or, you know, find me the Pathfinder subforum where I can have any discussion about the game. The 4e subforum here is a small island in a sea of people who are enjoying a ton of schadenfreude right now, after having four years of smug 4e fans talking trash about Pathfinder and Paizo. On the Paizo boards.

See, that 4e fans don't understand THAT is irony.

Andoran

TOZ wrote:
*cracks knuckles* Well, me and Gorb are here, just need one more to make a 'few'.

:D


houstonderek wrote:
Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
Did they do it to upset people or tell them they are horrible gamers, playing horrible games? I seriously doubt it.

I am almost tempted to run down all of those old vids of the 4e dev front people going on and on about how they can't believe anyone thought "x was fun" and how people that liked "y were doing it wrong".

But, I won't bother. It happened. If you didn't see it, it's probably because you agreed with what they were saying.

Please do, becuase I seem to have either forgotten them saying things like "Your doing it wrong" and "how could people think 3E/v3.5 was Fun??!" or it's my pure fanboi illusioned mind blocking it. The fact that your already distancing yourself from the burden of proof by saying you won't bother just diminishes an already questionable quote of "truth".

houstonderek wrote:

No, the irony is a bunch of 4e fans crying about WotC making the edition change, abandoning 4e, and sounding exactly like 3x fans did four years ago.

Oh, and go on WotC's boards and try to have a civil Pathfinder discussion. Or, you know, find me the Pathfinder subforum where I can have any discussion about the game. The 4e subforum here is a small island in a sea of people who are enjoying a ton of schadenfreude right now, after having four years of smug 4e fans talking trash about Pathfinder and Paizo. On the Paizo boards.

See, that 4e fans don't understand THAT is irony.

Yea, because I'm SOO crying in my cereal about D&D:Next.....wait, I'm not. I'm interested to see what they come up with since their whole spiel is to keep the community together YET that also includes people who enjoy 4E.

Additionally, we're not ON the WotC forums so why bother bringing them up? I don't care what goes on on their forums and I'm pretty sure no one else he does either.

I also fail to see what good comes out of going to a sub-forum with the intention to start crap. How does that make this place better?

Silver Crusade

Diffan wrote:
... Obtuse Analogies . . .

Actually what was stolen from WoW was the emphasized roles of all the classes in a Dungeon environment. If you have played WoW you would have recognized it immediately. I'm guessing that since you say it's a obtuse analogy, you clearly don't get the memo.

IF you have played WoW, your acting like you're insane. Going around and telling people that 4e isn't like how WoW did things when you are a WoW player either means that you missed the boat or your ignoring the evidence and saying you do and expecting a different result.

I've played WoW, my cousin played WoW, a lot of people played WoW and read the 4e PHB. We say that the classes' roles are emphasized in a purely mechanical way like WoW did with their classes.

Granted, the only thing that is clearly like WoW is how they grouped each class into a Dungeon like role. It's so obvious a baby couldn't miss it. And you say it's obtuse when it's clear. Very clear.

Diffan, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you haven't played World of Warcraft. Clearly, you are clueless about this MMORPG and how it related to D&D 4e. By saying that it's an obtuse analogy, this means you have zero World of Warcraft experience to me. Because once you have played it, you will immediately get what WotC was trying to go with 4e.

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't talk trash about 4e. But, this is a message board mostly dedicated to a company and a game a lot of 4e fans talk trash about. Heck, a ton of people joined here during the edition change because they were bashed other places (most notably rpgnet, enworld and WotC forums) for not getting on board with 4e.

So, honestly, a lot of people are, being petty human being types, going to take it out here. I'm sure a vast majority of the posters here wouldn't mind the 4e forum going away all together. But part of Paizo's business is selling all kinds of non-Paizo stuff, and, unlike a lot of companies (in any industry), they actually listen to and try to accommodate all of their customers.

Continually telling the 4e haters to stfu or whatever it is y'all think you're trying to accomplish is pointless. Ignore them or talk around them. Engaging them doesn't do anything but make them go harder in the paint.

And, dude, this is a geek forum on the internet. Raging is par for the course. Hell, I've seen flame wars on some of the cooking sites I go to make this look civil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:

I don't talk trash about 4e. But, this is a message board mostly dedicated to a company and a game a lot of 4e fans talk trash about. Heck, a ton of people joined here during the edition change because they were bashed other places (most notably rpgnet, enworld and WotC forums) for not getting on board with 4e.

So, honestly, a lot of people are, being petty human being types, going to take it out here. I'm sure a vast majority of the posters here wouldn't mind the 4e forum going away all together. But part of Paizo's business is selling all kinds of non-Paizo stuff, and, unlike a lot of companies (in any industry), they actually listen to and try to accommodate all of their customers.

Continually telling the 4e haters to stfu or whatever it is y'all think you're trying to accomplish is pointless. Ignore them or talk around them. Engaging them doesn't do anything but make them go harder in the paint.

And, dude, this is a geek forum on the internet. Raging is par for the course. Hell, I've seen flame wars on some of the cooking sites I go to make this look civil.

You're probably the kind of guy who likes cake better than pie though, right HD? I don't even want to know your opinion on anchovies...

Andoran

Hitdice wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I don't talk trash about 4e. But, this is a message board mostly dedicated to a company and a game a lot of 4e fans talk trash about. Heck, a ton of people joined here during the edition change because they were bashed other places (most notably rpgnet, enworld and WotC forums) for not getting on board with 4e.

So, honestly, a lot of people are, being petty human being types, going to take it out here. I'm sure a vast majority of the posters here wouldn't mind the 4e forum going away all together. But part of Paizo's business is selling all kinds of non-Paizo stuff, and, unlike a lot of companies (in any industry), they actually listen to and try to accommodate all of their customers.

Continually telling the 4e haters to stfu or whatever it is y'all think you're trying to accomplish is pointless. Ignore them or talk around them. Engaging them doesn't do anything but make them go harder in the paint.

And, dude, this is a geek forum on the internet. Raging is par for the course. Hell, I've seen flame wars on some of the cooking sites I go to make this look civil.

You're probably the kind of guy who likes cake better than pie though, right HD? I don't even want to know your opinion on anchovies...

Red curry or yellow? Answer carefully or feel my wrath.


Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
The fact that 4E is ending speaks loudly to its merits or lack thereof. If the general gaming community had supported it more highly, and its parent corporation were making money off of it hand over fist, do you think 5E would be coming out now? Who knows what the final 5E will look like; but as far as I am concerned it will have a long way to go to beat out Pathfinder.

Ditto; but replace 'Pathfinder' with '4e.'

I'm guessing you haven't been in the hobby long, because long-time gamers know that new editions are a fact of the industry. TTRPGs publish new editions every few years, regardless of the previous edition's quality. The more popular the game, the more often it gets a new edition; and as time goes on, new editions come faster and faster.

4e might have held out for another year or two if WotC had just done this or that differently, but 5e was inevitable. And rest assured that there will be a PF 2e.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
The fact that 4E is ending speaks loudly to its merits or lack thereof. If the general gaming community had supported it more highly, and its parent corporation were making money off of it hand over fist, do you think 5E would be coming out now? Who knows what the final 5E will look like; but as far as I am concerned it will have a long way to go to beat out Pathfinder.

Ditto; but replace 'Pathfinder' with '4e.'

I'm guessing you haven't been in the hobby long, because long-time gamers know that new editions are a fact of the industry. TTRPGs publish new editions every few years, regardless of the previous edition's quality. The more popular the game, the more often it gets a new edition; and as time goes on, new editions come faster and faster.

4e might have held out for another year or two if WotC had just done this or that differently, but 5e was inevitable. And rest assured that there will be a PF 2e.

I'm not saying you're wrong Tequila, but there's no reason a new edition has to revamp the game mechanics; the change from 1e to 2e was much like the change from Traveller to Megatraveller in that both consolidated supplemental material into the core rule books more than they changed the game mechanics. I'm perfectly happy playing D20, but 2e to 3e was a much bigger change than 1e to 2e IMO.

Shadow Lodge

houstonderek wrote:
TOZ wrote:
*cracks knuckles* Well, me and Gorb are here, just need one more to make a 'few'.
:D

"Put me in coach, I'm nice!"

Osirion

houstonderek wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I don't talk trash about 4e. But, this is a message board mostly dedicated to a company and a game a lot of 4e fans talk trash about. Heck, a ton of people joined here during the edition change because they were bashed other places (most notably rpgnet, enworld and WotC forums) for not getting on board with 4e.

So, honestly, a lot of people are, being petty human being types, going to take it out here. I'm sure a vast majority of the posters here wouldn't mind the 4e forum going away all together. But part of Paizo's business is selling all kinds of non-Paizo stuff, and, unlike a lot of companies (in any industry), they actually listen to and try to accommodate all of their customers.

Continually telling the 4e haters to stfu or whatever it is y'all think you're trying to accomplish is pointless. Ignore them or talk around them. Engaging them doesn't do anything but make them go harder in the paint.

And, dude, this is a geek forum on the internet. Raging is par for the course. Hell, I've seen flame wars on some of the cooking sites I go to make this look civil.

You're probably the kind of guy who likes cake better than pie though, right HD? I don't even want to know your opinion on anchovies...
Red curry or yellow? Answer carefully or feel my wrath.

CHILI DOES NOT HAVE TOMATOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ad infinitum...

Andoran

Jal Dorak wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I don't talk trash about 4e. But, this is a message board mostly dedicated to a company and a game a lot of 4e fans talk trash about. Heck, a ton of people joined here during the edition change because they were bashed other places (most notably rpgnet, enworld and WotC forums) for not getting on board with 4e.

So, honestly, a lot of people are, being petty human being types, going to take it out here. I'm sure a vast majority of the posters here wouldn't mind the 4e forum going away all together. But part of Paizo's business is selling all kinds of non-Paizo stuff, and, unlike a lot of companies (in any industry), they actually listen to and try to accommodate all of their customers.

Continually telling the 4e haters to stfu or whatever it is y'all think you're trying to accomplish is pointless. Ignore them or talk around them. Engaging them doesn't do anything but make them go harder in the paint.

And, dude, this is a geek forum on the internet. Raging is par for the course. Hell, I've seen flame wars on some of the cooking sites I go to make this look civil.

You're probably the kind of guy who likes cake better than pie though, right HD? I don't even want to know your opinion on anchovies...
Red curry or yellow? Answer carefully or feel my wrath.
CHILI DOES NOT HAVE TOMATOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ad infinitum...

OR BEANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Cards, Maps Subscriber

Well I suppose i can only really speak for myself.

I have asked friends of mine who play lots of 4E D&D as well as Pathfinder how they feel about 5th edition coming out and the answer i have most often run across is " cautiously optimistic".

I began playing D&D with the "red box" in the late 80's. I played 1st Ed, 2nd ed, 3e and 3.5E.

I tried 4E for 6 months after it came out, and me and my gaming group didn't find it to be our cup of tea, so we went back to 3.5. Then we discovered Rise of the Rune Lords, then Pathfinder Beta, then The Pathfinder Role playing game. We haven't looked back.

I have stuck with Pathfinder. Interestingly, for myself, this will be the first time I am "outside" of an edition transition of D&D. I suppose one could say, regarding the transition between 4.0 D&D and 5.0 D&D, that "i don't have a dog in that fight".

I do have a passing interest in what WOTC will put out for 5.0 D&D, and i will probably pick up a copy of the rule books off of the shelf at a book store, to see what is there, but unless, i am very impressed and like what i see, I will put that book back on the book shelf move down the shelf, and pick up the Pathfinder books on the shelf.

just my two cents.

Osirion

While I appreciate what Wizards in trying to do, and the fact they are handling the transition much better than the previous edition change(s), I have one nagging thought about 5e:

What can 5e accomplish that I can't do with houserules for 3.5, a system with which I have a high degree of mastery and experience, and have literally hundreds of pages of notes for homebrew "rules modules" in addition to an entire bookshelf full of published material?

I guess in a way I answered my own question, in that 5e MAY provide a condensed, easy to navigate system that emulates this system mastery for all players. If they can pull this off, I might be tempted.

Andoran

And, damn, Jal, I've missed you man! Welcome back!

Andoran

Darkwing Duck wrote:

It is standard operating procedure for game designers to start creating new rules (or *cough* 'rules clarifications') that wreck the existing game system as time goes on, so that they can publish a new game edition which magically fixes all the problems.

That being the case, I suspect Pathfinder 1.5 to be announced within the next year (or maybe 18 months).

And if they do it the same way they did 1.0, with a long and extensive playtest of ideas to "fix" the existing model, with a focus on backward compatibility, I would more than welcome it.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Eh, not me. 3.Tri is in development, and I doubt PF2 will be more suited to me.

Andoran

Jal Dorak wrote:

While I appreciate what Wizards in trying to do, and the fact they are handling the transition much better than the previous edition change(s), I have one nagging thought about 5e:

What can 5e accomplish that I can't do with houserules for 3.5, a system with which I have a high degree of mastery and experience, and have literally hundreds of pages of notes for homebrew "rules modules" in addition to an entire bookshelf full of published material?

I guess in a way I answered my own question, in that 5e MAY provide a condensed, easy to navigate system that emulates this system mastery for all players. If they can pull this off, I might be tempted.

I think this is why a lot of people went to Pathfinder. It isn't perfect, but it doesn't reinvent the wheel. If you have the institutional knowledge of how the system works in your gaming group, it takes a lot of inertia to start something new that isn't compatible.

Paizo's core business isn't about making you use their rules, specifically. It is about making you buy their products to get ideas for your game, or even better their AP's and Modules so you can burn the single use, high profit margin products.

4E wasn't backwards compatible. Either 5e will be compatible with 4e, and I won't be interested, or it will be compatible with older versions, and 4e players will be left in the lurch to play a non-supported system.

Andoran

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Eh, not me. 3.Tri is in development, and I doubt PF2 will be more suited to me.

I welcome any and all options that base off the core model and are generally compatible.

More ideas in the marketplace of ideas = better options for me and my home game.

Win-Win.


GM Elton wrote:
Diffan wrote:
... Obtuse Analogies . . .

Actually what was stolen from WoW was the emphasized roles of all the classes in a Dungeon environment. If you have played WoW you would have recognized it immediately. I'm guessing that since you say it's a obtuse analogy, you clearly don't get the memo.

IF you have played WoW, your acting like you're insane. Going around and telling people that 4e isn't like how WoW did things when you are a WoW player either means that you missed the boat or your ignoring the evidence and saying you do and expecting a different result.

Actually, what I said is that 4E doesn't play like WoW (for me at least) and how only a few things were taken from MMOs such as monster roles (which, I assumed also meant PC roles). But really, Roles of PCs have always been pretty prevalent in TTRPGs even if they're not specifically spelld out for you.

GM Elton wrote:


I've played WoW, my cousin played WoW, a lot of people played WoW and read the 4e PHB. We say that the classes' roles are emphasized in a purely mechanical way like WoW did with their classes.

Granted, the only thing that is clearly like WoW is how they grouped each class into a Dungeon like role. It's so obvious a baby couldn't miss it. And you say it's obtuse when it's clear. Very clear.

Again, I understand similarities, but only because they're specifically spelled out for you about what a class can/should do. A 3E paladin is specifically designed by class features and mechanics to function like a front-line fighter with secondary healing/leading. Is it noted in the class description (DEFENDER)? No. Is that what it's primary function is? Yes. WoW and 4E just better codified that aspect so that 1). a player can get a better understanding of how a class is supposed to function, thus cutting down on System Mastery and 2). so classes don't suck at their intended goal (ie. See 3E Rogue, Monk, and Bard for further illustrations).

GM Elton wrote:


Diffan, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you haven't played World of Warcraft. Clearly, you are clueless about this MMORPG and how it related to D&D 4e. By saying that it's an obtuse analogy, this means you have zero World of Warcraft experience to me. Because once you have played it, you will immediately get what WotC was trying to go with 4e.

Actually, I played for about a year (just prior to Wrath of the Lichking's debut) and got bored with it. It was the elitist aspect of the players that turned me off, not the mechanics of the game. But that's besides the point. I see similarities from one to the other, but the play style, the actual mechanics of how they interact with NPCs, other PCs, and combat (plus the environment and etc....) just don't mesh well with a WoW/MMO analogy for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to agree with Diffan. The fact that there are different roles isn't a creation of WOW, the roles existed in the game LONG before WOW ever did. They just weren't defined up front. You had to know what they were through experience.

Early on in my gaming history the clarion call of "We need a healer" was sung. It was a role that needed to be filled. In the early 90's in our groups, "Clank, Clank, I'm a tank" was how the heavy armor wearer identified themselves. The confusion seems to be that these roles were invented by WoW, or MMO's in general, but really they were established in TT and picked by MMO's.

Ok, so 4E put a name to it, and hard-coded it into the system. Does labeling the roles change anything? Not really, it is a heads-up to what the class does best. Defender, they take the hits and encourage the enemy to focus on them. Striker, they have a decent damage output. Controller, they remove some of the threat of large groups, or diminsh the enemy's effects. Leader, they have the ability to help the others fight longer or more effectively. It just eases CharGen by saying, "If you wanted to fill a particular niche, here are the ones that do that."

In fact, I don't think I've seen ANY mechanic in the game based off of those titles (Defender, Striker, Leader or Controller). It is just so you can group the classes by what they do, much like back in 2E when they were split by Warrior (Ftr, Pal, Rgr), Priest (Clr, Dru), Rogue (Thf, Brd), and Wizard (Mag, Spc).

Andoran

If anyone's interested, go look at the class descriptions in 3x. The class entries in the PHB define the class roles. I don't have a 3x phb handy, but I'm sure the party role designations were pretty close to stuff like controller and tank, or something similar.

Silver Crusade

When you grouped them according to Warrior, Priest, Rogue, and Wizard; it wasn't so off putting and straitjacketing.

"Warrior" allowed a lot of lee-way than "Defender" did. Warrior was a catchall term that can include just about anyone practicing a form of weapon or non-weapon martial arts that specialized in killing another human being. Depending the form of martial art your warrior learned, he could be a striker, leader, or defender.

The Arte of Defence is a perfectly viable martial art that was used on the Battlefield; especially during the age of the Arquebus. In fact, d'Artagnan described himself as a soldier in The Man in the Iron Mask. Yet, the Arte of Defence is a Striker attack style. It depends on precise strikes because the weapon it was designed for was designed to do just that. If you've seen Manuals from the era, you'd agree with me.

Medieval Swordsmanship also had precise strikes, but it depended on blundering swing blows with an arming sword (actually, that's an exaggeration, if you've seen the AEMMA commercials and how they replicated the ancient Art of Mars you'd know there's more to it than that!). Plus there are thousands of styles that have been lost from the Bronze Age. We don't know how Achilles (assuming the man behind the myth is real) actually fought.

The reason why I say it's like World of Warcraft is because they mechanically put into this process. 4e is a beer and pretzels game to put it mildly. It's designed to be that way. It's missing a lot of the charm that was in previous editions.


I will be tremendously happy when the open playtesting begins, and all of this negative speculation can stop. It's devolved into a rehash of things we all got tired of rehashing long before they announced 5E.

I don't play Tunnels & Trolls, and I don't care that it's mechanics remotely compare to World of Darkness because it's a dice pool game.

I don't like curry because I have the gene that makes it taste like soap to me. But I'm not going to trash Indian food because of it.

Who cares what 4E compares to? It's being replaced with a new edition, call it DND Next or 5E or Doodlebugs and Dimwits, or whatever.

Replaced. There isn't a reason to compare it to anything. It has joined OE, BECMI, 1E, 2E, 3E, FASERIP, ALTERNITY, TSR's CONAN, the INDIANA JONES RPG and a host of others in the land of this-isn't-what-we-print-anymore.

Gain a little perspective and stop fighting a war that ended back in January.


GM Elton wrote:

When you grouped them according to Warrior, Priest, Rogue, and Wizard; it wasn't so off putting and straitjacketing.

"Warrior" allowed a lot of lee-way than "Defender" did. Warrior was a catchall term that can include just about anyone practicing a form of weapon or non-weapon martial arts that specialized in killing another human being. Depending the form of martial art your warrior learned, he could be a striker, leader, or defender.

The reason why I say it's like World of Warcraft is because they mechanically put into this process. 4e is a beer and pretzels game to put it mildly. It's designed to be that way. It's missing a lot of the charm that was in previous editions.

"Defender" is just one role multiple classes take, and those classes ALL have secondary roles which can easily be played up to do BOTH. Take the Fighter class for example, it has 1 class feature that makes him really good at keeping his fellows alive. He also has abilities that deal lots of damage, allow him to swap out "powesrs" for things like Power Strike (more damage) and even some powers that lend to be leader-ish. All under one class. He does his best when defending, it's true, but that doesn't mean that's ALL he can do. And of course theres Multiclassing, Hybridizing, Paragon Multiclassing to fill even more niché styles. Another example is the Samurai (a theme in 4E). What....exactly is a Samurai mechanics wise? Some might say an archer style while others might focus upon a dual-wield (Katana/Wakizashi) or even a single, one-handed weapon that is "drawn when attacks". So what "class" does it fall under? Well, it could be a Ranger, a Rogue, a Fighter, a Warlord, a Paladin, a Slayer, or even a Knight depending on what your looking for. What it didn't need was ANOTHER class the puts the specifics down into mechanics when there are other clases that do that style AND better.

As for Immersion, that's pretty much up to the DM and group, not the mechanics. So there aren't hard rules for Crafting items or Dancing. Doesn't mean its not there OR that you can't do it, it just takes a tiny bit of DM cooperation to make work, something that I think would be better than hard coded rules.


Hitdice wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
The fact that 4E is ending speaks loudly to its merits or lack thereof. If the general gaming community had supported it more highly, and its parent corporation were making money off of it hand over fist, do you think 5E would be coming out now? Who knows what the final 5E will look like; but as far as I am concerned it will have a long way to go to beat out Pathfinder.

Ditto; but replace 'Pathfinder' with '4e.'

I'm guessing you haven't been in the hobby long, because long-time gamers know that new editions are a fact of the industry. TTRPGs publish new editions every few years, regardless of the previous edition's quality. The more popular the game, the more often it gets a new edition; and as time goes on, new editions come faster and faster.

4e might have held out for another year or two if WotC had just done this or that differently, but 5e was inevitable. And rest assured that there will be a PF 2e.

I'm not saying you're wrong Tequila, but there's no reason a new edition has to revamp the game mechanics; the change from 1e to 2e was much like the change from Traveller to Megatraveller in that both consolidated supplemental material into the core rule books more than they changed the game mechanics. I'm perfectly happy playing D20, but 2e to 3e was a much bigger change than 1e to 2e IMO.

True, a game could use the the same mechanics from 1st to infinite editions. TSR was certainly reluctant to make the kind of sweeping changes that WotC makes. And I think that fact is subtly telling.

WotC needs to give fans a reason to buy the new edition so they frame the change as 'improvement.' And certainly every edition has made some objectively quantifiable improvements. (Or as close to objectively quantifiable as we can get, in the context of a hobby about making pretend.) But in large part, I don't think each new edition is a ladder of improvement so much as a a free-swinging pendulum that swings from one game style to another to another to another, and so on.

In other words, the end result of the edition cycle will never be one perfect edition. It'll be a plethora of editions that cover a wide range of game styles, so that we can each pick the one just right for us. Even if we don't realize where gaming history is headed. :)

(Although personally this modularity thing sounds like a low point in the pendulum's swing. I'd rather have a Simple Edition of D&D that combines the system unity of 4e and the simplicity of TSR, without all the quirkiness. An edition where a brand new player can make a PC in ten minutes, and learn the rules in one session of play. But that edition would last two years, tops.)

GM Elton wrote:
"Warrior" allowed a lot of lee-way than "Defender" did. Warrior was a catchall term that can include just about anyone practicing a form of weapon or non-weapon martial arts that specialized in killing another human being. Depending the form of martial art your warrior learned, he could be a striker, leader, or defender.

I've defined several warrior traditions in my home brew campaign, each of which has a different focus. Warlords lead, fighters protect, rangers strike, and rogues scout and assassinate. I don't use the class titles in-game, but they all fall under the umbrella term 'warrior,' despite filling different roles. (Well rogues often get called bad words, but you get the idea.)

GM Elton wrote:
The reason why I say it's like World of Warcraft is because they mechanically put into this process. 4e is a beer and pretzels game to put it mildly. It's designed to be that way. It's missing a lot of the charm that was in previous editions.

You say "charm," I say "obfuscation."


Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
In fact, I don't think I've seen ANY mechanic in the game based off of those titles (Defender, Striker, Leader or Controller). It is just so you can group the classes by what they do, much like back in 2E when they were split by Warrior (Ftr, Pal, Rgr), Priest (Clr, Dru), Rogue (Thf, Brd), and Wizard (Mag, Spc).

I think there were a few Themes, Feats, and possibly Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies that used those terms for prerequisites. But I'd rather a requirement be designed off of those simple ideas which serve multiple character classes than the plethora of prerequisites 3.x/PF saw for PrCs, espically when they were often put in there for flavor rules only or to make the decision less favorable for good returns (I'm looking at you Frenzied Berserker and your moronic requirement of the Destructive Rage feat).

But aside from that, I pretty much agree with everything you said. We saw the common tropes in previous editions as someone had to play the cleric for healing and someone had to play a meat-shield in order to stop the bad-guy from sqashing the Rogue or Wizard. Problem was, the classes FOR those purposes weren't that great at performing such purposes. LIke the fighter, which was often just used for the 1-4 level 'dip' of bonus feats or the Barbarian 1-2 level dip for Rage, Uncanny Dodge, and fast-movement. Or, heaven help you, the Spirit-Lion alternative class feture from Complete Champion for free pouncing. Couple that with Power Attack, Leap Attack, and the Whirling Frenzy Alternate Class Feature and *BAM* "Barbar ends encounter with BBEG in 1-charging attack. But this is a whole different topic.

Anyways, Lets hope they keep D&D:N basic, at least enough for a group to play tropes they like but can work well togeter and not have to carry one class because of mechanical issues.


GM Elton wrote:
By saying that it's an obtuse analogy, this means you have zero World of Warcraft experience to me. Because once you have played it, you will immediately get what WotC was trying to go with 4e.

Speaking as someone with quite a lot of experience with WoW, I'm having a hard time figuring out what your point is. Are you of the opinion that explicitly-stated roles actually makes D&D play like WoW? Or are you just of the opinion that D&D takes inspiration from other games? Because the former is ridiculous, and the latter shouldn't surprise anyone.


The biggest "WoW-style" mechanic I am able to see in the 4E books is marking an opponent. That one seems a lot like an MMO taunt mechanic to me. The rest of it, not so much.


Even the marking mechanic isn't like a MMO taunt. It doesn't force an attack, it doesn't make them ignore the rest of the group. All it does is provide a minor penalty to their attack if they don't attack the one that marked them (equal to cover), and allow the defender the opportunity to punish them with an added effect.

There are so many times an enemy will just ignore the mark if it isn't a big enough threat, or if they are more determined to remove the non-defender.

It's roughly the mechanical equivalent of saying "Pick on someone your own size, or you'll have me to deal with." while standing between the enemy and his target.

101 to 150 of 272 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / Thoughts on 5th (next) edition D&D... 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.