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!

D&D next ... fate or doom ?


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

101 to 150 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Ratpick wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
JoãoFalcão wrote:


Truth be told, when the lead designer leaves the project midrun, somethings actually wrong. Monte is already famous for his work on 3E, being on 5E would glorify him if 5E was a sucess and would put the guy among names like Gygax and Arneson. Some people put him there already.

If he is leaving, well, all leads us to believe that 5E will not be a sucess.

It is a fact that many players were interested on 5E solely because of his presence and now those people are no longer following it.

If a gaming system had to die every time Monte Cook threw a hissy fit, this hobby would be long dead. :p

I don't think hissy fit is fitting in this context. Monte has gone on record to say that he has no problems with the people he's worked with on D&D Next and even elaborated by saying that he has no problem with anyone on the D&D Next team. So, most likely his reasons for leaving had nothing to do with the system and game itself but on company policy.

In one of such statement, Monte named everyone he didn't have a problem with, which was everyone save Mearl, suggesting some bad blood between them.

Qadira

Void Munchkin wrote:
In one of such statement, Monte named everyone he didn't have a problem with, which was everyone save Mearl, suggesting some bad blood between them.

In his first blog he only mentioned his fellow design team members by name. In the second one he elaborated that his omission of Mearls (who isn't on design, by the way) wasn't to suggest that his resignation had anything to do with him, because many speculated as much based on his first post. He then went on to list all the names of the people, including Mearls, who he'd worked with on D&D Next.

Here's the link to the post in question, just to dispel any speculation of that sort: http://montecook.livejournal.com/251693.html


Ratpick wrote:
Void Munchkin wrote:

In one of such statement, Monte named everyone he didn't have a problem with, which was everyone save Mearl, suggesting some bad blood between them.

In his first blog he only mentioned his fellow design team members by name. In the second one he elaborated that his omission of Mearls (who isn't on design, by the way) wasn't to suggest that his resignation had anything to do with him, because many speculated as much based on his first post. He then went on to list all the names of the people, including Mearls, who he'd worked with on D&D Next.

Here's the link to the post in question, just to dispel any speculation of that sort: http://montecook.livejournal.com/251693.html

OK, thanks.

(there are some people who would call the second one saving faces).


If you're so worried about why Cook left WotC, why don't you go onto his site and ask him?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Merciful Yog-Sothoth, why do people feel such a need to create drama?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Merciful Yog-Sothoth, why do people feel such a need to create drama?

It unfortunately pervades our culture. Just look at the popularity of the so called "reality television" (which I cannot stand)! These "shows" tend to be filled with drama and tension...


Digitalelf wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Merciful Yog-Sothoth, why do people feel such a need to create drama?
It unfortunately pervades our culture. Just look at the popularity of the so called "reality television" (which I cannot stand)! These "shows" tend to be filled with drama and tension...

Well, those are less artificial than regular show.


Kthulhu wrote:
Merciful Yog-Sothoth, why do people feel such a need to create drama?

because it's so much fun being able to say: "told ya so"

Those of us who gave 4e the pass can already do so,
if 5e falls as short of expectations as 4e we can do it again.

if 5e turns out to be the best D&D version evar, we still win for having a better D&D then ever before.


well...

Vancian vs something else.

Pre D20 vs D20+

Very few options Vs lots of options Vs "Too Many Options".

...

Good luck with "best version ever".


DropBearHunter wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Merciful Yog-Sothoth, why do people feel such a need to create drama?

because it's so much fun being able to say: "told ya so"

Those of us who gave 4e the pass can already do so,
if 5e falls as short of expectations as 4e we can do it again.

I guess I am not sure what you would be able to say "I told you so" about. In the end, we got 4th Edition, which is a vast improvement on D&D. While running a 3.5 campaign not long after its release, my group one night collectively threw our hands up in the air at how broken the rules were. We left D&D behind that night, we presumed for good, and moved back to Savage Worlds. After 4E had released, I grudgingly took a look at it and realized they fixed so much with it, I went happily back to D&D. I had not been as excited for the game since 1st Edition.

Do I think that WotC REALLY jumped the gun making a new edition so soon? Absolutely. This is becoming a bad habit with them. 3.0 made it 5 years. 3.5 made it only 3 years. Looks like 4E will make it about 5. They really need to slow down and focus on a single version. I don't plan to make the move to version 5, unless I am surprised more than I am by the playtest.

That said...I also need to point out that I have nothing against Pathfinder. It is very well written, great artwork, and the products are put together in a way that makes sense. I also believe that Paizo understands their customers far better. I am just not a 3.5 guy.


DropBearHunter wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Merciful Yog-Sothoth, why do people feel such a need to create drama?

because it's so much fun being able to say: "told ya so"

Those of us who gave 4e the pass can already do so,
if 5e falls as short of expectations as 4e we can do it again.

if 5e turns out to be the best D&D version evar, we still win for having a better D&D then ever before.

I have honesly no idea what this means. Did anyone of us actually think 4E would last 10, 15, 20, 30 years of consistant revision and continual products? Do people really think Pathfinder (in it's current state) is going to last that long? No, I hope most people here aren't that naive enough to believe that.

4E lasted long enough to put out a good product for WotC to then try something new, or at least new enough to warrent yet another change. Really, looking at the history it's not that big of a suprise that 4E only lasted about 5 years. And when D&D:Next does suprisingly well and goes 4, 5, or maybe even 8 to 10 years they'll do something new all over again. It's how companies stay in buisness and keep their products fresh.

I know a lot of Pathfinder proponents point to the system and say that d20-SRD is doing just fine and the system is the best thing ever and all that, but Pathfinder made some pretty significant improvements to the over all game, improvements that v3.5 should've had in place back in 2005. But Hindsight is always 20/20. Point being, WotC didn't have that avenue to go down because the repercussions would've been just as drastic as when they switched to 4E. Sure, Paizo might have kept going along the v3.5 wheel had 4E not come about but I don't belive that. I have a fair suspicion that Paizo was already in the process of doing their own 'Thing' *cough*Pathfinder*cough* right along with WotC doing their own 'Thing' *cough*4E*cough*.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I think that's very unlikely to be true. Have you been reading the blogs?

The cancellation of the magazines was a body blow and seemed very unexpected. I suspect we'll hear soon enough about the 4E announcement, but based on past comments, I'll be astonished if that announcement (together with the GSL, the gameplay of 4E and the looming outofprintness of 3.5) wasn't the impetus for creating the pathfinder RPG.

If it turns out they'd already been working on PF it will be a real surprise.


Diffan wrote:
Did anyone of us actually think 4E would last 10, 15, 20, 30 years of consistant revision and continual products? Do people really think Pathfinder (in it's current state) is going to last that long? No, I hope most people here aren't that naive enough to believe that.

No, I don't think anyone (except the most ardent, possibly slightly-delusional, 4e fan) believed 4e would last 10 years. Nor even 8 years. A number of us pretty much guessed its short life span from the get-go. In the end, it just wasn't that (comparatively) popular. As noted by ex-WotC staff on ENWorld, if it was we wouldn't be having this conversation . That's just the way it is, whether certain fans believe it or not.

3.x/d20 lasted 8 years from WotC (mid-2000 to mid-2008). Yes, I believe Pathfinder (in it's current state) will last at least 8 years, since (as made abundantly clear by Paizo) adventure-making and world-building are where they concentrate the most. Not rules.

Quote:
Sure, Paizo might have kept going along the v3.5 wheel had 4E not come about but I don't belive that. I have a fair suspicion that Paizo was already in the process of doing their own 'Thing' *cough*Pathfinder*cough* right along with WotC doing their own 'Thing' *cough*4E*cough*.

As noted by Steve Geddes, this looks to be untrue. They were reasonably up-front when they were making their decisions at the time - I recommend you look at some Paizo messageboard archives.

In the end, all I know is that my favorite edition is still receiving loads of support 12 years later.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I think that's very unlikely to be true. Have you been reading the blogs?

The cancellation of the magazines was a body blow and seemed very unexpected. I suspect we'll hear soon enough about the 4E announcement, but based on past comments, I'll be astonished if that announcement (together with the GSL, the gameplay of 4E and the looming outofprintness of 3.5) wasn't the impetus for creating the pathfinder RPG.

If it turns out they'd already been working on PF it will be a real surprise.

I read somewhere that they will start printing 3.5 core books again.

Link


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Belle Mythix wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I think that's very unlikely to be true. Have you been reading the blogs?

The cancellation of the magazines was a body blow and seemed very unexpected. I suspect we'll hear soon enough about the 4E announcement, but based on past comments, I'll be astonished if that announcement (together with the GSL, the gameplay of 4E and the looming outofprintness of 3.5) wasn't the impetus for creating the pathfinder RPG.

If it turns out they'd already been working on PF it will be a real surprise.

I read somewhere that they will start printing 3.5 core books again.

Link

Yeah - I wasnt suggesting the the 3.5 books were never going to be reprinted, I was responding to Diffan's "suspicion that Paizo was already in the process of doing their own 'Thing'" (ie Pathfinder) before 4E was announced.

I dont think that's the case at all - I think they were concerned that, since they wanted to keep supporting 3.5 style gaming, Wizards moving on to 4E would mean their source of new players might dry up. Hence they were (imo) partly motivated to create PF to alleviate that looming outofprintness of the ruleset they preferred.

I'd be even more confident Paizo had no idea WoTC would put out a commemorative edition several years later.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm even more confident that WotC would not have done a commemorative edition if not for Paizo's success and the related high resale value of used copies of the 3.5 books.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
I'm even more confident that WotC would not have done a commemorative edition if not for Paizo's success and the related high resale value of used copies of the 3.5 books.

I wonder.

.
I dont have any data, but my instinct would be that Pathfinder's success would have reduced the value of 3.5 core books. (Partly because new people are going to gradually accumulate to things in print and partly because it is widely perceived as 'a new improved 3.5'. I could see the 3.5 splatbooks retaining (or even increasing) their value.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
I'm even more confident that WotC would not have done a commemorative edition if not for Paizo's success and the related high resale value of used copies of the 3.5 books.

I wonder.

.
I dont have any data, but my instinct would be that Pathfinder's success would have reduced the value of 3.5 core books. (Partly because new people are going to gradually accumulate to things in print and partly because it is widely perceived as 'a new improved 3.5'. I could see the 3.5 splatbooks retaining (or even increasing) their value.

The time to really control the D20 market share by continuing to print--but not write any new--3.5 books would have been before the pathfinder core rules got off the ground. At this point you've got PF as an established brand, and the PFsrd free online for the thrifty among us, and the 3.5 books were in print recently enough that I for one still have my copies. I guess I'm saying I don't think you'll have the nostalgia purchases for the 3.5 reprints that you will for the 1E reprints. I agree with Kevin about WotC's reasons for reprinting the 3.5 books, but I PF has pretty well saturated the market.

Mind you, I still plan on buying the 5E core books, so no, I don't think it's a fate or doom situation.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:
I don't think you'll have the nostalgia purchases for the 3.5 reprints that you will for the 1E reprints.

But I am not sure its nostalgia purchases that will make the bulk of the purchases - whilst some people may still have 3.5 core books if those people still play then they may purchase the reprint to have a copy that includes all the errata, and also to get a second copy.

I have looked at ebay prices for 3.5 PHBs and found most go for about £15 + P&P, none that I have seen have been bargains. I was looking to purchase a second copy so that when I GM I have a copy to give the players and for the price I paid its slightly dogeared at the corners.

So yeah, not nostalgia, but being bought to actually use by those who don't have the books and by those who do for the errata and if their existing copies are in poor condition.


Steve Geddes wrote:
I dont have any data, but my instinct would be that Pathfinder's success would have reduced the value of 3.5 core books. (Partly because new people are going to gradually accumulate to things in print and partly because it is widely perceived as 'a new improved 3.5'. I could see the 3.5 splatbooks retaining (or even increasing) their value.

You can have a peek at the different sites selling used books - turns out, people still like their 3.5.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Sure, but I think there'd be more demand for them if PF hadn't been so successful.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Sure, but I think there'd be more demand for them if PF hadn't been so successful.

Hard to say. On the one hand, PF does decrease demand. On the other, PF keeps the focus on D20 systems like it, keeping them from fading away as time moves on and other systems get more attention.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
I have a fair suspicion that Paizo was already in the process of doing their own 'Thing' *cough*Pathfinder*cough* right along with WotC doing their own 'Thing' *cough*4E*cough*.

The roots of pathfinder are Jason Bulmans House Rules for his 3.5 game. So yes, the rules that one day would be called pathfinder were already in the works. But not as an offical product but as one Paizo employees house rules.


Tharen the Damned wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I have a fair suspicion that Paizo was already in the process of doing their own 'Thing' *cough*Pathfinder*cough* right along with WotC doing their own 'Thing' *cough*4E*cough*.
The roots of pathfinder are Jason Bulmans House Rules for his 3.5 game. So yes, the rules that one day would be called pathfinder were already in the works. But not as an offical product but as one Paizo employees house rules.

And Golarion was/is James Jacobs homebrew setting.

One of the reasons Pathfinder is nicknamed "DnD 3.75" is because it has things in common with both 3.5 and 4E.


Belle Mythix wrote:
Tharen the Damned wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I have a fair suspicion that Paizo was already in the process of doing their own 'Thing' *cough*Pathfinder*cough* right along with WotC doing their own 'Thing' *cough*4E*cough*.
The roots of pathfinder are Jason Bulmans House Rules for his 3.5 game. So yes, the rules that one day would be called pathfinder were already in the works. But not as an offical product but as one Paizo employees house rules.

And Golarion was/is James Jacobs homebrew setting.

One of the reasons Pathfinder is nicknamed "DnD 3.75" is because it has things in common with both 3.5 and 4E.

I have to admit, I was perfectly satisfied by the 3.5 rules; I haven't bought that much beyond the core rules for PF or 4E. I do however love Golarion. It's exactly the world I wanted Greyhawk to be back when I was 11, but even more so.

It is interesting to me that the missing link between PF and 4E would appear to be house rules...


when is possible release date for 5.0?


5e will find its audience, it will have its fans, but in the end it'll be just another edition of D&D. This whole "One Edition to Rule Them All" goal is doomed to disappoint a lot of people, if not to be a total failure. In another 5ish years, even the 5e fans will be looking back and saying "Remember all that talk about how 5e was going to unify D&Ders? Man, that sure fell thru."

Monte's presence or absence doesn't mean much in the end. His continuing presence would have tipped a good chunk of his fans into trying-buying 5e, but it also would have tipped his detractors away from trying-buying it. I myself have no special feelings about Monte, one way or the other. Or about 3.x; I certainly wouldn't describe it as a "very, very good" ruleset. I'd say "Good, with its share of caveats" is a better description.

I've read the 5e play test, and sporadically kept up with the news tidbits, and all of it made me think "Well, this is the first edition I feel absolutely no temptation to try or buy." In trying to write a game that will please everyone, WotC will lose me as a customer -- and a lot of other D&Ders. Unless you rely on organized play to get your gaming fix, why buy a "one size fits all [if you buy additional accessories]" when we already have our own "fits me like a glove" games?


Belle Mythix wrote:


One of the reasons Pathfinder is nicknamed "DnD 3.75" is because it has things in common with both 3.5 and 4E.

Really? Like what?

I mean, other than things 3.5 and 4E already have in common?

I always assumed 3.75 was because it was another version of 3.x.


Belle Mythix wrote:
One of the reasons Pathfinder is nicknamed "DnD 3.75" is because it has things in common with both 3.5 and 4E.

I thought the reason for the nickname was to keep it from being associated with 4E, and to acknowledge the natural progression from 3.5.

Osirion

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:
One of the reasons Pathfinder is nicknamed "DnD 3.75" is because it has things in common with both 3.5 and 4E.
I thought the reason for the nickname was to keep it from being associated with 4E, and to acknowledge the natural progression from 3.5.

I've always felt the 3.75 label to be unrealistic. There is far more different in 3.5 -> Pathfinder than in 3.0 -> 3.5.


Belle Mythix wrote:
Tharen the Damned wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I have a fair suspicion that Paizo was already in the process of doing their own 'Thing' *cough*Pathfinder*cough* right along with WotC doing their own 'Thing' *cough*4E*cough*.
The roots of pathfinder are Jason Bulmans House Rules for his 3.5 game. So yes, the rules that one day would be called pathfinder were already in the works. But not as an offical product but as one Paizo employees house rules.

And Golarion was/is James Jacobs homebrew setting.

One of the reasons Pathfinder is nicknamed "DnD 3.75" is because it has things in common with both 3.5 and 4E.

Your sort of missing the point I was making, in that I believe Pathfinder would've come out regardless if 4E debued, but in light of some information, it could be from the loss of Dragon and Dungeon magazines. *shurggs* I honestly don't care at this point, lol.

As for Pathfinder rules-wise I'm not seeing that much in comparison to 4E other than the fact that it's another Fantasy RPG in the market. It shares a lot of 'Lingo' (class names, feats, skills, and the d20 mechanic) but that's where it pretty much stops. Besides, I thougth the v3.5 moniker was used to explain that the changes Pathfinder made were significant to cause a re-print of a lot of used mechanics but had so many similarities to the older products that didn't call for a Edition 'up-grade'. Personally, I refer to Pathfinder as Paizo's Homebrew 3.5 myself.


@tequila,
If 3.x isn't a "very, very good" rule set, then what is?
Not bating, honestly curious.


@ Diffan I would also prefer to think of Pathfinder as Paizo's "house ruled" 3.5, but I think setting material has taken it somewhere beyond that.

Shadow Lodge

Grimmy wrote:

@tequila,

If 3.x isn't a "very, very good" rule set, then what is?
Not bating, honestly curious.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I'd say "Good, with its share of caveats" is a better description.

To me, it's saving grace is it's popularity, and nothing to do with the actual system itself.


Ok, but what is a great system then?


Grimmy wrote:
Ok, but what is a great system then?

Take a look at Mongoose Traveller, but after 30 years I'm *emotionally involved* at this point.


I just think, it doesn't have to be your favorite system, but saying 3.x isn't at least "very, very good" seems a little bit stingy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grimmy wrote:
Ok, but what is a great system then?

I would say 3.5 is one of the better systems for its genre.

You will find people in this thread telling you how one is better than the other...when it is all down to that persons personal experience, preferences and expectations.

The one and only rule as to the best system is IF YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS ARE HAVING FUN THEN THE SYSTEM YOU ARE USING IS THE BEST SYSTEM.

Anybody who tells you any different is a pontificating arse hat.


3E and later, v3.5 made some innovating strides for Dungeons and Dragons, a few being the lift on a lot of restrictions from it's former versions. The race restrictions on certain classes and dual-class builds, the XP-cap, and removal of limitations on races who can use magic was pretty impressive. The reverse aspect of THAC0 (now, BAB) and the combining of 5 different saves into 3 streamlined the system to be more user friendly. Furthermore, one of 3E's crown achievements was it's Multiclass system with the level-by-level approach. Then there's the implementation of Skills and Feats for more robust characters.

Bt make no mistake, 3E has it's slew of problems too. No system is perfect and as more supplements come out and more rules are invented, it breaks the game's balance down pretty far. Then you have the disparity between casters and non-casters, the baked in requirement of magical items for character progression (aka, Christmas Tree effect), absurd requirements for Prestige Classes (ddin't they learn anything?!), and the wonky way in which the 3 different progression of BAB work. Really, I wished that there were only two paths: A full progression for non-spellcasters and spellcasters who's magic doesn't exceed 4th level OR 3/4 BAB (like a cleric) for anyone who uses magic. It gives a few classes a "bump" like Wizard or Sorcerer IF they feel like wading into melee, but it REALLY bumps the more pathetic classes like MOnk and Rogue to be better combatants. This, however, would require them to re-write Fighter based feats, which should be far more powerful than they are currently. They should've also given a Fighter stances and fighting styles (like the Ranger) that have buffs build into the feats. So anyone can take Two-Weapon Fighting, but the Fight might only take a -1 penalty if that falls within his "Fighting Style".

Another great system, IMO, is 4th Edition. Sure, people on here bash it a lot but I think the balance points, encouraged re-flavoring, strong character focus WITH the ability to branch out to different archtypes via Hybrid and Multiclassing rules makes the game very good.

Shadow Lodge

Grimmy wrote:
Ok, but what is a great system then?

Taking a look through my library for systems that I prefer to d20...

Retro D&D: Original D&D, Basic D&D (Holmes, B/X, BECMI, RC), AD&D, AD&D 2E, Swords & Wizardry, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Dark Dungeons, OSRIC, Stars Without Number
Basic Roleplaying: Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest II, Legend, RuneQuest 6E
Classic World of Darkness: Vampire 20th Anniversary
Tri-Stat: Big Eyes, Small Mouth (2nd & 3rd Editions)
GUMSHOE: Trail of Cthulhu, Esoterrorists, Fear Itself, Ashen Stars, Mutant City Blues


Kthulhu wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Ok, but what is a great system then?

Taking a look through my library for systems that I prefer to d20...

Retro D&D: Original D&D, Basic D&D (Holmes, B/X, BECMI, RC), AD&D, AD&D 2E, Swords & Wizardry, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Dark Dungeons, OSRIC, Stars Without Number
Basic Roleplaying: Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest II, Legend, RuneQuest 6E
Classic World of Darkness: Vampire 20th Anniversary
Tri-Stat: Big Eyes, Small Mouth (2nd & 3rd Editions)
GUMSHOE: Trail of Cthulhu, Esoterrorists, Fear Itself, Ashen Stars, Mutant City Blues

You've got RQ 6e! Spill. What's it like? Worth buying if you have Legend and all the other editions of RQ?

And to your Retro D&D, I'll suggest Adventurer Conqueror King System (ACKS). Very nice, starting point is B/X rather than anything else.

Otherwise, I'm more and more becoming a fan of systems which set out to do one thing, and do it really well, rather than systems that set out to do lots of things and do most of them in a mediocre fashion. Pendragon, The One Ring, Qin, Traveller, CoC, all excellent systems - a shame I don't really like horrror games, and CoC doesn't see much use, but still.


Grimmy wrote:
I just think, it doesn't have to be your favorite system, but saying 3.x isn't at least "very, very good" seems a little bit stingy.

To be honest, I probably would have agreed with wellsmv during the first couple years of 3e, because 3.x is worlds better than the 2e that I grew up on. For all the reasons that Diffan mentions, and more. But after DMing and playing 3.x for a few years, I realized that it has its own flaws -- still not as many as 2e, but they're certainly there. Again, everything that Diffan mentions, and more.

As to what I would call a great system? Well currently that would 4e, without a doubt. I've been playing and DMing it since 2008, and I still love it! It has its own problems, but they pale in comparison to 3.x and 2e. And the Complete 4th Edition (C4) clone that I've been DMing recently fixes most of the few problems that 4e does have.

To illustrate how I feel about the D&D editions I know, I'll tell you a little about my house rules. I had no house rules for 2e; back when I was playing, I mostly just didn't consider the possibility of changing rules. But if I were to go back, I'd have to rewrite 2e in order to make it something that I'd ever DM again.

I recently wrote a pdf of my essential 3.x house rules, which is seven pages long. And these are just the bare minimum tweaks necessary to make it a game I'd ever DM again. The pdf could have easily been 100 pages...but of course, nobody would read that. So I decided to go with a "If you don't like a rule, ask me to change or ignore it and I just might, because there are so many unnecessary rules" proviso.

My list of 4e house rules was one page. My list of C4 house rules isn't even typed; it's just "Hex grid, and no XP." And that's why I like what I like.

I can already tell that I'd be going back to multi-page house rule documents, if I were to DM 5e.


Diffan wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:
One of the reasons Pathfinder is nicknamed "DnD 3.75" is because it has things in common with both 3.5 and 4E.

Your sort of missing the point I was making, in that I believe Pathfinder would've come out regardless if 4E debued, but in light of some information, it could be from the loss of Dragon and Dungeon magazines. *shurggs* I honestly don't care at this point, lol.

As for Pathfinder rules-wise I'm not seeing that much in comparison to 4E other than the fact that it's another Fantasy RPG in the market. It shares a lot of 'Lingo' (class names, feats, skills, and the d20 mechanic) but that's where it pretty much stops. Besides, I thougth the v3.5 moniker was used to explain that the changes Pathfinder made were significant to cause a re-print of a lot of used mechanics but had so many similarities to the older products that didn't call for a Edition 'up-grade'. Personally, I refer to Pathfinder as Paizo's Homebrew 3.5 myself.

Racial Ability score modifiers (a little), PF skills are somewhere between 3.0 , 3.5 and 4E, a few other stuff...


Diffan wrote:
I have a fair suspicion that Paizo was already in the process of doing their own 'Thing' *cough*Pathfinder*cough* right along with WotC doing their own 'Thing' *cough*4E*cough*.
Diffan wrote:
I believe Pathfinder would've come out regardless if 4E debued

You understand you're saying Lisa Stevens, Erik Mona, Jason Bulmahn, and James Jacobs all were blatantly lying on these messageboards throughout 2007-2009? Do you have anything to back this claim up, or are you just trying to provoke a flame war?


see wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I have a fair suspicion that Paizo was already in the process of doing their own 'Thing' *cough*Pathfinder*cough* right along with WotC doing their own 'Thing' *cough*4E*cough*.
Diffan wrote:
I believe Pathfinder would've come out regardless if 4E debued
You understand you're saying Lisa Stevens, Erik Mona, Jason Bulmahn, and James Jacobs all were blatantly lying on these messageboards throughout 2007-2009? Do you have anything to back this claim up, or are you just trying to provoke a flame war?

If their claim is they only made Pathfinder because 4E was released, then that's unfortunate and I don't believe it. If it was a culmination of things in addition to the changes upon 4E's release, then I find that more believeable. Take that for what it is, my opinion based on my experiences and the unfolding events of 4E and Pathfinder's release.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
If their claim is they only made Pathfinder because 4E was released, then that's unfortunate and I don't believe it.

Both of these quotes are from early 2008...

Lisa Stevens wrote:
“After careful evaluation of our options, we believe that the 3.5 core will continue to be the best system to tell the stories we’ve got planned for Pathfinder. [...] We’re sure that lots of roleplayers are going to be thrilled with Wizards of the Coast’s upcoming 4th Edition, and we’re also looking forward to the 4th Edition products that our partner Necromancer Games will be creating. Paizo may also publish 4th Edition products in the future, but if we do, they won’t cross over with our Pathfinder products.”
Erik Mona wrote:
“Basing the Pathfinder RPG on 3.5 also allows Paizo more control over our destiny than simply following along with the latest edition and the newest licensing changes.”


Diffan wrote:
see wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I have a fair suspicion that Paizo was already in the process of doing their own 'Thing' *cough*Pathfinder*cough* right along with WotC doing their own 'Thing' *cough*4E*cough*.
Diffan wrote:
I believe Pathfinder would've come out regardless if 4E debued
You understand you're saying Lisa Stevens, Erik Mona, Jason Bulmahn, and James Jacobs all were blatantly lying on these messageboards throughout 2007-2009? Do you have anything to back this claim up, or are you just trying to provoke a flame war?
If their claim is they only made Pathfinder because 4E was released, then that's unfortunate and I don't believe it. If it was a culmination of things in addition to the changes upon 4E's release, then I find that more believeable. Take that for what it is, my opinion based on my experiences and the unfolding events of 4E and Pathfinder's release.

From what I understand, Paizo made 3.5 stuff under the OGL. When 4E was released without the OGL, that business model went away. Paizo adapted by tweaking the Core 3.5 rules and releasing them as Pathfinder.

Do you really think they would have released something at all like the current PF rules and tried to compete with 3.5?


thejeff wrote:

From what I understand, Paizo made 3.5 stuff under the OGL. When 4E was released without the OGL, that business model went away. Paizo adapted by tweaking the Core 3.5 rules and releasing them as Pathfinder.

Do you really think they would have released something at all like the current PF rules and tried to compete with 3.5?

I don't see why not IF they believed their model, game supplements, world/setting, mechanics, and internal art were better than 3Es (which I believe they were).

@ DigitalElf: Yea, early 2008 which meant that 4E wasn't even released yet to the public. Which to me means that they probably already had stuff penned in the works for Golarion, the new rules (perhaps the Alpha going to Beta test), perhaps some preliminary artwork and the like before the announcement. This is going by the assumption that they didn't know what/how the mechanics of 4E was going to be more than the average gamer.


Diffan wrote:
thejeff wrote:

From what I understand, Paizo made 3.5 stuff under the OGL. When 4E was released without the OGL, that business model went away. Paizo adapted by tweaking the Core 3.5 rules and releasing them as Pathfinder.

Do you really think they would have released something at all like the current PF rules and tried to compete with 3.5?

I don't see why not IF they believed their model, game supplements, world/setting, mechanics, and internal art were better than 3Es (which I believe they were).

Sure, they could have kept doing APs and modules and world/setting books. That was their business model before.

You don't compete with the dominant player in a market like this by selling a modification of their own rules. You have to be radically better to overcome those advantages. Or support a different genre or playstyle, which PF doesn't. It aimed to be close to compatible.
Why would people give up their library of 3.5 books to buy a variant, as long as 3.5 is supported? That lack of support is why PF was able to get market share.
If Paizo really planned to release rules to compete with 3.5 they were a lot dumber than I think they were.

Diffan wrote:
@ DigitalElf: Yea, early 2008 which meant that 4E wasn't even released yet to the public. Which to me means that they probably already had stuff penned in the works for Golarion, the new rules (perhaps the Alpha going to Beta test), perhaps some preliminary artwork and the like before the announcement. This is going by the assumption that they didn't know what/how the mechanics of 4E was going to be more than the average gamer.

It wasn't really the mechanics that mattered to them. They knew it wasn't going to be compatible with 3.5 and that was enough.

It was the license. They knew they wouldn't be able to produce model, game supplements, world/setting, and internal art for 4E under the same terms.

They knew they could do what they wanted to do under the OGL model. Without it, they'd be at WOTC's mercy for licensing terms.


thejeff wrote:
Diffan wrote:
thejeff wrote:

From what I understand, Paizo made 3.5 stuff under the OGL. When 4E was released without the OGL, that business model went away. Paizo adapted by tweaking the Core 3.5 rules and releasing them as Pathfinder.

Do you really think they would have released something at all like the current PF rules and tried to compete with 3.5?

I don't see why not IF they believed their model, game supplements, world/setting, mechanics, and internal art were better than 3Es (which I believe they were).

Sure, they could have kept doing APs and modules and world/setting books. That was their business model before.

You don't compete with the dominant player in a market like this by selling a modification of their own rules. You have to be radically better to overcome those advantages. Or support a different genre or playstyle, which PF doesn't. It aimed to be close to compatible.
Why would people give up their library of 3.5 books to buy a variant, as long as 3.5 is supported? That lack of support is why PF was able to get market share.
If Paizo really planned to release rules to compete with 3.5 they were a lot dumber than I think they were.

I can think of a few 3PP that released their own version of v3.5 that weren't really v3.5 or had enough difference for a player to look it up such as Birthright and World of Warcraft. Yet neither two product lines went far enough in changes that made the base-game better. They were all released under the "usable with Revised 3rd Edition" lable. Frankly, that wasn't good enough. Pathfinder is a nearly complete revision of the basic game with a host of new elements that differentiate it from D&D's v3.5 AND at a time when v3.5 was in a rapid decline (think late 2006 and all of 2007). Their products were widely considered unbalanced, broken, and flawed. What better time than then to kickstart an in-house project that refurbishes a game supplement that's still heavily compatable with the current system?

You also bring up a good point, why would anyone buy it? Well, apparently a LOT of people do and it's not just for the rules. People here always tote how great the setting itself is, how great the art is, how great the Adventure Paths are, how great their revisions to the parent game are. And they wouldn't be looking to replace the PHB, MM, and DMG as it's all there on their website for free. I'm pretty sure you can use the v3.5 DMG with Pathfinder products and get nearly the same exact feeling, style, and gameplay as using Paizo's variant. And with how close the two system are, your not throwing away anything as I'm sure people still 'port over mechanics and books from v3.5 into their Pathfinder games with very very little difficulty.

thejeff wrote:
Diffan wrote:
@ DigitalElf: Yea, early 2008 which meant that 4E wasn't even released yet to the public. Which to me means that they probably already had stuff penned in the works for Golarion, the new rules (perhaps the Alpha going to Beta test), perhaps some preliminary artwork and the like before the announcement. This is going by the assumption that they didn't know what/how the mechanics of 4E was going to be more than the average gamer.

It wasn't really the mechanics that mattered to them. They knew it wasn't going to be compatible with 3.5 and that was enough.

It was the license. They knew they wouldn't be able to produce model, game supplements, world/setting, and internal art for 4E under the same terms.

They knew they could do what they wanted to do under the OGL model. Without it, they'd be at WOTC's mercy for licensing terms.

How, exactly, did they know there was going to be no compatibility? I, myself, thought that 4E would look more like a system with broader mechanics that incorporated a LOT of Star Wars: SAGA and Book of 9 Swords elements but keeping the majority of rules such as BAB, Skill ranks, 3 Saving Throws where the player "saves" against attacks, and level-by-level progression. That, to me, is pretty compatible with v3.5 and Pathfinder with a few changes here and there. Compatible does not mean "use as-is and works fine along other edition products".

I don't think ANYONE outside the playtests of 4E were prepared for the pretty drastic changes WotC made with 4th Edition. But I do recognize WotC foul-up with the 1st draft of the OGL and how it was pretty mean to 3PP and the like. Yet we still see some 3PP today making 4E adventures and supplements that do not fall under the OGL. The only thing they have to do is reference something that falls under WotC design (like a class or rule from the PHB) but people are generally free to create whatever they want apart from outright, word-for-word rules of WotC products.

101 to 150 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / D&D next ... fate or doom ? 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.