Asmodeur's page

@James

Regarding the hitpoint/damage ratio. There are several schools of thoughts. The loose and fast, or the more precise. The loose and fast adds ½ level to all attacks from the monsters while cutting their hit points anywhere from 10-50%.

The more precise school of thought tells you to do things so they make sense mathematically.

That means you go -25% hit points, +33% damage.
or -33% hit points, +50% damage
or -50% hit points, + 100% damage.

I have myself used the -25% + 33% and the -33% +50% for hundreds of hours of play, and it worked well for me. YMMV of course.

Quite easy. subtract 33% of all monsters hit points while adding +50% damage to their attacks (calculate average damage and add 50% of that to the original damage (example: 2d8+7=16 average damage. 50% of 16 is 8. New damage is 2d8+15.

We now run equal level fights in 15-20 minutes. This will of course depend on how fast your own players are, as well as the DM.

Actually Vic is under an NDA with WotC as are all the employees here at Paizo. It is part of our agreement for Dragon and Dungeon magazines. So even if Vic wanted to share exact numbers, he can't per our confidentiality.

I will say this, I think that most customers would be absolutely floored by how little some products sell and how much other products sell. There is a very, very large discrepancy between products that are great sellers and those that aren't. And they can vary from month to month. Products that you might think are best sellers might be losing a bunch of money and other that seem like dogs could be really profitable.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter how many copies a book sells. What matters is a) if customers like the book and buy it and b) the company making the book can stay in business selling whatever number of books they can sell.

I'll tell you a little story about when I used to work in magazines (not anything to do with WotC or D&D or Dragon or Dungeon). We had an issue that sold 100,000 copies and one that sold 62,000 copies. Which one was the success story? Yep, the 62,000 copies sold one. Because the one we sold 100,000 copies cost us a heck of a lot more to make because it had a giant poster in it and it had to be polybagged and there was additional shipping costs and art costs, etc., etc. So if you were just told the sales, you might jump to the wrong conclusion.

Bottom line is that only WotC really knows whether 4e is a success for them or not. And only Paizo can decide what is successful or not for us. Our two companies have different expectations and different owner's needs and different cost structures, and thus different measurements of success. How will you know if a company is successful? They will continue to make more products for a line and provide more and more support for the line. If that happens, then it is a success. Trust me, public companies don't continue to throw money into a black hole for long. Only successful lines...

Thanks for clearing that up Lisa, you are a smart woman. Good luck (not that you need it) with your Pathfinder RPG.

Asmodeur wrote:

Either way I never claimed to have evidence. I said it was a number I had seen used several times on forums. If it is wrong, I would be more than happy to be enlightened. I personally couldn't care less how much they sell - I would just love some info.

Vic wasnt arguing about the correct number. He was suggesting people not take the 50,000 figure as a fact until someone produces evidence to support it, that was all.

I am sorry. But Vic said on page 4:

Indeed. I'm not suggesting that Wizards should reveal their sales figures. I'm saying that whoever came up with the notion that a poor-selling Wizards product sells in excess of 50,000 copies has pulled that number out of thin air. In fact, I'm confident that that number is more "wild-ass guess" than "educated guess." And now I see that people are repeating it as presumed fact...

If that's not arguing about the correct number, you must show me your definition of arguing.

Look, its fairly easy. I have already explained that the 50k was just a number that has been mentioned around by people who claim to be insiders from the industry. Do I have a link, hell no. I do not bookmark arguments and statements about D&D - I mean, seriously, there is a limit to my nerdiness. It doesn't change the facts. Vic made it pretty clear that the number I used is wrong (see the quote above). Now, in order to claim that, Vic would have to have ... wait, I have written this once already - I will go back to lurking and await an answer that will never come.

Asmodeur wrote:

I mean, you are certainly not bound by any NDA vis-a-vis WotC, so if you say that 50k is pulled out of thin air, it must be because you know enough about the industry to make an educated guess at least.

This doesnt follow at all. You don't need to know the answer to dispute claims people make without evidence. (Especially when they fail to do so when asked to support their statements).

Actually it does. When someones says that he earns 10k a month as a teacher, and someone says he pulled that number of out thin air, it's because that someone has an idea of how much a teacher earns - which, at least where I live, is not 10k.

Either way I never claimed to have evidence. I said it was a number I had seen used several times on forums. If it is wrong, I would be more than happy to be enlightened. I personally couldn't care less how much they sell - I would just love some info.

Dark Minstrel wrote:

Asmodeur wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

To give you an idea: the free, downloadable PDF of the PFRPG saw fewer downloads than the number of sales WotC makes on a poor showing of one of their books.

Please point me to an official statement or other reliable source that demonstrates that a poor-selling Wizards D&D product still sells more than 50,000 copies. (Ideally, I'd like that statement to be from the last two years or so, and the more recent the better.)

If we had an official statement from WotC, we wouldn't have this debate.

But how about Paizo, who isn't owned by a listed company show us their numbers. After all, why should WotC be the only company constantly asked to show and tell?

I think what Vic was saying was that if the poster is going to state something as fact, the poster should have evidence to back up that fact.

Indeed. I'm not suggesting that Wizards should reveal their sales figures. I'm saying that whoever came up with the notion that a poor-selling Wizards product sells in excess of 50,000 copies has pulled that number out of thin air. In fact, I'm confident that that number is more "wild-ass guess" than "educated guess." And now I see that people are repeating it as presumed fact...

Fair enough. Then please tell me how much a poor selling WotC 4e product sells. Lets make it easy. Give two numbers, 1 for hardcover books and 1 for adventures. I mean, you are certainly not bound by any NDA vis-a-vis WotC, so if you say that 50k is pulled out of thin air, it must be because you know enough about the industry to make an educated guess at least.

I am eagerly awaiting your answer. I might actually learn something today.

Asmodeur wrote:

If a product has sold 50k units, it has sold 50k units. That's including what has been returned by the distributor, otherwise those products wouldn't have been sold.

That's actually quite incorrect. Returns, especially returns from the book trade, come with a penalty for the return. Often a book is returned to the distributor then placed back out into the channel through another store's purchase. If that second store then returns the item, that's yet another penalty to the publisher. (This process can repeat.) If a product sells 50k units to the book trade and then 25K of them are returned, they actually only sold 25K units; one could argue that based on dollar value they may have actually sold LESS than 25K units since they're being penalized for the returns. Sold units = units the publisher was paid for, not units the publisher shipped to distribution.

Thanks for that explanation, but you didn't understand my post. My point was that if you say X book has sold 50k, it means that 50k sold units = Y-Z=X, where Y is total number of books sold, and Z is the number of book returned. At least that's what I meant. Maybe my English just sucks.

Someone has reviewed the two 4e modules made so far - looks good. Here is a link to Gate Pass and to Fire Forest

Scott Betts wrote:

To give you an idea: the free, downloadable PDF of the PFRPG saw fewer downloads than the number of sales WotC makes on a poor showing of one of their books.

Please point me to an official statement or other reliable source that demonstrates that a poor-selling Wizards D&D product still sells more than 50,000 copies. (Ideally, I'd like that statement to be from the last two years or so, and the more recent the better.)

If we had an official statement from WotC, we wouldn't have this debate.

But how about Paizo, who isn't owned by a listed company show us their numbers. After all, why should WotC be the only company constantly asked to show and tell?

Scott Betts wrote:

To give you an idea: the free, downloadable PDF of the PFRPG saw fewer downloads than the number of sales WotC makes on a poor showing of one of their books.

Out of the 50000 copies of a particular poorly selling WotC title, how many of these copies end up being returned to the distributor?

If a product has sold 50k units, it has sold 50k units. That's including what has been returned by the distributor, otherwise those products wouldn't have been sold.

Whether it is 50k or something higher or lower is another matter altogether.

I want to thank the guy who asked which game was doing best, D&D or Pathfinder. That was really funny.

You really need to understand that those two games are not playing in the same league.

Don't believe me? Ask Mona, he often says so.

To give you an idea, Mona has recently stated that most of the Pathfinder products (paraphrasing here) are made with a break even point of 2k units sold. That's a good indication of the ballpark of how many products Paizo sells.

Now, I obviously do not have numbers for how many books WotC sells, but it numbers that have been floating around claim that a WotC book that sells 50k is selling poorly, 10k would be a disaster.

Now, I know the PFrpg beta sold out (well, to the retailers anyway), but how many did they make? The owner of my LFGS claims that Mona said on these very boards that they at some point considered making around 2k beta books, but that they are now glad they made more (I am guessing due to the downloads). But if you considered making only 2k, how many more do you seriously think they have made? 5k? 10k?

It doesn't really matter. You might think PFrpg is better, it doesn't really matter. You might even be right. But people should play what they like. But stop with the delusions that PFrpg is going to sell anything near 4e (or any other edition of D&D for that matter), because it won't. It's like thinking that awesome burger joint down on the corner, that makes the best burgers in the world will outsell McDonalds because it's opening a couple of stores around the towns nearby.

So, in short, just to make sure I am not misunderstood:
Is Paizo awesome or what? Yep, they have some of the best talent in the industry and they make some of the best fluff/stories, if not the best.
Is PFrpg a good game? I do not like it, but then again, I do not like the game it's based on, so it's hardly surprising. But a lot of people seem to think so, so why shouldn't it be?
Is PFrpg going to be a success? Yes, considering their fairly devout fanbase, that seems like a given.
Will PFrpg outsell 4e? Lollerskates; seriously. Wake up.

From last year: Deconstructing 4e Sales.

I have no doubt that WotC has sold a lot of 4e books. But I don't think that this is a zero-sum game.

OTOH, nearly everyone I know who has played D&D for a long time would rather play something besides 4e. I never bought the 4e books, but I jumped on Pathfinder, having known about Paizo quality due to Dungeon. We're introducing new players to the game, and we're introducing them to Pathfinder.

EDIT

Quote:

So, the 8-K states clearly it's leading product lines... and 4e isn't among them. I wouldn't take away anthing significant from this though.

Exactly. Transformers and GI Joe now have blockbuster movie marketing and promotion. Hasbro is a goliath.

James is an old school 4e hater, which is cool; to each his own. But he is basing his sales figures on nada. The article you quoted is as close to a joke as you can get.

Also, I love your anectodal evidence. Seriously. This is precisely why this subject is a waste of time.

Have fun playing 3.75 though.

Asmodeur wrote:

As insiders have explained several times, the cost of a book is fairly equal, all things considered. Meaning that the cost of PHB2 is roughly the same as Secrets of the Shadowdale, assuming they are of equal lengths.

I can understand that point of view but how possibly far can it extend? How many rulebooks can be published before there are no more topics? Won't 4e just burn out under a pile of classes and variants and tables? How many gamers do you think started roleplaying because we picked up a dungeons and dragons book and said, "OOh look at those rules?" How many of us picked up a setting book and became excited about the concepts within and picked up a rule book to execute those concepts? My first encounter with roleplaying was finding the City of Greyhawk box set. I poured over the maps and the history. If the first book I picked off the shelf was a PHB I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought. Looks too much like school.

And worse yet..Yes the players handbook 2 has a larger market but that would almost be the same as saying "well if we come out with a book for fighters.... only the people who play fighters will buy it so lets not bother with it." Isn't the martial power books niche products for people who only play fighter style classes? Isn't the supplements concerning dragons niche products for people who have dragons in their game?

In the end what I'm saying is there are only so many books that can be considered core, books that reach the complete game base. At some point in time all of those topics will be covered and books will have to be released concerning fringe items. I would just rather those fringe books be spent detailing settings rather than Monster Manual 18 Spineless Horrors, Jellies, and Mites.

Just because you got into the game via a setting does not mean it is the norm.

Look, I am not disagreeing with you. I love settings as well, but to be honest, I must have around 20-30-40 different settings for the last many versions of D&D - While I wouldn't mind new shiny ones for 4e, it's not a must. I rather have the rules covered, then they can (for all I care) focus on making settings and sweet adventures.

Problem is, while adventures can sustain Paizo, I doubt they can sustain WotC, even if they were producing stellar adventures every single time.

As insiders have explained several times, the cost of a book is fairly equal, all things considered. Meaning that the cost of PHB2 is roughly the same as Secrets of the Shadowdale, assuming they are of equal lengths.

What does this mean?

Well, it's quite simple really. Assuming a base of gamers that play 4e = X. It's fair to assume that the number of people who will be at least potentially interested in the PHB2 will approach X.

On the other hand, Secrets of the Shadowdale, is a niche product. It's actually a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche product, or something like that. (of all D&D players, Secrets is a DM book. Of all DM's, Secrets is really only interesting if you play FR. Of all interested DM's who play FR; only a fraction will be interested in a book about Shadowdale..)

Since both the PHB2 and the fictive Secrets cost the same to produce and tie up the same amount of talent, it really doesn't matter if Secret even brings in enough money to cover the expenses. The real point is, could the talent at hand be used to make something more useful to more D&D'ers, ie make more money?

There are the US Today top150 lists, the top 25 yearly amazon.com list and a host of other information spread around the internet.

But no, there are no hard numbers anywhere. So everything just comes back to what you like. Not that hard evidence would help you there either. Because if WotC released the sales numbers of 4e, the nay-sayers would just claim that the numbers were false.

So the best thing is just to not care.

I apologize for the overcharge and the lack of previous response! I assure that this is not the standard of Paizo Customer service.

I have reviewed your transaction and retroactively applied your store credit. I have also credited the overcharge back to your card.

Once again, I apologize for the inconvenience.

Thanks,
cos

Thank you.

Chris,

Just so you know what happened, at checkout time, you're able to specify if you want to use your store credit or not—we don't automatically make that choice for you.

I apologize then, since I seem to be at fault. But I was looking, and could not find anything that allowed me to do so, which is why I figured it was done automatically. I guess this whole episode will teach me to look more closely before I jump to conclusions.

Thanks for taking the time to inform me.

Hi

12 days ago, I ordered two Pathfinder items. Upon receipt of the order, I notice that the money Paizo owe me hasn't been deducted from my order. I immediately wrote to your customer service, asking them to fix the mistake. I was given no response. 2 days ago, I wrote yet again, as my order had shipped, without any visible change to the amount. Now today, the money was withdrawn from my account, still not taking into account the money that Paizo owes me.

I am starting to wonder if my mails are disappearing or what? When I was a subscriber, your customer service was impeccable, so I would hate to think this is simply the way that non-subscribers are treated.

Regardless of the result, an explanation would be nice.

Regards,

Chris

Erik Mona wrote:

This should be fun to watch!

I'm going to assume you mean "Talented athlete in the World Series" fun to watch, and not "Guy wearing a tuxedo made of ground beef going to pet a tiger" fun to watch.

:)

I think he implies special Olympics fun to watch... ;)

Looks like P1BACK is in the minority on this thread. There's still nothing wrong with dice, pen, paper, and books.

Last I checked, our discussion was about the cost of the WotC AP, not the use of computers. Did you not like the way things were going?

Either way, on the whole pen and paper issue, I agree with you 100%. I too prefer my adventures in paper format, even though, as a DM, I do use my laptop all the time (awesome for tracking initiative, combat conditions etc, as well as info of my world, which is online and on harddrive) when running my games.

The cost of printing AP's does not need to be significant. My laser printer prints around 1500-2000 page for $35-40, which amounts to less than 3 cent a page. Now, I do not know your budget, but that hardly seems earth-shattering to me. A 60 page AP would cost me $1 and 60 cent to print. I would personally prefer to pay $20-30 (which they cost over here) and get it on colored dead wood.

hogarth wrote:

At least they're adding some definite value to the Dungeon e-magazine; I bet this'll bring in some more readers.

They better have a lot of disposable cash because running this would be very expensive. You're looking at several sets of ink or toner cartridges plus a ream of paper just to print it out. Then you have to factor in at least an 18 month subscription to DDI at 15 bucks a month plus buying the three core books. Literally hundreds of dollars to play this AP. It's ridiculously overpriced compared to the print version AP's that would cost you about 84 dollars for the whole AP.

The $10 (if you subscribe, and if you need 18 months of AP's, why wouldn't you) the DDI costs, gives you a lot more than just the DDI. Your comparison isn't quiet fair.

For those who do not wish to use the DDI, it has been mentioned that it will (most likely) be possible to purchase PDF's of Dragon and Dungeon separately, one a month. Price hasn't been mentioned yet.

Also, including the core rules in the cost is also a bit odd, since most people who want to play a game will buy at least the PHB (and where is the proof that you need the DM and the MM to run an AP?)

So, if you want to compare, its $180 vs 84. Even that is arguable, since I assume the 84 is a number taken from the PF AP's. WotC's AP will span 30 levels, and not 16, so will therefore arguably be longer, and thus more expensive. Possibly. Maybe. Either way, your comparison is a gross exaggeration.

Cheers

They are revamping the website for tomorrow afaik. Fixing that might not have been at the top of their priorities. When that is said, I do agree that their website generally is far from impressive, which doesn't leave me with much hope regarding the DDI.

I dont think an end-cap is really necessary to predict ahead of time; just figure out where your group is at and make sure that the monsters are at the same level. The only problem that might crop up is that I suppose the party could hit 30th-level before they are supposed to.

Its roughly 10 encounters to the level, not counting quest rewards, so as long as you dont exceed 290 encounters you should be fine.

I think the hardest part is altering the treasure in the adventure: stuff isnt nearly as expensive as it used to be (50gp for plate armor, for example; 360 for +1, and 1000 for +1 battleforged plate).

Use the parcel method from the DMG, and ignore what the original adventure says, while at the same time striving to hit as close as possible.

Mandor wrote:

anti-magic was a chance for the fighter to shine, or the wizard to get creative. The classic spell 'Boulder to pebble' appears in Eldrich Sorcery (Necromancer Games) and was a good antimagic shell counter, when mixed with a sling.

They "stole" that from WoTC :) It was originally in 2nd edition Tome of Magic, and already awesome there..

I'm actually VERY interested to check this out, though... I more than anyone know how tough it is to wrangle an entire Adventure Path together. An 18 part one over as many months? WotC's got their work cut out for them! And it's a sequel to Red Hand of Doom too! So honestly... it following in the footsteps of a type of campaign model I helped refine and create in Dungeon AND it being a sequal to an adventure I helped write (wrote about 75% of, in fact) is kinda a nice compliment, honestly! :)

And an awesome adventure that was, sir.

Here's to hoping you guys eventually get around to making more awesome adventures for 4e..

Cheers

Touche, my friend, touche. Nicely, played. ;)

I guess I should have said, "Will you ask the WotC staff if they are open to playing/GMing PATHFINDER."

Sorry mate, couldn't resist :)

As for the whole playing the "other team"'s game, I don't see why not. Isn't Mearls and Mona friends of sorts? Or maybe they just have friends in common, like Monte and Dancey? Of course I could be totally wrong here, my brain might have processed too much info and whiskey at the same time.

Maybe it is time to hit the sack... *ponders*

edit: I really suck at getting the quote tags right.. sigh

Ok, fair enough.

I have, unfortunately, surrendered to the impulse to ask the following:

Will you pose the same question to the WotC folks? 'Cause that scenario/curiosity should be a two-way street.

I think most of the WoTC play 4e already, considering their numerous blogs about it... ;)

Yes, yes it is. Any incarnation of Any RPG should reward a player for creativity and Player/GM Co-operation.

And I've no idea where you get Elephants from Helm's Deep.

Awarding a player for creativity does not necessitate that you let him move and make a full attack (3.x rules).

And about the elephant thing, I was thinking at the scene where he is climbing up and down the elephant at the end battle of "the return of the king" - my bad.

Either way, the point still stands. I apologize if you took it as inflammatory. It must be a cultural thing.

The shop-owner meant that 4e is will appeal to those who like the over-the-top heroics. His comment has little to do with powers or how often characters can do stuff in 4e. I think you have misunderstood the statement, as it in no way reflects the rules of 4e.

I'm a supp junkie so I'm looking forward to seeing 3rd party 4E stuff like Necromancer Games new Advanced Players HB and its first major AP.

Haven't you been stating on several occasions on Enworld that you don't plan on playing 4e? Or maybe I was thinking of someone else...

Either way, I am looking forward to the "new" FR. I loved FR in 2e, but 3e killed it for me. 4e is looking so much more like the FR I loved.

Time will tell I guess.

3.x
Player: "I want to surf on the shield!"
DM: "Well, lets make that a balance check, DC 20, I'll allow you to move the 15 feet down the stairs, and do a full attack, but you'll be flat footed at the end of the round."
Player: "Sounds fair. If I get back up to the top, can I do it again?"
DM: "If you find another shield, sure."

So, it is okay to break the rules so that your example makes sense?

Actually, this is how it would have been:

Player: "I want to surf on the shield!"
DM: "Well, lets make that a balance check, DC 20, I'll allow you to move the 15 feet down the stairs (don't you mean the tail), and make an attack, then as the shield hits ground, I need a tumble DC 22 or you will end up prone on the ground"
Player: Whahahaha. But my leet dual-wielding ranger sucks if I only get one attack instead of the 7 attacks I get in a full attack... and he doesn't have tumble skill..
DM: Well, be happy I am not making you use a move action to pick up the shield and place it appropriately.
Player: ¤#%&/()=¤%&/(&

Funnily enough, the question of trying again never comes up.

No-one ever said that surfing down the ass of an elephant was a power. The owner of the store said that if you like that scene, you will like 4e. That means that the flexibility of 4e, as well as the style, invites to more over-the-top action. The fact that you equate that with characters only being able to do stuff via their powers is a problem with your thought process, not the game.

Snip

It is very ironic that you call yourself WoTC's Nightmare.

...Sales of 4e are set to surpass 3e and the game has not even been released.

I appreciate CWM's presence on the Paizo boards. He helps keep me open to the idea of even trying 4E. That said, this post lacks wings.

I'm just responding to the sales part, not the betrayed part, cos that's a whole other can of worms. So those high sales...

We know that WotC hasn't advertised yet outside the D&D / gaming community (except one ad in Wired?), so the onslaught of sales likely isn't from new players. This implies there are many current D&D players buying the books.

Just for the record, I am pretty sure that CWM is talking the initial print of 4e vs the initial print of 3e/3.5. And in case you have read all the posts, we have public statements confirming that the 4e initial print is:

So, um, where did all these players come from???

Maybe... 3.x brought in tons of new new players to D&D. These folks have loved 3.x and have stayed with the hobby for more than a few years; in fact, they are so enamored by D&D now that they are going along with a new edition, sight unseen.

First of all, it is not by any stretch of the imagination "by sight unseen". WoTC has been releasing so much information, that we in fact have been able to play something very close to 4e for months. The last month(s) there has been big excerpts 3 times a week on their site, along with a cornucopia of blogs, hints and other assorted info.

Also, DND didn't start with 3.x. It started 34 years ago, and a lot of people were playing long before your beloved 3.x came along. So yes, the people who are currently buying 4e are gamers.

3.x gamers who, because WoTC is actually the best company at making games, have faith that WotC will produce something even better this time around. But also older gamers, who left DND because of 3.x, and who now see a game that that they think is closer to it's roots.

I don't know if this is the case, but I suggest it because the situation is more complex than, oh, say, everybody hated 3.x (I'm not saying CWM said that).

Well, I doubt very much that everyone hated 3.x. But if I am given the choice between something that I like, and something that I like as well, while being better, I am going to go for door number 2. This isn't rocket science. People are buying 4e because from what they have seen, it is simply superior to 3.x.

I happen to think there are some folks who are breathlessly in love with WotC (a few folks at EN-World come to mind) and a lot of others who still remain very loyal to WotC. Although curiously, I haven't met any of those players in my local gaming groups.

I think the loyalty doesn't go much further than the benefit of the doubt. But yes, some might put more faith in WoTC.

Also, a little factoid is that the Internet in 2008 has transformed people's purchasing habits compared to, say, the dark ages of 2000. People used to wait to buy books at a hobby store. Also, in my experience, gamers tend to be tech-savvy and are more likely than the average Joe (or Jane) to pre-order a book on Amazon (though this last part is conjecture).

Yet still, those hobby stores still exist. Some people must be buying there. I know that in my country, the FLGS's are stocked with pre-orders.

Many others above have given a plethora of refutations.

Yeah, but none actually made any sense.

The problem is that so many people over here hate WoTC and 4e so much, that even if someone leaked the numbers (which would be a breach, since WoTC is a PLC - afaik), you guys would argue that it was doctored numbers and part of some greater plot to sell more. Frankly it's pathetic, and I feel sorry that a cool, no strike that, an awesome company like Paizo has fans who act like that.

Having played plenty of D&D that WASN'T about killing people and taking their stuff, I'd say that any definition of D&D that included just that was just as wrong.

You might want to take that up with Mr. Gygax, may his soul rest in peace.

I suggest that you read the fluff and from that, build the monster to actually match it. Level-wise, you put it at the level you need it. If you don't need it for something specific, don't worry too much about level.

Maybe it would help if you came up with an example of a monster that you have trouble converting.

Asmodeur wrote:

In the same blog it was also stated that 4e's initial print was 50% bigger than 3.5's initial print, which again was bigger than 3.0's initial print. There is some debate as to how much 3.0 sold in it's initial print, but, numbers like 200.000 was supposedly mentioned by Dancey back in the day.

I'm about to give up poking this, but saying "on some blog somewhere" isn't a source. Mearls' blog only links to the much-touted "more than 3.5E" comments, not anything about 3.0.

Okay, from Mearls' livejournal, Mearls stated that 4e > 3.5 > 3.0.

Also, if it has any interest, from Le Rouse's blog at Gleemax here

We knew it was going to be big and we prepared by printing truckloads of books. Here are couple photos from a few weeks ago taken at the factory that made the books. You see cases of Core Rule Books (PHB, DMG, MM, and Gift Sets) on pallets being loaded onto a semi-trailer. This was repeated 39 times and a whole convoy of trucks loaded with nothing but D&D drove across the Southern USA to our Distribution Center where in a matter of days they will be shipping 4e to distributors and stores around the world.

Now I do not know how many books you can cram into a semi-trailer, but the pics suggest there are somewhere between 500k and 2 million books in those 39 trucks. Which makes for a lot of people with a morbid curiosity, if some posters on this board are to be taken seriously.. (hint, they aren't, at least not when they speak about the success of 4e).

Cheers

Funny, I wanted to love the game but I found that I truly hated it.

Boy, I didn't realize my comments would get people's panties bunched up so much, as most of what I said had already been expressed elsewhere (and earlier in this thread). I thought I was giving 4th edition a pretty fair treatment, and even stated that the ruleset isn't bad, it just, in my opinion, didn't feel like D&D anymore. So much of this discussion is just about personal preference anyways - and I stated the things that I liked and disliked, which are obviously going to differ from other people's own opinions.

Anyways, most of what seems to have been "fixed" in 4th edition was a problem of DMs giving in to pressure (or catering to) players who wanted to min-max and throw convention out the window to make the most uber powered character possible. If the DM put his foot down and didn't allow a player to make a Barbarian/Monk/Rogue/Ninja/Paladin or whatever ridiculous combination there wouldn't be a problem. 3.5 edition even had its own checks and balances in place (though they were largely ignored) against people who wanted to abuse the rules like that - they'd quickly find themselves several levels behind the rest of the players in their group (unless everyone did it together...ugh).

It just seems like so much of what made its way into 4e was a direct result of DMs not having a spine.

While some of the issues (such as the ridiculous class-stacking and prestige class shopping) were certainly no issue with a decent DM, a lot of the other things that people don't like about 3.x wasn't just fixable by a DM. Stuff like unbalanced classes/spells, a less than stellar encounter system, extremely swingy combats come to mind, and last but not least, short duration combats that last hours.

Or it could mean that they targeted their initial run to sell out, for the marketing value of being able to say so. This is isn't exactly unheard of as a marketing tactic. It is unlikely that at the volume they print, they would have saved anything by printing more, so why not?

Yes. It is indeed true that the fact that 4e initial run has sold out doesn't necessarily mean that 4e is exceeding WotC's projections. But based on the other info that I have provided, it does tell us that 4e initial run has sold more than 50% more than both 3.x initial runs. Which is probably good.

Asmodeur wrote:

Just in case you don't know it, this might be the site for you Enworld Fans of all editions, even 4e, are more than welcome.

Make that Fans of 4e more than welcome. Everything else is just an afterthought.

Too bad you guys don't have emotes, :rolleyes: would certainly be fitting.

Asmodeur wrote:

tadkil wrote:

1) Cite your sources. How do you know it is outstripping sales projections? How do you have this data?

Several WoTC people (Mearls, as in Mike Mearls, in his private blog for example) have stated that the first print sold out (this has also been documented other places (was it forbes?).

Logic would dictate that if they have sold out before the release, 4e sells better than their sales projections.

In the same blog it was also stated that 4e's initial print was 50% bigger than 3.5's initial print, which again was bigger than 3.0's initial print. There is some debate as to how much 3.0 sold in it's initial print, but, numbers like 200.000 was supposedly mentioned by Dancey back in the day.

Excellent! I just didn't know. Does anyone know how that compared to 3.5?

I am not sure I understand your question.

If you mean how the supposed 200k of 3.0 compared to 3.5? No, we don't know, except that 3.5 initial print was bigger than the initial print of 3.0 (supposedly 200k-ish) and again that 4e was roughly 50% bigger than 3.5 initial print. So basically you have (with regards to the initial print):

4e > 3.5 +50% > 3.0 (200k?)

Hope it makes sense this time around, if I wasn't clear before.

crosswiredmind wrote:

I am going to be quite honest. I don't see how the Paizo boards really hold anything for me anymore. I am a 4e convert. I wanted to hate the game but I found I truly liked it.

I haven't really been a part of the 4e forums for quite awhile. I came here hoping to discuss the nature of the game in a mature and intelligent fashion. Now all I see is the same old crap just boiling beneath the surface. Disagreements are okay but outright myth making and illogical arguments for subjective ideals is not.

Like others, I am moving on. I am sure a number of people here won't miss another pro-4e poster leave. That's fine. Feel as you like.

Just in case you don't know it, this might be the site for you Enworld Fans of all editions, even 4e, are more than welcome.

1) Cite your sources. How do you know it is outstripping sales projections? How do you have this data?

Several WoTC people (Mearls, as in Mike Mearls, in his private blog for example) have stated that the first print sold out (this has also been documented other places (was it forbes?).

Logic would dictate that if they have sold out before the release, 4e sells better than their sales projections.

In the same blog it was also stated that 4e's initial print was 50% bigger than 3.5's initial print, which again was bigger than 3.0's initial print. There is some debate as to how much 3.0 sold in it's initial print, but, numbers like 200.000 was supposedly mentioned by Dancey back in the day.

I haven't seen the 4E rules yet, so I can't say for certain that high-level play will be more attractive to me than it was in 3rd edition. But from the design philosophy I've seen already, and a couple of the charts shown in previews, it certainly looks like it'll feel more like old-school D&D to me. Even if it's purely 4E, though, with a feel all its own, it looks like it's just plain going to be less like work, and more like fun, for me and my group. And that's a whole group of (mostly) older players who don't feel abandoned or disenfranchised by the new edition.

I'm really sorry that other folks are feeling disenfranchised. But Paizo is going to keep making 3.5-compatible stuff. They're the best publisher in the business (in my opinion), and they'll be supporting the hobby for all the folks who don't like the direction of 4E. And I've made a conscious choice not to let myself feel abandoned by Paizo because of that decision, but to remind myself that they've made the best decision they can for their entire fanbase (if not for me personally), and that there's room for both 4E and Pathfinder RPG. (And that I can still use Paizo products, even if I do have to convert them as I go.)

So it gets really old,...

This is exactly how I (and my group of players who have played together since the 80'ies) feel. Except that I have read and played 4e.

Thanks for saving me the time :)

Okay...

1. A lot of stuff (sneak attack, immediate actions) is "once per round". I'm a bit confused as to what they mean by a round. Is it the time between your current turn and your next turn (as in 3.5) or is it the combat round (in which every combatant takes one turn)?

2. The Healing/Inspiring Word powers grant more healing than just using a normal Healing Surge. What's to stop anyone from using this after combat?

3. If I understand correctly, you can take a move action and then charge as a standard action? Allowing you to completely bypass anything in the way?

1. Good question, I am not quite sure about this.

2. Nothing. And as long as players have time to take a break for 5 minutes after each two "casting", they can do it.

3. Well that depends. If your move action is enough to bring you to a position from where you can charge without problems, then yes. Just remember that normal movement and charge still causes OA's, if you move through the threat-range of enemies.

This is what I will be playing, if I am so lucky that one of my players for the first time in 14 years will run a campaign. It's a paladin with multi-class cleric feats (max possible). Paragon Path is Warpriest.

I have noticed some feel that multi-classing is bad in 4e, but I must say that I have to disagree 100%. For the first time in 20+ years, I think it is making sense, mechanically and role-play-wise. Of course, YMMV.

R'gar Dragonborn Paladin 11
Str 21, Con 13, Dex 12, Int 11, Wis 16, Cha 17
Speed 6, normal vision
HP 87 bloodied 43 healing surge 22 (11 times/day)
Class Features:
Skills: religion +13, heal +13, intimidate +15, history +12
AC 27 (plate)
Fort 23 Reflex 19 Will 21
Feats Initiate of the faith (1), Dragonborn Frenzy (+2 damage when bloodied) (2), Weapon focus +1 damage (4), Novice Power (6), Acolyte Power (8), Adept Power (10)

Other racial bonuses
+1 tohit when bloodied

Warpriest features:
add ½ level (5) to damage caused by using an action point
1/enc, cause you or ally rolling a 1 on a melee or close power to reroll
+1 ac with heavy armor (included)

Basic Attack Greataxe +15 vs AC 1d12+9 (crit 21+5d12)
Dragon Breath (encounter) minor, close blast +12 vs reflex, 2d6+1 damage
Healing Word (daily) minor, close burst 5, regain 3d6 hp + use healing surge
Channel Divinity (encounter; chose between Divine Mettle and Divine Strength)
Divine Mettle minor, close burst 10, ally makes saving throw with +3 bonus
Divine Strength minor, personal, add +5 damage to next attack
Divine Challenge(at-will) minor, close burst 5, mark creature, it takes 9 damage if it attacks someone else
Lay on Hands (at-will) minor, 3/day, use healing surge to make someone else heal as if he had used a healing surge
Holy Strike (at-will) standard, +15 vs AC, 1d12+9 (crit 21+5d12) radiant damage, 1d12+11 if marked
Valiant Strike (at-will) standard, +15 vs AC (+1 per creature adjacent to you), 1d12+9 damage
Radiant Strike (encounter) standard, +15 vs AC, 2d12+12 radiant damage (crit 36+5d12)
Paladin's Judgement (daily) standard, +15 vs AC, 3d12+9 (crit 45+5d12) damage and one ally can use a healing surge. Miss: One ally can use a healing surge
Bastion of Health (utility/encounter) minor, range 10, you or one ally can spend a healing surge and heal +3 on top
Staggering Strike (encounter)standard, +15 vs AC, 2d12+9 (crit 33+5d12), and push target 3 squares
Martyr's Retribution (daily)standard, +15 vs AC 4d12+9 (crit 57+5d12) radiant damage (you must spend 1 healing surge) Miss: ½ damage
Divine Bodyguard (utility/daily)minor, range 5, take ½ of ally's damage for the rest of the encounter, free action to drop
Strengthen the Faithful (encounter)standard, +15 vs AC, 2d12+9 (crit 33+5d12) You and each ally adjacent to the target can use a healing surge and get +3 on top
Divine Power (daily)standard, +15 vs Fortitude, 2d12+9 (crit 33+5d12)radiant damage, close burst 2, and you push the targets 1 square. You gain regeneration 5 and you and all allies in burst gain +2 power bonus to AC for the rest of the encounter
Turn the tide(utility/daily) standard, close burst 3. You and all allies make saving throws against all effects that can end
Battlecry (encounter) standard, close burst 1. +8 vs Fortitude, 2d12+3 (crit 25+5d12). You and all bloodied allies within 10 squares can use a healing surge

Items: Plate +3, Vicious Greataxe +3, Amulet of False Life +2 (daily: when bloodied, gain 22 temporary hp) and some gp

I am not sure if this has been stated yet (I had to read through really quick), so I apologize in advance if I am merely repeating something else.

Regarding conversions. If you look at the list of solo monsters in the MM, you will find that there aren't that many.

Dragons, Dracolich, Orcus, Purple Worm, Tarrasque, Aboleth, Primordial Hydra and a few others are among the few solo's in there.

Most of them truly epic and great encounters.

Anyway, my point is that you shouldn't use the solo template too often, when converting. Instead use the elite template for the "boss encounters", and if the story calls for him to be alone, well consider if it couldn't make sense if there was a few mooks to balance out the encounter.

Just my 2 cp,

I have run 8-10 4e games based (Raiders of Oakhurst, Second Son, Return of the Burning Plague) on the PHB-lite and other information available.

At least the first module is very lethal. 1st level monsters having 30+HP is lethal enough. I like the use of mooks (referring to the Wicked adventures) 1 hit and dead minions, but this module is a TPK. Interesting to see what a level 15 or 20 creature has when level 4 brutes have 300+HP.

It is written by Mearls, that's probably why. He has a reputation of being something of a player-killer (as DM). On the WotC boards, some call him Gygax on steroids. :)

This is a valid question.

It does solve the problem of crit fumbles.
With no confirmation roll there will be no confusion if a 1 is rolled then.
Have they put in clear rules?
Do they say, "Good clerics cannot cast evil spells."
They should add "Evil spells in the Player's Handbook do not allow you to cast them."
I won't go in to what prompted this.

Since there are no longer any evil spells in 4e, problem solved.

Link

Orcus aka Clark Peterson has had the 3 core books for a while, and here gives us his opinion on 4e.

My review of the books.

I'm still digesting alot of it. But I can make these statements. The books are startling. That is the best way I can describe them. That is both good and bad to some, I think it is all good.

1. They are startlingly beautiful. Maybe that isnt the most useful comment for a game book. But they are. They are very cleanly laid out.

2. They are startlingly useful. Their layout format is so easy to use it is amazing. These books were designed to be used to answer your question at the game table during play. No more 10 minute breaks to flip through the PHB. Literally, it takes 2 seconds to find the answer to "hey, does he have cover" or "can I do that with my acrobatics skill" or "what does XXX do?"

3. They are startlingly well organized. The 4E designers were not afraid to change things. They put magic items in the PHB, for instance. Having the powers by class also makes them more easy to reference. And there are nice sidebar "headers" on each page that say which class you are looking at to make it clear where you are in the book. Stuff is more where it should be. There is little to no flipping between books for answers. The DMG is more advice and adventure prep and stuff like that. The PHB is what you need to run the game.

4. They are startlingly unashamed in the changes they made. This is where the books, at first glance, will bother people who are predisposed to not liking 4E. The books dont at first glance seem "comfortable and similar and familiar." They used a new layout and new organization. Looking back on all the PHBs since the first AD&D PHB the format has been about the same. This one changes it all up. And that first impression is a bit startling. Plus, some of the new stuff is front and center. Heck, dragonborn are the first player race. The first bit of art in the book, starting from teh first page, is a dragonborn. That is new content. They dont try to ease you into it. I have said in the past, they didnt just kill sacred cows, they hung their carcass in the store windo--but I think this is a good thing. If you are going to make changes, dont %+%+* foot around the issue, jump in and do it. And that is what they did. I firmly believe that if people want to not like 4E, there is enough there on first glance to support their fears, BUT once you look past that first layer, you will see this is not only D&D, its is better and better organized and all the changes are improvements.

5. There are a few startling omissions. I still cant find a justification for leaving out a druid and a bard. I can see leaving out sorcerer (that was a 3E add on anyway) and monk (not that mainstream anyway, and has a particular flavor that has always clashed a bit with mainstream high fantasy) and the barbarian. But the druid and bard really should have been there. Of course, all that means is that we can create that content for you

6. Monsters are startling simple and awesome. Dragons are back. They are rad. They are easy to create and modify. Gone are the multi-hour prep sessions for DMs. My only gripe is that a few powers should be more deadly. I think they went overboard the other way in removing save or die powers. But, again, that just lets me provide the alternate rules. I may question a few of their choices--like, why do I need a couple of the lame monsters that are new but you wont give me the iconic iron golem, for instance. But those gripes are few.

7. The game is both startlingly complex and startlingly simple. This is not Basic D&D. It has a lot of options, but those options are surprisingly managable.

8. The books are startlingly fat-free. They are 99% crunch, 1% fluff, if that. They are not for reading anymore. Remember the days you might crack the DMG for a list of suggested reading and to get some fun gygaxian flavor and musings. That is gone. These books are purely designed for game use at the game table. Period. I thought I knew what all crunch, no fluff was, but then I saw these books. These are all crunch, no fluff. I think it is a bold move, but, like many of the above, it will contribute to people who are predisposed to not like 4E to say "this doesnt feel right with me." But if you look past those things, this is D&D.

Bottom line: this is the best designed set of D&D books ever. The MM is awesome. The stuff you need to run the game is in the PHB and is organized so it is really useful at the table. And the DMG truly offers help for the DM in a way we have never seen before.

Um, I expect my hobby game company to act in a more honest and forthright manner than Microsoft?

I have a bridge for sale mate, come on over, and we will discuss the specifics.

Look, I understand that they're out to make money, but that doesn't mean they have to sling the BS so thick.

What BS? Could you provide a link?

Obviously, Paizo's decision to not directly support 4E has alienated some customers, the same way WotC divorced a significant chunk of the D&D player-base when it opted to toss 30 years of game history in the holy name of gamism.

Every edition change has alienated a small chunk of customers. Nothing new there. Only difference is that now they have internet access and the opportunity to b$&## about it.

But Paizo seems to be doing pretty damn well without name-calling their previous customers. They're able to call a spade a spade (ie "We're not digging the direction of 4E, we think others agree with us, so we're catering to them") without resorting to "OMG! Pathfinder is so awesome!!!!! It's got gnomes!!!! It's so much better than 4E it's like the second coming of Gygax!!!!!"

I will agree that Paizo are more subtle, but it's there. Even though I am not a native speaker, it is quite easy to find.

It also helps that they consulted their customers about their desires rather than designing a radically different game in secret, then telling them what was best for them.

Yeah, makes sense. Except that WotC is developing a brand new game, and they might not want to share all the innovations they make. Paizo is merely patching WoTC's old game. Not to mention that maybe, just maybe Paizo does this simply because they do not have the resources to do it to the extend they want, without the help of the public.

The reason that I've largely written off WotC as a company is not because they feel the need to pimp their product, but because they seem unable to do so without calling those who disagree with them or have concerns whiners and dinosaurs. Hell -- look at some of the recent feedback from playtesters on ENWorld. Those who wrote in concerns about some of the 4E changes have said they were basically written off as "simulationists" and ignored.

Link please. I read about 1000 posts a day on 4e at Enworld, and I have never seen this.

I'd just like WotC to be more honest and say, "There were several different approaches we could have taken, we chose X because of A, B, and C. We understand it's not for everyone, but we think this is the best way to go as a business."

If you had actually followed and read about 4e, you would have noticed they had done so a gazillion times.

They possess integrity, and now, PAIZO is dungeons and dragons as far as millions of us who will buy PRPG are concerned.

I think you mistakenly added a few too many zero's.