Search Posts
For the past few days, my RSS reader has been tagging the Paizo Blog as a "misbehaving" feed. When I come to paizo.com to see if changing the RSS feed address will help, I find that clicking on the RSS icon on the blog gives me an error message saying that the Paizo store is temporarily down and will be back up shortly. Since I've been getting the same error since around Thursday, it looks like it's more than a temporary glitch.
Of course they don't, because Pathfinder and the others aren't part of the Dungeons & Dragons brand, they're derivatives of Dungeons & Dragons. There is, however, a separate Wikipedia entry for Pathfinder:
Actually, I noticed that on the first skim when I missed some of the other crazy stuff. But I think the provision about paying the legal fees only applies to suits over GSL compliance (or maybe also copyright violations), not anything WotC feels like suing over.
I think I read somewhere that the intent of the 3e designers was for the PCs to go from level 1-20 in a year. Apparently, market research had shown that was the length of the average D&D campaign. Anyway, I actually looked at the experience section of Alpha 3, and here's what it has to say about the charts. The Pathfinder RPG uses its own unique experience point (XP) charts for determining character advancement. These charts add up to big numbers, but the characters earn correspondingly larger XP rewards for defeating monsters and overcoming roleplaying encounters. and In addition to XP awarded for defeating monsters, players should be awarded experience points whenever they conclude a major storyline or complete an important accomplishment. These awards should be worth an amount of experience points equal to two encounters of a CR equal to the APL. So apparently, the use of constant XP and the fact that story awards are supposed to be standard is expected to make up for the larger numbers. Presumably time and playtesting will tell whether they're right about that.
On ENWorld, some people basically are saying just that. Or that GR owes it to those of their fans who are switching to 4e to support their system of choice.What's the point of the discussion? Are people trying to say GR should support 4E because they made money off of 3E?I would hope that is not the whole point. You are correct that they're two different statements. They're both equally stupid, and I pointed out that versions of both are being thrown around in the ENWorld thread the OP quoted from.
What's the point of the discussion? Are people trying to say GR should support 4E because they made money off of 3E?I would hope that is not the whole point. On ENWorld, some people basically are saying just that. Or that GR owes it to those of their fans who are switching to 4e to support their system of choice.
On the Kenzer message boards, David Kenzer claims that they first released KoK in the 2e days without a license. But actually, being sued for not accepting the GSL is better than being sued for GSL noncompliance. At least this way, Kenzer doesn't automatically have to pay WotC's legal fees.
Finally. A 4E supporter concedes that 4E is incomplete, and that this is a deliberate strategy. Thank you.Incomplete? I wouldn't go that far. I can play 4th Edition right now and resolve any actions my players want their characters to do. Wait until a fighter gets to Level 17 and picks Exorcism of Steel as a power. Since you don't know how much of a monster's magic threshold comes from its weapons, how do you adjudicate that power when it takes away a monster's weapon?
If he accepted the GSL, I'm pretty sure he's bound by its terms with respect to WotC's IP rather than general copyright law. Of course, WotC might not care too much, since it's a non-commercial fan project.
Panda-s1 missed my point. I wasn't talking about putting machine guns into a quasi-medieval setting. I was talking about things like magic levels and divine involvement in the world within the conventions of the game. Historically, D&D has tried to be flexible enough to allow for a variety of campaign worlds within certain assumptions (like the existence of both arcane and divine magic). You were supposed to be able to play anything from medieval Europe with real elves and wizards and spellcasting priests to a setting like FR where the gods walk the Earth. And there was at least a basic level of advice in the DMG about how such decisions affect your campaign and game world. That's missing from the 4e DMG. Well, the issue isn't really missing; it's just raised and not dealt with. And I think that's the dumbest possible way of doing it. If you're not going to suggest possible answers to a question, why raise them? That whole section is a useless waste of space. Now, some people are arguing that beginning DM's shouldn't be altering the assumptions of the default setting in even small ways. My question is, what if a beginner picks up the core books and wants to run a game with his friends but doesn't like the assumptions of the PoL setting? Will that player be discouraged from taking up the game because of that? The omission is particularly galling in the case of magic level. If you change the assumptions about the commonness or scarcity of magic, it affects the mechanics because the monster stat blocks assume that the PCs have magic items of a given power level based on their level. So if a beginning DM decides he wants magic to be rare and adjusts treasure accordingly, the monsters suddenly become tougher and the PCs keep getting TPK'd. Might that turn some players off to the game? On something that affects the mechanics so strongly, the designers had a duty to provide warnings about the effects on game play.
So part of Earthdawn's magic system involves characters routinely failing at complex non-combat challenges? :-p
Oh, and our 4e product line is Age of Legend, not Earthdawn. *smile* AFAICT, Redbrick has a couple of advantages over most GSL licensees. First of all, there's no OGL version of the setting, and thus no need to fret about the backward conversion clause. Furthermore, the GSL doesn't forbid having simultaneous versions of a product in multiple systems, as long as the other system isn't OGL. So the only thing they have to worry about is the potential sudden-license-change trap. There's also the matter of WotC's ability to insert things into the SRD and claim that as the "official version" and declare variants in violation. Of course, they might be able to avoid that by only including original elements that are so original that they can claim them as their unique IP. Then they could sue WotC should it try to pull such a thing in the future (albeit without a jury and in Seattle). However, an open-and-shut case is an open-and-shut case regardless of venue, and a judge educated in the law is probably less susceptible to BS than a jury of 12 people off the street. Of course, any of the actual lawyers who hang around here should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, if you're using the GSL (which I assume you are, since you have the D&D logo displayed so prominently on the first page of the pdf), you're not allowed to redefine any terms from the SRD. That would make putting in different definitions of law and good problematic. Oh, and here's how good I am at recognizing screen names. I didn't realize that you were linking to your own product. I probably would have been less of a smartass if I'd realized I was talking to the author himself. Anyway, about the duplicate Holy Words: Not only do the two powers have the same name, but they're mechanically similar. Having both in the same game as written might be a little redundant. I'm thinking the encounter power's name could be changed to something like "Word of Rebuke" and keep the forced movement thing. The daily power could keep the name "Holy Word" and do some kind of damage + status effect, with the status effect being less severe for Unaligned or Good targets. I'll have to eyeball appropriate damage for a 1st-level cleric daily to get any more detailed. It also seems like you have a lot of daily powers that have neither the reliable keyword nor a Miss effect. This is a big omission since one of the principles of 4e design is supposed to be that you never blow a daily with no effect. Seraphim (the Level 22 Utility cleric prayer) seems poorly worded. One could take the description to mean that you get to pick one Good, one Unaligned, and one Evil target for the angel. Also, there's no duration listed. Maybe you meant to add a Sustain Minor line?
There is an entire chapter in the 4E DMG about World Building. See Chapter 9.....Wow, you really haven't gotten around to reading the Dungeon Master's Guide, have you? Actually, that chapter is called "The World" and spends most of its time telling you about the core assumptions of PoL and telling you how to create settlements. Only maybe a page says anything about building your own world with possibly different assumptions. And that advice is mostly in the form of unanswered questions. "What if the world isn't a fantastic place?" I'm thinking, "Exactly, what if? You aren't exactly giving us advice on the subject, are you?" There isn't even advice on variations like magic level that directly affect the mechanics. At least 3.x had advice about how to adjust treasure for a low-magic campaign.
I like the clever way they did it. By naming their product after the setting, they may have insulated themselves somewhat from GSL revisions.
3.5 was very tabletop driven, check out all the rules on facing and even variant facing and hex board options. The real problem was that 3.5 rapidly became a victim of it's own success, much like how the Ptolemaic model of the solar system collapsed under the weight of epicycles that kept getting added to explain odd planetary motions. With 3.5 it was the overwhelming addition of complete this and splat that, getting to the point where you could fill a suitcase on the rulebooks alone.Like it or lump it 4e may very well be at least a partial return to ChainmailThen it should be called Chainmail 4e, not D&D 4e. While D&D has its roots in tabletop wargames, it's not a tabletop wargame itself. What facing rules? Even the flanking rules were written in such a way that which direction you were facing didn't matter. I do agree that 3.5 was set up in a mini-centric way, with most of the new combat rules written with the assumption that you're using minis, but I think 4e is the point where minis become totally mandatory. There's just no way to keep track of all these minute forced movements without a grid.
Nice resource guys. RedBrick has announced 4E support (they're the owners of EarthDawn, although I don't think they'll be releasing a 4E EarthDawn, which would totally rock!) Since Redbrick is actually licensing the Earthdawn IP from FASA, I doubt they'd have the authority to do a 4e Earthdawn. Of course, the delay between their announcement of GSL acceptance and the product announcements could mean there are negotiations going on.
I think you're talking about Dias Ex Machina. I really hope they don't get screwed over by a GSL termination or revision. It would suck to see their options for their own original setting shrink.
Does anybody have an actual date for this? I've heard it happened anywhere from shortly before to shortly after the release of 3e. IIRC, 3e actually came out in August 2000 (and I think it was almost September before my bookstore got any copies in stock). Still, Hasbro bought out WotC late in the development of 3e and never interfered with it. I've also always heard that, a few years ago, Hasbro basically forced job and budget cuts on all its divisions and subsidiaries, including WotC even though WotC was the only profitable one. Since you seem to know a lot about the corporate history of Hasbro, is this true? This may have been a factor in a lot of designers and other people leaving WotC during that period, which arguably changed the face of the game in later years.
I was under the impression that WotC was bought by Hasbro very early on, before the release of D&D 3.0? Does anybody have an actual date for this? I've heard it happened anywhere from shortly before to shortly after the release of 3e. But the important point is that Hasbro had nothing to do with the actual development of 3.0. Coming out with a new edition to save the game was Peter Adkison's obsession. While 3.0 was a distinct improvement over previous editions, everything that's happened since seems like a mixed bag at best and a step backward at worst.
The one thing that leaped out at me right off the bat is that the guy has both an encounter power and a daily power called Holy Word, each with similar effects. He probably should make up his mind. :-p I really like his fluff and DM advice on alignment, though. It's stuff that has really needed to be explained to every DM in every edition because so many get it wrong.
I think the only people who will probably go GSL all the way are the companies that only make generic modules or companies that are so small they feel they have to hitch their wagon to the new marketing juggernaut. Anybody who has their own settings or game systems will probably dual-track to protect their other properties from the vagaries of the GSL. Margaret Weis' company is a good example. They're converting their one D&D setting to 4e under the GSL, while also developing their own system for any other settings they want to make.
That might work. In fact, you could probably make a whole chain of those spells, allowing more variance in size and body type, and possibly eventually making the illusion tactile as well.
I think they designed those XP charts on the assumption that story rewards would be standard rather than optional.
I kind of doubt they're going to cut down on the crunchiness. However, it's not too hard to "convert" the game to "Pathfinder Lite." Basically, just look at the range of DCs given for various uses of skills, and use those numbers as a guideline to create a scale of DCs based on estimated difficulty of the task. Then you can use your own scale to eyeball everything without having to look up rules for skills.
Furthermore, anybody who wants to use a polymorph effect for infiltration would presumably have ranks in the Disguise skill. All Polymorph spells give you a +20 to your disguise skill checks to make yourself appear bulkier, more like the average ogre. The duration is problematic, though. It would probably be better to make up a new spell (possibly an illusion?) that would make you appear to be an average member of the new species but not grant you any of the creature's powers and abilities.
I'm on the fence on the removal of negative modifiers. Sure, flavorwise, it makes sense for races like half-orcs to be dumber than the others. OTOH, penalties make some race/class combinations a lot less playable, which can get in the way of interesting characters and stories. And it really doesn't matter what races are listed in the core book, as long as options for converting low-HD races are in the monster book. For spellcasters I think the number of spells spellcasters get (especially wizards and sorcerers) should be reduced, and a lot of spells should either be reduced in power or removed completely. I'm sick of wizards being able to use spells to do things fighters and rogues can do, and do them 100x better than fighters and rogues can (who needs a skill to pick locks when the wizard can just cast a spell?). Or, better yet, make a completely new magic system that makes major spellcasters more balanced with non-spellcasters. The magic system from Monte Cook's D20 World of Darkness would be very interesting. Actually, in 4e, wizards only get fewer spells at high levels. At low levels, they get an encounter spell and a daily spell, as well as 2-3 at-wills. I actually like the idea of nerfing the pure casters (particularly wizards, druids, and clerics) in Pathfinder because it's more backward-compatible than giving fighters a new spell-like mechanic (another legitimate way to balance them). Alpha 3 has actually nerfed several high-level wizard spells, BTW. I suspect this item on your list will take a lot more abuse than it deserves on this forum. Really, there's nothing wrong with the idea of giving fighters and wizards abilities with a similar use frequency; 4e just did it badly. I haven't seen how Pathfinder deals with multiclassing but if it still exists in Pathfinder it should be removed. multiclassing is way more trouble than it's worth. I assume that multiclassing in Pathfinder works the same as in 3.x. Really, the reason WotC removed multiclassing as we know it from 4e isn't that such multiclassing is bad. It's just that they can't or won't design classes and PrCs with the fact that players can switch out of a class any time in mind. It might also be worth looking at games like True 20 and Mutants & Masterminds to see if there's anything they have that can be adapted for use in Pathfinder. If paizo took all the best parts of pathfinder, 4E, M&M/True 20, and some other D20 variants and mixed in some new stuff of their own I think they'd be able to make the best version of D&D ever. Adopting really major parts of these other systems would completely screw the maximum backward compatibility design goal. However, looking at some minor rules that are OGC might make a better game without throwing out backward compatibility.
Anything to the speculation, like things in business news? Or is it just the wishful or insane ramblings of internet gossip? I don't have any inside connections, so AFAIK, it's just been internet gossip. And one could argue that being sold by Hasbro could be the best thing that's ever happened to WotC. It's not like that acquisition did anything for D&D, unlike WotC's initial acquisition of TSR.
There's been speculation along those lines ever since WotC started taking back their licenses (Dungeon/Dragon, Dragonlance, etc.).
Just for the record, Wis is the basis for Sense Motive, so a character can have "a good sense of people" without a high Int or Cha.
Of course, fun varies from person to person. So, if your players are happy to (Edit: PARTICIPATE IN ADVENTURES), because they (EDIT:performed badly at something), and also like to (EDIT: Get excited about their new character while swapping war stories about their last character which I'm sure you haven't experienced because you coddle your players) power to you.Why thank you for your input. I do consider myself to tell a rather good tale, and my players seem to have quite a bit of fun. People seem to be forgetting the other problem with SoD's: the fact that they're another way for spellcasters to end encounters in one round at high levels, thus making fighters more useless. And if both sides have SoD effects, combat can potentially be decided by which side wins initiative.
The problem is that if WotC wanted to design such a system, they should have included more specific rules for non-combat XP and other advice on how to run such adventures. Instead, they acted like 3.x was going to be all about dungeon crawling from levels 1-20.
At level 20, why is the fighter just standing there trying to look busy? She's a killing machine with some sweet magic items that has just been buffed up by her friend the wizard. Seriously, the smart high-level wizard starts throwing around save-or-die spells in standard 3.5. At 20th level, they start throwing around Wail of the Banshee. With options like that, buffing the fighter is a sub-optimal tactical choice.
yessirree Bob..this is where the failing in logic among the WotC folks and supporters lies....They underestimate the 'power' we long time DM's have in the power of persuasion ;) I think geeks have always been prone to this kind of "fanboy hatred." You just notice it more these days because of the internet. I mean, it's not like there weren't "edition wars" when 3e first came out, and even for years after.
The problem with this whole "narrativism vs. simulationism" angle is that WotC appears to be providing entirely simulationist explanations for things. They could have given this narrativist explanation you and others favor, but they didn't. They gave the "dipping into energy reserves" explanation. It's nice that you can come up with an alternative explanation that works for you, but don't be surprised when people look at the official flavor text and are bothered by it.Huh? Were? I just scanned the Players Handbook for such an explanation but I don't see it. P. 54, under "Daily Powers."
I have one question for all those who complain about random hit points..do you roll random weapon damage because if you don't have one you shouldn't have the other. As has also been said previously, there's a difference of duration. If you roll a bad damage roll, you only have to live with that result until your next attack. If you have extremely low hp for your class, you're stuck with it until you level up.
The problem with this whole "narrativism vs. simulationism" angle is that WotC appears to be providing entirely simulationist explanations for things. They could have given this narrativist explanation you and others favor, but they didn't. They gave the "dipping into energy reserves" explanation. It's nice that you can come up with an alternative explanation that works for you, but don't be surprised when people look at the official flavor text and are bothered by it.
I agree with you that 4e is more of a skirmish game than even 3e (another move in the cycle of roleplay vs. skirmish throughout the game's history), but that feeling isn't particularly about the daily powers for me. Mostly it's the fact that so much of the tactics is based on forced movement of such minute distances that you can't keep track of them without a grid. You might have been able to play 3.x without minis, but that'll never happen with 4e. As a side note, I'm always amused when anybody pretends that any edition of D&D is "all about the roleplaying." In most editions, the rules for things that go on outside of combat have been underdeveloped. I mean, it took them three editions plus (if you count the versions before 1e AD&D) to come up with an honest-to-god skills system. The actual roleplaying parts of the game have generally been window dressing that players and DMs have added onto a combat-centric system.
Now that I think about it, the interesting thing is that using Pacific Time would be doing a favor for most of the U.S. Everybody in this country is either on the same time as WotC or ahead. So if you're in the Eastern Time Zone, you have three extra hours to catch the GSL update. Of course, that poor company in New Zealand that signed the GSL might have some problems, especially with the International Date Line and all.
Kelvin: Because power points were a bookkeeping nightmare.There is also the aspect of play balance. Even the best Daily power can only be used once per day. There is a danger in using power points that players will use the same daily power over and over again once they find one thats mechanically better then the others. Another angle here is its not very interesting to do the exact same thing over and over again when dealing with something as potent as a Daily Power. Better to see some change ups in this part of the game, IMO. Since it looks like PC damage output doesn't keep up with monster hp, they probably wouldn't have suffered if they'd just let you replace all your previous daily powers with level appropriate ones every time you gained a new daily. Of course, with 4e the big problem is that, even if you force characters to use different powers, they still kind of all look alike: mostly hp damage + move target so many squares. The real keepers are the occasional powers that stun the target in addition to the damage.
It looks like nothing could daisy-chain to Green Ronin unless Green Ronin also accepts the GSL. Of course, since I'm not even a lawyer, much less a judge, my opinion doesn't necessarily mean anything, but that's what it looks like just parsing Section 6.2.
To be fair to the OP, the flavor text about "dipping into your deepest reserves of energy" kind of makes you wonder how the fighter can still dip into those reserves for other daily powers but not for the one he just used.
Technically, it looks like the language about "third-party affiliates" only applies to electronic versions of the OGL products. But that certainly wasn't WotC's intent, and they would certainly update the license to close that loophole. Oh, and you would have until midnight that day to stop publishing or be sued for violating the GSL. As for Pathfinder and the OGL: Anything that's a modification of the core content would probably have to be distributed as OGC, since the OGL kicks in the second you read the covered material, unlike the GSL. (Insert obligatory "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer for everything above, especially the second paragraph).
Really? I thought they balanced the monsters assuming that PCs would have certain magic items and had magic merchants to sell the items, just like 3.x.
Well is the term 'Dungeon Master' trademarked? It doesn't look like they're claiming it as a trademark in the 4e books. I seem to remember it was claimed as a trademark in earlier editions, though. Not sure if it's ever been registered, though.
Silence is only acceptance in very very very limited circumtances. I can't just say "vance, if you don't respond negatively, you owe me $500 for my thoughts on the GSL."But they can claim it, and you are forced into a legal situation as described above. Whether or not they should win a court case is moot, since, again, most 3PP can't afford to go to Washington State to aribtrate this anyway - something I'm sure that they were fully aware of. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like they can't literally claim "silence" as acceptance. Sebastian's point was about the provision in Section that "Licensee’s continued use of any Licensed Materials (as defined below) after the 'Last Updated' date above, including without limitation any publication or distribution of Licensed Products (as defined below), confirms Licensee’s acceptance of any changes to the License."The corollary is that not continuing to publish or distribute Licensed Products constitutes a rejection of the new terms and opting out of the license. It's a pretty tight window, though. Not as bad as some people are saying, from what I can see, but pretty tight. It looks like you have to stop your "publication or distribution" by the next calendar day after the license update. That's easy enough with pdfs: just check the SRD website right before midnight every night and shut down online sales if it's changed. Well, unless WotC decides to post a new SRD at 11:59:59 and date it for the current day. For printed books, I wonder if there's a legal definition of "publication" and "distribution" that would apply, and how easy those activities are to stop on a dime. The provision strikes my layman's brain as a fig-leaf (possibly inserted because forcing acceptance of revised terms without some kind of opt-out mechanism wouldn't hold up in court?). You are completely wrong. The GSL is a very well drafted legal document which obviously used a serious amount of legal reasoning. It is a high quality piece of legal work and is designed to allow WotC to amend it within the confines of the law. I suspect that "written by weasels" was pretty much what he meant. You seem to be arguing that the GSL screws people over because lawyers didn't check it out to purge the harsh clauses. Sebastian's arguing that the GSL screws the licensee over because that's exactly what the lawyers designed it to do. The only thing that makes me entertain your idea for a second is that there are some things left pretty imprecise (like, for example, what time zone is used to determine the start of the next calendar day).
Actually, unless WotC changes the terms of the GSL, they can do old Earthdawn and 4e Earthdawn at the same time. The conversion clause only applies to OGL games/systems. Moot point, though, since their website seems to indicate that they're developing a separate product line for the GSL. I hate to rain on your parade by contradicting myself, but I totally blacked out about the provision that WotC can change the terms any time. Theoretically, they could come out with a new version that forbids conversion of GSL products to any other system and declare that that clause survives the termination of the contract. Under those circumstances, it would be risky to do 4e Earthdawn.
From what I've heard, combat in 4e gets longer as you go up in level because the PCs damage doesn't keep up with monster hp. What I've been able to slog through of the 4e PHB seems to confirm that. Couple that with the fact that you can't just memorize one description of an ability in the "exception-based designed" 4e, but have to look at each individual power description even for similar powers, and the epic length isn't much of a surprise. Now why they decided to do a video to showcase how boring and complicated their game gets at high levels, I have no idea.
Assuming it is an agreement they worked out with WotC, I only hope this means they can still sell their 3e DCCs. Cause I don't have most of them yet. :) Actually, even under the GSL, they can sell their back-inventory after conversion. It's just a question of whether they can print new copies. But they must have come to some separate agreement with WotC in order to release the projects before October.
This is very ture. Balance has always been a wired issue coming from an old time... So basically, if you don't like your high-level fighter, play a wizard? :-p This version of magic-uber-alles "D&D fantasy" is viable. It's just that, if magic is supposed to rule everything and non-spellcasters are supposed to be irrelevant, why offer non-spellcasters a PC options. You could just change the name of the game to "Wizards & Werewolves." The back cover text could read like this: "Wizards & Werewolves lets you play magical heroes in a high fantasy setting. Will you be a wizard, drawing on the arcane secrets of your spellbook, or a sorcerer, using your natural connection to the magic of the world. Will you be a crusading cleric, combining divine magic with martial skill, or a druid, connected with the divine force of nature." Then you'd have rules for using Leadership to hire fighters as expendable meat shields if you don't have a cleric or druid to be the party tank.
Casting defensively allows you to cast in melee without provoking attacks of opportunity. All it takes is a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level). If you're maxing out Concentration (as any wizard should, given the skill points they get from high Int), this is an extremely makable check at high levels. The only way a melee brute can give itself a decent win percentage is to win initiative and do enough damage to kill the wizard. Now, there are probably some monsters (and a few feat combinations from splatbooks) that can allow this to happen, but a smart wizard puts a good score into Dex and takes Improved Initiative anyway (to get their save-or-dies off before the other side acts). Granted, zero chance beats a small chance, but high-level wizards are hardly helpless sitting ducks when engaged in melee. And the one problem I have with the DM as the ultimate solution is that the DMG states that hack-and-slash games should follow the rules more closely because they're so mechanically balanced for combat. Basically, they're telling new DMs that they don't need to take special steps to make the fighter relevant because the rules do it for them. It would be one thing if they actually said that fighters are going to be increasingly irrelevant at high levels, and that the DM needs to be aware of that and take steps to alleviate the problem in their game, but this doesn't happen. Of course, I do have some hope that the Pathfinder spell nerfs will help alleviate the spellcaster imbalance somewhat, though I'm not sure if the approach to powering up the fighter works that well. |
