Search Posts
There will never be "the edition", asking for PF 2.0 is simply a stepping stone to asking for 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, repeat... The trick is to have fun 'within the limits' of the version you are playing. To paraphrase Mel from Serenity: "Perfect RPG, that's a long wait for a train that don't come."
Quick sketches work for me too :D This is what I'm use to, quick scribble on an A4 showing roughly where things are at the beginning and then completely TotM. Yes there were "but I thought they were over there?" conversations but still on the whole much faster combats and less set-up times then using miniatures. Your mileage may vary.
I find that the rules don't mandate minis, the players do. We will have to agree to differ. The introduction on the codified 5'-step and different movement types as described in, for example, 4e powers make detailed movement tracking a requirement. Not impossible to still do TotM combat but you are not playing RAW or RAI.
For me it is rather simple. It comes down to the required integration of miniatures in play. While sort of set-up for it we never used miniatures other than for marching order in 1e. Then 2e was completely devoid of miniatures in play (brief mention in passing only). 1e/2e was the bulk of my D&D 24/7 days. Then 3e came along and made miniatures more in the spotlight, remembering WotC made miniatures and a had parallel game. The the deal was sealed with 3.5e and even more so in 4e. Either use miniatures or have a nightmare time. Yes you could play 4e without miniatures but with all the detailed movement in combat it meant many rules were unworkable. Then 5e, miniatures can go back in the cupboard. So for me 5e "plays" like 2e because of TotM combats. Those who cut there D&D teeth on 3.5e and PF obviously will have a different experience.
I did something like this with 1e Dark Suns and going from 1e to 2e with a game reason. I had a campaign in 1e Dark Suns in which the players 'saved' Athas and it became the Forgotten Realms (explaining the 'rule' differences as part of the story). Each player became a god in Forgotten Realms and they rerolled 1st 2e characters. They really liked having their retired PC's as part of the new game world. So I think a great idea, just link the editions by the developing story!
I wouldn't be keen on a generic PHB2 or options. I would rather keep the base game simple, meaning PHB only. Then have setting specific classes/races/options to flesh things out. I would love to see a Ravenloft setting book, hardback like the last 2e book. Then if WotC liked they could tailor 'power' of these addons. For Ravenloft you want not-so-heroic stuff, but in the FR you want earth shattering Eliminster-like options available. But don't mess with the base game other than fix current broken rules and typos. 2 cents.
And so Stefan Hill did ;) I liked some of the changes, Ranger for example. But things like the change to the rules about damage reduction I really disliked. By having 'more damage' be the answer to say a werewolf it reduced, in my opinion, alternative approaches other than "Optimise DPS" as the only true way to build a PC. Also my group has never (even back in 1e) never used battle maps. 3.5 forced me to either do so or have nightmare ToM combats given how many of the combat maneuvers or feats worked in 3.5. Not saying 3.0 was blameless here, but it was more managable. So yes on the whole I liked 3.0 better than 3.5. 3.5 drove me to dig out my 2e books (core only - Options books were blah). I'm rather comfortable with monsters NOT being generated the same way as PC's, in fact I prefer it. Then came along 5e, 2e evolved. Rather happy with 5e. Still like the initiative system of 2e, but on the whole 5e is now my go to D&D game. S.
Likely been covered, late to the discussion... But I like the contained stats of 5e (and previously 1/2e). Gives me context that I can relate to. The unbounded and HUGE numbers of 3e/PF made stats seem alomst meanginless. I have a 50 foot long dragon that is at a disadvantage in "pluses" against a human in an arm wrestling competition? Never sat well with me. It seems like a new things but 1/2e were bounded but it never had a name. Actually human women were bounded even further to 17 STR... Let's not get into that discussion. My views of course are coloured by the main period I played D&D. I really like 5e, and wish that (for me) this came out as 3e WAY back in the early 2000's. I would have had far more time to play! S.
Its been an excellent read so far. Though I fail to understand why various people did not like the Expedition to Ravenloft beyond the layout of the book. Two words... "Madam Eva". What in the name of the Nine Hells was that change about. I guess I should think myself lucky Strahd wasn't a Halfling or Gnome in that version. I can see it now "I vant to suck your knees".
Hi, Does anyone know the number of printings to date of the PHB, DMG, and MM. From the Errata it isn't clear regards the PHB and says the Errata is included in 3rd or later printings of the DMG & MM. I know there is a PHB with Errata included, but is that the v1 or the v1.1 errata? I have 1st printings of the three books but find I enjoy the game so much I would like to get copies with the errata all included. But I need to know what I'm asking for. Worried that if I order on-line I'll get 'old stock'. My local RPG shop seems to just got in the 'errata included' PHB but 1st printing DMG & MM. Cheers,
I agree. I also find that I have players always thinking ahead to 'end game' when their build finally comes together. Almost like the adventuring bit in the middle is the boring part. Then in some case once the build is finally complete we sort of re-roll and start another adventure. So in many case they only get a short period of time with the full build itself. Cool stuff should happen 'as you level' not just once your level allows 'the build' to be completed. S.
Tactics etc. are a large part of why I play RPGs. To make such tactics meaningful there need to be a decent chunk of rules to support them. And that is a perfectly valid reason. 'D&D' started as an extension to a tabletop war-game the broke away completely in 2nd, headed back that way in 3.xe/PF/4e (to varying degrees) then 5e went back the way of 2e. All comes down to what you are use to. The largest number of years I played a single RPG system was 2e D&D where trust in the DM and the idea that the it isn't PCs vs DM was paramount. I do completely understand the need for codified rules and grid based combats when you are playing with unknown people (PFS etc).
I don't mind options, what I don't like is minor variations on a theme for classes that basically fill the same niche. If I want a Witch I can have one using either a Wizard/Sorcerer or Cleric - or a multiclass of these. Hexes you cry - er, I think the spell Curse also fits that bill. Charm Person seems right for a Witch also. I don't think 'but it uses a different stat' is reason enough for a whole new class. Do we have a STR based caster yet? What about Brute Caster: using strength alone the caster rips open the very fabric of the universe spilling motes of raw magical energy. These motes are molded in the vice-like grip of the Brute Caster releasing the spell! Now we just find all the spells that fit the strength theme and write down a few level abilities and class done. Pad out with fluff and slap $39.99 + postage on it. I would far rather Paizo focus its considerable talents on awesome adventure paths, adventures, and perhaps setting material (on the fence about this). My only real PF gripe, the rogue/thief - give it back the uniqueness of abilities it had in 1e/2e. 3e did a huge disservice by making 'thieves abilities' effectively open to everyone.
I loved the complete book of Elves. That book was game evolving. The author of that book should be view as visionary. When we got it we house rule the crap out the game based on the Complete Book of Elves. Those blade single weapon proficiencies became feats, though we didn't call them that. We made all kind of crazy bonus combat things using he rules for the Blade Singer as the bench mark. Worked great. Then 3rd edition came and feats were there. Go to Book of Elves.
Its the VHS vs Beta Max argument all over again...
I think it comes down to levels are too large of steps-some people probably want closer to twice as many levels, but keep the number endpoints the same (Abilities, BAB 1-20, etc), so you can feel more progress, but let the math stay pretty close. 5e D&D sort of does this with its bound accuracy. Not to say that this hasn't been done before - looking at the level progression in the D&D Cylcopedia (the one RPG to rule them all), they level from 1-36 and each level isn't a huge leap in power. Stops the game going from Fantasy to Superheroes as levels progress.
We played the WWII d20 rules that were published in Polyhedron for a while, was perfectly fine for a one-off game. There were some interesting concepts in those mini-d20 rule sets. Shame they were killed off in the loss of Dragon/Dungeon to print.
I also think bloat is personal era dependent. Back in the dim dark past there was really only the red books, and then Expert. From there I moved to 1st ed. and brought all the books (PHB, UA, DMG, MM, MM2, Fiend Folio, and Deities and Demigods). I guess you could class UA as 1st ed. bloat? Then moving onto 2nd ed. I brought EVERYTHING that TSR spat out, campaign settings, 'complete' books the works. That was bloat of the first order. Even the author of The Complete Book of Elves has an apology on YouTube video for that piece of crap. Still I was in my early twenties and bloat was good, more options, more rules, more, more, more!!! Now in my mid-40's bracket I can't be bothered with all that b&!+#$#s, I want simple straight forward rules. If I was twenty again I would be begging Paizo to release more 'bloat'. As it is I care little for the splat books these days, interesting to read but I don't really care to learn the new rules. Back then I had no money but shed loads of time, now I have money but no time. Ironic... 20-25 years ago I had a completely different view of what I wanted out of an RPG. Great thing is with an RPG you can play the way you like and Paizo are unlikely to send out the police because you aren't playing the 'one true way'. 2 cents,
Perhaps introduce the gold required to gain a level, but hand-wave the time - perhaps its spent on books and self-help guides the PC's carry with them? In 1e edition getting enough gold to level was a real struggle and kept you going back out into danger. Then once you hit name level your keep and hirelings were a complete money pit... Another thing to consider is things like 'Kings tax'. If the PC's are ruining the local economy the local lord/ruler/whatever is going to want a piece of the action. Too much money is usually due to the DM and not the PC's. As DM YOU decide the economy of the world not the players. 2 cents.
If you don't want a tonne (or ton) of lawyers coming down on Paizo then 10th level spells are out. Dark Suns (2e) had 10th level spells and it wasn't part of the OGL I believe. So Casters can have levels 1-9 and then 11-19 spells only I'm afraid. To balance out this how about all Melee classes start with only one leg? They of course can get another by spending feats. Other than that, I like the way you are going with this Kthulhu.
Hopefully they can nerf some of the more massively overpowered martial options, and bolster some of the glaring weaknesses of the full spellcasting classes. In 3e they made it quite easy to cast in melee, a complete change from 1e/2e. How about in the new edition rather than the Caster needing to make a concentration check the Melee class attackers needs to when attacking a Caster. This would represent the Melee class having to keep thoughts of "why do I bother?" out of their head long enough to make the attack? Just an idea. Perhaps we can also introduce truly ridiculous things like say Halfling Paladins, actually, no that would be too silly.
will be a success in spite of WotC, but certainly not because of them. I take it you mean others at WotC - the design team of 5e ARE WotC also. I give them huge credit for what they have achieved. I am sure that WotC management above were aware and supportive of this creation. I find it difficult to believe that 5e is a product of after-hours and weekend work. S.
If Hasbro wanted to sink D&D I'm not sure letting WotC produce the very well thought out (not perfect, but what is?) 5e D&D was the correct move. Unlike 4e, 5e seems to have cemented rather than polarized the D&D crowd. Or perhaps they just want us all in on place when Hasbro lets the hammer fall? Sneaky darn evil corporates. 4e killed my long time D&D group (fact), 5e brought it back together (fact). S.
Knocking things out. No fluffing around with 'non-lethal damage'. On the hit that the thing would have been killed you can just say I'm knocking them out rather than killing. One of my players actually bothered to read the rules rather than relying on Mr DM. I had my evil captain of the guard about to be killed after a non-battle mat fight (I'm TotM with the odd scribble if required). But on the killing blow the player announced first he wasn't killing the chap and then what page number in the rules as a stared at him. He was completely right. Simple but really awesome rule. The player described he, at the last minute, reversed his sword stroke and bashed the dude between the eyes with his pommel. Chalk one prisoner up for the PC's. They finally released him for some concessions from the evil Barron. **************************************** Also we are finding not having to so heavily rely on magic items makes for a better story at times. We have no Wizard (so take that into account), but I had the players arrested, which they decided was the best way into the castle. Now under 3e/PF removing all of the players items in such a fashion to throw them in prison would be met with cries of how the GM had ruined their character. Not a peep under 5e, in fact, as I said, this was their plan. So the heroes being the heroes rather than organic attachments of the magic items is a huge win of 5e for me. S.
After all the chat about Old Greyhawk on another thread, I'm going back to 1st and 2nd ed..no 5th for me. Which was always an option from the time 3e came out. Still some do not really like the 'mother may I' that is usually leveled at 1e/2e AD&D. Still I have been re-reading the 1e DMG cover to cover and I'm always surprised how much of the 'new and cool rules' attributed to the wonderful d20 system were already in 1e and as far as rule went worked fine. S.
I agree with this, while I will have encounters for all levels as suits I don't agree with the weird idea that really bad monsters will avoid the PC's because they are to low level. I like my players to get an idea of being "in the world" and not "are the world" when designing a campaign. As long as you don't unfairly spring 5 Ogres on a 2nd level party I'm all for it. Then if the players are stupid enough... Well I'm sure stories will be written about them by some bard. I'm sure Red Dragons don't fly around looking for level appropriate PC's before deciding what lands to terrorize!
He just went from mortal to an immortal protector. I would say unless your alignment took a hit he could be a 'half glass full' type of vampire. Look at Lestat (in interview the other books were less...), he had a great time as a vampire. Not every vampire has to be Louis. If you haven't seen the movie Interview with a Vampire I would advise you too. Tom Cruise against all my reservations did a great job as Lestat. The only difference is you will be on the side of good rather than a homicidal maniac...
Bury is likely too strong of a word, I should have used "phase out". Less support for the D&D brand and wind down parts of the machine creating/printing D&D. Having two completing products in your own line is seldom good business as its splits your own client base. 4e was a good example of this, it split WotC's client base and allowed the growth of Pathfinder. To say Paizo needs the D&D brand to grow further is like saying a fish needs a bicycle. The Paizo team have done an amazing job creating out of the ashes of 3e/OGL a new brand, that I contest in the circles of those who still play pen & paper fantasy RPG's, as well known as D&D. Sure in this hypothetical case of Paizo obtaining the D&D brand, D&D as a descriptor will still live on for sometime to come, however the game its doesn't have too. What is D&D? If defined by a set of rules then one could argue that as 1e was the only D&D penned by the original authors in that case D&D died when 2e came out. Not saying it did just asking the philosophical question, what is actually D&D? S.
Besides if Paizo did obtain the brand D&D the first smart thing to do would be bury the D&D brand and keep on promoting Pathfinder. Make PF the only game in town that is 'D&D-like' (and resourced to a high level). In time there will be people who treat PF as we now treat D&D and again in time only RPG history buffs will ever know that PF came out of this little known game called D&D.
I think Hasbro seems to have gotten out of the "selling brands" business after Hasbro Interactive/Infogrames/Atari. I suspect that they'd rather mothball a brand they don't wish to actively support instead of selling it. Besides Paizo and Pathfinder is its own brand now. Most players of D&D are well aware of Pathfinder. Not sure that Pathfinder becoming D&D is really needed.
We have been trying out various changes from Unchained in our PF-core games. We use the more gritty HP system and now are using the Variant Multiclassing. The verdict is we like it a lot. It has toned down some of the silliness yet still opens up players to have unique character concepts. Anyone else try the variant rule out? S.
I'll gladly carry around my iPad with all my RPG's and enjoy it. And I like using Masterwork Tools Pathfinder OGL on my android tablet! But neither means you aren't invited to my D&D by candle light game with books and dice after civilization as we know it comes to an end.
I suspect just the energy that it takes to print the book and ship it cross country is more damaging than the fraction of my devices energy that's devoted to looking at pdfs. Not in the long term. We have scrolls from thousands of years ago. Treated well a book will last thousands of years. The energy per life-span is far better for a book. That and books will always be readable, and electronic format can go out of vogue far fastest than the written word. Ever tried opening an Office 95 document in Word 2013... The energy require to make an electronic device, if you include things like the mining and purification of rare metals is quite large. I can make paper and ink at home.
PDFs are tricky things. They are convenient... they save trees... they're cheaper... Compared to paper made from sustainable forestry PDF's are worse for the planet. You need to have a powered device to view a PDF and renewable power is still just a fraction of the global requirements. Do the planet a favor and buy a book. That and after the zombie apocalypse, killer plague, meteor strike, alien envasion - I'll be whiping out my books and dice and playing D&D. I feel sorry for those in the post-apocalyptic world that need to wait for power generation to be invented again to play. Still, class this post as an open invite to my game :)
Role Playing Games being "extinct" I never implied extinct, I implied that the 30 foot tall, 6 inch toothed D&D has evolved into a small feathered, flightless game. Still alive and well just unlikely to scare the pants off you. I agree that systems are going away, and that was due to as you point out in the video market, saturation of a limited resource (i.e. people to buy your game). I guess I focused on the last paragraph of your article, remembering people tend to remember the first and last item in a list, which hits out against WotC and their refusal to supply PDF's. I just don't agree that lack of PDF = peril. But your blog, your opinion, and that I have no issues with! But I reserve the right to disagree that is all. S.
This is just my opinion, but I disagree the problem is availability of PDF's, the 'systems failure' as you term it, has only a small part to do with availability and more to do with a shift in entertainment expectations. Why would I engage my imagination when EA Games can show me being heroic in 1080p (or now 4k)? TTRPG has had it's time, the T-Rex is dead and only us chickens are left...
It has already been said, but the truth is there isn't the 80/90's market around anymore. I have nearly every supplement from the 2e era, I didn't eat some weeks to afford the next Ravenloft splat book. That rabid desire in the 21st century is for video game based entertainment. My hours and hours of time spent reading the 1e/2e paper printed (no PDF's) monster manuals thinking of adventures to inflict on my players (which I had NO problems finding, in fact I had a waiting list) is more likely now spend on Destiny or Halo etc. Nothing WotC (or Paizo) can do will change that. The table-top game is now a shadow of its former self. I don't blame Hasbro for wanting to make money, they are not a charity (neither is Paizo), and computer based entertainment is where it is at. I don't think TTRPG's will die, thanks to companies like Paizo and WotC (D&D) running in a financially viable way our niche (very niche now) hobby will continue to tick over for decades to come. So I do not think WotC - D&D is evil, in fact I thank the people in the D&D pen & paper division keeping the paper version available. It must be a hard sell and getting harder to convince Hasbro to commit resources each year. The team at WotC are all that stands between D&D TTRPG and D&D being solely an electronic game based brand. S.
|
