jayouzts's page

Ok I was at a debate at the university this week about religion, anyway I admitted that yes I am an atheist and was verbally attacked by a woman on the opposite side of the floor, saying things like I would burn in hell. My only response was a quote by Stephen Roberts to close the debate I said the following.

"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss the existence of all other possible gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Apparently this was received as offensive and I still don't see how.

I am a Christian, but I do not find your comment the least bit offensive.

Your problem is you were trying to reason with a zealot. That never works - regardless of the type of zealotry.

Oh give me a break. I am not a homophobe by any means. But I am sick and tired of every special interest group like the gay community whining about stupid stuff like this.

Most of the population is straight. Get over it.

Incidentally I know of people who refuse to watch certain shows they feel portray gays in a positive light. Those people irritate me too.

Not every film, book, or TV Show is intended as political propaganda.

Anyway because of the situation I hope to at least get some jail time on them and get them a criminal record and I'd go further if I could, I'm currently trying to see if the knife wielding guy can be charged with a possible attempted murder charge. I keep dwelliong on it. I want them to f&%~ing fry, I've developed an increased hatred of homophobes. So does it make me a bad person that I want them punished as horribly as possible. I've never been a violent person but now .....

No, you are not a bad person. They need to be locked up as long as possible lest they do this to someone else. Next time could be worse.

I HATE having a bunch of classes. I much prefer the True20 approach to having generic classes (or better yet, a classless system) that can be tailored to a particular character concept. Of course, I realize that ship has sailed as far as Pathfinder is concerned. But my bias against classes (be they base classes or prestige classes) means that I am unlikely to buy any source book unless it contains substantial other content.

The problem with many of the classes WOTC added was that they made the core classes obsolete. Why play a Sorcerer when you can play a Warmage - which gets D6 hit points and can cast all of the spells you wanted to cast in the first place. Why play a Fighter when you can play a Warblade. etc.

I had a rule when evaluating any non-core class.

1) The class must be balanced in relation to comparable core classes
2) The class must allow the player to develop a character concept that he currently could not with any other class or multi-class combination and
3) The character concept could not be implemented by other, less extreme means - such as a class variant or new feat.

I would suggest adopting a similar 3-part test to the introduction of new classes.

Remember - it is much easier to remedy an unbalanced spell or unbalanced feat than it is to remedy an unbalanced class.

I am pleased with Paizo's decision. I have just downloaded the Alpha Set and will provide feedback as soon as possible.

I just became a Pathfinder subscriber.

I could have written the OP myself. Well said.

I detested this approach with MMIV and MMV. Another reason not to switch.

1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?

2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

I just wanted to revise my answer to #3. I just picked up my first copy of Pathfinder at Books-A-Million. If you guys support 3.5 I will definitely subscribe. If not, I will snap up as many of the 3.5 compatible ones as I can find but can't promise about any others.

If 4th edition is comparable to "New Coke", then do you think that perhaps, should this new edition suffer a degree of lackluster sales, that WotC might consider re-printing the 3.x rules as their equivalent to "Coca-Cola Classic".

I know that this is a stretch, but by comparison, its happened in industry before.

And, if say WotC had a heart to heart with alot of 3.x loving fans, and said "Hey, we're going to go ahead and continue printing the core books for 3.5 (or whichever 3.x) and perhaps look into bringing a few titles back of our own, with some new art here and there... but the price is going to be a bit higher, say $50 to cover each core book due to the losses we've had..."... would you, in the effort to see 3.x hopefully become the continual standard for D&D here on out (as Coca Cola "classic" became), be willing to go out and buy new core book copies, whether you need it or not, at an investment of $150 just to help get the ball rolling again?

Granted, I'm not speaking for WotC on this, I do not work for them, I do not know if they would even do this, I'm just curious as to everyone's insight on this.

I do not see it happening. The bean counters will determine 4E success or failure SOLELY by how much money DDI rakes in. Hasbro sees how much money WOW rakes in and is having orgasms. This is why we have the new edition - to justify the new GSL so no one else can market a tool to play the latest version of D&D online.

If DDI is a failure (and I predict that will be even though I think the rest of 4E will sell very well) I expect Hasbro will sell D&D. Or buyout WOW and focus on that, leaving 4E in print but not really supported.

With respect, how many people have actually started on 3e and turned back to 2e? I appreciate that there is a difference between that and your suggested turning 4e players into 3e players, but even so I don't see it. I do see people being turned on to Pathfinder, but I find it hard to believe the 4e players who have started with that edition will want to turn to an older edition to get extra D&D goodness. I would imagine they would probably assume it was the same, but "older" and "fiddlier", and instead turn to a different game that didn't mention dungeons and dragons in the title. And they might be right.

At...

I am no business expert but there are two key differences. First, 2E was entirely proprietary. No one could support it without paying royalties to WOTC.

Second, and this is the big one, is that many people are of the opinion that 4E is just a different game, but not necessarily a better game. (Yes there are many people who have a differing opinion). 3E added many new concepts that were not present in 2E (monsters having ability scores, a core mechanic, feats) and improved existing ones (the skills system of 3E worked much better than 2E's proficiencies). The improvements were so stark that 2E was an obsolete game.

3E was to 2E what the car was to the horse and buggy.
4E is to 3E what New Coke was to Old Coke.

I am not trying to convince anyone to not play 4E. I would probably have an easier time persuading Red Sox fans to root for the Yankees.

I just want to add my voice to the significant percentage of those sticking with 3.5 so they will be inspired to keep playing it (and so that Paizo or some other company will continue to support it).

Fourth Edition is not better. Fourth Edition is not worse. Fourth Edition just is.

This succinctly sums up why I am not switching.

Unfortunately WotC doesn't really have any real competition and their product is not a commodity like computer hardware.

Paizo? Green Ronin? Mongoose? If any of them support 3.X they become competition.

I see people here that don't want to switch. Fair enough. I believe you. But the market and the D&D juggernaut just keep rolling.

IBM was a juggernaut in the personal computer market too back in the 80's. Then everyone started buying PC compatibles from companies like Compaq. IBM launched its brand new, non-compatible PS-2 system and expected everyone to dump their PC Compatibles for the its new system. After all, they were the IBM juggernaut.

The PS-2 was, from what I have read, a decent system. The trouble was people liked their current system better. IBM also supported the PS-2 system with what has been considered one of the most flawed marketing campaigns in history. Then Microsoft released Windows so now all of the owners of the old PC Compatibles had a cool new interface.

Does anyone see any parallels to the current RPG Market? I do. And you can bet anyone with an MBA at Hasbro/WOTC does too. Which may explain why 4E designers are taking pot-shots at 3E every chance they can. They know that upon 4E's release 3.X will be competing brand and that if they do not succeed at undermining customer loyalty to that system then 4E could well go the way of the PS-2, the Edsel, and New Coke.

Today, IBM exists but they do not make PC's anymore.

Markets change.

I am not saying 4E will flop. Its too soon to tell. But you cannot take its success for granted - past history notwithstanding.

Rise. Rise!

Generally I am impressed with True20. One issue I have, which is really a show stopper for me, is Level Adjustment. Anyone know alternative methods for handing races in True20 other than Level Adjustment?

I ran into the same problem converting a D&D campaign to True 20. I was trying to convert the Thri-Kreen (which in D&D is a +2 LA IIRC) to a True20 PC background. I decided since I was converting to a new system anyway I just toned the race down in power but kept as much of the flavor as I could. Some of the more powerful abilities (such as deflect arrows) are favored feats instead of bonus feats.

4th edition is what prompted me to move to other games. Its hard to explain, but the whole 4th edition event has totally killed my desire to play even 3.5. ...

So tell me, how does WOTC and 4th edition suck the life out of my enjoyment when I would stick with 3.5 anyway? Anyone else feeling this way?

I would not say they have sucked the life out of my 3.5 enjoyment. But I was becoming frustrated with the ever increasing power-gamey lines of the Complete ______ books. When it became clear that 4E was just more of the same, I decided to explore other systems. I checked out Castles and Crusades, GURPS, and Savage Worlds before settling on True 20 as my system of choice.

I still play 3.5 because that is the game everyone in my group knows.

I think the proliferation of, 'You're just saying that! You'll buy 4E the second it comes out! Liar, liar, pants on fire!' posting is kinda funny. They do seem to love insulting the crap out of anyone who doesn't have their love for the product that none of us have actually seen yet.

I would not say I have been accused of lying. However, the 4E proponents seem to just take for granted that we will switch simply because its D&D and its current.

People did not buy New Coke just because it was from Coke and it was current. People did not buy the PS/2 just because it was from IBM and was current. People have not lined up out the door to get Vista. I do not understand why some people are having a hard time fathoming that a significant portion of the gaming community will not switch.

In fairness, I have not seen this attitude directly from WOTC employees.

So, if you're in the group that isn't planning on switching to 4th edition (assuming you're playing 3.x now), why is this conversion different? Did you say the same thing when 3rd came out and/or when 3.5 came out?

This is different for me. I was looking forward to switching to 3E (and I did not complain one bit about 3.5). The only question was would I switch my ongoing 2E campaign over or not. Before 3.0 was released I told myself I would finish my 2E campaign and then start a new one in 3E. After 3E was released I knew I could not wait and - even though it took some effort - I converted my existing campaign. There was never a doubt I would switch - only a question as to when.

(I have been playing since 1E and - yes - I switched to 2E without hesitation).

But now it is different. I have no intention of switching to 4E. Here are the reasons why

1. 3E is the best version of the game so far. Most of what I do not like about 3E (such as the 15 minute work day) can be fixed with my Houserules (Use of spellpoints, with use of an action point restoring x number of spell points per day).

4E "fixes" many things which either are not broken (energy drain), could be implemented by houserules (the critical hit changes), or could have been remedied in a book along the lines of Tome of Battle or Unearthed Arcana (grappling).

4E does not fix what I think is the biggest problem - too many classes. Do we really need a Scout, Knight, and Warlock class? This trend will continue in 4E with a new PH every year. This leads me too ....

2. The fact that I have discovered True 20 - which is what I hoped 4E would have been. It has 3 generic classes which can be developed to fit any setting appropriate concept.

There is also a plethora of good Independent RPG's out there (Shadows of Yesterday and Dogs in the Vineyard to name two).

Even if every RPG'er switches to 4E, and I can find no players for any other RPG I have other hobbies - boardgames, fantasy baseball etc - on which I can spend my time. I am not going to play 4E just because it is current.

3. I am at the point in my life where I do not have as much time for RPG's anyway. (And my former gaming buddies who now have children have even less time). So I will never be able to play all the 3.5, True 20, and Indie RPG stuff I have anyway. Why should I spend money on a new edition of D&D which clearly aimed at players new to RPGs (and whose audience - if not the company itself - is clearly disdainful of Grognards like myself).

4. Make no mistake. The D&D Insider is the future of WOTC. They want millions of subscribers paying $10 a month. They know many people will pay the $10, never use the service (or use it seldom) and forget to cancel the service. (I am curious as to how simple canceling will actually be. If trying to cancel D&DI proves as difficult as some have found canceling AOL then my worst suspicions will be confirmed).

4E had nothing to do with improving the game. It was about funneling customers to the D&DI.

Yes I know you technically do not need the D&DI to play 4E. But mark my word - the bean counters at Hasbro/WOTC will gauge the success or failure of 4E by how much money D&DI rakes in - not by how many PHB's are sold.

My suspicion of this business practice makes me highly skeptical of 4E.

Who says 4E will even have horses....

/begin joke

Keeping track of horses was too much bookkeeping. Especially keeping up with how food and hit points they had remaining - these boring tasks involved far too much math.

So now all PC's are presumed to move as fast as horses. This not only is a sleeker design, but is waaaay Kewl!

/end joke

1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D? No

2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products? Any product exclusively designed for 4.0 is likely to be useless to me. If it is really, really good I may buy it and convert it but that would be rare.

Now, if you design a product compatible for both 4.0 and either 3.5 or True 20 then I would consider it. I am not anti-4.0 just pro-Other systems.

3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

See answer to #2.

Hate is probably a strong word - at least in my case.

By the way, I started playing back in 1981 with 1E. Although I am a grognard, I preferred 3.5E to the previous editions.

Hate is probably a strong word - at least in my case.

Today, roughly 5 months before the release of 4E, I am not convinced that 4E is any better than my house-ruled version of 3.5. In contrast, 5 months before 3E's release I know it was not a question of IF I would switch, but how soon after its release. (I ultimately bit the bullet and converted my 2E Campaign to 3E. It was a bit of work but well worth it).

3E wasn't perfect. But I have it tweaked where I like it.

There are two problems that 4E is addressing that I agree needed to be.

1. Spellcasters running out of spells after 30 minutes of adventuring time, thus necessitating a need to rest.

2. Alignment.

I have already addressed these issues in my 3E game. (I use action points which allow regaining a certain number of spell-points; I scrapped alignment completely). The mechanics for 4E to fix these problems may work fine, but I have got these issues covered.

Here are some changes they are making that I do not believe make the game better:

1. Eliminating level drain. The rationale for this was that their focus group data showed that players found getting level drained was no fun. Well boo-hoo. Your poor fighter got zapped 3 levels. Of course it sucks! That is what makes vampires one of the most interesting creatures in the game. Now they are just another monster.

2. Eliminating all save or die effects. When a medusa gazes at you, failing a save does not necessarily mean you be petrified. You just take petrification damage (whatever that means). The beholders disintegration ray is also going to work differently. It sounds like WOTC is appeasing a bunch of whiny players who lost characters in this manner.

Meanwhile, these monsters have completely lost their mystique.

3. Changing how criticals work (Natural 20 now always means max damage instead of possibility doing double damage). Believe it or not, there are WOTC fanboys out there whining about how it sucks to roll a natural 20 but then fail your crit roll.

I never thought the critical hits rule was a problem. Maybe you disagree, but is this really such an improvement that you cant wait to switch?

There are others, but you get the idea.

Now, in fairness, these changes may not make the game worse - but if they do not make it better why should I switch?

It is not so much the changes that they are making but the whole "Lets make things easy on the players" philosophy that I find bothersome. And I play as much as I DM, and I am not one of these adversarial killer DMs.

My last concern is this. (And I should stress I have no knowledge of the internal workings of WOTC or Hasbro, so take the following as pure conjecture)

WOTC adopted the D&D Insider as means to duplicate the World of Warcraft business model. By that I mean you subscribe for $10 per month to get whatever they are selling. The good part about this business model (for them) is that they keep getting your $10 a month until you cancel your sub. Lots of companies do this, and the reason for that is there are a lot of people who will forget they have subscribed and keep paying the money whether they use the service or not.

I do not begrudge WOTC adopting this model. I have no use for the product, but can see how (if it is good) how others would and -hey-if you forget to cancel shame on you.

But they could have done the whole DDI thing without changing editions.

My theory is they felt to get people interested in and excited about the DDI, they had to reinvigorate the brand name somehow. How better to do that than create a new edition of the game.

I know - you do not have to subscribe to DDI to play 4E. I get it. But DDI IS driving this new edition. Which may be why so many of the changes seem to be made for the sake of making changes rather than fixing actual problems.

At least, that is my opinion.

For those of us who want "back to the basics/classics" and not all of this ninja/hexblade/disciple of whoever....class stuff....4th edition is a huge disappointment.

Exactly my opinion. If they had designed the classes broad enough and versatile enough in the first places we would not need all of that nonsense. That is not changing.

Any gamers in the Jackson, Mississippi area? I have been playing RPG's since 1981. I am most interested in Dungeons and Dragons, D20 Modern, and D20 Future but will consider any system. I can be a player or DM.