4.0: PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED


4th Edition

501 to 550 of 1,665 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Snorter wrote:
I don’t believe they’ve even started playtesting…

They started the latest round a week or two ago. And remember, a lot of 4E is Star Wars Saga Edition, which not only was playtested previously, but is getting lots of actual play from actual consumers as well.


Hi @all!

New to boards (although not to reading them). I'm a 20+ years D&D player (and other RPG) and i have bought many a RPG-book. Every time a new addition came out, i bought it.

This time, however, it may be different for me. Why?

Although, i will certainly take a look at 4th edition, i will not switch (at least for a few more years) because i have invested so much money in 3.0 and then 3.5 that my bookshelf is full of stuff of which i didn't have even used all as for yet. Moreover, i'm not willing to inest hundreds of euros this time.

i don't need the 4th edition. 3.5 works fine with me. and to be honest, i don't need a 3.75 edition (if we speak of a RPG of its own), because the things i don't like in 3.5 i have already houseruled (would this count as 3.75 ???)

what i need/want however, is a fresh new world and since reading pathfinder, i would like to have developed golarian in more detail (as will bed one) - less rules, more flavor...

cheers


Phil Mitchell wrote:
... but looking for other systems that will take the forefront if 4.0 is a dog.

3.5 is THE leading system, it already HAS the forefront - choosing another system is unwise - switching to <enter system here> is as weird as switching to 4.0.

STAY with THE unique leading rpg. And that is 3.5. Choose a name which fits to ogl (Ogre Giggling Laboratory, Obviously Good Literature) ... (no native speaker, so please, if YOU have a better meaning for OGL ... :-) Make a nice logo with ogl and a 20sided dice (if you have problems with it, I will do it, it's my job making logos etc) and give it to all willing 3rd party producers.

Make OGL to the "new" D&D - you already have your marketshare. Let it drop to 20% and you STILL have enough customers.

I said it before many weeks ago: there is nothing to loose - if 4.0 rocks (and pigs learn to fly) and noone (except those on this list) plays 3.5 anymore .... switch.

OGL - the "real" Fantasy Roleplay

Xian in Germany - the little marketing devil :-)


ShadowDenizen wrote:
Unless 4th ed is the coolest thing since sliced bread and warm puppies, we don't plan to convert.

I agree with you, except I like warm bread and sliced puppies ;)

Seriously, if 4th edition isn't a "wow" product, I will just plunder it for ideas for my 3.5 campaigns.


Erik Mona wrote:
The OGL is remarkably inclusive in scope, covering all but a handful of monsters, some campaign-setting-specific deities, and certain elements of the planar cosmology.

I know this is way off this very important topic

I am just kind of wondering what Monsters are not in the OGL I have herd Beholders but what else?

I still hope that you guys looking into Dual Stating your books so more people can be happy


Whizbang Dustyboots wrote:
Snorter wrote:
I don’t believe they’ve even started playtesting…
They started the latest round a week or two ago. And remember, a lot of 4E is Star Wars Saga Edition, which not only was playtested previously, but is getting lots of actual play from actual consumers as well.

Your right it is, but I don't know how useful it will be. The nature of Starwars is a diffrent game. Look at armour in it. Its defensive use is quite weak. Which works well in the Star Wars game but may not be the best in DD. I also think DD has far more variables. The races in SW dont level up, which is another major balance change. Then again I wonder how useful a DD playest is if they haven't decide how many magic items work yet.

Personally I think Saga works well for Star Wars but I found the book lacks polish. Add in magic items and more equipment options, weapon skills etc and we have a far more complicated game to balance.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Joey Virtue wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:
The OGL is remarkably inclusive in scope, covering all but a handful of monsters, some campaign-setting-specific deities, and certain elements of the planar cosmology.

I know this is way off this very important topic

I am just kind of wondering what Monsters are not in the OGL I have herd Beholders but what else?

I still hope that you guys looking into Dual Stating your books so more people can be happy

There's a possiblity, I suppose, of releasing a supplement that lists conversions to whatever system we end up not using, but dual statting the books is not going to happen. It's a waste of space; no matter who uses the book, a significant portion will end up being useless to them. Stat blocks already take up enough space; dual statting would hinder Pathfinder's capability to tell the types of stories it wants to tell too greatly. Plus... we don't have the resources and manpower to dual stat, so that's a good reason not to do that too.


Joey Virtue wrote:

I am just kind of wondering what Monsters are not in the OGL I have herd Beholders but what else?

Ooo good question.

Beholders, Displacer Beasts, Mind Flayers and Yaun-Ti are all I'm aware of.


James Jacobs wrote:


There's a possiblity, I suppose, of releasing a supplement that lists conversions to whatever system we end up not using, but dual statting the books is not going to happen. It's a waste of space; no matter who uses the book, a significant portion will end up being useless to them. Stat blocks already take up enough space; dual statting would hinder Pathfinder's capability to tell the types of stories it wants to tell too greatly. Plus... we don't have the resources and manpower to dual stat, so that's a good reason not to do that too.

Personally I'd much prefer this to having the dual stat blocks. As you pointed out it's unfeasible and will eat up a lot of room in the books to do dual stats. As someone who enjoys the story through the adventure, and really loves the fluff of the books, I want you to keep as much of the non-stat content as possible. I've posted my thoughts on this the 3.5 vs. 4e several times on these boards, no point and doing so again, but if Paizo made a supplement that did conversions from 3.5 to 4e and back, I'd definitely pick up a copy of it.


The encouraging thing I've seen about 4e so far are smaller and more simplified stat blocks. What this tells me (assuming that's true) is that converting to 4e from 3.5 won't be much of a big deal. I didn't convert anything from 3.0 to 3.5 either and just made stuff up as I went along if something from 3.0 didn't make sense in the 3.5 game I was running. Agonizing over stat blocks is one of my biggest 3.5 annoyances.

So, dual-statting Pathfinder is not necessary as far as i'm concerned. I'll take care of whatever conversion work I need or choose to do.


Brent's post is SO AWESOME!!

In spirit, at least, he speaks for me in many ways.


James Jacobs wrote:


There's a possiblity, I suppose, of releasing a supplement that lists conversions to whatever system we end up not using, but dual statting the books is not going to happen. It's a waste of space; no matter who uses the book, a significant portion will end up being useless to them. Stat blocks already take up enough space; dual statting would hinder Pathfinder's capability to tell the types of stories it wants to tell too greatly. Plus... we don't have the resources and manpower to dual stat, so that's a good reason not to do that too.

A conversion supplement would be cool

I didnt mean dual in the same book i mean a book stated for 3.5 and a book stated for 4.0

Paizo Employee Creative Director

A conversion supplement would indeed be cool. But it's by no means a guarentee. It's possible that the changes in 4th edition will be so huge that simply swapping out stat blocks just won't cut it, in which case a conversion supplement might end up basically being a total revision of the adventrues. Which would make getting timly conversion documents out a pretty big problem.

Until we see the 4th edition rules, we can't really promise anything, conversion supplements included.


In answer to the original post:
I would be ecstatic if the 3rd Pathfinder series is 3.5. If Paizo ever did their own Pathfinder RPG based off the OGL, I would buy that too.

I am both excited and saddened to hear of the bind you are in at Paizo, as I was pretty sure I would end up canceling my subscriptions once the switch to 4e was made. So on the one had I am happy to hear there is the possibility I may get another AP out of Paizo, but on the other I am sad to hear the difficult and distressing business situation this puts you in.

Whatever direction you take, I wish Paizo the best of possible outcomes.


James Jacobs wrote:

A conversion supplement would indeed be cool. But it's by no means a guarentee. It's possible that the changes in 4th edition will be so huge that simply swapping out stat blocks just won't cut it, in which case a conversion supplement might end up basically being a total revision of the adventrues. Which would make getting timly conversion documents out a pretty big problem.

Until we see the 4th edition rules, we can't really promise anything, conversion supplements included.

If Pathfinder/Gamemastery goes to 4.0, but Paizo would produce some type of 'official' 3.5 supplement for those products, that would change my vote from "3.5 all the way" to "where Paizo goes, I go".

I'd even be willing to pay a couple extra $$$ for the conversion per item...It'd be worth it for the quality of the product AND not having to take time to do the conversions myself!


4th edition will likely be good enough to convert to. I think it'd be worth your time and effort, as long as the legalese and such doesn't tie 4th edition stuff up too much.


Another D&D veteren here (26 years!).

As someone said above, I've invested far too much money in 3.5 to change to another edition - and my friends have too. Besides, we have a wealth of 3.5 info to feed our habit for another lifetime, as we only play once a month.

However, I'd like to add to the endorsments of Paizo's products. I know that wasn't the original thread matter, but if I was to follow any particular RPG company it would be this one - how many companies can boast such a loyal customer base?

And if you would like a good comparison of what Paizo writers can offer against other WoTC writers, then hold Fiendish Codex I up to Fiendish Codex II. No contest - the Abyss wins everytime!


Again off-thread (sorry!), but arn't those D&D Podcasts galling? It really is gamers turned marketeers. You can almost sense that their uncomfortable doing it!


Erik,

Thank-you so much for telling us what's going on at Paizo during all these big changes, even if all that you can say is that you're still pondering what to do. I really appreciate the level of communication all of you give us.

Erik Mona wrote:
Assuming the third Pathfinder Adventure Path, Second Darkness, remains 3.5, will you stick around?

Yes.

Erik Mona wrote:
Do you plan to start up a new 4.0 campaign on day 1?

No, and as someone running a large, shared 3.5 campaign that won't be converting I'm already committed to continuing to play 3.5 for a while yet.

Erik Mona wrote:
What do YOU want Paizo to do?

I want Paizo to somehow ensure that some sort of 3.5-ish rulebook stays in print. Doing 3.75 might be a bit much, but 3.6 would be good. I want to be able to continue to run 3.5 games at conventions and game days and tell new players which rulebook to purchase without telling old players to repurchase everything. The important thing is that any new rules are open content so that we can incorporate them into the games we publish. (This is why we won't just convert to something like Arcana Evolved, for instance.)

I recognize that what I want and what's best for Paizo might not have a large overlap, but it's my truthful answer. :D


orcwart wrote:
And if you would like a good comparison of what Paizo writers can offer against other WoTC writers, then hold Fiendish Codex I up to Fiendish Codex II. No contest - the Abyss wins everytime!

Indeed.

It's funny: overall, I find the Hells (and it's inhabitants) far more intriguing than the Abyss (and it's sundry inhabitants).

But I did indeed also find Fiedish Codex I far outshone it's counterpart.


I'm a fan of the Adventure Path series and have been very pleased with Pathfinder so far. I will be taking up the 4e mantle at some point after it comes out, as I like what I've been seeing. But I'm certain I'll still be picking up Pathfinder regardless of which version you're supporting.


Just finished reading this awesome (in several regards) thread.

I would recommend now, after some pondering, that paizo stays true to 3.5 with its 3rd Pathfinder AP - the time window for doing 4e closes slowly even as I type, as I understand it. It would mean that paizo would have to rush a 4e AP to have it in time - DON`T! Seriously, whatever you do, go for quality rather than publishing speed. If you don´t get 4e early enough to make it in time, then by all means stick to 3e and make it shine like pure gold. You can still switch to 4e later on, and I guess that you will (or have to) anyway.

Perhaps consider the option to publish a small adventure like D0 in time. I have no insight into publishing, but I think that producing a 16 or 32 page adventure is a lot easier than a 96 page book - even if most of the book is fluff.

"Pathfinder Adventures" (aka 3.Pi) is another beast entirely -if you at paizo think from customer feedback that it would be a viable alternative, (perhaps in conjunction with other publishers, perhaps not) then go for it! From what little is known of 4e by now, it sounds like it will be a very different game, and I doubt that I will like it enough to convert. Of course, this is pure speculation until we see the result, but judging from today, I would rather buy yet another 3.x rulebook (to play or plunder it) than a new ruleset that might have only a superficial similarity with D&D. Especially if paizo produces in the high quality you spoiled us with (re: Pathfinder), content- and production-wise.
(this implies that paizo might lose me as customer if you change to 4e, but I really can´t predict that now)

Try to keep paizo in the balance of producing high-quality stuff being priced so that it appeals to a broad range of customers. It looks like both Pathfinder and Gamemastery seem to do just that.

Going from a (if I dare say so) WotC spinoff for publishing the mags to a well-known third party publisher for high quality D&D stuff in just a few years is no small achievement - keep on going in that direction.

Stefan

EDIT: 500+ posts in just two days - wow!

Scarab Sages

As a full-time freelancer, what I want most is a booming market with lots of companies making enough money to hire freelance game design at a decent pay rate. As a side note, I'd love for that to involve as few sets of rules as possible (especially as few similar-but-just-different-enough-to-trip-you-up), just to make my job easier.

Of course that's not advice, that's daydreaming. So the question becomes, what do I want Paizo to do?

All I can say is 1: if you go with a Pathfinder rpg, try not to go it alone. There are other game companies out there in similar murky waters. I would hope many of them would leap upon having a new d20 rpg with support from Paizo for them to get behind. If Paizo could get just two more major d20 publishers and three or four minor ones to all get behind a Pathfinder rpg, I think there would be a much higher chance of it being a commercial success.

And 2: whatever you do I'll continue to buy it and know it well enough to write for it when you need freelance support. I love using Paizo products and working for you folks, and that's not going to change regardless of which way you go.


Aside from high production values, great customer service, and communicative employees, one of the things that's earned Paizo my trust is your collective experience with the game. I've played D&D for decades, but never to the level y'all have and I count on your experience with what works and what doesn't in an adventure.

While the other positive traits won't go away, I can't confess to the same amount of trust in any 4e product you put out within months of seeing the rules. I just wouldn't figure you'd have the experience with this massively-mutated game system to be able to dictate what would and would not be a great encounter.


The way I see it, there will still be people playing 3.5 after 4E comes out. I know that my group isn't in any hurry to convert, and from what I've read, there will be plenty of players and DMs who either refuse to convert or will take their time about it. That means there will be a market for 3.5 materials after 4E comes out.

I wasn't thrilled to hear about 4E, and I'm still not feeling all warm and fuzzy about it. When it comes out, I'll take a look at it and decide then. I'd think that Paizo could pretty much do the same. For now, keep producing 3.5 materials under the OGL. That means you'll still be selling 3.5 materials when 4E launches. And your sales during that period should give you some idea of what kind of post-4E market there will be for 3.5-compatible materials.

But you don't need me to give you business advice. You just want to know what I'll do personally. To tell the truth, I'm not entirely sure. I haven't decided about converting to 4E yet. But even if I stick with 3.5, I've got enough stuff to last me for a while (including the last few years of the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon). I've got a couple of GameMastery modules and the first issue of Pathfinder, but I'm not a subscriber at this point. But even with all the stuff I've got already, I'm always on the lookout for other stuff that I think is cool or that I think I can use in my campaigns. So yes, I'd be open to buying 3.5-compatible materials after 4E is released, at least on an occasional basis.

Liberty's Edge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Stebehil wrote:
Seriously, whatever you do, go for quality rather than publishing speed.

You hit the point, Stebehil.

I think that Paizo's AP customers will buy that AP even if it's 3.5 and they were planning to go to 4e from the first day.

Seriously: you simply cannot compare Paizo's quality and WotC's quality, because you would be laughing at WotC all night; at least in adventure-publishing topics.

If I could chose between a 3.5 AP adventure that I would have to adapt to 4e, and a WotC's 4e adventure; I assure you that I prefer spending a little bit of my time in preparing the adventure and getting a lot more fun.

Aritz

Dark Archive Contributor

ShadowDenizen wrote:
orcwart wrote:
And if you would like a good comparison of what Paizo writers can offer against other WoTC writers, then hold Fiendish Codex I up to Fiendish Codex II. No contest - the Abyss wins everytime!

Indeed.

It's funny: overall, I find the Hells (and it's inhabitants) far more intriguing than the Abyss (and it's sundry inhabitants).

But I did indeed also find Fiedish Codex I far outshone it's counterpart.

I agree completely. My personal campaign setting is sick with devils, but only one demon has made an appearance so far. LE FTW! :D

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mike McArtor wrote:
I'm sure that's an option we are looking at. I think at this point we're looking almost every option we have. :)

Actually, that cannot be true, as no one has called me asking if I would be open to standing on a barrell outside of WotC doing the Truffle Shuffle in a thong, correctly worn or not.

So, obviously, you still have options, dire and dreadful, but options.

*chuckles*

Seriously, though, I think you folks are doing the best you can and whatever choice you make, I think you know that your fans are with you.

*See, Gary, no sig. ;)*

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Arelas wrote:
The one question I have is how are they playetsting outside the studio if they are only now deciding the magic item section? I know magic items will be less xmas tree (which is good), but it seems a little wierd.

You playtest the big stuff in house, i.e. combat mechanics, and the smaller, player comfort areas out of house.

Heck, 3e magic item creation can be a bit overwhelming, take this from a guy who has mostly only had magic items and such published, but it isn't used as often as combat or skills so it gets playtested latter on.

Contributor

Mike McArtor wrote:
ShadowDenizen wrote:
orcwart wrote:
And if you would like a good comparison of what Paizo writers can offer against other WoTC writers, then hold Fiendish Codex I up to Fiendish Codex II. No contest - the Abyss wins everytime!

Indeed.

It's funny: overall, I find the Hells (and it's inhabitants) far more intriguing than the Abyss (and it's sundry inhabitants).

But I did indeed also find Fiedish Codex I far outshone it's counterpart.

I agree completely. My personal campaign setting is sick with devils, but only one demon has made an appearance so far. LE FTW! :D

I too dig on the Lawful Evil...they are just so diabolical. They are like twelve steps ahead of the party most of the time, and use them as cat's paws, it's awesome!

Nick

Dark Archive Contributor

Robert N. Emerson wrote:
Mike McArtor wrote:
I'm sure that's an option we are looking at. I think at this point we're looking almost every option we have. :)
Actually, that cannot be true, as no one has called me asking if I would be open to standing on a barrell outside of WotC doing the Truffle Shuffle in a thong, correctly worn or not.

You know, I asked Cosmo for your phone number so I could call and ask you to do this, but then I remembered my abiding fear and loathing of telephones and hid under my desk sobbing. It was kind of embarrassing. :\

Nicolas Logue wrote:
I too dig on the Lawful Evil...they are just so diabolical. They are like twelve steps ahead of the party most of the time, and use them as cat's paws, it's awesome!

Yup yup! I'm not a big fan of chaos. It's more fun to mess with PCs' minds with a lawful nasty than to just rip them apart with a chaotic baddie. :)

Although, I must admit, James's super-awesome writeups in Demonomicons almost (ALMOST) make me want to use demons. But... meh.


Robert N. Emerson wrote:
no one has called me asking if I would be open to standing on a barrell outside of WotC doing the Truffle Shuffle in a thong, correctly worn or not.

0_0

o

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mike McArtor wrote:
Robert N. Emerson wrote:
Actually, that cannot be true, as no one has called me asking if I would be open to standing on a barrell outside of WotC doing the Truffle Shuffle in a thong, correctly worn or not.
You know, I asked Cosmo for your phone number so I could call and ask you to do this, but then I remembered my abiding fear and loathing of telephones and hid under my desk sobbing. It was kind of embarrassing. :\

Oh, now, sir, that's just quitter talk and quitters don't win, unless it's a Cartman-style Rochambeau and then the quitter always wins.

Hmm, just odd, that. ;)

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Troy Taylor wrote:

0_0

o

I've often been told that I am an evil man, but most apologize post-shuffle...oh yes, yes they do. ;)

Dark Archive Contributor

Troy Taylor wrote:

0_0

o

lol! :D

Robert N. Emerson wrote:
Hmm, just odd, that. ;)

Yes. Quite.

The Exchange

I don't see what the difference would be between 3.6 and 3.75 really. The main thing is that there would be a Players Handbook for new players in print. Also I read a post from Owen Stephens that had a great suggestion of maybe Paizo and the other 3rd party publishers banding together to produce there own OGL 1.0a based game system. I'm participating in the Rise of the Runelords campaign beginning in about 2 weeks and I'm almost sure this will take us well into 2008 and I hope to continue thru the next campaign following this one. Eric, I'm behind you guys in whatever you do.

Now, from what I've seen from WoTC they will not be able to support there customers with enough varied adventures to keep them happy. They are doing themselves a great disservice by alienating there 3rd Party friends and by doing that, they are doing there customers a disservice. Without a 3rd Party they will have something closer to there Star Wars Saga edition product line, which hasn't put out an adventure for a product that's been out almost 6 months.

RANT done.


Robert N. Emerson wrote:
Arelas wrote:
The one question I have is how are they playetsting outside the studio if they are only now deciding the magic item section? I know magic items will be less xmas tree (which is good), but it seems a little wierd.

You playtest the big stuff in house, i.e. combat mechanics, and the smaller, player comfort areas out of house.

Heck, 3e magic item creation can be a bit overwhelming, take this from a guy who has mostly only had magic items and such published, but it isn't used as often as combat or skills so it gets playtested latter on.

Magic items aren't used often? I mean magic creation rules I understand but I would think to balance a game you have to take into consideration the bonuses or abilities added on due to magic items. Especially if they go with the less numbers of items but bigger effects. I imagine the ability of the item combined with feats and skills needs to be playtested. What kind of action should various items be?

Of course it could be they are just finalizing the magic item section not planning as some of the blogs suggest.

Contributor

Owen Stephens wrote:

As a full-time freelancer, what I want most is a booming market with lots of companies making enough money to hire freelance game design at a decent pay rate.

Amen, brother!!!!

Owen Stephens wrote:

If Paizo could get just two more major d20 publishers and three or four minor ones to all get behind a Pathfinder rpg, I think there would be a much higher chance of it being a commercial success.

I agree with Owen here. I think it's feasible to create your owen edition and have a strong following, especially if Green Ronin and Necromancer were to jump on board with you. I've been way more impressed with 3rd-party publisher work than Wotc's, and that's where my money goes. You guys are way more creative and have a better understanding of what gamers want.

In short, I run a 3.5 campaign, and I don't plan on switching. I wish Paizo would do the 3.75 thing with other publishers. Give the big guys a run for their money, I say.

Christina

Dark Archive

Owen Stephens wrote:

If Paizo could get just two more major d20 publishers and three or four minor ones to all get behind a Pathfinder rpg, I think there would be a much higher chance of it being a commercial success.

Now THAT could become really, really interesting to see (and support).

That would certainly be a first in gaming history...


There already are 3E alternatives out there. Instead of asking Green Ronin to support yet another system, why not go with True20? It's already out there, has good support, and has supplements that allow one to duplicate a whole lot of classic D&D elements.

If not True20, C&C is also out there and well established and has classic D&D feel as its whole reason for being.

Dark Archive

Whizbang Dustyboots wrote:

There already are 3E alternatives out there. Instead of asking Green Ronin to support yet another system, why not go with True20? It's already out there, has good support, and has supplements that allow one to duplicate a whole lot of classic D&D elements.

If not True20, C&C is also out there and well established and has classic D&D feel as its whole reason for being.

Personally I don't want T20, C&C or anything like that. These aren't remotely compatible with D&D 3.X itself (they are based off the same system, but I can't use a C&C Assassin or Fighter in a 3.5 game).

That's why I like Arcana Unearthed so much, for instance. What I want is stuff I can use WITH D&D or AS D&D. I don't want something that works completely differently.


Whizbang Dustyboots wrote:

There already are 3E alternatives out there. Instead of asking Green Ronin to support yet another system, why not go with True20? It's already out there, has good support, and has supplements that allow one to duplicate a whole lot of classic D&D elements.

If not True20, C&C is also out there and well established and has classic D&D feel as its whole reason for being.

beyond the problem that these aren't exactly easily 3.5 compatible, you also have another difficulty... both would require licenses from another company that could (under different leadership, etc.) be pulled.

- Ashavan

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Arelas wrote:

Magic items aren't used often? I mean magic creation rules I understand but I would think to balance a game you have to take into consideration the bonuses or abilities added on due to magic items. Especially if they go with the less numbers of items but bigger effects. I imagine the ability of the item combined with feats and skills needs to be playtested. What kind of action should various items be?

Of course it could be they are just finalizing the magic item section not planning as some of the blogs suggest.

I was specifically referring to magic item creation, not usage, but while I'm sure core playtesting was previously done on magic item usage, there is nothing like letting players look for loopholes to test things out even more.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Benoist Poiré wrote:

Personally I don't want T20, C&C or anything like that. These aren't remotely compatible with D&D 3.X itself (they are based off the same system, but I can't use a C&C Assassin or Fighter in a 3.5 game).

That's why I like Arcana Unearthed so much, for instance. What I want is stuff I can use WITH D&D or AS D&D. I don't want something that works completely differently.

I'm definitely a proponent of Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, it has been my groups dominant game since AU's initial release and our campaign has been slowly coming up-to-date with the timeline in AE (we upgraded the characters the instant AE came out).

I've been working on a home brew that is powered by the core from AU/AE, my own campaign setting, but it is still a work in progress and has been for quite a few years.

My three favorite (EDIT: Currently Published) campaign settings in alphabetical order; Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Pathfinder, and Ptolus.

(Edit Addendum: I'm a Greyhawk junkie, I started with it and the Grand Duchy Karameikos as a kid, so...)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Perhaps Jolly Blackburn and/or Dave Kenzer could shed some light the prospects and pitfalls of producing a successul game based on an earlier version of D&D than the current. If Pathfinder RPG could mimic Hackmaster's sucess, that would probably do. They took 2nd ed and made it their own, even as a small press company.


Reckless wrote:
Perhaps Jolly Blackburn and/or Dave Kenzer could shed some light the prospects and pitfalls of producing a successul game based on an earlier version of D&D than the current. If Pathfinder RPG could mimic Hackmaster's sucess, that would probably do. They took 2nd ed and made it their own, even as a small press company.

IIRC, there's a whole legal saga behind that one, so I'm thinking that might not be the way to go...


For me, it's obvious that Paizo should stick with 3.5 for now then move to it's own RPG down the road. The 2 rpg groups I know doesn't intend to switch to 4th edition, I'm the only one who's a little bit interrested.

If Paizo stick's with 3.5, I will be more interrested to continue purchasing products since I know I may eventually convince one of the 2 groups to play in Paizo's world. If they switch to 4th edition, I might just go to Wizards directly since they will offer character creation, dm tools, online content, etc.

I'm intrigued by the ''3.75 edition''. We could use the community to suggest adjustments to 3.5 edition without changing completly the game. It's funny, but I feel I will be part of something bigger, the creation of another RPG, it's cool in a way.

The Exchange

Jeremy Bonneau wrote:

For me, it's obvious that Paizo should stick with 3.5 for now then move to it's own RPG down the road. The 2 rpg groups I know doesn't intend to switch to 4th edition, I'm the only one who's a little bit interrested.

If Paizo stick's with 3.5, I will be more interrested to continue purchasing products since I know I may eventually convince one of the 2 groups to play in Paizo's world. If they switch to 4th edition, I might just go to Wizards directly since they will offer character creation, dm tools, online content, etc.

I'm intrigued by the ''3.75 edition''. We could use the community to suggest adjustments to 3.5 edition without changing completly the game. It's funny, but I feel I will be part of something bigger, the creation of another RPG, it's cool in a way.

I think that (adjustments) are what Eric Mona was talking about. Then after creating them a 3.75 OGL PhB could be produced that the new player could purchase and play in the "3.75 OGL" game. The 3.75 OGL game would be supported by the 3rd party publishers that WoTC left in the cold on 4.0. The hole thing centers on the ability to attract new customers to the game. If Paizo sticks with 3.5 eventually the market will run out of WoTC published 3.5 PhB and the new player will not be able to buy one, they then buy 4.0 PhB and find a 4.0 game and Paizo is done. It is possible, if not now, in the not so distant future that WoTC could ween enough current players off of 3.5 and create a game that is no longer OGL. By that time if a publisher like Paizo has not created its own niche market they will fall by the wayside. I for one do not want to see that day. Paizo is the hardest working, and most in touch company for and with customer that I have had the pleasure to deal with in for ever and I support them with my money and my praise. I want to be playing there APs with whatever rules set it's written for.


One thing that strikes me as a bit odd here... If WotC is actively playtesting 4E, they've got to have something they're sending out to playtesters. While it won't be final, polished, etc, does it really seem like that big of an effort to drop one in the mail to Paizo as a preview?

From a business perspective, Paizo would be under the same NDA as other playtesters, but it would at least be an opportunity to start understanding what's coming, even if some of the details change.

If/when the OGL for 4E wraps up, there will be tweaks about what can and can't be used, and how, but there has got to be something in the right general area available today, or the external playtesters are just spinning their wheels.

Sovereign Court Contributor

Brent Stroh wrote:

One thing that strikes me as a bit odd here... If WotC is actively playtesting 4E, they've got to have something they're sending out to playtesters. While it won't be final, polished, etc, does it really seem like that big of an effort to drop one in the mail to Paizo as a preview?

From a business perspective, Paizo would be under the same NDA as other playtesters, but it would at least be an opportunity to start understanding what's coming, even if some of the details change.

If/when the OGL for 4E wraps up, there will be tweaks about what can and can't be used, and how, but there has got to be something in the right general area available today, or the external playtesters are just spinning their wheels.

Damn straight. Send out the current playtest with an NDA -- how hard would that be?

501 to 550 of 1,665 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 4.0: PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED All Messageboards