4.0: PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED


4th Edition

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,665 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>

lojakz wrote:


I will state, even though I won't be supporting 4th edition myself. Even though I don't like what I'm reading. I DO NOT hope that it fails, nor do I necessarily anticipate it failing (or succeeding for that matter). I do know that it is not a game that, as presented so far and as it's being revealed, I have a desire to participate in. But I hope for the sake of the hobby, it is...

You know, from what I've been seeing around the net, this is the dominant opinion.

I'm hoping it is a Roman candle of a game - something that draws a HUGE amount of initial interest and a lot of players in, then fizzles down after the big BOOM, leading the majority of players to seek other systems while a small, dedicated group of - not my term but I thought it was hilarious - 4rons (because it can be interpreted as positive OR negative) stick to the game decrying anything else as not worth their time. A large enough group to keep Wizards afloat but maybe cut loose from their HASBRO Masters as "not sufficiently profitable," but a definite minority within the gaming community.


Heaven's Agent wrote:
DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Paizo, unless they wish to outright say something similar and come up with their own gnomes, half orcs, druids, bards, etc, don't really have that option.
I always thought this sort of thing was a given when it came such modifications. Some aspects will need to be created from scratch, others will end up being abandoned because the new system has something adequate to take its place; races and classes seem to be small details when it comes to updating a setting.

Races and classes seem like a huge detail to me.

Golarion curently has Gnome PCs, Half-Orc PCs, Druids, Bards, and Frost Giants as monsters. These are just some of the things that will supposedly not be in the 4th Edition Core Books, but probably will appear later in the future yearly installments of PHBs and MMs.

So what is Paizo to do? They can choose not use these things until the books come out, but that would compromise Golarion's feel. Or they can stat out their own versions of Frost Giants, Gnomes, and Druids.

Now the PHB2 comes out and Gnomes and Druids and such are in it. There is a pretty good chance that WotC's version of the 4th edition Bard will be very different from Paizo's version.

So NOW what is Paizo to do? Keep using their version of these races, classes and monsters? If so alot of new players signing on to Pathfinder will get mighty confused.
More than likely they will have to alter the new races and classes and monsters to match WotC's versions. Pathfinder will constantly have to change and adapt every time a new 4th Edition book comes out.

Thats not cool. At least I dont think thats cool.


Watcher! wrote:
They say that, and I'm not calling them liars, but with the amount of change that was in that post/article that was linked to above.. they may have to show it, in order for it to be believed.

I agree fully. It just makes me think they're keeping a bit of information, vital to this discussion, to themselves.

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Say they do. Then when PHB II or III comes out and Gnome, Half Orcs Bards and Barbarians are present. What if WotC has the bard and barb more powerful then Paizo's? Paizo looks like they make underpowered material. If WotC's is a toned down version of Wizard's, then Paizo looks like they make overpowered products. If some are overpowered and some underpowered, they could look like they're shotgunning it, like they have no idea what they're doing.

Now you're in the realm of future public opinion, which is completely unpredictable. It's ridiculous to base such decisions on these what-ifs.


Jason Grubiak wrote:

So NOW what is Paizo to do? Keep using their version of these races, classes and monsters? If so alot of new players signing on to Pathfinder will get mighty confused.

Nope - create something unique with the same function (say a "Minstrel" class that does most of what a Bard does now, or a "Wild Warrior" to replace the Barbarian; replace Gnomes with, oh, "Forest Dwarves" or somesuch; etc.) but a different name and release a "conversion document" to fill in the "holes" until/unless the actual "official" rules surface.


Heaven's Agent wrote:
I agree fully. It just makes me think they're keeping a bit of information, vital to this discussion, to themselves.

And I can respect your perspective on that. To a degree, till they cough up something concrete we are throwing darts in the fog with our speculation.

I guess I just would like to see something more.. 'modular' about the what we have seen from that post. A clear way to make them more customizable to any campaign setting. From that one article I don't see it, but I'm not a game designer either.


I and my two gaming groups will not be upgrading to 4.0.
Will I continue to buy Paizo products if they do convert to 4.0. Of course I will.
Will I continue to buy them if they stay with 3.5? Of course I will.

I buy scenarios/game material because of the ideas and quality of product offered not because of the rule system it is based in. I still have enough imagination and free will to take a scenario/adventure path created in one rule system and convert it to my system of choice.

Paizo will & should do what it requires to remain a viable commercial concern that puts bread on the table for its owners & employees whilst at the same time being able to produce the top quality material we have come to expect from a company that treats its customer base with respect and a sense of social responsibility.


Malorium wrote:
Paizo will & should do what it requires to remain a viable commercial concern that puts bread on the table for its owners & employees whilst at the same time being able to produce the top quality material we have come to expect from a company that treats its customer base with respect and a sense of social responsibility.

Well said.


CEBrown wrote:
lojakz wrote:


I will state, even though I won't be supporting 4th edition myself. Even though I don't like what I'm reading. I DO NOT hope that it fails, nor do I necessarily anticipate it failing (or succeeding for that matter). I do know that it is not a game that, as presented so far and as it's being revealed, I have a desire to participate in. But I hope for the sake of the hobby, it is...

You know, from what I've been seeing around the net, this is the dominant opinion.

I'm hoping it is a Roman candle of a game - something that draws a HUGE amount of initial interest and a lot of players in, then fizzles down after the big BOOM, leading the majority of players to seek other systems while a small, dedicated group of - not my term but I thought it was hilarious - 4rons (because it can be interpreted as positive OR negative) stick to the game decrying anything else as not worth their time. A large enough group to keep Wizards afloat but maybe cut loose from their HASBRO Masters as "not sufficiently profitable," but a definite minority within the gaming community.

I like the Roman candle analogy, and I suspect it will be close to the truth. I think after the initial buzz dies down, 4th edition will be a hard row to hoe. I think significantly more people are not going to upgrade from 3rd edition than didn't upgrade from 2nd edition; and that WOTC has both underestimated these numbers, and overestimated the numbers of new, younger gamers. It's too late to put the MMORPG genie back into the bottle. No matter how blatantly you make the newest version of D&D resemble WoW.

Also, I've long thought the best thing for WOTC--and D&D by extension--would be to get out from under Hasbro's ownership. It's way too profit-driven a business, and that should be obvious to most as not necessarily being good for us as gaming consumers. There's just too much product out there necessary to keep them afloat month to month, and we'll see the same dilution of quality in 4th edition books as we started to see at the end of 3rd edition. It's a treadmill WOTC can't get off until they're free from Hasbro.

I'm starting to get nervous about Paizo's choices. Either sticking w/ 3.5 or going w/ 4.0 presents unique problems. It reminds me of an old (allegedly) Viking saying, translated from Old Norse as follows: "You have two choices, neither of them good...".

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Heaven's Agent wrote:
Now you're in the realm of future public opinion, which is completely unpredictable. It's ridiculous to base such decisions on these what-ifs.

Really?!? Because this sounds to me like a normal business question. Will there be a resurgence of religious youth (and thus low-rider jeans go out of style)? Will Teletubbies be more popular then Thomas the Tank Engine in a year (since the factory has to know which to make more of 6+ months in advance for christmas). These are very real busines decisions that companies make every day.

RPGs, esp the print publishers, are a very forward thinking business. Say Necromancer and Paizo tie their little red wagon to WotC for 4E instead of going off on their own and then 4E flops completely. Well they are out of income for a minimum of 3 months while they're scrambling to come up with something of their own or return to 3E.

Paizo has a reputation of putting out a high quality product. Well we all know that WotC is planning on putting out 4E gnomes, barbarians, druids, frost giants, etc. Say Paizo puts out a book of 3E classes updated for 4E. The 3E fans like it but the new 4E fans are happy they can play it but not much beyond that. Then a year later WotC releases that is a total reimagining of the classes/races. What if gnomes are THE race to play? Then Paizo could look like they're just got blown away for not being "cool" enough to think of this kind of reimagining on their own. Down goes Paizo's rep.

I don't call this what-if "ridiculous"; I call it "a real possibilty."


DMcCoy1693 wrote:

Really?!? Because this sounds to me like a normal business question. Will there be a resurgence of religious youth (and thus low-rider jeans go out of style)? Will Teletubbies be more popular then Thomas the Tank Engine in a year (since the factory has to know which to make more of 6+ months in advance for christmas). These are very real busines decisions that companies make every day. . .

. . .I don't call this what-if "ridiculous"; I call it "a real possibilty."

Those in business make decision based on prediction, yes. However, we base these predictions on facts and market research, not what-ifs. For such an argument to be a factor, one would need research that shows it would actually have an impact. That is why what you propose is ridiculous for current decision making purposes.

You thought on the subject is a possibility, but so is the idea that I could get hit by a car tomorrow. It might happen, but it would be ridiculous for me to make important decisions based on the possibility.

I still don't see a problem with a setting that uses rules for something like playable races or classes, that are different from what is considered core. Such things are done all the time, as a result of choice and/or need. And there might very well end up being a need for Paizo to undertake such an endeavor.


Heaven's Agent wrote:


I still don't see a problem with a setting that uses rules for something like playable races or classes, that are different from what is considered core. Such things are done all the time, as a result of choice and/or need. And there might very well end up being a need for Paizo to undertake such an endeavor.

Now to play catch up (or is that ketchup?).

I agree with Heaven's Agent on this one. There's a decent chance the classes and races (bard, barb, gnome, half-orc) that WotC come up with will be quite different to what will fit with Paizo's setting. If the OGL allows Paizo to fill in those gaps (instead of waiting for an official release), even if it requires a little name tweaking, I think they should. It would help define their setting in the glut of 4th edition settings (especially if WotC is doing one setting book a year).

EDIT: I will say, I'm still concerned how they are going to fit everything that is released initially to the Pathfinder setting, with the amount of changes that appear to have occurred.

Scarab Sages

Heaven's Agent wrote:
You thought on the subject is a possibility, but so is the idea that I could get hit by a car tomorrow. It might happen, but it would be ridiculous for me to make important decisions based on the possibility.

You mean like life insurance? Or how about savings accounts? Those kinds of decisions are made all the time with the possibility (in the case of life insurance, the surety) that your life will end at some point - be it tomorrow or in the year 2094. Maybe you will just get hurt and can't work, thus the savings account.

Decisions are made all the time based on "what-ifs" that have no basis in numerical assessment.

"I like this red dress. But what if Marcy also wears her red dress?! Oh no! I better wear the blue one."

"Do we have a corporate backup solution?"
"No... why would we need one?"
"What if the server crashes?"
"It hasn't in the past, and there's no saying that our data would actually be gone if it crashes in the future. You're being ridiculous."
"You're fired."
"But I don't even have a savings account! I never even did a 'what-if I get fired' analysis!!"

etc.


hmarcbower wrote:

You mean like life insurance? Or how about savings accounts? Those kinds of decisions are made all the time with the possibility (in the case of life insurance, the surety) that your life will end at some point - be it tomorrow or in the year 2094. Maybe you will just get hurt and can't work, thus the savings account.

Decisions are made all the time based on "what-ifs" that have no basis in numerical assessment. . .

No, I don't mean life insurance, or savings accounts. What you mention are preventative measures, precautions, that are wise. However, this does not have bearing on business decisions of the sort we are discussing. Such choices require proper information to be made.

I'm talking about things like the decision to leave the house tomorrow. If I have information that someone's going to run me down on a given day, I might elect to stay home. In general, however, such precognition is not available and as a result this is a ridiculous basis on which to base such a decision.

Let me use a better example. I could win a million dollars tomorrow. There's no indication that I will, but it could happen. Am I going to make financial decisions based on this? No, that would be stupid.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

hmarcbower wrote:
You mean like life insurance? Or how about savings accounts?

I was going to say, "You mean like wear a seat belt?" But yours are good too.

Heaven's Agent wrote:
I'm talking about things like the decision to leave the house tomorrow. If I have information that someone's going to run me down on a given day, I might elect to stay home.

Wow! I must say. We're talking real, reasonable possibilities; we're talking about a plan B incase plan A doesn't go as planned. You've officially entered the realm of ludicris. I'm leaving this discussion. You win.


Well I think that opinions voiced on the internet do give Pazio a sense of the feelings of their customer base, but I wouldn't recommend that they make their business decisions based on them. Proper market research is by far the wise route to take before comitting to such a major business decision. The voices on this board only make up a small percentage of the gaming population, and they seem share similar attitudes in terms of gaming, which IMO is one of the reasons why they choose to frequent this board instead of other ones. So if you were to base your choices on what we have to see, you would likely be ignoring the views of a huge segment of the gaming community that might not be so anti 4E.

I say before shooting down the new edition wait to see and try it out for a game session or two.

Dark Archive

I'd be more than happy to try it for a session or two, if someone else bought the books or printed out the SRD for me. I've seen too much about it that is distasteful to give it a try on my nickel.


Ideally, try it without purchasing it is the way to go (like test driving a new car).


P.H. Dungeon wrote:


The voices on this board only make up a small percentage of the gaming population, and they seem share similar attitudes in terms of gaming, which IMO is one of the reasons why they choose to frequent this board instead of other ones. So if you were to base your choices on what we have to see, you would likely be ignoring the views of a huge segment of the gaming community that might not be so anti 4E.

I hope that I'm not part of an extremely small (but extremely vocal) subset of D&D fans who has no interest in 4th edition. At the same time I hope that Paizo comes up with a lucrative, well-informed solution that makes a majority of it customers happy.

I'd suggest that the folks at Paizo send a free questionnaire to every Pathfinder subscriber (and to all customers with Gamemastery/Pathfinder orders over $25) over the next few months. Nothing fancy or expensive, a postage paid return address postcard with a few questions for their customers to answer. If every customer filled out a card and gave their opinions on what they'd like to see, it would surely help the folks at Paizo come to a decision. To insure that the same customer doesn't send multiple responses, the customer's mailing and e-mail would be on the card.

Paizo, to show their appreciation, could e-mail every respondent a 10% discount on their next Paizo purchase...


Well an online survey might be more efficient, but I know wizards does lots of of little online surveys. However, I don't recall any that they ever released any to do with a new edition. I guess they wanted to keep it secret, but they might end up kicking themselves about not researching their consumer base a little better.


Chris Perkins 88 wrote:

I'd suggest that the folks at Paizo send a free questionnaire to every Pathfinder subscriber (and to all customers with Gamemastery/Pathfinder orders over $25) over the next few months. Nothing fancy or expensive, a postage paid return address postcard with a few questions for their customers to answer. If every customer filled out a card and gave their opinions on what they'd like to see, it would surely help the folks at Paizo come to a decision. To insure that the same customer doesn't send multiple responses, the customer's mailing and e-mail would be on the card.

Paizo, to show their appreciation, could e-mail every respondent a 10% discount on their next Paizo purchase...

I'd also like a massage. :D

Scarab Sages

P.H. Dungeon wrote:
Ideally, try it without purchasing it is the way to go (like test driving a new car).

I hear that sometimes books can be downloaded through the intertubes! ;)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Watcher! wrote:
Just to interject on the "Do the Gamemastery Modules first before trying Pathfinder" comments...

One thing to keep in mind is that, should we decide to switch editions, we can switch Modules anytime we like. But because we won't switch editions in the middle of an Adventure Path, we can only switch editions in Pathfinder twice a year.

And the clock is rapidly running out for switching Pathfinder in 2008.

Liberty's Edge

I honestly don't know what will be btter for Paizo regarding editions. I do know what is better for me. I don't mean it as a threat, but if Paizo goes 4th edition, they'll likely lose me as a customer. I may stick around to finish the AP if I don't cancel soon enough, but it isn't going to be something I'm buying into.

For that reason, I hope Paizo does ask their current subscribers in some 'official' way. If there are enough of us to continue with 3rd edition for at least a while, I hope they do that. If people are planning on subscribing only if Paizo switches, I'd be leery. If nothing else, current subscribers have shown that they have the money. A bird in the hand....


Vic Wertz wrote:
Watcher! wrote:
Just to interject on the "Do the Gamemastery Modules first before trying Pathfinder" comments...

One thing to keep in mind is that, should we decide to switch editions, we can switch Modules anytime we like. But because we won't switch editions in the middle of an Adventure Path, we can only switch editions in Pathfinder twice a year.

And the clock is rapidly running out for switching Pathfinder in 2008.

So noted Vic!


Watcher wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Watcher! wrote:
Just to interject on the "Do the Gamemastery Modules first before trying Pathfinder" comments...

One thing to keep in mind is that, should we decide to switch editions, we can switch Modules anytime we like. But because we won't switch editions in the middle of an Adventure Path, we can only switch editions in Pathfinder twice a year.

And the clock is rapidly running out for switching Pathfinder in 2008.

So noted Vic!

That's actually what I thought of when I suggested it in my post. (I read on several post by both Eric and James that they wouldn't switch editions during the middle of the Path).

You've changed your avatar Watcher... I like the owl, it's nifty.


lojakz wrote:


You've changed your avatar Watcher... I like the owl, it's nifty.

Nope, I guess not. Your other Avatar is an alias of this Avatar... my mistake. Though... I still like the owl...

Now back to the thread.


lojakz wrote:


Now back to the thread.

Thanks! Actually I couldn't figure out how to get an Avatar on my main account, so I made an alias. I didn't like that you couldn't see my subscription tags, so I made a concerted effort to read the message board FAQs and I found a link to do it...

BACK TO THE THREAD
*******************

Yeah, I didn't think it through. The way the discussion sounded, I was hearing it proposed that the GameMastery modules could be changed first because consistancy of content was not as important with them because they're not part of the campaign.

So I was saying, "Hey, they are part of the campaign setting!"

Vic's comment does make sense however. If you're going to eventually switch everything over, you'd do it with a stand alone modules first, just because you can't interrupt an Adventure Path. Logisitically speaking it makes sense, and I was wrong.

Clock is ticking though.. My purely "based on nothing and unoffical" estimated deadline that Paizo might have is mid January before they have to finalize the schedule for the 2008 AP's. We're halfway through December, and you have the winter holidays coming that eat into that time.

Tic, tic, tic....


Vic Wertz wrote:
And the clock is rapidly running out for switching Pathfinder in 2008.

No offense to anyone, but - YAY!

;)

Dark Archive

Vic Wertz wrote:

And the clock is rapidly running out for switching Pathfinder in 2008.

No need to rush things, take your time. Wait until 2050.

Dark Archive

I'm just fine running 3.5 through 2008. Maybe my group will be done with savage tide and in to rise of the runelords by then. *wishful thinking


DaveMage wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
And the clock is rapidly running out for switching Pathfinder in 2008.

No offense to anyone, but - YAY!

;)

Exactly! The later you convert (if you have to convert at all) the better for me.

Scarab Sages

Core wrote:
Those sorts of criticisms sounds very familiar when 3.0 was announced...
KnightErrantJR wrote:
I am getting increasingly annoyed at the statement that "this is exactly what happened when 3rd edition came out." I'm not going to authoritatively say that there weren't similar comments and concerns, but I guess what annoys me about this is that its become almost a means by which to dismiss any comment.
KnightErrantJR wrote:
"This is just like when 3rd edition came out," has become code for, "I'm going to ignore what you have to say and label you as a knee jerk reactionary." I'm not saying that this is so in your case, I'm just saying that the comment, in and of itself, is beginning to take on that connotation when its been used by many that want to end any discussion on the topic by using that trump card.

I, too have become rather tired of the '3E all over again' argument, since it flies in the face of what I recall.

However, to counteract the inevitable cries of 'Your anecdotal evidence is worthless', I thought (while going through my old stuff) that I'd double-check whether my experiences were actually all that rare.

I recently picked up a few back issues of Dragon, to fill in some gaps in my collection, around the 270+ issues, which was right in the middle of the 'Countdown to 3E'.

Whilst there were indeed naysayers in the letters pages, the fact that their letters could be compared to the 'Countdown' articles, usually revealed that they had misinterpreted, ignored, or made huge assumptions about what had been printed, or had a very strong opinion that the designers should scrap everything to support the letter-writer's idiosyncratic house-rules.

While many are saying that this is the case today, with the 4E doubters, this is simply not true. The ability to refer to the hard data, provided amongst the design discussions, allowed the staff to simply blow most of the nay-saying out of the water, without having to be rude or nasty about it.

There would be the occasional comment of 'We'll have to agree to disagree', or 'That's a matter of personal taste', or the dreaded 'We're sure once you've tried it, you'll not go back', but the difference in tone between the two roll-outs could not be greater.

And that's not me, looking back with rose-tinted glasses. That is hard evidence, in the mags, in black and white.

Scarab Sages

Also, the very fact that there even were gaps in my collection of Dragon (a mag I had previously bought religiously) should be indication enough of the disinterest in the 2E game in my town. Even during our previous brief forays into other systems, or boardgaming, I had still kept up with the issues, to read later. But the time came when I realised that the gap between buying a mag and reading it, let alone using it was getting longer and longer.
It was no reflection on the quality of the articles, but simply that we had gone from a state of playing D&D all year round, with a month or two off for 'other stuff', to the reverse, playing 'other stuff' with the occasional month or two spent on a short-lived game of D&D.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Vic Wertz wrote:


And the clock is rapidly running out for switching Pathfinder in 2008.

Call me petty, but this is good news to me :D

Liberty's Edge

I'm not going to read 1000 posts so if I am just repeating what others have said consider this to be a 'hear hear'.

I was at first excited about 4.0, the big draw being the disappearance of level adjustments and the inclusion of Bo9S stuff as core. As it goes on however I find myself less and less interested. I would love to see a Paizo 3.75. I don't have access to any of the numbers but it feels to me like you have a large enough consumer base to keep on trucking (certainly seems larger than the loyal Hackmaster or Munchkin followings) and you're putting together such a great world that I can only see it growing vastly once the hardcover campaign setting hits game shelves.

If you do do a 3.75 you'll want a 3.75 PHB, my only requests would be to use it to make your world stand out a little more from the core (like 3 new races, 3 new base classes). And don't go hog-wild with splat books, keep all the information like new PrCs and items to the adventure books.

Scarab Sages

P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I think it's great that when looking at making the game better they aren't afraid to make big changes, and aren't scared to mess with something that isn't working for the system just because that has always been the way it has been done. For instance, just because fireball has always been 1d6 per level damage since the beginning, doesn't mean that the spell should be kept that way for the new edition. Looking at all aspects of the game critically is a good thing IMO. I look forward to seeing the new system.

I'm actually in agreement, believe it or not.

I remember an interview with Monte Cook, where he was asked if there was anything he'd do differently about the (then-new) 3.0, and he said that he wished they'd been a lot bolder in their re-design, but that they had chosen to err on the side of caution, out of respect for the game, and fear that fans would revolt if the changes were too much, too soon. After seeing the generally positive reception to 3E, he believed they could have made more changes, but had chosen to go 'this far, but no further'. Hence Arcana Unearthed.

I can respect both sides of this statement, that is, the desire to tinker with things, and the desire to keep the theme and flavour consistent with previous editions.

Fireballs doing d6/level are part of that flavour. It's been that way through every version of the game, and to some, it is inviolate.
I don't agree with that view.

I do believe that the game will always need a spell like Fireball, ie an area effect spell, which burns the victims. But further than that, I don't care if the spell is capped at 20d6 (as before), 10d6 (as now), or 5d6 (a possible future), as long as the damage output/caster level remains consistent with other similar spells and abilities available to PCs of that level, and that the spell level is set sufficiently high that it is not a no-brainer option.

I can see there being a case for allowing the spell's area to be customisable, causing increased damage (d8's?) in a 10' radius, and (d4's?) in a 30' radius.

Or for decreasing the damage across the board (d4's?), but increasing the save DC.

I can see there being a rule that, on a successful save, you must move behind cover, or toward the blast edge, and if you can't make it, then you can still take less damage, but can't claim Evasion.

I can see the utility in allowing a Fireball to burn for a full round, but at reduced damage, so as to block enemy movement, and allow an escape.

I'd be happy to see any of the above options (either as options of the one spell, or as variations of differing levels); I think they're interesting, exciting, tactical, while still fitting the 'flavour' of D&D. And anyone who kicked up a stink about any of them, I would be tempted to consider them a grognard, looking to find fault for the sake of finding fault.

However, the proposal to roll one DC vs every target's Reflex, is not interesting, exciting, tactical or flavourful; it's simply bad design.
In a room of identically-statted opponents, it assumes that either all will pass, or all will fail. Which is utter nonsense.
In the group, there could be some in combat, some out. Some will be tired, some could be rested. Some will have actions readied, some will be engrossed in full-round actions, or have their head buried in a spell-book or searching through a back-pack. Some will be at the edge of the blast, some will be in the middle.

Instead of trying to calculate the likelihood of any of these conditions, and then assign modifiers for them, we currently use a random, individual saving throw, and then we justify the result later, if we need to justify it at all.
"the guy at ground zero escaped it totally; he...err... jumped in the horse-trough! The guy in the melee saves for half; he uses the fire-resistant PC paladin as a shield! The guy on the edge (with the best Reflex of the bunch) fails utterly; guess he was too busy watching the PC rogue...never saw it coming, poor sap".

What I, and many others object to, is not changes per se, but changes that have serious design issues. Issues which, frankly, should have blown the proposal out of the water at the first brainstorming session. And when any member of these boards points them out (sometimes helpfully and politely, sometimes not so much), for the betterment of the game, they risk accusations (not from you personally, PH) of being 'Paizo-fanbois', 'grognards', resistant to change', stuck in their ways'. etc, when that is not the case.
There's a whole bunch of things I think could be better about 3.5, and I've always been one to tinker with rules, but I'm being expected to line up and vote for '3.5-Warts and All', or 'Mystic Manga Wire-Fu Warriors of Woo-Pass', when neither option really does it for me 100%.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Core wrote:
Those sorts of criticisms sounds very familiar when 3.0 was announced...
KnightErrantJR wrote:
I am getting increasingly annoyed at the statement that "this is exactly what happened when 3rd edition came out."
Snorter wrote:
I, too have become rather tired of the '3E all over again' argument, since it flies in the face of what I recall.

Ditto. Have you read the latest KoDT? The Jolly Roger comments in it that KoDT heard arguments when 3E came out as well and this time around, both sides are alot more critical of the other (both the pro-4E camp and the anti-4E camp).


DaveMage wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
And the clock is rapidly running out for switching Pathfinder in 2008.

No offense to anyone, but - YAY!

;)

Ditto


Yea as well.


Jason Grubiak wrote:
DaveMage wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
And the clock is rapidly running out for switching Pathfinder in 2008.

No offense to anyone, but - YAY!

;)

Ditto

Ditto redux? Tritto?? :)

Seriously, I hope Paizo doesn't switch in 2008. It should be obvious when the new rules come out what the general gaming public thinks. We'll all be more well-informed, and less likely to run off threads based on speculation and released, out-of-context tidbits. Paizo can ask us next Spring, after the core books are released, whether we want them to switch. Then the polls will be more meaningful for Paizo to make a business decision on.

So kudos to WOTC for not getting Paizo the OGL :) I think this will work out in the long run quite nicely.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

BenS wrote:
We'll all be more well-informed, and less likely to run off threads based on speculation

emphasis mine

*cough* bulls*** *cough*
Sorry had a little something in my throat. But anyways, this is the internet, where facts are less important then how forcefully you can argue your point.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Sorry had a little something in my throat. But anyways, this is the internet, where facts are less important then how forcefully you can argue your point.

And thats different from meatspace, how?


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
BenS wrote:
We'll all be more well-informed, and less likely to run off threads based on speculation

emphasis mine

*cough* bulls*** *cough*
Sorry had a little something in my throat. But anyways, this is the internet, where facts are less important then how forcefully you can argue your point.

In many circumstances I'd agree w/ that generalization. But don't you think this whole 4th edition debate will change once everyone actually has the rules in hand (even if it's only the new SRD)? After all, one tends to speculate on something not in hand yet (i.e., directly experienced). Once the core books are released, a lot of the need for speculation goes away, doesn't it? Then we can get down to arguing based on, you know, the facts :)

Not that speculation isn't fun and a good time-filler...


DMcCoy1693 wrote:


Sorry had a little something in my throat. But anyways, this is the internet, where facts are less important then how forcefully you can argue your point.

Your forceful argument has totally convinced me that whatever you just said must be true.


Infamous Jum wrote:
DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Sorry had a little something in my throat. But anyways, this is the internet, where facts are less important then how forcefully you can argue your point.
And thats different from meatspace, how?

Anonymity makes it easier...

Otherwise, no difference.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

BenS wrote:
But don't you think this whole 4th edition debate will change once everyone actually has the rules in hand (even if it's only the new SRD)?

Oh absolutely. It'll change, but into what? There will still be wild speculation about how this one part is broken and how they destroyed the feel of their favorite character type and so on. But there will still be wild speculation. As long as there are humans, there will be wild speculation.


Late to the party, and with a response that may or may not have merit.

I am currently subscribed to Pathfinder, but the flavor/nature of the adventures just doesn't fit with my campaign, so I'll likely let the subscription end. It's a great product, just doesn't help my campaign at all. People can say that's a limitation of my own creativity, and that's a fair accusation, but with Dungeon there was at least a module every issue or so that I could cannibalize.

Let me say that I have ZERO intention of starting with 4E, and buying not only all the books over again, finding they are completely incompatible with 3.0 and 3.5, and then finding that they are incomplete unless I subscribe to an online service. 4E is a non-starter with me.

So my response is kind of mixed.

IF Paizo sticks with 3.5 but only produces products in the 'Pathfinder world' or with that style that I cannot shoehorn into my campaign, they won't see much business from me - only if I see something I can use.

IF Paizo moves to 4E, they won't see ANY business from me.

IF Paizo stays with a line of 3.5 products that are more generally useful, I'll be a customer for a long time.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

James Todd wrote:
and then finding that they are incomplete unless I subscribe to an online service.

My understanding is is that it won't be "incomplete" but those that are online get certain content not available in the books, in the same way that Dragon has extra mystery trees for the Shadowcaster, additional vestigates for the binder, additional PrCs, etc.

Of course, that may change as time goes on.


P.H. Dungeon wrote:
Well an online survey might be more efficient, but I know wizards does lots of of little online surveys. However, I don't recall any that they ever released any to do with a new edition. I guess they wanted to keep it secret, but they might end up kicking themselves about not researching their consumer base a little better.

It remains my belief that WotC has no real hard interest in keeping their existing customers sweet. A sizeable proportion will follow 4th Ed. regardless, and as for those who won't, well, they think the gains they will make on the WoW crowd and the new subscription/built in redundancy model will reduce this to minor collateral damage. After all, a lot of older gamers are starting to fall outside the 17-35 demographic that is a entertainment Holy Grail- so screw 'em.

I think Paizo will have to bite the bullet and go 4th Ed, since it's pointless to go continuing supporting an out of print system, but I also believe 3.5 stats should be offered as PDFs as a courtesy to those subscribers who have yet to fully realize our investment in our game library.

On an aside/ minor threadjack, does anyone use True20? How compatible is it with d20 and 3.5? I'd rather not put my money into 4th Ed, but also don't want to end up an anachronism. This is a Golden opportunity for OGL system publishers to aggressively exploit WotCs downtime ahead of next years Launch and grab those disaffected gamers out there.

Liberty's Edge

Vic Wertz wrote:
And the clock is rapidly running out for switching Pathfinder in 2008.

Well, um, I'm OK with this if you are. :-)

-DM Jeff

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,665 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 4.0: PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED All Messageboards