4.0: PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED


4th Edition

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,665 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>
The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

TabulaRasa wrote:

Erik, I think you've got it all wrong.

So long as Paizo has good stories to tell, who cares whether it's 3.5 or 4.0?

I'd agree, more or less, if this were a switch from something like 2nd Ed. to 3rd Ed. You can take most any 2nd Edition module out of mothballs and, with an afternoon's work, construct a reasonable 3.5 doppelganger.

At this point, it doesn't look like that's going to be quite so easy for 3rd and 4th Editions. The kinds of actions that PC's can take, the kinds of encounters the game expects, how quickly PC's get more powerful, and other fundamental crunch matters, seem to indicate that 4th Edition is fundamentally a different game.

I suspect it would be more nearly like comparing D&D to, oh, Vampire, Dark Ages, or Ars Magica, both perfectly good games, set in a medieval mileau with magic and fantasy elements. If I play Ars Magica, I'm not going to be able to use the Savage Tide adventure path in my campaign without a tremendous amount of work.

That's why edition matters.

TabulaRasa wrote:

What prevents you from publishing one set of stat block for 3.5 and another for 4.0?

Noise ordinances.

The Seattle area has some pretty strict laws about that kind of thing, and the howling and screaming coming from the Paizo building would violate them.


PandaGaki wrote:
Maybe one day but not right now, the soonest that I'll look into 4E is when my current campaigns end and I've gone through all my 3E adventures.

The thing is that, for me, "when my current campaigns end" is "when I finish running Rise of the Runelords".

I think that the number of Dungeons & Dragons players who will not switch over to Fourth Edition until their multiple current campaigns end, and/or until they have played through every single adventure they have ever wanted to run for Third Edition, is simply a vanishingly small number compared to the number of players who will switch when Fourth Edition comes out.

I agree with you that it's about "when to change", and I really do see the problem for Paizo in switching over before Second Darkness begins when a) they don't have the rules yet, and b) they'll probably have to massage them to fit Golarion's setting assumptions anyway.

I just know that anyone who's in my position of enjoying Pathfinder but anticipating Fourth Edition will have a hard decision to make when Curse of the Crimson Throne wraps up, especially since I know I probably won't be running it - it's been hard enough getting my Rise of the Runelords group sorted out, and we haven't yet started. Can I really afford to buy a year's worth of Pathfinder that uses rules I probably won't want to go back to, and that I wouldn't have time to play even if I wanted to?

The best result for me would be if Wizards of the Coast got Paizo the rules in time for Second Darkness. The second-best result would be if it's really easy to make an on-the-fly conversion from Third Edition to Fourth, so that I can still run Curse of the Crimson Throne and Second Darkness no matter what system they're using.


I'll follow Paizo. I'll be buying Paizo products no matter what edition they are. If they're 3e, it's fine. I like 3e. It might have its problems but nothing that can't be worked with. If they're 4e, it's fine, too. For me, that proves that the 4e rules can be changed to serve D&D's spirit.

Liberty's Edge

I say if the 4th ed stuff is available and good then convert, but leave side-bar type options for 3.5 compatibility. As to the idea of a 3.75 type book for the Pathfinder world its not w/o merit but with many fans buying 4th ed to try it out it may be a risky premise unless you can put it out at a pretty low price-point since I think most of have a limited buget that we can spend on gaming.


Hi.

Well, hi again.

I've been a dungeon master for 29 years. That's right, 29 years. I'm 38 years old. I run over twelve interactive games in one Forgotten Realms setting.

If Paizo continues to run 3.5 adventures, I will pick up Golarion and run with that ball all the way to the end zone.

I can keep my Forgotten Realms game going and get the support from Paizo that I need to run Golarion well into the mid 2030's.

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

Wizards is trying to destroy every existing gameworld and campaign setting simply so that they have overarching control over what everyone plays.

They CAN'T write good adventures, they DON'T love the system or good storytelling. Good storytelling is highly subjective. Recasting the DM as a storyteller is a colossal mistake. A DM needs to be Storyteller, friend, and enemy.

The theme and the rewrite of character races, as well as unbearable writing incompetence ("Elves are moody and given to fits of passion." Wisdom Bonus? HUH?), the transformation of the succubus, the sudden idea that half the PC's in my campaign world might suddenly need new backstories after 15-20 levels of play?

THAT makes me not want to switch.

I'm asking Paizo not to switch so that even if I do, those who don't have a fantastic alternative. Because there won't be others.


It is rare that a campaign world sparks my interest and imagination to the level that Golarion has done so,and even more rare when I find a pre-published adventure that actually does the same.

You can count me in for all of the Pathfinder arc as it stands in what ever form it takes,so long as it continues to be this good I will play and buy it,and will do so regardless of which system it really uses.

On that note you are a business and I would personally suggest going with what ever route that allows you to thrive as a business. But it seems to me that if WOTC has not released any of the most basic information to third party publishers (and I'm going on the assumption that with the popularity that Paizo holds that you would be on the list of ones that they wish to have on the "bandwagon" so to speak) yet then it almost sounds like they want to "cut out" the third parties (which you would think they would have learned from the past on this but oh well if they don't).


Charles Evans 25 wrote:

I just collected my copy of Pathfinder #4 from my local games store yesterday. Barring the unlikely event of Mike McArtor not having known what he was writing about, if Paizo does go 4th edition then either Golarion or 4th edition is going to need adaptation.

Mike McArtor wrote:
Thaumaturgic Dragons: Easily the most powerful natural spellcasters among dragonkind, the eight breeds of this sept each represent one of the common schols of magic: abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, and transmutation. Dragons of these breeds are universally neutral.

-Fortress of the Stone Giants, page 71

4th edition D & D has been announced as removing schools of magic from the game. As far as I can understand, this means that if Paizo go 4th edition, then they're going to have to find an excuse to wipe a sub-group of dragons who specialise in schools of magic from Golarion, find a replacement and logical set of 'eight' things for them to suddenly specialise in instead, or retain schools of magic for the setting, at least for these dragons.

This isnt necessarily true. They are simply removing schools of magic as a "mechanical division". If you want to play a necromancer in 4E, you would simply pick wizard and then take all the spells that you feel fit the bill.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

One thing to keep in mind is that we at Paizo know what we want for Golarion. In cases where the rules don't support what we want, we change them. For example:

The runelords of Thassilon have a magic system based on 7 schools of magic. 3.5 D&D has 8 schools of magic. Our solution there was to lump the school of divination into the universal school, not to invent some silly 8th sin. The rules bend and change according to the needs of the story and the world.

If and when we switch to 4th edition (still haven't seen the rules and OGL for it, so we still can't make that decision yet), there are GOING to be rules that don't fit Golarion. Dragonborn for one. The loss of the traditional schools of magic for one. Gnomes will remain a strong PC choice in Golarion. Succubi will still be demons. Etc., etc.

My goal is to ensure that if you're a person IN GAME, you won't notice the edition switch at all.


James Jacobs is now my hero.


Antioch wrote:


This isnt necessarily true. They are simply removing schools of magic as a "mechanical division". If you want to play a necromancer in 4E, you would simply pick wizard and then take all the spells that you feel fit the bill.

My impression was that enchantment and necromantic spells would be removed completely from the spells available, and if this is true, then you won't be able to simply select spells that fit the bill.

But, as we won't know until the rules are out - you may be right on the money.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
DaveMage wrote:
My impression was that enchantment and necromantic spells would be removed completely from the spells available, and if this is true, then you won't be able to simply select spells that fit the bill.

...without looking outside of the core rules. I expect that there will soon be supplements (third party, if nothing else) that supply those sorts of spells.

Or is there some mechanic preventing this? (I haven't been following all of the 4e news.)


James Jacobs wrote:


If and when we switch to 4th edition (still haven't seen the rules and OGL for it, so we still can't make that decision yet), there are GOING to be rules that don't fit Golarion. Dragonborn for one. The loss of the traditional schools of magic for one. Gnomes will remain a strong PC choice in Golarion. Succubi will still be demons. Etc., etc.

Wait, they have 4 months to go before taking 4E to the printers and you guys still have yet to see the 4E rules?

LOL That just made my day.


First I love Paizo. They have been create at talking to the funs. There customer service is the better than most places. There setting they created inspires me and I really want to see where it is going.
I want to continue to buy from this company.
I like 3.5, it has some bumps ,but it works. As far as 4th edition goes what there promising I really like. I like the changes they want to make to speed it up. I like the idea of giving players more options in charcter creation. I think allot of the cows that are being killed are going to be replaced by better rules. Wizards dispite many things want to make a rule set that will sale well so I think when it is done it will be a good investment. I really want to run those rules. I would love for paizo to make the switch if they can to 4.0 so I can still play in your world.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:

One thing to keep in mind is that we at Paizo know what we want for Golarion. In cases where the rules don't support what we want, we change them. For example:

The runelords of Thassilon have a magic system based on 7 schools of magic. 3.5 D&D has 8 schools of magic. Our solution there was to lump the school of divination into the universal school, not to invent some silly 8th sin. The rules bend and change according to the needs of the story and the world.

If and when we switch to 4th edition (still haven't seen the rules and OGL for it, so we still can't make that decision yet), there are GOING to be rules that don't fit Golarion. Dragonborn for one. The loss of the traditional schools of magic for one. Gnomes will remain a strong PC choice in Golarion. Succubi will still be demons. Etc., etc.

My goal is to ensure that if you're a person IN GAME, you won't notice the edition switch at all.

I wholly agree with this. This is an acceptable compromise for me.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Antioch wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
4th edition D & D has been announced as removing schools of magic from the game. As far as I can understand, this means that if Paizo go 4th edition, then they're going to have to find an excuse to wipe a sub-group of dragons who specialise in schools of magic from Golarion, find a replacement and logical set of 'eight' things for them to suddenly specialise in instead, or retain schools of magic for the setting, at least for these dragons.
This isnt necessarily true. They are simply removing schools of magic as a "mechanical division". If you want to play a necromancer in 4E, you would simply pick wizard and then take all the spells that you feel fit the bill.

Go read this thread and this one. Wizards will be much more limited in 4e. Instead there will be "other magic using classes." Psions will have power over the mind (enchantment, domination), necromancers will be held for later release (or limited to monsters/NPCs), etc.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

James Jacobs wrote:

One thing to keep in mind is that we at Paizo know what we want for Golarion. In cases where the rules don't support what we want, we change them. For example:

The runelords of Thassilon have a magic system based on 7 schools of magic. 3.5 D&D has 8 schools of magic. Our solution there was to lump the school of divination into the universal school, not to invent some silly 8th sin. The rules bend and change according to the needs of the story and the world.

If and when we switch to 4th edition (still haven't seen the rules and OGL for it, so we still can't make that decision yet), there are GOING to be rules that don't fit Golarion. Dragonborn for one. The loss of the traditional schools of magic for one. Gnomes will remain a strong PC choice in Golarion. Succubi will still be demons. Etc., etc.

My goal is to ensure that if you're a person IN GAME, you won't notice the edition switch at all.

If Paizo 1) switches to 4E and 2) is able to follow through on this, then I'd switch to 4E, but that's pretty much the only reason I would. (And definitely not because of anything that WotC would say or do anymore at this point.)


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

One thing to keep in mind is that we at Paizo know what we want for Golarion. In cases where the rules don't support what we want, we change them. For example:

The runelords of Thassilon have a magic system based on 7 schools of magic. 3.5 D&D has 8 schools of magic. Our solution there was to lump the school of divination into the universal school, not to invent some silly 8th sin. The rules bend and change according to the needs of the story and the world.

If and when we switch to 4th edition (still haven't seen the rules and OGL for it, so we still can't make that decision yet), there are GOING to be rules that don't fit Golarion. Dragonborn for one. The loss of the traditional schools of magic for one. Gnomes will remain a strong PC choice in Golarion. Succubi will still be demons. Etc., etc.

My goal is to ensure that if you're a person IN GAME, you won't notice the edition switch at all.

If Paizo 1) switches to 4E and 2) is able to follow through on this, then I'd switch to 4E, but that's pretty much the only reason I would. (And definitely not because of anything that WotC would say or do anymore at this point.)

The only thing that would bring me to DMing 4th Edition is just for s!$*s & giggles, pretty much. We'd play it like the "beer&pretzels" game it's turning into. No RP, no storytelling, we'll just go to the Monster Manual, open up a blank grid map, make characters and start plowing through the Monster Manual like one big Munchkin-fest. 4th Edition is nothing else beyond that.

If we're in the mood for serious gaming, with all parts storytelling, role-playing, combat, then we'll go to our 3.5E games. But if we're in the mood to play one big glorified game of D&D Marvel Heroes, it's 4th Edition we'll play. And screw giving WotC any of my money, we'll just be using the 4E OGL printed out *lol*


Dragonchess Player wrote:
Antioch wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
4th edition D & D has been announced as removing schools of magic from the game. As far as I can understand, this means that if Paizo go 4th edition, then they're going to have to find an excuse to wipe a sub-group of dragons who specialise in schools of magic from Golarion, find a replacement and logical set of 'eight' things for them to suddenly specialise in instead, or retain schools of magic for the setting, at least for these dragons.
This isnt necessarily true. They are simply removing schools of magic as a "mechanical division". If you want to play a necromancer in 4E, you would simply pick wizard and then take all the spells that you feel fit the bill.
Go read this thread and this one. Wizards will be much more limited in 4e. Instead there will be "other magic using classes." Psions will have power over the mind (enchantment, domination), necromancers will be held for later release (or limited to monsters/NPCs), etc.

Wizards will still have access to such spells but they won't be as good as a dedicated caster, is the latest word.


Razz wrote:
The only thing that would bring me to DMing 4th Edition is just for s@&@s & giggles, pretty much. We'd play it like the "beer&pretzels" game it's turning into. No RP, no storytelling, we'll just go to the Monster Manual, open up a blank grid map, make characters and start plowing through the Monster Manual like one big Munchkin-fest. 4th Edition is nothing else beyond that.

Where are you getting this? Everything I've seen indicates that 4E promises more options for RP and storytelling built into the game than any prior edition.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Paizo Guys,

Is there going to be any insentive to not publish a complete game that you are aware of? The incentive with 3.0/3.5 was that you could claim d20 compatability. But with the loss of the logo and that fact that you said that you're going to publishing your own variant rules (if the 4E OGL permits), why not publish your own core book. Frankly, I'd rather buy a Paizo core book that was based on 4E's mechanics and had Paizo's setting integrated.

If you can't say anything officially this time, just blink twice if such insentive will exist. ;)


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

One thing to keep in mind is that we at Paizo know what we want for Golarion. In cases where the rules don't support what we want, we change them. For example:

The runelords of Thassilon have a magic system based on 7 schools of magic. 3.5 D&D has 8 schools of magic. Our solution there was to lump the school of divination into the universal school, not to invent some silly 8th sin. The rules bend and change according to the needs of the story and the world.

If and when we switch to 4th edition (still haven't seen the rules and OGL for it, so we still can't make that decision yet), there are GOING to be rules that don't fit Golarion. Dragonborn for one. The loss of the traditional schools of magic for one. Gnomes will remain a strong PC choice in Golarion. Succubi will still be demons. Etc., etc.

My goal is to ensure that if you're a person IN GAME, you won't notice the edition switch at all.

If Paizo 1) switches to 4E and 2) is able to follow through on this, then I'd switch to 4E, but that's pretty much the only reason I would. (And definitely not because of anything that WotC would say or do anymore at this point.)

What I got from the post, reading it objectively, is that wizards will mostly be losing a good deal of Enchantment effects. Some spells are becoming rituals (sounds good), while others are being changed and in some cases removed. Lets go down that list again, shall we...

Divination: These are becoming rituals, mostly, so you can expect wizards to still use these.

Conjuration: They mention that teleportation is also becoming a ritual. Summoning stuff is out, for now, but you can expect it back later. This is mostly fine by me, as summoning monsters wasnt terribly useful, and could slow down play as the player flipped around looking for the monster they summoned. If they had Augment Summoning, this took time to factor. The fast solution is cards, but those can get damaged, lost, or some players dont want to take the time to make them cause they dont use it a whole lot.

Evocation: Mostly for wizards now.

Illusion: Mostly for wizards, also. I guess this means they arent ALL about blasting as some would say.

Transmutation: SOME are changed or removed. It has been mentioned that polymorph isnt in the game, but other shapechanging effects do (likely, there will be separate spells for specific monster forms, which works out MUCH better without all the polymorph abuse).

Enchantment: This is the only major school to have been removed from the wizard, as far as we know. It may come back for the bard, sorcerer, or something more thematic to the school. I never thought of Enchantment as the "RPing school", so this doesnt bother me much. Very few of my wizard players ever yanked anything out of here anyway except for perhaps, sleep.

The two major schools we dont get a lot of dirt on are Conjuration and Abjuration. They do mention the ability to take "wall of force, and if it sounds like an abjuration, then it is".
So, I guess wizards are just going to lose heavy access to Enchantment. Flip over to 78 in Races & Classes, where it says that "wizards are more than magical howitzers, they've always been a big bag of tricks, and the new wizard is no different".

Jon Brazer Enterprises

They also mentioned that the necromancer will probably make an appearance as a base class and that necromancy was stripped from the wizard.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Antioch wrote:
Flip over to 78 in Races & Classes,

Wait... You bought the first book written by the Dark Ones? *Gasp* (Just teasing you.)

Antioch wrote:
... and the new wizard is no different".

Rule 1 of Sales: If a salesman has to tell you this is good, bad, different, no different, etc, the truth is the opposite of what they are claiming.

Translation: If a salesman says something is no different then before, then there are major differences they are trying to hide because they want to suck tons and tons of money out of after you failed to notice them.

My current character in a FR game is a halfling necromancer (Lyle). He hates undead. What is the necromancer known for? Raising undead. What will the 4E necromancer base class focus on, raising undead (just look at the 3.5 dread necromancer class). What does a necromancer do when a necromancer hates undead, drop ability scores like there is no tomorrow. Can I do that in 4E? No. Nothing drops ability scores. My character concept is gone.


The only thing that would bring me to DMing 4th Edition is just for s~~~s & giggles, pretty much. We'd play it like the "beer&pretzels" game it's turning into. No RP, no storytelling, we'll just go to the Monster Manual, open up a blank grid map, make characters and start plowing through the Monster Manual like one big Munchkin-fest. 4th Edition is nothing else beyond that.

If we're in the mood for serious gaming, with all parts storytelling, role-playing, combat, then we'll go to our 3.5E games. But if we're in the mood to play one big glorified game of D&D Marvel Heroes, it's 4th Edition we'll play. And screw giving WotC any of my money, we'll just be using the 4E OGL printed out *lol*

Since the rules for combat are still there, somehow 4th Edition will become all combat?
You DO know that they are actually planning mechanics for social encounters, meaning that technically, 4E will have more social-RPing right out of the gate.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Antioch wrote:
You DO know that they are actually planning mechanics for social encounters, meaning that technically, 4E will have more social-RPing right out of the gate.

Like any good computer game, you just ignore the roleplaying and roll a die, see if you win, and move on to the "fun" stuff of killing more stuff and taking their stuff.


First of all, unless you can point me to a more recent source that states Necromancy is going bye-bye from the wizard, I'm going to fall back to what I know, in that while Necromancy effects have been diminished (ie, save-or-die spells are mostly going away, and that penalties are going to be more focused and likely not last longer than an encounter), they are NOT going away entirely.

What I forsee is that rather than have your ray of enfeeblement apply a Strength penalty, it will just impose a penalty to melee attacks and damage. This makes it a bit easier for people who use two-handed weapons, since you dont have to reverse calculate in the middle of combat your 1 1/2 times Str mod to weapon damage.
Stuff like that. Maybe. I'm not certain, myself, except that THOSE kinds of spells are going away. I suspect animate dead will still be around in some form.

As for the "RPing" bit, how else do you have characters lie, haggle, or swindle their way through a social situation? Do you just ignore their character's Charisma score and/or Cha skills? Do only players that are good character actors stand a chance against those things? Every RPG I've EVER played has rules on combat, plenty of stuff to kill, and skill checks to resolve things like social RPing.
In my games, I dont discourage character acting, but I certainly dont require it. If a player cant think of a way to talk his way past a guard, I have NO problem allowing them to simply make a Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check to do the job. Actually, I REQUIRE it. Otherwise Charisma has no relevance except to determine your highest level sorcerer spells (and bonus spells).
Those skills exist to serve a purpose, and if you dont like it, you probably wont be required to use the "social encounter" mechanics anyway.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Antioch wrote:
Flip over to 78 in Races & Classes,

Wait... You bought the first book written by the Dark Ones? *Gasp* (Just teasing you.)

Antioch wrote:
... and the new wizard is no different".

Rule 1 of Sales: If a salesman has to tell you this is good, bad, different, no different, etc, the truth is the opposite of what they are claiming.

Translation: If a salesman says something is no different then before, then there are major differences they are trying to hide because they want to suck tons and tons of money out of after you failed to notice them.

My current character in a FR game is a halfling necromancer (Lyle). He hates undead. What is the necromancer known for? Raising undead. What will the 4E necromancer base class focus on, raising undead (just look at the 3.5 dread necromancer class). What does a necromancer do when a necromancer hates undead, drop ability scores like there is no tomorrow. Can I do that in 4E? No. Nothing drops ability scores. My character concept is gone.

I know you're trying your hardest to read bad in everything about 4E, but what I think they are implying is that the 4E wizard will be able to do more than blow stuff up, despite the fact that most wizards (PC and NPC alike) have a strange tendency to have flashy attack spells.

Even in 3rd Edition, there are a good spread of damage spells. Some, like unseen servant, remind me of feats like Negotiator and Persuasive: feats that seem nice in concept but are too utterly useless in normal games for anyone to take them (especially considering how broken skills like Diplomacy already are with flat DCs).
I cant think of anyone who takes unseen servant and uses it with any regularity. Its more like a spell that simply exists to explain how someone might have an invisible guy running around doing chores. Kind of like how Item Creation feats exist mainly to explain where magic items come from: I cant fathom a PC wizard who takes these and uses them with any frequency because of the loss of XP.


Antioch wrote:


Even in 3rd Edition, there are a good spread of damage spells. Some, like unseen servant, remind me of feats like Negotiator and Persuasive: feats that seem nice in concept but are too utterly useless in normal games for anyone to take them (especially considering how broken skills like Diplomacy already are with flat DCs).
I cant think of anyone who takes unseen servant and uses it with any regularity. Its more like a spell that simply exists to explain how someone might have an invisible guy running around doing chores. Kind of like how Item Creation feats exist mainly to explain where magic items come from: I cant fathom a PC wizard who takes these and uses them with any...

The unseen servant spell has a huge number of creative uses! A gnome sorcerer in one my campaigns took reduce and unseen servant as his two 1st-level spells known. He uses reduce to shrink to size Tiny, which makes him light enough to be lifted by the servant. So, 1st-level, and he can basically fly! Spells such as these have survived 30 years and 3 editions because they do more than take up page space. I mean no disrespect, but a lot of folks enjoy using spells like these in ingenious ways.

PS. I don't mean to suggest pro/con for 4E by this post, only to point out the uses of non-blaster spells.

PPS. I once played a Hexblade who took Persuasive at 1st-level. At 2nd-level, he had 5 ranks in Intimidate and Bluff. His 16 Charisma provided +3 to each. 5+ ranks in Bluff give +2 synergy bonus to Intimidate. So his Intimidate at 2nd-level was +12. While I agree the skill focusing feats are not fabulous, used wisely they result in some pretty neat results. And yes, Intimidate has uses in combat :-).

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Antioch wrote:
I know you're trying your hardest to read bad in everything about 4E,

Actually, I'm not. I wanted to like 4E. I really did. But I saw how they transformed it into a videogame on paper. I saw how the stewards of the game I love took that game and told me how I wasn't enjoying it properly and how their genius would solve all my problems by making the game unrecognizable to me. I saw how they said I was a fool for liking some of my favorite characters. So frankly, I don't care if their game is exactly what the stewards promises it delivers, because the stewards have lost their way.

Antioch wrote:
despite the fact that most wizards (PC and NPC alike) have a strange tendency to have flashy attack spells.

Remember that necromancer I mentioned (the one that doesn't like undead), the two schools he gave up: Evocation and Transmutation. That's right, no fireball, no magic missile, no bulls strength, no baneful polymorph. I like going with original concepts. (There are also 5 other ability scores he drops besides Strength [Ray of Enfeeblement], you just need the right spells to make anything weak and useless). Just because your experience with wizards are evoists doesn't mean the rest of us have the same experiences.

Antioch wrote:
I cant think of anyone who takes unseen servant and uses it with any regularity. Its more like a spell that simply exists to explain how someone might have an invisible guy running around doing chores.

Guess the single most common spell I use. Prestidigitation. Yep, that's right, that funny, "useless" 0 level spell gets used more by me then any other spell. Why? Role Playing. Forementioned Necromancer: He's an aristocrat type among common adventurers. Using that spell keeps the feeling up of how he is just one step ahead of them (which is impressive for a halfling among humans and elves). He never gets dirty, snow never falls on him, never get wet in the rain. Ten bucks says that spell, that open ended kind of spell, gets nixed in 4E core books. There's no way to model it in a computer game.


I hope that prestidigitation won't go. That would be a shame. I have to admit to feeling a little disappointed when I got 3E and saw that some of the less combat-useful spells had gone, so I hope the cull won't continue.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

FabesMinis wrote:
I hope that prestidigitation won't go. That would be a shame. I have to admit to feeling a little disappointed when I got 3E and saw that some of the less combat-useful spells had gone, so I hope the cull won't continue.

I wish it wouldn't either, but think of these two questions?

1: What mechanical benefit does it provide an online RPG? If none, why take it in the online game? and

2: If it provides no benefit in the online game, how can you convince people that the Online game is a combat game and not a role playing game if the pen & paper game has it?


I see where you're coming from, I think.

Are you speaking in respect of any future CRPGS (MMORPG or otherwise) that may utilise the 4E rules? Or are you thinking of games that would be played out on the virtual tabletop that has been put forward as part of the DI?

Jon Brazer Enterprises

FabesMinis wrote:

I see where you're coming from, I think.

Are you speaking in respect of any future CRPGS (MMORPG or otherwise) that may utilise the 4E rules? Or are you thinking of games that would be played out on the virtual tabletop that has been put forward as part of the DI?

The DI. We already know they tossed wish and limited wish. It's not that much of a stretch to imagine other open ended spells are out as well.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Antioch wrote:
Flip over to 78 in Races & Classes,

Wait... You bought the first book written by the Dark Ones? *Gasp* (Just teasing you.)

Antioch wrote:
... and the new wizard is no different".

Rule 1 of Sales: If a salesman has to tell you this is good, bad, different, no different, etc, the truth is the opposite of what they are claiming.

Translation: If a salesman says something is no different then before, then there are major differences they are trying to hide because they want to suck tons and tons of money out of after you failed to notice them.

My current character in a FR game is a halfling necromancer (Lyle). He hates undead. What is the necromancer known for? Raising undead. What will the 4E necromancer base class focus on, raising undead (just look at the 3.5 dread necromancer class). What does a necromancer do when a necromancer hates undead, drop ability scores like there is no tomorrow. Can I do that in 4E? No. Nothing drops ability scores. My character concept is gone.

I, too, have a white Necromancer. She likes to use empathic transfer to heal people while draining her reserves of temporary hit points. But the entire point was doing it without divine magic. Will I be able to do this in 4th? Hell no. I can become a blaster mage or raise zombies.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
There's no way to model it in a computer game.

That is exactly what my reservations are about 4E ... the amount of changes being made to the mechanics seems to imply that the changes are being made for the sake of the rules to be easily implemented in software. I reckon this must be one of the main underlying reasons why 4ED is so radical.

Also the way the delve format was developed recently for 3.5 was unusual, ok the reasons given were for ease of use in tournaments etc even though in use it hasn't been popular but on the other hand the design theory seems very software orientated - I could be reading into this too much but I'm going by my gut instincts atm.

Cheers


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Antioch wrote:
I know you're trying your hardest to read bad in everything about 4E,

Actually, I'm not. I wanted to like 4E. I really did. But I saw how they transformed it into a videogame on paper. I saw how the stewards of the game I love took that game and told me how I wasn't enjoying it properly and how their genius would solve all my problems by making the game unrecognizable to me. I saw how they said I was a fool for liking some of my favorite characters. So frankly, I don't care if their game is exactly what the stewards promises it delivers, because the stewards have lost their way.

Antioch wrote:
despite the fact that most wizards (PC and NPC alike) have a strange tendency to have flashy attack spells.

Remember that necromancer I mentioned (the one that doesn't like undead), the two schools he gave up: Evocation and Transmutation. That's right, no fireball, no magic missile, no bulls strength, no baneful polymorph. I like going with original concepts. (There are also 5 other ability scores he drops besides Strength [Ray of Enfeeblement], you just need the right spells to make anything weak and useless). Just because your experience with wizards are evoists doesn't mean the rest of us have the same experiences.

Antioch wrote:
I cant think of anyone who takes unseen servant and uses it with any regularity. Its more like a spell that simply exists to explain how someone might have an invisible guy running around doing chores.
Guess the single most common spell I use. Prestidigitation. Yep, that's right, that funny, "useless" 0 level spell gets used more by me then any other spell. Why? Role Playing. Forementioned Necromancer: He's an aristocrat type among common adventurers. Using that spell keeps the feeling up of how he is just one step ahead of them (which is impressive for a halfling among humans and elves). He never gets dirty, snow never falls on him, never get wet in the rain. Ten bucks says that spell, that open ended kind of...

I didnt say all wizards are evokers, I said that most had flashy attack spells. Again, not that ALL wizards have them, or that ALL their spells are, just that MOST wizards tend to have some.

A necromancer is not an original concept. Neither is a necromancer without flashy kill spells. Actually, the dread necromancer fits that concept pretty well, only its better than necromancy than a necromancer is.

I am now curious as to what game you play, where the spell you cast the most is prestidigitation. Also, I have to say again: 0-level spells, or non-combat spells, are not automatically "role-playing" spells. Some might be more inclined to social RPing situtations, but that does not make you a better RPer in general.
Now, I've used prestidigitation quite often in my games, but certainly not more than "every other spell". Typically, I had my gynosphinx diviner use it to illustrate maps, polish her golem, or just general cleaning during lengthy travel.
The spell is probably utterly useless in combat, to be sure, but they havent said that 4E will remove all non-combat powers (this was mentioned in podcast #15).


Landith wrote:


That is exactly what my reservations are about 4E ... the amount of changes being made to the mechanics seems to imply that the changes are being made for the sake of the rules to be easily implemented in software. I reckon this must be one of the main underlying reasons why 4ED is so radical.
Also the way the delve format was developed recently for 3.5 was unusual, ok the reasons given were for ease of use in tournaments etc even though in use it hasn't been popular but on the other hand the design theory seems very software orientated - I could be reading into this too much but I'm going by my gut instincts atm.
Cheers

Landith:

I have occasionally played the WotC/Hasbro CCG Magic:The Gathering, and a lot of the rules changes that have been made in recent years have left me with the impression that they may have been done to make things simpler for the software writing team. This has quite annoyed me, since I have never actually used their online playing facilities, preferring to own 'real cards' rather than invest in a series of 0's & 1's that exist only somewhere in cyberspace.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Antioch wrote:
I am now curious as to what game you play, where the spell you cast the most is prestidigitation.

prestidigitation is generally cast 2-4 times per day (yes I use that many 0 level spell slot on it).

Other common spells in my arsonal:
Ray of Enfeeblement with Split Ray Feat
Spirit Worm with Reach Feat and Split Ray Feat
Vampiric Touch with Reach Feat
Touch of Idiocy with Reach Feat
Ray of Exhaustion with Split Ray Feat
Orb of Force (good for incorporeal undead/SR enemies)

At most, these get cast 1-2 times per day each.

Antioch wrote:
The spell is probably utterly useless in combat, to be sure, but they havent said that 4E will remove all non-combat powers (this was mentioned in podcast #15).

Of course. They have to differenciate themself from WoW somehow, don't they? (just giving you a hard time.) WotC said that their noncombat spells will be "rituals" so you don't need to waste the equivilent of a spell slot on it. A much earlier quote on how it is going to work is that Wizards, like college students have a major and a minor. All wizards now have a major in Evo/Illusion and a minor in all the utility spells.


Someone asked a question about whether monsters will have all of their powers taken away that arent inherently relevant to combat. The answer was, "No, check out the mind flayer entry when the Monster Manual comes out."

I take that to mean that some really kickass spells like teleport are becoming rituals, along with scry and raise dead, so that you wont have to expend your spell slots on spells you may never use at a given time (one of the reasons I took the mage of the arcane order prestige class was for access to the spellpool).

The new spellcasting method is for a wizard to pick at-will, per encounter, and per day spells. This way your wizard wont have to at some point in the adventure, whip out a mundane weapon with which will be almost entirely ineffectual.
I have tried to break the mold by making a wizard with a halberd (so I could stand behind the other guys and try to make easy hits, or just get out an AoO if someone came at me). Notice, I said break the mold, and not be a "better RPer". That is an important thing to distinguish, but I digress.
The character was pretty much useless in combat, and thats a bad thing because a wizard running around with a halberd really CANT have an effect on anything BUT combat situations. I could imagine that, maybe, in a completely realistic world that perhaps someone who is going to mug my character is going to think twice, but D&D isnt reality, its a game.

The DM is probably NOT thinking about minor details like that when designing encounters (I cant think of a single Paizo encounter that read something like "if the character looks well armed, NPC such-and-such doesnt attack).

Wizards may have a higher emphasis than before on attack spells, or they might be the spellcasting class with the best access. We dont know for sure. I think its a better design idea to make classes flexible but to fill an intended role than to stretch a class so thin as to make them weak in execution.
For all we know, the next spellcasting class (say, enchanter or somesuch) may not have access to flashy spells at all, because they wanted to make sure the wizard had the lion's share of those powers, not that they wanted the wizard to only do that sort of thing.


Oh, for the record, my last wizard's general prepared spells went something like this:

5th—prying eyes, draconic might, teleport, wall of force

4th—polymorph, stoneskin (2), one open slot

3rd—clairaudience/clairvoyance, dispel magic (2), haste, magic circle against evil, one slot open

2nd—spellsight lorecall, bear’s endurance (2), blur (2), resist energy

1st—mage armor, magic missile, protection from evil (2), targeting ray (2), one open slot

0—detect magic, resistance (3), prestigiditation

I dont have any reason to think that if I were to recreate her in 4th Edition that aside from the whole sphinx bit, that it will look grossly different than before. Well, polymorph will go away in some form, which just means I'll have to find something else to turn the halfling into except for a giant.


James Jacobs wrote:

One thing to keep in mind is that we at Paizo know what we want for Golarion. In cases where the rules don't support what we want, we change them. For example:

The runelords of Thassilon have a magic system based on 7 schools of magic. 3.5 D&D has 8 schools of magic. Our solution there was to lump the school of divination into the universal school, not to invent some silly 8th sin. The rules bend and change according to the needs of the story and the world.

If and when we switch to 4th edition (still haven't seen the rules and OGL for it, so we still can't make that decision yet), there are GOING to be rules that don't fit Golarion. Dragonborn for one. The loss of the traditional schools of magic for one. Gnomes will remain a strong PC choice in Golarion. Succubi will still be demons. Etc., etc.

My goal is to ensure that if you're a person IN GAME, you won't notice the edition switch at all.

But how will that work? It's more than just the loss of the traditional schools of magic - it's the loss of low-level Vancian spellcasting. That change is harder to undo or gloss over than the changed height of elves and halflings (for instance). While it is not the only one, that seems like the single biggest impediment to a seamless transition.


So many of the posts here either say, "I'm not buying 4th" - like me, to "I haven't seen anything yet to make a call." I know many of you out there have 20-30 books or more, totaling many hundreds of dollars. Many of us with debts and families and mortgages aren't happy thinking we have to do this one more time. As someone who bought pretty much everything for pretty much every edition, I fall into that category too. I believe that the new edition will be geared to a different breed of gamer than those of us long timers who remember when Advanced DnD came out, or even those who were playing 2nd when 3rd was the talk. That's fine. Things change. I have more than enough planned to run campaigns for decades. That's not even counting the games I want to be a player in. As long as people can still make products for 3.5 - there will always be something new out there. There are books I don't have, stuff I still want - and soon, will be able to get on the cheap. I just want to encourage those of us out there who are happy with the games we're playing to support those who gave us things we love through the OGL (Monte Cook, Green Ronin, Sword and Sorcery, etc.) and want them to know that even though 4th is on the way, there are many of us who will happily continue to look for and purchase their products long after the first 4th PHB hits the shelf.

And, as side note, yes 3.5 still has bumps and blemishes, but I think that after all this time, most people have their house rules in place and tested that get around it.

Dark Archive

Balabanto wrote:

James Jacobs is now my hero.

What was holding you back?


Lack of any form of thematic announcement. You can't lionize someone without information.

That's like saying Fred Finglenoot is my hero.

Who's Fred Finglenoot. What did he do?

Actions lionize people.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Antioch wrote:
I cant think of anyone who takes unseen servant and uses it with any regularity. Its more like a spell that simply exists to explain how someone might have an invisible guy running around doing chores. Kind of like how Item Creation feats exist mainly to explain where magic items come from: I cant fathom a PC wizard who takes these and uses them with any...

When I play I use Unseen Servant lots, it's great for ranged door opening and other mundane uses that keep you clear of danger. As for the xp loss for item creation, my players have experimented and for the monor xp loss find it very useful, a few hundred xp for basic wans etc. makes a very worthwhile swap. So much so I've been looking at how to restrict it further! You should try it instead of just dreaming it's bad.


Jason_CA wrote:
BPorter wrote:
(Sorry to single out your post, Jason. It's just it's the 4th one I've read in under an hour that includes the "4e-hater" tag.)

Well, I'm sorry you don't like the tag, but I don't see how anybody can claim that some, even many, of the posts in this thread are NOT filled with hate for 4e. Maybe you're not in that group of haters, but it's pretty obvious to me that there is such a group, and that they are very vocal.

[...]

Jason

I think you've got it wrong. I don't "hate" 4E. I despise it. I developed a rather definite sense of loathing for TSR, er, I meanWotC, for the way they treated their customer base and their abominable approach to pushing 4E (and pushing is about the only way I can describe their behavior). It used to be the first taste is always free, but with WotC, it's now $19.99, plus a monthly subscription fee.


I dont need to dream that its bad, I've had players use Item Creation feats in my campaigns, generally new people.
It seems great if you dont make items frequently, or burn bonus XP from RPing or other DM rewards on it so as to not lag too badly, but one guy did it a lot and ended up 2 levels behind the rest of the party, which can be a big deal against high-end CR encounters.

Really, Item Creation feats to me just serve to explain where magic items in a campaign come from. Players can make them, yeah, but I dont see them turning into item-creating factories. In more recent campaigns, players have asked for ways to use the artificer's retain essence class feature, or for some kind of craft point system to help alleviate the XP costs.

I use a system where players have a few options when deciding to make a magic item, hearkening back to the days of 2nd Edition: part-gathering. I've always viewed the gp cost of item creation as your character going to the marketplace to purchase the parts from alchemists, wizards, merchants, etc to build the item. If you want, you can go fetch them yourself, which reduces the gp cost. Exceptional parts, or going for over the top reagents, can also serve to drop the XP costs.
More useful, and also allows for some easy adventures.

Sovereign Court

DMcCoy1693 wrote:


If Paizo 1) switches to 4E and 2) is able to follow through on this, then I'd switch to 4E, but that's pretty much the only reason I would. (And definitely not because of anything that WotC would say or do anymore at this point.)

Seconded.

Paizo ... and possibly Living Arcanis if they survive. But I hope they won't convert. (One can dream, right ?)


FabesMinis wrote:
I hope that prestidigitation won't go. That would be a shame. I have to admit to feeling a little disappointed when I got 3E and saw that some of the less combat-useful spells had gone, so I hope the cull won't continue.

I missed this, but I'm going to comment on the fact that no one knows that Wizards is planning some nefarious goal to turn D&D into some kind of bizarre MMO. If that were the case, why even get rid of wish?

It has several very easily defined uses that you could have just picked from when you cast the spell. It could be kept and just have it do one of the defined options. The problem is, I think they are ditching the XP cost side of things, as few people I think want to lose XP (especially 5000).

The Digital Initiative is designed to play D&D in whatever incarnation it is, in an online environment so that people who want to play outside of their standard schedule (like me), or people who dont have players nearby (like plenty) can get some game time in.


I can see evidence that 4e will be harder to adapt to PC games than 3e.


  • Per encounter abilities and encounter long durations are inheritly not computer friendly since judging when an encounter starts and when it ends cannot easily be determined by a computer. This is one of the areas where 4e is moving to more application of DM judgement.
  • 4e will place more emphasis on immediate actions than 3e by all accounts. Immediate actions work well enough in the context of turn-based combat, but not within the context of the pseudo-realtime combat systems used in most computer games.
  • If Saga and the 4e elf writeup are any indication 4e will include a variety of reroll abilities. Rerolls work directly on dice which most computer games tend to abstract away from the player.
  • Action point and hero point mechanics also work directly on dice and the sort of microdecision involved in their use doesn't translate well over to computer games.
  • I expect a good number of abilities will be based on tactical movement which generally doesn't translate well into pseudo-realtime combat either.

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,665 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 4.0: PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED All Messageboards