My three favorite (EDIT: Currently Published) campaign settings in alphabetical order; Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Pathfinder, and Ptolus
Similar for me just add in Iron Kingdoms. Though my Ptolus used Arcana Evolved player characters. So ptolus is in the AE world for me but in a diffrent section of the World. I was thinking of a straight Arcana game. Have they had any modules for AE that were good?
|
Similar for me just add in Iron Kingdoms. Though my Ptolus used Arcana Evolved player characters. So ptolus is in the AE world for me but in a diffrent section of the World. I was thinking of a straight Arcana game. Have they had any modules for AE that were good?
Siege on Ebonring Keep was a very enjoyable adventure, it is also the only adventure that my group has played through, much of our camapign comes from mixed sources via our DM and he's not shared all the references with us (probably for good reason, *grins*).
But, out of all the stuff released via Monte and others, I've yet to find something that I don't like, the whole thing has played right into my tastes and I've enjoyed it all immensely.
|
Boy, get sick for a couple'a days and you miss 12 pages of fun...
I've been dogging on WotC and singing Paizo praises for quite a long while now. Nothing seems to be changing that. Someone early on said 'I buy Pathfinder for the setting, not the system' and that is what I agree whole-heartedly. I don't care if you eventually go 4e... it very well may be inevitable. I hope you make a 3.5/3.75 stand for as long as fisable for the companies health. As long as you don't alter the quality of your material, I am happy to buy your products. I will use my DM toolkit to retrofit anything that isn't working for me rule-wise.
I too dig on the Lawful Evil...they are just so diabolical. They are like twelve steps ahead of the party most of the time, and use them as cat's paws, it's awesome!Yup yup! I'm not a big fan of chaos. It's more fun to mess with PCs' minds with a lawful nasty than to just rip them apart with a chaotic baddie. :)
Although, I must admit, James's super-awesome writeups in Demonomicons almost (ALMOST) make me want to use demons. But... meh.
James fantastic Demonomicons speak to my inner carnage child too! And occasionally I whip out the demons, but they are AAALLL sorts of f&#*ed up when I do and it traumatizes my players too much. They get traumatized enough truth be told. ;-)
They like being the sheep-like pawns in an overarching evil conspiracy more. So instead of playing sometimes, I just take them to Walmart.
They like being the sheep-like pawns in an overarching evil conspiracy more. So instead of playing sometimes, I just take them to Walmart.
~laughter~ Oh! That is too funny and probably too true.
Don't let disappointment with WotC's treatment of fluff, which frankly, doesn't necessarily even have a place within Pathfinder's setting, determine your decision whether to change or not.
I agree with this - Paizo has its own world and there can be Erinyes in it if thats desired - it seems rather improbable that the 4th ed. OGL will somehow force 3rd parties to adhere to WOTC fluff.
~laughter~ Oh! That is too funny and probably too true.
They like being the sheep-like pawns in an overarching evil conspiracy more. So instead of playing sometimes, I just take them to Walmart.
You weren't supposed to disclose the secret of Big Box Stores and other mysteriously successful bidnez and political enterprises the world over you two ... tsk tsk...
Don't let disappointment with WotC's treatment of fluff, which frankly, doesn't necessarily even have a place within Pathfinder's setting, determine your decision whether to change or not.I agree with this - Paizo has its own world and there can be Erinyes in it if thats desired - it seems rather improbable that the 4th ed. OGL will somehow force 3rd parties to adhere to WOTC fluff.
Well I agree that its extremely doubtful that the 4.0 OGL would force 3rd party publishers to use WotC fluff... I can easily see them having a 200+ long list of monsters (and maybe playable races/class lists too) that 3rd parties are not allowed to use under the OGL, thereby reserving them for WotC use in future PHB/MM books. (ie. As Frost Giants, Gnomes and Barbarians are commonly assumed to not be in the launch books... they would be on a list that prohibited names that aren't allowed to be used)
Well I agree that its extremely doubtful that the 4.0 OGL would force 3rd party publishers to use WotC fluff... I can easily see them having a 200+ long list of monsters (and maybe playable races/class lists too) that 3rd parties are not allowed to use under the OGL, thereby reserving them for WotC use in future PHB/MM books. (ie. As Frost Giants, Gnomes and Barbarians are commonly assumed to not be in the launch books... they would be on a list that prohibited names that aren't allowed to be used)
They're in the impossible-to-revoke 3E OGL. Anyone can use them, until the end of time.
Besides, none of those are remotely WotC IP.
As Frost Giants, Gnomes and Barbarians are commonly assumed to not be in the launch books... they would be on a list that prohibited names that aren't allowed to be used)They're in the impossible-to-revoke 3E OGL. Anyone can use them, until the end of time.
Besides, none of those are remotely WotC IP.
Yeah, I don´t think that a word like Barbarian, Gnome or Giant could be IP of a company, even within the context of gaming - these words are common enough (at least in fiction) that any attempt of having them as IP seems ridiculous to me.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I don’t believe they’ve even started playtesting…They started the latest round a week or two ago. And remember, a lot of 4E is Star Wars Saga Edition, which not only was playtested previously, but is getting lots of actual play from actual consumers as well.
Yes, like Area Effect Criticals making TPK, they were quick to notice the errata from Saga in their playtests....
... not so much.
|
|
Yeah, I don´t think that a word like Barbarian, Gnome or Giant could be IP of a company, even within the context of gaming - these words are common enough (at least in fiction) that any attempt of having them as IP seems ridiculous to me.
Yeah, they don't want to piss off Travelocity's Roaming Gnome. That little dude is bad ass!
Hi @all
Back to topic...What keeps Paizo away from doing products where no stats are provided...
Say you have an encounter with a warband of orcs. Just state it in the product. If the plyers use 3.5 rules, they use the orc stats from 3.5's MM1. If they switch and play with 4.0 rules, the use the stats from 4.0's MM. I don't think, that monsters will be much different in strength between the version (Since the earliest editions of D&D orcs always were rather lame and Dragons were always powerful although their specific powers changed somehwat - there are some exceptions of course).
This leads to another thing: although i like to have the stats where i need them i could live without every adventure module listing monsters i can easily reference using MMs or statcards or even copy them from SRD and print them on one handy sheet of paper. The pages of stats (which sometimes take a significant amount of a module) could be used a better way,say to slash out storyline, possible complications, NPCs or whatever.
Hi @all
Back to topic...What keeps Paizo away from doing products where no stats are provided...
Say you have an encounter with a warband of orcs. Just state it in the product. If the plyers use 3.5 rules, they use the orc stats from 3.5's MM1. If they switch and play with 4.0 rules, the use the stats from 4.0's MM. I don't think, that monsters will be much different in strength between the version (Since the earliest editions of D&D orcs always were rather lame and Dragons were always powerful although their specific powers changed somehwat - there are some exceptions of course).
This leads to another thing: although i like to have the stats where i need them i could live without every adventure module listing monsters i can easily reference using MMs or statcards or even copy them from SRD and print them on one handy sheet of paper. The pages of stats (which sometimes take a significant amount of a module) could be used a better way,say to slash out storyline, possible complications, NPCs or whatever.
That's a particularly excellent idea Beastman!
Well, things like leaving stats away have been done in the past, and a pointer given to the various monster manuals. Only the hp were listed (in Dungeon mag, there were some examples, especially of the more powerful monsters whose stat blocks easily eat half a page. So, this is a possible way to go, it seems. But it has its limits: If in 4e the number of creatures per encounter is higher, then the author would have to provide a notation like thin (3.x: four Orcs, 4e 15 Orcs) With orcs, that might be easy. But with more powerful creatures, this tactic gets quite difficult. And all authors would have to be well versed in the two systems to make this work. It seems to be a rahter difficult stunt to pull off. But it might be worth a try.
Stefan
|
Contributor
|
Hi @all
Back to topic...What keeps Paizo away from doing products where no stats are provided...
Say you have an encounter with a warband of orcs. Just state it in the product. If the plyers use 3.5 rules, they use the orc stats from 3.5's MM1. If they switch and play with 4.0 rules, the use the stats from 4.0's MM. I don't think, that monsters will be much different in strength between the version (Since the earliest editions of D&D orcs always were rather lame and Dragons were always powerful although their specific powers changed somehwat - there are some exceptions of course).
I would have no use for a product like this. Also, bear in mind that many monsters might significantly change in CR and abilities between editions. If you've read any of the old design and development articles about Oge Mades, you'll see what I mean. Harpies changed power level drastically between 2nd and 3rd edition. There are so many potential differences at a fundamental level that such an adventure might need to be entirely reworked.
And frankly, one of the coolest things about Dungeon adventures is all the neat monster/class/template combinations already statted up. I often plunder adventures just for stat blocks. I don't want to go through an adventure and have to make up all the stats, and fix all of the problems in the conversion. I'd be better off just writing my own thing.
Frankly, they are better off writing for one system or the other, Then if conversion is possible, those playing the unsupported system can do the conversion, but at least some people will not need to.
Finally, the Rock is here at Paizo!
Heh, always wanted to say something like that.
If Paizo decides to keep publishing stuff for D&D3.x, especially GamesMastery adventure modules, they can count on my business.
My teammates and I are going to be playing using third edition rules for quite some time (read; many, many years).
|
Contributor
|
My three favorite (EDIT: Currently Published) campaign settings in alphabetical order; Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Pathfinder, and PtolusSimilar for me just add in Iron Kingdoms. Though my Ptolus used Arcana Evolved player characters. So ptolus is in the AE world for me but in a diffrent section of the World. I was thinking of a straight Arcana game. Have they had any modules for AE that were good?
Plague of Dreams was a fun introductory module. 1st - 4th I believe. A little more suited to introducing folks to AU/AE, but still fun.
You OGL gurus would know better than I do, but isn't the SRD completely lacking in any xp or levelling information? I'm on board for sticking with 3.5 (or the upgraded 3.75, whatever), but can it really be a complete game?
We're all set 'cause we've got our PHBs and DMGs that translate CRs to XPs and tell us how many XPs we need to level up, but that doesn't help anyone who doesn't.
If that's the case, I doubt it's something we could just share for free, right? If someone wanted to publish an xp/level/CR system, it'd have to be an entirely new yet somehow compatible system.
How much of a roadblock is that in considering 3.5 as a potential ongoing game system?
I think some of you guys are overthinking what Erik is proposing with a "Pathfinder RPG" based on the OGL. Some people seem to think that 3.75 means that they will be making drastic changes to the OGL rules or something. I'm not saying there won't be work involved, but if I read what Erik is saying right, they mainly want to put what's in the OGL on paper in a rule book, add their own XP/Level system (since it has to be their own and not based on D&D's system), maybe throw in a few minor tweaks, and call it a day.
I think the point isn't that they are going to launch into a "Complete Pathfinder" series or a Pathfinder Monster Manual II, III, etc. I think that they want to have actual physical rulebooks that players can use at the table if the 3rd AP goes "3.5," and just in case, when they finally see 4th edition, it really doesn't look workable, they already have the Pathfinder RPG core rules out there. If 4th edition works for them, as long as they break even on the core rules they put out, no harm no foul, but if they don't get this in the pipeline and 4th edition doesn't work, that's even more time wasted if they don't get this going now.
And if 4th edition doesn't work for them, once they are sure and they already have the "core" books out there, then they can do their "Unearthed Golarion" rulebook with all the things they ever wanted to do with 3.5 but didn't quite get the chance too.
Unless I completely misread what Erik was saying in the first place.
|
|
As I've stated elsewhere (but has not been responded to) I truly beleive the inherent -game play- of D&D itself will change with 4e, and using adventures won't just be as easy as replacing monster stats.
30 years of adventures have written challenges to the rules and made use of them in the adventure itself. Encounter dynamics are changing, character abilities are going through the roof, the entire game has a completly new level and spell structure and I feel to make a truly good adventure you should be targeting the system as a whole, not just monsters.
And, yes, for the record I DON'T like the ideals 4e is pushing on my adventures and the type of pokeplay the're going for, so that's why when push comes to shove with me and my group, it's 3.5 alive.
I think it's this that Paizo is partially referring to when it admits fears they might not be able to tell "the types of stories they want to tell".
-DM Jeff
I would love to see you guys break away from WotC and put out your own vision of D&D (version 3.75).
I've posted comments to that effect several times on these boards and hope to see this come to fruition. You guys rock!
|
|
As I've stated elsewhere (but has not been responded to) I truly beleive the inherent -game play- of D&D itself will change with 4e, and using adventures won't just be as easy as replacing monster stats.
I agree with your assesment. Everything WotC has said to date indicates that 4e is a very different game.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: here is the best summary of their intentions:
For thirty-three years, the D&D game has led the fantasy hobby gaming scene, and 4th Edition is taking the game in places its creators never dreamed.
As I've stated elsewhere (but has not been responded to) I truly beleive the inherent -game play- of D&D itself will change with 4e, and using adventures won't just be as easy as replacing monster stats.
30 years of adventures have written challenges to the rules and made use of them in the adventure itself. Encounter dynamics are changing, character abilities are going through the roof, the entire game has a completly new level and spell structure and I feel to make a truly good adventure you should be targeting the system as a whole, not just monsters.
And, yes, for the record I DON'T like the ideals 4e is pushing on my adventures and the type of pokeplay the're going for, so that's why when push comes to shove with me and my group, it's 3.5 alive.
I think it's this that Paizo is partially referring to when it admits fears they might not be able to tell "the types of stories they want to tell".
-DM Jeff
Exactly!
If you read the articles on WotC's website they are talking about how encounters with 3 or 4 monsters are boring and how in 4th edition battles will be against hordes of monsters at the same time (a way to make players spend $$ on more miniatures maybe?)
There's also an article that adresses the sample dungeon map Monte Cook created that appears in the 3rd editon DMG. It goes on to say how the layout of it is not good for 4th edition. To many little rooms and tight corridors. In 4th edition the rooms need to be bigger and more open to accomodate the giant battles that will occur.
There's also articles that discuss how the character levels go from 1 to 30 instead of 1 to 20. They also say you cant compare a 3rd editon 5th level fighter to a 4th editon 5th level fighter. The level based progression is so different its to hard to convert. Is a 20th level 3rd editon character equivalent to a 30th level 4th editon character. Not really sorta-kinda. Its to different to compare.
There's also talk of critical hits with spells, and non-magical classes still geting power from some form of power source.
Bottom line...Its more like a new game than a new edition.
So any ideas of trying to write and adventure that appeals to both editions isnt feasable. There would be much more to it than converting monster and NPC stat blocks. So publishing the adventure as 3.5 and releasing a pdf 4th edition conversion (or vice-versa) really cant be done right.
Bottom line...Its more like a new game than a new edition.
So any ideas of trying to write and adventure that appeals to both editions isnt feasable. There would be much more to it than converting monster and NPC stat blocks. So publishing the adventure as 3.5 and releasing a pdf 4th edition conversion (or vice-versa) really cant be done right.
It really won't be the bottom line until the game is released and all the heavy speculation goes away in the big magic poof of reality. I'll counter your speculation with my speculation--I doubt that Wizards will alter the game to such an extent that every encounter is a horde encounter in a big room. I think it would be very difficult to assure that much control over a set of rules(particularly for a tabletop RPG, which is always slightly different at every table in the world), so I speculate that 3.5 to 4e conversions won't be that much of a big deal...sure, 4e may feature the capability to handle more "horde" encounters, but I doubt it'll be such an integral part of the rules as to bring about the non-feasibility scenario that you paint in your post.
I speculate that the 4e "horde" encounter rules won't be much more than a revision of the "mob" rules from DMG II. I look forward to having my speculations dispelled. Whether it'll be good or bad remains to be seen.
As I've stated elsewhere (but has not been responded to) I truly beleive the inherent -game play- of D&D itself will change with 4e, and using adventures won't just be as easy as replacing monster stats.
I think it's this that Paizo is partially referring to when it admits fears they might not be able to tell "the types of stories they want to tell".
-DM Jeff
If we enjoy the traditional D&D "stories" and set up of encounters and Wizards pushes the new rules to incorporate a different 'story' does anyone worth his salt as a DM not think that they would be able to just do it the way they want anyway? We are not formula-following robots who march lock step with the exact vision Wizards may or may not have for their new product. No, we do what we want and what we like and if 4e is cool enough, I'll adopt it but I have absolutely 100% confidence that I will be able to take what I want from it.
Particularly when it comes to how the "story" of your campaign plays out. Do you honestly think Wizards is going to be able to project that much control over your campaign just by publishing some rules? I don't know you, but I have confidence they won't be able to bully you that much just with some new rules.
Hell, if Wizards publishes a bunch of new adventures featuring their new "story" and Paizo uses the same rules to weave the kind of plots and paths that the older generation of gamers likes, it might be a win win deal for everyone. I really think we are reading WAY TOO MUCH into all of this right now and when it all comes out we'll all just look at it and say "oh...whatever....I can do what I want when I want just like before" Have faith!!
|
Contributor
|
One of Mike Mearls' (I believe) blog posts stated pretty clearly that the new basic encounter balance will count on a typical encounter including 4 elements, most of those elemnt being monsters. 4 monsters isn't a horde, but it is a shift away from 3E
Right now, one level 4 villain = an EL4 encounter
In 4E, four level 4 villains = an EL4 encounter
Which is frankly closer to how I plan encounters anyways, so this is a change i like. Personally, I've never liked single creature encounters. Anything tough enough to present a true challenge is usually too tough. Mostly because when 4+ PCs dogpile a monster, they can dish out insane amounts of damage. And it's usually easier for them to set up their best damage attacks against it too. Usually the only kind of monster that can stand up to that are creatures that either can't be hit or can't be damaged at all by at least some members of the party. And that is a no fun and dangerous fight.
But as F2K said, I don't think that this will mean that you can't play 3E encounters converted to 4E. It does mean that the balance will be really different, to the point that most DMs will be better off rebuilding the encounter from scratch if they want it to be balanced.
|
Contributor
|
Hi @all
Back to topic...What keeps Paizo away from doing products where no stats are provided...
Say you have an encounter with a warband of orcs. Just state it in the product. If the plyers use 3.5 rules, they use the orc stats from 3.5's MM1. If they switch and play with 4.0 rules, the use the stats from 4.0's MM. I don't think, that monsters will be much different in strength between the version (Since the earliest editions of D&D orcs always were rather lame and Dragons were always powerful although their specific powers changed somehwat - there are some exceptions of course).
I would have no use for a product like this. Also, bear in mind that many monsters might significantly change in CR and abilities between editions. If you've read any of the old design and development articles about Oge Mades, you'll see what I mean. Harpies changed power level drastically between 2nd and 3rd edition. There are so many potential differences at a fundamental level that such an adventure might need to be entirely reworked.
And frankly, one of the coolest things about Dungeon adventures is all the neat monster/class/template combinations already statted up. I often plunder adventures just for stat blocks. I don't want to go through an adventure and have to make up all the stats, and fix all of the problems in the conversion. I'd be better off just writing my own thing.
Frankly, they are better off writing for one system or the other, Then if conversion is possible, those playing the unsupported system can do the conversion, but at least some people will not need to.
Well how about an annual subscription to a web site PLUS the statless adventure. The website lets you plug in what adventure you bought, what system you're using, what level you play at, how many party members and then spits our a PDF with all the monsters for the adventure statted out for you?
|
|
We are not formula-following robots who march lock step with the exact vision Wizards may or may not have for their new product.
No, but perhaps the word 'story' was taken in the wrong way. Designing traps, encounters threats, and what characters can react to and use their abilities with will change, and rooms and encounters should be set up to take advantage of that rules set, not ignored.
Particularly when it comes to how the "story" of your campaign plays out. Do you honestly think Wizards is going to be able to project that much control over your campaign just by publishing some rules?
Not my stories, but the way I design threatsm encounters and the like? Sure. well, no not MY campaign 'cause I'll be using 3.5 :-)
I really think we are reading WAY TOO MUCH into all of this right now and when it all comes out we'll all just look at it and say "oh...whatever....I can do what I want when I want just like before" Have faith!!
I'll try, I'll have no problem with continued faith in 3.5. But as for 4e there's not much left and Hasbro of the Coast isn't helping. :-(
-DM Jeff
Director of Sales
|
Finally, the Rock is here at Paizo!
Heh, always wanted to say something like that.
If Paizo decides to keep publishing stuff for D&D3.x, especially GamesMastery adventure modules, they can count on my business.
My teammates and I are going to be playing using third edition rules for quite some time (read; many, many years).
Welcome to the 'boards, Rock!
|
Well how about an annual subscription to a web site PLUS the statless adventure. The website lets you plug in what adventure you bought, what system you're using, what level you play at, how many party members and then spits our a PDF with all the monsters for the adventure statted out for you?
This approach failed when Dire Kobold tried it with their Xenogeneric(TM) adventures.
Yup yup! I'm not a big fan of chaos. It's more fun to mess with PCs' minds with a lawful nasty than to just rip them apart with a chaotic baddie. :)
Although, I must admit, James's super-awesome writeups in Demonomicons almost (ALMOST) make me want to use demons. But... meh.
Well, I tend to prefer the taste of Chaos for my villians. Sure they are not the manipulative, but the their names carry so much Fear.
Of course, Orcus proved that they can attempt sneaky long term goals too.
One of Mike Mearls' (I believe) blog posts stated pretty clearly that the new basic encounter balance will count on a typical encounter including 4 elements, most of those elemnt being monsters. 4 monsters isn't a horde, but it is a shift away from 3E
Right now, one level 4 villain = an EL4 encounter
In 4E, four level 4 villains = an EL4 encounter
That is about how the Star Wars Saga system does it. If I remember correctly (I don't have the book handy), an even encounter in the saga rules is determined by taking the total CL (Challenge level) of the opponents, dividing by the number of players, and subtracting 1. If that number is within 1 of the average party level, it is considered an even fight.
|
|
That's a particularly excellent idea Beastman!Hi @all
Back to topic...What keeps Paizo away from doing products where no stats are provided...
Say you have an encounter with a warband of orcs. Just state it in the product. If the plyers use 3.5 rules, they use the orc stats from 3.5's MM1. If they switch and play with 4.0 rules, the use the stats from 4.0's MM. I don't think, that monsters will be much different in strength between the version [...]
I disagree.
First some people already pointed out that encounter balancing will drastically change (so much is already sure if you have a look at the previews on wizards.com). So encounters with the same MM participants using both rule sets seem out of question.
Second in my opinion one of Paizo's strengths is the modifications applied to standard monsters which mean that your next opponent is NOT a clone of the MM entry. I don't fondly remember 2e when you mentioned orcs and your fellow players recited the monster stats by mind... ;-)
Günther
|
|
After reading most of the numerous postings in this thread it is clearly evident that people here really care about the future of Paizo. Unfortunately it is as evident how desperate the situation for Paizo is. If even you, the industry experts cannot estimate what 4e will be like and if it will be suitable for your products... :((
Apparently this is like taking a gamble and either relying on an unknown rules edition with so far unknown complications (say e.g. size of OGL content) or staying with the known rules and an unknown number of customers.
So how could Paizo reduce the "risk" and what risks are there?
1. Alienate people by using the "wrong" rule set.
2. 4e implications:
- Are Paizo style adventures still possible?
- What would be the "freedom of movement" for Paizo?
Ad 1.
Basically there seem to be these groups:
- Most people pointed out that they either don't care for the rule set because they trust foremost in your adventure crafting abilities or at least still resent the demise of the magazines. ;-)
- Then there is the numerous crowd who wants to have a look at the new edition before deciding whether to use it.
- And there are those who already have so much 3.5e material that they will not convert for quite a long time.
- Which leaves a minor group (at least in these boards) who wants to convert in any case.
==> This sounds to me as if staying true to 3.5e for some time was the safest thing to do. You could still convert later...
Converting to 4e when it hits the stands sounds rather unreasonable if you want to keep your current audience and don't just plan to repeat what S&S did with Creature Collection 1 (and I think WotC wants to avoid something similar happening again... ;-)
Ad 2.
Some drastic changes to game play were already revealed on wizards.com (number of opponents per encounter and recommended scale of dungeons, spell and class levels... ).
You don't know how many more changes are hidden or not in 4e. You don't know how much of the current OGL non rule content will stay open in 4e (talking about D&D monsters, cosmology, mythology, classes)... You don't know (and WotC doesn't either :p) whether availability of content on D&D insider.com will eventually be mandatory for (younger?) players, or not.
==>Considering these risks staying with 3.5e - until the 4e dust settles down - sounds reasonable, too.
Summary:
I don't pledge for dispensing with 4e at all, but for not rushing too much. As some people mentioned here 4e seems to aim at a new younger audience. And yes on the long run Paizo needs new young players, too.
But Pathfinder and Game Mastery Modules clearly show that you already managed once to persuade people by the high quality of your products. This quality is unlikely to diminish. On the other hand WotC seems to be hard pressed to publish ever new content - and that content apparently is more focussed on new rules and miniatures, less on *printed* content - your chance!
Greetings from Austria,
Günther
|
First some people already pointed out that encounter balancing will drastically change (so much is already sure if you have a look at the previews on wizards.com). So encounters with the same MM participants using both rule sets seem out of question.
That's not as obvious. They've also been stating that 4E will make creatures scalable down the ladder much more easily than 3E's were. IF that is true, then it'd be possible to use the same MM participants and just scale them down for the same relative EL.
|
|
That's not as obvious. They've also been stating that 4E will make creatures scalable down the ladder much more easily than 3E's were. IF that is true, then it'd be possible to use the same MM participants and just scale them down for the same relative EL.
True, but there should be a difference if 4e recommends more opponents and larger scale dungeons, shouldn't there?
I admit that I am seing this rather from the 3.5e point of view... sounds as if it was easier to convert from 3.5e to 4e than vice versa.
Günther
Well how about an annual subscription to a web site PLUS the statless adventure. The website lets you plug in what adventure you bought, what system you're using, what level you play at, how many party members and then spits our a PDF with all the monsters for the adventure statted out for you?
I was toying with a Adobe last night and made a PDF where the GM clicks the system (OGL/True20/C&C) he's using and the proper stats pop up. It can be done, all in the same product.
|
|
I was toying with a Adobe last night and made a PDF where the GM clicks the system (OGL/True20/C&C) he's using and the proper stats pop up. It can be done, all in the same product.
Just the question who does it:
... we don't have the resources and manpower to dual stat, so that's a good reason not to do that too.
Ok, I admit to having skipped a lot of the posts so appologies to all if I repeat anything but since its my view on what I would like I think I'm ok.
My view on WOTC and 4th edition - I understand the business need for a new edition to generate money. However, I dont agree with the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach. I am infuriated by the "sack the customer" attitude of the company. D&D has been a success for over thirty years because fundamentally it is what the audience want. It's not perfect and needs tweaking but ground up reimagining is too much. Frankly with what I've heard so far the game wont be D&D in anything but name, it will be an expanded MMORPG. If I wanted that I would not be playing D&D now. I have one more item on preorder through Paizo and then WOTC can consider me sacked. I will buy any PHB etc on ebay and give them no more money until they bring back a game that looks a bit like the D&D I play. As for 4th edition, well its development is driven by money so the best way to show WOTC what I think is to give them none. I hope in its effort to appeal to existing fans and a new generation it manages to appeal to no one.
Paizo only 3.75 Pathfinder - I like the approach and feel to Paizo written material (as you can see from the bits after the name above). I agree that a revision not wholescale change is whats needed. I will continue to buy from Paizo as much as possible. I dont actually need any of the stuff I am currently buying since I estimate at one session a month it will take my group another 3 years to complete SCAP and then i have STAP and Pathfinder amongst other things to run. But I like to see whats comming out and enjoy the read. Truth be told I would buy 4th edition Pathfinder if Paizo goes that way but I would be happier with a 3.75 edition and I would re invest in PHB and DMG, MM if they were Pathfinder core books. I suspect my players would buy another PHB as well.
At the risk of sounding like a complete fanboy I will support Paizo in every way my wallett will allow since they continue to do the same for the game I have played for 17 years, not just with great products but in spirit as well. Add to that excellent customer service and the fact that even the CEO posts answers to questions and I wont miss WOTC. In fact as far as I'm concerned...
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... it doesnt have to say its a duck on the tag.
Thank you Eric for bothering to even ask the question.
Elcian
PS sorry about the long post, got a bit carried away!
|
|
I admit that I am seing this rather from the 3.5e point of view... sounds as if it was easier to convert from 3.5e to 4e than vice versa.
Günther
We won't know for sure until the darn books are released, and I can tell you, I'm sure we're not the only DMs out there who are wondering about it. Big time.
I was waffling back and forth about 4.0 but the direction I am solidly heading now is stay away from 4e. WOTC is most certainly going to dumb it down for the card playing/button pushing crowds out there. The problem I have is I've tasted a living Campaign with Living Greyhawk and don't want to go back to the home game. I like the 4 hour slots and the flexibility of having a stable of players to draw apon to fill a party for an evenings gaming fun. So Pathfinder might just be the option I am looking for. Do you think there would be a living campaign aspect to it where players could network for gaming oportunities?
Back to topic...What keeps Paizo away from doing products where no stats are provided...Probably the fact that a lot of us wouldn't buy them. :)
I'm in a phase of life where I have very limited gaming time - I rely on Paizo for both storyline and numbers. If I need a 13th level, multi-classed, templated villain, I want to turn to page 37, not break out 14 books and a legal pad.
Seconded- is been my pet rant on these boards that WotC has been flogging rules and setting fluff instead of immediately usable material for years, and now have hoisted themselves on their own petard by their cavalier attitude to gamers who decided to make such a substantial investment.
If I sound pedantic, I apologise, but I have to ask again, wht happened to "Rules, Paper Imagination and Friends"? More rules and setting detail isn't as helpful to us as actual adventures that we can run in a plug and play manner.D&D's spending demographic isn't getting much younger, and we have other obligations, so whatever makes my gaming experience easier, I'll go with it.
Hence Pathfinder.
The problem I have is I've tasted a living Campaign with Living Greyhawk and don't want to go back to the home game. I like the 4 hour slots and the flexibility of having a stable of players to draw apon to fill a party for an evenings gaming fun. So Pathfinder might just be the option I am looking for. Do you think there would be a living campaign aspect to it where players could network for gaming oportunities?
Going through the RPGA isn't your only option. There are alternatives.