Pathfinder Companions and Golarion's eta to 4E...


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

bugleyman wrote:
Thanks for measured reply KaeYoss. I'm sorry if I was snarky in my last post; I didn't mean to be.

No worries. I got the feeling that there was no intentional snarkyness in there. Maybe some unintentional stuff, but that wasn't that bad, either.

No hard feelings.

And I, too, look forward to have a definite answer to the whole thing.


I tried the sample 4E adventure posted on ENWorld with the sample characters from D&D Experience, and I'm growing increasingly enamored of the new rules from the perspective of a DM, because of the ease of using 4E monsters. I am a huge fan of Paizo's adventures, but I think I'm at the point that I will no longer have an interest in running 3.5 high level adventures (I might still consider low level games). That means unless Paizo switches, I will be unlikely to keep subcribing to Pathfinder because the adventures go to relatively high level to reach the end of the plot arch. The one reason I would decide to continue subscribing is if I find it easy enough to convert adventures from 3.5 to 4E, but I don't know how realistic that is given my limited time. After all, if I had that much time, I could try to write my own adventures.

I am very frustrated by Wizard's delay in getting the GSL to Paizo. Although I think Wizards have done a good job with the new rules, I don't think their published adventures will ever equal the quality of Paizo. If Wizards' delay causes Paizo not to switch to 4E, Wizards will have deprived all new players of D&D joining during 4th edition of their best chance for an awesome experience through Paizo adventure paths.

Again, I ask and implore, is there no way that Paizo can publish some transition adventures in order to be able to start their next adventure path with 4th edition after they see the GSL?


Personally, I don't see why it makes a difference what edition Paizo opts to go with. First, the rules-set isn't going to impact the general story or plot of an AP or module in any significant way. Ancient evil wants to rule the world works no matter what you're playing. Second, a level-range is a level-range. With a Monster Manual, some scratch-paper and a couple hours work, any DM can rework the encounters of an adventure to the appropriate ELs. The only labor intensive part would be stats for named NPCs and new monsters. Even then, an internet search a least a month after the adventure releases should yield some homebrew conversions. Based on those points, I don't see where useless or unplayable come into it...


zoroaster100 wrote:


Again, I ask and implore, is there no way that Paizo can publish some transition adventures in order to be able to start their next adventure path with 4th edition after they see the GSL?

I'd rather not have Pathfinder disrupted because of wizards's keeping others away from their shiny new toys (intentionally or not).

And, of course, it might damage Pathfinder more than any of the editions. Plus, I really don't want Paizo dancing to wizards' tune.

Foxish wrote:
Personally, I don't see why it makes a difference what edition Paizo opts to go with.

Some people don't want to play 3e any more. Some don't want to buy and play 4e.

So whatever edition they go with, they'll lose customers.

Foxish wrote:


Second, a level-range is a level-range. With a Monster Manual, some scratch-paper and a couple hours work, any DM can rework the encounters of an adventure to the appropriate ELs.

Those couple hours is a couple of hours more than many people have. One of the big reasons people buy modules instead of making their own adventures is that they don't have the time writing those adventures.

So what good is a module to them if they have to put a lot of time in after all, and do the monsters and NPCs again? After all, that is usually the part that takes the most time.

Not to mention that a lot of stuff would just not fit any more. Monster power levels change, monster roles change (especially with 4e's changing-as-much-as-possible), so suddenly you either have a monster that doesn't fit the encounter's purpose, or you'd have to get a different monster that doesn't fit the background.

And after all I've heard, encounters are supposed to work differently in 4e.

Foxish wrote:


Even then, an internet search a least a month after the adventure releases should yield some homebrew conversions. Based on those points, I don't see where useless or unplayable come into it...

And now you have to look at two places for everything all the time. I'd rather not have that.

But since 4e's npcs are so easy to create, and monsters so easy to use, maybe your idea does have a merit: Paizo takes all the hard work off our hands with the 3e encounters, and the 4e DMs can just convert, which should take like 20 minutes for a whole adventure path. Everyone's happy! ;-P


And anyway, if the players have never seen the rules for the adventure, you could substitute the stats of an appropriate monster in under the name and guise of a printed monster, it is the Iconics, whom I love, that aren't really convertible so far.

However, this is only if 4e monsters are malleable, which I have a feeling they won't be, they have such specific actions and abilities in battle that if you want new monsters, you have to buy new books, because it may be nigh-on impossible to mess around with the existing stat-blocks. Of course this is only conjecture, they could be the most easily scalable or adaptable monsters in any system going, but it doesn't look like it so far. We'll have to see the rules.


zoroaster100 wrote:

...I am very frustrated by Wizard's delay in getting the GSL to Paizo. Although I think Wizards have done a good job with the new rules, I don't think their published adventures will ever equal the quality of Paizo. If Wizards' delay causes Paizo not to switch to 4E, Wizards will have deprived all new players of D&D joining during 4th edition of their best chance for an awesome experience through Paizo adventure paths.

The whole GSL situation is deplorable, and if it frustrates us, imagine who Lisa & Co. must feel. I can certainly see the appeal of getting out from under Wizard's thumb; I just don't see it as optimal because, among the uninitiated, D&D == RPGs, and to thrive you will eventually have to attract new players.

I also doubt Wizard's adventures are going to equal Paizo's. It seems that no matter what happens,either the 4E or 3.5E camp is going to lose edition-specific Paizo support, and that just sucks.


KaeYoss wrote:

Foxish wrote:


Second, a level-range is a level-range. With a Monster Manual, some scratch-paper and a couple hours work, any DM can rework the encounters of an adventure to the appropriate ELs.

Those couple hours is a couple of hours more than many people have. One of the big reasons people buy modules instead of making their own adventures is that they don't have the time writing those adventures.

So what good is a module to them if they have to put a lot of time in after all, and do the monsters and NPCs again? After all, that is usually the part that takes the most time.

Not to mention that a lot of stuff would just not fit any more. Monster power levels change, monster roles change (especially with 4e's changing-as-much-as-possible), so suddenly you either have a monster that doesn't fit the encounter's purpose, or you'd have to get a different monster that doesn't fit the background.

And after all I've heard, encounters are supposed to work differently in 4e.

I was going to answer that but KaeYoss nailed it for me. Thanks Kae :)


Sunderstone wrote:


I was going to answer that but KaeYoss nailed it for me. Thanks Kae :)

It was nothing. I keep my nailgun fully loaded beside my keyboard.


I thought the OGL came out in January and if you didnt pony up the $5k you wouldnt be able to publish 4e stuff till Jan '09.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a


WyzMan wrote:

I thought the OGL came out in January and if you didnt pony up the $5k you wouldnt be able to publish 4e stuff till Jan '09.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a

Good Sir...

That was what was supposed to happen.

The GSL (as the OGL has been renamed) was never sent. No $5,000 has been tendered. It's delayed any decision, and pretty much has everyone up in arms, third party publisher and fan alike.

(There's always an exception however)

Dark Archive Contributor

WyzMan wrote:

I thought the OGL came out in January and if you didnt pony up the $5k you wouldnt be able to publish 4e stuff till Jan '09.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a

That's what our friends in Renton were hoping, anyway. I imagine they're very busy over there. Very busy. @_@

Liberty's Edge

I keep hearing a lot of people saying "Well, class X is going to be in splatbook Y so it isn't an issue."

You're assuming the splatbooks will be open content; very very few 3.5 splat books were (just Unearthed and XPH, along with some stuff from FRCS). So sure, Bards might come in later, but is it likely the third parties will get to use them?


Coridan wrote:

I keep hearing a lot of people saying "Well, class X is going to be in splatbook Y so it isn't an issue."

You're assuming the splatbooks will be open content; very very few 3.5 splat books were (just Unearthed and XPH, along with some stuff from FRCS). So sure, Bards might come in later, but is it likely the third parties will get to use them?

If I had to throw out a WAG, I'd bet that subsequent PHBs will probably be as "open" as the first one (however truly open that ends up being).

But still, possible future support isn't the same thing as having stuff in hand today. From everything I've seen, the 3.5 "core three" are going to be more complete than their 4E counterparts.


Coridan wrote:

I keep hearing a lot of people saying "Well, class X is going to be in splatbook Y so it isn't an issue."

You're assuming the splatbooks will be open content; very very few 3.5 splat books were (just Unearthed and XPH, along with some stuff from FRCS). So sure, Bards might come in later, but is it likely the third parties will get to use them?

Even if they're all the same: The promise of the bard showing off some day doesn't help me now. I don't want them to put Pathfinder on hiatus until we get all the stuff we used to have, like bards and druids.

And changing the world or introducing world-shattering events to introduce new rulebooks is right out of the question. If I wanted that, I would have stuck to fr.


James Jacobs wrote:

Very insightful post, KaeYoss, and a great example of the kind of worries I've been having about 4th edition. Our Iconics are just that—ICONIC characters. If the rules change so drasticaly that they no longer represent the iconic class they're supposed to represent, they instead become exceptions, and are actually DAMAGING to the concept of their class. I'm not sure what to do about this problem if we switch to 4E, honestly, but it might be something as drastic as changing Seoni to a warlock or Valeros to a ranger (can they dual wield) and throwing Lem into the dumpster. Not something I want to do.

But yeah... it's an even bigger problem than the iconics. That's just 11 different characters. When we build adventures, we have to deal with hundreds and hundreds of characters and monsters, and what those NPCs and monsters can and can't do is inexorably tied to those adventures. Basically... all of the assumptions we have about the game from 3.5 back to the start (metallic dragons are almost always good aligned, dryads look like beautiful women, succubi are demons, and so on) are currently in limbo, which makes it pretty much impossible to plan an adventure. Must less an Adventure Path. And scrambling to re-learn all of the monster an NPC roles in the game is something I'm not looking forward to. If we switch to 4E, though, it's something I'll have to do. And fast.

And each day that passes without us being given the rules, or more importantly, the GSL, is one more day I have to compress into that already "looking impossible" timeline.

It could just be the mood that I'm in tonight, but my initial and highly undiplomatic impulse is that Paizo should tell WotC to take a hike. If WotC did not have the courtesy to let Paizo in on the changes that were coming (and what possible reason could there be, since most of the people who work at Paizo used to work for WotC anyway?), then why should Paizo be forced to bend over backwards and mess up its entire new campaign setting, just to suit the Powers That Be?

Yes, yes, I know. That was very undiplomatic and combatative. It's also how I feel. Anyway, rant done, I don't want this to turn into a 4e hate thread, I just wanted to say that I think Paizo shouldn't feel pressured to change its iconics to better suit an edition change that the people at Paizo seem to be halfhearted about to begin with.

Dark Archive

I think that there has to be some serious trouble over at WotC.
It's not just Paizo that has an interest in seeing the GSL, but WotC must have an interest in releasing it asap as well.
The release of 4E and GenCon are getting closer and closer.
But how many adventures did WotC announce for the release of 4e? One? Two maybe? (I don't really know, but I know it weren't many)
What should people that are buying the new rules actually play?
WotC depends on other publishers to support the new system.
They need material to support the system so that it can become a success. The few people that are able (and willing) to create adventures themselve are not enough to make the new rules a success.

Okay, WotC might view Paizo as a competition, but they view them as supporters as well. I think there were many, many people that stumbled upon 3.5 because of the cool Pathfinder stuff and these had to buy the (WotC) rules to actually play. Paizo might be a competition in the field of selling adventures, but their role as a supporter of the system seems far more important (at least to me).
WotC must have serious interest in getting Paizo on board for 4E.
And I believe they know Paizos concerns on the new rules very well.
Maybe they're adding monks and bards and gnomes to their rules at the last moment to make Paizo switch (okay, this might be unlikely...).
The delay is a problem for Paizo, but for WotC as well.
Paizo is in the position to decide and to stick with 3.5 if they like, WotC is not.
They have to succeed with 4E, they don't have a choice.
So they have to be even more interested in releasing the GSL.
The delay has to have serious reasons. They depend on supporters of their system and they really can't afford to piss them off.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I really want to know, how long Paizo can wait until they have to say:
"GSL is not here, so SECOND DARKNESS will be 3.5!"
Is there a date until which you have to start SD in 3.5 or do you delay until you see the GSL?


Hey Paizo...

Jumping into this late, but my thoughts...

1) Thanks for the best setting I've seen since Birthright.
2) Thanks for having maps I actually can't wait to hang on my study wall
3) Hope you stay 3.5, just because I'm too old for a new edition
4) But understand if you have to go 4e for business reasons
5) Just wait until after Second Darkness... please...

And think of the naming synergy you can cash in on... Pathfinder Adenture Path 4, the first for 4e, just 4 you... ad nauseam...

Liberty's Edge

Caen wrote:
And think of the naming synergy you can cash in on... Pathfinder Adenture Path 4, the first for 4e, just 4 you... ad nauseam...

I'm sorry, but I have to set you on fire now.

Spoiler:
Nah, not really, but I really do hate those idiotic 'naming synergy' things and how they mix txt-tlk/1337/chatspeak into otherwise perfectly sensible linguistic structures. It comes from having a tendency to backlash from being drowned in something. I used to like anime... Now I'm developing a strong desire to hit people who classify as 'japanophiles'. When the heck did they decide to devote 75% of the sword catalogs to katanas!? Sheesh.

Anyhow, I definitely agree with your first two points.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Caen wrote:

Hey Paizo...

Jumping into this late, but my thoughts...

1) Thanks for the best setting I've seen since Birthright.
2) Thanks for having maps I actually can't wait to hang on my study wall
3) Hope you stay 3.5, just because I'm too old for a new edition
4) But understand if you have to go 4e for business reasons
5) Just wait until after Second Darkness... please...

And think of the naming synergy you can cash in on... Pathfinder Adenture Path 4, the first for 4e, just 4 you... ad nauseam...

What he said - especially #5, pleeease...


Marusaia wrote:


why should Paizo be forced to bend over backwards and mess up its entire new campaign setting

They're not forced. As far as I know they said that they won't do that. So if they'd have to do that in order to make Golarion work with 4e, they won't.

(Of course, if they do, they'll lose a big bunch of fans.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Coridan wrote:

I keep hearing a lot of people saying "Well, class X is going to be in splatbook Y so it isn't an issue."

You're assuming the splatbooks will be open content; very very few 3.5 splat books were (just Unearthed and XPH, along with some stuff from FRCS). So sure, Bards might come in later, but is it likely the third parties will get to use them?

And Sorcerers. A few of our favorite iconics might never see use or get retooled to different classes should GSL be just the core three books.

Anyway, there's not much that can be done, either the GSL is being held up because of legal or because they haven't finished 4E yet. Whatever the case is, I'm sure Wizards will never fess up to it and will find a way to spin it to make the delay sound like it was good for everyone.

Personally, I'm hoping someone with some good sense in Hasbro has caught on to the stink that 4E is causing and all the bad PR and hate revolving around it.


Great discussion, this is where it is tough for my group. The Paizo material is far superior to the other adventures available. Since I have no time to design adventures myself everything we run comes from either Paizo or WoTC. The group at some point next year wants to switch to 4e but unless there are adventures to support it with great background material like Pathfinder is providing it will be difficult to make the transition. The base content and rules with one company and the great adventures and background information with another company.


Shalako wrote:
Great discussion, this is where it is tough for my group. The Paizo material is far superior to the other adventures available.

If they start serving the rules instead of the other way around, that might very well change.


KaeYoss wrote:
If they start serving the rules instead of the other way around, that might very well change.

I'd like to point out that they've explicitedly stated that they won't do that.

And there's been nothing to indicate that they've changed that position.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Marusaia wrote:
...most of the people who work at Paizo used to work for WotC anyway...

This was true five years ago when we started Paizo, but our business has changed considerably since then, and thus so have our employees. Former Wizards employees are but a small minority now.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

That said, quite a few current WotC employees used to work at Paizo...

Liberty's Edge

Erik Mona wrote:

That said, quite a few current WotC employees used to work at Paizo...

Which says a lot for the ability and quality of Paizo's staff, IMO.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

While I hate to specualte on Paizo's plans (as opposed to WotC, who I will speculate and fear the worse. Seldomly am I disappointed) I have to wonder at the rebranding of the GameMastery Modules.

Could it be (hope against hope) that Paizo is considering keeping Pathfinder 3.x, while they will be releasing a new line of 'GameMastery' products for 4.x?

The fact that they're getting hosed by WotC's delays (again, do not blame on malice what can be explained by stupidity) has to rankle them, and make others ponder. "Wow, Paizo's full of WotC former employees,* and they're screwing with them, can we trust them?"

So WotC, slower, please.

*Yes I know it's not true, but it is an image that people have.


I'm one of "those people" that was almost certainly going to switch to 4th. I really like the fluff changes, and the rule changes look interesting.
BUT....I'm also about to the point, with the lack of the GSL, that I'm almost ready to just say screw it and stick with 3.5. I LOVE the pathfinder AP. I really like everything I have seen for Golarion. I do not want to see Paizo put in the situation where they are forced to rush something to make it 4e.
I agree with the above poster that I believe that there must be some MAJOR crap at WOTC that is delaying the GSL. I'm guessing there is a battle between the high ups that want to make it as restrictive as possible, and the D&D folks that understand that companies like Paizo, that produce quality material that supports and will encourage sales of the core books, are important to the long term health of the D&D brand.
As another poster stated....the whole situation sucks and I'm really starting to loose patience and faith in WOTC, and I was one of their big supporters...


James, Erik & Co.,

I have been thinking about this, and reading these posts, and I believe there is a 0% chance that I would buy anything 4e for a long while. Just like software (wait for the first service pack!), I remember the first few OGL products were a little rough until everyone got into the groove.

Quite frankly, I am concerned about the quality of a 4e AP, especially if it is rushed. I think Paizo will do the best of anyone (WOTC included) at 4e adventures, but rushing something out does not seem to be in your or our best interest long term. If anything, a single module could be used to determine demand, and work out the rough patches.

I may never go to 4e, because I haven't played in a while, but I absolutely will not buy any 4e products for at least 6 months after release.

Thanks for your time, and the products and passion that you put into D&D.


Matthew Morris wrote:


While I hate to specualte on Paizo's plans (as opposed to WotC, who I will speculate and fear the worse. Seldomly am I disappointed) I have to wonder at the rebranding of the GameMastery Modules.

Could it be (hope against hope) that Paizo is considering keeping Pathfinder 3.x, while they will be releasing a new line of 'GameMastery' products for 4.x?

It is a poor man's game to try to guess anything right now, in that regard I agree with you Matthew.

I disagree with the implications of the re-branding of the modules. I draw the conclusion that the modules are "in for a penny, in for a pound" with whatever Edition they decide upon (though logically the modules will be converted first, if that happens at all). That is, every published adventure, long or short, will build on to the Golarion campaign setting and eventually be of the same edition. It's a bad decision to split those lines into two editions in my opinion. They'd be better off to start a new campaign setting just for 4th Edition, rather than do that. And there sounds like there is zero resources to do that.

Really, I think the re-branding only took place to entire seperate 'GameMastery' from published adventures. That GameMastery now only refers to accessories like flip-mats, combat trackers, item cards and the like.

Matthew Morris wrote:


So WotC, slower, please.

Not on the GSL. That can't be delivered fast enough. Sorry Matthew.

Slowing the rules I have less of a problem, but that GSL delay is hurting this community. Elsewhere I've been told I'm overly melodramatic for making that statement. I maintain it's true, only the presentation of that fact was dramatic.

I am sympathetic with you, if you don't hear that in my words.


>>Slowing the rules I have less of a problem, but that GSL delay is hurting this community. Elsewhere I've been told I'm overly melodramatic for making that statement. I maintain it's true, only the presentation of that fact was dramatic.<<
I agree with Watcher here 100%. As is obvious in the 4e boards here, and at ENworld, WOTC boards, and Monte's boards (these are the one's I look at), the current situation seems to be splitting the market and putting people at each other's throats. It is similar to, but ,IMHO ,much worse than, when 3e was announced. I think it's worse this time because of the statements by WOTC that conversion will be very difficult and they even suggest you don't try.
I think that with the 3e switch people felt less threatened. They figured they could just convert stuff over to an older addition if they wanted. Now, people feel like it's "switch or be left behind, sucks for you." That makes it seem more personal and so people have become more heated and upset.
Here in particular, where people are concerned what will happen to a campaign world that is still new to us but we have fallen in love with, it compounds the feelings further.
I find it hard to believe that the WOTC folks, at least the one's that look at the boards, can't see this. They have to be able to see what this situation is doing to the fan base. We are turning on each other in frustration and (I know it sounds melodramatic) fear. People say it's bad here (and it is), but it's not much better in the other boards I mentioned. Neither side is allowed to sing its praises without the other side feeling threatened and jumping on them.
Unfortunately, right now all we can do is wait. With how much it bothers me, I can't imagine how it must be for the Paizo staff as their very jobs/business hang on the outcome.

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Pathfinder Companions and Golarion's eta to 4E... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.