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


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Normally I dont like to point to other forums but theres a discussion on the Pathfinder Companion etc.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220805

I know Paizo hasnt made a firm commitment to 4E yet until the GSL etc, but would it be possible to get some clarification on some concerns about "a rough estimate" on just how much of the new campaign setting will remain 3.5 before going to 4E.

I would love to adopt Golarion as my official campaign setting but Id rather not buy a 3.5 HC and the first supplement or two only to have all future sourcebooks 4E (needing conversions if thats at all even possible). It strikes me that some other folks will be thinking along the same lines. I hope it doesnt affect your sales too much.

Anyone at Paizo able to shed some light on this?
Thanks in advance.

p.s. I just want to say that Im really excited about this campaign setting from what Ive been reading here. Lots of original and some classic elements are included. This is exactly the type of cs Ive been looking for to replace the aging GH.

Regardless of the edition, I wish Paizo the best of luck with this setting.


I know Paizo cannot say when they will get the GSL or the rules because its not up to them...They dont know.

As for saying if they will definity switch to 4th edition or stay with 3.5 is also something they cant answer yet. They cant even say they will eventually switch to 4th edition someday even years from now. 4th edition may stink or the GSL be to restricting (both are strong possibilities). So its not a matter of "will they switch early or later?". They may never switch at all (which is my hope).

And as for saying when the deadline is before they will throw up their hands and say that the 3rd adventure path will be 3.5? Well that they probaly know..but they aint telling :)

As a side note - It would be quite funny if the 3rd adventure path is 4th edition. Why? Because two of the iconics in the path are a Monk and a Gnome Druid!


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Sunderstone wrote:
Id rather not buy a 3.5 HC and the first supplement or two only to have all future sourcebooks 4E (needing conversions if thats at all even possible).

They've stated that the Campaign Setting is going to be fairly close to edition-free. That is, the book is going to have plenty of fluff information about the world, but very little "edition-specific crunch" that would require updating.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As hard as it has been for some of us (gamers) to decide if we are going to switch to 4E or not, with just hearing / seeing snippets of crunch and fluff from WotC, think how hard it must be on Paizo, who must determine if they can run a business with the new edition of the game. I thinks it's unfair to rush them or pressure them to make a decision, especially when WotC hasn't even let them see the rules or the GSL yet.

I'm willing to give Paizo the benifit of a doubt and wait and see what they want to do. If they go in a direction that I do not want to go, then I will already have enough Golarion goodness by the time 4E releases to run as many campaigns there as I'd like, plus I'd pick up any rules-light material (like gezateers, etc.) that would continue to support my game.

I started that thread on EN World, because there are lots of gamers who go there, and not all of them visit paizo.com. I wanted to let folks know how things were shaping up with the Pathfinder line and that there is still one "big" 3.5 publisher who hasn't frozen development in anticipation of the upcoming edition.


Thanks for the link Sunderstone, I did a couple brief replies over there.

Long story short, everyone over here would like to have the GSL. I qualify that by saying "the GSL isn't the rules."

We're pretty divided over the rules themselves... But the GSL would give us the means to move forward. Right now we're all kinda stuck. The Customers, Paizo, and those that would like to be customers but are unsure.

But we're trying to keep our senses of humor. (Though I failed at 1 am last night, but that's another story)

Anyway, thanks for stopping by...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Sunderstone wrote:
I know Paizo hasnt made a firm commitment to 4E yet until the GSL etc, but would it be possible to get some clarification on some concerns about "a rough estimate" on just how much of the new campaign setting will remain 3.5 before going to 4E.

As of right now, we aren't ready to choose what edition we go forward with. We still haven't seen the GSL. We still haven't been given the rules to look over. Hopefully we'll be able to make the decision regarding 3rd edition or 4th edition pretty soon... but as of right now, both options remain a strong possibility.

So right now... I can't say if we're going 3rd or 4th edition. I can say that the chances of us doing BOTH are very slim. If indeed the GSL even allows such an option.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:
Sunderstone wrote:
So right now... I can't say if we're going 3rd or 4th edition. I can say that the chances of us doing BOTH are very slim. If indeed the GSL even allows such an option.

Do you think they might do that with the GSL?

I've always thought that would be a real kick in the teeth to gamers, so I assumed they wouldn't do such a thing.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

amethal wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Sunderstone wrote:
So right now... I can't say if we're going 3rd or 4th edition. I can say that the chances of us doing BOTH are very slim. If indeed the GSL even allows such an option.

Do you think they might do that with the GSL?

I've always thought that would be a real kick in the teeth to gamers, so I assumed they wouldn't do such a thing.

They're so -cute- when they're optimistic. :-)

Seriously, amethal, it's been a suspicion of mine for some time. If 4.x is the 'next big thing' why wouldn't they take steps to restrict OGL content?


I'd never have thought that they'd take the Magazines from us, or to ditch 30 years of back story just like that.

They did both. What makes you think they won't restrict the GSL just because it might upset people?

Dark Archive

KaeYoss wrote:

I'd never have thought that they'd take the Magazines from us, or to ditch 30 years of back story just like that.

They did both. What makes you think they won't restrict the GSL just because it might upset people?

No reason, just optimism.

I assume we'll find out eventually; the NDA about the GSL is only temporary, right?


amethal wrote:


I assume we'll find out eventually; the NDA about the GSL is only temporary, right?

I think the NDA is only for the Rules themselves, and that has been lifted now (after the public show at DND Experience). There never has been one for the GSL as far as I know.

But no one knows anything about the GSL because it's never been released (yet) or discussed in any detail.

Part of the pressure to get the GSL stems from (besides the fact that it's overdue from when they said it would be out), is that the public has seen the rules.


I might as well go on record and say that I hope Paizo stays with 3.5 for as long as possible. I don't plan to switch to 4th ed. Probably ever. I have almost all of the WOTC 3.5 stuff, I like it, and I have enough resources to stick with it for many, many years.

I also don't care for the little bit of 4th ed stuff I have seen from the previews, and have little reason to want to buy a bunch of new rules when I like the current rules just fine.

Plus, I really like the adventures Paizo makes. Since my groups go slowly, I can still run Savage Tide, Rise of the Runelords, Crimson Throne, and (hopefully) Second Darkness over the next few years without switching to 4th.

The longer Paizo stays with 3.5, the longer I can keep playing my favorite game. As soon as they switch to 4th, I'll quit buying their adventures and just cobble campaigns together from old Dungeon magazines.

This is very different from when DnD switched editions before. I was excited by 2nd edition when it came out, and was excited by 3rd when it was released. But 4th doesn't so much like a rules improvement, as it seems like they are trying to re-do everything for the sake of change.

In other words, Golarion 3.5 forever!


Jason Grubiak wrote:

I know Paizo cannot say when they will get the GSL or the rules because its not up to them...They dont know.

As for saying if they will definity switch to 4th edition or stay with 3.5 is also something they cant answer yet. They cant even say they will eventually switch to 4th edition someday even years from now. 4th edition may stink or the GSL be to restricting (both are strong possibilities). So its not a matter of "will they switch early or later?". They may never switch at all (which is my hope).

And as for saying when the deadline is before they will throw up their hands and say that the 3rd adventure path will be 3.5? Well that they probaly know..but they aint telling :)

As a side note - It would be quite funny if the 3rd adventure path is 4th edition. Why? Because two of the iconics in the path are a Monk and a Gnome Druid!

Doesn't that tell you something?


I did some thinking today about all the Golarion stuff. I think ill order the 3.5 stuff anyway.
Worst case scenario - I'll make these the last things I buy that I know for sure that I wont use (hope this makes sense).

I want to give it a shot anyway. I havent been this stoked about a CS since the original FR grey box.
I do know that the paizo gang are my favorite designers and Id love to support something like this for as long as I can.

Im just going to close my eyes and wait for the dust to settle.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sunderstone wrote:
I want to give it a shot anyway.

Good choice, Sunderstone. I applaud you.


The Real Troll wrote:
Jason Grubiak wrote:

I know Paizo cannot say when they will get the GSL or the rules because its not up to them...They dont know.

As for saying if they will definity switch to 4th edition or stay with 3.5 is also something they cant answer yet. They cant even say they will eventually switch to 4th edition someday even years from now. 4th edition may stink or the GSL be to restricting (both are strong possibilities). So its not a matter of "will they switch early or later?". They may never switch at all (which is my hope).

And as for saying when the deadline is before they will throw up their hands and say that the 3rd adventure path will be 3.5? Well that they probaly know..but they aint telling :)

As a side note - It would be quite funny if the 3rd adventure path is 4th edition. Why? Because two of the iconics in the path are a Monk and a Gnome Druid!

Doesn't that tell you something?

Actually, it does. This just hit me: The Pathfinder Iconics are very much 3.5e, or if you will, pre 4e creatures through and through.

If they switched to 4e (with all the changes and restrictions we already know about it), they would have to do one of the following:

- Rewrite their backstories and in some parts styles to fit the new classes.

- Tinker quite a bit with 4e rules to make the old iconics work

- Ditch them and write up a new bunch.

And it's not just the gnome druid!

Just take a look at the iconics we know so far:

Valeros, Male Human Fighter
Valeros uses a long sword and a short sword - something 4e fighters aren't designed for. All their powers and whatnot are geared towards either sword and board or two-handed weapon. That alone would mean that he'd have to switch to a class with TWF (which would probably not fit his style and background) or be nearly useless because his powers won't support his fighting style.

Seoni, Female Human Sorcerer
Unless I missed something, sorcerers are right out. What can you do with her? Make her a wizard all of a sudden, getting a lot less comely but much smarter in the blink of an eye? Or make her a warlock and suddenly worship devils? (and at least the 3e warlock doesn't supportn LN characters as far as I know, so her general character wouldn't fit the warlock outlook)

Merisiel, Female Elf Rogue
Luckily for her, Paizo would probably keep elves like they were - not the short-lived 4e imposters, especially since all the business about elves having been gone for "a generation" would cause a lot of Golarion history to change if the definition of an elven generation would change.

So she won't become middle-aged all of a sudden, or get made a lot younger than her 100 odd years she has right now.

But back to business: Unless they kept stuff from us, the rapier 8her primary weapon) isn't on the rogue weapon list, so she might have problems with that.

Kyra, Female Human Cleric
I don't know much about 4e clerics, but it's quite possible that there will be problems with her scimitar. Can 4e clerics use any weapon they like (or at least their deity's favoured one) with their "cool powers"?

Hark, Dwarf Ranger
Again, I don't know much about the Ranger, but what if their powers don't allow a crossbow? That you have to use a "proper" bow, since it's more "rangery"? Will he have to ditch that weapon or just ignore his powers?

Ezren, Human Wizard
Since I don't know his stats and abilities, I don't know whether his spell selection would have to change a lot, but it's quite possible. And I don't know about you, but a wizards' spell book is like a Rorschach inkblot test - it tells you a lot about the wizard. This means that if you change the spells, you change the wizard.

Lem, Halfling Bard
This poor little fella would lose his job in 4e - no bard class, and, as far as I know, not even a Perform skill (since we all know, as we've been told, that skills that don't help you in the dungeon are boring, and if you use it, you are boring, too *rollshiseyes*). So you'd make him any class (none of which might fit him) and say that he sings and plays an instrument. Instead of character-defining, his schtick would be just something for the background.

Seelah, Human Paladin
I haven't read anything much about the new Paladin, she might actually be alright. Hooray for her.

Sajan, Human Monk
Is there a monk in 4e? I never read anything about that class. Is there anything that lets you fight unarmed without losing access to powers? Is there some martial arts power tree in there? If not, poor Sajan will find himself powerless all of a sudden. Will he still be able to find his sister? Poor Sajan

Whatsyourname, the Druid
Druids are gone, so this iconic will have to face reeducation. And if he's a gnome, like the rumor seems to go, he'll even be from a minority race that in the core rules only gets the step-child MM treatment without all the cool stuff and support.

Whatshisface, the Barbarian
Again, I don't know if there even are barbarians or other savage berserker type warriors in 4e. Another lost cause?

Mr. X the Mystery man we don't know anything about.
Unless he's already in the head of one designer or the other, he alone might have an advantage here, since he's all putty right now, they could form him to fit into 4e's mold.

Generally: The iconids were made to represent D&D's basic classes. D&D 3.5e's classes, that is. It sounds like they wouldn't fit all that well in 4e with it's greatly changed setup. If Pathfinder really changed to 4e, the iconics we've kome to know and like would no longer fit their purpose.

They have characters of classes that have changed in 4e, so the old iconics won't fit any more (the fact that the 4e classes seem to be so restrictive doesn't sit well with me, anyway). We have characters of classes that aren't even there any more. And there's new classes that have no iconics.

Valeros, Merisiel and their friends might be sent into retirement way ahead of schedule if Pathdinder went 4e!

Liberty's Edge

KaeYoss, what a great post.

Please don't make me weep for the iconics. :-)

-DM Jeff

Sovereign Court

Presumably Seoni will go with the Fey-matched sorcerer thing.

But, um, yeah... I have my concerns but let's not blow our tops yet. Let's wait 'til June when the rules are released.


And, importantly, most importantly for me, Paizo makes its decision.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

KaeYoss wrote:
...wrote a bunch of stuff...

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.


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.

I'm really beginning to wonder if there is some sort of internal struggle at Wizards...either that, or some high up muckity-muck is deliberately making things difficult for the 3rd party folks. The credible "delay" period has come and gone, and still nothing.

I call Shenanigans.

The Exchange

On the plus side, the tiefling iconic from Dungeon could come back. Of course, she's WotC property...

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

James Jacobs wrote:
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.

James, you guys have repeated said that Second Darkness should have been started in January. I understand that there are something you can do to compress the deadline, but surely there is some sort of hard cutoff for which you MUST send it to the printer's to have it ready for GenCon. If you don't mind sharing, at what point would Paizo be forced to say 'Second Darkness will be 3.5' just so you can start writing it?


James Jacobs wrote:
Lots of good stuff

This saddens me, to hear the frustration and pressure.

I've done my share of self-promotion today, so I'm not going to cross post anything, or link to anything.. But I've been raising caine on at EN World about the GSL, and I'm frustrated that more people don't see how damaging this Delayed-GSL situation has become. Particularly since Wizard's created this sense of expectation all the way back in the first week of January with their conference call.

On the bright side: I've heard about how awesome it was to meet and talk with WOTC notables.. but we get to talk to James Jacobs every day.

They're probably nice people, but I still think we're the lucky ones.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Ross Byers wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
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.
James, you guys have repeated said that Second Darkness should have been started in January. I understand that there are something you can do to compress the deadline, but surely there is some sort of hard cutoff for which you MUST send it to the printer's to have it ready for GenCon. If you don't mind sharing, at what point would Paizo be forced to say 'Second Darkness will be 3.5' just so you can start writing it?

There absolutely is a hard cutoff for when we need to send the files for Second Darkness to the printer so it'll be ready for Gen Con, which has ripple effects radiating back to a hard cutoff date for when we need to start writing it. I don't want to say what that date is, yet, though. But it's very much at the forefront of my mind!

Dark Archive Contributor

bugleyman wrote:
I call Shenanigans.

I call Shotgun!

*stretches out in the front seat*

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
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.
James, you guys have repeated said that Second Darkness should have been started in January. I understand that there are something you can do to compress the deadline, but surely there is some sort of hard cutoff for which you MUST send it to the printer's to have it ready for GenCon. If you don't mind sharing, at what point would Paizo be forced to say 'Second Darkness will be 3.5' just so you can start writing it?
There absolutely is a hard cutoff for when we need to send the files for Second Darkness to the printer so it'll be ready for Gen Con, which has ripple effects radiating back to a hard cutoff date for when we need to start writing it. I don't want to say what that date is, yet, though. But it's very much at the forefront of my mind!

I don't envy you guys at all- what a crummy position. Considering the fact that GenCon is already only five months away (!!!), I'd have to think that the window is definitely closing (if not already closed).

In a best case scenario- at least one month to learn the rules and make changes to accommodate them, one month (or so) to write the first adventure, one month (or so) for editing/layout, one month for printing, and one month for shipping. That's five months right there. Some of those might not take a whole month, I suppose, but there's no longer much wiggle room regardless.

My personal feelings about 3.5 and 4e aside- I wish you guys the best. I imagine that the next six months are going to be stressful regardless of which way you decide.

Dark Archive

Assuming WotC ever does allow 3rd party companies to play in the 4E sandbox and this 'GSL' thing isn't vaporware;

I would *much* rather have all new Iconics for 4E than see the 3.5 Pathfinder Iconics altered to suit the new rules set. Lem the Bard turned into a Warlord? Ugh. No thanks.

For that matter, I'd love to see the Dungeon 'Iconics' (including the Tiefling Barbarian, etc.) shown all together on the cover of the last Dungeon issue statted up at various levels (1, 5, 10, 15, 20).

Scarab Sages

For my part, and with all the negativity I've seen in many of these 3.5 vs. 4e posts, I'll take whatever Paizo throws at us, 'cause it's that good, but I do hope they ultimately make the switch to 4e. There's almost nothing I've seen so far from 4e that isn't a major improvement, in my opinion, over any of the previous editions.

As for the iconics, nobody has to be thrown away. Sure, some revisions might need to be made, but Lem, for example, would almost certainly return with PHB II, etc. Plus, hell, it's Paizo's world, there's no reason they can't make Gnomes a core race in Golarion...


OroboroSteve wrote:

For my part, and with all the negativity I've seen in many of these 3.5 vs. 4e posts, I'll take whatever Paizo throws at us, 'cause it's that good, but I do hope they ultimately make the switch to 4e. There's almost nothing I've seen so far from 4e that isn't a major improvement, in my opinion, over any of the previous editions.

As for the iconics, nobody has to be thrown away. Sure, some revisions might need to be made, but Lem, for example, would almost certainly return with PHB II, etc. Plus, hell, it's Paizo's world, there's no reason they can't make Gnomes a core race in Golarion...

I 2nd the hope that they move to 4E, but even if they don't, I'm onboard for everything thorugh the end of Crimson Throne. They have to eat for the next 6 months whichever way they go, and there is always a chance that when I see the 4E rules I'll change my tune...


I'm no businessman, which is probably why I'm missing the stress here. To my simple mind, the solution is to go ahead and start Second Darkness as a 3.5 Adventure Path and take advantage of your GameMastery modules to produce 4th edition stuff if that's the way you want to go.

I'm not so sure that players just picking up a new game system for the first time is the target audience for an Adventure Path anyways. The six months after GenCon that 2nd Darkness is being pubished as 3.5 will be plenty of time for us to learn the new rules and be ready to jump into the NEXT AP as a 4th edition campaign.

Plus it has the advantage of keeping all the Varisia-based APs in the same edition and allowing the next one in the series to start brand new in a different region of Golarion, one that doesn't require as much shoe-horning to fit into the basic assumption of the 4th edition system.

How simple am I being?


Fletch wrote:

I'm no businessman, which is probably why I'm missing the stress here. To my simple mind, the solution is to go ahead and start Second Darkness as a 3.5 Adventure Path and take advantage of your GameMastery modules to produce 4th edition stuff if that's the way you want to go.

I'm not so sure that players just picking up a new game system for the first time is the target audience for an Adventure Path anyways. The six months after GenCon that 2nd Darkness is being pubished as 3.5 will be plenty of time for us to learn the new rules and be ready to jump into the NEXT AP as a 4th edition campaign.

Plus it has the advantage of keeping all the Varisia-based APs in the same edition and allowing the next one in the series to start brand new in a different region of Golarion, one that doesn't require as much shoe-horning to fit into the basic assumption of the 4th edition system.

How simple am I being?

I think there are two problems with that plan (under the assumption that your two options are move to 4E at the beginning of AP3 or at the beginning of AP4...for the purposes of this post, I'm ignoring the 3.5 folks. It is, as has been pointed out, that is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" can o' worms):

(1) Some pro-4E subscribers will jump ship...they won't continue their subscriptions past Crimson Throne. I would probably be in this camp, assuming the 4E rules are as good as I hope. That is 6 months of lost revenue with no guarantee those people come back when you do make the switch. Heck, some people have already cancelled because Crimson Throne is 3.5...

(2) It gives competitors a six-month head start...not usually a great idea.


bugleyman wrote:
Some pro-4E subscribers will jump ship...they won't continue their subscriptions past Crimson Throne. I would probably be in this camp, assuming the 4E rules are as good as I hope.

You wouldn't stay on board with quality 4e material coming out in the GameMastery module line? When they said they wouldn't produce both systems, I'd thought that meant for the same modules (ie, no 3.5 and 4th for Second Darkness). Did that actually mean that they'd be exclusively one or the other even during the "transition" phase?


I'm pretty certain that I'm switching to 4E for my home games. So as a Paizo fan, I'm also one who is hoping that Paizo switches to 4E. But I would love to find a way to support Paizo during a difficult transition period to help make sure they make it successfully into the new 4E world of D&D publishers.

Couldn't Paizo put out a "transition" Pathfinder edition to gain more time, with maybe more a couple of adventures set on Golarion but not tied to a path, or else maybe a short arc of adventures set in Golarion?


Many of the problems Paizo and Golarian face with 4e are the same things that will face WotC and their in house settings. The new races and class and losing races and classes from the PHB affect Forgotten Realms and Eberron just as much or more than Golarion ... icons excepted. (But Warlocks replacing Sorceror seems like a no brainer to me unless you just want a Cha based Wizard.)

Paizo has already reimagined a lot of things in D&D 3.Xe to fit their setting. Paizo would then have to look at what can be explained in fluff or what needs some tweaking or what needs a complete overhaul.

If Paizo decides to stick with 3.Xe then they will have to find a business model that supports a bulk of (D&D) players moving on to another game. Green Ronin seems to have done this before 4e was announced. It becomes a might bit harder when most of the people buying your products are loyal to a brand larger than your own.

I personally would like Paizo to make the jump to 4e. I say this because I enjoy their products and I will be making the jump to 4e. I'm not pretending that they will have an easy time making the jump. I just believe that if in the long term they want to build on the success they've already gotten then biting the 4e bullet is the way.

Iain.


Fletch wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Some pro-4E subscribers will jump ship...they won't continue their subscriptions past Crimson Throne. I would probably be in this camp, assuming the 4E rules are as good as I hope.
You wouldn't stay on board with quality 4e material coming out in the GameMastery module line? When they said they wouldn't produce both systems, I'd thought that meant for the same modules (ie, no 3.5 and 4th for Second Darkness). Did that actually mean that they'd be exclusively one or the other even during the "transition" phase?

Ah, I misunderstood. I'd certainly purchase the 4E material...I think the concern is that the GSL may specifically disallow such "dual-publishing," which I hope isn't the case. I *really* hope that if it is the case, they didn't get the idea from us (which, if true, might explain the delay in the GSL).

Sovereign Court Contributor

Actually, I'm pretty sure they've said that if they switch, all of their lines will switch, and if they don't none of their lines will.


Rambling Scribe wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty sure they've said that if they switch, all of their lines will switch, and if they don't none of their lines will.

Which makes a certain amount of sense. Imagine trying to keep two sets of rules in your head? Or don't imagine it and just pick up the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book for an example.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Rambling Scribe wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty sure they've said that if they switch, all of their lines will switch, and if they don't none of their lines will.
Which makes a certain amount of sense. Imagine trying to keep two sets of rules in your head? Or don't imagine it and just pick up the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book for an example.

I think its more about production costs .It just to hard for a company of there size to profit while trying to produce two systems.Thy would make less profit then just going 4e or staying 3.5. Its one or the other or going under it would seem.

Liberty's Edge

I'm probably going to GenCon this year. It would be my first time. If Paizo will be 3.5 for the next AP, I'll definitely go. I will come to pay homage to the people in the booth. It will be fun.


DeadDMWalking wrote:
I'm probably going to GenCon this year. It would be my first time. If Paizo will be 3.5 for the next AP, I'll definitely go. I will come to pay homage to the people in the booth. It will be fun.

I went for the first time last year, and if work allows, I will go again this year. The paizo booth was definitley a highlight of the dealer's hall. Everyone I met there was very friendly (no doubt a bit of challenge over several days of a convention). I missed the Paizo Delve; I'll definitely hit it this year if I make it to Indy.


Chairman Aeon wrote:
Many of the problems Paizo and Golarian face with 4e are the same things that will face WotC and their in house settings. The new races and class and losing races and classes from the PHB affect Forgotten Realms and Eberron just as much or more than Golarion ... icons excepted. (But Warlocks replacing Sorceror seems like a no brainer to me unless you just want a Cha based Wizard.)

I'm not really sure how true this is. Wizards needs to make their worlds support the themes in the rules. Paizo does not, they can change the theme to suit their own needs though that might well mean having to add rules to get back to their chosen theme. Presuming things like the GSL allow it Paizo at least has the option to go 4th edition rules with a 3.5 edition feel.

They'd then need to make a campaign book with rules for Pathfinder Druids, Gnomes, Sorcerers etc. which would probably be snapped up by Paizo fans going 4th. On the downside they would either need to constantly reprint these new rules in every Pathfinder product. Hence quickly alienating the fan base that gets tired of seeing the same rules over and over again wasting valuable page count, or they'd need to just start referencing their campaign book, making Pathfinder much less interesting to a new customer that has never heard of Paizo but picked the adventure up off the shelf and just wants to work it into his 4th edition game.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Rambling Scribe wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty sure they've said that if they switch, all of their lines will switch, and if they don't none of their lines will.
Which makes a certain amount of sense. Imagine trying to keep two sets of rules in your head? Or don't imagine it and just pick up the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book for an example.
I think its more about production costs .It just to hard for a company of there size to profit while trying to produce two systems.Thy would make less profit then just going 4e or staying 3.5. Its one or the other or going under it would seem.

Oh your probably right. I was thinking about it more from the fans side. Do we really want 3.5 and 4th edition products riddled with errors because the designers are trying to hold two rule sets in their heads? I'm sure most of us would rather one rule set or the other but done to a higher standard.

I'd personally rather try and convert a 3.5 product that was done right then play in an unconverted 4th edition product thats full of errors.


bugleyman wrote:


(1) Some pro-4E subscribers will jump ship...they won't continue their subscriptions past Crimson Throne. I would probably be in this camp, assuming the 4E rules are as good as I hope. That is 6 months of lost revenue with no guarantee those people come back when you do make the switch. Heck, some people have already cancelled because Crimson Throne is 3.5...

That's not a real problem. At least not one that can be avoided.

Because if they switch to 4e, other people will jump ship. That's more than 6 months of lost revenue, and you can be quite sure that most will not come back.

And as I keep repeating, I don't have any hard data, but I do have seen those polls, and if those are any indication, they'll lose more revenue by switching than by staying.

bugleyman wrote:


(2) It gives competitors a six-month head start...not usually a great idea.

Those competitors won't get the rules any quicker. After what Paizo tells us, the day draws steadily nearer when they have to decide, and if they don't have the rules by then, they have no choice than to stick to 3.5.

They won't commit themselves to 4e without seeing the rules, because that would be unprofessional.

They also promised not to switch mid-edition, so if they can't make the first part of Second Darkness 4e, they won't make anything 4e.

I applaud those decisions.

If other competitors keep waiting for 4e and then do some kind of rush job, let them do it. Chances are their stuff will stink, and what kind of advantage would that be?

They make a quick buck when they sell stuff to people who are starved for 4e books, people see that the quality is sub-par, and their good reputation is ruined. I'd prefer Paizo not going wizards at us.

OroboroSteve wrote:


As for the iconics, nobody has to be thrown away. Sure, some revisions might need to be made, but Lem, for example, would almost certainly return with PHB II, etc. Plus, hell, it's Paizo's world, there's no reason they can't make Gnomes a core race in Golarion...

I don't know: Those new classes sound quite restrictive.

For example: There's no sorcerer. What about Seoni? The closest thing seems to be a warlock. But will that fit with her personal codes and mandates? As far as I've heard, warlocks get their power from pacts with otherworldly (i.e. fiendish) powers.

So Seoni wouldn't be the same. She would have to change, and it would be change because the rules say so. I'd rather not have that in my favourite campaign setting - it's what made me drop the realms.

But Lem? Let him wait another year or more until they - maybe - bring the bard back? That's no option if you ask me.

Actually, I see that as one of the bigger reasons why Golarion can't change to 4e: Half the setting is held ransom by wizards, because a lot of stuff that used to be part of the setting isn't available any more, or not available right now: No half-orcs (yes, I know, they go into the DDI, but that they said that it's not necessary), no druids, no monks, no bards, no sorcerers.

What are they going to do? Kill off half of Golarions population and deities, advance to year 5000 and explain it all by some appocalypse? All the bards died because of the space-flu that only targets creative souls, but there's a prophecy that one day (the day the bard returns to 4e), there will be bards again?

Or ret-con the setting only a year after they introduced it and just keep a lot of stuff out? Give us lists with references about which parts of the extant issues of Pathfinders are no longer true ("Edge of Anarchy, Page X: "Giggles the halforc is now a human")?

Are they supposed to create those classes and races themselves? And who knows whether the new closed gaming license or whatever it's called now will allow this?

For example, we already know that half-orcs will not be in PHBI, DMGI or MMI, but in the DDI.

Will Paizo be allowed to use those in their adventure paths?

If so, will that mean that we have to subscribe to the DDI if we want to play a half-orc, or does Paizo (through the license) have to force us to subscribe if we want them? And we know that the new SRD will be different, largely being page references, so it's useless without owning the original material. So, if Paizo will be able to use half-orcs, will those adventures (or the part with half-orcs in it) be useless to us if we don't subscribe and get the half-orc?

And if they're not allowed: Are they allowed to create their own version of the half-orc? I don't think it's that far out to suspect that wizards will put in some clauses to keep others from copying their stuff or make up certain things, including "any races and classes from the OGL that aren't yet in the new rules"

Note that those considerations aren't limited to half-orcs, as they're not the only things left out of 4e's first three books.

In fact, I suspect that when they tell us that they won't to switch to 4e is because too much of the stuff that used to be in D&D and has been used in Pathfinder Chronicles isn't usable in 4e any more, and before changing the setting to serve the new rules, they opted to ditch the rules.

Chairman Aeon wrote:
Many of the problems Paizo and Golarian face with 4e are the same things that will face WotC and their in house settings.

Yeah, and look how wizards "solved" hat problem: They butchered the realms.

Of course, they could just have messed up big time and the butchering wasn't because they had to, but because they weren't competent enough to make 4e work with the realms - or they wanted to change and used the 4e change as an excuse.

But if the changes were necessary, at least to some degree, that does not bode well for 4e Golarion at all. Because if it's true, there are two choices: They just ignore 4e, or they change Golarion to serve the new rules (and lose a great many fans over it). For the record: I'm something like 99.99% sure that in this scenario, Paizo will stick to 3e.

Chairman Aeon wrote:


But Warlocks replacing Sorceror seems like a no brainer to me unless you just want a Cha based Wizard.

From all I've heard, the idea that warlocks get their power from Hell is quite ingrained in the class - class abilities, powers, the whole nine yards.

Chairman Aeon wrote:


If Paizo decides to stick with 3.Xe then they will have to find a business model that supports a bulk of (D&D) players moving on to another game.

Let's just ignore that it isn't sure yet that they will move.

From all I've heard, Pathfinder has been doing very well. The sales haven't dropped after wizards dropped the 4e bomb, while other publishers reportedly had serious break-ins.

It seems that Paizo has a loyal customer base. I don't know whether that will be enough, but it will surely help.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
OroboroSteve wrote:


As for the iconics, nobody has to be thrown away. Sure, some revisions might need to be made, but Lem, for example, would almost certainly return with PHB II, etc. Plus, hell, it's Paizo's world, there's no reason they can't make Gnomes a core race in Golarion...

The other issue is whether or not future rulebooks (like PHB2) will be "core", because if they aren't, they are probably not covered by the GSL. No bards, druids, barbarians, monks for 3rd party companies. Speculatively.


And all this assumes the GSL will allow Paizo to maintain their own campaign setting.


KaeYoss wrote:
bugleyman wrote:


(1) Some pro-4E subscribers will jump ship...they won't continue their subscriptions past Crimson Throne. I would probably be in this camp, assuming the 4E rules are as good as I hope. That is 6 months of lost revenue with no guarantee those people come back when you do make the switch. Heck, some people have already cancelled because Crimson Throne is 3.5...

That's not a real problem. At least not one that can be avoided.

Because if they switch to 4e, other people will jump ship. That's more than 6 months of lost revenue, and you can be quite sure that most will not come back.

And as I keep repeating, I don't have any hard data, but I do have seen those polls, and if those are any indication, they'll lose more revenue by switching than by staying.

I'm really not at all trying to be a jerk, but that isn't relevant. I get that they stand to lose either way; as I pointed out in my post, I'm not arguing that. I was answer the questions as I understood it: "In the context of a 4E switch, why not just wait until AP 4?"

Whether they stand to lose more money by going to 4E is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned; how about we don't beat it any more?

KaeYoss wrote:


bugleyman wrote:


(2) It gives competitors a six-month head start...not usually a great idea.

Those competitors won't get the rules any quicker. After what Paizo tells us, the day draws steadily nearer when they have to decide, and if they don't have the rules by then, they have no choice than to stick to 3.5.

They won't commit themselves to 4e without seeing the rules, because that would be unprofessional.

They also promised not to switch mid-edition, so if they can't make the first part of Second Darkness 4e, they won't make anything 4e.

I applaud those decisions.

If other competitors keep waiting for 4e and then do some kind of rush job, let them do it. Chances are their stuff will stink, and what kind of advantage would that be?

They make a quick buck when they sell stuff to people who are starved for 4e books, people see that the quality is sub-par, and their good reputation is ruined. I'd prefer Paizo not going wizards at us.

My point was that because of the somewhat unique six-month length of an AP arc, if Paizo doesn't switch until AP4 they'll be months behind anyone else who made the switch.

At no point did I advocate making a decision whether or not to switch without seeing the GSL and the rules.

Honestly, it doesn't seem like you actually took the time to read my post in context. It was meant to answer why it wasn't a no-brainer to do AP3 as 3.5 then move to 4E with AP4, not about the pros/cons of making the 4E switch.


bugleyman wrote:


I'm really not at all trying to be a jerk, but that isn't relevant. I get that they stand to lose either way; as I pointed out in my post, I'm not arguing that. I was answer the questions as I understood it: "In the context of a 4E switch, why not just wait until AP 4?"

It could be that they have to wait because they can't decide for AP3 (which is because wizards is taking too long with their license and so on).

Other than that, the whole thing is moot: They'll lose customers if they switch, they lose customers if they don't switch. If they switch, they lose customers if they start with AP3, and they lose customers if they start with AP4.

I guess it all boils down to how many customers they will lose in the respective scenarios (and, of course, on what system is better to begin with), and we don't have those numbers.

bugleyman wrote:


My point was that because of the somewhat unique six-month length of an AP arc, if Paizo doesn't switch until AP4 they'll be months behind anyone else who made the switch.

You're right. Other people can release a single adventure in november or something, but if Paizo misses the train for the first installment of the third path, then they have to wait until AP4.

bugleyman wrote:


At no point did I advocate making a decision whether or not to switch without seeing the GSL and the rules.

Honestly, it doesn't seem like you actually took the time to read my post in context. It was meant to answer why it wasn't a no-brainer to do AP3 as 3.5 then move to 4E with AP4, not about the pros/cons of making the 4E switch.

It might very well become a no-brainer: If wizards waits too long, they have no choice but to stick to 3.5 for AP3 at least, no matter what they think of 4e.

In that case, any musings about whether waiting one more path or not would be better becomes completely moot.

Other than that, I can see two reasons to decide right to keep 3e for the AP3, regardless of whether they'll switch to 4e later or not:

1. Avoid getting between a rock and a hard place. I don't want to imply that Paizo isn't professional, I just speak of how I might react in such a situation: Let's say that I'm in Paizo's situation: The day gets closer where I need to make a decision. Maybe I already moved the deadline once because the original one went already past. The thing is: When the time comes and I still hear nothing of wotc, besides maybe some assurance that it will come in a day or so, I might be tempted to wait just a day more. And then there might be "further complications", and a day becomes half a week, and so on, and before I know what's up, I find that I still don't have the input I need, and rather less time than I need to do a proper job, so I end up going 3e by default, but with a second helping of stress because I need to pull triple-shifts to get things done in time.

As I said: I'm not saying Paizo is like that. I'm saying I can see myself getting in that situation. So personally, if I were in that situation, with the day drawing very near, maybe even too near already, I think the smart thing for me would be to avoid temptation altogether

2. This is a more concrete one: If they go ahead right now and say that AP3 will be 3e, two things can happen: Either they don't change at all (at which point the whole thing becomes moot, anyway), or they change a bit later.

The later change may have some disadvantages, like impatient people abandoning ship and not coming back, or even just not getting this particular AP and coming back later when it turns 4e.

But it also has advantages: If they change to 4e for AP4, AP3 could be considered a parting gift for those who will no longer be supported. Besides generating a bit more input from those who later will cancel their Subscription(s), it may smooth over things, lessen the blow so to speak.

And I think that there are more than a few pro-4e-people who would accept waiting just a bit longer for ther 4e fix by Paizo.

And, additionally, those who are yet undecided (or lean towards 3e, but only slightly), will have some time to have a good look at 4e but still be able to use Pathfinder. I guess if they switch to 4e, and right away (i.e. starting with Second Darkness), some of the undecided will cancel Pathfinder, because they don't know yet whether they want to play 4e, and they don't want to spend extra cash on a system they don't know yet.


Thanks for measured reply KaeYoss. I'm sorry if I was snarky in my last post; I didn't mean to be. I just don't want to go down the 3.5 vs. 4E path again, and I tried to avoid it while still answering the AP 3/AP 4 question.

Whether Paizo switches or not, I'm looking forward to this whole thing being behind us. I just want to thank all the folks who keep a cool head and don't escalate matters.


That was a good post KaeYoss. Very good points indeed.

I am getting to the point where I'd like to just call Second Darkness as 3.5 AP and be assured that the Developers are going to be well within their professional comfort zone to do the best job possible.

1 to 50 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.