Alright, I am a heavy pro-4e fan. I have noticed the many mechanical flaws in 3.5 which make it 'not fun' and just how time consuming each round is at higher levels.
When Paizo announced their new edition, I was rather excited to see what they had in store. But alas, I am not all too impressed. These 'revolutionary changes' appear to be nothing more than some minor retoolings of character classes and feats.
Honestly, if I had to choose between 3.5 or Pathfinder, I would probably stick with 3.5. So, I have come here to see if there is any hope left for me.
I am looking to see if someone can convince me to spend my money on Paizo and their adventures/ruleset, rather than Wizards of the Coast and the actual Dungeons and Dragons ruleset.
Thanks,
Anaxxius
The Paizo adventures I've read so far are pretty good. Considering that there is more "fluff" than "crunch", it should be easy enough to convert the 3.5 stuff to 4e.
After all, what needs to be converted? Bad guys and monsters. Reviews I've read say that monster creation is a snap. Character conversion would pose a little problem, but find powers that act like the Feats and don't bother converting the skills. A few more modifications should get you pretty close.
Hard to say without the 4e books.
Well ok, I don't really find the need to much to convince people to play, but I have no problems listing MY OWN reasons. I will attempt to stay away from the things I don't like about 4th (45% save mechanic!...sorry couldn't help it...) and stick to what I like about pathfinder.
1) The Products
This itself is a massive selling point for me, because I simply haven't been this interested in adventures and suppliment gamebooks since I was a young kid.
Specifically books like adventures 1,2,& 3 from ROTRL, Classic Monsters Revisited, and the guide to Korvosa have tickled my fancy along with many others. I really don't know how else to put it, these books have by themselves sold me on pathfinder because the material produced has been so good. They have given me ideas for my homebrews and actually got me running modules again (minus the occasional homebrew dungeon-drop).
As a gamer that has played (and will undoubtedly continue) to play multiple gaming systems, these products have given me a great amount of faith in the people at Paizo. Even if you plan to switch to 4th ed, I would seriously recommend the books I just listed to any gamer.
2) Game balance
I think that game balance is important. I don't think it's more important than the way I enjoy running my games or the style my gaming group inflicts on itself, but important none the less. I am confident given both the feedback we get about the material put out, the direction the changes have been, and the corrections to those changes, that we will end up with a fairly balanced product to purchase when all is said and done. More or less balanced vs 4th doesn't really matter to me, as long as it's fairly balanced.
3) Game style
This is the most important for me. I have a style in how I come up with stuff to put in my games I'm running. I plan storyline around monster-abilities, spells cast, powers gained, and material outside of gaming copied in-game. Looking at what comprimises 4th ed (specifically dealing with monster design and magic) I don't feel it meshes with my style very well, while the stuff I have seen from pathfinder compliments it. The pit fiend and 45% save mechanic for magic (oops) was something very hard for me to swallow when I started thinking about the games I wanted to put together and how that would actually function. The changes made to pathfinder do not.
4) Backwards compatibility with stuff I have been putting together for years
This isn't quite the same level as the other issues for me...at least not in footwork to do so. I haven't test ran the Alpha characters with too much stuff outside of ROTRL but so far, I don't see a ton of changes I need to make to existing products to run them effectively...just the fact that if my players decide to take something other than rogue, mage, cleric, and druid I won't have to purposely soften the adventure up to suit.
Not being able to convert my stuff at all is somewhat of an issue for me however. I don't think that will be impossible to do but it will be massively more troublesome. It might not even be worth the effort. My guess is that Ed Greenwood feels the same way given what is being done to the realms.
5) The atmosphere of the boards and the Paizo staff
This is one of my two favorite places to post on the internet right now...not simply because of the ALPHA but because this place is fun. I specifically enjoy all the silly crap posted in the General section of the forum. I love the fact that the Paizo staff comes online and engages the people they are selling their products to, and actually seem to be having a good time doing it.
The discord is minor, at least minor compared to almost every other messageboard I've ever posted on. Compared to most places this board is downright f+#+ing harmonious.
I could name some more but this is off the top of my head how I feel. If you're truthful on your post, I hope this helps and I hope you end up playing what suits you best as a gamer.
|
Alright, I am a heavy pro-4e fan. I have noticed the many mechanical flaws in 3.5 which make it 'not fun' and just how time consuming each round is at higher levels.
When Paizo announced their new edition, I was rather excited to see what they had in store. But alas, I am not all too impressed. These 'revolutionary changes' appear to be nothing more than some minor retoolings of character classes and feats.
Honestly, if I had to choose between 3.5 or Pathfinder, I would probably stick with 3.5. So, I have come here to see if there is any hope left for me.
I am looking to see if someone can convince me to spend my money on Paizo and their adventures/ruleset, rather than Wizards of the Coast and the actual Dungeons and Dragons ruleset.
Thanks,
Anaxxius
To be honest, I don't think you're going to be persuaded.
There are no 'revolutionary changes', nor was there ever any suggestion that there would be.
The whole thing is based on the premise that 3/3.5e is a good system that could do with a few tweaks. So if you're huge fan of 4e and have problems with lots of 3.5 mechanics then I doubt it's the thing for you.
|
I was really looking forward to 4th ed. - I found the 3.5 rules had flaws and holes that needed to be fixed - some of my earlier posts on these boards show that. Then I ssaw whar WotC announced and showed us of 4th ed. rules and I realized they did not build upon the earlyer rules - not even in the amount that 3rd ed. build upon 2nd ed. They brought forth a completely new game system. This system may be good or it may not - I think this is discussed elsewhere. But I'm quite sure that the new system brings with it new flaws - the years of playtesting that revealed flaws in 3rd ed. / 3.5 seem to me useless for the creation of the new edition (aside from basic concepts). So if I were to change I'd rather expect to find the same amount of flaws and holes to be fixed in a future set of rules building on 4th ed. be they called 4.5, 5th or Planet Bob. 4th ed. Is not a fixture of 3.5 - It is a comletely different Game and it's u to you if you like it better or not.
So it comes to adventures and World design. The Gazzetteer roducts of paizo are state of the art as far as I'm concerned - and they contain almost nor rules, so if you use them with 2nd ed., 3.5,4th ed. or gurps / rolemaster / unisystem / anyotherstuff doesn't sem to important. The adventures can be converted as they can be converted to any others system. Use the maps, use the ideas and stories and insert adversaries and traps for the system you use - I've done this withs 2nd edition adventures (Night below, four for cormyr, pool of radiance), with MERP adventures and with cthulhu adventures as I converted D&D / Modern D 20 Adventures to other Systems (Cthulhu, Earthdawn, DSA). It takes time and efford, but if the adventure and story is good it is usually worth it.
It is up to you and your taste if you like the pathfinder adventures - I certainly do - and if you like them enough to do the conversion.
That is really all I can advice regarding this subject.
>> my money on Paizo and their adventures/ruleset
Well, those two things don't have to go together. You can go Paizo adventures without Pathfinder rules.
For me, the first thing is quality adventures. I have no time or desire to write my own stuff or convert an existing adventure to some other rule system. The source for quality adventures is Paizo. Thus, I'm sticking somewhere in the 3.5 camp.
That doesn't necessarily mean Pathfinder though. I could go Monte Cook Book of Experimental Might, straight 3.5, home-ruled 3.5, or Pathfinder. (Personally, I don't much care. Rule system is much more for the players than the DM in my mind. Doesn't matter to me which version of the Paladin we use, I'm playing the dragon.)
(As an aside: I agree, 3.5 high level play is just too tedious. Conveniently, the Pathfinder APs stop around level 15 or so. Perfect.)
When Paizo announced their new edition, I was rather excited to see what they had in store. But alas, I am not all too impressed. These 'revolutionary changes' appear to be nothing more than some minor retoolings of character classes and feats.
Honestly, if I had to choose between 3.5 or Pathfinder, I would probably stick with 3.5. So, I have come here to see if there is any hope left for me.
Not really. If you're expecting revolutionary changes, you'll be disappointed. I certainly don't think that high level fights will run any faster.
Personally, I think I'd rather play a 1st level Pathfinder wizard than a 1st level 3.5E wizard. Likewise for the paladin, barbarian, sorcerer and rogue; I think they're all improvements over the 3.5 Core versions. And I like the nerfs they made (to Polymorph, Wild Shape, etc.) for the most part. Even the changes that I consider mostly unnecessary (like the changes to the various races), I think are O.K.
If Pathfinder improves on 3.5 (in my mind, anyways), why wouldn't I use some or all of it?
I'm another strongly pro-4E person, and while I'm not terribly interested in Pathfinder RPG, I'm still an avid Pathfinder (adventures, setting, chronicles etc.) customer.
Paizo adventures are evocative and have a depth of story and characterization that I don't see from any other source. So I'll be buying Pathfinder adventure paths and doing 4E conversions as needed.
If you decide this (converting the Paizo adventures to 4E) is the way you want to go, I imagine that once the rules come out, we'll have a lot of company here on Paizo's 4E boards to discuss any conversion issues and share our ideas. Hope to see you there!
|
I am looking to see if someone can convince me to spend my money on Paizo and their adventures/ruleset, rather than Wizards of the Coast and the actual Dungeons and Dragons ruleset.
It's all about the fluff.
No matter which system you and your group end up playing, you'll find that Paizo consistently produces the best fluff, adventure, and game-aid material.
Conversion takes time and may have many problems. You may have to decide what is more important, the system or the game experience played on the system.
(toasts) Here's to the game content.
-W. E. Ray
When Paizo announced their new edition, I was rather excited to see what they had in store. But alas, I am not all too impressed. These 'revolutionary changes' appear to be nothing more than some minor retoolings of character classes and feats.
Pathfinder RPG is designed to be a depured 3.5-compatible non a revolutionary new game.
I am looking to see if someone can convince me to spend my money on Paizo and their adventures/ruleset, rather than Wizards of the Coast and the actual Dungeons and Dragons ruleset.
If the comparation between WotC adventures and Pathfinder adventures don't convince you nothing would.
|
I can't really argue for a selling point. I like Paizo and have grown disenchanted with WotC. I am unwilling to convert to 4e and see Pathfinder as a means to give a jolt to the current game system.
That said, as much as I like what Paizo's doing, I haven't jumped on board completely. I've put together a whole set of house rules to improve the 3.5 game and would now likely have to carry them over to Pathfinder, because Paizo hasn't incorporated them.
So, has Paizo offered enough to encourage an investment? I don't know. The fact that it's all ONE book is certainly appetizing.
I am looking to see if someone can convince me to spend my money on Paizo and their adventures/ruleset, rather than Wizards of the Coast and the actual Dungeons and Dragons ruleset.
I think that wotc offers D&D in name only, while Paizo offers D&D in spirit. 4e is not the D&D we have known for 30+ years. They go out of their way to invalidate the old material - not just rules, but history and flavour in general. It's all a big turnoff for me.
Even if 4e were better than 3e (which I don't think), this would annoy me greatly. If they would admit that this is a different game rather than a new edition of D&D, I might not be so negative about it all, as things are...
Paizo will offer you great adventures and adventure paths, as well as a kick-ass setting. They manage to keep to D&D's traditions while still bringing fresh ideas into it.
Their Adventures offer great stories, interesting NPCs, and a terrific atmosphere.
Note that it targets a more adult audience. I'm not saying that you have to be 40 and up to appreciate it, but they don't create their world and stories as if they had to make sure no five-year-old will lose any sleep over it. Golarion (the world on which the adventures take place) can be a dark place, as savage place. And if it is, it really is. The monsters really are monsters, and evildoers don't mess around, either.
I've found that Rise of the Runelords had a couple of shockers that affected my players, who I'd have thought would laugh through a Call of Cthulhu session.
As for the Campaign World: Pathfinder Chronicles: We don't know too much about it yet (it's still in the making), but what we know sounds absolutely awesome. It offers a home to your and your players, no matter what your playing style.
One big plus about the campaign world: It's creators are in charge, and they're Paizo. No one will force them to do stuff like arbitrarily advancing the timeline for a century or two, or killing off several pantheons' worth of deities, or change the way magic works there. They won't make the setting a slave to the rules, which is doing things backwards. They won't "fire" masses of loyal fans for the possibility of new ones.
The Pathfinder RPG rules will probably not convince you, since Paizo apparently agrees with many D&D fans out there that 3e isn't completely broken. It has issues (which can be said for every single RPG out there), and they want to address them, but a lot of the issues people claim it has are actually no issues, but a matter of opinion and taste. PF RPG won't become 4e. It will not introduce "spells" for every class, or rules for mook characters, it will not do away with druids and half-orcs and the like, it will not get rid of penalties as if they were "unfun" and "too difficult", it will not count diagonals as one square as if this were a boardgame...
What might convince you is Paizo itself, and their philosophy. They consider customer relation part of their jobs, not something they might do if they feel like it. They listen to the fans, and try their best to implement their wishes. They're here, on these boards, all the time, and not just to sell us on new products. They're really here, having fun, joking around, letting you vote which coworker they're going to eat when they're snowed in (actually happened - the voting, at least.)
To be honest, it comes down to whether you really enjoy the 3.5 game or not. If you do, as I and my group do, then this is excellent for it makes changes (and changes are fun), but still maintains the flavor of the system that you love. It feels "new" in a way, but it still is the D & D game that I am playing right now.
Maybe it is because I am getting older and a complete change in the rules system is not what I am looking for. However, I was sad thinking that there would be no further 3.5 supplements. Now with Pathfinder I feel I can keep going on with the game I haver and get all the additions that pathfinder adds. I love it and thank you for this decsion!!!
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
If you decide this (converting the Paizo adventures to 4E) is the way you want to go, I imagine that once the rules come out, we'll have a lot of company here on Paizo's 4E boards to discuss any conversion issues and share our ideas. Hope to see you there!
I'd like to state for the record that we expect this to be true and that it is an element of the Paizo online community that we plan to respect and foster.
The terms of the GSL prevent us from publishing official Pathfinder conversions for our Adventure Paths and Modules, but we hope and expect that 4e fans will band together to share their own ideas on how to pull it off.
--Erik
First off, lets dismiss the notion of the perfect system. Never existed never will. Seconed lets dismiss the notion of a broken system. There are D&D players still playing 1st. Not just old timers, new players. no one is fighting over Rifts 1st edition to seconed because very little changed. A system works if it works for you.
Having said that Pathfinder never said it would be revolutonary. They said they would keep 3.5 alive and fix some of the major issues that have croped up in the game over the last 8+ years. 4th ed. will also have a great many issues and problems. I wasn't anti-4th until WotC bussines choices made me so. That being said I'm sure the sytem for what it is works fine. If that is what you want to play, please enjoy.
However you said that you wanted D&D. Being someone who started playing in the mid-80's but having only played (not GMed) D&D once or twice ( I was a Robtech/Rifts man)I can say that the fluff of 4th has killed far too much of what makes D&D D&D. They are trying to copy computer games not just in rules, which it could be argued is a good thing, but also in spirt and setting. Over the years D&D has become its own unique entity. I think Pathfinder/Paizo has kept that entity alive.
Please do not mis understand I not a die hard, I still don't understand the great wheel, but I know D&D when I see it. 4th isn't it.
I'm sticking with 3.5 and by extension Pathfinder because of all the books and money I have invested in a system that, for all its short comings, works and works well. Most of the things that take so much time in 3.5 are easly ignored, but what is nice about the systme is that everyting is covered. higher level games do take time, but they are so much more fun because of it.
If you never liked or invested in 3rd, but enjoy 4th go for it. If you're willing to spend more money for the new system becuase of the rules, go for it. But if your just going because of the name D&D well think long and hard. Having very little emotonal ties to the name it was easy for me to say I'm done, not going 4th. But looking at the fluff changes I think it is also difficult to do so if you are a fan.
Moreover I must say that while I think 4th edition went about the creation process wrong (they made a new game, not fixed or imporoved waht D&D is/was) they did so using the same guts and bones of that all the D20 system is based on. You may not have like 3.5, and Pathfinder may not impress you, but I'm not sure if 4th will either.
|
|
For me - I have played D&D for about 25 years. I love the game and have a thriving group. In that 25 years I have often been the DM which I am now. I do not have time to create my own world and frankly am not really that creative but time is the most limiting factor.
When Dungoen and Dragaon Magazines went away I was disappointed but liked what Paizo had done with them in their stint. So I decided I would try Pathfinder and see what I thought. Since last October my group has been playing RotR. In my opinion it is the best adventure product I have ever used in all that time. I am so excited to play CotCT I can barely contain myself but we will not be done for many months still (we only play about once a month and they have been on chapter 4 going into three sessions next weekend). And don't get me started on Second Darkness - If my group was not going to be changing over right about the time Second Darkness comes out I would run that next (not that I do not love Korvosa and all it brings) - I really want to run an adventure in the Darklands - but alas that is more than a year away.
The writing is great, the adventures are fun, the authors are the best and the art is full color and it is appealing. Once of th things that turns me off of some other products is the lousy black and white art. So, I have not played many products partly for that reason. I gues in my brain I have a switch that turns off when it feels cheaply done.
As far as Pathfinder RPG - the Adventure Paths decided that for me. I have all the modules of course and love them too but THE PATHS...
So, being the paths are going with PRPG I believe I will too. I do see a few tweaks to 3.5 are necessary. When the 3.5 vs. 4e debate began I stated I would follow Paizo (due to the Paths) and I shall.
Thanks Paizo - I am loving the ride.
I think that wotc offers D&D in name only, while Paizo offers D&D in spirit.
I thought they were going to do this. Then they got rid of death magic in favor of just another type of damage spell. It's too bad.
|
I am looking to see if someone can convince me to spend my money on Paizo and their adventures/ruleset, rather than Wizards of the Coast and the actual Dungeons and Dragons ruleset.
Hi Anaxxius,
No one but your own group can decide which products best fit your gameplay and what you expect material-wise from a module as a DM. It's things such as these which explain, for instance, why you and I reviewed "Keep of the Shadowfell" very differently here at paizo.com.
In light of your own interests, I suggest you kick off your 4th edition game with "Keep of the Shadowfell", as you clearly intend to, and then run a free Paizo adventure by spending two evenings with Hollow's Last Hope. That should provide you plenty of opportunity to compare the two publishers.
That said, it's really a myth that you have to decide between Paizo and WotC when it comes to adventures, since a couple of authors I personally really-really like do contribute to both companies. If you're a huge fan of 4th edition you'll inevitably subscribe to WotC's new online content called "Dungeons & Dragons Insider". Check out the online version of the "Dungeon magazine" and play those adventures. If you like what you see and the following names come up more frequently than others,
Stephen S. Greer
Nicholas Logue
Wesley F. Schneider
then I suggest you cancel your DDI subscription and subscribe to Pathfinder. :)
I could list reasons for you to subscribe to Pathfinder straight away, but since you're heavily and sincerely pro-4E I really think it more realistic and nicer to take your preference seriously ...and win you over gradually :)
Happy gaming!
|
|
I am looking to see if someone can convince me to spend my money on Paizo and their adventures/ruleset, rather than Wizards of the Coast and the actual Dungeons and Dragons ruleset.
Thanks,
Anaxxius
Well, I like my 3e, and I hope 3.P will be even better. You won't see me ever on 4e anyways.
That said, I don't know what you like about 4e or dislike about 3e.
So I will speak about the adventures.
ADULT adventures. Good plots. Mystery places. Villains that are more than random encounters. Disturbing characters. A sinister feel creeping up on your spine.
The look of your players paying more and more attention as they start realizing that the further they advance, the more trouble awaits them...
Priceless.
Of course, in the end, this is really a matter of your individual tastes, and you won't necessarily share mine.
Enjoy yourself, anyways.
I think that wotc offers D&D in name only, while Paizo offers D&D in spirit.I thought they were going to do this. Then they got rid of death magic in favor of just another type of damage spell. It's too bad.
I don't equate that with the death of D&D's spirit. While I prefer actual death effects (and will keep using them), that alone doesn't make Pathfinder Not-D&D. They had to get rid of a lot of stuff before that would happen.
First off, lets dismiss the notion of the perfect system. Never existed never will.
Agreed.
Seconed lets dismiss the notion of a broken system.
Not quite agreed this time. I don't say that AD&D 2e was broken (I am saying that I like 3e at least a thousand times better), but there are rules out there that are simply unplayable.
Please do not mis understand I not a die hard, I still don't understand the great wheel, but I know D&D when I see it. 4th isn't it.
When even the "uninitiated" realise this, there can be no doubt about it. :)
But if your just going because of the name D&D well think long and hard. Having very little emotonal ties to the name it was easy for me to say I'm done, not going 4th. But looking at the fluff changes I think it is also difficult to do so if you are a fan.
I used to buy most of what wizards released for D&D, including full sets of miniatures and everything Forgotten Realms.
Now I won't spend even a single cent on anything hasbro. They earned that disgust with their attitude, with what they did to D&D and my previously favourite Game World (FR), and with the ever-decreasing quality in D&D miniatures.
Anyway, If I were someone else who doesn't dislike wizards, I wouldn't just go and buy those books.
I'd first wait for previews - by people I can be sure are not biased (remember that they allowed playtesters and others in the know to speak about their 4e experience, but only mention positive stuff) or on wizards' payroll.
I'd especially see whether the online part of 4e was as optional as they claim (we already know that half-orcs are not part of core 4e and will be available over 4e online)
Only after being convinced that you can play without paying them extra money each month, and that the game is okay, I'd spend any money on it.
As for Paizo stuff: If it has the Golem logo on it, I'll just go ahead and buy it, being confident that I won't be disappointed. The reason for this is that Paizo so far has not disappointed me - not even a single time.
|
|
The reason for this is that Paizo so far has not disappointed me - not even a single time.
I'm disappointed. Disappointed that an anime fanatic like Mike doesn't know the importance of getting the hot npc girls to provide fan service.
*snickers*
I agree with just about everything that's been said. If you really need to be sold on 3P, you need to check out Rise of the Runelords. While it's not 3P, it's a testimony to the quality of their work.
My problem is that while Paizo makes amzing adventures, it is no longer in a system I care to play in. Perhaps I'll start buying them again if a good conversion effort gets off the ground ... I just don't know.
As for expectations though, I have been disappointed by Paizo before ... I was disappointed when they decided to produce Pathfinder RPG instead of switching to 4E.
Such is life!
Cheers! :)
My problem is that while Paizo makes amzing adventures, it is no longer in a system I care to play in. Perhaps I'll start buying them again if a good conversion effort gets off the ground ... I just don't know.
I'm sure you'll be able to find such conversion. I once came across Rifts conversion to D20 Mondern.
As for expectations though, I have been disappointed by Paizo before ... I was disappointed when they decided to produce Pathfinder RPG instead of switching to 4E.
Not sure what to say about this, as I can see Paizo still making 4th products. And if the 3rd edition days are any indication, they will make better products then WOTC will produce. Also your disappointment should be directed at WOTC, they and the mouse god, did not come out with a GSL in Jan, when they were supposed to. Nor did Paizo even know if there was going to be one for sure. Game companies cannot simply stop production for 6 to 12 months.
Moreover are you saying your disappointed at just about every single every other company? So far the only two who've said they will make 4th ed. product without question is Goodman and necro. Both make good products granted, but so too does GR, and Mongoose etc. etc.
I gusse its just because I started out a non-D&D role palyer and feel very little ties to the name. So a 3rd PP with the name D&D on it will not sell to me, but if just the name alone sells to you, the mouse god will be very happy.
Not sure what to say about this, as I can see Paizo still making 4th products. And if the 3rd edition days are any indication, they will make better products then WOTC will produce. Also your disappointment should be directed at WOTC, they and the mouse god, did not come out with a GSL in Jan, when they were supposed to. Nor did Paizo even know if there was going to be one for sure. Game companies cannot simply stop production for 6 to 12 months.
Moreover are you saying your disappointed at just about every single every other company? So far the only two who've said they will make 4th ed. product without question is Goodman and necro. Both make good products granted, but so too does GR, and Mongoose etc. etc.
I gusse its just because I started out a non-D&D role palyer and feel very little ties to the name. So a 3rd PP with the name D&D on it will not sell to me, but if just the name alone sells to you, the mouse god will be very happy.
Don't get me wrong. I am not disappointed with Paizo themselves. I totally understand where they're coming from with the whole GSL business. In no way am I condemning them. But I was disappointed with the choice they made, simply because it wasn't the way I was going.
If they do make 4E product I will certainly buy, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to rationalize going into the Pathfinder RPG, or buying the modules, unless I feel conversion is very doable. This sucks because Paizo makes awesome modules, as everyone here can attest to (it's why we're here).
For the most part Paizo is the only company I actually bought 3rd party product from, so their motions aren't as much on my radar. I am interested in checking out what Necromancer Games will be putting out through Paizo.
I don't deny the name has a certain attraction, since you can almost always be assured of finding a game of it. But more over, I truly feel 4E will be an improvement over 3E. If I didn't think it would be better, I wouldn't move to it.
Cheers! :)
Edit: I generally stay out of this area of the boards because I understand it isn't really for me. I noticed this thread on the front page though and thought I'd check it out. Don't want you guys to feel like I'm just over here to cause trouble. Just airing my doubts about being able to buy Pathfinder. :(
I don't equate that with the death of D&D's spirit.I think that wotc offers D&D in name only, while Paizo offers D&D in spirit.I thought they were going to do this. Then they got rid of death magic in favor of just another type of damage spell. It's too bad.
This is a game that for 25 years had a specific saving throw called out for death magic, and now it won't have any death magic. Maybe they can get rid of the dragons while they're at it; they're probably unbalanced, too.
This is a game that for 25 years had a specific saving throw called out for death magic, and now it won't have any death magic.
3e already didn't have an extra save for that. Does that mean 3e wasn't D&D, either?
Maybe they can get rid of the dragons while they're at it; they're probably unbalanced, too.
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. It's a (not that large) number of spells that are affected here, not necessarily a cornerstone of the game. And it's so easy to houserule it back in. (And I wouldn't say that it's clear that real death spells are gone for good yet.)
And I have to say I can see where they're coming from with their reason behind this decision. I'm not quite sure yet that I agree, but the decision feels like something they did because they thought was right. And if the outcry over this is big enough, they'll change it back, of this I'm sure.
Not sure what to say about this, as I can see Paizo still making 4th products.
Somewhere in time. Right now, they have their hands full with Pathfinder, which cannot be 4e unless wizards changes thair ludicrous GSL so they can.
Also your disappointment should be directed at WOTC, they and the mouse god, did not come out with a GSL in Jan, when they were supposed to.
I'm not even quite sure whether they announced the PFRPG because of some deadline they were crossing. It's not that unlikely that they didn't like what was known about the GSL at the time, or the 4e rules themselves, or both.
I gusse its just because I started out a non-D&D role palyer and feel very little ties to the name. So a 3rd PP with the name D&D on it will not sell to me
I got into RPG because of a D&D computer game, I started with D&D, and something like 99% of my roleplaying is done with D&D. And I'm not tied to the name. I'm tied to the game. wotc has the name, Paizo the game.
As for expectations though, I have been disappointed by Paizo before ... I was disappointed when they decided to produce Pathfinder RPG instead of switching to 4E.
That's not really the kind of disappointement I mean: They never made anything I bought and then thought "what the hell did I waste my money on now?" I can't think of any decision or announcement from Paizo that made me think "those bastards".
And, to nitpick: They were practically forced to ignore 4e. wotc made that decision for them. It actually was wotc that disappointed you there.
|
I just love hearing the people that say stuff like 'Paizo makes the best stuff in the industry' and then state how sad they are that they won't be buying more Paizo stuff because they would rather buy the game that the 'inferior' company is making. It's like saying that you would rather trust a lesser company to make something for you than to have a tried, true, and trusted company make something for you.
Pathfinder is the beginning. An expansion/version of a game that was well-loved but had flaws that are being addressed. If and when this move proves to be a good one I wouldn't be surprised to see Paizo make a move that makes them the industry leader (looking in the future a bit here), and if, for some reason, they get the chance to buy up the D&D name then the game will be where it belongs. If not then D&D will still live on as Pathfinder. If I bought the 'Ben & Jerry's' and slapped together some ice cream it wouldn't be 'Ben and Jerry's' anymore. The dude that left the company with the recipes and started up 'Iced Amore' is the one who is really making 'Ben and Jerry's'. That is how I feel Paizo is.....They have the recipe. WotC has the name.
And what's in a name. (yeah, I know Smart asses, brand recognition.)
I'm gonna go grab a pint of Paizo.
I'm gonna go grab a pint of Paizo.
Pour me one would ya? :D
Wow, thank you very much for these comments. I definitely do not have the time to painstakingly reply to everyone who responded to my plea, but I am now thinking of purchasing Paizo products once more.
Right now, I'm still pretty damned excited for 4th edition, but, I believe I am going to try and get the best out of both systems, and see where I get from there.
As for adventures, I am pretty sure I am going to start purchasing them once more and pick the golden fluff from them and happily beat them with a stick until they fit my 4th edition needs.
Thank you for returning a lost customer to Paizo,
Anaxxius
I'm gonna go grab a pint of Paizo.Pour me one would ya? :D
Amen!
I think that wotc offers D&D in name only, while Paizo offers D&D in spirit.I thought they were going to do this. Then they got rid of death magic in favor of just another type of damage spell. It's too bad.
I agree on that. On both!
As a corebook-only player and gm, alpha #3 holds a lot of cool optional rules that will fix and improve my 3.5e games (three words: C! M! B!), but feels very different in many aspects rule-wise. Too much fancy stuf like rogue magic, rage powers, new domains, school powers and such for my taste.
But in addition to the alphas, I read through the player handouts for the APs, looked at the artworks in the blogs (you guys still need an art gallery), and got my hands on some recent issues of Dragon and Dungeon, and I really have to say it all catches the old D&D spirit very well! the North box and Volo's Guides were the stuff that really hooked me on D&D and when I remember back, the corebooks "felt" very different when I first got them, compared to publications of the past few years. though the rules were great improvements, the feeling of D&D begann to change noticeably with 3.5e and though there was a lot of cool and awsome, it all shifted towards "Fantasy X-Men", and even more so with Nine Swords, PHB2, FC1&2, Complete Mage, and stuff. Mostly very cool, but they all seem to drift further away from the "classical" approach to D&D, which was taken two steps further with 4th Ed.
I'm not really sure, I'll ever buy the PF basic book (beta-pdf should be enough for me), but I'm really thrilled about the posibilities of a Monster Compendium, gm-advice books, and stuff like that. ^^
Wow, thank you very much for these comments. I definitely do not have the time to painstakingly reply to everyone who responded to my plea, but I am now thinking of purchasing Paizo products once more.
Do that. Definetly do.
In fact, even if you went to the doctor tomorrow and he'd tell you that you're fatally allergic to 3e rules, and the wizard thought police would crack down on anyone who dares converting Pathfinder Modules and Adventure Paths to 4e, you still have Pathfinder Chronicles, the campaign setting.
The books I read so far (Gazetteer, Classic Monsters Revisited and the Guide to Korvosa) have been very rules light (Gazetteer has one rule variant for every base class and provides the basic 3e cleric needs for the gods; Guide to Korvosa has an appendix with some 3e stuff, like random encounters, a feat, a sample NPC and some level breakdowns for notable NPCs; and Classic Monsters Revisited has the stats for the monsters added for our convenience - one page per monster - as well as a couple of feats and one weapon)
I guess most Chronicles and Companion books will follow that example. The only thing that will probably have a bit more rules stuff will be the Campaign Setting, and even then, I doubt it will be more than 10% of the book (probably less), and most of it will be unadulterated fluff.
It should be possible to use that campaign setting with 4e (even though you'll have to come up with a lot of rules stuff of your own, most notably the races, since 4e races will probably not fit Pathfinder, and they will have a lot of stuff to change, since they gain abilities for many levels)
Right now, I'm still pretty damned excited for 4th edition, but, I believe I am going to try and get the best out of both systems, and see where I get from there.
Well, be sure to grab the Beta PDF in August. It's free. It will not be the finished thing, of course, but still, you'll see where PF-RPG is going, and whether you want to play that. Even if you find out it's not for you, it's a lot cheaper than the 4e core rules.
The best way to try something before buying is when you can get it for free first!
Too much fancy stuf like rogue magic, rage powers, new domains, school powers and such for my taste.
Rogue magic is a big term for such a small thing - it's three abilities on a list of thigns to choose from. They fit the roguish image (they already were able to play hedge mage with use magic device), and if you don't like it, you don't even have to house rule anything to get rid of them: you just don't choose them.
Rage powers are a nice touch, I'd say. Elemental Rage still must go (and be replaced by something else, like Vicious Rage or something), but mostly these are like Rage feats, except they're built into the class (since no one else could use them, anyway, since only barbarians get rage). If you don't like them, you just ignore them (which will probably mean that you can rage all the time)
The Domains and School powers are another thing I greatly appreciate. Let's face it: bonus spells are boring. I already get them for high int/wis/cha. Extra stuff like Energy Ray and the like are nice. Did you notice that they also fixed the divine necromancer problem? (I refer to the fact that necromancers in 3e are worse necromancers than clerics.)
And the amazing part is that they still handle quite well in regards to 3.5e modules: Next saturday, my players are going up against Barl Breakbones in The Hook Mountain Massacre. Barl's a Necromancer.
I remembered that I'd have to think of alpha conversions for him, so I looked at the necromancy shool in alpha. I hardly have to change anything, since he already learned the spells the domains grant. I'll just have to remember that he can use ray of enfeeblement several more times, and that he can make grave touch attack (which is not really an option - he'll just beat them into a fine paste with his earthbreaker)
But in addition to the alphas, I read through the player handouts for the APs, looked at the artworks in the blogs (you guys still need an art gallery), and got my hands on some recent issues of Dragon and Dungeon, and I really have to say it all catches the old D&D spirit very well!
Oh yes, they do. Pathfinder fairly screams D&D, and that scream is carried to your ears by a fresh wind!
Spot on about the art gallery. If only the lazy bums at paizo wouldn't sleep. :D
I'm not really sure, I'll ever buy the PF basic book (beta-pdf should be enough for me), but I'm really thrilled about the posibilities of a Monster Compendium, gm-advice books, and stuff like that. ^^
There will probably be a monster book (since the 3.5e Monster book will have to be replaced), but note that the PF RPG book will take over the job of both PHB and DMG.
I just love hearing the people that say stuff like 'Paizo makes the best stuff in the industry' and then state how sad they are that they won't be buying more Paizo stuff because they would rather buy the game that the 'inferior' company is making. It's like saying that you would rather trust a lesser company to make something for you than to have a tried, true, and trusted company make something for you.
Pathfinder is the beginning. An expansion/version of a game that was well-loved but had flaws that are being addressed. If and when this move proves to be a good one I wouldn't be surprised to see Paizo make a move that makes them the industry leader (looking in the future a bit here), and if, for some reason, they get the chance to buy up the D&D name then the game will be where it belongs. If not then D&D will still live on as Pathfinder. If I bought the 'Ben & Jerry's' and slapped together some ice cream it wouldn't be 'Ben and Jerry's' anymore. The dude that left the company with the recipes and started up 'Iced Amore' is the one who is really making 'Ben and Jerry's'. That is how I feel Paizo is.....They have the recipe. WotC has the name.
And what's in a name. (yeah, I know Smart asses, brand recognition.)I'm gonna go grab a pint of Paizo.
Well I've said this before but I hate to rain on your parade but Hasbro will never ever give up the name D&D. They wanted it because they found out that RPGers grew big and imporatant in the 1990's. I doubt if they even knew that there was one then one. Rifts what? Shadowrun who? Vampire the huh? If 4th fails, say only selling 600K instead of two million in three years, they will end the game but keep the name becuase it is the name. The mouse god will tear apart Pirates of the Carabian ride and make it into the D&D ride.
We can see this with a lot of 4th edition already. I'll put money down that if you could "shadowrun" WotC files you'd finde memos like this:
"The mouse God feels that Tolken knew nothing about fantasy. We want none of the players to ever die, and be perfectly fine in the morning. That's how we do it at the mouse."
Sorry but the name is dead and gone no matter what happens. Hasbro will buy Piazo before Piazo buys the name.
Please don't think I'm attacking you. I agree with the spirt of what you're saying. And while not a D&D loyalist, I am becomeing loyal to Paizo as a company. So in a perfect wourld and I think all our collective dreams you'd be right. Sadly I thing 5th ed. coming in 2012 on the heels of 4.5 in 2010 wil only be a computer online game.
After all the memo coming next Jan. at WotC will say...
"The Mouse God has found out that Tolken spent all his free time playing video games you know..."
And the young players will follow without question.
Still, count me in for a drink,
Sadly I thing 5th ed. coming in 2012 on the heels of 4.5 in 2010 wil only be a computer online game.
After all the memo coming next Jan. at WotC will say...
"The Mouse God has found out that Tolken spent all his free time playing video games you know..."
And the young players will follow without question.
Disagree with the last sentence. In fact, I think that with the MMORPification of 4e they might have dug their own grave.
wizards has nothing on Activision Blizzard when it comes to computer games. They seem to think that if they make D&D more like WoW, they'll draw away the fans by the million. I think it will be the other way around. They will see the new D&D and go: "Wait, so this game is all with books and such, and some cobbled-together computer game where you have to roll your own dice or something and buy the enemies piecemeal, and all with inferiour sounds and graphics? BEEP that, I'll go play WoW."
It seems that instead of emphasising D&D's strength, like versatility and virtually complete freedom, they force themselves into a comparison they can only lose.
As for 5e being a game only: There already was a D&D MMORPG, and that wasn't exactly a big success. I doubt that the next one will be able to take on WoW (or its successor), either. Not by a long shot.
Seems that wizards, being the big 800lb gorilla in the P&P cage, think they can strut into the MMORPG ring and be the same there, when, in fact, they're just an aye-aye compared to Activision Blizzard.
3e already didn't have an extra save for that. Does that mean 3e wasn't D&D, either?
This is a game that for 25 years had a specific saving throw called out for death magic, and now it won't have any death magic.
The saving throw itself was not the item of consequence. The existence of the saving throw for death magic was evidence that death magic was an important aspect of the game. It was an implicit declaration that death magic is important enough to D&D that, if it can't be lumped in with spells, well, it's still worth keeping, even at the expense of complexity.
Maybe they can get rid of the dragons while they're at it; they're probably unbalanced, too.I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. It's a (not that large) number of spells that are affected here, not necessarily a cornerstone of the game.
Not a cornerstone, no, but a foundation stone nontheless.
(And I wouldn't say that it's clear that real death spells are gone for good yet.)
We've been told by the designer that it's bad for the game and not fun. Maybe he'll be reined in by others, but it's pretty clear what his intentions are.
|
|
I think there will be folks who don't like PFRPG no matter what they do with it. For those folks, I think they should give it a chance. Play with the rules at your game tables before you write off what they are doing. Most of the criticism I am seeing in this thread of the PFRPG comes from those who have read the rules, don't like something they see, and feel the need to complain about it before they have even tried playing the game with it. There is nothing wrong with not liking things about the game, but at least try it before you bash the heck out of it.
The saving throw vs. death magic as an argument about why death magic MUST be included in PFRPG is pretty flimsy. Assuming that the presence of a saving throw in 2nd edition is evidence of death magic as a foundational element of D&D is guilty of Post Hoc fallicy. Correlation does not imply causation. Its like saying that since there was a cartoon in the 2nd edition DMG that showed a guy with a wand looking stick with a hand on it, and said it was either to cast the Bigby's hands spells or it was a +5 backscratcher, that therefore magical Backscratchers are a foundational element of D&D and a critical element of any iteration of the PFRPG.
I want the developers to make the decisions that make the game the funnest possible for the most people so that the game is viable. Death magic is not THAT important to the D&D game. If they were removing the Cleric class altogether, or doing away with magic in favor of a technology based system then those are CRITICAL elements of the game that need to be kept.
I think too many folks are expecting PFRPG to be basically a custom made print version of their own house rules complete with their favorite art. The goal of the playtest isn't to find out which one of the 150 house rule sets floating around gets to be THE system for the rest of us. It is to test the tweaks the Paizo folks (who have way more experience in publishing, writing, and making these games than most of us ever will) have made to the game to make it better or more playable than 3.5. The key word is PLAYTEST. If you aren't playtesting it, then you are just complaining that they aren't making the game tailored to your own individual tastes. There is nothing wrong with feeling that way, but it isn't constructive at all. There is no way they can make the rules fit in every minute detail to the visions of every poster on these forums. They have to do what has the broadest appeal to the most people.
The sense of entitlement some feel when it comes to PFRPG being whatever they think it should is absurd. I want as many people as possible to love and play this game. I think it is awesome and can't wait to get a print copy in my hands. I know folks that don't like it as much but are at least giving it a chance. I have read some comments on here where someone either wants PFRPG to be 4th edition (which makes no sense because if that is what they want they can just play 4th edition instead of expecting PFRPG to be identical to it) or they want Jason to call them at home and take dictation on the changes they want. Its silly.
Playtest the alpha. Playtest the beta. Contribute in a way that helps instead of whining insessantly about every little minutia that you want that isn't there. The community, the game, and Jason's sanity will all be better for it.
I think there will be folks who don't like PFRPG no matter what they do with it. For those folks, I think they should give it a chance.
I'm perfectly willing to give new things a try. But finger of destruction was published by Monte Cook years ago; I've already given it a chance and found it wanting. May I criticize it now, sir?
|
|
I think there will be folks who don't like PFRPG no matter what they do with it. For those folks, I think they should give it a chance.I'm perfectly willing to give new things a try. But finger of destruction was published by Monte Cook years ago; I've already given it a chance and found it wanting. May I criticize it now, sir?
Whether it was written by Monte Cook or Jesus Shuttlesworth isn't the point. You sound like a kid that doesn't want to eat their brocholli. "I already tried some and its gross!!!". In what way have you found it wanting? At 13th level it either does 130 pts of damage or 3d6+13 on a successful save. Sounds like a pretty good 7th level spell to me. The problem with this being a save or die effect (as is the case with all such spells in 3.5) is that if you spam it enough eventually someone will fail the save no matter how strong they are. Even with a +55 Fort save, this spell will kill ANYTHING 5% of the time. That is overpowered. It could be argued as THE most powerful 7th level spell in 3.5 after Limited Wish. Having the effect confined to HP insures that a 13th level party doesn't happen upon an elder great wyrm red dragon and then due to one unlucky dice roll end up killing the thing with a single spell. Even Power Word Kill (a 9th level spell) has an HP limit on what it can effect (only creatures below 100 hp), and it is a full 2 levels higher than Finger of Death.
Coincidentally, invoking Monte Cook's name like some sort of holy grail doesn't strengthen your argument. The only rationale you have given for why death magic should exist is "it did before, so clearly the designers felt it was at the core of all D&D design principles". Answering by vaguely saying "it is wanting" reaks of fear of the real argument. Essentially you are avoiding the actual question because you can't answer it. Simply repeating "It is important, because I think the new version STINKS" over and over again will not win you the debate. You need to bring more concrete evidence of your claim. Everything you have stated is circumstantial or of the personal opinion variety. In that instance, majority opinion trumps individual opinion. More have posted in favor of the change than against it ergo majority opinion rules. To sway majority opinion in your favor you need to have a more clear reasoning than "I WANT IT!!!".
Well for my two Coppers Save vs. death magic should be in the game for the simple reason that I think any good rpg death should not only be a real posiblity, but one in which happens, well I was going to say often, but maybe thats too much. I should be something to keep the game on edge at all times. One of the only real crit. of 4th's mechanics I've had is that it simply too hard to die. Pathfinder is toying with going down this road but at lest in that case I can house rule it out and still use my only stuff easily enough.
It may not be a foundation of the game (tough having never really played 1st, or 2nd, I cannot make an educated comment) but it seems important enough to give Pathfinder an edge. I mean heck when you get down to it D&D type of adventures really do reek havoic on the local enviorment. If it were real goblins would be an endangered spices and the death of one dragon as top predator would have a domino effect on the world. So why not put advantures on the endagerd spices list as well.
|
|
Pathfinder is the beginning. An expansion/version of a game that was well-loved but had flaws that are being addressed. If and when this move proves to be a good one I wouldn't be surprised to see Paizo make a move that makes them the industry leader (looking in the future a bit here), and if, for some reason, they get the chance to buy up the D&D name then the game will be where it belongs.
Perhaps D&D will never leave the grip of Hasbro for it is too symbolic and can always be used in some lesser context (a silly board game), but if it is to become something called Pathfinder, I will be loyal to it even if it is renamed "Paizo's Smurf Poop".
Cheers,
Zuxius
The saving throw itself was not the item of consequence. The existence of the saving throw for death magic was evidence that death magic was an important aspect of the game.
I don't put too much stock in that, as the old saving throw categories were weird, anyway.
If my information is correct, the categories were:
That would mean that breath weapons are as important as spells, that petrify and polymorph comes up about as often as effects from majick sticks.
I could use the same reasoning to claim that spellcasters should use poison or death magic as often as polymorph as often as other spells. And Then there has to be as many dragons and stuff around as those.
First Level encounter:
Wizard 1 with burning hands
Dragon
Death Priest
Rogue with paralysing poison.
Doesn't make much sense.
We've been told by the designer that it's bad for the game and not fun. Maybe he'll be reined in by others, but it's pretty clear what his intentions are.
You make him sound like a wizards employee: "We hear that you're upset with the changes, but they stay, no get lost" (which was the response to the general uproar about the FR changes).
He's not. Jason listens to people. Take a look at skills. He implemented a Saga/4e-Like skill system, people complained, he disappeared it.
I think that if enough people want their death magic back, they'll get it back. Of course, it has to be more people than those who welcome this change.
And in the end, this one's simplicity itself: Just say that [death] spells actually kill people. There. I just explained the length and breadth of the necessary house rules. The descriptor is still there. And I bet it wouldn't even be a houserule, as it will be in the book as an official variant for "deadlier games" (another will probably be the double crit = death variant)
It's not one of those "easy" changes people are only claiming are easy to implement but which are actually a great hustle. It literally consist of a single sentence.
IAnd in the end, this one's simplicity itself: Just say that [death] spells actually kill people. There. I just explained the length and breadth of the necessary house rules. The descriptor is still there. And I bet it wouldn't even be a houserule, as it will be in the book as an official variant for "deadlier games" (another will probably be the double crit = death variant)
Wait, I haven't had a chance to look over Alpha 3 yet, lest not closely. So let me get this stright, Death spells don't automaticaly kill people (bad idea)but they've kept the descriptor in the spell. If you are correct then yeah, just house rule it that it really actually kills. First house rule for Pathfinder I'd put in. Thats not a major breaking deal though I still don't like death magic that isn't eh 'death'. And if true Jason did this intentialilly to make it easy for it to be house ruled and easy to make death death. Though I am a bit surprised because they have come out with the Crit-hit deck of cards and a lot of things in that kill (if am not mistaken).
|
|
Wait, I haven't had a chance to look over Alpha 3 yet, lest not closely. So let me get this stright, Death spells don't automaticaly kill people (bad idea)but they've kept the descriptor in the spell. If you are correct then yeah, just house rule it that it really actually kills. First house rule for Pathfinder I'd put in. Thats not a major breaking deal though I still don't like death magic that isn't eh 'death'. And if true Jason did this intentialilly to make it easy for it to be house ruled and easy to make death death. Though I am a bit surprised because they have come out with the Crit-hit deck of cards and a lot of things in that kill (if am not mistaken).
Actually I believe there was only one insta-kill effect in the deck, but could be wrong.
|
|
Actually I believe there was only one insta-kill effect in the deck, but could be wrong.
Wait, I haven't had a chance to look over Alpha 3 yet, lest not closely. So let me get this stright, Death spells don't automaticaly kill people (bad idea)but they've kept the descriptor in the spell. If you are correct then yeah, just house rule it that it really actually kills. First house rule for Pathfinder I'd put in. Thats not a major breaking deal though I still don't like death magic that isn't eh 'death'. And if true Jason did this intentialilly to make it easy for it to be house ruled and easy to make death death. Though I am a bit surprised because they have come out with the Crit-hit deck of cards and a lot of things in that kill (if am not mistaken).
Correct, 1 effect for each damage type per deck is an insta-kill (I think there is a save though, but I just ignore that in the name of fun.).
My bad, don't have it yet, but I saw a group usng it.