Well as other people have said I don't think it'd happen, you're worrying over nothing.
I'm thinking in particular the concept of full, half, free and immediate actions, which exist even in the 40K RPG line now, and has become replicated in several others as well.
You could argue that Talents were inspired by feats, and if you look at the two systems wholly on a numerical level, d20 is really just blocks of 5% which is emulated nicely in the WHFRP 2e system.
For what it's worth, I actually do agree that all of these things were ripped off from d20. Although it's a little unfair - I don't think they were ripped off from d20 per se, but rather ripped off from Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, which was the hottest selling game at the time.
I've also claimed a number of times that Warhammer 2nd edition was just a repainted 3E. It's an oversimplification, yes, but it does get the Warhammer fanbois all riled up in their panties. :) So if that is, indeed, his review of WFRPG 2nd, then I agree with him.
Why would Paizo want to do that?On the official WotC forums for D&D today, I saw a thread about 5th edition speculation and someone had this to say...
"I think I will put it this way. There is a better chance that Pathfinder will change over to 4th edition version sooner than the release of 5th edition."
!!!!
Tell me this will never happen, Paizo! Tell me everything is going to be alright!
I believe the person was making a "hell will freeze over" comment, given the paizo community and developers take on 4th edition.
I'm thinking in particular the concept of full, half, free and immediate actions, which exist even in the 40K RPG line now, and has become replicated in several others as well.
You could argue that Talents were inspired by feats, and if you look at the two systems wholly on a numerical level, d20 is really just blocks of 5% which is emulated nicely in the WHFRP 2e system.
For what it's worth, I actually do agree that all of these things were ripped off from d20. Although it's a little unfair - I don't think they were ripped off from d20 per se, but rather ripped off from Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, which was the hottest selling game at the time.
I've also claimed a number of times that Warhammer 2nd edition was just a repainted 3E. It's an oversimplification, yes, but it does get the Warhammer fanbois all riled up in their panties. :) So if that is, indeed, his review of WFRPG 2nd, then I agree with him.
The simularities between the two systems are not that strong. The only thing that could truly be traced to d20 is 1/2 actions.
The percentile skill system was in Warhammer 1E from 1986, and was more likely borrowed from RuneQuest or BRP. The fact that % can be reduced to 5% increments is just a part of math.
Dividing skills and talents might have been inspired by d20, but all of those talents existed as "skills" in 1E. So calling them talents is really just an organizational change, not a real mechanical difference.
If anything d20 owes a lot to Warhammer, Talislanta, and other RPGs from the 80s and 90s that explored the rules beyond AD&D.
I'm thinking in particular the concept of full, half, free and immediate actions, which exist even in the 40K RPG line now, and has become replicated in several others as well.
You could argue that Talents were inspired by feats, and if you look at the two systems wholly on a numerical level, d20 is really just blocks of 5% which is emulated nicely in the WHFRP 2e system.
For what it's worth, I actually do agree that all of these things were ripped off from d20. Although it's a little unfair - I don't think they were ripped off from d20 per se, but rather ripped off from Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, which was the hottest selling game at the time.
I've also claimed a number of times that Warhammer 2nd edition was just a repainted 3E. It's an oversimplification, yes, but it does get the Warhammer fanbois all riled up in their panties. :) So if that is, indeed, his review of WFRPG 2nd, then I agree with him.
This is mmm...rather amusing.
With the exception of the actions, not a word of these statements makes an ounce of sense.
The action frame work was taken directly from DnD, and the designers pretty much said that was the case. Why? Because it was good design.
Talents: This was just a formalisation of a system that already existed in 1st ed. In 1st ed you just had skills, which where a broad church of changes which could be applied to a character. Now admitedly it was somewhat poorly written(but then back then many rule systems where) but even a casual reading revealed a very destinct seperation between the two types of skill. Group A, made it easier(or possible) for you apply your attributes to specific tasks related to you characters life. Group B, altered the way the character performed as an adventurer, making you tougher, making your attacks more likely to injure or giving you a sixth sense.
When second ed came around , all they did call group A skills, and group B talents. In short, WFRP was experimenting with the modern concept of feats(feats, merits, talents) more than a decade before 3.0 was released.
Advancements:
First of all, beyond the rate of incrimentation being 5%, there is basically no similarity at all between the advancement in WFRP and D20.
In D20 you earn experience, until you pass a set threshold, and then you apply a level, gaining 'all' benifits of said lvl immediately. You cannot leave a class mid-level, you cannot purchases class ablities, saves or bab from other classes, unless you take that class at your next level
In WFRP 1st and 2nd you slowly gain exp, purchasing advancements made availible by your current profession. You are able to leave a profession before it has been completed, you are also able to retain your profession and buy advancements from outside of your profession.
It is madness to claim that the advancement system is some how just a repainted version of d20s.
But lets just for the sake of argument pretend that it is. If they are the 'same system' who is really copying who? The advancement system for WFRP 2nd is almost entirely the same as that of WFRP 1st ed. Which as already pointed out, was released in 1986, while 3.0 was released in 2000.
So who's copying who again?
Advancements remained almost unchanged between 1st and 2nd edition. If your argument that the
Isn't bladesinger a fey path for warlock or something like that?
Bladesinger was an elf "kit" from 2E.
The fluff is basically that bladesingers were elf fighter/wizards that could wield a sword and cast spells one-handed. At the time, spellcasters needed both hands free to cast spells, so bladesingers were something special.
I believe bladesingers also played a special role in the Forgotten Realms and that there was a limited number of them in existence there.
I have no doubt that bladesingers date back well before then, but that's where I know them from.
So ends my limited knowledge of bladesingers :)
Isn't bladesinger a fey path for warlock or something like that?Bladesinger was an elf "kit" from 2E.
The fluff is basically that bladesingers were elf fighter/wizards that could wield a sword and cast spells one-handed. At the time, spellcasters needed both hands free to cast spells, so bladesingers were something special.
I believe bladesingers also played a special role in the Forgotten Realms and that there was a limited number of them in existence there.
I have no doubt that bladesingers date back well before then, but that's where I know them from.
So ends my limited knowledge of bladesingers :)
And it was a PrC in 3E, I was talking about the 4E and the new Neverwinter compaign, about which I the talk was when I wrote that ;)
And it was a PrC in 3E, I was talking about the 4E and the new Neverwinter compaign, about which I the talk was when I wrote that ;)Isn't bladesinger a fey path for warlock or something like that?Bladesinger was an elf "kit" from 2E.
The fluff is basically that bladesingers were elf fighter/wizards that could wield a sword and cast spells one-handed. At the time, spellcasters needed both hands free to cast spells, so bladesingers were something special.
I believe bladesingers also played a special role in the Forgotten Realms and that there was a limited number of them in existence there.
I have no doubt that bladesingers date back well before then, but that's where I know them from.
So ends my limited knowledge of bladesingers :)
Bladesingers did orignate in 2e/AD&D and were popularized in the Forgotte Realms setting. Their flavor was that of a sword-wielding mage who was good at both casting offensive magics while fighting in melee.
On Faerûn, they're considered an elite "social" class, akin to heroic defenders, of the elven communities and are greatly praised like Knights or Paladins of human communities. They fight in small, contained units or as military generals to the more martial forces of elven defenses.
They've had 2 major face-lifts in 3e/v3.5 with two distinct PrCs. The first and 3e version featureed in the Races of Faerùn book. This class was much easier to obtain but contained it's own Spellcasting list and progression, which deviated from the Prerequisite spellcasting class. The second, more up-dated version was found in the Complete Warrior supplement with much of the same prerequisites yet had the often used 5/10 spellcasting progression of many "Gish" classes. This is pretty much it's downfall since it relied so heavily on Spellcasting to make up for mediocre martial prowess. As I've seen on many Char-Ops boards, it's just more prudent to use the Eldritch Knight, Abjurant Champion, or Spellsword PrC and reflavor it to fit the Bladesinging style.
As for 4E, the only mention as of now is the Eladrin entry in the Monster Manual 2 of an Eladrin Bladesinger monster.
As for what's in-store for us with the Neverwinter Campaign Guide, I've asked one of the designers, Erik Scott de Bie, about the what the Bladesinger was going to be about. If it was an Essential version of the Swordmage or a whole new 30-level progressive class and he's yet to go in-depth about it. Just says that it's a new class, very *hush hush*.
My own hunch, espically with what's happening with the Heroes of Shadow book, that it'll be an Essential version, a Striker-style Swordmage with some Defender-ish abilities. At least, that's what I'm hoping it is.
Heh, I was working with what direction the Essentials Warlock took. Mingling melee and arcane powers. I guess that the Bladesinger will be more defender-like then with possible ability to develop into another role (as is the trend of Essentials classes Fighter being defender/striker, ranger having the ability to develop into striker or controller and so on). Although I guess with Essentials being quite disliked it may end up otherwise.
|
So who's copying who again?
I'm pretty sure I said inspired. That simple principle allows someone to see the creativity in an idea and build on, and from, the sensations it generates to come up with a new system that's shares aspect of that which it inherits from.
I'm not advocating that Warhammer 2E (which I still think is brilliant in its own way) was copying from d20, but let's be frank, if anyone thinks that during the height of the most popular version of the world's most popular, highest selling, and most recognized role playing game so far in history someone wasn't inspired in some way ... is on crack.
So who's copying who again?I'm pretty sure I said inspired. That simple principle allows someone to see the creativity in an idea and build on, and from, the sensations it generates to come up with a new system that's shares aspect of that which it inherits from.
I'm not advocating that Warhammer 2E (which I still think is brilliant in its own way) was copying from d20, but let's be frank, if anyone thinks that during the height of the most popular version of the world's most popular, highest selling, and most recognized role playing game so far in history someone wasn't inspired in some way ... is on crack.
Second ed was influenced by DnD 3.0; hell, it damned near plagerised when it comes to actios.(and i am very glad of that)
But I think on talents, that influence doesn't really go any deeper than
Developer 1: 'dude, look at these feats things, WFRP already does this'
Developer 2 'yeah, but you know we should make a clearer differentiation between the skills and talents.'