I think the Shackled City hardcover is the greatest product ever released. I just want matching books for the other Dungeon APs. :)
Hmm, sounds like a Lulu project for me...
I have someone's SCAP right now. I don't think he ever plans to run it. I might try to buy it off of him, and convert it to PF.
Every time we try to run it life interferes. He is not too keen on the idea of high level conversions anyway.
I think the Shackled City hardcover is the greatest product ever released. I just want matching books for the other Dungeon APs. :)
Hmm, sounds like a Lulu project for me...
This site is not bad either, and I think they are generally cheaper than lulu. They can't put the pdf together for you though. I combined several pdfs on lulu and then downloaded them back to my pc, and I plan to let printme do the bookmaking for me on day.
I'd be making the PDF myself, so that's not a problem. I just need to find out the legality of putting Dungeon magazine scans together and having a PoD service make a book for me. Maybe Vic knows. Google is not being helpful.
I started a project like this last year with the Age of Worms AP. I have all of the physical issues of the AP in Dungeon Magazine but I didn't want to go through scanning all of them in so I bought the corresponding PDFs for the issues. Then I extracted each part of the AP from it's respective issue and then built a joined the issues together from beginning to end. I also attached the Age of Worms Overload web enhancement to th beginning of the document. I'd like to eventually buy the corresponding Dragon Magazine articles and attach those as well. When it's done I'll probably print the whole thing out on good quality paper and in color and send it off to get hardbound.
With the Savage Tide AP I have no choice but to scan the last half of the AP in as it's not available as a PDF...
|
I think the Shackled City hardcover is the greatest product ever released. I just want matching books for the other Dungeon APs. :)
Hmm, sounds like a Lulu project for me...
I have someone's SCAP right now. I don't think he ever plans to run it. I might try to buy it off of him, and convert it to PF.
Every time we try to run it life interferes. He is not too keen on the idea of high level conversions anyway.
Converting a 20 level AP is an enormous pain in the neck. I did it for age of worms. I have a notebook full of converted npc's. Just converting kyuss took me the better part of four hours. And dragotha too. Just to have my pf characters lvl 20 kill them, dragotha in 2 rounds and kyuss in 3.
|
And more than just rules divides them. Design philosophy divides them. I dont think you could actually make the adventures Paizo makes using the 4E rules. The two just don't go together. 4E is all about set piece combats. Just see their adventures. Its so true they even changed the format of how they publish and present adventures. Gone is story and character and development and anything not related to the game table.I... really have to disagree here. PF and 4E both have their strengths and weaknesses. But it is really disappointing to see an industry figure championing these miconceptions that 4E has nothing to do with story or character development. Sure, some folks run it that way - just like has happened with every edition. Every now and then, folks like a mindless dungeon delve. And sure, many early 4E adventures were... not that great. And it does use the delve format... though I seem to recall that was developed in 3.5, prior to 4E, and certainly isn't a required format for 4E adventures.
In the end, the game still has story and characters still have personalities. Adventures are still about more than just combat. It is there in the core rulebooks, and only more emphasized in recent products. Many folks have run 4E campaigns that are heavy on the story and plot and characters. Scott has directly shown that you can convert Paizo APs to 4E and preserve all the core elements. And WotC has had a good number of recent adventures that offer plenty in the way of RP.
I get preferring one game over another - that's everyone's choice, and everyone should play what they enjoy! And I don't think there is anything wrong with Paizo not producing 4E material - they have their core product and it just makes sense for them to focus on supporting it.
But tossing out claims like, "These games have different philosophies, in that 4E doesn't support story or character development at all"... sorry, Clark, but that is edition-warring.
*opens Marauders of the Dune Sea*
*opens a random Paizo AP adventure*
Hmmm....
...tossing out claims like, "These games have different philosophies, in that 4E doesn't support story or character development at all"... sorry, Clark, but that is edition-warring.
Sho 'nuff.
|
And more than just rules divides them. Design philosophy divides them. I dont think you could actually make the adventures Paizo makes using the 4E rules. The two just don't go together. 4E is all about set piece combats. Just see their adventures. Its so true they even changed the format of how they publish and present adventures. Gone is story and character and development and anything not related to the game table.I... really have to disagree here. PF and 4E both have their strengths and weaknesses. But it is really disappointing to see an industry figure championing these miconceptions that 4E has nothing to do with story or character development. Sure, some folks run it that way - just like has happened with every edition. Every now and then, folks like a mindless dungeon delve. And sure, many early 4E adventures were... not that great. And it does use the delve format... though I seem to recall that was developed in 3.5, prior to 4E, and certainly isn't a required format for 4E adventures.
In the end, the game still has story and characters still have personalities. Adventures are still about more than just combat. It is there in the core rulebooks, and only more emphasized in recent products. Many folks have run 4E campaigns that are heavy on the story and plot and characters. Scott has directly shown that you can convert Paizo APs to 4E and preserve all the core elements. And WotC has had a good number of recent adventures that offer plenty in the way of RP.
I get preferring one game over another - that's everyone's choice, and everyone should play what they enjoy! And I don't think there is anything wrong with Paizo not producing 4E material - they have their core product and it just makes sense for them to focus on supporting it.
But tossing out claims like, "These games have different philosophies, in that 4E doesn't support story or character development at all"... sorry, Clark, but that is edition-warring.
I must confess to being somewhat irritated by Clark's comments. I thank him for taking the time but what he wrote does not accord with my experience of playing 4e.
I think it is fair to say that PF adventures are generally (but not always) better than 4e adventures - but then, adventure writing is anyway recognised as Paizo's core competency, which was rather carelessly devalued, outsourced and then dispensed with by a short-sighted WotC. I think comparing a PF AP adventure, however, to a 4e adventure is missing the point: the 4e adventures are almost all stand-alone adventures whereas the AP, clearly, are not. A lot of the PF stand-alone adventures, on the other hand, have no more to do with character development than a typical 4e, and that is the nature of the beast (and haven been criticised as such - see reviews for Ebon Destroyers on this website, for example).
As for the delve format, it pre-dated 4e - the last tranche of official WotC 3e adventures all had it. Personally, I really don't like it, but it is intended as an aid to the DM while running combats, but that doesn't mean that that is all there is an 4e adventures.
|
Converting a 20 level AP is an enormous pain in the neck. I did it for age of worms. I have a notebook full of converted npc's. Just converting kyuss took me the better part of four hours. And dragotha too. Just to have my pf characters lvl 20 kill them, dragotha in 2 rounds and kyuss in 3.
Running a 20 level AP is an enormous pain in the neck, long before you convert anything.
I've found myself with a lot less free time than I expected, and I'd love to see your conversions.
Would it be possible to drop me a mail (address listed on my main, not-secret-GM profile), or are you on Facebook, etc?
In Dungeon, last month we had Force of Nature (which has vaguely Mononoke vibes as a sovereign elk, an Archfey colossus, rampages loose from the feywild and the PCs must find out how to stop it. Here's a hint - it isn't by simply hitting it a bunch.)
The first thing that I thought when I read through that adventure was "Huh, this looks a lot like a Paizo module." It's an excellent showcase of what 4e can do outside the traditional hack-and-slash.
Which ones should I check out?There are also several 4E adventures of a much higher quality, and ones with plenty of focus on the story and the characters.
IMO P2 Demon Queen's Enclave is the best official adventure for 4E.
|
I play 4E, and I've been a DDI subscriber since the beginning. I've been very unimpressed with their adventures, and that's one of the reasons that I've started looking elsewhere- not exclusively, but I definitely enjoy PFRPG and their adventures so far.
For 4E, the best adventure I've seen is Courts of the Shadow Fey, particularly if you want the adventure to encourage role-playing.
I thought you're just into plants, but it seems like 10-foot long sticks are also your fancy... *shakes head*Look at my avatar. There lies the answer to your question, Leafy Face.<Sigh>
You're lucky that I seem to have a natural liking for Poles.
** spoiler omitted **
He's a pervy pole fancier!
There have been bad adventures written and run for every edition.
Show us a bad PF adventure or be branded a liar. :P
I've seen the format they use for 4E adventures, and while it doesn't exclude rping, it certainly doesn't encourage it. Ultimately that is where the difference comes in between 4E and Pathfinder adventures. 4E presents discrete locations with the mechanics of the NPCs often being put in a different part of adventure, so if the players go off track, it can be a challenge to track the information down. Pathfinder is much more non-linear in their APs from what I have seen, presenting an entire area, putting all related material together as much as possible, so DMs don't have to hunt for it as much, allowing the players to wander around the entire area in whatever order they want with less headache to the DM. Even the stand alone adventures are very easy for a DM to read and move around in when the players don't follow the path the developers expected.
Ultimately, the systems themselves are actually surprisingly compatible. Where the difference appear is how those systems are presented and laid out for both players and DMs alike. Neither is better or worse, they are just very, very different. This difference is presentation is severe enough that it would probably be possible to make an adventure that could be used in both systems, but it would be very hard to present in a manner that made any sense to anybody other than the person who wrote it.
I agree that current 4E adventure format is lacking, but that is not the fault of the system, but those writing the adventures. I can only assume that the push to simplify the system distracted the developers, and they forget about the rich heritage of adventures that preceded 4E. The same could be said in regards to rituals, martial practices, etc. But I have made the statement before that all the tools were in place for 4E, but somehow the train jumped the tracks.
I agree that current 4E adventure format is lacking, but that is not the fault of the system, but those writing the adventures. I can only assume that the push to simplify the system distracted the developers, and they forget about the rich heritage of adventures that preceded 4E. The same could be said in regards to rituals, martial practices, etc. But I have made the statement before that all the tools were in place for 4E, but somehow the train jumped the tracks.
I agree; that is why I focused on the presentation aspect. WoTC has forgotten that presentation matters and it has hurt all aspects of 4E.
|
|
Converting a 20 level AP is an enormous pain in the neck. I did it for age of worms. I have a notebook full of converted npc's. Just converting kyuss took me the better part of four hours. And dragotha too. Just to have my pf characters lvl 20 kill them, dragotha in 2 rounds and kyuss in 3.Running a 20 level AP is an enormous pain in the neck, long before you convert anything.
I've found myself with a lot less free time than I expected, and I'd love to see your conversions.
Would it be possible to drop me a mail (address listed on my main, not-secret-GM profile), or are you on Facebook, etc?
It is pretty much the same as the old ones, just maybe a HD or so more and a LOT more feats per creature. Also most npcs have several levels more then in AOW. I could scant the thing maybe.
You can find me on facebook if you want.My real name is in my profile, and my avatar is a texture for the creeper in minecraft (green thing with black eyes and a sad mouth)
I've seen the format they use for 4E adventures, and while it doesn't exclude rping, it certainly doesn't encourage it. Ultimately that is where the difference comes in between 4E and Pathfinder adventures. 4E presents discrete locations with the mechanics of the NPCs often being put in a different part of adventure, so if the players go off track, it can be a challenge to track the information down. Pathfinder is much more non-linear in their APs from what I have seen, presenting an entire area, putting all related material together as much as possible, so DMs don't have to hunt for it as much, allowing the players to wander around the entire area in whatever order they want with less headache to the DM. Even the stand alone adventures are very easy for a DM to read and move around in when the players don't follow the path the developers expected.
I don't really think the flaw in the presentation is the fact that it can, and sometimes is, split up. Often when its split that can, at least potentially, be a good thing. I mean they split their back ground and plot material off from the combat material and it can make the system easier to use in terms of the non-combat elements simply because you have a lot less to read through to find the relevant information if you don't have to wade through the combat stats and tactics.
That said I do see a flaw with the Delve in the sense that by including monster encounters with set monster starting locations etc. you create a this strong tendency to try and have encounters that really are static - the inhabitants 'activate' when the player show up. This is really not a very dynamic way of handling encounters - there are times when it really works, the BBEG in the throne room probably works well in this set piece style with detailed elements on what the combat should look like but we need to see a lot more exceptions to the rule here.
All that said, as has been mentioned, this is all about layout choices. Its an excellent way of handling an adventure so that the DM can read over the next three encounters and be ready to game with literally 20 minutes prep time...I just wish they would keep the exclusive use of the format to side treks and a few other adventures where DM ease of use is the selling point. Using it in something like an AP or a story heavy adventure is using a square peg on a round hole.
In any case layout is not the rules themselves, the rules themselves are actually quite good at handling large complex encounters with baddies entering and leaving as the 'budget' system for building such encounters makes it reasonably easy to gauge the difficulty of such encounters and hence balance them. When I convert Age of Worms I tend to use a mix of the two styles of layout depending on whether the encounter in question would benefit more from being handled dynamically or if this encounter is really more of a set piece type of thing.
Converting a 20 level AP is an enormous pain in the neck. I did it for age of worms. I have a notebook full of converted npc's. Just converting kyuss took me the better part of four hours. And dragotha too. Just to have my pf characters lvl 20 kill them, dragotha in 2 rounds and kyuss in 3.I think the Shackled City hardcover is the greatest product ever released. I just want matching books for the other Dungeon APs. :)
Hmm, sounds like a Lulu project for me...
I have someone's SCAP right now. I don't think he ever plans to run it. I might try to buy it off of him, and convert it to PF.
Every time we try to run it life interferes. He is not too keen on the idea of high level conversions anyway.
It took me a couple of hours for Dragotha and Kyuss also. It took me longer with Big D since I had to get him up to CR _____, and the base monster had a lower CR than it does in 3.5. It was the 2nd best boss fight I ever ran though. The first was in the second adventure of AoW. The third was was also in the 2nd adventure.
I did not convert the low level guards. What I did was convert all the bosses, and then I went back and did some of the monsters once I had the bosses done. If I ever do SCAP I will start converting the bosses and then the NPC's months in advance so all I should have to do is run it.
I ran AoW more than once, but only complete it once. The first time I did it on paper, but my notebook went missing. :( Then I did it on the pc, and I saved some of them online I need to go ahead and save the rest online so that if the HD crashes I can always get them back.
|
|
Dragotha was pretty much killed by the wizard/archmage (my brew) in under 4 rounds. Kyuss was on a good way to be destroyed [name of destrucitve artefact here], as he was on the last 1/3 of hp, but then one of the erineyes' swooped in and used a rod of cancellation on it, then kyuss cast time stop, and healed himself. No avail. Cleric cohort the anti-paladin had approached the damn thing, and used the touch of evil on him. Anitpaladin gave everybody the smite good ability, but then proceeded to kill him in a single full attack action...it was horrifying to be honest...but they loved it and had so much fun, that i consider that AP one of my successes.
Dragotha was pretty much killed by the wizard/archmage (my brew) in under 4 rounds. Kyuss was on a good way to be destroyed [name of destrucitve artefact here], as he was on the last 1/3 of hp, but then one of the erineyes' swooped in and used a rod of cancellation on it, then kyuss cast time stop, and healed himself. No avail. Cleric cohort the anti-paladin had approached the damn thing, and used the touch of evil on him. Anitpaladin gave everybody the smite good ability, but then proceeded to kill him in a single full attack action...it was horrifying to be honest...but they loved it and had so much fun, that i consider that AP one of my successes.
Dragotha almost killed the party. If he had about 20 more hp the party would have been toast.
I altered Kyuss also. I had to in order to give him a better chance. Dragotha was a harder fight before me changing things around.|
|
When I respect Clark Peterson I cannot take anything he says seriously when it comes to 4E. His constant flip-flops between liking and hating 4E were annoying to say the least to me. Second when your obviosuly trying to start an edition war by posting very subjective comments about 4E well your not going to get me interested let alone willing to buy an products from you. Why would I if your goin to trahs talk one of the rpgs I like. It's one thing for a fan to do it. Quite another when some who works in the industry does and should know better.
all good points
I tend to agree with all of this, but it doesn't change the fact that by using the Delve format for everything, it tends to encourage DMs to copy it, and thus works against the ruleset, rather than with it. That is the biggest problem with that particular format and 4E in general; for every really good idea they have for it, they have a bad one that works against some other element of the system and its presentation.
|
|
I tend to agree with all of this, but it doesn't change the fact that by using the Delve format for everything, it tends to encourage DMs to copy it, and thus works against the ruleset, rather than with it. That is the biggest problem with that particular format and 4E in general; for every really good idea they have for it, they have a bad one that works against some other element of the system and its presentation.
That is true unfortunately. They have something good yet they keep trying to make more money with it. They are not the only ones to do so mind you. Non rpg companies do the same yet it sends out confusing signals to the fanabse.
|
|
Writing for 4e would be a diversion from their core market and brand. Everything they write for Pathfinder increases the value of their Pathfinder brand. Products they publish for 4e, no matter how well written or how many they sell, don't benefit them nearly as much. I'm sure a lot of people would love to see Paizo material for 4E and would purchase it in a heartbeat, but it's a losing proposition for Paizo.
Breaking into a new market is all well and good, but not when it diffuses your brand image.
I'd love to see 4E support from Paizo, but if I were to advise them, I'd advise against it.
This makes sense to me. In a way, it's "product differentiation" from a microeconomics perspective: distinguish your "brand" (Pathfinder RPG) by making the much higher-quality adventures available only for your system, and it creates an incentive to change to your system.
A better approach, I would say, than trying to leverage your monopoly position alone. Ahem.
With the so-called "edition wars" thankfully behind us and the GSL updated (slightly), any chance Paizo will publish even a single supp, mod, or even an AP for 4e?
It would be great, but no. Personally, the majority of people who play 4e only buys Wizards' stuff. So you you are dealing with a smaller demographic -- people who play 4e who buys 3rd party stuff.
Paizo would be creating a 3rd party 4e product.
Only a small percentage of people who play 4e will buy it.
~ Sorry, man, it's not worth the investment. ~
Paizo and Wizards went their separate ways, for both to come together will take an act of God. And based on how far apart they are, that could take a long, long time. Even God is subject to Natural Law. Sorry, dude, you have to justify the investment and show a significant number of 4e players would buy that product.
|
Paizo acquiring D&D licenseNot going to happen, and Paizo would not be capable of producing it AND Pathfinder. Between the two, I think they would choose their own brand.
Agreed that it won't happen, but if it did somehow, I don't think it would have to involve them dropping the Pathfinder RPG system. In fact, I think they'd continue to use it, but add a little logo that said "Dungeons & Dragons" to the books, essentially making PF 1E become D&D 5E. I think the only real difference would be that they would be able to add WotC IP back into the game. And they'd probably put all the old PDFs back up, and publish AoW and ST hardcovers.
|
|
Agreed that it won't happen, but if it did somehow, I don't think it would have to involve them dropping the Pathfinder RPG system. In fact, I think they'd continue to use it, but add a little logo that said "Dungeons & Dragons" to the books, essentially making PF 1E become D&D 5E. I think the only real difference would be that they would be able to add WotC IP back into the game. And they'd probably put all the old PDFs back up, and publish AoW and ST hardcovers.Paizo acquiring D&D licenseNot going to happen, and Paizo would not be capable of producing it AND Pathfinder. Between the two, I think they would choose their own brand.
Which woul, arguably, be fricking awesome!
I'm glad that would probably never come to fruition. As a fan of both editions, I've come to like both for various reasons. And i'd fear if Paizo get the IP to D&D then they'd probably discontinue the 4e which would make me very very angry. With two separate, I can enjoy two different styles..
|
|
I'm glad that would probably never come to fruition. As a fan of both editions, I've come to like both for various reasons. And i'd fear if Paizo get the IP to D&D then they'd probably discontinue the 4e which would make me very very angry. With two separate, I can enjoy two different styles..
yep, same here, I find each game offers something different so I am happy to play both, just like I would play Savage Worlds and M&M.
If Paizo were to get the D&D licence (and access to the 4e rules) I would hope they would create a 5e that would be a mashup of the best bits of both :)
I'm glad that would probably never come to fruition. As a fan of both editions, I've come to like both for various reasons. And i'd fear if Paizo get the IP to D&D then they'd probably discontinue the 4e which would make me very very angry. With two separate, I can enjoy two different styles..yep, same here, I find each game offers something different so I am happy to play both, just like I would play Savage Worlds and M&M.
If Paizo were to get the D&D licence (and access to the 4e rules) I would hope they would create a 5e that would be a mashup of the best bits of both :)
And that wouldn't make anyone angry?
The ideal situation would be for Hasbro to give up the license to another company that is not Paizo. But I agree some would like to see the 4E license bought and buried. I think Paizo could handle it, but the the backlash wouldn't be worth it.
I'm glad that would probably never come to fruition. As a fan of both editions, I've come to like both for various reasons. And i'd fear if Paizo get the IP to D&D then they'd probably discontinue the 4e which would make me very very angry. With two separate, I can enjoy two different styles..yep, same here, I find each game offers something different so I am happy to play both, just like I would play Savage Worlds and M&M.
If Paizo were to get the D&D licence (and access to the 4e rules) I would hope they would create a 5e that would be a mashup of the best bits of both :)
I don't think that would easily work. Fundamentally Pathfinder, like 3.X is a rules robust system while 4E is DM fiat with guidelines.
In other words if the Volcano goes off and there is a lava flow heading for the players then, in Pathfinder, your going to be looking for the rules to handle that. Since there are likely not exact rules to cover this your going to make some rules, probably based off of the chase mechanic while using stats for lava. In 4E your going to default to the skill system and then get your numbers for the DCs from page 42.
There are other issues here as well. In the above encounter a Pathfinder GM should not worry all that much about the rules because the players will probably teleport away or take to the air. In 4E they can forget that as a viable option...run for your lives is probably the only really viable option on the table. The result is that the 4E DM puts this scene together starting with DM fiat and the skill and level guidelines but should have the details hammered out if at all possible because his players will nearly certianly need to interact with it. They can't easily get away - they are going to need to use terrain or some such to escape. Hence there are power level differences between the systems.
|
|
If Paizo were to get the D&D licence (and access to the 4e rules) I would hope they would create a 5e that would be a mashup of the best bits of both :)And that wouldn't make anyone angry?
Assuming Paizo got the D&D licence and wanted to use that brand name instead of using the Pathfinder brand, and they were going to take the opportunity to change some of the Pathfinder rules at the same time (so that D&D 5e is effectively Pathfinder 2e) then I see no reason why they shouldn't learn and possibly use some of the good mechanics that first saw print in 4e.
Now if some Paizo fans are so entrenched in their nerdrage hatred at WotC that they couldn't evaluate those mechanics on their own merits, and instead would get angry just because WotC may have influenced Paizo's work, then TBH I couldn't care, and maybe Paizo shouldn't either.
|
|
I don't think that would easily work. Fundamentally Pathfinder, like 3.X is a rules robust system while 4E is DM fiat with guidelines.
I definately think it could! All I am talking about is looking at the mechanics of 4e and incorporating the best of them into the PF rules.
I would suggest PF would be used as the base, i.e. keep the more simulationist model and "robust system", but look at some of the great things 4e did like Second Wind, Short Rests, At Will and Encounter powers etc.
Now those things shouldn't necessarily be dumped in as is, for example, I would suggest a Second Wind could restore a number of HP equal to Character level + Con Bonus, and a short rest may only be able to do double that, or add in Con score.
At Will powers could translate as magicians having one signature spell no higher than on half of their maximum spell level that they can cast at will. E.g. a 7th level wizard (capable of casting 4th level spells) could choose a second level spell that they can cast at will such as Acid Arrow or Invisibility.
Equally maybe they have another signature spell of their maximum spell level that they can cast once per encounter (i.e. needing to take a 5 minute rest to "recharge" it). E.g. that 7th level wizard could cast Dimension Door (4th level) once per encounter.
Perhaps have non magicians also gain some encounter powers - stuff they are trained to do, but that require just the right circumstances etc to pull off, meaning they only tend to work once per encounter. I would suggest not overloading PCs with too many powers, but a single signature move could be cool. Its not much more than an extension to those characters who take the Improved and Greater Trip etc feats.
Also, Paizo could take a look at Skill Challenges and learning from the experience of 4e implement a system that supports roleplaying, giving structure to complicated explorations, investigations and seductions and negotiations. This stuff is probably already being done ad hoc by PF GMs so making it an explicit tool and giving it some structure may be a good idea.
Now if some Paizo fans are so entrenched in their nerdrage hatred
Sure, everyone who disagrees is "entrenched in their nerdrage hatred".
That's one option. The other is that the idea is just staggeringly bad.
I'll go with staggeringly bad on this one.