To be honest, if 4th edition was like SAGA, i would play the hell out of it. The possibility of customisation in SAGA is incredible. They should have just stuck with it. No powers, just feats, talents and spellcasting like force usage. It would have been AWESOME!
I think your under estimating the amount of customization that is now in the game considering the sheer number of splat book in play. Sure the customization does not look identical to what was found in 3.5 and there are elements that are being more clearly focused on in each system then in the other system but they both have a ton of customization.
Philosophical underpinnings shift things as well, 4E is more focused on play balance its also generally a system that rewards reactive character design while 3.5/PFs approach leans more to a 'character build'. What I mean here is, in 4E, you get a lot by making your choices when you actually level up and you tend to make those choices in reaction to how the campaign has played out so far. In 3.5/PF your more likely to start off with a long term concept and then make your choices so as to fulfill that concept. Hence in 4E your Paladin might one day be a Dragon Rider with a draconic mount but its more the story of the campaign that will determine this. In 3.5/PF you choose during the character design process at level 1 whether or not your going to realize this build or not when your 12th level. Make the correct choices here and you will be a Dragon Rider once you finish picking up the feats at around 12th level.
I think your under estimating the amount of customization that is now in the game considering the sheer number of splat book in play.
Agreed.
Race, racial options, class, class features, theme, theme powers, class powers, feat powers, feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, hybrids, multiclassing, heritages, bloodlines, weapon and armor choice, magic items, rituals/alchemy/practices, backgrounds, skills, ability scores, and I'm sure I'm missing one or two categories of optimization.
4e has over 3000 feats, over 8000 powers, and over 9000 (no, that's not a joke) magic items. Unless you're actually copying someone else, it's practically impossible to create two identical characters.
Oh, not to mention the fact that 4e has 30 levels and multiple points of customization at every single level.
4e has over 3000 feats, over 8000 powers, and over 9000 (no, that's not a joke) magic items. Unless you're actually copying someone else, it's practically impossible to create two identical characters.
Oh, not to mention the fact that 4e has 30 levels and multiple points of customization at every single level.
I think he is saying the characters feel or play the same.
I can't vouch for that anymore since I have not played 4E is over 2 years though. The new options may have made things quiet different, but without the rules available most of us have no way to find out. I understand that is a business decision on WoTC's part though. If Hama has access to recent 4E rules then I guess the feel of the game has not changed enough for him.@Hama:I also don't agree that a mashup is better, since "better" is a subjective term, and I think many current PF players would be very upset if PF went in that direction. Many 4E players would not be happy either because they don't want to have to deal with system mastery. I am not saying system mastery itself is a selling point, but the way in which you build monster and PC are different, and that is one big part of the underlying system which determines what someone wants to play or GM.
I like the fact the 4E characters are not as fragile, and clerics are not forced into healbot mode, but I don't care for much else, as an example.
I think our definitons of "required to" and "forced" are different. Your above example is very specific to prove your point and leave little wiggle room for anything else. I'm not saying that instances like the one you stated above DONT HAPPEN. What I'm saying is that that's not the only way that things go down in a fight. And in those other cases? The player of that cleric has choices to make. They arent "forced" to do anything. Two sessions ago I watched one of my players risk life and limb to get a potion to another PC who was downed when she just as easily could have downed that potion herself and taken off to a safer position. Her actions wound up saving the other PC at the cost of her PC's life.
Your right, Forced is a strong word. No one is "Forced" to do anything in D&D (besides compulsion). The wizard could sit back and just pick his teeth while battle wages for example. I used the term to justify the role of the character that's actually doing what the class is designed to do. The cleric is designed to heal. It's what he's BEST at doing and others in the group rely on that. Let me give you another example, one I had 1st hand. We were pretty high in level (16-18 range) and we were fighting quite a few monsters of comparable level. Our cleric/ur-priest started off the encounter with Time Stop. He then cast all these Buff-spells and things got off well. But when the monsters got their turns, all he did was heal or we'd have ended up dead. Heck, we even lost 3 players including the Cleric and that was after 2 Heals, Mass Cure Moderate Wounds, and Healing Circle. It might have been an encounter that was stronger than us but it illustarates the point that there comes a time when the cleric MUST heal to keep the party going.
What I'm saying is that Healing shouldn't be paramount to the cleric as a chassis of his class. It should be something he excells at, yes, but not totally overpower other options just to keep the others at the table alive. That's why I like the Second Wind ability and leader's Minor Action healing. It allows the cleric to actually do stuff OUTSIDE of healing during a round.
@Diffan....good to see you are still around. As to the cleric being forced into the healer role a couple of points.1) Just because the players expect a constant strewam of healing from the cleric is not a problem with the system but a problem with the players. I have played lots of clerics( it is one of my favorite classes) and I have told my group I am not going to heal every round...they have learned to adapt to that style.
Hey buddy, nice to see ya too! And I too have played many clerics in my day. I dare say it's one of my favorite classes. As for the party accepting my style of play, well I'm not a fan of that approach. To me, it comes down to the deity and style of the character (not myself as the player). If I'm playing a cleric of Pelor, Lathander/Amaunator, or Sarenrae you'd better believe I'm going to do my damnedest to keep my buddies alive. It's that God's Dogma, it's what they do. A cleric of Tempus, Kord, Helm, etc.. then I'll play less healing conservative and be more proactive-aggressive in my spells and build. But I know that i'll need to heal people eventually and at some point that'll be more paramount than attacking or buffing.
2) Actualy I like the tactical choice of what to do with my actions....do I heal...do I do x...or something else? It makes the game more challenging as I like it.3) Now this is a common error in people thinking healing a ally is a zero sum effect in the action economy....but really what you are doing with healing is nagating the enemies previous actions. If your fighter friend gets hit for say 23 damage in a round by three different enemies...that you come along and heal that damage did you not just negate three actions by using one action of your own? It depends on how you look at it.
Yes and no. I say yes because your negating an effect from an enemy. But I say no because reacting to enemy's attacks is a bad thing in general. When the class's mechanics center its focus on reacting to enemies actions, instead of being proactive, it's not a good mechanic. Why do you think they created Divine Metamagic (Quicken Spell), Reserve feats, and then Channel Energy for Pathfinder? It's because a cleric would rather spend his turn directly (as opposed to indirectly) assisting the party in overcoming the encounter.
|
If anybody wonders what the "other side" feels about this...
Yeah, I didn't need to do more than just scan that Pathfinder review to realise that the poster is, putting it mildly, biased :)
However, I agree with RedJack and the others that I am not sure posting that link is going to help this thread, or do anything to make the 4e fans among us to feel welcome.
I admit the first blog article you linked was relevant as it talked about this very thread. Personally, I agree with his underlying point re 4e not having anything intrinsic to its design that would stop Paizo writing some really good scenarios for it, I just don't agree with the exact manner of expression.
|
Well, as of first, they would have to become intimately familiar with the system which would take months, months of time they can better spend by making stuff for Pathfinder, you know, the stuff that gets them the next paycheck.
As of second, i do not think it is a matter of the rules that is the problem in Paizo never making anything for 4edition. It is a matter of principal. And i for one support them in their decision. They were making some awesome stuff and had two magazines going for them, and them for the WOTC to yank that away without warning or explanation, sorry, no thanks. If my ex-boss called me back to work for him, after firing me because he felt like it, i would tell him to go f**k himself with a tire iron.
And as 4e fans feeling welcome, i hate this part of myself, but it is still there, and it doesn't want them to fell welcome. I am trying to supress it, but sometimes it resurfaces.
|
If anybody wonders what the "other side" feels about this...
Yeah, I didn't need to do more than just scan that Pathfinder review to realise that the poster is, putting it mildly, biased :)
However, I agree with RedJack and the others that I am not sure posting that link is going to help this thread, or do anything to make the 4e fans among us to feel welcome.
I admit the first blog article you linked was relevant as it talked about this very thread. Personally, I agree with his underlying point re 4e not having anything intrinsic to its design that would stop Paizo writing some really good scenarios for it, I just don't agree with the exact manner of expression.
I agree that the suggestion that Paizo couldn't write its APs for 4e is pretty bogus - now. Back when they needed to make a decision, the 4e character and rules set was a bit more limited than it is now, so maybe they had a point then, but only for a year or so. But for my money, the genuine reason why they decided not to convert was the shenanigans over the GSL. Not that that is necessarily invalid - probably more valid, since it went to the heart of Paizo's business model. I agree that the blogger basically makes the correct point, even if he is a dick about it. And his denigration of Paizo-era Dungeon and Dragon is just ignorant.
The second link didn't work for me - it says the page doesn't exist anymore.
|
|
Well, as of first, they would have to become intimately familiar with the system which would take months, months of time they can better spend by making stuff for Pathfinder, you know, the stuff that gets them the next paycheck.
I know they said that at the time, but I don't really buy it. Dungeon transferred fairly easily between editions when 2e went to 3e. Sure, there may have been some oddities immediately after, but I would say it maybe lasted a couple issues and they were fine. In the same way that there is nothing intrinsic about transferring between 3e and 4e, there wasn't anything much between 2e and 3e either.
As of second, i do not think it is a matter of the rules that is the problem in Paizo never making anything for 4edition. It is a matter of principal. And i for one support them in their decision. They were making some awesome stuff and had two magazines going for them, and them for the WOTC to yank that away without warning or explanation, sorry, no thanks. If my ex-boss called me back to work for him, after firing me because he felt like it, i would tell him to go f**k himself with a tire iron.
I agree that WotC probably had a credibility issue, which will have had an impact, but I suspect it was hard-headed business logic that led Paizo the way they went rather than stubborn attachment to principle as such.
|
|
And as 4e fans feeling welcome, i hate this part of myself, but it is still there, and it doesn't want them to fell welcome. I am trying to supress it, but sometimes it resurfaces.
Cool, we can't always control how we feel, but we can control how we act on those feelings. I still suffer a bit of nerdrage aimed at Pathfinder for "stealing" all the 3.5 players, but I recognise that it is nerdrage and try to keep the views on PF as objective as I can.
So as long as you realise how you're feelings isn't necessarily beneficial and try to keep a lid on it I think the 4e fans will be okay :)
|
|
But for my money, the genuine reason why they decided not to convert was the shenanigans over the GSL.
Oh yes, there are loads of reasons why Paizo wouldn't and shouldn't create 4e Pathfinder setting and adventure material - everything from the GSL, to supporting their own system, to not having to "retrain" re rules mastery etc - but the 4e rules system isn't one of those reasons.
If anybody wonders what the "other side" feels about this...
An unbiased review of Pathfinder.
The whole blog is good for a laugh
Especially the comment section, where you attack his review with rules you made up. But sadly, you never really explained this:
My initial fascination turned to outrage rather quickly when I realized that that change was balance. Every class could stand up to every other class, ...
What's so bad about solving the linear fighter-quadratic wizard problem? And why does this make you angry?
I apologize in advance to any 4th edition fans who aren't trolls, but for a blog about D&D, this guy sure spends a lot of time writing about Paizo.
Because he wrote a single review about the pathfinder system, a successor of D&D 3.5, which he tells us he played for 8 years? Isn't it clear how this is actually very much related to D&D?
I suppose it's comforting to see that the hate filled, and apparently still fills, people on both sides. I'm not sure that any of that level of vitriol helps anyone, but at least it proves that it is equally given and received. Personally, I reserve my complaints about 4E for the company that makes it as the system itself seems to do what it was designed to do, and I can understand why some people would prefer that style of play to what PF provides. Some of the bone headed decisions made by WOTC and Hasbro in regards to 4E, though, simply have no excuse.
To me, it isn't even what they have done as much as how. They seem determined to piss as many people as possible off with the vast majority of their methods of going about making and announcing their decisions. I can understand unpopular. Paizo has made many unpopular decisions, but still manages to maintain a certain level of respect, which is not the same think as being liked. WOTC and Hasbro have failed to retain even basic respect in many quarters.
I shouldn't have to say it, but I will: Telling other people that their game of choice sucks does nobody any good. Please stop, and please adhere to the board rules.
I'm not sure what's more amusing.
The fact that KaeYoss still wages his crusade against windmills, or that some folks love windmills that much to actually try to stop him :)
Make sure your little country isn't between my tanks and my windmills ;-P
Make sure your little country isn't between my tanks and my windmills ;-PI'm not sure what's more amusing.
The fact that KaeYoss still wages his crusade against windmills, or that some folks love windmills that much to actually try to stop him :)
What did Holland ever do to you, Germany....
;)
|
Make sure your little country isn't between my tanks and my windmills ;-PI'm not sure what's more amusing.
The fact that KaeYoss still wages his crusade against windmills, or that some folks love windmills that much to actually try to stop him :)
What did Holland ever do to you, Germany....
;)
Holland has better beer. Better cheese. And (marignally) prettier women.
Holland has better beer. Better cheese. And (marignally) prettier women.Make sure your little country isn't between my tanks and my windmills ;-PI'm not sure what's more amusing.
The fact that KaeYoss still wages his crusade against windmills, or that some folks love windmills that much to actually try to stop him :)
What did Holland ever do to you, Germany....
;)
Better beer? Holland? Yeah right. I won't argue about cheese, or their water (oh, sorry, that was meant to be "tomatoes" - you can't tell the difference between Dutch tomatoes and water).
But that beer remark did it. That warrants a three-phase attack:
1: Turn everything into rubble
2: Reduce the rubble to fine sand
3: Turn the sand to glass
}>
Make sure your little country isn't between my tanks and my windmills ;-PI'm not sure what's more amusing.
The fact that KaeYoss still wages his crusade against windmills, or that some folks love windmills that much to actually try to stop him :)
What did Holland ever do to you, Germany....
;)
They let Arjen discontinue the Ayreon project.
Holland has better beer.
LOL...
Notice how our resident Krauts didn't take an offense at the women issue
Well, you said marginally. Can't argue about that...
Notice how our resident Krauts didn't take an offense at the women issue, but are going crazy about beer.
Well...it's true. But yeah...crazy germans.
Notice how our resident Krauts didn't take an offense at the women issue, but are going crazy about beer.
It says so much about my western neighbours!
Well, the ladies can defend themselves. They're not "the weaker sex" who needs to be protected. You sexist!
Well, the ladies can defend themselves. They're not "the weaker sex" who needs to be protected. You sexist!
Beer, on the other hand...
Well, the ladies can defend themselves. They're not "the weaker sex" who needs to be protected. You sexist!Beer, on the other hand...
I'll admit that good beer does speak for itself. However, some people don't hear right.
I removed some posts.
Leave forum drama from other forums on those other forums.
Also, flag it and move on.
I removed some posts.
Leave forum drama from other forums on those other forums.
Also, flag it and move on.
Wait, wait. You are busy removing posts and you let that vile, racist insult against our beer stand?
What sort of double standard is that?
The right and just kind!
Ich bin outraged!
As of second, i do not think it is a matter of the rules that is the problem in Paizo never making anything for 4edition. It is a matter of principal. And i for one support them in their decision. They were making some awesome stuff and had two magazines going for them, and them for the WOTC to yank that away without warning or explanation, sorry, no thanks. If my ex-boss called me back to work for him, after firing me because he felt like it, i would tell him to go f**k himself with a tire iron.
I keep hearing from gamers that Dungeon and Dragon were "yanked" "without warning or explanation." However, everything I've ever seen posted by a Paizo employee indicates it was a rather amicable agreement not to renew a license that was set to expire. Do you have any evidence to support your recollection of events?
Amicable or not, it doesn't seem likely that Paizo would renew the kind of formal relationship with WOTC that would be required to access the 4E ruleset. It is simply not in their best interest to do so.
|
|
I keep hearing from gamers that Dungeon and Dragon were "yanked" "without warning or explanation." However, everything I've ever seen posted by a Paizo employee indicates it was a rather amicable agreement not to renew a license that was set to expire. Do you have any evidence to support your recollection of events?
As I recall, Paizo actually asked for and was given a few additional months so they could finish Savage Tide.