Pathfinder RPG and Paizo in the Face of 5E


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

601 to 650 of 1,340 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

About Drizzt hate:
Just to make things clearer. Hating a character doesn't mean that I want him deleted. Actually I don't mind Jar-Jar (or how the hell do you write it - not worth googling it even) being there even if he's lame as... whatever. Drizzt would be okay with me if he left his internal monologues to himself and cut down some more mooks. I hate Cersei Lannister and I love to see her eat what she cooked for herself, but Drizzt isn't actually doing anything like that. He's boring and time-wasting, which is hardly forgiveable for a novel character. He's part of the setting nontheless and as a DM I'd even use him, although either play him a bit more to my liking or to let his personality to get him in some really awkward situation.

About the amount of epic characters in the world:
So okay, there are a few people in Golarion nearing level 20 (we still lack epic rules, mind ya) and even fewer above that, but the realms are swarming with them (well, I'm stretching it a bit). Is that wrong? Well, no! Realms are constructed as an epic world. The stories involve gods personally and events that may or may not shake the world. World shakers are for some reason awfully popular (well what ELSE do you want to do with your level 36 wizard, eh?) and the Realms DO provide multiple opportunities to inspire DMs for multiple compaigns from levels 1 to 40+ AND they also provide NPCs and enemies for such games. If there was only a handfull of high level characters, then it would quickly get repetitive. Final compaigns that would always face Halaster, Klauth and Elminster would get old quick and the Realms do have a choice. How would you explain that lvl 19 heroes for example keep facing swarms of lvl 16 mooks when these would normally be epic bosses? When there is normally only one in a big city, would killing twenty such warriors mean that you've just crippled higher echeleons of state's military? Realms simply had them living there and trying to build a world including that as something that IS natural. It could be somewhat confusing to some, but please note a typical population composition. If you have about 1 lvl 15+ character per 5000 it's not that much. You meet thi high level somebody about as often as major of a smaller town. It's a face locals may recognize on sight but ottherwise a character easily lost in grander scheme of things. Even Golarion can easily have them, but it just didn't bother describing them where Realms do mention them and describe some in detail.


aeglos wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I've never seen a FR product from any edition that really grabbed me.

I believe that the 'best' FR supliments were actually the 2e Deities books. They had a fair amount of crunch (in the specialty priests) as well as not only the deity's history, but details on how their churches function. But YRMV of course.

I am with you on that. Faith&Avatars was so detailed and had so much great infos about the churches, the customs, the clothing and the teaching.

The loss of the Realms Panteon was the biggest loss for me when we changed to Golarion

Still my favourite FR supplements ever, and still used in my FR campaign. The 3rd edition Faiths and Pantheons was a far lesser product, though it still had its uses.


Tacticslion wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Drizzt was a fine enough character within the scope of his original stories, but the concept of him showing up anywhere and everywhere for the sake of selling the story was a bit silly. Elminster at least made sense in that capacity, and for the most part, he really didn't bother me, but the idea of a ranger that could barely do magic of his own, and nothing teleport related, randomly showing up where ever just because really didn't work for me.
I actually don't understand your point, as I've never seen him do (in what books I've read) anything remotely bizarre or unexplained. The worst (sort of) version of that I've seen was when he went on a boat one time down to Calimshan to rescue Regis and they had a few "good adventures" doing things like doinking zombies on the beach. I've just not run into the kind of thing you're describing, though.

This may not have been as big a problem in the novels, but it was definitely a problem at the table and in the FR computer games. Anytime FR was mentioned or used, someone would inevitably ask if the party was going to meet Drizzt, Elminster, and any number of other iconic figures no matter what the party was doing, or where they were located. Even Baldur's Gate had to throw Elminster and Drizzt in somewhere. Elminster's appearance was cool and made sense; Drizzt was just wandering about the region because, no real good reason given. That is what I meant with overuse of iconics. They made sense in their own storyline, but fans and WOTC alike insisted on the quasiofficial use of them just for the sake of using them and didn't bother to explain why, like with Drizzt in Baldur's Gate. They would drop a familiar character in just because they knew someone would buy the game just to see that character; it didn't matter if putting that character into the game actually made sense or not.


Matthew Morris wrote:
... I think that what's been hinted at in Golarion (different beings perceive the planes differently) would work best.[/spoiler]

Actually I think they all see the same thing but describe it in a way that suits their needs to mortals. Asmodeus is the oldest of all, senior and superior to all other deities... well of course, it's canon. ever noticed that such info is in the book about devils and only there? Oh yess, we deal with a fair bit of propaganda here! :)


the killing of Elminster is a taboo that wotc is not likely to cross as it would be in breach of the original contract betwen TSR(nor wotc) and Ed Greenwood.

that and a few other things, the ownership of the Realms will revert to Ed Greenwood.

which would make wotc feel funy having to change the name of Core Bane to Core Puke as BAne is IP to the Realms first and core 4e second.

anyway I petition this thread to be locked and filed under 13

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

I don't want to lock this thread, but I would like to see the Forgotten Realms/Drizzt/whatever stuff taken elsewhere since it has nothing to do with either the original topic of the thread or even the main topic of this forum, which is the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.


For Tacticslion and Chuck Wright: I agree that strong settings can be important in supporting a ruleset. What I am more skeptical of is the notion that it is easier to make money selling settings than selling rules. It appears to be working for Paizo, which uses the ruleset (and perhaps the setting) to support its adventure path sales as its main money maker. WotC's strategy was just the opposite - it used the settings and the adventures to sell the ruleset, which was their primary source of funds. Paizo's strategy seems to be working, but WotC's strategy was also highly successful.


OFF TOPIC DUDE HERE

I really like rules and tend to use homebrew settings. I don't even borrow divine pantheons. I only buy rules from Paizo, but might buy an AP and adapt it to one of my settings.

I know that a lot of people make homebrew settings. Maybe a guide to building prestige classes would be nice. I dunno.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roman wrote:
I am not sure settings and adventure paths are necessarily the best forward. It seems to be working for Paizo, so more power to them, but I doubt it is easier to make money that way than by concentrating on publishing rules. Plenty of people play in homebrew settings and/or run their own adventures. Personally, for example, I am not really interested in purchasing published adventures, because I create my own. It is difficult to judge what proportion of gamers does the same, but I would venture a guess that it is fairly substantial.

Two words: Rules bloat.

You keep making up new rules, and the number of books you have to carry to each gaming session increases. The amount you have to master increases, and can act as a barrier to new players joining and learning the game. Eventually, you WILL either run out of rules to publish, or people willing to buy them, or you have to amalgamate and simplify them into a new edition which your fans may not like. Publishing rules can make a more money faster, but has to run out of steam.

On the other hand, sell one set of basic rules, and as long as people play they will want adventures. As long as your rules are relatively unchanged, there is no need to re-publish the adventures for new rule sets. It won't make as much money in the short term, but the need never vanishes.


Dabbler wrote:
Roman wrote:
I am not sure settings and adventure paths are necessarily the best forward. It seems to be working for Paizo, so more power to them, but I doubt it is easier to make money that way than by concentrating on publishing rules. Plenty of people play in homebrew settings and/or run their own adventures. Personally, for example, I am not really interested in purchasing published adventures, because I create my own. It is difficult to judge what proportion of gamers does the same, but I would venture a guess that it is fairly substantial.

Two words: Rules bloat.

You keep making up new rules, and the number of books you have to carry to each gaming session increases. The amount you have to master increases, and can act as a barrier to new players joining and learning the game. Eventually, you WILL either run out of rules to publish, or people willing to buy them, or you have to amalgamate and simplify them into a new edition which your fans may not like. Publishing rules can make a more money faster, but has to run out of steam.

On the other hand, sell one set of basic rules, and as long as people play they will want adventures. As long as your rules are relatively unchanged, there is no need to re-publish the adventures for new rule sets. It won't make as much money in the short term, but the need never vanishes.

Right, but apart from not selling to people who make their own settings/adventures, the company might also encounter a problem with people being unable to run all the adventures at the speed they are being produced. Thus a backlog of unused adventures builds among the customers, which is likely to suppress their future demand for such products.

I am not saying the adventure-based business model cannot work. It does seem to be working for Paizo. I am merely suggesting that it might not be any easier to pull off than concentrating on sales of the rules.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Roman wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Roman wrote:
I am not sure settings and adventure paths are necessarily the best forward. It seems to be working for Paizo, so more power to them, but I doubt it is easier to make money that way than by concentrating on publishing rules. Plenty of people play in homebrew settings and/or run their own adventures. Personally, for example, I am not really interested in purchasing published adventures, because I create my own. It is difficult to judge what proportion of gamers does the same, but I would venture a guess that it is fairly substantial.

Two words: Rules bloat.

You keep making up new rules, and the number of books you have to carry to each gaming session increases. The amount you have to master increases, and can act as a barrier to new players joining and learning the game. Eventually, you WILL either run out of rules to publish, or people willing to buy them, or you have to amalgamate and simplify them into a new edition which your fans may not like. Publishing rules can make a more money faster, but has to run out of steam.

On the other hand, sell one set of basic rules, and as long as people play they will want adventures. As long as your rules are relatively unchanged, there is no need to re-publish the adventures for new rule sets. It won't make as much money in the short term, but the need never vanishes.

Right, but apart from not selling to people who make their own settings/adventures, the company might also encounter a problem with people being unable to run all the adventures at the speed they are being produced. Thus a backlog of unused adventures builds among the customers, which is likely to suppress their future demand for such products.

I am not saying the adventure-based business model cannot work. It does seem to be working for Paizo. I am merely suggesting that it might not be any easier to pull off than concentrating on sales of the rules.

Arguably when D&D was at its most successful, it was almost all about the adventures. 1st edition had 11 hard covers total over the span of 10 years. So I think there is some precedent that it can work for a long time.


Justin Franklin wrote:
Arguably when D&D was at its most successful, it was almost all about the adventures. 1st edition had 11 hard covers total over the span of 10 years. So I think there is some precedent that it can work for a long time.

1st edition was also a very different era in gaming. My group was a bunch of kids, we had a single copy of the book and far less disposable income. It was also new and exciting to us at every turn. Now almost every member of my group will buy a rulebook themselves if they want it (despite my shelf being rather well stocked). But only one person at a time is buying adventures, and at a far slower pace then we would be buying rule books.

I am not disputing the validity adventures being a focus, or of the comparison with the glory days of first edition. But it would be foolish to ignore the shift in the markets and the target audience.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Arguably when D&D was at its most successful, it was almost all about the adventures. 1st edition had 11 hard covers total over the span of 10 years. So I think there is some precedent that it can work for a long time.

1st edition was also a very different era in gaming. My group was a bunch of kids, we had a single copy of the book and far less disposable income. It was also new and exciting to us at every turn. Now almost every member of my group will buy a rulebook themselves if they want it (despite my shelf being rather well stocked). But only one person at a time is buying adventures, and at a far slower pace then we would be buying rule books.

I am not disputing the validity adventures being a focus, or of the comparison with the glory days of first edition. But it would be foolish to ignore the shift in the markets and the target audience.

Agreed to a point, however I am starting to notice that I don't have the time I did at one point to create my own adventures and have started drifting back the other way. I wonder if we aren't at a point where we are starting to shift back the other direction.


Steelfiredragon wrote:


that and a few other things, the ownership of the Realms will revert to Ed Greenwood.

That would be great, but yeah it would never happen. One can wish.


If the reasoning for not buying adventures is not enough time; why would more/different rules ever be better?

That means more time spent mulling over the new rules figuring out how it fits with the new adventures, etc.

Sure, there are enough adventures to keep people busy for a good while, but that's no reason not to have a nice selection of adventures to choose from. That same logic also validates why it's still profitable to have books that expand on the concepts such as race or class archetypes. A new edition on the other hand would retcon previous rules and possibly many of the archetypes... Giving all players who accept it a backlog of figuring out the changes and converting previous material even more...

As a player or GM, I'd rather spend limited time enjoying an adventure than going through and figuring out all the little rule changes. :/ I guess YMMV...

Grand Lodge

Roman wrote:
Right, but apart from not selling to people who make their own settings/adventures, the company might also encounter a problem with people being unable to run all the adventures at the speed they are being produced. Thus a backlog of unused adventures builds among the customers, which is likely to suppress their future demand for such products.

Very few people of my acquaintence run adventures as written. You read the adventures and adapt what works to your own campaign. Even if you never plan to run an adventure, it can prove useful. I have run various adventures using rule systems for different genres.

If you buy the modules of an AP purely to run it for your group, you are missing out on much of the value.

Sovereign Court

YMMV, but at the moment I think there are already too many rules, and I would not support a WOTC model : I want adventures, not rules.

(Okay, I still want monster books).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:
Agreed to a point, however I am starting to notice that I don't have the time I did at one point to create my own adventures and have started drifting back the other way. I wonder if we aren't at a point where we are starting to shift back the other direction.

I find myself that I am if not shifting back the other way, definately evening out. Likely that is because I already have a very large variety of options for pathfinder with all my 3rd party material and the rpg books release so far. So At least for the forseable future I am going to purchase mostly adventure books untill someone shows me something I am really interested in. Its the reason I stoped my pfrpg subscription, the next 2 products didnt appeal to me.

But, there is a whole new generation out there. The whole point of the begginer box is to get the attention of people besides the die hards like us. It would be foolish to ignore that demographic as well.

We all know the APG, Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat sold well. How well? I dont know, only paizo does, but they definately got people in the door and excited about pathfinder. I really do think this is a case of one hand feeds the other. People see the magus, and the ninja and get excited about playing. Then they need something to play so they buy an adventure path. The enjoy the adventure path and pick up anotehr one, now they want something new to play in the new adventure and around and around we go.


Dabbler wrote:


Two words: Rules bloat.

You keep making up new rules, and the number of books you have to carry to each gaming session increases. The amount you have to master increases, and can act as a barrier to new players joining and learning the game. Eventually, you WILL either run out of rules to publish, or people willing to buy them, or you have to amalgamate and simplify them into a new edition which your fans may not like. Publishing rules can make a more money faster, but has to run out of steam.

On the other hand, sell one set of basic rules, and as long as people play they will want adventures. As long as your rules are relatively unchanged, there is no need to re-publish the adventures for new rule sets. It won't make as much money in the short term, but the need never vanishes.

This.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Well, for me, I only have time to run one campaign from scratch, so any other games that I run have to be pre-written materials.

I've been toying with the idea of having local cons/game days that would be focused on running adventure paths and modules instead of PFS scenarios; I like the writing of the modules and adventure paths a lot better, and it would still be almost like a living campaign.

Liberty's Edge

I think unless you have a set of rules from the start comprehensive enough to cover anything and everything then you will not have rules bloat or very little. Otherwise rules bloat happens in all rpgs. Some more than others. I have yet to see any rpg that does not suffer from it.


I guess it's only tangentially related to the OP but the latest Legends and Lore article has some good food for thought, imo, regarding magic items and how they fit into the game. Monte Cook is essentially musing over the fact that magic items in 3.5/4th editions (and I guess by extension PF) have become in practise (in large part at least) facets of a character and part of a PC 'build' in that there is an expectation built into the mechanics as to what sort of magic items a given character will have access to.

He raises the possibility of setting 'zero magic' as the default or at least baseline assumption, with magical items being genuinely provided as story based rewards-in-return-for-risk. The aim being to address the magic christmas tree phenomenon.

I found it interesting, even if it doesnt contain any really concrete suggestions. Without expressing a view on whether 5th edition is 'in the works' - it seems that, if it is, this is the kind of substantial change they are at least considering.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I guess it's only tangentially related to the OP but the latest Legends and Lore article has some good food for thought, imo, regarding magic items and how they fit into the game. Monte Cook is essentially musing over the fact that magic items in 3.5/4th editions (and I guess by extension PF) have become in practise (in large part at least) facets of a character and part of a PC 'build' in that there is an expectation built into the mechanics as to what sort of magic items a given character will have access to.

He raises the possibility of setting 'zero magic' as the default or at least baseline assumption, with magical items being genuinely provided as story based rewards-in-return-for-risk. The aim being to address the magic christmas tree phenomenon.

I found it interesting, even if it doesnt contain any really concrete suggestions. Without expressing a view on whether 5th edition is 'in the works' - it seems that, if it is, this is the kind of substantial change they are at least considering.

That would be a nice goal, but I'm not sure it's really attainable. Even in earlier editions, it was sort of built into the system, just not nearly as much, and the monsters tended to be comparatively weak or most definitely not, with very little in between.

'Zero Magic' in a DnD type ruleset sounds great, but part of what a lot of people didn't like with 4E is that they basically tried that, and it really didn't work. When people think DnD, one of the things they think of is lots of really impressive, cool, and powerful magic. To me, shooting for 'low level magic/magic items common, more powerful stuff not so much' is much better, as that allows a certain amount of cool magic/magic items to be readily accessible, but still allows the more powerful stuff to remain rare and mysterious. This is one thing I loved about Eberron; it made the concept of magic common, but specific examples varied based on power and rarity. In the end, though, whatever system is used, the DM has to be able to convey it in a way that allows any mystery and coolness to show through.


sunshadow21 wrote:
'Zero Magic' in a DnD type ruleset sounds great, but part of what a lot of people didn't like with 4E is that they basically tried that, and it really didn't work.

Eh? One of the few real disappointments I have with 4th edition is that there's even more of a requirement for magic items than 3.5. What makes you think they tried it? *confused*

EDIT: I dont know if you read the link or not, but he was specifically talking about magic items, not magic in general. Maybe I gave the wrong idea (although I still find it odd you think they tried to make 4th edition 'zero magic' since I think it's really obvious they did the exact opposite. I can't comprehend coming to that opinion).


Steve Geddes wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
'Zero Magic' in a DnD type ruleset sounds great, but part of what a lot of people didn't like with 4E is that they basically tried that, and it really didn't work.

Eh? One of the few real disappointments I have with 4th edition is that there's even more of a requirement for magic items than 3.5. What makes you think they tried it? *confused*

I seem to recall it was one of their stated goals. I hope it wasn't a real high priority goal, because they certainly didn't succeed.


sunshadow21 wrote:
I seem to recall it was one of their stated goals. I hope it wasn't a real high priority goal, because they certainly didn't succeed.

Maybe it was just an idea which was thrown about (like this article is currently). I don't think one can plausibly make the case that 4th edition is an attempt at 'low magic' DnD.


Steve Geddes wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
I seem to recall it was one of their stated goals. I hope it wasn't a real high priority goal, because they certainly didn't succeed.
Maybe it was just an idea which was thrown about (like this article is currently). I don't think one can plausibly make the case that 4th edition is an attempt at 'low magic' DnD.

Well it's true....until, you know, they put in inherent bonuse rules for the Dark Sun campaign which basically says "hey, no magic? No problem!". So yea, with those rules (which can be used in any setting) the effects of magic become less about keeping up with the Math (+1, +2, +3, yadda-yadda) and more about the flavor of your character and the style of magic you want to incorporate. In fact, Feats in conjunction with classe's powers and features practically make it so you don't need magical items at all. Hells, you could probably throw out Magical casting classes altogether and still make a viable party. Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Warlord, and Hunter is a pretty ideal non-magical party and covers all your bases to boot.

So yea, 4E can do low-magic and even NO magic very very well. That is, compared to other editions of D&D


Steve Geddes wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
'Zero Magic' in a DnD type ruleset sounds great, but part of what a lot of people didn't like with 4E is that they basically tried that, and it really didn't work.

Eh? One of the few real disappointments I have with 4th edition is that there's even more of a requirement for magic items than 3.5. What makes you think they tried it? *confused*

Well, yes and no.

The idea that you'll have stat bump / attack item / AC item X by level Y became more institutionalized than ever in 4E, but the rest of magic items were really de-emphasized. No one's busting out the Cube of Force in that game.


Iherent bonuses are easy to apply to 3E as welll and there were rules for growing magic items as well in Unearthed Arcana or Weapons of Legacy.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Mystra and Azurth were two of Mystrul's chosen. I do not recall if she had any others, but it seems likely.

I agree with you on allowing other gods to have chosen. It made little sense. But then even when they did, they had one, she has about 12.

Azuth was not a Chosen but the first Magister. Mystra was Mystrul reincarnated after the latter sacrificed herself to stop Karusus. She did have some prototype Chosen before Elminster and the Seven Sisters, but.... they didn't quite work out, being quite literally fatally flawed. In fact I think she almost killed Elminster in his early years as a Chosen. The Seven Sisters were an experiment in breeding her own Chosen from the getgo.


LazarX wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Mystra and Azurth were two of Mystrul's chosen. I do not recall if she had any others, but it seems likely.

I agree with you on allowing other gods to have chosen. It made little sense. But then even when they did, they had one, she has about 12.

Azuth was not a Chosen but the first Magister. Mystra was Mystrul reincarnated after the latter sacrificed herself to stop Karusus. She did have some prototype Chosen before Elminster and the Seven Sisters, but.... they didn't quite work out, being quite literally fatally flawed. In fact I think she almost killed Elminster in his early years as a Chosen. The Seven Sisters were an experiment in breeding her own Chosen from the getgo.

Mystra was around before the death of Mystrul. As was Azuth, both were lovers as well. Mystra as a mortal knew she would be the next god of magic as Mystrul knew she was going to die, she could have stopped her death at any time, but doing so would have meant stopping the working of magic, something Mystrul just could not bring herself to do. She knew it was coming, what would cause it and what she would have to do to save the weave. So she made sure she had a replacement.

Mystra did indeed rework how magic functioned after the death of Mystrul( cutting mortals off from the type of magic nethal used), but she knew she was getting the job and was well prepared for it, even before Mystruls death. Her and Azurth, kinda road out the fall out from the safety of the ground.

I had forgotten about Magisters not being chosen ( although, I could have sworn there was one somewhere)


Zmar wrote:
Iherent bonuses are easy to apply to 3E as welll and there were rules for growing magic items as well in Unearthed Arcana or Weapons of Legacy.

Yea that could help facilitate a low-magic campaign as could E6 or E8 games for that matter. What you couldn't do is a non-magical game and expect any PC to survive longer than the first few levels. Mainly because there is no healing outside natural healing (as per the rules) and thus your required to have some other way to expedite the healing process.


Diffan wrote:
Zmar wrote:
Iherent bonuses are easy to apply to 3E as welll and there were rules for growing magic items as well in Unearthed Arcana or Weapons of Legacy.
Yea that could help facilitate a low-magic campaign as could E6 or E8 games for that matter. What you couldn't do is a non-magical game and expect any PC to survive longer than the first few levels. Mainly because there is no healing outside natural healing (as per the rules) and thus your required to have some other way to expedite the healing process.

So you are saying 4e can use an alt rule for no magic, but 3.x can't do the same for non magical healing? I do not understand this. Non magic is not more built into the system then non magic healing.

I have ran low magic games, I have ran a group of fighters and a rogue in Stap, with zero casters and little magic. It simply isn't as hard as folks assume it is.


Diffan wrote:
Zmar wrote:
Iherent bonuses are easy to apply to 3E as welll and there were rules for growing magic items as well in Unearthed Arcana or Weapons of Legacy.
Yea that could help facilitate a low-magic campaign as could E6 or E8 games for that matter. What you couldn't do is a non-magical game and expect any PC to survive longer than the first few levels. Mainly because there is no healing outside natural healing (as per the rules) and thus your required to have some other way to expedite the healing process.

Wounds and vigor?


seekerofshadowlight wrote:


So you are saying 4e can use an alt rule for no magic, but 3.x can't do the same for non magical healing? I do not understand this. Non magic is not more built into the system then non magic healing.

I have ran low magic games, I have ran a group of fighters and a rogue in Stap, with zero casters and little magic. It simply isn't as hard as folks assume it is.

I said 4E already has a rule build into the system that was designed for Dark Sun specifically since that setting has a very low magic feel. Those rules can be used for any system of 4E. In addition to the inherent bonuses you receive there are also non-magical ways to be healed such as "Second Wind" and non-magical Leaders like the Warlord.

The inherant bonus rules could be adapted to 3E though it's not build into the system and there is no class that I know of that dishes out healing in a non-magical manner for 3E. That leaves natural healing (like I said) and damage is down right lethal if your unlucky enough to have a monster roll a critical against you. Basically you have to rest a LONG in-game time to recover from your wounds, thus making every adventure drag out in length. At later levels, your coming across monsters that deal more damage than your HP can take because the game-engine is specifically designed with the idea that magical healing is readily available.

I never said it was impossibe, just way more difficult than it's worth if your actually playing by the rules.


Diffan wrote:


The inherant bonus rules could be adapted to 3E though it's not build into the system

And its not built into the core of 4e, the healing is but not the low magic.

Using the alt rules from DS for 4e is no different then using alt rules for 3e.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

And its not built into the core of 4e, the healing is but not the low magic.

Using the alt rules from DS for 4e is no different then using alt rules for 3e.

No, 3E has no rules for inherant bonuses to saves, attacks, and damage rolls which makes up a good portion of the math in the system. I had said it could be adapted for 3E (from 4E) and that might work (heck, might even be easy). As for alternate healing, yes you could use Vitality and Wound system from Unearth Arcana but I find it simpler to just allow a few non-magical healing classes OR heck even take the ability given to "leaders" and slap them on something non-magical than re-building every single creature your going to fight with the Wound/Vitality system rules.

Again the whole point I was trying to make was that 4e easily supports low-magic and no-magic style campaigns with practically no adaptations to the game.


And my point, you keep ignoring is 4e only can do so for DS with alt rules.

It my have math built in, but does low magic " out of the box" no better then 3e.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

One 'advancement' I could see for 5e would be to follow Paizo's model, and release a world with 5e. (We shall call it... this land.)

If sales hold, keep putting out novels for Realms/DL/Eberron/Etc. But for the first two years, look at building a world. Go back to BECMI and start with a town, then a county, then a country, then a planet. once you have This Land humming, and fully integrated with the 5e base system, then you start touching your other IP again, introducing rules for them. 5e doesn't have sorcerers but the Realms do? Put sorcerer rules in the Realms book. WotC could use the DDI to then post "How to bring sorcerers into This Land" for GMs.

Likely wouldn't work, since WotC wants to keep all their IP in circulation.


Diffan wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:


So you are saying 4e can use an alt rule for no magic, but 3.x can't do the same for non magical healing? I do not understand this. Non magic is not more built into the system then non magic healing.

I have ran low magic games, I have ran a group of fighters and a rogue in Stap, with zero casters and little magic. It simply isn't as hard as folks assume it is.

I said 4E already has a rule build into the system that was designed for Dark Sun specifically since that setting has a very low magic feel. Those rules can be used for any system of 4E. In addition to the inherent bonuses you receive there are also non-magical ways to be healed such as "Second Wind" and non-magical Leaders like the Warlord.

The inherant bonus rules could be adapted to 3E though it's not build into the system and there is no class that I know of that dishes out healing in a non-magical manner for 3E. That leaves natural healing (like I said) and damage is down right lethal if your unlucky enough to have a monster roll a critical against you. Basically you have to rest a LONG in-game time to recover from your wounds, thus making every adventure drag out in length. At later levels, your coming across monsters that deal more damage than your HP can take because the game-engine is specifically designed with the idea that magical healing is readily available.

I never said it was impossibe, just way more difficult than it's worth if your actually playing by the rules.

Well, the healing system is IMO intertwined with the amount of simulationism. Aside from magic it's rather hard to get rid of a swordcut. Wound and vitality points can get you the shock/real harm in game and now you only need to set the recovery speed. For magic lacking world you need to replace what a cleric can do. So for a 10 minute rest repelnishing vitality points equal to constitution score for every five levels you posses or costitution bonus +1 per level (minimum 1 per level) could do the trick? Alternatively for low-to-no magic 3E you can check the Iron Heroes (I'd still love to see that thing pathfinderized)


Matthew Morris wrote:

One 'advancement' I could see for 5e would be to follow Paizo's model, and release a world with 5e. (We shall call it... this land.)

If sales hold, keep putting out novels for Realms/DL/Eberron/Etc. But for the first two years, look at building a world. Go back to BECMI and start with a town, then a county, then a country, then a planet. once you have This Land humming, and fully integrated with the 5e base system, then you start touching your other IP again, introducing rules for them. 5e doesn't have sorcerers but the Realms do? Put sorcerer rules in the Realms book. WotC could use the DDI to then post "How to bring sorcerers into This Land" for GMs.

Likely wouldn't work, since WotC wants to keep all their IP in circulation.

Well I think they *could* make just that with their Nentir vale. It is a nice generic place (Sandpoint is far lovelier still :) ).

Frog God Games

sunshadow21 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I guess it's only tangentially related to the OP but the latest Legends and Lore article has some good food for thought, imo, regarding magic items and how they fit into the game. Monte Cook is essentially musing over the fact that magic items in 3.5/4th editions (and I guess by extension PF) have become in practise (in large part at least) facets of a character and part of a PC 'build' in that there is an expectation built into the mechanics as to what sort of magic items a given character will have access to.

He raises the possibility of setting 'zero magic' as the default or at least baseline assumption, with magical items being genuinely provided as story based rewards-in-return-for-risk. The aim being to address the magic christmas tree phenomenon.

I found it interesting, even if it doesnt contain any really concrete suggestions. Without expressing a view on whether 5th edition is 'in the works' - it seems that, if it is, this is the kind of substantial change they are at least considering.

That would be a nice goal, but I'm not sure it's really attainable. Even in earlier editions, it was sort of built into the system, just not nearly as much, and the monsters tended to be comparatively weak or most definitely not, with very little in between.

Ummm... there are tons of games that have done it over the years. "Built into the system" is a far cry from not being an attainable goal.

You simply DON'T build it into the system.


Well, there is a built-in feature in core rules handling lack of magic items...

Gamemastering wrote:

Adding NPCs: Creatures whose Hit Dice are solely a factor of their class levels and not a feature of their race, such as all of the PC races detailed in Races, are factored into combats a little differently than normal monsters or monsters with class levels. A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. If this reduction would reduce a creature's CR to below 1, its CR drops one step on the following progression for each step below 1 this reduction would make: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8.

...
NPC Gear Adjustments: You can significantly increase or decrease the power level of an NPC with class levels by adjusting the NPC's gear. The combined value of an NPC's gear is given in Creating NPCs on Table: NPC Gear. A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC), while a classed NPC that instead has gear equivalent to that of a PC (as listed on Table: Character Wealth by Level) has a CR of 1 higher than his actual CR. Be careful awarding NPCs this extra gear, though—especially at high levels, where you can blow out your entire adventure's treasure budget in one fell swoop!

So if the PCs are underequipped you start to use lower CR things...


My post wasnt very helpful, obviously - I didnt mean to launch back into comparisons between 4E and PF. I took it as uncontroversial that the default assumption in both is that magic items are an integral part of character development - Monte Cook's central starting point. If you disagree with that, I guess the article wont be of interest. Nonetheless, what I found interesting to muse on, wrt to the OP was where PF should head in the face of evolving 'RPG theory'.

Suppose that 5th edition DnD took such a radical change and that it was generally well received (that change being to have a character progression 'default' based around no magical items rather than a required WBL in order to be competitive). If it became time for a second edition of PF, do you think the system would be better focussing on retaining 'old school' feel or evolving in line with the newer concepts of game design (whatever they might end up being)?

Obviously PF is innovative with new rules subsystems and options, but it is nonetheless focussed substantially towards its heritage in 3.5 DnD and in retaining the way playing the game feels. How essential to PF do you think that focus is?


Diffan wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
I seem to recall it was one of their stated goals. I hope it wasn't a real high priority goal, because they certainly didn't succeed.
Maybe it was just an idea which was thrown about (like this article is currently). I don't think one can plausibly make the case that 4th edition is an attempt at 'low magic' DnD.

Well it's true....until, you know, they put in inherent bonuse rules for the Dark Sun campaign which basically says "hey, no magic? No problem!". So yea, with those rules (which can be used in any setting) the effects of magic become less about keeping up with the Math (+1, +2, +3, yadda-yadda) and more about the flavor of your character and the style of magic you want to incorporate. In fact, Feats in conjunction with classe's powers and features practically make it so you don't need magical items at all. Hells, you could probably throw out Magical casting classes altogether and still make a viable party. Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Warlord, and Hunter is a pretty ideal non-magical party and covers all your bases to boot.

So yea, 4E can do low-magic and even NO magic very very well. That is, compared to other editions of D&D

Sure - I'm a big fan of the inherent bonuses. I run low magic 3.5/PF too. I wasnt saying it was impossible, all I said was that 4th edition wasnt "an attempt at low magic DnD".

The default assumption is of a set WBL - look at the treasure parcels, the idea of wishlists, the 'level appropriate item' option in the character builder, the WoTC modules which assign loot of the sort 'a +3 weapon one of the PCs uses' etcetera. Given the huge number of magical items they've produced and the number of magical options, it's a very poor attempt at 'low magic DnD' if that's truly what they were aiming for.

Grand Lodge

Steve Geddes wrote:

Eh? One of the few real disappointments I have with 4th edition is that there's even more of a requirement for magic items than 3.5. What makes you think they tried it? *confused*

You don't seem to have been playing the same 4e as me. Between daily use of magic items and the other 4e magic item limitations, I thought 4e magic items were more trouble than they were worth.

I think part of the reason was the 4e plan for characters from 1-30, coupled with the reality that most campaigns (PF, 3.5 or 4e) tend to die somewhere around levels 9-13. Magic items improve at Paragon level and above, but they were effectively meaningless below that.


sieylianna wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Eh? One of the few real disappointments I have with 4th edition is that there's even more of a requirement for magic items than 3.5. What makes you think they tried it? *confused*

You don't seem to have been playing the same 4e as me. Between daily use of magic items and the other 4e magic item limitations, I thought 4e magic items were more trouble than they were worth.

I think part of the reason was the 4e plan for characters from 1-30, coupled with the reality that most campaigns (PF, 3.5 or 4e) tend to die somewhere around levels 9-13. Magic items improve at Paragon level and above, but they were effectively meaningless below that.

What other limitations are there besides daily use limits?

What I meant was that, if you dont have the neckwear, armor and weapon/implement required for your level (without using the inherent bonuses optional rules) you will not keep up. I'm not referring to the powers granted by items (those being another thing I dont like about 4th edition).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Todd Stewart wrote:

Ultimately I think this will be what determines the fate of FR in the future: novel line sales. If they've collapsed, I think they would consider a reboot of some form in the future in order to regain fans. If not, they'll continue on present course.

How are they gonna do that?! Pretend it was all a horrible nightmare after a week long Patrón bender? The only way out of this hole is the "this is one possible timeline" like they did with the most recent "Star Trek."

At this point there is nothing WoTC could do to get my money. I've buried D&D and moved on. I'm still not convinced that 5E isn't going to be a collectible board game. Monte being on board gives me some hope but honestly I broke up with D&D 4 years ago. I don't love her anymore.

SM


Well, the latest Legend & Lore article certainly touches a nerve, but in a good way. I have been ignoring things like wealth by level anyway, so it would be nice to have my approach worked into the baseline assumptions of the game. Personally, in a new game or a new edition, I would go as far as eliminating all of the +X items altogether, though in D&D +X items have a tradition, so it might only be feasible in an entirely new game if one wants to avoid upsetting those who like this tradition.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Roman wrote:
Well, the latest Legend & Lore article certainly touches a nerve, but in a good way. I have been ignoring things like wealth by level anyway, so it would be nice to have my approach worked into the baseline assumptions of the game. Personally, in a new game or a new edition, I would go as far as eliminating all of the +X items altogether, though in D&D +X items have a tradition, so it might only be feasible in an entirely new game if one wants to avoid upsetting those who like this tradition.

I don't care what change you make, you'll always find a group ready to go with the "wailing and gnashing of teeth."

601 to 650 of 1,340 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder RPG and Paizo in the Face of 5E All Messageboards