|
It's all out there if you pay attention.
I do. I wasn't saying the hobby is having bad times. Its not the same as it was in the 80's, though.
Many things are better (sites like this were beyond a dream back in the early 80's where your only hope of getting a rules question answered involved writing a letter to Dragon and hoping it was one of the hundreds they picked to read AND answer... three months later.
A lot of it is the same. It took the same amount of drive to get something printed and published (though distribution was the issue). I still have a lot of seriously OLD books where you can probably get some CSI cops to tell you exactly which brand and model typewriter it was written on (Citystate of the Invincible Overlord? Jonril? Cities? I think all by Midkemia Press).
As much as there is available today, there seemed to be more back then. Some game company was ALWAYS making something that you were waiting for months before it ever came out. It just seemed more exciting then.
Maybe I'm just a jaded fart...
2e to 3e was a big change, but 3.5 to 4 e was a massive, massive leap.No bigger than 2e to 3e.
Disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the latest Legends & Lore article to fuel more speculation. "Live Together, Die Alone" is about party cooperation: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111011
OH GODS!
I didn't realize they were taking another round of b@~+~*$ internet polling to help them rebuild a new edition. Looks like someone needs to go attend Apple University. Seriously, this is how they ended up with the Teifling instead of the Gnome, and Dragonborn over Half-Orcs (or just Orcs).
I agree with Pedantic, although it applies more generally to other "support" aspects then just healing. Quite honestly the picture they have there reminds me of a very classic party style, the "Wind-Up Fighter." Where the whole party pre-buffs the hell out of smashy man and lets him just Cuisinart his way through room after room, with maybe some light touch-up healing in between. There is even a degree of malevolent glee one can derive from such a style. Played in a group like that once. That was really satisfying to watch the Fighter totally and swiftly decimate combat after combat. Went really fast too.
Perhaps it's because I refuse to pay money on anything 4e, that I don't really see such in that edition that support the "Wind-Up Fighter" style. Is it possible in 4e to spend 3 out of 4 characters pre-battle resources on just buffing the crap out of one guy?
As much as there is available today, there seemed to be more back then. Some game company was ALWAYS making something that you were waiting for months before it ever came out. It just seemed more exciting then.
Maybe I'm just a jaded fart...
You're sending mixed signals. It was more exciting because you had to wait longer between releases, so it felt like more back then? It sounds like because so much is coming out, you don't notice the products that take longer. I waited months and months for Tome of Horrors Complete. I waited months and months for Deathwatch. I waited months and months for Eclipse Phase: Panopticon. I'm now waiting months and months for the next Eclipse Phase book (those are really fun to read, but I love hard sci-fi.)
So while I remember the excitement of a new Palladium book or the next Warhammer supplement (which is what I was doing late 80s, early 90s), I think there is a lot more exciting stuff going on now. Especially if you watch the indy scene, where a lot of interesting ideas get tested out.
I suspect that because you, like me, have seen a ton of different RPGs, the excitement of a new one isn't as great as it once was. But there's a ton of activity for Pathfinder and 3PP, and there's even more activity once you look past D&D iterations to other RPGs.
I agree with Pedantic, although it applies more generally to other "support" aspects then just healing. Quite honestly the picture they have there reminds me of a very classic party style, the "Wind-Up Fighter." Where the whole party pre-buffs the hell out of smashy man and lets him just Cuisinart his way through room after room, with maybe some light touch-up healing in between. There is even a degree of malevolent glee one can derive from such a style. Played in a group like that once. That was really satisfying to watch the Fighter totally and swiftly decimate combat after combat. Went really fast too.
If that style appeals to your group, that's great. However there are many other gamers who actually like dynamic encounters where everyone contributes instead of just hanging behind the giant Panzer Tank and watching the slaughter. Pre-buffs have their place, I guess, but I don't think it should be any staple-point in game mechanics. Fighters shouldn't have to rely on those buffs and clerics shouldn't feel required to dole them out every battle.
From reading Monte's article, what I don't understand is where the connection between "Wanting to help others" coincides with "spending standard actions"? If your playing a cleric your going into it knowing that your services are more than likely required to keep allies alive. Sometimes you'll have to spend some of your resources on keeping the party going. But why does it have to be a Standard Action to perform? The actual action (ie. reason why your doing it) doesn't change like healing a friend, taking away a harmful spell effect, buffing an ally to hit a target better BUT the time in which it takes varies. Is there some mystical element of spending a Standard Action over a Minor Action that makes people feel better about their role?
Because that's what I'm taking from this article. Clerics (and other healers) jobs are to heal and buff, so the act of doing so should be it's own reward. Minimizing the amount of time it takes to do these things some how makes it cheap and less rewarding. Which is seriously off-the-rails wrong, at least in thinking that a lesser time spent (action wise) equals less rewarding. I dunno but even in v3.5 it was pretty much a guarantee that the cleric was going down the Divine Meta-Magic (Quicken Spell) or (Persistent Spell) route right off the bat because these options actually made them better at doing what they were originally designed to do.
Perhaps it's because I refuse to pay money on anything 4e, that I don't really see such in that edition that support the "Wind-Up Fighter" style. Is it possible in 4e to spend 3 out of 4 characters pre-battle resources on just buffing the crap out of one guy?
It's possible but most of the buff spells are designed for one or two rounds, not hours. This places more emphasis on dynamic combat than a single tank rushing in to kill all the monsters while everyone goes to ranged combat from the doorway. Thats not to say that it doesn't happen, just not usually from one or two sources (the spellcastes) and mostly from Potions, Elixers, and Whetstones applied to weapons.
From reading Monte's article, what I don't understand is where the connection between "Wanting to help others" coincides with "spending standard actions"? If your playing a cleric your going into it knowing that your services are more than likely required to keep allies alive. Sometimes you'll have to spend some of your resources on keeping the party going. But why does it have to be a Standard Action to perform? The actual action (ie. reason why your doing it) doesn't change like healing a friend, taking away a harmful spell effect, buffing an ally to hit a target better BUT the time in which it takes varies. Is there some mystical element of spending a Standard Action over a Minor Action that makes people feel better about their role?
I noticed that as well. It's a big reason I hate pre-buffing, and buffing in general, most of the time. Action economy is a big thing in this game, and while I do enjoy the support role, it would be nice to do that and directly contribute to to a fight as well from time to time. Single person buffs and cures simply don't really interest me a lot because by the time I get done doing what supposedly I should be doing to buff the rest of the party, the fight is over, half the buffs were never even used, and I'm bored to tears because that's the third time it's happened that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, Monte Cook is a pretty terrible game designer. I'm disappointed to see him back at WotC, especially in an R&D role where he can influence the mechanics of future products.
I remember reading one of his articles where he stated that he intentionally put bad feats into the game like Toughness (+3 HP) in order to reward system mastery. :S
I'm pretty sure he said something along the lines of Toughness being designed for wizards or low-constitution characters in low-level one shot games, where it can provide a huge percentage increase in HP. It's not a trap feat, just highly situational and if you know the situation then you use it correctly and there's your system mastery being rewarded.
Agreed. While I'm not a fan of what people call "Trap Feats" they do have a time and place. In my E6 game you can sure as hell bet that Toughness is a pretty useful Feat when they're only going to EVER gain 6 levels and that's it. Peroid.
In 4E, Toughness takes on a much stronger role as it applies to your Bloodied value and gains you more in the way of Surge Value, so at least in that edition it's a much better investment.
In regards to Pedantic's point, keeping another character in the fight is worth a standard action, especially if they can do more damage than you. The time it's better to clobber an enemy is if you're right next to the enemy already and it's about to die, not in every single situation ever. You need to take the whole situation into account. ACs, approximately how much life the enemy has remaining, how many enemies are left (more dead allies means more focused attacks from the remaining enemies), how much you can heal, etc. It's not just more punching is more better.
Sorry but I'm still having trouble connecting the dots from the reasoning of the action to the action economy. Yes, it's important to keep allies alive but why does making it a Standard Action make it more intristic (which, mechanically it doesn't)? Basically when you have the option A: of healing 10 hp as your main action and option B: of healing 10 hp and swinging at an enemy as a minor/main action, which situation is better? There has to be more incentive (like Monte said) that makes spending a whole turn doing nothing but healing more appealing than healing AND combat in the same turn.
In 3E there were a few spells in later supplements that gave you benefits on the amout of time you spent casting the spell. As a standard action, you got a minor but effective bonus. A full-round action gave the spell more power (xd6 more dice, bigger range, longer duration, etc) and 2 full-round actions really made the spell great. I could see that style being more prevalent in the system but the option is there.
Monte's point was that they should be making healing classes better for people that are like you and worry about action economy and stuff, while also wanting to play a class that doesn't participate in the battle by smacking everything but using their actions to support their allies. The point being that they should be better at healing, not just as good at healing but also capable of hitting things. Designed for people that actually want to heal, not just the guy running the cleric because the party doesn't have one and he couldn't figure out what class to be
Much like what I posted above, I could see this (somewhat) but I feel a good deal of gamers will keep with the current trend of minor action healing AND attacking in the same round. Even Pathfinder made this more so in their system with Channel cleric power. It makes you, as a player, feel like your directly contributing to the combat instead of playing catch up the entire battle. Making spells modular, depending on the time spent casting, should be the bare-bones aspect of such a system.
I've also tinkered with the idea of clerics granting Temporary HP when their healing spells go over the max HP of any character. For example, a fighter is down to 25 HP out of 50 and might not survive another attack. So the cleric casts a big healing spell on him, healing 33 HP total. The fighter can only soak up 25 of them so the other 8 is discarded. Instead of it being discarded it's tacked on as Temp HP. The catch is that you can only soak up 1/4 your total HP in Temp. HP this way. So that fighter can only soak up 12 Temp HP because 1/4 of 50 is 12 (rounded down).
|
I think Pathfinder will do just fine. I like what they are doing, I like the PFS better than I ever did the RPGA, I've made a lot of friends at the PFS events and the staff from Paizo, that I have met, are all friendly. On top of that I know Monte, knew him for a couple of years, and him coming back to work on 5E gives me an even better reason not to buy it.
Don't underestimate the power of a brand, and WotC is a stronger brand than Paizo just as Dungeons and Dragons is a stronger brand than Pathfinder. If WotC decided to may 5e as a 3e revamp, it would be a pretty big problem for PF.
If, as Lisa has stated, pathfinder products are outselling 4e products then I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that WotC would look at what Paizo is selling (an improvement on their own product!) and consider doing exactly that. Bringing Monte Cook, one of the original 3e designers, back on board is also something of a hint.
That said, I don't think you'll see something as close to 3e as PF is because WotC will want to keep (by way of easy transition) the 4e fans. Instead, the 5e design team will work hard on identifying what it is that makes 4e popular with its fans, and trying to incorporate that into a close-to-PF version of 3.5e.
So, how the Pathfinder system fares in the long run depends very heavily on what WotC decides to release as 5e. The more distant the two are from one another, the better Pathfinder will fare.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Don't underestimate the power of a brand, and WotC is a stronger brand than Paizo just as Dungeons and Dragons is a stronger brand than Pathfinder. If WotC decided to may 5e as a 3e revamp, it would be a pretty big problem for PF.just wanted to chime in on brands...
Everyone still uses their Sony walkman right?
Has an IBM computer?
Brands may be more visible, but they don't matter as much as I feel you give them credit for.
Removed a post and its reply. Let's be civil please!
Don't underestimate the power of a brand, and WotC is a stronger brand than Paizo just as Dungeons and Dragons is a stronger brand than Pathfinder. If WotC decided to may 5e as a 3e revamp, it would be a pretty big problem for PF.
That is true for non gamers, but increasingly gamers are realizing that while the name Dungeons and Dragons is still important, it is a name that can be applied to many different systems put out by many different companies, past and present, and with the success of Pathfinder and the OGL, the name is starting to transcend a specific corporate brand, and other brands and official names can fit under the area it covers.
So the Examiner is betting that we'll get the official announcement of 5E in 2012. If Margaret's right, then I think so too.
Yeah, most of us figed 5e was in the works as soon as Monte went back to Wotc.
That is true for non gamers, but increasingly gamers are realizing that while the name Dungeons and Dragons is still important, it is a name that can be applied to many different systems put out by many different companies, past and present, and with the success of Pathfinder and the OGL, the name is starting to transcend a specific corporate brand, and other brands and official names can fit under the area it covers.
Gamers are flattering themselves if they imagine they are significantly different from other people beyond their choice of hobbies.
Most Pathfinder players came here by way of Dungeons and Dragons, primarily because they didn't like the direction that WotC had taken it with 4e. Pathfinder is, effectively, a continuation of 3e D&D, and that's how most people describe it when presenting it to people who don't know what it is - and as a way of selling a gaming group on the idea of using it. It isn't so firmly divorced from its roots that it easily stands on its own as a branding, conceptually.
If WotC decides to significantly revert the D&D branding to something sufficiently similar to the the 3e (which includes 3.5e for these discussions) version, then Pathfinder and Paizo are going to feel it. A lot.
|
|
If WotC decides to significantly revert the D&D branding to something sufficiently similar to the the 3e (which includes 3.5e for these discussions) version, then Pathfinder and Paizo are going to feel it. A lot.
I'm not so sure about that. If they had changed back two years ago, then definitely you would have been right. But Pathfinder RPG has had over two years to grow on it's own now, and most people feel that it's an improvement on 3.X. Also, 4E seems to have severely alienated many players, to the point where many would no return no matter what WotC put out. Speaking of alienation, dumping 4E would alienate their current fan base, especially given the relatively short time it's been out. And last but not least, if they're going to dump 4E after only four-ish years, then would you really have any confidence that 5E would get support sustained for much longer?
I think that such at thing (which is vastly unlikely to happen at any rate) would dent Paizo's sales, but I don't think it would be anywhere near as bad as you seem to be implying.
There are clearly a number of people who 'switched to PF' because of WoTC's release of 4E (or handling/marketting/PDFs/whatever...) I'm not so sure it's that significant a factor though, to be frank.
In my opinion, had they solely put out PF rules, many who 'switched' wouldnt have bothered. I'm extrapolating from my own experience, undoubtedly - but I think the single biggest reason to play pathfinder is that the best adventures currently available are being written for it. (Campaign settings are pretty taste dependant but I'd say the same for fantasy world flavor material too).
I dont know anyone who think WoTC adventures are superior to Paizo's. I wouldnt be surprised if that was the most significant factor behind Pathfinder's success. (With all due respect and, I guess, apologies to Jason et al).
I'm not so sure about that. If they had changed back two years ago, then definitely you would have been right. But Pathfinder RPG has had over two years to grow on it's own now, and most people feel that it's an improvement on 3.X. Also, 4E seems to have severely alienated many players, to the point where many would no return no matter what WotC put out.
I think Pathfinder is an improvement on 3e too, but the only reason tried it at all was that WotC repurposed the branding on the game I enjoyed, and this company continued with the game system I liked. As for people never going back... people are motivated by self-interest, not malice, except when it comes time to talk about it. Apple alienated plenty of their users in the 80s, but that doesn't mean people didn't flock to it as soon as they offered new products that they wanted. People complain about microsoft constantly, but that doesn't seem to put much of a dent in the ubiquity of their operating system.
Speaking of alienation, dumping 4E would alienate their current fan base, especially given the relatively short time it's been out. And last but not least, if they're going to dump 4E after only four-ish years, then would you really have any confidence that 5E would get support sustained for much longer?
I trust that large companies will go where the money is, and so should you. Companies are loyal to your wallets, not to you, nomatter how they try to portray themselves. I also have confidence that third party publishers will do the same, should WotC fail to carry through. I say this because we've already seen this to be true. If 5e overshadows pathfinder, and then 5e loses direct support, Paizo or someone just like Paizo, will happily pick up where WotC left off for exactly the same reason Paizo did when WotC dumped 3e for 4e... assuming the license allows for it.
I think that such at thing (which is vastly unlikely to happen at any rate) would dent Paizo's sales, but I don't think it would be anywhere near as bad as you seem to be implying.
We'll just have to wait and see. Individuals act on emotions like loyalty or bitterness, but groups act on pure self-interest. You can't guess a group's actions by examining the motivation of an individual member.
... assuming the license allows for it.
This I think is more critical then anything in the digital age. You don't bag on your fanbase or your 3rd party support (especially when that 3rd party is almost more beloved then you are).
The delay and the overly hostile GSL was major factor in brining about Pathfinder. If WotC keeps being hyper closed and keeps the DDI around as it exists they'll shoot 5e in the head just like they did 4e.
Frankly they just need to open their back catalog again at or near retail print value. If people don't want to buy into the current edition, let them pay for what was already developed and paid for. Better yet let them pay for All editions. Nothing could be better then getting "new" blood to buy it ALL (from 1e to 5e) again.
|
If WotC decides to significantly revert the D&D branding to something sufficiently similar to the the 3e (which includes 3.5e for these discussions) version, then Pathfinder and Paizo are going to feel it. A lot.
I have serious doubts about this. D&D has largely become a generic term for fantasy RPG's. There was a long thread on it, but the majority of people that I know call PF D&D when speaking to the non-gaming world. I don't see where the actions of WotC over the past few years have done anything to build loyalty for the brand. Conversely, I would argue that much of the 4e changes deliberately antagonized long term D&D players. That's why PF is so popular.
I think WotC is caught between a rock and a hard place. The one aspect of 4e which seems to be doing well is D&D encounters, because busy people can take a 90 minute D&D break once a week. But most gamers of my acquaintence are looking for more than that. I am hard pressed to see how WotC could regain a significant portion of the PF audience without either 1) outraging their 4e customers or 2) supporting two different games Classic D&D and 5e (or Advanced D&D or some other marketing name).
The problem WotC will have with 5E is that if they try to regain the old 3rd edition players, they will prove that they don't actually care about the ruleset at all, and will change it on a whim just because some corporate type felt like it. This will simply provide proof to those who left WotC after 4E that WotC can't be trusted, and piss off the supporters of 4E. Also, that would put them right back where they were competing with the OGL, which was a big reason the 4E license is so restrictive. In short, WotC has nothing to gain by trying to go back to the 3rd edition base; both the fans and rules of that base have moved on to someone else.
The one aspect of 4e which seems to be doing well is D&D encounters..
Can I ask what makes you think it's doing poorly? Is it declining market share from that "ICv2" or whatever the acronym is?
I saw an interview this year with the WoTC CEO which was mostly about M:TG but in passing he commented that DnD revenue was up. It seems to me they have put the loss of dissatisfied 3.5 customers down to a bruising learning experience and are moving on with their new customers. I can see someone without DDI thinking they were declining, but IMO the quality and creativity within the system has really improved of late (from essentials onwards, really).
If Legends and Lore is anything to go on, I'd say it's the editions before 3rd and 4th that are getting pandered to the hardest. I've run across a few posts by diehard 4E fans who feel a little slighted by the tone of those articles to date.
Frankly, I think anyone hoping for 3rd style play from 5th is going to be really disappointed and anyone looking for 4Es influence is going to find it but not be entirely pleased.
|
I think the single biggest reason to play pathfinder is that the best adventures currently available are being written for it.
I think another big factor is how successful the Pathfinder Society Organised Play programme has been - and the bigger it gets the more attractive it becomes to new players as they are more likely to be able to find a group.
I personally have no interest in buying adventures, but PFS is what has made me buy more PF RPG stuff and play the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think the single biggest reason to play pathfinder is that the best adventures currently available are being written for it.I think another big factor is how successful the Pathfinder Society Organised Play programme has been - and the bigger it gets the more attractive it becomes to new players as they are more likely to be able to find a group.
I personally have no interest in buying adventures, but PFS is what has made me buy more PF RPG stuff and play the game.
I think the Society is going to mesh nicely with the boxed set.
I know I'll use a simple module (like Masters of the Fallen Fortress) when I bring the boxed set down and teach the kids. I can then pop down on odd weekends, bring a PFS Scenario and run them through it. We'll set up accounts and they'll get to update their characters online (with parental help of course). Then they can take my print outs, and run the adventures for their friends in a weekend get together...
yes, it's a Pathfinder virus. :-) How is organized play doing for WotC? anyone know?
|
|
yes, it's a Pathfinder virus. :-) How is organized play doing for WotC? anyone know?
WOtC seems to be focussing on their Encounters - which seem great if you want a weekly 2 hour game at your FLGS, but not so good if you want to play a few decent length scenarios at conventions (I have never seen Encounters being run at a convention, and LGSs in the UK often don't have space for actual playing).
LFR has apparently been "outsourced" now and from my experiences never had the profile of PFS (I only ever managed to get 3 games of LFR at cons).
IMHO PFS hands down wipes the floor with LFR in terms of popularity.
How is organized play doing for WotC? anyone know?
This is anecdotal at best, but 4E organized play gets solid turnout in the Raleigh NC area - or at least, Encounters does. We regularly see 15-20 people in one area store, and maybe 12-18 at another location. Don't know about Lair Assault, but there does seem to be a core group of regulars showing up for it on a week to week basis. LFR seems to have declined of late, but I could be mistaken on that.
I don't attend standing PFS events in Raleigh because they're currently held on the same night as my home game (Thursday), but some Monday and Tuesday sessions are supposed to start at another store soon. I would imagine those will gain traction quickly, if for no other reason than that there's a demand for the game that isn't being satisfied - and the top-volume store in Raleigh, while having a robust PFS program with a great VC and VL overseeing it, caters nearly exclusively to Magic players and generally gives them preference over RPGs, which equates to limited space for D&D/PFS tables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry gotta say it, Saga. Saga, Saga, Saga! If WotC had just used a cleaned up fantasy/D&D focused version of Saga from the start (and hadn't done a fluff cow hunt) they wouldn't have broken the community the way it did.
I'll say it again. SAGA SAGA SAGA SAGA. I thought 4e was going to build off of that, and that was part of my enthusiasm for the new edition.
The fracturing of the community would have been minimal if they stuck with a saga variant.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I'll say it again. SAGA SAGA SAGA SAGA. I thought 4e was going to build off of that, and that was part of my enthusiasm for the new edition.
The fracturing of the community would have been minimal if they stuck with a saga variant.
Me too. I was expecting a class based system with talents as class abilities, basically D&D with customizable class features. I was not expecting cookie-cutter classes with a "powers" system of weak attacks and almost no out of combat abilities except as rituals. Not a fan of the binary "yes/no" skill system for fantasy though - I like skill points. (It works ok in Saga because it simulates a cinematic system very well).
If 5e inspires itself more from Saga edition, it will be worth at least a look. They would also have to ressurrect a lot of the slain sacred cows of fluff too, to make it worth my time. One of the major issues I had with 4e was that many of the terms I'm used to using didn't mean nearly the same thing, flavor-wise, as before - a 4e fighter does not do the same things, in world, as a 1e-3.5 fighter.
Sorry gotta say it, Saga. Saga, Saga, Saga!I agree as well. I though Saga was the right direction and thought 4e would use Saga as a base. Sadly it wasn't.
I'll say it again. SAGA SAGA SAGA SAGA. I thought 4e was going to build off of that, and that was part of my enthusiasm for the new edition.
The fracturing of the community would have been minimal if they stuck with a saga variant.
Me too. I was expecting a class based system with talents as class abilities, basically D&D with customizable class features. I was not expecting cookie-cutter classes with a "powers" system of weak attacks and almost no out of combat abilities except as rituals. Not a fan of the binary "yes/no" skill system for fantasy though - I like skill points. (It works ok in Saga because it simulates a cinematic system very well).
If 5e inspires itself more from Saga edition, it will be worth at least a look. They would also have to ressurrect a lot of the slain sacred cows of fluff too, to make it worth my time. One of the major issues I had with 4e was that many of the terms I'm used to using didn't mean nearly the same thing, flavor-wise, as before - a 4e fighter does not do the same things, in world, as a 1e-3.5 fighter.
Yeah 4e went to far the skirmish route. I have confrontation for that. The travesty of destroying the classes is what turned me off to 4e.
I'm happy with what WotC did with 4e. I don't see the point in releasing a new edition if all they did was tweak 3e (like they did with 3.5e).
4e is fresh and interesting, and I hope 5e will be innovative and different as well. If 5e is too much like older editions (whether 4e, 3e, or 2e) I will be very disappointed.
I'll say it again. SAGA SAGA SAGA SAGA. I thought 4e was going to build off of that, and that was part of my enthusiasm for the new edition.
The fracturing of the community would have been minimal if they stuck with a saga variant.
Me too. I was expecting a class based system with talents as class abilities, basically D&D with customizable class features. I was not expecting cookie-cutter classes with a "powers" system of weak attacks and almost no out of combat abilities except as rituals. Not a fan of the binary "yes/no" skill system for fantasy though - I like skill points. (It works ok in Saga because it simulates a cinematic system very well).
If 5e inspires itself more from Saga edition, it will be worth at least a look. They would also have to ressurrect a lot of the slain sacred cows of fluff too, to make it worth my time. One of the major issues I had with 4e was that many of the terms I'm used to using didn't mean nearly the same thing, flavor-wise, as before - a 4e fighter does not do the same things, in world, as a 1e-3.5 fighter.
Bold: Probably because a 4E Fighter does it better.
But aside from that I do like the SAGA rules, but I feel it's just yet another revision of tired 3E. In addition, I like flavor and fluff as much as the next guy but what I don't like is when I'm forced to choose between that and mechanics. Why can't we have both? Why can't choices be flavorful and fun yet mechanically sound? That's my problem with 3E as it required a choice between the two. 4E emphasized the essence of mechanics over fluff, which isn't a great idea. A balance is needed IMO.
Personally I like options and flavor (those things Power are supposed to do) in my game. I like the option of making a unique and possibly destructive strike vs. standard action, 1 swing = damage die + Str modifier. I also like the fact that certain classes work off their primary stat instead of Strength ALWAYS being for Melee and Dexterity ALWAYS being Ranged. It sorta puts heavy requirements on Strength or Dexterity even if your class really doesn't need this (like a cleric for example).
Another issue I've seen with many posters is a desire to see spells restored to their original Minutes/Hours duration. No, plain and simple. Frankly that was a serious problem with previous editions. I have no problem keeping the descriptions loose, to drive a more free-thinking exploration of what a spell can do (instead of it being very direct, like in 4E). But the minutes, hours, 24-hour, contingency spells were a real pain to have to contend with as a PC (vs. spellcasters using these) and as a DM who had to contest with PCs using spells with a day-long duration.
What I'd also like to see kept from 5E are Save or Die spells, debilitating spell effects lasing more than a round or two, and stat-altering spells/level draining spells. Theres nothing more annoying than additional paperwork re-writing your Level loss, ability score adjustment, increase and penalties of size changes, and other crap that seemed to REALLY bog down stuff for our games. Keep it simple for these apsects.
EDIT: Sorry, confusing words and jumbled thoughts made it previously sound silly.
I'm happy with what WotC did with 4e. I don't see the point in releasing a new edition if all they did was tweak 3e (like they did with 3.5e).
4e is fresh and interesting, and I hope 5e will be innovative and different as well. If 5e is too much like older editions (whether 4e, 3e, or 2e) I will be very disappointed.
+1
I'm happy with what WotC did with 4e. I don't see the point in releasing a new edition if all they did was tweak 3e (like they did with 3.5e).
Yet this is what a new edition is. It is not a whole new system, that is a new game. Most of the fallout over 4e is not just the system but the fact it is a whole new game. If it had been called anything else it would have been better received.( Ok maybe not the PR was just awful and it seems they are doing the same thing again by what I have heard from some 4e fans)
Now I do not like 4e, I will not play 4e much like I will not play GURPS. Its not edition warring its taste. However a 5e should not be a whole new game, it should be an advancement of the system, either taking something like saga and adding to it with the best of 4e or advancing the 4e rule set.
In all honestly if it is not 4e based then we know 4e is not doing what they want, is not retaining the player base and is not growing as well as they want it to. Again not warring ,its just a cold hard fact. D&D is no longer the sole master in the market, pathfinder has went neck and neck with it, much like the final days of 2e when WoD beat it down.
Yet this is what a new edition is. It is not a whole new system, that is a new game. Most of the fallout over 4e is not just the system but the fact it is a whole new game. If it had been called anything else it would have been better received.( Ok maybe not the PR was just awful and it seems they are doing the same thing again by what I have heard from some 4e fans)Now I do not like 4e, I will not play 4e much like I will not play GURPS. Its not edition warring its taste. However a 5e should not be a whole new game, it should be an advancement of the system, either taking something like saga and adding to it with the best of 4e or advancing the 4e rule set.
In all honestly if it is not 4e based then we know 4e is not doing what they want, is not retaining the player base and is not growing as well as they want it to. Again not warring ,its just a cold hard fact. D&D is no longer the sole master in the market, pathfinder has went neck and neck with it, much like the final days of 2e when WoD beat it down.
+1
I find that you put words to exactly how I feel about this whole discussion.
Keep in mind that the D&D brand has to do well by Hasbro standards.
A blow-out success for Paizo is still a failure in Hasbro's eyes.
Keep in mind that the D&D brand has to do well by Hasbro standards.
A blow-out success for Paizo is still a failure in Hasbro's eyes.
Which is one of the major benefits of having a small group of people at the helm of a game instead of a major corporation. The downside is we likely wont ever see a pathfinder space opera or a pathfinder modern from paizo. But we do see that singleness of vision and a focus on quality that comes from someone who is more in it for the love of their craft then satisfying stockholders.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Bold: Probably because a 4E Fighter does it better.
But aside from that I do like the SAGA rules, but I feel it's just yet another revision of tired 3E. In addition, I like flavor and fluff as much as the next guy but what I don't like is when I'm forced to choose between that and mechanics. Why can't we have both? Why can't choices be flavorful and fun yet mechanically sound? That's my problem with 3E as it required a choice between the two. 4E emphasized the essence of mechanics over fluff, which isn't a great idea. A balance is needed IMO.
What I mean is that, to me, fighter means a class that can be good with anything related to armor and weapons, possible even switching between them as the need arises. In the original 4e release, you could not build an archer fighter (maybe you can now, IDK), you had to go ranger if you wanted archery. People said you could just build a ranger and call it whatever you want, but that's exactly my point. Fighter doesn't mean what it used to. Same thing with wizard, elf, and other core D&Disms.
WotC is going to have to bring a lot of the old tropes back if they want to reclaim much of their old audience that left in a huff. But that risks alienating those who didn't really like the old tropes, like Diffan and Black Knight.
Personally, I think 4e is a fine game system, and I've had fun playing it. I just don't think of it as D&D.
Yet this is what a new edition is. It is not a whole new system, that is a new game. Most of the fallout over 4e is not just the system but the fact it is a whole new game. If it had been called anything else it would have been better received.( Ok maybe not the PR was just awful and it seems they are doing the same thing again by what I have heard from some 4e fans)
Now I do not like 4e, I will not play 4e much like I will not play GURPS. Its not edition warring its taste. However a 5e should not be a whole new game, it should be an advancement of the system, either taking something like saga and adding to it with the best of 4e or advancing the 4e rule set.
In all honestly if it is not 4e based then we know 4e is not doing what they want, is not retaining the player base and is not growing as well as they want it to. Again not warring ,its just a cold hard fact. D&D is no longer the sole master in the market, pathfinder has went neck and neck with it, much like the final days of 2e when WoD beat it down.
So basically what we saw in transition from 2E to 3E then. Because that's practically what happend. Feats, Skills, Prestige Classes, Saving throws condensed, the removal (or arevision if you wanna call it) of THAC0, Multiclass made available to everyone, radical racial changes, elimination of level caps, the complete change in how Turning/Rebuking Undead works, a level-by-level character progression instead of 1 class overall or starting off with dual-class.
All of these changes were pretty radical when the edition came out and many thought it was an entirely different game all together. Many people back then feel as you do now about 4E, that it's no longer real D&D. So while I understand that some "Sacred Cows" (hate the term BTW) were killed in the creation of 4E, it's D&D to many other people.
So basically what we saw in transition from 2E to 3E then. Because that's practically what happend. Feats, Skills, Prestige Classes, Saving throws condensed, the removal (or arevision if you wanna call it) of THAC0, Multiclass made available to everyone, radical racial changes, elimination of level caps, the complete change in how Turning/Rebuking Undead works, a level-by-level character progression instead of 1 class overall or starting off with dual-class.
More or less yes. Many older systems go though a whole scale revamp at lest once. But it is not the normal way to do an Edition. 0e to 1e to 2e are normal editions. 3e to 3.5 is also a normal edition. What little I know of it 4e to essentials would mostly likely count as well.
You also need to look at the time and scale and the demand of the player base as a whole. When 3e came out, 2e was done. It was over 10 years old and had been experimenting with play options in many ways similar to 3e. The fan base wanted something new, wanted a revamp of a system that was on its last legs.
And while yes some disliked the changes, most of the player base embraced the changes. Another example that works the very same way is shadowrun, it has had 4 editions, 1-3 are normal changes. 4E shadowrun was a rebuild, one most of the player base wanted and rejoiced in.
You can't make everyone happy and you always loose some players in an edition change. Some folks still think anything past 1e is garbage after all. But the aim to to keep most of the player base and give what the majority wants.
4E failed on some major points, the assumed most folks would switch over as well it was D&D. The dropped the ball pretty heavily in the PR, Dropped the ball on the promised Online electronics suit and really misjudged the fall out from a switch to a hostile 3PP stance.
They misread some indicators badly, and that not even taken into account the killing of things that made the system Iconic.
For all the changes 3e brought it was clearly still the same game as the designs knew to keep the things that made it Icoinicly D&D. 4e focused on IP but forgot that many people played D&D and knew D&D for those iconic things as much as they did for displacer beasts and beholders.
They took a game with over 30 years of history and built up icons and tossed them. And while some liked that, most just went " If I want to play generic fantasy game 4, I have a lot of options"
They simply can not afford to do that again.
What I mean is that, to me, fighter means a class that can be good with anything related to armor and weapons, possible even switching between them as the need arises. In the original 4e release, you could not build an archer fighter (maybe you can now, IDK), you had to go ranger if you wanted archery. People said you could just build a ranger and call it whatever you want, but that's exactly my point. Fighter doesn't mean what it used to. Same thing with wizard, elf, and other core D&Disms.
Ah, ok. Well I agree with you that 3E fighters can be made a LOT more versatile than 4E fighers (which still only use Ranged Basic Attacks for archery). I'm of the opinion that if you want to play an "archer" style character then your better off playing a Ranger anyways. And while a 4E fighter isn't geared (ie. has powers) designed for Ranged weapons, a simple feat or 3 (multiclass Ranger) works well, which is roughtly the same amount of resources you'd spend in 3E to make a good ranged fighter anyhow.
I think, as far as class versatility goes, the Fighter probably got the worst of the restrictions when compared to all other classes. Wizard, on the other hand, have had the most versatility since 4E's debut. I mean, they pretty much cover the gambut of all styles of Wizardry (Summoning/Conjuration, Necromancy, Shadow-mage, Evocation, Pyromancy, Illusion, Enchantment, and so on). I don't think they covered Diviners as most of those spells went into Rituals (though I can't see why a wizard couldn't specialize in that area either).
Also, I think the races actually got better with 4E, espically the Half-Elf which I thought got ZERO help in 3E (don't remember how they work better iin Pathfinder, just know that they do).
WotC is going to have to bring a lot of the old tropes back if they want to reclaim much of their old audience that left in a huff. But that risks alienating those who didn't really like the old tropes, like Diffan and Black Knight.Personally, I think 4e is a fine game system, and I've had fun playing it. I just don't think of it as D&D.
Meh, I like 4E and I have 4e stuff. That doesn't mean that I still don't play v3.5/PF (because I do) and there are things that I still like about those systems. I like diversity, I like changing things up, and I like all aspects of D&D in those editions. So a 5E revision that pertains more to 3E than 4E won't be completly ignored by me. I always give things an honest shot before I make up my mind. So regardless of where they go, I know I'll try it regardless.
Personally, I'm with Black Knight that they divorce a lot of stuff that made 4E what it is (powers should be there, but optional and flavorful). I don't like 3E's math and I think the BAB system is wrong. Multiple attacks that scale down vs. a static AC is not going to add up in later levels and requires a substantial amount of magical benefits to hit those ranges and make those 4th and 5th attacks actually have a chance of hitting.
There are other things that I think they could incorporate into 5E that make it better, but that's a long time away to be worrying about it.
So basically what we saw in transition from 2E to 3E then. Because that's practically what happend. Feats, Skills, Prestige Classes, Saving throws condensed, the removal (or arevision if you wanna call it) of THAC0, Multiclass made available to everyone, radical racial changes, elimination of level caps, the complete change in how Turning/Rebuking Undead works, a level-by-level character progression instead of 1 class overall or starting off with dual-class.
All of these changes were pretty radical when the edition came out and many thought it was an entirely different game all together. Many people back then feel as you do now about 4E, that it's no longer real D&D. So while I understand that some "Sacred Cows" (hate the term BTW) were killed in the creation of 4E, it's D&D to many other people.
I think the biggest difference is that while they changed a lot in the overall system from 2E to 3E, the races and classes remained relatively untouched. These are the two areas that will drive most player's long term interest and support.
I like some of the rule changes in 4E, but the classes in the original PHB just didn't interest me. The old names were there, but the old feel of what they used to mean was gone. The new stuff, to me, wasn't that great, but overall, it wasn't bad. Later, when I approached the game as a system derived from the older stuff, but not necessarily replicating them, it was much easier to absorb, even the original material still didn't really impress me. The fact that I had to completely wipe my mind clean of what DnD meant before comfortably approaching 4E suggests a huge change.
When I went back to play 2nd edition, however, while I had to adjust to certain system changes, the races and classes were still largely the same. Many of the spells were slightly different, the way some of the abilities were expressed were different, but a wizard was still a wizard, an elf was still an elf, etc. The overall expectations did not change even if the expressed mechanics did. The majority of conceptual build that could successfully built in one system could be successfully built in the other.
In other words, the system itself probably saw just as large and fundamental changes between 2E and 3E as it did between 3E and 4E, but with the former, it was mostly a change in how things were expressed, and how much detail the system went into; at the conceptual level, remarkably little changed. The difference between THACO and AC are not that big at the conceptual level; the biggest difference is that one counts down, the other counts up. Likewise with the proficiencies and skills; conceptually, the same thing, just one goes into more objective detail. With the transition to 4E, there were fewer areas affected by major changes, but the areas that were saw not just mechanical changes but conceptual changes and new assumptions. That is why the cries around that transition were louder. Mechanics come and go, as even 2nd edition had alternate rules for initiative, the effectiveness of armor based on the weapon, and other similar things, and counting up to measure the quality of your defenses instead of down to match everything else that counts up ends up doing the same thing, just with different math. The feel, concept, and assumptions of the game is a lot harder to change without changing the game. When a wizard no longer feels like a wizard, the challenge of selling the game becomes much harder.