Pathfinder RPG and Paizo in the Face of 5E


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,340 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>

LazarX wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I think the one thing that they should do is create a character builder/combat manager/campaign manager application which makes the game dead easy for new players and GMs. If they makes it 508 compliant, they can open the game industry to a new market and get some really good PR.
Instead of trying to become a software company without the expertise, they went better. Paizo has endorsed Lone Wolf's Herolab as it's official character management application.

I love Hero Lab even for some of its bumps. I have come into alot of conflicts making my magic items for higher level characters, but generally it works real well.

Some bumps are annoying like getting the INt Boosting headband. You have to ignore the extra skill points it gives, even though it gives you your bonus skils. All the problems seem to be along those minor lines.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mournblade94 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I think the one thing that they should do is create a character builder/combat manager/campaign manager application which makes the game dead easy for new players and GMs. If they makes it 508 compliant, they can open the game industry to a new market and get some really good PR.
Instead of trying to become a software company without the expertise, they went better. Paizo has endorsed Lone Wolf's Herolab as it's official character management application.

I love Hero Lab even for some of its bumps. I have come into alot of conflicts making my magic items for higher level characters, but generally it works real well.

Some bumps are annoying like getting the INt Boosting headband. You have to ignore the extra skill points it gives, even though it gives you your bonus skils. All the problems seem to be along those minor lines.

Actually I think Int boosting headbands now work properly in both Herolab and PCGen, it's a matter of engaging a certain slider once it's equipped. I remember trying it out a while back, I'll have to check when I get back home


memorax wrote:
I doubt building a character builder will in any way shape or form make them a "software company". Wotc has one and no one classifies them as a software company. Hazard guess if we ever see a new edition of PF that you will not only see Paizo develop their own CB we will also see more digital releases.

I don't see that happening. WotC's digital content may be getting rave reviews now, but it took this long just to get DDI to where they promised it would be when 4E was released, and that doesn't count the years of work, along with delayed and failed promises, that they did with digital content before that. I could see Paizo working with Herolab to have an officially endorsed digital character builder ready at the release of PF 2.0, but I don't see the Paizo building their own. It would just take away from resources they could spend better elsewhere.


GURPS is a system that doesn't work. I found it useful just for cyperpunk or modern.
The evolution of PF could be a LEVEL BASED system with some point to spend each level to buy abilities (HP, feats, known spells, etc). BUT this is not a full based point system. However, this is not the way Hasbro could choose. Hasbro need a game for mass. But here we don't talk about game, but merchandising. Consider that PF benefits from 3.5 experience, but it's at beginning and can be upgraded.
Every player has his game. Some prefers 4E, some PF, some GURPS. It's a matter of style. I prefer PF, but this is my choice. I don't think that an hypothetical 5E would be a competitor of PF. This will be two game for two types of players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AlecStorm wrote:
GURPS is a system that doesn't work.

OMG! Has anyone told the GURPS players? :P


A new Legends and Lore article on "Getting the Most Out of the Rules": http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111101


Apparently I'm with a number of people here who'd like to see a cleaned-up version of the PF rules presented in a clearer, easier-to-reference and understand manner.

It isn't that I don't love the game. ...I'd just like Paizo to take out the buffing and cleaning polish.


Pax Veritas wrote:


I agree completely that this is exactly the heritage view that PAIZO has taken with Pathfinder RPG, and its consistent with the origins and history of Dungeons & Dragons. Its like a naturalism that is the source of the rules, and the rules are just useful ways of describing it.
.

No. Gygax hated the simulationist design. He said that if you wanted something like that go play another game. To actually try and make the game itself simulation would be an act of insanity.

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:
GURPS is a system that doesn't work.
OMG! Has anyone told the GURPS players? :P

I think they know. They just have fun in spite of the system.

Kinda like PF players.


Well, the poll is certainly much better. Much better!
I also find it interesting that option three received nearly so many votes as it did.
EDIT: The reason this is so interesting is because option three was so objectively terrible. I mean, it was awful. It was a perfect storm of "don't ever choose this one, 'cause it's awful". This indicates a much greater interest in high-complication set of rules than really option three warrants.


MadScientistWorking wrote:
Pax Veritas wrote:


I agree completely that this is exactly the heritage view that PAIZO has taken with Pathfinder RPG, and its consistent with the origins and history of Dungeons & Dragons. Its like a naturalism that is the source of the rules, and the rules are just useful ways of describing it.
.
No. Gygax hated the simulationist design. He said that if you wanted something like that go play another game. To actually try and make the game itself simulation would be an act of insanity.

What I find funny about that position is that all roleplaying games are simulationist to some extent in that you are trying to create something other than the world you personally live in, and all games systems have the level of complexity that PF does at some level. 3rd edition and PF simply codified it so that it was visible.

Grand Lodge

lordredraven wrote:
Because it does. Why would anyone ever play Gurps, when you can play Hero system instead?

I was recreating a Hero system character (near future) from a campaign that lasted two sessions before folding for a GURPS Space campaign and was surprised how similar the rules seemed to be. Of course, the GURPS campaign folded after we had a start date, but before we played, so I can't comment on play differences.


Hasbro is a huge corp, who destroyed the D&D brand for me. I have negative loyalty and faith in them. Paizo is the story I love, David vs Goliath, business combined with integrity and love for the game.

Hasbro (I will not call them wotc, after 4e) has unlimited funds (figuratively), and if they decide, can throw these funds after the D&D brand. You can buy a lot of perception with unlimited funding.

I hope they don't, and I will battle them by bying from Paizo.


Tandriniel wrote:

Hasbro is a huge corp, who destroyed the D&D brand for me. I have negative loyalty and faith in them. Paizo is the story I love, David vs Goliath, business combined with integrity and love for the game.

Hasbro (I will not call them wotc, after 4e) has unlimited funds (figuratively), and if they decide, can throw these funds after the D&D brand. You can buy a lot of perception with unlimited funding.

I hope they don't, and I will battle them by bying from Paizo.

WATCH OUT MAN, IF YOU DIE IN THE EDITION WAR YOU DIE IN REAL LIFE!


ProfessorCirno wrote:
WATCH OUT MAN, IF YOU DIE IN THE EDITION WAR YOU DIE IN REAL LIFE!

Nah...we just go to hell and re-group.


Tandriniel wrote:
Hasbro is a huge corp, who destroyed the D&D brand for me...

You had Hasbro destroy the D&D brand JUST FOR YOU? Man, that was selfish.

Scarab Sages

Tacticslion wrote:

Well, the poll is certainly much better. Much better!

I also find it interesting that option three received nearly so many votes as it did.
EDIT: The reason this is so interesting is because option three was so objectively terrible. I mean, it was awful. It was a perfect storm of "don't ever choose this one, 'cause it's awful". This indicates a much greater interest in high-complication set of rules than really option three warrants.

I've just been to look at it, and I found it a false dilemma.

Virtually all the text of Option 3 included essential information, such as the results of a failed check, the ability to risk a faster movement rate, and sample Climb DCs, but the baggage, of 'A Climb check is a skill check based on a character's Strength score plus the number of skill ranks he has devoted to the Climb skill, if any.' is utterly worthless drivel, that should be dealt with once, and once only, in the general rules for skill checks or character generation.

People voted for Option 3, because they want to know the DCs, they want to know that natural climbers can move faster, they want to know the results of a failed check, they want to know if one can recover from a fall.

It is patently false to imply that the only options are to have bare GM Fiat, handwavey, Magical Teaparty, or looooooong patronising rules that would put a coke fiend to sleep.
"Gawd, why would you ever need to know the results of a failed roll? Boooooooooring! Why would you need to see the DCs? SNOOOOOORE!"


Snorter wrote:

I've just been to look at it, and I found it a false dilemma.

Virtually all the text of Option 3 included essential information, such as the results of a failed check, the ability to risk a faster movement rate, and sample Climb DCs, but the baggage, of 'A Climb check is a skill check based on a character's Strength score plus the number of skill ranks he has devoted to the Climb skill, if any.' is utterly worthless drivel, that should be dealt with once, and once only, in the general rules for skill checks or character generation.

People voted for Option 3, because they want to know the DCs, they want to know that natural climbers can move faster, they want to know the results of a failed check, they want to know if one can recover from a fall.

It is patently false to imply that the only options are to have bare GM Fiat, handwavey, Magical Teaparty, or looooooong patronising rules that would put a coke fiend to sleep.
"Gawd, why would you ever need to know the results of a failed roll? Boooooooooring! Why would you need to see the DCs? SNOOOOOORE!"

Oh, I totally agree. But option three was such a mess that it virtually screamed "don't choose me I'm terrible, see how terrible I am?!" I wholly support the vague essence of what option three should be. (Check out my post earlier in this thread on that, where I rewrote option three in a vastly superior way in just a few minutes). Effectively, option three is the best option... that's just terribly written. I'm just surprised it got as much support as it did on WotC's website when it's so terribly written.


Honestly the way 5E is starting to sound, Paizo may well stand to *gain* money. Alot of these 4E types are just as addicted to crunch as 3E, you can see it in the polls and forum comments. Thanks to GSL and digital content, 4E will actually die once Wizards is done with it. If Paizo has at least a cleaned up (if not revised) version of rules to go, there may well be many that convert to it, particularly those that never played another edition.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

La la la.


Gorbacz wrote:
La la la.

La la la (2)

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/offTopic/top5RPGsSummer2011


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
kaymanklynman wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
La la la.

La la la (2)

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/offTopic/top5RPGsSummer2011

Linkified


Gorbacz wrote:
La la la.

NICE.


FoxBat_ wrote:
Honestly the way 5E is starting to sound, Paizo may well stand to *gain* money. Alot of these 4E types are just as addicted to crunch as 3E, you can see it in the polls and forum comments. Thanks to GSL and digital content, 4E will actually die once Wizards is done with it. If Paizo has at least a cleaned up (if not revised) version of rules to go, there may well be many that convert to it, particularly those that never played another edition.

It would all depend on how well 5E is written and plays. The whole D&D vs. Paizo mentality is pretty moronic IMO. They both produce things I enjoy so they receive money. One is neither better than the other (just different) and if 5E looks to be fun and enjoyable to play, then it'll see my money too. This idea of "Brand Loyalty" is as asinine as it is archaic. And no, I'm not saying people NEED to play, buy, or enjoy both systems but refusing to even try one due to the company publishing it seems very immature and small-minded to me.

If 4E "dies" (a term I'm not really comfortable with) with the advent of 5E then at least I know I won't have to worry about further revisions to a game I enjoy. I can make up my own stuff using their methods and create all new classes, powers, feats, yadda-yadda without worrying if it'll be covered better or worse in a future supplement. Actually, if they go to 5E then It'll give me time to enjoy 4E while I wait for more options and material to be produced before buying into the new edition.

As for the icv2 reports, I take them with a grain of salt. Yea Paizo out-sold WotC in certain circles for two consecutive quarters. When they do that for say.....two fiscal years then I think WotC needs to worry. Until then, seems like good old competition in the same market. Which, BTW, is a good thing for both companies.


I thought the D&D 5E rumors all started via a April Fools job this last spring. Is there any actual substance to the rumors now since Gencon? I'd think 4E must being doing pretty poorly if they are already looking at 5E. Kind of like what happen with ShadowRun 4E. What a mess that is.

Shadow Lodge

Margaret Weis said Monte told her he was working on it. It must be true.


voska66 wrote:
I thought the D&D 5E rumors all started via a April Fools job this last spring. Is there any actual substance to the rumors now since Gencon? I'd think 4E must being doing pretty poorly if they are already looking at 5E. Kind of like what happen with ShadowRun 4E. What a mess that is.

4e doesn't have to be looking poorly at all for a company to be thinking about their next line of products. 3.5 was doing pretty good when 4e came along, at least it was where I'm from. If any edition of the game begins faltering, rushing out a whole new edition won't fix it. If anything, I see a new edition as a product of an edition doing well. Where else would the funding and even justification for development come from?

If a product is failing, the last thing I would think a company would do is pour money into developing another version of that same product. Most times when something starts failing, the parent company just discontinues it.


TOZ wrote:
Margaret Weis said Monte told her he was working on it. It must be true.

Must? No. Credible? Yes.

Let's spend our time doing something more productive than building strawmen, shall we?

Shadow Lodge

Let's spend our time doing something more productive than correcting flippant statements, shall we?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Let's spend our time doing something more productive than correcting flippant statements, shall we?

4E kicked my puppy.

Shadow Lodge

No, 4E violated your puppy.


TOZ wrote:
Let's spend our time doing something more productive than correcting flippant statements, shall we?

Hey, I lost my double standard.

Seeing as how you have extra...


Gorbacz wrote:
4E kicked my puppy.

It's true.

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Let's spend our time doing something more productive than correcting flippant statements, shall we?

Hey, I lost my double standard.

Seeing as how you have extra...

Get a job and earn your own, you socialist hippie!


TOZ wrote:
Get a job and earn your own, you socialist hippie!

Well played. ;-)

Shadow Lodge

*salutes*

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As someone that loves PF and hates 4e, I relish them kicking out a new edition. All that will do is tick off more D&D players and push them towards PF.


TClifford wrote:
As someone that loves PF and hates 4e, I relish them kicking out a new edition. All that will do is tick off more D&D players and push them towards PF.

/sigh

If you really find pleasure in upsetting other people who share the same hobby as you, then I feel sorry for you. How on earth do you figure it'll push them towards PF? Why would they not make that choice on their own, edition changing aside? Maybe they'll just stick with 4e for all you know.

I think you're missing the distinct possibility of D&D gaining even more new players, as well as winning over those who didn't partake in 4e. I don't play 4e(came very close, but schedules got in the way), but I'm actually very interested to see what they have in store for 5e. If it looks fun, I'll play it.

Shadow Lodge

I relish the idea of a 5E being released, splintering the fanbase further, becoming a financial burden, leading to the liquidation of WotC.

Thus, without a major company advertising and bringing new blood into the hobby, Paizo will be forced to work even harder to support themselves and attract new customers. This will slowly sap their lifeforce until they too must close their doors.

Thus I shall be left alone to play the One True Way of 3.5 with the Chosen People.

Scarab Sages

Tacticslion wrote:
Oh, I totally agree. But option three was such a mess that it virtually screamed "don't choose me I'm terrible, see how terrible I am?!" I wholly support the vague essence of what option three should be. (Check out my post earlier in this thread on that, where I rewrote option three in a vastly superior way in just a few minutes). Effectively, option three is the best option... that's just terribly written. I'm just surprised it got as much support as it did on WotC's website when it's so terribly written.

But what's the alternative?

I'm not surprised that option three got votes, since options one and two were completely devoid of any content whatsoever.
Option three was the only one that even attempted to function as a description of what the skill check does.

Remove the chaff from Option Three, and you've got the minimum information to actually run the skill in play. My beef is that the chaff had no right to be there in the first place, it looked like a clumsy attempt to say "Look what happens when you let those awful roll-players have an input. You're forced to add lines of text to every skill, explaining how the bonus is calculated.".
Which is a total strawman.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Josh M. wrote:
TClifford wrote:
As someone that loves PF and hates 4e, I relish them kicking out a new edition. All that will do is tick off more D&D players and push them towards PF.

/sigh

If you really find pleasure in upsetting other people who share the same hobby as you, then I feel sorry for you. How on earth do you figure it'll push them towards PF? Why would they not make that choice on their own, edition changing aside? Maybe they'll just stick with 4e for all you know.

I think you're missing the distinct possibility of D&D gaining even more new players, as well as winning over those who didn't partake in 4e. I don't play 4e(came very close, but schedules got in the way), but I'm actually very interested to see what they have in store for 5e. If it looks fun, I'll play it.

As someone that has been around long enough to go through about 7 edition changes and seen all my old core books become obsolete, I can fully enjoy anything that hurts WoTC if they try it again so they can get a quick buck selling $35-50 core rule books.

Look 4e is so far away from 3.5 that it really isn't the same game. Flavor text and campaign aside. What will 5e do? Radically change it again? Turn it into such an MMO that you actually have to pay a monthly charge to play it?

I am all for updating rules, but a complete new set of rules that causes the old ones to be obsolete. No, I can't back that again.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TClifford wrote:
As someone that loves PF and hates 4e, I relish them kicking out a new edition. All that will do is tick off more D&D players and push them towards PF.

When I left AD&D for ten years, the LAST game I wanted to play at the time, was anything like it. Paizo has picked up all the 3.5 grognards that they're going to get. To expand at this point,they have to pick up new people, just like any other company out there.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
TClifford wrote:
As someone that loves PF and hates 4e, I relish them kicking out a new edition. All that will do is tick off more D&D players and push them towards PF.
When I left AD&D for ten years, the LAST game I wanted to play at the time, was anything like it. Paizo has picked up all the 3.5 grognards that they're going to get. To expand at this point,they have to pick up new people, just like any other company out there.

I don't agree with that statement at all. When 4e came out, I was the Pathfinder champion at my game shop. I saw the people ticked off at 3.5 ending and too many people thought that 4e was just a way for WoTC to control more of the game then before [ie the reason they took Dragon and Dungeon magazines away from Paizo] and to charge everyone for new Core Books. Most of them started playing Pathfinder.

I would say it was about a 50/50 split. If WoTC does it again, I'll tell you right now, more of that 50% that went to 4e will finally bail on them and I think will find Pathfinder more to their liking since it still has great support.

Shadow Lodge

TClifford wrote:


I would say it was about a 50/50 split. If WoTC does it again, I'll tell you right now, more of that 50% that went to 4e will finally bail on them and I think will find Pathfinder more to their liking since it still has great support.

Is this based on anything besides optimism?


TClifford wrote:

As someone that has been around long enough to go through about 7 edition changes and seen all my old core books become obsolete, I can fully enjoy anything that hurts WoTC if they try it again so they can get a quick buck selling $35-50 core rule books.

Look 4e is so far away from 3.5 that it really isn't the same game. Flavor text and campaign aside. What will 5e do? Radically change it again? Turn it into such an MMO that you actually have to pay a monthly charge to play it?

I am all for updating rules, but a complete new set of rules that causes the old ones to be obsolete. No, I can't back that again.

The actual, living, breathing D&D MMO was actually made with 3.5 rules, by the way. I believe it was called Stormreach.

I'm not doubting your "gamer cred." I was in the same boat, I had just purchased multiple 3.5 books just to hear later that same day that 4e was on it's way. But you have to look at the big picture; D&D is the flagship of the table-top RPG industry. It's "the" household name rpg. If it fails, we ALL feel the repercussions.

Just because someone doesn't prefer the same ruleset as you, doesn't make them any less than your fellow gamer. Wishing ill against those who share the same interests and hobby as you, is detestable. If you don't like WotC's business practices, then simply don't buy their products. Leave the gamers out of it.

Scarab Sages

voska66 wrote:
I thought the D&D 5E rumors all started via a April Fools job this last spring. Is there any actual substance to the rumors now since Gencon?

This may be something or nothing, but Stan Brown (sorry..., STAN! Brown) has also moved back there.

Not that this 'proves' a 5E is in the works, any more than it 'proves' they want him to update his d20 Modern work to 4E.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TClifford wrote:
Look 4e is so far away from 3.5 that it really isn't the same game. Flavor text and campaign aside. What will 5e do? Radically change it again? Turn it into such an MMO that you actually have to pay a monthly charge to play it?

It's funny that this is just as valid of a statement:

Look 3.X is so far away from AD&D/2E that it really isn't the same game. Flavor text and campaign aside. What will 4e do? Radically change it again? Turn it into such an MMO that you actually have to pay a monthly charge to play it?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Margaret Weis said Monte told her he was working on it. It must be true.

Incorrect. Margaret Weis said that a friend told her that Monte was working on it. The reliability of the middle person is unknown.

Other than that one rumor, there is no evidence other than Monte is indeed working with Wizards again. Does anyone know if he's actually moved to Seattle? I doubt they'd let him telecommute for a brand new edition except in the very, very preliminary (2+ years away) stages.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Josh M. wrote:
TClifford wrote:

As someone that has been around long enough to go through about 7 edition changes and seen all my old core books become obsolete, I can fully enjoy anything that hurts WoTC if they try it again so they can get a quick buck selling $35-50 core rule books.

Look 4e is so far away from 3.5 that it really isn't the same game. Flavor text and campaign aside. What will 5e do? Radically change it again? Turn it into such an MMO that you actually have to pay a monthly charge to play it?

I am all for updating rules, but a complete new set of rules that causes the old ones to be obsolete. No, I can't back that again.

The actual, living, breathing D&D MMO was actually made with 3.5 rules, by the way. I believe it was called Stormreach.

I'm not doubting your "gamer cred." I was in the same boat, I had just purchased multiple 3.5 books just to hear later that same day that 4e was on it's way. But you have to look at the big picture; D&D is the flagship of the table-top RPG industry. It's "the" household name rpg. If it fails, we ALL feel the repercussions.

Just because someone doesn't prefer the same ruleset as you, doesn't make them any less than your fellow gamer. Wishing ill against those who share the same interests and hobby as you, is detestable. If you don't like WotC's business practices, then simply don't buy their products. Leave the gamers out of it.

This is very quickly becoming a personal attack at me, and I really don't see where your point is. Not once have I stated anything even remotely negative towards other gamers. All my comments were geared towards WoTC only.

Assuming that they and/or D&D is going to fail any time in the near future is a joke. Gaming has been around a lot longer then you have probably been alive and I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon. The D&D liscence has survived a lot of publishers. Even if WoTC were to go away, someone else would pick up the mantle. If anything WoTC losing the liscense just increases the possiblity of Paizo taking it over for good.

So instead of overreacting to my statements, how about you actually learn something from someone that has been there and done it longer then you.


Josh M. wrote:
If you really find pleasure in upsetting other people who share the same hobby as you, then I feel sorry for you.

Schadenfreude is real, and it's not uncommon.

And, if you truly feel sorry about people who find pleasure in upsetting other people who share the same "hobby", then you must really feel sorry for every sports fan in existence. I'm sure there are more than a few Patriots fans who would love to upset Colts fans. On a regular basis.

I don't think there's anything for you to feel sorry about.

Quote:
Wishing ill against those who share the same interests and hobby as you, is detestable.

You don't honestly think he can affect anything in even a remotely material and measurable way, do you?

This whole "kumbaya we're all one happy family of gamers let's hold hands and sing forever" nonsense really does need to be nipped in the bud. Should have been nipped in the bud 10+ years ago.

I like hockey and football. Baseball is the most horrendous sport in existence, and watching it is worse than watching paint dry. Sports fans aren't all expected to kumbaya together - and neither are gamers (nor should they be).

Hmm. That was fun for a slow day at the office. :D

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,340 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder RPG and Paizo in the Face of 5E All Messageboards