Pathfinder RPG and Paizo in the Face of 5E


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,151 to 1,200 of 1,340 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I outgrew my angry adolescence a long time ago." - Methos

Really that's where I am with the 3.x/4.x divide.

I don't care what 4.x looks like, anymore than I care what 5.x looks like. I don't care what Shadowrun, Gurps, or Torg look like for that matter.

What I do care about is if a 5.x will bring new blood to table top RPGs. Hasbro has the capital to lauch a big marketing campaign, something that no one else really has. (Not to say that other companies can't, *cough cough Beginner'sBash*cough*, just that Hasbro has more resources to throw at the problem).

If it does, fractured fan base aside we all win.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
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?

Nice try, but you are not going to bait me with that. Your comparison doesn't hold up. AD&D/2e to 3.x isn't anywhere near as radical a change as 3.x to 4e. At least 2e and 3e were recognizable as pen and paper RPGs and each edition was making the game better. 4e is actually closer to what D&D started out as. A way to add RPG elements to a miniture game. Now with 4e we have gone full circle and it is all about simplifying the game so you can play it with minitures. No depth or in my opinion heart. 4e has taken the Role playing out of D&D and replaced it with Roll playing.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:

stuff

*brofist*

TClifford wrote:
stuff

LAWL.


Arnwyn wrote:
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

Difference being, PF and 4e aren't playing against each other on Sunday. You say this "kumbaya hand holding" needs to be nipped, and I have to ask why? You want to fracture the fanbase further? People aren't allowed to play both systems? Table top gaming not niche enough yet? I play Pathfinder. I also continue to play 3.5 And I am anxiously looking forward to 5e. Get the torches and pitchforks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
TClifford wrote:
Nice try, but you are not going to bait me with that. Your comparison doesn't hold up. AD&D/2e to 3.x isn't anywhere near as radical a change as 3.x to 4e. At least 2e and 3e were recognizable as pen and paper RPGs and each edition was making the game better. 4e is actually closer to what D&D started out as. A way to add RPG elements to a miniture game. Now with 4e we have gone full circle and it is all about simplifying the game so you can play it with minitures. No depth or in my opinion heart. 4e has taken the Role playing out of D&D and replaced it with Roll playing.

Actually, 2E -> 3E had some very radical changes. The only difference is that you liked those radical changes, so you feel it made the game better.

You are right that 4E tried to bring the game back to simpler roots. Some people like that approach, others did not.

I am a big Pathfinder supporter. But I also like some of the things they did with 4E. I think Gamma World is an excellent game. But I'm the sort of gamer who likes playing different games and trying new things.


TClifford wrote:

Not once have I stated anything even remotely negative towards other gamers. All my comments were geared towards WoTC only.

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.

Maybe relish isn't the word you're looking for then. Maybe I'm misreading it. Entirely possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TClifford wrote:
...4e has taken the Role playing out of D&D and replaced it with Roll playing...

HAR HAR! A winner is you!

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems like things are getting hostile in here.

Time to stop talking about each other, questioning each other's motives, and picking fights.

Shadow Lodge

Erik Mona wrote:
Seems like things are getting hostile in here.

I thought it was getting humorous! I know I'm laughing! :D


deinol wrote:

Actually, 2E -> 3E had some very radical changes. The only difference is that you liked those radical changes, so you feel it made the game better.

You are right that 4E tried to bring the game back to simpler roots. Some people like that approach, others did not.

I am a big Pathfinder supporter. But I also like some of the things they did with 4E. I think Gamma World is an excellent game. But I'm the sort of gamer who likes playing different games and trying new things.

The difference between the 2E -> 3E was that it was mostly additive, and a continuation of the thought process going on at the time. 3E -> 4E not only put the brakes on any continued thought processes, it tried to ignore as much of recent history as it could get away with. For the former switch, everyone may not have liked it, but the overall product was generally what people expected it to be, and it was easy enough to ignore the parts you didn't like. The 4E switch was not only completely unexpected, it forced the fence sitters to choose a side, for good or ill.

Shadow Lodge

Wow, I just got here and the fight's already over. Oh well.

My personal opinion and vote: I watched WotC ruin Magic, then I watched WotC ruin D&D. Saving TSR from bankruptcy was nice, but I still don't like them as a company. I invested heavily in 3.XE because it was the TSR ladies and gents that made it for WotC and because I didn't have immediate D&D options. Now those ladies and gents are here making a D&D alternative. All the good, none of the WotC. I'm not going anywhere.

The OP wanted opinions and here's mine. You don't have to like it; I don't have to explain it. It's here for those who wish it.


TClifford wrote:

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.

The problem is people, a lot of people, really enjoy 4E and hoping to see it fail doesn't really effect WotC/Hasbro much (they're a corporate power-house) and they'll get over it fairly quickly but it will affect your fellow gamers in a more profound way. The tone of your post felt as if 4E was "wrong" for the game and name and some how if it fails it validates your own personal opinion.

TClifford wrote:


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.

I highly doubt that considering WotC penchant for putting things on the shelf for later use. If the RPG dept goes way down then expect to see it saved for something else or other products not directly related to TTRPGs emerge with the D&D name on it like board games, video games, and other entertainment products. Or see it gone for a few years as they allow the other companies to do their thing and pick up some time later. None of those options are necessarily good for the RPG buisness as a whole and I doubt WotC will see the brand name D&D to Paizo even if Paizo could afford the IP (which, in my personal opinion, they couldn't).


deinol wrote:


Actually, 2E -> 3E had some very radical changes. The only difference is that you liked those radical changes, so you feel it made the game better.

You are right that 4E tried to bring the game back to simpler roots. Some people like that approach, others did not.

I am a big Pathfinder supporter. But I also like some of the things they did with 4E. I think Gamma World is an excellent game. But I'm the sort of gamer who likes playing different games and trying new things.

4e changed spell casting and lost Vancian

3e spells were largely the same as 2e with minor changes

4e changed melee actions to at-will, encounter, etc.
3e changed to hit so that the armor mod was consistently applied and addedd feats

Anybody who says the changes were as significant between 2e and 3e as between 3e and 4e is drinking paint thinner


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:
deinol wrote:


Actually, 2E -> 3E had some very radical changes. The only difference is that you liked those radical changes, so you feel it made the game better.

You are right that 4E tried to bring the game back to simpler roots. Some people like that approach, others did not.

I am a big Pathfinder supporter. But I also like some of the things they did with 4E. I think Gamma World is an excellent game. But I'm the sort of gamer who likes playing different games and trying new things.

4e changed spell casting and lost Vancian

3e spells were largely the same as 2e with minor changes

4e changed melee actions to at-will, encounter, etc.
3e changed to hit so that the armor mod was consistently applied and addedd feats

Anybody who says the changes were as significant between 2e and 3e as between 3e and 4e is drinking paint thinner

Or cares about different aspects of the game than you do and makes different determinations as to what changes are "significant"


You know I don't even care if they fix all the problems and short comings of 4th edition in a new 5th edition. They'll just wait till we buy all their books and then come out with 6th edition in another 2-4 years so that we have to buy everything all over again. What else would you expect from a company owned by Hasbro and the makers of Magic: the Cluttering. I have Battletech books from 20 years ago that I can still use with their latest edition. I am so done with WotC. When the time comes give me Pathfinder 2nd edition any day over 5E,6E or even 7E.


Diffan wrote:


It would all depend on how well 5E is written and plays.

Quite obviously. I'm just observing that this "rules light" movement is not going to make many existing 4E fans happy, and they may find they have more in common with 3.5/PF than 5E. I am not speaking about an objective measure like "plays well", I am speaking to an existing fanbase that loves elaborate and definite rules. Mike trying to get past the 3e/4e divide by relaxing the rules is quite a gamble.

Quote:


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.

However foolish it might be, it's a real market force that a business cannot ignore, or else you end up in WotC's current situation. Even if you can get players to buy books from another system, they are likely to favor one or the other depending on which one their playgroup actually uses.

Quote:


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.

How the DDI subscriptions are impacted is more what I was hinting at here, which doesn't affect all 4E players but does effect many. Say that no new 4E articles are ever produced. Do you still have to pay monthly for access to the old archive and character builder? Do these resources just vanish or semi-vanish entirely? Do you keep paying a sub to access the old material and constantly have 5E pushed down your throat in the process?

It should also be noted that there seem to be few true 3.5 games left now, in favor of PF. 4E may well hang on longer if no proper successor can be produced, but new books are vital for bringing new players into the hobby, even if the old ones aren't significantly impacted.

Quote:


Until then, seems like good old competition in the same market. Which, BTW, is a good thing for both companies.

When is competition EVER a good thing from a business' own perspective short of staring down anti-trust suits? I agree that the competition is a good thing for fans/customers, but it's terrible for management and salaries. The fact that Paizo is coming anywhere close in a field where WotC once held absolute dominance, putting out an extremely similar product, is likely highly disconcerting to them. I don't think they would be so obviously hinting at 5E, cancelling 4E products, and even admitting that there is in fact a divided DnD base if things were going as hoped.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Anybody who says the changes were as significant between 2e and 3e as between 3e and 4e is drinking paint thinner

The changes to multiclassing, adding skills and feats, radical changes to initiative, the full-round action to make a full attack, altering casting times for spells (to go with the initiative changes), standardizing attribute bonuses, prestige classes, etc. I'm certain there is more that I am forgetting.

There were a number of substantial changes to the core of the game which couldn't be simply hand-waved away. I say this as a 3.5/Pathfinder GM who runs a lot of 2nd edition adventures. Can I convert them? Yes. But I have to rebuild NPCs from the ground up.

Both edition changes made radical changes. Far more radical than 1E -> 2E. The difference really comes down to if you liked the changes or not.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Anybody who says the changes were as significant between 2e and 3e as between 3e and 4e is drinking paint thinner

So anyone who disagrees with your opinion is "drinking paint thinner?" Does the subjective become objective whenever you really, really, really want it to?

Let me try: Anyone who says that mint chocolate chip isn't the very best flavor of ice cream in the whole wide world is drinking paint thinner.TM

Hey, I like it! I'm sure this will end well.


deinol wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Anybody who says the changes were as significant between 2e and 3e as between 3e and 4e is drinking paint thinner

The changes to multiclassing, adding skills and feats, radical changes to initiative, the full-round action to make a full attack, altering casting times for spells (to go with the initiative changes), standardizing attribute bonuses, prestige classes, etc. I'm certain there is more that I am forgetting.

There were a number of substantial changes to the core of the game which couldn't be simply hand-waved away. I say this as a 3.5/Pathfinder GM who runs a lot of 2nd edition adventures. Can I convert them? Yes. But I have to rebuild NPCs from the ground up.

Both edition changes made radical changes. Far more radical than 1E -> 2E. The difference really comes down to if you liked the changes or not.

Most of what you listed is either aniche rule (multiclassing) or minor chanes. (Castintime). This isnot subjective, for example, most characters are not multicsse, so multiclassing is a niche rule.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Most of what you listed is either aniche rule (multiclassing) or minor chanes. (Castintime). This isnot subjective, for example, most characters are not multicsse, so multiclassing is a niche rule.

Most characters are not wizards, so wizards are niche. And so are elves. And dragons...after all, fewer than half of all monsters are dragons, so they must be niche too, right?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Most of what you listed is either aniche rule (multiclassing) or minor chanes. (Castintime). This isnot subjective, for example, most characters are not multicsse, so multiclassing is a niche rule.

In 2e: I cast fireball. GM: Ok. These 4 kobolds throw rocks at you. Oops, one of them hit you. It disrupts your spell. No fireball for you.

In 3e: I cast fireball. GM: Ok, those 4 kobolds die.

I don't think that is a minor change.

I don't understand how you can say mulit-classing is niche. In 2E, it was messed up. I don't couldn't even tell you how to do it. So yeah, it happened infrequently then.

But the way 3E class levels are atomic, and can be added together in any combination? That was revolutionary. Are you telling me that you've never had a member of your party level dip into fighter for an extra feat? Or rogue for some sneak attack? Multi-classing might not happen all the time, but the fact that the option is there, every time you level, is a fundamental change which made it far more common than it used to be.

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Anybody who says the changes were as significant between 2e and 3e as between 3e and 4e is drinking paint thinner

The change from 2E to 3E brought us such brilliant stuff as lengthy arguments as to the definitions of "dropping" an item; hundreds of hundreds of pages of people breaking out high-level statistics to prove that build A deals 0.001 point more damage per round than build B, proving that build B is something only a moron would choose; and other such nonsense. 3E should be refereed to as the the Excel edition.


Josh M. wrote:
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.

Not necessarily. Depends on your definition of doing well. The game could be good and tons of people play it but if you aren't making money due to running out of things to publish then a new version is a good idea. It bring a fresh start and new ways to publish more content. Ideally a great game from money making point of view is game where you can publish for years on one rule set. If you only get few years you see less return on investment from the rules base. Bringing out a new system only after few years also angers customers if the current system is something liked and they have invested in. So short spans don't make much sense.

Of course announcing that 5E is in the works could mean that it's years away from release yet.


Kthulhu wrote:
The change from 2E to 3E brought us such brilliant stuff as lengthy arguments as to the definitions of "dropping" an item; hundreds of hundreds of pages of people breaking out high-level statistics to prove that build A deals 0.001 point more damage per round than build B, proving that build B is something only a moron would choose; and other such nonsense. 3E should be refereed to as the the Excel edition.

*sip*

Have you tried the mocha paint thinner?

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

The paint thinner thing is borderline. Try to be respectful toward one another, or I'm shutting this down.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Here is what made the 3.5e-4e change bigger than the 2e-3e change for me: At the 2e-3e crossover, I was able to take my long-running homebrew campaign, and easily covert it over to the new rules. It wasn't seamless, and it wasn't perfect, but a lot of the assumptions about the nature of the world didn't have to change, just the "lens" through which they were viewed.

At the 3.5e-4e change, that was just impossible. Losing (to me) fundamental things like Vancian casting, alignments, gnomes, and druids - as well as splitting elves into two races, and so on, just made too many changes to even say it was the same world. So to me, the 3.5e-4e split is bigger because it was the difference between being able to play the game as I knew it, and not.

D&D, despite its attempts to be a "generic" fantasy RPG, has a tradition of background "lore"(for lack of a better termn). 4e changed more of that "lore" than any previous edition, at least from my point of view. 5e will have to restore these things if it wants me back.

Shadow Lodge

deinol wrote:
Actually, 2E -> 3E had some very radical changes. The only difference is that you liked those radical changes, so you feel it made the game better.

The switch from 2E to 3E brought some pretty massive changes. I dislike many of them, and like some of them (although even those have consequences that I dislike).

The switch from 3E to 4E also brought massive changes, most of which I also dislike, to the point where I don't feel any desire to play that version of the game.

But what I'm NOT going to do is pretend that the switch from 2E to 3E was any less radical just because there are some parts of that change that I liked.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
ryric wrote:
Losing (to me) fundamental things like Vancian casting, alignments, gnomes, and druids - as well as splitting elves into two races, and so on, just made too many changes to even say it was the same world. So to me, the 3.5e-4e split is bigger because it was the difference between being able to play the game as I knew it, and not.

Gnomes and druids came with PHB2, but I understand the frustration that came from shuffling around which of the races were in the first book.

Depending on which world you worked on, elves were combined into a mere two races. ;) How many elves are in the 3E FR player's guide? While I was always a fan of having different cultural groups of elves, giving each their own set of stats seemed like it encouraged munchkin builds. Oh, I'm a moon elf I have a bonus to constitution...

I've always wanted to remove alignments from the game, 4E makes that even easier to do.

The biggest change is that Vancian casting stuff. I've never been particularly fond of it, but I understand it has fans and is traditional. So far my favorite magic system is Talislanta's. But you can't win them all.

So as I've said, how big a difference each change feels is colored a lot by how much you like the change. People naturally focus on the changes they didn't like and ignore the ones that thought were good.

Shadow Lodge

ryric wrote:
At the 3.5e-4e change, that was just impossible. Losing (to me) fundamental things like Vancian casting, alignments, gnomes, and druids - as well as splitting elves into two races, and so on, just made too many changes to even say it was the same world. So to me, the 3.5e-4e split is bigger because it was the difference between being able to play the game as I knew it, and not.

It's funny, classes and races have come and gone through the years from the various core rulebooks, but very few people complain that 2E was no longer D&D because there were no monks or half-orcs. Funny you mention gnomes...they weren't in the original edition, nor were druids, or thieves, or paladins. Hell, Good and Evil as alignments weren't even in 0E or any of the Basic sets.

Wanna talk "lore"? Let's discuss halflings. In 0E, Basic, 1E, and 2E, halflings were basically Tolkien hobbits....adventurers were rare, and mostly reluctant. They were a people who's primary ambition was to sit at home eating a dozen or so meals a day and smoking. Enter 3rd edition, after the Dragonlance novels took off....suddenly halflings were pretty much watered-down kender with the serial numbers filed off.

3E also saw D&D unceremoniously dump a LOT of product lines, and license out most of what they didn't dump. Admittedly, trying to support all those lines was business suicide, but that move pissed off a lot of fans of any setting that wasn't Forgotten Realms or Eberon, and the people who preferred the Basic rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Almost the entirety of the OSR community and especially in places like Dragonsfoot, where Gary used to post, thinks that 3e was too radical of a change to count as D&D.

Hell, Gary himself stated flat out he did not like 3e.

The idea that 3e is just the natural progression is the opinion of 3e fans. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

deinol wrote:

Gnomes and druids came with PHB2, but I understand the frustration that came from shuffling around which of the races were in the first book.

Depending on which world you worked on, elves were combined into a mere two races. ;) How many elves are in the 3E FR player's guide? While I was always a fan of having different cultural groups of elves, giving each their own set of stats seemed like it encouraged munchkin builds. Oh, I'm a moon elf I have a bonus to constitution...

But by the time PHB2 rolled around, I was already done.

I agree that elven subraces were a powergamer's dream. I never allowed mechanical differences between elves(after 1e, anyway). Not a fan of 3e and later Realms for exactly those kinds of reasons.

Kthulhu wrote:

It's funny, classes and races have come and gone through the years from the various core rulebooks, but very few people complain that 2E was no longer D&D because there were no monks or half-orcs. Funny you mention gnomes...they weren't in the original edition, nor were druids, or thieves, or paladins. Hell, Good and Evil as alignments weren't even in 0E or any of the Basic sets.

Wanna talk "lore"? Let's discuss halflings. In 0E, Basic, 1E, and 2E, halflings were basically Tolkien hobbits....adventurers were rare, and mostly reluctant. They were a people who's primary ambition was to sit at home eating a dozen or so meals a day and smoking. Enter 3rd edition, after the Dragonlance novels took off....suddenly halflings were pretty much watered-down kender with the serial numbers filed off.

3E also saw D&D unceremoniously dump a LOT of product lines, and license out most of what they didn't dump. Admittedly, trying to support all those lines was business suicide, but that move pissed off a lot of fans of any setting that wasn't Forgotten Realms or Eberon, and the people who preferred the Basic rules.

To be fair, 2e came out after Dragonlance "took off." And, I did know players that didn't like 2e because of stuff it left out - I've always personally felt the exclusion, then renaming, of lower planar creatures was dumb. But, 1e and 2e were so similar that you could just use the 1e stats if you had them-3.5e to PF was a bigger jump than 1e to 2e in most cases. You could literally play the monk class from the 1e PHB or OA exactly as written in a 2e game.

I never buy the "If you are going to compare 4e to other editions, compare them all to OD&D" argument. My (mostly arbitrary) cut off point for comparisons back is 1e; 4e is supposed to be the newest version of what was AD&D; it's not supposed to be a newest version of OD&D, BECMI, or anything else. Why not compare it to Chainmail? That predates even OD&D. My campaign worlds are built upon assumptions from AD&D, so that is my useful benchmark. YMMV.

Actually, I think 4e would make a pretty good successor to BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia. But that would make it what, the sixth, seventh edition of Basic? (This not a knock at 4e, btw - I love BECMI)


deinol wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Most of what you listed is either aniche rule (multiclassing) or minor chanes. (Castintime). This isnot subjective, for example, most characters are not multicsse, so multiclassing is a niche rule.

In 2e: I cast fireball. GM: Ok. These 4 kobolds throw rocks at you. Oops, one of them hit you. It disrupts your spell. No fireball for you.

In 3e: I cast fireball. GM: Ok, those 4 kobolds die.

I don't think that is a minor change.

I don't understand how you can say mulit-classing is niche. In 2E, it was messed up. I don't couldn't even tell you how to do it. So yeah, it happened infrequently then.

But the way 3E class levels are atomic, and can be added together in any combination? That was revolutionary. Are you telling me that you've never had a member of your party level dip into fighter for an extra feat? Or rogue for some sneak attack? Multi-classing might not happen all the time, but the fact that the option is there, every time you level, is a fundamental change which made it far more common than it used to be.

I've had somebody dip -once- in 3e. He was a 1st lvl wizard, 1st lvl cleric, 1st lvl rogue, and 1st lv couple of other things. All the other players and the GM got together and decided to uninvite him from the game (because, among other things, he was a munchkin - not a skiled munchkin, but sill a munchkin). Other than that, while multiclassing has been allowed, noone has ever done it.

I do agree that the concentration check was a significant addition to the game (addition not complete change like at will/encounter/daily is a complete change).


Kthulhu wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Anybody who says the changes were as significant between 2e and 3e as between 3e and 4e is drinking paint thinner
The change from 2E to 3E brought us such brilliant stuff as lengthy arguments as to the definitions of "dropping" an item; hundreds of hundreds of pages of people breaking out high-level statistics to prove that build A deals 0.001 point more damage per round than build B, proving that build B is something only a moron would choose; and other such nonsense. 3E should be refereed to as the the Excel edition.

I never even insinuated that 3e was perfect. But the fact that it had problems does not mean that it was as big a change as 4e.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
I never even insinuated that 3e was perfect. But the fact that it had problems does not mean that it was as big a change as 4e.

Look, there really isn't any way you're going to convince anyone that the changes from 2e to 3e are smaller than the changes from 3e to 4e. It's not going to happen. It's a silly argument to make, because it tries to objectively frame changes in an incredibly complex system.

You didn't like the changes from 3e to 4e. That's fine. You'd be better off addressing what those changes were than harping on how "big" you imagine those changes to be.


Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I never even insinuated that 3e was perfect. But the fact that it had problems does not mean that it was as big a change as 4e.

Look, there really isn't any way you're going to convince anyone that the changes from 2e to 3e are smaller than the changes from 3e to 4e. It's not going to happen. It's a silly argument to make, because it tries to objectively frame changes in an incredibly complex system.

You didn't like the changes from 3e to 4e. That's fine. You'd be better off addressing what those changes were than harping on how "big" you imagine those changes to be.

The fact that I didn't like the changes from 3e to 4e has nothing to do with the size of the changes between the various versions. And, while I agree that discussing what those changes are is better than discussing the size of those changes, we can do both.

For example, looking at armor class, in all versions before 4e, you add your dex mod. In 4e, you can add other stat mods instead.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:


I do agree that the concentration check was a significant addition to the game (addition not complete change like at will/encounter/daily is a complete change).

I wasn't talking about the concentration check. In 2E you start casting a spell. It doesn't happen for many initiative ticks. Anyone can try to hit you and disrupt your spell. Adding a concentration check to that helps. Having most spells take a standard action nearly eliminates that.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:


For example, looking at armor class, in all versions before 4e, you add your dex mod. In 4e, you can add other stat mods instead.

Is that an example of what you're calling a "significant change"? Because in my view, mechanical changes are pretty much irrelevant to how close I consider two RPGs.

(I consider 4E to be much closer to AD&D than PF is, for example. I've put no consideration into the mechanics of any of them though in forming that view).


Darkwing Duck wrote:
The fact that I didn't like the changes from 3e to 4e has nothing to do with the size of the changes between the various versions.

I would argue that, in fact, it does. For example, if there had been zero changes from 3e to 4e, I think it would stand to reason that you wouldn't have a problem with the changes from 3e to 4e. :)

Quote:
And, while I agree that discussing what those changes are is better than discussing the size of those changes, we can do both.

Yeah, but let's not.

Quote:
For example, looking at armor class, in all versions before 4e, you add your dex mod. In 4e, you can add other stat mods instead.

You mean your Int mod? It's just the Int mod.

But sure.

I mean, after all, it's not like there was any major change to the way armor class was calculated from 2e to 3e.


deinol wrote:
I wasn't talking about the concentration check. In 2E you start casting a spell. It doesn't happen for many initiative ticks. Anyone can try to hit you and disrupt your spell. Adding a concentration check to that helps. Having most spells take a standard action nearly eliminates that.

I can't recall any combat spell in 2e that took several initiative ticks to cast. Can you name one for me? The closest that comes to mind is Call Lightning, but that wasn't a combat spell, it was a seige weapon.


Steve Geddes wrote:

Is that an example of what you're calling a "significant change"? Because in my view, mechanical changes are pretty much irrelevant to how close I consider two RPGs.

I've been discussing mechanical changes. If you haven't been, then why are you responding to my posts which have nothing to do with whatever you're talking about?


Scott Betts wrote:


Quote:
For example, looking at armor class, in all versions before 4e, you add your dex mod. In 4e, you can add other stat mods instead.

You mean your Int mod? It's just the Int mod.

But sure.

I mean, after all, it's not like there was any major change to the way armor class was calculated from 2e to 3e.

Scott, please reference a specific change in how armor class is calculated between 2e and 3e that you feel is as significant as the change I mentioned between 3e and 4e (that the attribute added to AC is variable and, hence, available for optimization). The most significant change in AC between 2e and 3e that I can recall is the loss of negative AC, but that's just a change in math, not in character build options.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:
deinol wrote:
I wasn't talking about the concentration check. In 2E you start casting a spell. It doesn't happen for many initiative ticks. Anyone can try to hit you and disrupt your spell. Adding a concentration check to that helps. Having most spells take a standard action nearly eliminates that.
I can't recall any combat spell in 2e that took several initiative ticks to cast. Can you name one for me? The closest that comes to mind is Call Lightning, but that wasn't a combat spell, it was a seige weapon.

Casting Times:

Fireball: 3
Prismatic Spray: 7
Finger of Death: 5
Eyebite: 6
Disintegrate: 6
Hold Monster: 5

Ok, so casting time was equal to spell level on average. I guess if you never played past 5th level you might not notice.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Scott, please reference a specific change in how armor class is calculated between 2e and 3e that you feel is as significant as the change I mentioned between 3e and 4e (that the attribute added to AC is variable and, hence, available for optimization).

Tell me:

Is your problem with the Int mod due to the fact that you can bump AC by bumping Int (in other words, a balance concern)?

Or is it because you don't think Int should have a bearing on AC (in other words, a question of personal, utterly subjective and inscrutable aesthetics)?

Quote:
The most significant change in AC between 2e and 3e that I can recall is the loss of negative AC

Yes, the inversion of AC as a positive and the associated lack of THAC0 is what I was sarcastically referencing.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Don't mention the ability to add wisdom to AC. Those monks are munchkins.


deinol wrote:
Don't mention the ability to add wisdom to AC. Those monks are munchkins.

I also opted not to point out that duelists add their Int mod to AC in 3e. But I'm sure there's some reason that doesn't count. ;)

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I must be missing something because I fail to see why on a PF messageboard so many people are worried about a 5th ed.

They (meaning WOTC) now know they made a HUGE mistake on the 4th trying to bridge the gap between true rpger's and the video game/magic players the way they tried. These groups of players are wired completely different and now WOTC sees this by how bad the 4th has epicly failed.

Set of dice 10 bucks, pad of paper and pen 5 bucks, imagination to play rpgs-priceless, for everybody else there is xbox.

WOTC felt 3.5 had run its course and needed something fresh and different. With that being said, do I blame them for pushing forward with a 5th to try and reclaim lost market share ? NO. I, and many like me, have spent a fair amount on the PF family of products and there is no way a 5th ed will ever make me abandon PF. WOTC has alienated sooooo many true rpger's that even if they brought out a limited run of the AD&D books it wouldnt sooth the sting of the slap in the face we all felt.

I run encounters and lair assault (if it wasnt for these, there would be no 4th being run) along with organized play and a on-going PF game at my local store, nobody has asked me to run a 4th ed game, they all ask for more PF. Ive seen PF grow so much in the last year that a 5th ed will be called a rip-off of PF if WOTC tries to go back to the roots, if they try something totally radical they will be accused of grasping at air.

I am not worried about a 5th ed, PF is my rpg of choice and will be for years to come, teaching the nephews and nieces out of the beginners box now, so I say bring on a 5th, cant possible be any worse ?


Sets up the Lawn chairs, throws a kender on the fire and gets out his popcorn


Definitely a popcorn night.

Hundo the Barbarian wrote:
I must be missing something because I fail to see why on a PF messageboard so many people are worried about a 5th ed.

I think you probably know perfectly well why.

Quote:
They (meaning WOTC) now know they made a HUGE mistake on the 4th trying to bridge the gap between true rpger's and the video game/magic players the way they tried. These groups of players are wired completely different and now WOTC sees this by how bad the 4th has epicly failed.

lol

Quote:
Set of dice 10 bucks, pad of paper and pen 5 bucks, imagination to play rpgs-priceless, for everybody else there is xbox.

There is no room for gamer elitism in this hobby. None.

Quote:
WOTC has alienated sooooo many true rpger's

As opposed to 4e players, who presumably are fake roleplaying gamers.

Typical.

Quote:
that even if they brought out a limited run of the AD&D books it wouldnt sooth the sting of the slap in the face we all felt.

Some of us didn't feel the sting you mention. You don't speak for all tabletop gamers, all D&D players, or even all Pathfinder or Paizo fans.

EDIT: Oh, and given that your only other post on the Paizo message boards (from six days ago) mentions that you hadn't played any RPGs since the 80's, I'd wager that you didn't feel any of the sting you're talking about either.

Double lol.


deinol wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
deinol wrote:
I wasn't talking about the concentration check. In 2E you start casting a spell. It doesn't happen for many initiative ticks. Anyone can try to hit you and disrupt your spell. Adding a concentration check to that helps. Having most spells take a standard action nearly eliminates that.
I can't recall any combat spell in 2e that took several initiative ticks to cast. Can you name one for me? The closest that comes to mind is Call Lightning, but that wasn't a combat spell, it was a seige weapon.

Casting Times:

Fireball: 3
Prismatic Spray: 7
Finger of Death: 5
Eyebite: 6
Disintegrate: 6
Hold Monster: 5

Ok, so casting time was equal to spell level on average. I guess if you never played past 5th level you might not notice.

Okay, when you said "initiative ticks" I thought you meant "rounds". not "segments".

Now I've got a better idea of what you're talking about. In 2e, anyone who attacked the wizard while the wizard was casting his spell would disrupt his casting. In 3e, we changed the wizard to cast his spell in one segment and he got a concentration check - another change.

When 4e came along, we changed actions so that they were at wills, dailies, and encounter powers. We, also, changed the list of actions to include "interrupt" powers. we also changedaction structure so that, in addition to wizards, martial characters also had at wills, dailies, and encounter powers. Finally, we changed disrupt to restrict the ability to Rangers only who could select the ability to disrupt as an encounter power which was an interrupt and could be used against martial characters (another change) as well as casters (excuse me, I mean "controllers" as well as "strikers" and "defenders" and "leaders" - yet another change).

And it is your contention that the changes referenced above between 2e and 3e were just as great as the changes referenced above between 3e and 4e?


Scott Betts wrote:
Definitely a popcorn night.

"Would you like some popcorn then?" Points to the fire pit

" I also have some Caribbean jerked kender on the fire, if you would like some. Its good for the Soul"

1,151 to 1,200 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