Pathfinder RPG and Paizo in the Face of 5E


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,251 to 1,300 of 1,340 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>

Pedantic wrote:
It is not self-evident that 2e-3e was a smaller change than 3e-4e. You're either going to have to back that up...which will be exhausting...or go for a less ambitious premise. "2e-3e didn't alienate me and 3e-4e did, here is what think was the cause," is a pretty valid one. Heck, I'll come to your defense when someone attacks one of the reasons you propose as a retrospective empty justification, which always seems to happen, but the first premise isn't a place you can ground an argument on.

To me, at least, the difference isn't the amount of changes made, but where they were made. 3E made a lot of purely mechanical changes that were either changes in math, changes that had already been instituted as optional rules in 2E, and a few other changes beside that. The classes themselves did not substantially change, except to conform to other changes, and the races remained the same fluff wise. 4E made less changes overall across the board, but the changes they made ran deeper and were in areas that had been left mostly intact in earlier edition changes and/or directly impacted the areas that players dealt with most often. This, in addition to the fact that they unexpectedly tried to write large chunks of earlier editions out of the game's evolution, made the changes more unwelcome to the majority of people than the mostly mechanical, and largely expected, changes that 3E brought.

EDIT: I would like to note that when I refer to classes above, I am referring to the original four classes, not the others that seem to change with every edition. Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard up until 4E had remained essentially the same in flavor and role, even if their execution had changed according to the specific ruleset. With 4E, most, if not all, of them underwent major surgery in their underlying purpose, role, and overall expectation of abilities for the first time.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deinol wrote:

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.

I'm not sure why this post was marked as a FAQ candidate, as it's not even really about Pathfinder.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
A class' ability to add an attribute mod to AC is not the same as giving a class the option to change which attribute's mod is added.
What, like Dex to attack?
Is that an option to any class without a feat?
Why does spending a feat make it okay, but getting it for free isn't?

Personal preference :P

Seriously, the pick a stat, use it for defense bothered me about 4.x, because, to me, it made the stats less unique. It also led to jokes about Steven Hawking being hard to hit in combat, but that's an extreme example. I don't mind deviations from the norm* (Int to AC, Wis to AC**) so much as an exception, but as the rule, it bothered my sense of asthetics. Clearly it didn't bother approximately 64k people, to use Scott's numbers :-)

*

Spoiler:
Really the duelest/bladesinger type Int to AC didn't bother me for two reasons. 1) it added to the dex bonus, didn't replace it and b) made sense to me. I look at all the dueling styles/charts from the 14-1600's and can buy it.

**
Spoiler:
Ok, CHA to AC would be stretching it. "My teeth are so blindingly white that you miss me!"


voska66 wrote:

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.

You make some good points here, and I agree with you. My only real worry is that 4e isn't very old yet, not even 4 years. And while I am excited at the prospect of a 5e, I'm worried it's all coming too quickly(if it is, at all). I'm not a big fan of 4e, but I know a lot of people who are, and they deserve to have their game run a healthy life cycle the same as those of us who played other editions. Even if no official news about 5e surfaces until 2013, 5 years is still a pretty short lifespan for an entire edition of Dungeons and Dragons. Just my opinion.

I know a new edition takes a long time to develop, but the shortening of edition life cycles just bothers me. I'm not going to invest hundreds of dollars into an edition to find out it will no longer be supported just a few years later. I'm probably not the target demographic either(32 year old raising a family), but I'm still a gamer.

Maybe by the time 8e rolls around, there will be some kind of sanctioned schedule that gamers can know ahead of time, sort of like the film industry is doing with movie sequels now, like the way Marvel Studios has the stars of their comic book movies sign deals for crazy numbers of films ahead of time. It might take some of the mystery of new books out, but might take out some of the sting of a surprise new edition too.


Pedantic wrote:

Actually, all this talk of comparing changes across editions could be useful if we removed it from the edition warring context...

Agreed, and this suddenly got me thinking. Yeah, there's some personal jabs going around in this thread, but think of what this would've looked like 3 years ago... I think we've come a long way. Maybe in 3 more years we can have an honest, genuine conversation comparing editions, without so much hostility and brand/edition warfare.

Heck, I was an adamant 4e hater at one point. I can recall going many rounds against the 4e crowd in various threads not too long ago. I finally took a step back, played some different games for a while, and realized how ridiculous I was acting. Games are games, fun is fun. If you aren't having fun, find a new game. There is way too much negativity in a medium based on fun and imagination.


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

Because I didn't understand what you meant. So I asked you to clarify.

Understanding what other people think is why I post here.

Liberty's Edge

after reading this thread and others I do wish posters understand that if they post something based purely on emotion not fact espcially when they are inflammatory statements will get a reaction from this board and other forums. Heck even in real life. This attitude of wanting to post or say smoething no matter what then being immunized from criticism has to stop. Complaining that posters or people are atacking your argument is imo a cop-out. Don't post or say something if your not going to like the reaction you will get. Saying that one hopes 4E and Wotc will crash and burn then wonder why it bothers posters or people is kind of being hypocritical. One cannot insult something somone else likes and not expect some sort of reaction. It just does not work that way.

Silver Crusade

So... "Its only a game?!"


sunshadow21 wrote:
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.

Plus, if you read gygax's work he is full of contradictions. The AD&D guide alone is full of contradictions, and if you couple that with DRAGON articles, it is often hard to understand WHAT his philosophy is. I guess since the interview on ENWORLD is the most recent that is the one people rightfully so eluded to.

Pretty much the only way to figure out what Gygax wanted is to treat D&D with a deconstructive analysis.


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.

But they made transformers. For that they will always be cool.


This thread is a perfect example why elementary schools hand out those fact vs. opinion worksheets.

Sadly, some of us were quite obviously absent that day.

Silver Crusade

I like to think of my opinions as facts IMHO.


TOZ wrote:

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.

Where I have no death wish for WOTC, if they dissolved the D&D brand or reduced it to a board game or CCG, I am certain PAIZO can attract the new players.

I don't think WOTC is necessary any longer. Plenty of people can replace it.


Chubbs McGee wrote:
I like to think of my opinions as facts IMHO.

LOL!

Reminds me of something I read once:

Charles Piece in Idiot America wrote:

The three Great Premises of Idiot America:

· Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units
· Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough
· Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it


The changes between chocolate chip ice cream and mint chocolate chip ice cream are objectively greater than the changes between chocolate chip ice cream and cookies and cream ice cream.

Discuss.

P.S. My personal ice cream preference has nothing to do with this.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Couple of points as I see it. Note: these are all my opinions based on 30 years playing and working in the industry.

1. You can debate the differences between 2e - 3e all you want, but at least the game was recognizable as D&D and was generally considered an improvement.
2. 4e is a radical departure from the D&D formula and basically stripped it back to the original D&D rules, throwing out all the improvements that was found in 2e and 3e for streamlined play.
3. 4e was implimented because WoTC saw a line that was starting to stagnate and wanted to 'improve' it and 'modernize' it. To make it appeal to people use to MMOs like WoW and Everquest. To that extent they probably did. They might have even brought in some new blood, but I haven't really seen it. Most of the people I know that play 4e only play it because that is what is being supported now by WoTC or they don't have alot of time to play so have to sacrifice roleplaying.
4. If anything 4e splintered the 3.5 player base, fortunately for the good of Paizo. Pathfinder was just noted as being the number one selling RPG out there last quarter.

I can't believe there are some people on here at think that 5e would be a good idea because it will 'keep the brand name alive.' Really, what has WoTC really done with the liscense in the last couple of years. 1 failed console game. 1 failed and 1 started Facebook game. They have basically pulled out of all gaming conventions other than GenCon [because they own it]. When was the last time you saw a TV ad. I know that the D&D movie was a bomb, but really we can't see a new attempt? What are they really doing to promote the D&D? Heck the Big Bang Theory has probably done more.

All I see is a company that made 4e because they wanted to put their name on the product and wipe out anything that resembled TSR. A company that throws out way too many products for what you get. And now they see their bottom line dropping because the real money is with Core books. So time for a new edition.

WoTC made the divide between 3.5/PF players and 4e players. They are just going to make the divide even wider with 5e.

Liberty's Edge

You seem to have a hard time understanding that because you feel strongly on a subject that everyone has to agree with you. It's way too early to say really yet who knows 5E might help and improve the D&D brand. Persoanlly I think it will. You may not think so but guess what I'm not you. People have different opioins and that needs to be respected. Tossing out lines "I can't beleive anyonme here thinks 5E is a good thing" is not going to chage that nor win you and friends on this board. I get what your trying to say. You need to be somewhat more diplomatic about it. Nor will everyone agree eith you no matter how many times you yell it.


I really think it comes down to what they try to do with the eventual 5th edition. If they focus on regaining old 3.5 players and/or remove any and all support for 4E and access to all the DDI information and tools, it will probably kill the brand name. If they stick with the 4E chassis, or at least something very similar, work in those things from 3.5 that people liked without compromising the 4E chassis any more than absolutely necessary, and continue to provide support for 4E DDI, it probably will not hurt too much. They just have to make sure to have a smooth launch, otherwise everything else they may have done will be for naught.


Man, you don't post for, like, a day, and suddenly you have over a hundred things to catch up with.

So, Snorter, I basically agree with you, but am continuing the conversation only for the the sake of talking with you, and to explain what I meant.:

Snorter wrote:
But what's the alternative?

Option 2, which was the clearly (supposed to be) the "desirable" one, based on presentation, even though it didn't give enough information to actually play the game with.

Snorter wrote:
I'm not surprised that option three got votes,...

Nor am I; I'm only surprised at the quantity of votes it got on a WotC board when it was so clearly made extraordinarily poorly.

Snorter wrote:

... 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.

I agree entirely.

Snorter wrote:


Remove the chaff from Option Three, and you've got the minimum information to actually run the skill in play.

(Bolded by me)

Which is the problem. It was just made terribly, so that you have to remove "chaff", which smacks of poor rule design (and the article in question was about rules and their design). What I hope doesn't happen is for someone to go "hey, look, people like complicated rules; let's do something like that just for complication!", which, while that's incredibly stupid and seems completely obvious and unlikely... less intelligent things have been done by companies who've use bad polls before.

Snorter wrote:

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.

This is exactly my point. It was a total strawman on a forum poll that was put together for the express purpose of making people choose something else. I would have voted for it... but I'm still surprised that so many people did. I'm glad, though.

Pedantic wrote:
(or maybe Monte's up to something more persuasive with those incredibly biased polls, but I digress).

Man, I hope he is, 'cause boy are those polls biased. Pretty badly.

ryric wrote:

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.

I felt this rather intensely as well, at the time. While there were a tremendous number of changes between 2E and 3E, a number of the underlying facets of the background worlds continued well enough*, even if the specifics of game play changed*. Yet when the change to 4E came along, that was so completely turned on its head nothing was able to carry through.

One of the (rather bizarre) insults often slung at those who prefer 3.X to 4E is "develop your imagination"**. I don't know: I always enjoyed using my imagination to conjure visions of the worlds from the books I read, or to think about things and further expound upon and establish characters' back-stories (or future stories) in video games and movies. But in all those cases, I made sure (or at least I attempted to make sure, my success varied by age and maturity) my imagination kept an internal consistency with the world itself: I didn't have John McClain suddenly mutating to gain Wolverine's powers, just like I didn't suddenly grant Terra or Ramza all the abilities of Superman***. Each of them came from different worlds with different presumptions, and, in order to have a coherent story, I couldn't just start blending them. It became stupid very quickly otherwise****.

That was a serious problem I had when converting from 3.X to 4E. With the change from 2 to 3, things got faster, the background world worked (and it worked better, as creatures started functioning under the same rules) and the lore - with minor tweaks - continued on. With 4E that suddenly came to a screeching halt. The world(s) simply ceased functioning as a cohesive unit. It alienated me for a while.

Subsequently I've played it quite a bit. While I still strongly prefer 3.X (and thus Pathfinder) to 4E, I do believe 4th has some good ideas and excellent development concepts that any new iteration of 3.X could stand to learn from... a concept that many die-hard 3.X/PFers have a knee-jerk reaction against (I did, for a while, too). What I don't want WotC to do, for their sake and the sake of their current fans, is to abandon everything they've done with 4E for the sake of regaining their old contingent. That way lies a bad ending to their brand and a further ruination of the trustworthiness of their name.

* Your Mileage May Vary

** When people tell me "well use your imagination", I'd like to tell them "Okay, also make sure you never have any problems with any plot holes in any story you ever consume, because you can just use your imagination to fill them in." because, seriously, if I'm looking at rules in order to tell me what's happening, I'd like them to... tell me what's happening.^ That's my preference, yes.

*** Terra from FF6, Ramza from FFT. It's arguable that Terra (and those who traveled with her) may have had more power than Supes in some ways, but she still couldn't fly and got amnesia from a head bump due to falling from the sky, so, you know.

**** Like more-than-Dragon Ball Z-stupid. To clarify, I like DBZ, a great deal. It still got stupid. Three episodes of constipation in order to blow up a planet is "meh" at best. And the power creep... more so than even RPGs!

Oh, also, ryric, I'm going to have to disagree with you on something: 4E didn't actually get rid of Vancian. I'm not a fan of that system, and I think most of the presumptions of the world can be done without it, but it still exists in 4E. In 4E, Wizards still fire-and-forget spells (both dailies and utility), and Sword Mages can do so for their utilities (with the proper feat). What 4E did was limit the amount of Vancian-style effects that were happening. Also, in some ways, it's even worse as spells mysteriously disappear from a Wizard's spell-book for no discernible reason.

^ Totally off topic:
Also, for a wizard, I'm increasingly becoming fond of the 4E-inspired concept of magical marks that you shift around to use, activate by touch, and can only activate once per day. This fits with the functions as-presented, but not so much the fluff. This isn't me hating on 4E... I like several of the things, and I've got this nifty vision for this magical tattooed guy focusing his spiritual energy into them in various ways (also another one that's a glyph-based mage), which is a cool concept, but doesn't match the 4E presented fluff at all which is a guy carrying around a book in which the writings inside change whenever he arbitrarily gains more knowledge.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder treats customers better, they listen to customers more, and they have a better product. Is there really a need for a discussion, about what might happen. The system rocks how it is and it only gets better with the tweak (ex. Archetypes). I my friends stand for Paizo, and WOTC kissed my dollars goodbye forever when they made 4e.I HEART PATHFINDER RPG.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game 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.

I disagree. It's the players that take the roleplaying out of 4th edition just as many of those exact same players took it out of 3.X or Living Greyhawk, when they got the mentality that roleplaying can only go as far as someone defines mechanics for it. 1st Edition didn't have mechanics for roleplay either, but those who did managed just the same.

You don't need mechanics for roleplay, yes pretty much all the powers in 4th edition are combat mechanics, and utility effects are pretty much left up to Rituals which use costs to restrain their casual use. But making diplomacy and intimidate rolls isn't roleplay, it's just using mechanics for social combat.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
memorax wrote:
You seem to have a hard time understanding that because you feel strongly on a subject that everyone has to agree with you. It's way too early to say really yet who knows 5E might help and improve the D&D brand. Persoanlly I think it will. You may not think so but guess what I'm not you. People have different opioins and that needs to be respected. Tossing out lines "I can't beleive anyonme here thinks 5E is a good thing" is not going to chage that nor win you and friends on this board. I get what your trying to say. You need to be somewhat more diplomatic about it. Nor will everyone agree eith you no matter how many times you yell it.

Okay, so let me get this straight. After 1200+ posts, your contribution to this debate is that everyone has their own opinion and I should shut up because I am voicing mine. That everything I say is pointless because no matter what I say, I can't influence anyone. That my simple position that 4e was not a good thing is so contray to everyone else that has been posted in this debate that I look like some crazy person standing at the corner screaming obsenities?

Seriously? This is now the second time that I have been personally attacked on this board for having an opinion. Who are you to decide what someone can and cannot say on this debate? I haven't been rude. I haven't yelled at anyone. All I have done is stated my position.

Maybe it is time for you to stop posting since you haven't the open mind to even attempt to debate anything, but tell me to shut up.


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.

Don't take it personally. For some reason any mention of 4e followed with anything but a compliment gets people's oversensitivity gene to express itself. You didn't say anything bad.


TOZ wrote:
Crying 'ad hominem' and immediately using one yourself. What's that called again?

"FUN", depending on who the target is.


Nickademus42 wrote:

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.

Well they ruined D&D but I don't think you can say they ruined Magic. After all they started it.

I would have loved if they continued AD&D instead of making 3rd edition, but I do like playing 3rd edition more. 4e I thought took much away from the game, and so I wish it was never made. I benefited from 3rd edition so I don't mind that switch.

Actually in hindsight I ultimately benefitted from 4e as well because it menat the SPIRIT of D&D is now in the very capable hands of Paizo which has proven to be a much better company. I am happy to leave WOTC behind with their NEW D&D, or whatever else they want to put out.


Arikiel wrote:
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.

This is why I despise the WOTC edition changes. It might be the way the industry works, but I still hate edition changes. Tweaks not rewrites. This is why Pathfinder works so well.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
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.

I disagree. It's the players that take the roleplaying out of 4th edition just as many of those exact same players took it out of 3.X or Living Greyhawk, when they got the mentality that roleplaying can only go as far as someone defines mechanics for it. 1st Edition didn't have mechanics for roleplay either, but those who did managed just the same.

You don't need mechanics for roleplay, yes pretty much all the powers in 4th edition are combat mechanics, and utility effects are pretty much left up to Rituals which use costs to restrain their casual use. But making diplomacy and intimidate rolls isn't roleplay, it's just using mechanics for social combat.

While I agree that you can roleplay with just about any game system, the direction that WoTC decided to use with 4e seems to minimize it. Reducing skills, feats, removing classes from the PHB to just bring them back in later PHB when people complained. The over ephasis of miniture play so they can push their pre-painted line. Even their modules seem to be more devoted to combat then PC to NPC interactions.

4e comes off as an 'introductory RPG'. Something to bridge the gap between online MMOs and paper RPGs. As a diehard pen and paper gamer, I am disharted by this simplification. Maybe it is bringing new blood into the game, and hopefully they will realize that there are better games out there like Pathfinder. But is that what you guys want for the 'flagship' of pen and paper RPGs? A gateway drug?

Now they want to talk about 5e? Maybe it will be for the better. Bring some of the roleplay back. My arguement is that WoTC doesn't have a very good track record in that area. I mean we are talking about a company that made it's bones by kicking out 'new and improved' MtG editions and voiding old ones. It just seems to me that they are trying to do the same thing to D&D.


It's far too easy to point to "AED" as the change of 4th edition. None of the other changes matter even a fraction to most people's experience.

Sure in earlier editions, wizards had to worry about things like spell disruption, onerous material components, etc. But they always piled up their spells from a vancian system. This meant an ever balooning list of spells you could memorize, as well as the important ability to duplicate a spell as often as you want. Even as spell effects change, there was also a good deal of continuity in terms of their names and rough (over)power level.

Meanwhile martial types are fundamentally "basic attack" style. As 3E developed they got a bunch of options like trip, disarm, overrun etc., AoOs and so forth, but all of these options like basic attack, can be used every single round. There is no resource management in the decision tree of a pure martial character.

4E turned everyone into something more tome of battle-ish. The dominant playstyles of the past editions were completely wiped away by this. The strongly contrasting decision trees of martial vs caster were consolidated into this standardized compromise, with the additional new-to-DnD focus on replacing powers at some point instead of infinitely expanding upwards. Suddenly warriors had limited resources at their disposal for novaing, and wizards spell list was greatly reduced and their ability to duplicate spells in one encounter gone. It made playing a warrior or caster feel more different than anything that had come before. The main difference between the groups became fluff now that their mechanics were identical, which is unlike any other version of D&D ever.

If you told a 3.5 fan straight out "we're forcing you wizards to play swordsages" how would they react? Instead they had to spend time learning 4E to discover that's exactly what happened, even if they couldn't always put a conscious bead on what had changed that made the game feel so "un-D&D" to them.

Stories too had to change because the ridiculous power of high level casters was completely reset. Forgotten Realms didn't have to be butchered as badly as WotC did, but it did need a serious change to accomodate the famous super casters to the new rules.

The AED approach had deep repercussions leading to other contraversial decisions, such as splitting combat and utility effects, having near all powers do some kind of damage, making the vast share of powers unique to each class, rewriting multiclassing, etc. These weren't always inevitable results of AED but they were decisions made possible by its introduction, and stem from Wizard's interpretation of AED.

In retrospect 5E might not be such a hard sell if they drop pushing everyone into AED. If wizards can have bigger spell lists again while fighters can mash without daily powers, that would likely feel D&D "enough" that fans might enjoy Wizard's output again. Not enough to necessarily convert from OGL 3.5, but perhaps enough to stop them from discounting the new edition outright.

Shadow Lodge

Mournblade94 wrote:
This is why I despise the WOTC edition changes. It might be the way the industry works, but I still hate edition changes. Tweaks not rewrites. This is why Pathfinder works so well.

And WotC was responsible for 3.0. And it was not a tweak, it was a rewrite. In fact, Gary Gygax absolutely hated 3.X. So...your point again?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mournblade94 wrote:


Well they ruined D&D but I don't think you can say they ruined Magic. After all they started it.

*coughHanshotfirstcough* *coughLUCAScough*


deinol wrote:


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 never allowed level dipping in my games unless there was a good reason for it. This is rather arbitrary I admit, but if I had a player who was a sorceror, I would not just let him 'dip' in fighter unless he could come up with a GOOD reason for the dip (which since I am DM I am the ultimate judge of what GOOD is).

I still play with Subclasses in mind. A paladin, Ranger, barbarian could all DIP into the 4 levels required to get Weapon Spec, because they just train in that aspect of character.

Of course with PF I find level dipping stupid, because I ultimately think you sacrifice more with capstone powers and such.

I still don't like players in my game to level dip with no good reason attached. I allowed level dip into Sorceror far more than Wizard for example. I divide classes into talent and training. Some classes you can dip into some you cannot. I never allowed level dip into Monk. Multiclass commitment yesm level dip no.

Shadow Lodge

TClifford wrote:
While I agree that you can roleplay with just about any game system, the direction that WoTC decided to use with 4e seems to minimize it. Reducing skills, feats, removing classes from the PHB to just bring them back in later PHB when people complained. The over ephasis of miniture play so they can push their pre-painted line. Even their modules seem to be more devoted to combat then PC to NPC interactions.

Reducing skills, feats, and removing some classes (while adding others, I might add) does not affect the ability to roleplay. Roleplaying does not require ANY mechanics.

TClifford wrote:
As a diehard pen and paper gamer, I am disharted by this simplification.

Want some irony? as a diehard pen and paper gamer, I am disheartened by the over-codification and complication of a system like 3.X/PF.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Kthulhu wrote:
Mournblade94 wrote:
This is why I despise the WOTC edition changes. It might be the way the industry works, but I still hate edition changes. Tweaks not rewrites. This is why Pathfinder works so well.
And WotC was responsible for 3.0. And it was not a tweak, it was a rewrite. In fact, Gary Gygax absolutely hated 3.X. So...your point again?

Ok, my memory may be going, but I thought 3.x was laid out when TSR was still an independent. Oh gods... that means SHE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED was responsible for 3.x!

Shadow Lodge

Mournblade94 wrote:


i never allowed level dipping in my games unless there was a good reason for it. This is rather arbitrary I admit, but if I had a player who was a sorceror, I would not just let him 'dip' in fighter unless he could come up with a GOOD reason for the dip (which since I am DM I am the ultimate judge of what GOOD is).

Because he wants to.


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.

+1

But optimization began to plague the game with the onset of kits. Especially Bladesinger.


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.

Common brother really? I can barely remember an AD&D spell that released instantly like 3rd ediiton. It is ONE of the many aspects of AD&D I miss most.

Shadow Lodge

Mournblade94 wrote:
I still don't like players in my game to level dip with no good reason attached. I allowed level dip into Sorceror far more than Wizard for example.

The opposite makes more sense to me. If you've got the magic boiling in your blood, why would it have never surfaced before you got in your dozen levels of rogue?

Liberty's Edge

TClifford wrote:


Okay, so let me get this straight. After 1200+ posts, your contribution to this debate is that everyone has their own opinion and I should shut up because I am voicing mine. That everything I say is pointless because no matter what I say, I can't influence anyone. That my simple position that 4e was not a good thing is so contray to everyone else that has been posted in this debate that I look like some crazy person standing at the corner screaming obsenities?

Seriously? This is now the second time that I have been personally attacked on this board for having an opinion. Who are you to decide what someone can and cannot say on this debate? I haven't been rude. I haven't yelled at anyone. All I have done is stated my position.

Maybe it is time for you to stop posting since you haven't the open mind to even attempt to debate anything, but tell me to shut up.

First off where did I say not to post anything. Second you post something that how shall we say is going to get a reaction and when you get exactly that you want to play the victim card when others call you out on it. Third how is telling someone to be more dipomatic and that just because a person beleives strongly in something not to expect everyone to feel the same way personally being attacked. I like eating meat. I respect vegetarians while not agreeing with them. If I were to go either on a vegan forum or talk to one in person and say "why would anyone stop eating meat that's dumb". I can't exactly get offeneded when those who like eating no meat call me out on that. Or try to play the victim card. It maybe an opinion yet an opionion is not fact and you can't expect to just post anything and not get a reaction.

No one here is saying not to post anything. Post whatever you want. The thing is you don't get to demand what kind of responses you get on what you post. If your unable or unwilling to have what you post criticised or discussed by others then one should not post on a message board. That or grow a thick skin. From what I can seee you don't like any negative feedback. This and most discussion boards are not places that are going to accomadate that.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mournblade94 wrote:


Don't take it personally. For some reason any mention of 4e followed with anything but a compliment gets people's oversensitivity gene to express itself. You didn't say anything bad.

Oh please spare me. A poster posts something guarenteed to get a reaction either good or bad and when it's bad cannot handle feedback or criticism. You don't get to demand what type of feedback you receive on a message board. Posters need to start taking reponsability for what they post and stop playing the victim card.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mournblade94 wrote:

Of course with PF I find level dipping stupid, because I ultimately think you sacrifice more with capstone powers and such

Capstone powers aren't an issue since with PFS and just about every other campaign in existence, very very few will ever see level 20. When capstones aren't an issue dipping becomes very appealing because of the front loaded nature of many classes. ( for instance, a dip of sorcerer gives shield and expeditious retreat to a lot of martial classes, particurlarly those who will depend on wands or are using light armor and taking a low failure chance. Or a dip of Paladin and Monk for saves and other bonuses.)

The game rewards min-maxing to a great extent so many will do it.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:


The game rewards min-maxing to a great extent so many will do it.

To be honest it's not just limited to PF imo. Many rpgs reward you for trying to min-maxing your characters.


memorax wrote:
Oh please spare me. A poster posts something guarenteed to get a reaction either good or bad and when it's bad cannot handle feedback or criticism. You don't get to demand what type of feedback you receive on a message board.

To be fair, it seems true (but so does criticism of 3.X/Pathfinder from avowed 4E-players). THAT SAID, yes, message boards often generate negative feedback, especially with controversial posts. It's kind of part of the beast, sadly.

Liberty's Edge

Tacticslion wrote:


To be fair, it seems true (but so does criticism of 3.X/Pathfinder from avowed 4E-players). THAT SAID, yes, message boards often generate negative feedback, especially with controversial posts. It's kind of part of the beast, sadly.

That is what I have been trying to say. If a someone posts ontroversial topic or post he or she cannot expect not to receive feedback. Message boards imo do not work that way.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Kthulhu wrote:
Mournblade94 wrote:
I still don't like players in my game to level dip with no good reason attached. I allowed level dip into Sorceror far more than Wizard for example.
The opposite makes more sense to me. If you've got the magic boiling in your blood, why would it have never surfaced before you got in your dozen levels of rogue?

Fictional example, our own Erzen, who didn't 'become a mage' until much older in life.

Real life example, Grandma Moses. She had painting skills that she never developed until later in life.

Though it does work differently...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Note, that the below are my opinions based on my experience with D&D (that being a couple of sessions of AD&D, extensive play of 3.5 and 4e.

TClifford wrote:
1. You can debate the differences between 2e - 3e all you want, but at least the game was recognizable as D&D and was generally considered an improvement.

I personally still find 4e recognisable as D&D, albeit my impression of D&D as gained through play of 3.5.

Although I don't overall consider 4e an improvement over 3.5 (I don't consider PF an improvement over 3.5 either), there were many things that I considered a great improvement and hope they keep when they go to 5e e.g. the At Will and Encounter powers, Healing Surges, short rests (though toned down), rituals, choice of stat for defenses/saves, consolidation of skill list to name but a few.

TClifford wrote:
2. 4e is a radical departure from the D&D formula and basically stripped it back to the original D&D rules, throwing out all the improvements that was found in 2e and 3e for streamlined play.

I don't think it is a radical departure from the D&D formula (you still go into dungeons and kill things and take their stuff :), if anything it actually re-focuses on the core D&D formula rather than what the game had expanded to cover in subsequent editions (e.g. crafting).

I also find it odd that you think it threw out a load of stuff that previously streamlined play, I see 4e as being more streamlined that 3.5 (overly so for me unfortunately).

TClifford wrote:
Most of the people I know that play 4e only play it because that is what is being supported now by WoTC or they don't have alot of time to play so have to sacrifice roleplaying.

Eh? Because they don't have a lot of time they have to sacrifice roleplaying? I don't understand that at all - were combats dragging out so much that to get the fights done the players were ignoring the roleplaying oportunities?

For me 4e makes prepping a lot easier for the GM, and so from that point of view 4e can actually help promote roleplaying as the GM can spend less time on statting up NPCs and more time on thinking about plot and NPC motivations.

I just ran 4e like any other RPG and it ran fine, roleplaying included, we had maybe 1 or 2 combats a session and for some we had none at all - it was all roleplaying. And that was with minimal prep time for me (done in lunch hours at work and on train home) and a decent length campaign with two interweaving plot lines got played out in only 26x 4 hour sessions.

I saw more roleplaying in that campaign than I did in the RotR AP I played in - which despite playing for probably the same number of sessions still hasn't completed and myself and two other players have left that group!

TClifford wrote:
4. If anything 4e splintered the 3.5 player base, fortunately for the good of Paizo.

And Pathfinder splintered the remaining 3.5 player base, fortunately for Paizo to their benefit, but its bad for those like me who wanted to stick with 3.5 but found my old group converting (one of the reasons I left) and at conventions 3.5 games hard to come by. I play PF & PFS now because it was a case of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"

TClifford wrote:
I can't believe there are some people on here at think that 5e would be a good idea because it will 'keep the brand name alive.'

I don't think 5e is a good idea just to keep the brand name alive, better to do that with board games. However I do think it could be a good idea if they take the best of 4e and just change it enough to incorporate some of the stuff of 3.5 that was stripped out for the sake of simplicity (saves, regaining all HP overnight etc).

TClifford wrote:
All I see is a company that made 4e because they wanted to put their name on the product and wipe out anything that resembled TSR.

Is your assertion that D&D 3.0 and 3.5 resembled TSR so much that WotC wanted to change it? IMHO WotC already put their stamp on the D&D game with 3rd edition, they didn't need to create 4e to do it.

TClifford wrote:
WoTC made the divide between 3.5/PF players and 4e players.

And Paizo made the divide between 3.5 and PF players.

TClifford wrote:
They are just going to make the divide even wider with 5e.

You cannot possibly know that with no idea of what 5e will be like, you can guess at that, but then I can guess that 5e will be so great it will not only brig over the 4e crowd but a load of 3.5 and PF players, and even some AD&D players and enjoy the biggest player base of D&D yet. My guess will probably prove false, but its a good a guess as any :)


Ok, this sounds like fun:

Couple of points as I've see it. Note: Based on my opinions from 12 years playing and homebrewing in the industry.

1. D&D is recognizable by anyone who opens up a book labled Dungeons and Dragons. It's filled to the brim with ways to create interesting characters of varying professions to combat monsters, create and find treasure, engage in dialog with other people of a fantasy world, and pretty much allow you to do whatever you want with free-form. 4E allows you to do this in a less "rules-mastery" way in which anyone can enjoy all classes without pouring hours into your character's mechanics.

2. 4E favors streamlined play because heavy rules can, and often do, bog down game-time and character immersion. There's nothing worse than having to read 3 pages of one rule just so you "get it right". In addition, the classes are designed to be easy to use without having a a PhD in min/maxing to be a useful to your friends. A class works within a specific framework that most other classes adhere to as well. Some difference include features of a specific class though generally most people get X amount of powers a day at their disposal. More options is often considered better than no options.

3. 4e was implimented because WoTC saw a line that was starting to stagnate and wanted to 'improve' it and 'modernize' it. This was mostly due to heavy rules-bloat from the previous edition and the appearance of mathematical problems with the previous system. Also, the disparity of classes was so great that more people opted to play "spellcasters" rather than non-spellcasters due to their immense power in mid- to high-leveled campaigns. In short, spellcasters were the true Epic Heroes able to bend time, reality, gravity, and cull even the mightiest dragons with a mere spell. Non-spellcasters, OTOH, could NEVER seem to be on-par with these demi-god characters. From my own perspective, 3E is really only played as long as the Tome of Battle is allowed and some heavy modification by the DM to stop PC power-gaming which has run rampant with the 3E system. In short, most fans of v3.5/PF enjoy roll-playing where the rules cater to those not wanting to participate in actual role-playing in lieu of a simple d20 roll with a skill, spell, or weapon attack. In fact, Diplomacy can easily end encounters with a few simple feats and a spell that turns the fiercest demons to drinkin' buddies in about a minute. For more PC shenanigans, feel free to Google CODzilla, Cheater of Mystra, or Pun-Pun and allow yourself the full freedom of munchkinism and min/maxing that v3.5 has to offer :) .

4. If anything 4e splintered the 3.5 player base due to gamers taking things a bit too seriously and personally for the genre. Fortunately for Paizo, this was a good thing as WotC has never had this level of competition in the industry and espically not with their own product. Additionally, Pathfinder was just noted as being the number one selling RPG out there last quarter. But what this really tells us is that some distributors sell more Paizo than they do WotC products. If your really interested, please check out WotC's production schedule for those months and see what they actually put out in terms of product. Also, the ICv2 reports do not list Paizo PDF sales nor DDI sales so it's relatively moot in perspective of the gaming industry as a whole.

But truth be told, I think it's pretty sad that people feel the need to draw lines in the sand over something so minimal. I think certian people feel the need for their opinion to be validated or somehow boosted above others in order to feel superior. That this sort of elitism is in this small of a community is rather pathetic and simple-minded.


bugleyman wrote:
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?

Seriously Bugley man? You CAN'T have mocha Paint thinner. The Mocha lipids are nonpolar and so will not properly dissolve in paint thinner.. A non polar substance.

I CALL SHENNANIGANS on your Mocha Paint thinner!

Shadow Lodge

Now now, just because you don't like mocha paint thinner, that's no reason to insult his choice of beverage.


Kthulhu wrote:


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.

Well Eberron was a 3rd edition creation, I was not all that fond of it.

I think that the reason 3rd edition worked for me so well despite the fact I hated the edition change, was I liked the system when I played it, and then I thought Forgotten Realms was a monumental success. I approached 4e with the same mindset, but 4e did not work. Still I was willing to give it a shot, and then they released Forgotten Realms. I even tried playing some campaigns in it. I was unable to convert my campaign, and I thought 4e realms an unnecessary change to cater to the squeaky wheel of the internet.

I have always said 3rd edition was a radical departure, but 4e failed to allow me to convert campaigns. Therefore I find 4e a more radical departure.


This is way too long an argument over non-existent products and predicting potential strategies to counter the potential effects of said non-existent products.

Or in other words, why are we discussing the hypothetical fight between two imaginary cats in a sack in an unlit soundproofed room in an alternate timeline?

Actually... I think I'll have to use that in a game at some point.

1,251 to 1,300 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