|
The problem with 4E for many people (including me), though obviously not for its fans-- is that the ONLY connection it really has to prior editions of D&D IS the name. From the praise you give to that system, I'm pretty sure your opinion differs from mine.Sure, the name is its only connection to D&D.
As long as you ignore the dice, character sheets, hit points, AC, strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom, intelligence, charisma, attack rolls, magic missile, fireball, beholders, illithids, dragons, dungeons, traps, monsters, treasure, adventuring, exploration, diseases, curses, fighters, wizards, rogues, clerics, paladins, rangers, elves, halflings, orcs, half-orcs, half-elves, dwarves, magic wands, magic staves, magic swords, magic armor, +1 bonuses, holy avengers, saving throws, dungeon masters, Cheetos and Mountain Dew, friends sitting around a table, demons, devils, damsels to rescue, and worlds to save. And probably literally a thousand other connections.
But yeah, really, just the name.
The designers of D&D have talked recently about the stupidity of edition wars and the fact that a lot of people focus on the differences between editions rather than the things that unite them (and their players). I look at posts like the one above, and can't help but think that they're totally right.
For me, it's not that it's a totally bad game-- though I admit to not liking it much, and particularly, to not considering it much of a 'role-playing' game--You said it sucked. Is there some other way we're supposed to take that, other than the usual?
but I wouldn't find it so g*dd**n annoying if people who favor it wouldn't make such a big deal about rubbing the name in everyone else's face, the way so many fans of 4E seem to take such pleasure in.Rubbing the name in everyone else's face? What the hell?
To be fair, there are a lot of fantasy RPG's that have most of those things as well, but they are definitely not D&D. Using your logic, you might as well call Runequest or Palladium Fantasy D&D.
|
.
Erm, not quite. Pathfinder is not 3e. If you're talking "nostalgia," I for example, have absolutely no nostalgic holdings to Pathfinder. However, I have all kinds of nostalgia for 3e from the decade-plus years I've played it. Pathfinder is a continuation of 3e rules, but it is absolutely not 3e. I know many players in my groups who still prefer 3e to Pathfinder, so it wasn't for everybody.No 3e nostalgia? Really?
It is actually 3E. Not 3.0. but beyond the a different name a few small house rules it's 3E. Nothing in the Pathfinder core feels like something new. I'm in and run a Pathfinder game. Beyond the CMD and CMB rules it's 3.5. So I'm mot missing out on playing 3.5 because Pathfinder more than makes up for it. Selling a game on nostalglia espcillay designer nostahlia is imo a mistake.
|
|
From what I've heard via developers comments, the only thing abut 5E so far that even comes close to a "rehash of 3.5/Pathfinder" is vancian casting for clerics and wizards being core, so I think you are being premature in your judgement of a game that isn't even finalized yet.
It just that Monte comes across as a dev who wants to turn back the clock to 3E or even possibly 2e that worries me. I'm not saying keep all of 4E. Yet to toss out everything from 4E is imo a mistake. It had some good elements. It seems less liek trying something new and more like bringing an older product back and hope no one notices. At least imo.
It is actually 3E. Not 3.0. but beyond the a different name a few small house rules it's 3E. Nothing in the Pathfinder core feels like something new. I'm in and run a Pathfinder game. Beyond the CMD and CMB rules it's 3.5. So I'm mot missing out on playing 3.5 because Pathfinder more than makes up for it. Selling a game on nostalglia espcillay designer nostahlia is imo a mistake..
Erm, not quite. Pathfinder is not 3e. If you're talking "nostalgia," I for example, have absolutely no nostalgic holdings to Pathfinder. However, I have all kinds of nostalgia for 3e from the decade-plus years I've played it. Pathfinder is a continuation of 3e rules, but it is absolutely not 3e. I know many players in my groups who still prefer 3e to Pathfinder, so it wasn't for everybody.No 3e nostalgia? Really?
I'm going to have to disagree with you again. An edition is more than a block of rules mechanics; it's the art, the edition-specific, non-OGL material(prestige classes, settings, splatbooks, etc), the works. Pathfinder is kinda sorta compatible, but there's some things that get lost in translation. Pathfinder is a different game that updates some of the rules, but it's not D&D. It never said it was.
To paraphrase a commonly used 4e tactic; it's not D&D because it doesn't say so on the cover. Since, ya know, 4e is D&D simply because it does say so. I've got tons of 3e nostalgia, but I've only just started playing Pathfinder in recent years, so no nostalgia yet.
4e may have won the "battle" but, in the end, I hold out hope, Dungeons & Dragons will win the war, and that is a possibility that may hold some interest to the Pathfinder supporters.
I like Pathfinder, a lot, but what happens if Dungeons & Dragons is, somehow, a better game than Pathfinder?
Vancian arguments aside, we have discussed, ad naseum, how the "new" must develope to be viable and competative with a game that most people feel is living a life in cognito (Pathfinder is just the secret code word we use for "The Worlds Oldest Fantasy Role Playin Game", right *wink*)
Who is asking the question, "How must Pathfinder evolve in order to continue to be the first choice for players wanting the D&D experience?"
to the bolded question: Probably they'll wait until D&D:next rules come out and then pilfer them, hahahaha. Joking aside, I don't think Paizo is in any need to keep up with any sort of advancments. Sure, D&D:Next might draw some initial headway, possibly selling more than Paizo at that time, but as long as Paizo continues to make great supplements and intriguing adventures, why would they? I mean, their moniker is keeping the community and consistancy with the Pathfinder ruleset. I think they'd lose a lot of fans if they were to change things up just as an attempt to stay competitive.
What it is is completely irrelevant. I don't speak for the fan base. But, right now, WotC is scrapping a game that has only been on the market for three and a half years, which has a very vocal and rabid fan base. Why is that? Oh, yeah, because the larger slice of the fan base didn't make the jump. They went with the company that didn't kill a bunhc of sacred cows, or they stayed with older WotC/TSR editions. They want those fans back. And, if you stopped defending 4e for three seconds and actually listened to the people who abandoned WotCs concerns, you'd know that 4es lack of Vancian casting was a huge issue with many of those customers.
I think it's much less than that. I think 4E didn't hit the numbers Hasbro projected so you change the product that might better meet those numbers. It's capitalism and I'm ok with that. I'm ok with the fact that 4E will probably only have about a 4-5 year run. Whatever. My complaint is that D&D:next doens't seem to be the great next step D&D needs to be.
It's a main reason why I won't buy Pathfinder material aside from Adventure Paths, becuase to me....it's just 3.X with some houserules. Houserules, I might add, which I already made to the game prior to it being created. No more XP on crafting items, at-will Cantrips, Bloodline Sorcerers, etc. were all things that were already prevailent in my games. Sure, they made some changes like CMB/CMD (which I really like) and they changed some spells that made 3E broken (Yay!) but these weren't enough to make me go out and buy it. Espically when it's FREE ONLINE. So D&D:next HAS to be better than that, it has to be better than Edition X with houserules. It has to bring something to the table besides nostalgic spellcasting systems and edition tropes that we've seen 4 other times. If not, why the hell am I buying it??
Hmm, would be nice if everyone either just agrees to disagree or just set aside their differences and just say:
"This is a game. Vancian magic or no, they are going to do their best to make it work for everyone who plays."
Nerd rage aside, lets just play. Bringing up how people said this 5 years ago, or people said that is not helping the community here. So, Vancian magic is bad. So what? Find a magic system you like and stick with it.
My favorite magic system for D&D is in Advanced D20 Magic from Guardians of Order. You can shoot magic as much as you like -- all you trade off is simplicity for math because it's DC based -- and taking non-lethal damage. To cast a spell, you roll a d20 and apply the modifiers you need. That's it. :)
IF you like 4e's magic system, there's nothing stopping you from house ruling it in the new Basic Set until the module comes out for it. Simple as pie.
If you want a spell point system, get out Unearthed Arcana and use that. Simple as pie.
There are alternatives to Vancian already. What you guys are mad about is whether or not your favorite system will be in the new Basic set. And really, does it matter? D&D is becoming a toolkit, to recreate what kind of D&D you'd love to play. Some of you have your tools already, so why not use them until the official toolset can come out?
There's nothing wrong with fiddling with the system. There's nothing wrong with in-house recipes. Honestly, it's almost as if some of you 4e'ers want 4e to remain supreme. Well, here's a little secret. Change comes in the most unexpected ways, and we are programmed to resist it when we feel it threatens us.
Diffan, memorax, Scott Betts, and all those who are 4e apologists, you are feeling threatened with the 5th edition coming in. But you shouldn't. If WotC succeeds in this, you guys will have won. Not quite in the way you expected, but yes. You will have won the pointless debate. And so will everyone else.
It doesn't matter that Vancian magic is coming back. You already have your favorite tools in your RPG Toolbox to enjoy the D&D you love. No one's going to force to you to play a D&D game with Vancian magic in it. It's not like you are being disenfranchised like everyone else was. The feelings that you have are fake. It's not worth the trouble to you or everyone else to fight and have your way. Live with what is coming and use what you have.
Scott, there's more to Vancian than memorisation, even if I agree that spell preparation/memorisation is what Vancian magic is most known for. But as soon as you use a system that uses 'packaged' spells as its main way to work magic, you are using a vancian element.I don't think that's what Vancian spellcasting means, now. (...)
I don't think this is a fair assumption, at least not an honest one. If other games picked up on vancian elements like packaged spells and finite magic, it proves that Vancian magic has strengths. The fact that other systems use this as well doesn't make it less vancian.
I wish that people would be honest and say that they don't like spell preparation and fire-and-forget casting and leave Vancian alone. Call it Vancian memorization or Vancian fire-and-forget if you wish, but at least be fair about what Vancian magic (as a whole) is.
As for defending Vancian magic based on memorization alone, it would be like describing the United States describing only New York, Michigan and other New England states and leaving the mid-west and the west coast out.
surely I can do it, but it wouldn't be a fair representation of the system as a whole. But my point was never to prove anything to anyone; if Vancian magic is that weak or if people despise it as much, it won't come back in 5e, regardless what I think or say.
'findel
|
|
I'm going to have to disagree with you again. An edition is more than a block of rules mechanics; it's the art, the edition-specific, non-OGL material(prestige classes, settings, splatbooks, etc), the works. Pathfinder is kinda sorta compatible, but there's some things that get lost in translation. Pathfinder is a different game that updates some of the rules, but it's not D&D. It never said it was.
disagree all you want the evidence is right in front of me. Side by side with my copies of the 3.5 core and PF core. They are the same with some small differences. For a game to be a new edition at least for me it has to no longer allow me to take stuff from the previous edtion and drop it into the new edition. I can easily take something from 3.5 and drop it into PF with little or no changes. The same cannot be said of PF to 4E. It can be done. Just not as easily. I am a fan of the Hero System. When they released 6E and I compared it to 5E it's the exact same thing. Same rules with few changes. If mechanics are not important ehy even buy rules books when you can make up your own. You bought the book. Mechanics for you imo must mena something
To paraphrase a commonly used 4e tactic; it's not D&D because it doesn't say so on the cover. Since, ya know, 4e is D&D simply because it does say so. I've got tons of 3e nostalgia, but I've only just started playing Pathfinder in recent years, so no nostalgia yet.
I never liked when 4E players used that. Second you can wear a pair of ruby read loafers and go "i wish , I wish" all you want it's still not going to make the PF fundamentally different from the PF core. You think over at the Hero fourms they are going "6E is a completelydifferent version it says so on the cover" nonsense. Fan like myself of both versions know they are similar.It was one of the design goals not to alienate 5E fans or invalidate 5E material. Why do you think the PF core is billed as being compitable with 3.5 material. If it was fundamentally different imo that would not be possible.
Trust me I used to think the same. Now I'm running and playing PF and I'm seeing no difference. Now if you want to say that the sourcebooks that were released after the core make PF different then I agree with you. Take two goats. Put one in a tuxedo with the logo "Not A Goat" in bright neon pink it's still going to be a goat. No matter how much one wishes it to be so.
Technically the vancian comparison of 4E versus older editions is scale, or amount of choices. Regardless if they develop classes based in 1E/2E versus 4E, they should not continue to replace lower level powers with higher level powers currently present in 4E. That was one of the features of 4E that did not make sense. They would be better off limiting the amount of feat choices.
And people that like 4E will continue to play 4E, as the bigger issue in my mind is how 5E handles copyrights, in reference to digital content. In other words, 5E could be an awesome revision, but if I can not own the PDF or computer ulilities, then good luck getting my money.
disagree all you want the evidence is right in front of me. Side by side with my copies of the 3.5 core and PF core. They are the same with some small differences. For a game to be a new edition at least for me it has to no longer allow me to take stuff from the previous edtion and drop it into the new edition. I can easily take something from 3.5 and drop it into PF with little or no changes. The same cannot be said of PF to 4E. It can be done. Just not as easily. I am a fan of the Hero System. When they released 6E and I compared it to 5E it's the exact same thing. Same rules with few changes. If mechanics are not important ehy even buy rules books when you can make up your own. You bought the book. Mechanics for you imo must mena something
I'm going to have to disagree with you again. An edition is more than a block of rules mechanics; it's the art, the edition-specific, non-OGL material(prestige classes, settings, splatbooks, etc), the works. Pathfinder is kinda sorta compatible, but there's some things that get lost in translation. Pathfinder is a different game that updates some of the rules, but it's not D&D. It never said it was.
We can just agree to disagree then. I had a hard time with Pathfinder when I was just trying to treat is 3.5 part 2, for me it made more sense as a system when I divorced it from 3.5 and treated it as it's own game. Sure, I can adapt 3.5 material to it, the same way I adapt 2e material to 3.5, the same way some people here adapt PF to 4e. I'm sure Scott Betts could help you out there, since he's done a lot of very well-received work adapting PF adventures to 4e. Still doesn't make Pathfinder "D&D."
Yeah, it says in the early advertisements "3.5 Thrives!" Sure, the mechanical 3.5 ruleset thrives. D&D 3rd Edition is a separate game. An edition is more than numbers and math; it's game design direction, non-OGL material, the works. If I or one of my friends puts together a gaming group, we specify whether it's PF or D&D, and if D&D, what edition. Maybe we're weirdos in that respect, but for us, there's a clear-cut difference in the games. For example, without emphasis, what if someone makes a Ranger? 3.5 and PF's Ranger class are night and day different.
I never liked when 4E players used that. Second you can wear a pair of ruby read loafers and go "i wish , I wish" all you want it's still not going to make the PF fundamentally different from the PF core. You think over at the Hero fourms they are going "6E is a completelydifferent version it says so on the cover" nonsense. Fan like myself of both versions know they are similar.It was one of the design goals not to alienate 5E fans or invalidate 5E material. Why do you think the PF core is billed as being compitable with 3.5 material. If it was...
To paraphrase a commonly used 4e tactic; it's not D&D because it doesn't say so on the cover. Since, ya know, 4e is D&D simply because it does say so. I've got tons of 3e nostalgia, but I've only just started playing Pathfinder in recent years, so no nostalgia yet.
Why would I wish PF be different from PF core? You lost me, man. If you're not one of those "of course 4e is D&D! Says so on the cover!" guys, then cheers to ya.
Lastly, what in the 9 hells does this have to do with the OP?
...And Spontaneous casting solved that problem 12 years ago.
For spontaneous casters.
We've been told that there are defensible, gameplay-based reasons that put Vancian magic head-and-shoulders above the rest of the pack of magic system options, and that these reasons justify their inclusion in D&D going forward, not nostalgia. It would be cool if we started hearing them.
Otherwise, the "How dare you call it nothing but nostalgia!" crowd seems to be just blowing smoke.
My group played 4th edition for 2 aborted campaigns, under 2 different DMs. We ended up not liking it.
What the players hated was.....
You get that this is a thread on Vancian spellcasting, right? This post (and to a lesser extent the one following it) aren't going to do anything but derail the thread.
To be fair, there are a lot of fantasy RPG's that have most of those things as well
But not all of them.
What people actually mean when they say "This isn't D&D!" is that the game in question lacks an arbitrarily-set number of commonalities with whatever version of D&D they prefer and consider the one-true-D&D.
I don't think this is a fair assumption, at least not an honest one. If other games picked up on vancian elements like packaged spells and finite magic, it proves that Vancian magic has strengths. The fact that other systems use this as well doesn't make it less vancian.
Doesn't make what less Vancian?
I'm telling you that I don't care about the other elements of Vancian casting, and neither do any of the other people who complain about it. The whole "packaged spells" thing is fine. We're cool with that. Mind you, Vancian magic didn't come up with that part - it's been around in fairy tales for centuries - but whatever. We don't care. If you don't want us to call it Vancian casting and would prefer that we call it Vancian memorization, that's fine. It's really unimportant to us, as long as you understand exactly what it is we think needs improvement.
You're missing the point. I disagree with a lot of people, and have no problem with having a conversation with them because we at least agree on what the salient points of the discussion are. You are going on and on about Vancian and how it's blah blah blah. So, if you're not even going to recognize that the company that makes that game you like thinks they screw up and pissed off too many customers, there's no point in having a reasoned discussion with you.
But, really. It's over. The dollar has spoken. 4e lost. Get over it.The "desperate clutching" you are talking about is a result of 4e's failure. That "desperate clutching" is a company trying to please a customer base it lost three and a half years ago.
Seriously, and again. 4e lost the edition war. It's over. Stop whining.
I'm not sure if you realize the irony in these statements yet replace 4E with 3.5 and probably quite a few posters from these boards. These were teh same arguments that fans of 3.5 used. Does that mean theri should be no debate. It's all good you like the Vancian magic system. You don't speal for all the fanbase. So acting like you do is not doing you any favor. I respect your opinion yet you seem determined to not respect mine or others in this thread.
Very interesting and one sided way to have a conversation. If someone agrees with you they can be debated with. If not they are dense. Glad to know where you stand on those who disagree with you.
leave nuance by the wayside for particularly dense posters. I save it for people I can have an intelligent conversation with. If I see pom poms, I automatically assume dense.
Hey. Cool it.
We're not telling you that if 5e has Vancian casting/memorization, that we won't play it. We're not telling you that if 5e has Vancian casting/memorization, it will suck. We're not telling you that if 5e has Vancian casting/memorization, we will resent the people who called for it to be reincluded.
We're telling you that we think it could be replaced with a better system, and that nostalgia is really the only thing that keeps people fighting for it. If you started playing D&D today, and were presented with a bunch of different casting systems, chances are you wouldn't pick Vancian memorization. You'd pick something else that was more flexible, or more straightforward, or more intuitive, or more spontaneous.
We don't really care. We're going to get some cool, non-Vancian options with 5e, and we'll be set. And, even if we did get stuck with Vancian memorization, we'd live with it and still happily enjoy our D&D games. It's really not that big of a deal.
We get where you're coming from. We get what your complaint is. But bear in mind: we also know why Vancian memorization is being fought for.
|
disagree all you want the evidence is right in front of me. Side by side with my copies of the 3.5 core and PF core. They are the same with some small differences. For a game to be a new edition at least for me it has to no longer allow me to take stuff from the previous edtion and drop it into the new edition. I can easily take something from 3.5 and drop it into PF with little or no changes. The same cannot be said of PF to 4E. It can be done. Just not as easily. I am a fan of the Hero System. When they released 6E and I compared it to 5E it's the exact same thing. Same rules with few changes. If mechanics are not important ehy even buy rules books when you can make up your own. You bought the book. Mechanics for you imo must mena something
I think this, along with the rest of your post discussing what a 'new edition' should mean, is interesting...
Everywhere else in publishing other than game designers, and even at many other game companies, when someone publishes a 'new edition' of something-- it's not a whole new game/book/product-- it is the same old one, with some updates and revisions. You may have to make some changes in your own stuff to accommodate the changes in the new edition, but it shouldn't be that big a deal-- unless you're trying to make the shift from say, a 1st edition to a 10th edition... As an example, textbooks: while publishers would like it (and usually do get this response anyway for other reasons) if educators used the newest edition in teaching their classes (and they keep cranking out new editions, year after year)-- educators really don't like it if they have to completely change every aspect of their classes that was based on the material in the textbook, every time a new edition comes out... So, new editions in the textbook world usually include updated and revised material (since the discovery and evaluation of knowledge marches on) and sometimes include some expanded material, but they are fully 'compatible' with the old books and do not require the instructor to substantially rearrange his/her reading assignments for the students.
If your new edition marks a complete change, where everything in your old edition is thoroughly incompatible, and you essentially have to rewrite everything to put stuff from the old into the new version-- you really don't have a 'new edition'-- you have a new game, that happens to be based, more or less, on some of the elements of the preceding game. Now, you can call it a new edition-- and most people will go along with your terminology-- this is what TSR and WotC have in fact done; and it is (sort of) true, so long as you accept WotC's point of view on what the term "edition" means. D&D's history is kind of checkered for this: original D&D to AD&D-- well, note the name change-- they did say it was a new game, but based on the old one. AD&D 1E to AD&D 2E-- new edition? or new game? Probably still a new edition, but a very heavily revised one-- takes a lot of work to fully adapt AD&D 1 material to AD&D 2, but most of the conversions are fairly straight. AD&D 2 to AD&D 2 w/ Skills & Powers (one of my favorite D&D versions, btw)-- I'd call that a 'new edition' of the game, but not a whole new game. AD&D 2 to D&D 3.0-- New game based on the old one. Not just a new edition, except according to WotC's reinvention of the term. 3.0 to 3.5-- new edition, but not a new game. 3.5 to 4E-- new game: how much it's based on the old game seems to be a major bone of contention around here, not interested in raising that dispute when it's not my point. 4E to D&D 5E/Next-- going to be another new game.
But, a proper example of a "new edition" is exhibited by the updates to the Hero System-- yes, Hero 5E is fully compatible with Hero 6E-- it's supposed to be, because it's a new edition of the rules for the SAME game-- not a whole new game. GURPS is another example-- things have changed rather more between GURPS 3E and 4E-- but it's not very hard to take GURPS material from one edition and use it in a later edition, because it's still the same game-- the core mechanics haven't changed.
Now, Pathfinder: new name, lots of updated and revised material, and some adjustments to the rules. Properly speaking, it is a new edition... and at the same time, yes, the core engine is "D&D 3.x"-- new edition (in the sense most publishers use the term), but not a whole new game. And of course, the fact that it's a new edition, but not a whole new game-- is a major part of its appeal.
...And Spontaneous casting solved that problem 12 years ago.For spontaneous casters.
Wow, really?
/mindblown
Gee, I just sort of figured if everybody made such a big fuss about having to memorize spells ahead of time, that, ya know, maybe there was an already existing alternative, but hey, what do I know? Guess I'm just missing something.
But bear in mind: we also know why Vancian memorization is being fought for.Citation, please.
And don't just heap on a lot of opinions about how it sucks.
It's being fought for because it's the way things have always been in D&D, and there are a bunch of people who, for that reason and that reason alone, will not tolerate a version of D&D without it.
The alternative is that it's being fought for because it's a better magic system than anything else out there, which would be a pretty tough position to take.
We're telling you we think it could be replaced with a better system, and that nostalgia is really the only thing that keeps people fighting for it.
Which system is that in your opinion?
Ignoring that anyone who's unhappy with the combat ability of a 3.5 wizard can play a cleric or a druid or a bard or even a rogue (given UMD)...
Psionics from 3.5/Dreamscarred is a point cost system, Force powers from Star Wars D20 was a skill based system, and the Tome of Magic introduced three other variants for 3.5, and none of them were popular enough to become the de facto D&D magic system during 3.5's publishing.
I understand that you prefer 4E and that's your business, But when WotC feels it necessary to put out a press release saying that the new edition will have Vancian casting, calling everyone who's happy to hear it a bunch of nostalgic fools (it's there between the lines dude) seems rather short sighted.
|
|
We can just agree to disagree then. I had a hard time with Pathfinder when I was just trying to treat is 3.5 part 2, for me it made more sense as a system when I divorced it from 3.5 and treated it as it's own game. Sure, I can adapt 3.5 material to it, the same way I adapt 2e material to 3.5, the same way some people here adapt PF to 4e. I'm sure Scott Betts could help you out there, since he's done a lot of very well-received work adapting PF adventures to 4e. Still doesn't make Pathfinder "D&D."
I guess we will disagree then. If the system is as different as you feel that it is trust me the week after PF was released this board would have been aflame with angry gamers. They promised a version compitable for 3.5 They gave it. To do they had to implement very little change. Of course I can adapt stuff from other versions of D&D yet it's not going to change my mind that it is 3.5. Taking a monster from 2E requires a complete rewrite imo. Taking a monster from the 3.5 MM or any 3.5 source is easy. Check to see if the feats need to be changed. Calculate the CMD and CMB. As for it not being D&D you must be the only PF fan I know of who does that. Everyone else uses PF as being the spiritual successor to D&D. when you mention PF more often then not you get asked "is that another version D&D?" Mechanics don;t liel. It may not say D&D on the cover yet it's still 3.5 D&D in the core. The art might be different. The spell names might be different to avoid copyright infringmement. The monsters for the most part are the same in the 3E MM. You want to make it out to be different I can respect that. Expect others more often then not to tell your wrong.
Yeah, it says in the early advertisements "3.5 Thrives!" Sure, the mechanical 3.5 ruleset thrives. D&D 3rd Edition is a separate game. An edition is more than numbers and math; it's game design direction, non-OGL material, the works. If I or one of my friends puts together a gaming group, we specify whether it's PF or D&D, and if D&D, what edition. Maybe we're weirdos in that respect, but for us, there's a clear-cut difference in the games. For example, without emphasis, what if someone makes a Ranger? 3.5 and PF's Ranger class are night and day different.
I think your misrerading what that poster meant. When they meant is that 3.5 thrives through PF. Not that 3.5 as it's own edition ws thriving. Why whould they do market for another game. It was along the libnes of "If you like 3.5 then buy PF because you can still get more of the same" type of marketing. With Paizo providing a decent amount of support with strong 3pp support. and 3.5 getting none it's not imo thriving. Yes some gamers still play it yet if most are like me and want new material they buy PF to avoid converting stuff over and for new material in general.
The thing is this you can include both a 3.5 Ranger and a PF Ranger in the same game. At most all the 3.5 Ranger player would have to do is calculate CMD and CMB and they can both play side by side. Same thing with a Warlock or any other class from 3.5. Of coruse some might be stronger or weaker then others and you might have to tweak them yet if you just want to use a 3.5 class as is it can be done. Except for the 3.5 fighter the PF is much better imo. Try taking a 1E Ranger or a 2e Ranger and try to drop them into the game. you can yet the system is different enough that it reuqires a rewrit.e What feats to take. Which skills to replace. Which class abilities do I use.
Why would I wish PF be different from PF core? You lost me, man. If you're not one of those "of course 4e is D&D! Says so on the cover!" guys, then cheers to ya.
What i menat was that the 3.5 core and PF core imo are very simiar. To the point for me at least that PF is 90-95% percent 3.5. Theyreleased other products for PF like UM, UC and the APG which makes PF it's own game. The gun rules in PF are different then the ones from 3.5. We have a new Cavalier class that is different then the one from 3.5. A summoner that if memory serves does not exist in 3.5.
Lastly, what in the 9 hells does this have to do with the OP?
If your not interested in a discussion why did you answer my post the first time. It's like you respond then your getting mad that I responded back. I assumed you wanted an answer to your post.
I removed some posts and the replies to them. Civility, please.
It's being fought for because it's the way things have always been in D&D, and there are a bunch of people who, for that reason and that reason alone, will not tolerate a version of D&D without it.
The alternative is that it's being fought for because it's a better magic system than anything else out there, which would be a pretty tough position to take.
Don't you think this is a false dichotomy?
.I don't think it is always the case that, when discussing rule mechanics, people will argue for or against some subsystem based on some strict scale of superiority. If the latter view really is the only alternative to nostalgia-based arguments, wouldnt it leave us all arguing for identical rules-systems? (Some 'perfect system' which is made up of all those subsystems we think are 'the best').
For my part, I like the fact that different RPGs use different systems. Thus, I dont really have a conception of 'the best magic system' that I would argue for - I like having a range to choose from. As such, I might argue for a retention of Vancian magic in D&D since I'm not getting it in any of the other systems I play (This is more a hypothetical to make a point - as it happens I'm somewhat indifferent to this specific topic. Vancian magic doesnt 'make sense' to me, but it doesnt bug me either).
|
|
Those are opinions, Scott.You keep insisting people defend their views in a game-mechanics way.
But you never offer anything except your opinion in defense of your view.
Here is what monte said:
Monte: I know it's a bit contreversial, but I think Vancian magic is a core element of D&D. Maybe it's not the only option for magic, but it's definitely an iconic and flavorful one that I would like to retain. It's also an interesting way to handle game balance. For example wizards have magical feats that are basically at will abilities. Balancing them with vancian magic which are essentially daily abilities is an interesting way to go, especially when comparing to the fighter and rogue who have more of an at-will style play. It offers a very different playstyle than those other classes, but those different playstyles are something we want to embrace.
He is not offering anything imo beyod "Vancian magic has always beein in the game and it should aways be" type of opinion. Notice he never mentions getting any feedback. It's more his "well this is the way I want magic to work in 5E" So if your going to accuse Scott of using opinions well Monte seems to be doing the same thing imo. Now if he had said that so far their feedback indicated a preference for Vancian magic then yes it would be something other then opinion.
My favorite magic system for D&D is in Advanced D20 Magic from Guardians of Order. You can shoot magic as much as you like -- all you trade off is simplicity for math because it's DC based -- and taking non-lethal damage. To cast a spell, you roll a d20 and apply the modifiers you need. That's it. :)I dug out my Advanced d20 Magic book and looked it over, and I think you may have something there.
For those of you who aren't aware of the way it works, it's pretty simple:
To cast a spell, you roll a Fortitude save. Regardless of success or failure, you take non-lethal damage based on the level of the spell. Success or failure determines how much.
If the save succeeds, the spell goes off without a hitch.
If the save fails, you have to make a control check, sort of like a caster level check, at a DC 10 points lower than the fortitude save DC. If that succeeds, the spell goes off. If it fails, the suggestion is that something happens, but it isn't what the caster intended.
The idea is, you can cast any spell you know, at any time you wish (assuming you're conscious), but you aren't going to be casting them without cost. And it gives a real mechanical reason for the need for rest after spell use.
What's more, it allows any spell to be cast in one standard action (the DCs go up if the original casting time was greater than that). It also lets you take your time to reduce the save DC in non-combat casting.
The rules all fit on one page, and 3E spells don't have to be modified in any way.
I'm going to try it out in my 3.5 game this weekend. There's at least one player I know will love it.
To the bookshelf! (Well, it's actually a garage-cum-warehouse full of moldering boxes of RPGs at this point, but that lacks panache...)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monte wants to reintroduce the Vancian system? Thank Gygax for that!
Reading that certainly gives me a lot of new hope for 5th edition being a bit more like I want Dungeons and Dragons to be like. One of the reasons I enjoy Pathfinder so much is that they kept the Vancian system instead of say, spell points or mana pools or the like. Vancian or Shadowrun's system are the only magic systems that have worked out well for the games I've played.
So if your going to accuse Scott of using opinions well Monte seems to be doing the same thing imo. Now if he had said that so far their feedback indicated a preference for Vancian magic then yes it would be something other then opinion.
Okay, so Monte's got opinions too...
Look, this thread just got a warning to keep it civil, so I hope this doesn't rub anyone the wrong way, but saying someone's speaking from an opinion isn't some horrible accusation; if you think it is, I don't know, you need to talk to your debate team captain or something.
|
|
Pathfinder is 3.5 with houserules.
Absolutely correct. And it is also an indicator that WotC's revision of AD&D still had a lot of life in it, and a lot of people wanted to keep playing it. WotC (or, more likely, someone from the accounting or legal department at Hasbro) wanted to get out from under the OGL, and needed to change the game significantly to make it incompatible with earlier editions. Unfortunately, they changed the game too much for at least half the fan base, and, because of the OGL, that half had a place to go to get their fix and new product.
And that stung.
|
|
Notice he never mentions getting any feedback.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that he has the internet. I'm fairly certain he's aware of a company called Paizo. And a magazine called Kobold Quarterly.
Now, both the Paizo crew and Wolfgang Baur get a ton of open forum feedback (as does WotC before their moderators delete the posts that don't completely caress 4e's nether parts with their lips) from a metric assload of gamers. A lot of that feedback is critical of how 4e handles some things. Unless Monte is hermetically sealed in a jar on Mearls' desk and can't access the web, I think he has plenty of feedback to base his position on.
|
For spontaneous casters indeed. If Vancian casting is so horrible, everyone would use the spontaneous casters and no one would use the prepared kinds. Yet in PF and I believe in D&D3.0/5 there was a rough balance between them. Neither was overwhelmingly popular.
I think that if spontaneous casters weren't (fairly arbitrarily) nerfed by pushing back spell progression, they would almost certainly be more popular than prepared casters.