Why Pathfinder 2.0 should never happen

[Alzrius]

Josh M. wrote:

Even not using an exotic weapon, just using a rapier stacking those two things gave it a 12-20 threat range.

I can't speak to the bladed gauntlet, but having the rapier have a 12-20 threat range is not at all broken. See SKR's math in the link in my previous post.

[Kthulhu]

Morain wrote:

When they came out with 3.5 though it was a slightly different story. Yes it was better overall, but it was too similar to be worth it imo. I really felt cheated having to rebuy all books again.

...

When WotC announced 4.0 I had had it. That was why me and all my friends changed to Pathfinder as soon as we heard about it.

So you feel cheated if it stays similar, but you abandon it completely if it doesn't stay similar.

M'kay.

[Josh M.]

Alzrius wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

Even not using an exotic weapon, just using a rapier stacking those two things gave it a 12-20 threat range.

I can't speak to the bladed gauntlet, but having the rapier have a 12-20 threat range is not at all broken. See SKR's math in the link in my previous post.

Maybe not "math-wise," but 3.5 added a bunch of secondary-effects that triggered off of critical hits. Even something as simple as a fire/frost/shock Burst weapon would do ridiculous damage over time. Them, add in the host of feats that added effects like staggering, stunning, etc.

[Josh M.]

Kthulhu wrote:

Morain wrote:

When they came out with 3.5 though it was a slightly different story. Yes it was better overall, but it was too similar to be worth it imo. I really felt cheated having to rebuy all books again.

...

When WotC announced 4.0 I had had it. That was why me and all my friends changed to Pathfinder as soon as we heard about it.

So you feel cheated if it stays similar, but you abandon it completely if it doesn't stay similar.

M'kay.

And buying the CRB doesn't seem to count as "buying books again." Can't forget that.

[Alzrius]

Josh M. wrote:

Alzrius wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

Even not using an exotic weapon, just using a rapier stacking those two things gave it a 12-20 threat range.

I can't speak to the bladed gauntlet, but having the rapier have a 12-20 threat range is not at all broken. See SKR's math in the link in my previous post.

Maybe not "math-wise," but 3.5 added a bunch of secondary-effects that triggered off of critical hits. Even something as simple as a fire/frost/shock Burst weapon would do ridiculous damage over time. Them, add in the host of feats that added effects like staggering, stunning, etc.

Josh, a few points; first, feats that added status effects on critical hits were introduced in Pathfinder, not 3.5 (while I'm sure that 3.5 did have some somewhere, they weren't in the PHB - in Pathfinder, by contrast, they're in the Core Rulebook).

It's also worth noting that these effects apply to the enemy against all attacks made by everyone over the duration of their effect - they grant universal benefits, and so don't figure into a discussion of weaposn with them outperforming other weapons.

More germane, however, is that you concede that having a rapier with a critical threat range of 12-20 isn't broken "math-wise" but then say it's bad due to the math - specifically, energy burst magic weapon properties. This isn't so.

Following up on SKR's example, if you had a rapier and a longsword that both had keen and Improved Critical, and added an energy burst effect to both (that's how you draw an even comparison) the math doesn't make one any more broken than the other.

Let's presume, for simplicity, that 100% of critical threats are confirmed. The rapier will deal 1d6 (average 3.5) damage plus 1d6 energy damage (average 3.5), with a 45% chance of a critical that doubles the base damage (average 7) and cranks the energy damage up to 1d10 (average 5.5). So the average base damage is 7, and the average critical damage is an additional 5.5 points, for a total average critical damage of 12.5.

But the critical threat range is only 12-20 45% of the possible die results. So we have to multiply that extra 5.5 points of damage by 0.45, which reduces it to 2.475. We thus add that to the base damage of 7 for a total average (across all successful hits with a rapier) of 9.475.

Now compare this to the longsword. It's damage die is 1d8 (4.5 average damage), with a 1d6 energy damage on a normal hit (3.5 average), for a total average damage on a normal hit of 8. On a critical, this doubles the normal damage (average 9) and adds 1d10 energy damage (average 5.5). So the average base damage is 8, and the average critical damage is an additional 6.5 points, for a total average critical damage of 14.5.

But the critical threat range for the longsword is only 15-20, or 30% of the possible die results. So we have to multiply that extra 6.5 damage by 0.3, which reduces it to 1.95. We thus add that to the base damage of 8 for a total average (across all successful hits with a longsword) of 9.95. So the longsword is still outperforming the rapier by almost half-a-point of damage, even with an energy burst effect applied.

It's only by allowing keen and Improved Critical to stack that you let weapons like the rapier even come close to keeping up.

[Josh M.]

Alzrius wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

Alzrius wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

Even not using an exotic weapon, just using a rapier stacking those two things gave it a 12-20 threat range.

I can't speak to the bladed gauntlet, but having the rapier have a 12-20 threat range is not at all broken. See SKR's math in the link in my previous post.

Maybe not "math-wise," but 3.5 added a bunch of secondary-effects that triggered off of critical hits. Even something as simple as a fire/frost/shock Burst weapon would do ridiculous damage over time. Them, add in the host of feats that added effects like staggering, stunning, etc.

Josh, a few points; first, feats that added status effects on critical hits were introduced in Pathfinder, not 3.5 (while I'm sure that 3.5 did have some somewhere, they weren't in the PHB - in Pathfinder, by contrast, they're in the Core Rulebook).

It's also worth noting that these effects apply to the enemy against all attacks made by everyone over the duration of their effect - they grant universal benefits, and so don't figure into a discussion of weaposn with them outperforming other weapons.

More germane, however, is that you concede that having a rapier with a critical threat range of 12-20 isn't broken "math-wise" but then say it's bad due to the math - specifically, energy burst magic weapon properties. This isn't so.

Following up on SKR's example, if you had a rapier and a longsword that both had keen and Improved Critical, and added an energy burst effect to both (that's how you draw an even comparison) the math doesn't make one any more broken than the other.

Let's presume, for simplicity, that 100% of critical threats are confirmed. The rapier will deal 1d6 (average 3.5) damage plus 1d6 energy damage (average 3.5), with a 45% chance of a critical that doubles the base damage (average 7) and cranks the energy damage up to 1d10 (average 5.5). So the average base damage is 7, and the average critical damage is an additional 5.5 points, for a total average...

Would you have any problems with someone carrying a great axe and stacking Keen and Improved Crit? How about a scythe? The "rant" that SKR went on about also featured falchions, adding 2handed damage bonus into the mix. So, why stop at rapiers?

You seem to not realize that those two things stacked together don't only apply to rapiers. If a 12-20 crit threat is no big deal, let's just let players run around with scythes that do it too.

Does your gaming group allow the stacking of Keen and Improved Crit?

[TriOmegaZero]

I don't if only because I don't like the idea of crits becoming the norm.

[Alzrius]

Josh M. wrote:

Would you have any problems with someone carrying a great axe and stacking Keen and Improved Crit? How about a scythe? The "rant" that SKR went on about also featured falchions, adding 2handed damage bonus into the mix. So, why stop at rapiers?

I wouldn't have any problem, and I don't think that it should stop at rapiers, for the reasons outlined above. Allowing keen and Improved Critical to stack is how weapons with low damage dice by higher critical threat ranges keep up, in terms of damage potential, with weapons with larger damage dice.

Quote:

You seem to not realize that those two things stacked together don't only apply to rapiers. If a 12-20 crit threat is no big deal, let's just let players run around with scythes that do it too.

I can only presume that you are either being purposefully disingenuous, or simply didn't read my previous post, since it featured a comparison that included a longsword to which both keen and Improved Critical were applied. Likewise, I don't see any real issue for a keen scythe with Improved Critical. The scythe's average base damage is 5, compared to that of the greataxe, which is 6.5. The greataxe's critical damage is an average of 19.5, to the scythe's average critical damage of 20 - again, what's the big deal?

Quote:

Does your gaming group allow the stacking of Keen and Improved Crit?

No; despite my showing them the math, they just sort of knee-jerk said it was a bad idea - perhaps you can explain that sort of reaction for us?

[Josh M.]

Alzrius wrote:

No; despite my showing them the math, they just sort of knee-jerk said it was a bad idea - perhaps you can explain that sort of reaction for us?

I could, but everything I would say would be biased and anecdotal. I'm no math wiz, and opinions do not equal facts, so I wouldn't have much more to contribute than has already been said.

That, and I'm no master of Pathfinder's rules. Surely some of the other Paizonians here can help back up why stacking two separate multiplactions of crit threat is a bad idea...

[Alzrius]

Josh M. wrote:

I could, but everything I would say would be biased and anecdotal. I'm no math wiz, and opinions do not equal facts, so I wouldn't have much more to contribute than has already been said.

That, and I'm no master of Pathfinder's rules. Surely some of the other Paizonians here can help back up why stacking two separate multiplactions of crit threat is a bad idea...

You don't need to look for someone else to help explain your position on this particular issue. I posted a link to a rebuttal that I said I thought was convincing back in my original post in this matter.

[Josh M.]

"Broken/Not Broken" is subjective anyway. Wotc felt it was broken enough to change it, and Paizo obviously felt it was broken enough to not incorporate it into Pathfinder.

So not only would I not allow it in any of my games, but neither do the most recent official versions of the rules.

[JiCi]

Josh M. wrote:

I disagree. If all a new edition would be is just a handful of fixes and updates, then that, to me, is not a new edition. That's just errata. There's no reason to start a new edition if it's just a couple of updates and fixes.

I don't think that 3.5E is an errata of 3E, because they fixed a truckload of stuff. A re-print of a book with updated stats is an errata.

Josh M. wrote:

A new edition, in my opinion, should be a clean start. A fresh re-imagining of the core of the game. If that new core feels consistent with the previous one, while not exactly copying it, that's not a bad thing. I just can't justify calling a handful of patches a whole new edition.

I disagree, because 3E didn't change the core mecanics that much from AD&D: they just expanded them and made them easier to understand. 4E, however, literally destroyed the mecanics, because it didn't build itself as an update to 3E, but as a completely different game, or as an update to AD&D. It alienated me more than anything.

- Where are my iterative attacks?
- Where are my scalable damage?
- What's with that "once per encounter" joke?

Pathfinder didn't screw me that hard, and technically it's a patch to 3.5.

Josh M. wrote:

A new edition of Pathfinder doesn't have to be the literal "end of the world" for current PF players. As long as they don't mangle and destroy their setting like WotC did to the Realms, I think a new game could exist alongside the old. Not even talking about supporting two different rulesets, but basically making new rules books fore the new edition, while maybe a handful of staff continue AP's for the previous one for a while until the new edition is more set in place.

I think the risk is too high. Changing edition means changing your material and offering less and less support. Furthermore, it alienates veteran players too. Furthermore, it has to necessary. If player feedbacks cause Paizo to revise their rules, that's because they wish them to make it better, not different.

Josh M. wrote:

Basically, as long as Paizo doesn't nuke their own game and try to tell their fans how much fun they aren't having, and a new edition can "play nice" with the previous for a while, I think it'd be all good. A slow transition, not driving the previous full speed into a brick wall, suddenly switching everything full-stop to the new one; new rules for the new, new AP's for the old for at least a year. YMMV

Again, the risk is too high. What happens next when they shut down the previous edition?

[Alzrius]

Josh M. wrote:

"Broken/Not Broken" is subjective anyway. Wotc felt it was broken enough to change it, and Paizo obviously felt it was broken enough to not incorporate it into Pathfinder.

So not only would I not allow it in any of my games, but neither do the most recent official versions of the rules.

This is just the argument from authority fallacy (because hey, it can't be straw man all the time). That WotC/Paizo are authorities that are (presumably) right on most rules issues doesn't, in and of itself, mean that they're right here.

You say "well 3.5 and Pathfinder don't allow it," carrying an undercurrent of "they therefore must know something you don't so as to make them disallow it." That's not a rebuttal, since it's a matter of faith rather than an informed argument.

I'm sure WotC had reasons for changing how critical threat range-stacking mechanics worked, and that Paizo had reasons for retaining that change. What those reasons were, and how logical they were, are unknown.

[Josh M.]

Right now? Yes. The risk is too high. Pathfinder is riding high and very popular. Give it a couple of years when things slow down, archetypes start scraping the bottom of the barrel("check out the new Baker and Candlestick Maker archetypes!"), new spells and feats get redundant, etc.

A new edition would be commercial suicide right now.

[Starbuck_II]

shallowsoul wrote:

In fairness, Wotc just didn't listen to the customers. They thought they knew what the customers wanted even after being told it wasn't what they wanted. It's like asking for a coke, only to get a sprite because that person claimed he knew what you really...

To be fair, Sprite is a Coke product.

[TriOmegaZero]

An appropriate response.

[Josh M.]

By the 9 I wish this forum had a block button.

[Orthos]

Josh M. wrote:

By the 9 I wish this forum had a block button.

One for download in this guy's profile. Just need to be using Firefox or Chrome, and download Greasemonkey, then restart and install the script.

[Josh M.]

Orthos wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

By the 9 I wish this forum had a block button.

One for download in this guy's profile. Just need to be using Firefox or Chrome, and download Greasemonkey, then restart and install the script.

Thank you. I'm so all over this.

[Sloanzilla]

It's worth noting that Pathfinder isn't just a "rules patch" to 3.5.

It is also a living, breathing world and system that introduces gobs of new adventures, concepts, artwork and regions. After several years of the whole "we don't sell new adventures" policy, the Adventure Paths, especially, make me very happy.

In all honesty, I like 3.5's rules about as much as Pathfinder's rules and feel each has some advantages, but Pathfinder is the clear winner because of Adventure Paths, a much better customer service approach, and so forth. I can go in one of the AP threads right now and there's a pretty good chance the guy who wrote the damn thing would answer my question. That's good stuff.

As for the OP- I would like a revision that fixes some of the grammar mistakes, errata, etc. It doesn't have to be .5 or even 2.0, but I would just like a little more fine tuning.

[Sunderstone]

Can we smurf the tangent and get back on topic?

[Steve Geddes]

Alzrius wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

"Broken/Not Broken" is subjective anyway. Wotc felt it was broken enough to change it, and Paizo obviously felt it was broken enough to not incorporate it into Pathfinder.

So not only would I not allow it in any of my games, but neither do the most recent official versions of the rules.

This is just the argument from authority fallacy (because hey, it can't be straw man all the time). That WotC/Paizo are authorities that are (presumably) right on most rules issues doesn't, in and of itself, mean that they're right here.

FWIW this is, in fact, a quite reasonable appeal to authority - they're not all fallacious.

It's purely an inductive argument, but it is nonetheless reasonable to appeal to an authority within their own field, especially if disparate experts are in agreement. Generally, an argument from authority is fallacious where the authority appealed to is not actually an expert in the field in question or where the experts in the field disagree.

Giving up smoking because doctors agree its bad for you is not fallacious reasoning (to give another example). It's still an appeal to authority though.

[shallowsoul]

Starbuck_II wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

In fairness, Wotc just didn't listen to the customers. They thought they knew what the customers wanted even after being told it wasn't what they wanted. It's like asking for a coke, only to get a sprite because that person claimed he knew what you really...

To be fair, Sprite is a Coke product.

That was the point. They both come from the same company but they taste different.

[memorax]

shallowsoul wrote:

In fairness, Wotc just didn't listen to the customers. They thought they knew what the customers wanted even after being told it wasn't what they wanted. It's like asking for a coke, only to get a sprite because that person claimed he knew what you really...

To counter they did say from the start that 4E was going to be mnore different thatn previous editions. its no like they promised another 3.5 than pulled the carpet from unde the fanbase. and lets be honest if wotc had rereleased another 3.5 rehash with minor changes some gamers would be accusing them of nothing changing anything while calling it am oney grab. With rpg companies itsa catch 22 really. No way to make anyone happy.

As for the coke and nw coke comparison well it is true to some extent. Yet if no one ever tried to deviate from Coke or Pepsi. all we would be drinking after all this time is coke and pepsi. Other soft drink manufactueres took risk to alienate people who only drank coke and pepsi. for the most part it worked. Which is why we have such a decent selection of soft drinks to chose from.

[shallowsoul]

memorax wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

In fairness, Wotc just didn't listen to the customers. They thought they knew what the customers wanted even after being told it wasn't what they wanted. It's like asking for a coke, only to get a sprite because that person claimed he knew what you really...

To counter they did say from the start that 4E was going to be mnore different thatn previous editions. its no like they promised another 3.5 than pulled the carpet from unde the fanbase. and lets be honest if wotc had rereleased another 3.5 rehash with minor changes some gamers would be accusing them of nothing changing anything while calling it am oney grab. With rpg companies itsa catch 22 really. No way to make anyone happy.

I didn't say they pulled the carpet out, they just openly did the opposite of what the majority of people wanted and tried to tell them they would be better off playing their new B instead of A.

[pres man]

WotC DID listen to their customers, unfortunately their customers weren't complete honest with themselves as to what they wanted. People talk about balance, and how the quadratic mages show up the linear warriors. Yet, when WotC addressed this inequality, they were called on making everything vanilla, "It all feels the same." Yeah, that is balance for you, you wanted that, you got it and found that it wasn't as tasty as you thought.

Same thing happened with 3e and up with miniatures. Customers were already tied to using the miniatures, WotC just took the defacto detail and put in for the players.

Honestly, people give the designers at WotC, and most game companies, too much credit. These people aren't nearly as creative as others think they are. They are just responding to the calls of their customers. Sometimes you find that despite the surveys saying they liked New Coke, when it actually hits the shelves, things don't play out as you think they should and you have to back up and release Coke Classic.

[shallowsoul]

The d20 system is probably the most popular system out there and shows no signs of slowing. I said this earlier in the thread and I will repeat it, Paizo is already sitting on a fantastic system that can continue to make them money for years to come. Just a bit of fixing here and there is all it needs.

[memorax]

Josh M. wrote:

disagree. If all a new edition would be is just a handful of fixes and updates, then that, to me, is not a new edition. That's just errata. There's no reason to start a new edition if it's just a couple of updates and fixes.

A new edition, in my opinion, should be a clean start. A fresh re-imagining of the core of the game. If that new core feels consistent with the previous one, while not exactly copying it, that's not a bad thing. I just can't justify calling a handful of patches a whole new edition.

A new edition of Pathfinder doesn't have to be the literal "end of the world" for current PF players. As long as they don't mangle and destroy their setting like WotC did to the Realms, I think a new game could exist alongside the old. Not even talking about supporting two different rulesets, but basically making new rules books fore the new edition, while maybe a handful of staff continue AP's for the previous one for a while until the new edition is more set in place.

Basically, as long as Paizo doesn't nuke their own game and try to tell their fans how much fun they aren't having, and a new edition can "play nice" with the previous for a while, I think it'd be all good. A slow transition, not driving the previous full speed into a brick wall, suddenly switching everything full-stop to the new one; new rules for the new, new AP's for the old for at least a year. YMMV

Agreed and seconded. White Wolf saw how popular the 20th anniversary editions of Vampire the masquerade and Weerwolf the apocalspyse so have decided to release new books for the old and new World of Darkness. As long as the newer edition gets the lion share of support imo. Paizo if they have enough resources and developers could release support for both a PF for 1E and PF 2E. One of the goals apprently for D&D Next is to release support for all edtiions of D&D. not sure if they can pull it off but if it works more power ot them. if Im not mistaken Catalyst Games has rereleased PDFS of both 2E, 3E Shadowrun products. So it can be done. Just that a company has to have the right amount of resources and people to pull it off.

[shallowsoul]

memorax wrote:

As for the coke and nw coke comparison well it is true to some extent. Yet if no one ever tried to deviate from Coke or Pepsi. all we would be drinking after all this time is coke and pepsi. Other soft drink manufactueres took risk to alienate people who only drank coke and pepsi. for the most part it worked. Which is why we have such a decent selection of soft drinks to chose from.

I see where you are trying to go with this analogy but the fact is, Coke still makes Coke and Sprite. Wizards of the Coast can't actively support two separate editions at one time so one has to be dropped.

At the end of the day Wizards of the Coast (Hasbro), is a traded company that is owes it's existence to the shareholders. Now, unlike toys, role-playing games don't sell just because they are new and flashy which is what a corporate entity likes. It's just worried about getting that shiny new product out there and will rarely ever go back to using what came before.

Paizo on the other hand, cares about actual gamers and what they want to play. They saw that many many gamers still enjoy the d20 system so they stuck with it instead of putting forth the shiny new product because the shareholders said so.

[memorax]

While Paizo is not a big corporate entity like wotc they still need to pay the bills. So yes they develop and work on PF because they like the sysem. They also want it to be a profitable system. So eventually if they start to lose profit they will have to release a new edition. Or do the fans seriously expect Paizo to lose money to keep you happy. Notice i said profitable not greedy.

Well Wotc could support many editions. Just that the latest one gets the most support and development. If White Wolf can support two different rpg lines. I see no reason why Paizo would be unable to. If you go to their website one sees support for both Old world of darkness and new world of darkness. So it can be done.

[memorax]

pres man wrote:

WotC DID listen to their customers, unfortunately their customers weren't complete honest with themselves as to what they wanted. People talk about balance, and how the quadratic mages show up the linear warriors. Yet, when WotC addressed this inequality, they were called on making everything vanilla, "It all feels the same." Yeah, that is balance for you, you wanted that, you got it and found that it wasn't as tasty as you thought.

Same thing happened with 3e and up with miniatures. Customers were already tied to using the miniatures, WotC just took the defacto detail and put in for the players.

Honestly, people give the designers at WotC, and most game companies, too much credit. These people aren't nearly as creative as others think they are. They are just responding to the calls of their customers. Sometimes you find that despite the surveys saying they liked New Coke, when it actually hits the shelves, things don't play out as you think they should and you have to back up and release Coke Classic.

+ 1000000.

Gamers get angry when a rpg company develops a edtion with no changes. Yet when they do they complain its too different. One thing I have noticed in the hobby we dont know what the hell we want. We really dont imo. We want a perfect rpg system that does not exist.

[Alzrius]

Steve Geddes wrote:

FWIW this is, in fact, a quite reasonable appeal to authority - they're not all fallacious.

It's purely an inductive argument, but it is nonetheless reasonable to appeal to an authority within their own field, especially if disparate experts are in agreement. Generally, an argument from authority is fallacious where the authority appealed to is not actually an expert in the field in question or where the experts in the field disagree.

Giving up smoking because doctors agree its bad for you is not fallacious reasoning (to give another example). It's still an appeal to authority though.

You make a good point; I suspect that in this case, there's room to regard this one either way with a degree of reasonable justification.

I called that out as a fallacy largely because there was no explanation given as to why the change was made, and that one particular expert (SKR) made a very strong case that the change was a bad one. Throw in that there are some cases where the authority in question (which is, to be fair, fairly nebulously-defined as "WotC/Paizo") has reversed itself on some issues (e.g. the trip controversy, paladins of Asmodeus, etc.) and I thought that there was legitimate room for doubt.

That said, there are reasons for the change as well (see the second link back in my first post on the subject), so I can see it your way too.

[Steve Geddes]

Alzrius wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

FWIW this is, in fact, a quite reasonable appeal to authority - they're not all fallacious.

It's purely an inductive argument, but it is nonetheless reasonable to appeal to an authority within their own field, especially if disparate experts are in agreement. Generally, an argument from authority is fallacious where the authority appealed to is not actually an expert in the field in question or where the experts in the field disagree.

Giving up smoking because doctors agree its bad for you is not fallacious reasoning (to give another example). It's still an appeal to authority though.

You make a good point; I suspect that in this case, there's room to regard this one either way with a degree of reasonable justification.

I called that out as a fallacy largely because there was no explanation given as to why the change was made, and that one particular expert (SKR) made a very strong case that the change was a bad one. Throw in that there are some cases where the authority in question (which is, to be fair, fairly nebulously-defined as "WotC/Paizo") has reversed itself on some issues (e.g. the trip controversy, paladins of Asmodeus, etc.) and I thought that there was legitimate room for doubt.

That said, there are reasons for the change as well (see the second link back in my first post on the subject), so I can see it your way too.

Yeah - I dont really have a view about game mechanics (I'm pretty clueless about that kind of thing). However, every time I put effort in to understand what Sean thinks about such things, I end up agreeing with him - so he's my expert-of-choice when it comes to rules. :)

.
I only commented due to a mild* personal crusade against the Appeal to Authority being labelled a universal fallacy, since it's actually quite useful and rational to utilise it in the right circumstances.

*:

Though no doubt still irritating. :p

[Starbuck_II]

pres man wrote:

WotC DID listen to their customers, unfortunately their customers weren't complete honest with themselves as to what they wanted. People talk about balance, and how the quadratic mages show up the linear warriors. Yet, when WotC addressed this inequality, they were called on making everything vanilla, "It all feels the same." Yeah, that is balance for you, you wanted that, you got it and found that it wasn't as tasty as you thought.

But people asked for Tome of Battle maneuvers: we didn't ask for feat using ones (non-refreshing in battle).

ToB maneuvers could refresh in the same battle. The battle are completely different when you can choose to refresh and when you forced to just silo through all your stuff because you can't use the same twice in same battle (although At wills can).

Too bad Orcus (the original playtest idea of 4E) was changed to 4E: Orcus was awesome sounding. They dailed it back to 4E because Orcus was too awesome/mythic.

[The Block Knight]

Others have already noted this in the thread but I'm going to restate it because it keeps getting ignored.

Paizo's main product line (aka. their main source of revenue) is IP material. That includes Adventure Paths, modules, campaign setting, comics, miniatures, and licensing (such as the upcoming Munchkin Pathfinder). They also make money from running a large online RPG distribution business (the Paizo store). The rulebooks are but a fraction of their revenue.

For those of you saying, "but if Paizo's profits start to suffer than they'll need to do something about the rules," you're completely missing Paizo's point (the variant to this is "companies need to keep their product line fresh to stay in business"). The AP line is to Paizo as the iPhone is to Apple, not the rulebooks.

I'm going to be generous and arbitrarily assume the rulebook line makes up 10% of Paizo's revenue (personally, I don't think it's even half that much). If Paizo were to experience a noticeable drop in revenue over a period of 2 years, let's say a drop of 20% (which would be huge), which makes them think "We need to get our act together before we go out of business!" the first thing they're going to look at is where did the IP go wrong. Does the AP line now suck? Has Golarion fallen out of favor? The reason being, that a noticeable drop in sales would most likely come from the areas of sale that hold the highest percentage of revenue.

Does the amount of people that buy the core rulebook decrease over time (assuming a zero- or very slow-growth market)? Probably, yes. But even then, the hardcover rulebook revenue stream doesn't consist solely of the PFCRB. That's why they release three hardcovers a year. That entire product line would need to take a hit to dent the (arbitrarily assumed) 10% contribution to Paizo's revenue.

Could this happen? Possibly. Is it likely? Not very. Should Paizo do a new edition? That's up to Paizo, based on their much-better-informed-than-we-are market and design teams.

Not to say we shouldn't have this discussion. It's a good one. I just want people to stop using the "rulebooks for profit" argument.

[Morain]

I haven't forgotten about this thread. I just don't feel like repeating my arguments every time someone contradicts me. I think I've explained well enough what I mean. Neither do I feel like arguing with people who try to bait me.

It is very nice to see that a few people agree with me too. That gives me hope :-)

[bugleyman]

I'd very much like to see a cleaned-up, improved second edition, and after the Beginner Box there is every reason to believe it would be a significant improvement.

But apparently I'm strange like that. :)

[Angstspawn]

The Block Knight wrote:

Paizo's main product line (aka. their main source of revenue) is IP material. That includes Adventure Paths, modules, campaign setting, comics, miniatures, and licensing (such as the upcoming Munchkin Pathfinder). [..]

Does the AP line now suck? Has Golarion fallen out of favor? The reason being, that a noticeable drop in sales would most likely come from the areas of sale that hold the highest percentage of revenue.

Could this happen? Possibly. Is it likely? Not very. Should Paizo do a new edition? That's up to Paizo, based on their much-better-informed-than-we-are market and design teams.

You're mainly right Block Knight but if part of Paizo clients are "pro-Pathfinder" a significant part are "anti-DD4". To say it differently, what would be the position (and success) of Golarion in front of a Forgotten Realms Pathfinder? The flavour of D&D universes is unique!

The big mistake of Wizards of the Coast was to make players choose between the rules and the campaign settings. If you love the Realms beyond anything else you convert to D&D4, if you can't stand the video-game style of the new rules you go toward Pathfinder.
If you add the fact that the new versions of Forgotten Realms, Eberron and Dark Sun were for most of them a mockery of what they were you can easily understand that players running away from the D&D4 rules system found shelter in Golarion.

I've no doubt that many players (especially those present in forum) are faithful to Paizo but I also think some are waiting for D&D5 to finally convert to Pathfinder or to "go back home". Paizo has two choices then:
1. Not to change knowing the D&DNext will be no better than D&D4 or,
2. Offering a better gaming experience spawning a new edition and moving forward (not just optimizing a system over 10 years old).

I think we'll have some clues by the end of this year as I believe D&DNext would be released for the 40 years of D&D creation in 2014.
To be continued...

[Gorbacz]

Golarion is successful because it's a good setting, not because 4E Forgotten Realms was a "mockery".

Golarion is successful because it hit several points long neglected by other settings:

- Greyhawk's human-centrism and "low frequency of high magic"
- Echoes of our world in a fantasy setting
- Kitchen sink structure
- Focus on mythology and cryptids instead of wholly made up elements (just so we can copyright them nyah nyah nyah!)
- Sword and Planet/scifi elements
- Planescape-style cosmology
- Pugwampis

None of the above was ever present in Forgotten Realms since day one in any major degree, perhaps except the cosmology. Different strokes, different settings. Folks who prefer FR stayed with 3.5/2E FR, they didn't jump to Golarion just because 4E FR didn't float their boat.

And since 5E is obviously aimed at 1E/2E fans (No grid and minis? Let's empower the GM? Gygaxian dungeon crawl as playtest adventure?), there's little Paizo has to worry from 5E.

[Hama]

Alzrius wrote:

I can only presume that you are either being purposefully disingenuous, or simply didn't read my previous post, since it featured a comparison that included a longsword to which both keen and Improved Critical were applied. Likewise, I don't see any real issue for a keen scythe with Improved Critical. The scythe's average base damage is 5, compared to that of the greataxe, which is 6.5. The greataxe's critical damage is an average of 19.5, to the scythe's average critical damage of 20 - again, what's the big deal?

Because average weapon pretty much doesn't matter past level 6. All that matters is a strength bonus and other bonuses Enchantment, specialisation, etc. And a scythe mutliplies that by a factor of 4, and 5 if your are a very high level fighter. That is sick damage. In one of my games a level 8 fighter dealt 120+ points of damage every time he critted with a scythe. So, that is a pretty good reason why improved critical and keen shouldn't stack.

Maybe if the rule was reworded that it would stack for light and one-handed weapons with low damage dice, it would be ok. But as it was in 3.0 it was too powerful.