Eilistraee.That doesn't prove they were out to alienate anyone, just that they made what I also consider to be a poor choice there.
I normally do rather attribute someone malicious intelligent intent rather than blitheringly stupid incompetence. Seems more respectful. But maybe you are right and it is the second option.
Never heard about Eilistraee? What did they do there? Kill her dead, or something worse?
She was the god of redeemed Drow. She got destroyed, while her followers were either wiped out, which damned them to Wall of Damnation, since they had no god anymore. The survivors either were made into "brown" elves or reverted to Always Chaotic Evil black Drow. Which was not determined by their alignment, but rather if they had some sort of "taint" in their blood from a demonic bloodline. Her chief priestess, Qilúe Veladorn, one of the seven sisters, also got her soul destroyed during the whole thing.
You could say that fans of Eilistraee, Qilúe and redeemed Drow took rather poorly to the whole thing. To say that they got a raw deal is to put it very lightly. And I am loath to assume that the writers at WotC were not aware of how alienating this story development would be to their fans.
So, yeah, they deliberately set out to alienate a lot of their long-standing fans. How again am I wrong here?
She was the god of redeemed Drow. She got destroyed, while her followers were either wiped out, which damned them to Wall of Damnation, since they had no god anymore. The survivors either were made into "brown" elves or reverted to Always Chaotic Evil black Drow. Which was not determined by their alignment, but rather if they had some sort of "taint" in their blood from a demonic bloodline. Her chief priestess, Qilúe Veladorn, one of the seven sisters, also got her soul destroyed during the whole thing.
You could say that fans of Eilistraee, Qilúe and redeemed Drow took rather poorly to the whole thing. To say that they got a raw deal is to put it very lightly. And I am loath to assume that the writers at WotC were not aware of how alienating this story development would be to their fans.
That does sound bad. I mean, making all drow always CE demon taint monsters. Who would even consider doing that. Madness I say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, yeah, they deliberately set out to alienate a lot of their long-standing fans. How again am I wrong here?
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
You're welcome.
So, yeah, they deliberately set out to alienate a lot of their long-standing fans. How again am I wrong here?
I don't think they deliberately set out to alienate fans. I really don't think they sat down at a table and said, "Okay, how can we piss half of our fanbase off?" Because that makes no sense.
I agree with you, however, that they, to all appearances, preferred to listen to criticisms of FR and in the process, forgot to hold onto many aspects which its fans loved.
In my opinion, with FR (and actually with 4e in general, IMO), WotC went so far with trying to "fix" things that they ended up swapping one set of fans for another. For FR, they bore in mind a lot of criticisms which brought in the interest the people who critiqued it--as well as new fans who could find the smaller, more streamlined Realms easier to grab onto. The mistake they made was assuming that by simply labelling it "Forgotten Realms," they would instantly retain ALL of the Realms' older fans, who were happy with what they had, warts and all.
I don't think there was any malicious intent there--because really, why would there be? But I do think their marketing people really were just that stupid. Marketing people are trained to believe brand loyalty trumps all. But RPGamers tend not to have mindsets typical to the "average consumer."
Magnuskn, I dig your frustration with the way WotC handled the whole thing; I was royally pissed off by it myself. But I am also certain there was no hateful intent to be alienating; I think they just were trying to appease their marketing masters as much as their fans and erred on the former rather than the latter, and a lot of fans felt burned in the process (something that probably suprised WotC, although it shouldn't have). I think a lot of problems with 4e in general stem from its marketing and its poor gathering of feedback, and a general inability to properly anticipate fan response to what they were doing. On the upside, that they are doing an open playtest this time around speaks to an effort to correct the major mistakes they made.
I agree with phantom's post further up that WotC would have been much better served to create a brand new setting, and they in fact missed a tremendous opportunity to do so. If instead of the Realms they had developed a new setting that was really spectacular, they probably could have brought in a lot of people, none of them who could have felt insulted by changes to a setting they loved. Even people who weren't interested in the 4E rules might have been drawn in by a new setting that had something interesting to offer.
I hope with D&D Next that they do not miss the opportunity for this kind of potential twice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this is a thread about a new edition of Pathfinder, as opposed to what WotC did (or didn't) do wrong:
I hope future editions of pathfinder reinstate the PHB/GMG split. Not only is the current core book unwieldy, I think the resultant strain on the binding sends many books to an early grave.
Magnuskn, I dig your frustration with the way WotC handled the whole thing; I was royally pissed off by it myself. But I am also certain there was no hateful intent to be alienating; I think they just were trying to appease their marketing masters as much as their fans and erred on the former rather than the latter, and a lot of fans felt burned in the process (something that probably suprised WotC, although it shouldn't have). I think a lot of problems with 4e in general stem from its marketing and its poor gathering of feedback, and a general inability to properly anticipate fan response to what they were doing. On the upside, that they are doing an open playtest this time around speaks to an effort to correct the major mistakes they made.
This. So very much. I played 4e for over two years and even DMed a little bit. We shifted to Pathfinder less than a year ago after I DMed "We Be Goblins!" and everyone agreed that it was a better fit for our group.
In the end, the marketing of this game and its supplements was God-awful. They started with that now infamous video at GenCon where they showed great affection for 1st and 2nd edition games and parodied 3.5. They kept talking about how their new game was "more fun" and so much better. They changed things to simplify new people coming on board and alienated their fan-base. The assumption was that the brand would keep everyone on board and the tighter GSL would kill off the OGL and focus more of the purchasing within the industry to their brand.
Sad to say if not for Paizo and the OGL, it probably would have worked.
This was not malicious. It was to my mind greedy and stupid.
Since this is a thread about a new edition of Pathfinder, as opposed to what WotC did (or didn't) do wrong:
I hope future editions of pathfinder reinstate the PHB/GMG split. Not only is the current core book unwieldy, I think the resultant strain on the binding sends many books to an early grave.
Sorry man, we were derailing the thread a bit, weren't we? My bad! :)
Actually, I like the one core rulebook, but a better binding and better organization is a must. Making it so that the tome is good for new players and can last is far more important than major rules changes. I think Pathfinder 2e would do well to stick to clarifying the rules they have rather and fixing a few problems that have cropped up than radically altering the whole game.
Do you think that D&D would be very successful today if it never had any updates over, say, 2nd Edition or AD&D?
If you played for over 20 years it is easy to forget that this hobby needs the constant influx of new players and not many of the young ones that I know would bother to learn a game as complex as AD&D today.
To be honest I didn't "need" an update to AD&D. We have one group that still uses it after all these years.
But I surely say that 3.5/PFO/4e is a much better game, ruleswise.
Do you think that D&D would be very successful today if it never had any updates over, say, 2nd Edition or AD&D?
If you played for over 20 years it is easy to forget that this hobby needs the constant influx of new players and not many of the young ones that I know would bother to learn a game as complex as AD&D today.
To be honest I didn't "need" an update to AD&D. We have one group that still uses it after all these years.
But I surely say that 3.5/PFO/4e is a much better game, ruleswise.
I actually agree that some improvements can be made. But I would argue that a wholesale overthrow of all the rules should be a last resort. Conversion of 2e to 3e was actually fairly easy. The conversion guide that came with the 3e rule book was very useful. 3e to 4e was a nightmare, if not outright impossible for some characters (not all, but enough).
I think that it comes down to how much is actually needed and how much is done. But the game right now is really great and all I see it needing is reorganization and a few loopholes closed (and maybe not even those) to make it stellar and easy for new players to join in. Our hobby will only survive with new players. The Beginner Box was a great step in that direction and showed what Paizo could do in that regards.
EDIT: Reading this back, it came to me that it might seem that I was implying that you were advocating a radical overhaul of the rule system at some point. I agree with you, MicMan, that the rules do need to evolve somewhat, and I just wanted to clarify that all I opposed was needless radical change. I don't believe you were advocating that at all.
|
As for core book formats a eventuall new edition should be spli into two parts. I get why they made one large book yet its not really cheaper than buying two seperate books. Heavier and cumbersome to read. I amd my gaming circle are also starting to notice that in some places the spine of the book is failing. Two books is needed. Since unless I'm a DM I don't need or want to lug aroun the section on running the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this is a thread about a new edition of Pathfinder, as opposed to what WotC did (or didn't) do wrong:
I hope future editions of pathfinder reinstate the PHB/GMG split. Not only is the current core book unwieldy, I think the resultant strain on the binding sends many books to an early grave.
First, never played Hero system, did you? ;)
Anyway, I like having one book -- there is a big selling point to saying, "this is one thing all you need to play." There are also a lot of rules that both GMs and players need to reference, and it is annoying when that is in the GMG only (for example, PrCs and magic items being in the 3.x DMG).
However, I think it is possible to streamline the content so that one book is not necessarily as huge.
- A lot of flavor text can be cut. Especially when the flavor text confuses what the rules express you can do.
- Rules can be simplified and expressed better. Part of doing a massive revision/rewrite is allowing for such things to happen. I've seen several places in the core rulebook where a concept that could be send in one sentence is said in three. More terms can also be sent to a simplified glossary. Reorganizing the book's structure can also do this.
- In particular, as a continuation of above, if there ever were a new edition of Pathfinder, I especially would love to see a VAST revision of the magic system. Part of this dream vision would be that ALL spells contained text no longer than would make it feasible to include the text in a readable font on a 3x5 index card. If the spell needs more space than that to explain how it works, then it's too complicated and needs to be eliminated, broken down, or otherwise simplified. There is a lot in the rules that could be pared down (and make more room for other stuff).
- If talking about massive changes for a proper new edition, there could be other things that render old content obsolete. What if *gasp* Pathfinder 2.0 does away with Prestige Classes? That's a whole big chunk of a chapter gone.
I really feel about 95% at least of the content in the CRB is where it needs to be. What little I don't? Sure, maybe the rules for creating NPCs could go to a new and improved Game Mastery Guide (or at least pared down to "use x array of stats and give 1/2 wealth of that of a PC, with further details in a GMG). Maybe there's a few other things about encounter design that people don't need to see in the core rulebook (assuming the GMG is going to come out shortly thereafter). But really most of what is in there is as valuable a reference for players as it is for GMs and I'd rather not see it separated again.
- If talking about massive changes for a proper new edition, there could be other things that render old content obsolete. What if *gasp* Pathfinder 2.0 does away with Prestige Classes? That's a whole big chunk of a chapter gone.
Archetypes have pretty much taken their place in most cases, and here is someone's work (apologies for lack of credit, but it was linked from these forums, so speak up if it's your work!) that converted the core PrCs minus Dragon Disciple and Eldritch Knight into Archetypes or class options.
Making Archetypes a core concept would be a nice idea, though it would take up just as much if not more space than the current PrCs section.
- In particular, as a continuation of above, if there ever were a new edition of Pathfinder, I especially would love to see a VAST revision of the magic system. Part of this dream vision would be that ALL spells contained text no longer than would make it feasible to include the text in a readable font on a 3x5 index card. If the spell needs more space than that to explain how it works, then it's too complicated and needs to be eliminated, broken down, or otherwise simplified.
OH THIS SO MUCH.
|
|
For me if their was a plit between books keep everything related to players in one book. Everything DM relate in another. Rules for making npcs and magic items should go in the DMs guide. How to play the game class decriptions in another. I'm not against making magic items for players. Yet before 5th level and higher imo many adveturing parties either don't have the money or feats necessary to start crafting much of anything.
Aside from re-organization, I feel there are a number of major mechanics changes I would like to see in a Pathfinder 2.0, while keeping it in very much the same flavor of the current game.
1. Reworking some classes/abilities to be more usful. Examples:
Rogue tallents - A lot of these are meh. They don't have enough of an effect on the game and they are fairly lackluster. Some re-writes to the base tallents will allow them to bring the Rogue up in power to the other classes. Recalibrating the baseline on the power of each tallent will allow them to make ones worth taking in expansions without making them all just better than the core.
Sorccerer Bloodlines - The abilities were supposed to make up for the versatility of the wizard, but overall they fell really flat. Why give claws that are just limitted uses?
Cleric Domain Powers - The low level abilites fall off in usefulness. If you give them some better scaling, their action value can remain relevant, instead of becoming obsolete even at lower levels.
2. Fixing skills: They have some awesome things going with the changes to Intimidate. Adding some more things like demoralize with other skills would be cool. Additionally, fixing broken skills like Stealth and Fly is important. Stealth has already had discussions about being re-written. Fly has great ideas that don't actually matter because the DCs aren't appropriate for the skill bonuses.
3. Fix magic items. 4e at least admits what level of gear players are expected to have at each level. Pathfinder tries to do it with WBL, but realisticly its just the Big 6 that really affect this. You can be loaded with magic items and not overpowered if your best magic items are in line with what they should be. It doesn't really matter if you have 4 different +3 equivalent swords if you aren't selling them for a +4 that would bring you out of line in the power scale. There have been a lot of discussions about eliminating the Big 6, and this would more or less eliminate WBL and allow for different campaigns with different magic item economies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get why they made one large book yet its not really cheaper than buying two seperate books.
It very much is.
The Core Rulebook is 576 pages; MSRP is $49.99.
The Advanced Race Guide is 256 pages; MSRP is $39.99.
The NPC Codex is 320 pages; MSRP is $39.99.
ARG+NPC Codex=576 pages; sum of MSRPs is $79.98.
Difference between giving you 576 pages in 2 books vs. 1 book: $29.99.
|
|
I get why they made one large book yet its not really cheaper than buying two seperate books.It very much is.
The Core Rulebook is 576 pages; MSRP is $49.99.
The Advanced Race Guide is 256 pages; MSRP is $39.99.
The NPC Codex is 320 pages; MSRP is $39.99.
ARG+NPC Codex=576 pages; sum of MSRPs is $79.98.
Difference between giving you 576 pages in 2 books vs. 1 book: $29.99.
Not only cheaper but given its weight you can hunt and kill a bear* with the core rule book also.
S.
*Not actually recommended. Likely outcome is a bear who will show you the true meaning of Barbarian RagePounce (sorry to you optimisers - no Lance).
I get why they made one large book yet its not really cheaper than buying two seperate books.It very much is.
The Core Rulebook is 576 pages; MSRP is $49.99.
The Advanced Race Guide is 256 pages; MSRP is $39.99.
The NPC Codex is 320 pages; MSRP is $39.99.
ARG+NPC Codex=576 pages; sum of MSRPs is $79.98.
Difference between giving you 576 pages in 2 books vs. 1 book: $29.99.
I don't think page count alone tells the whole story...but then you probably know that, Vic.
That said, even it truly were a $30 difference -- I'd gladly pay it.
I would have preferred a standalone PH, with the DM guide and MM combined into the superbook personally. Players in my group won't buy a CRB, since they're not going to run the game and "most of it is useless to me" (in their words).
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I get why they made one large book yet its not really cheaper than buying two seperate books.It very much is.
The Core Rulebook is 576 pages; MSRP is $49.99.
The Advanced Race Guide is 256 pages; MSRP is $39.99.
The NPC Codex is 320 pages; MSRP is $39.99.
ARG+NPC Codex=576 pages; sum of MSRPs is $79.98.
Difference between giving you 576 pages in 2 books vs. 1 book: $29.99.I don't think page count alone tells the whole story...but then you probably know that, Vic.
That said, even it truly were a $30 difference -- I'd gladly pay it.
It doesn't, as evidenced by the fact that the ARG and NPC Codex have the same MSRP for differing page counts. But if we had broken up the Core Rulebook into two books, it's nevertheless safe to say that the total price would be higher, and probably by right around $30.
Not only cheaper but given its weight you can hunt and kill a bear* with the core rule book also.
S.
*Not actually recommended. Likely outcome is a bear who will show you the true meaning of Barbarian RagePounce (sorry to you optimisers - no Lance).
Yeah, without the lance the bear build is definitely suboptimal. I would suggest rebuilding as a summoner and using evolution points to make a mount eidolon with two extra pairs of arms for a total of three lances, maybe four if you multiclass to alchemist.
Yeah, without the lance the bear build is definitely suboptimal. I would suggest rebuilding as a summoner and using evolution points to make a mount eidolon with two extra pairs of arms for a total of three lances, maybe four if you multiclass to alchemist.
Nothing scarier then a Bear riding a T-rex...
Just saying ;)
|
|
It very much is.The Core Rulebook is 576 pages; MSRP is $49.99.
The Advanced Race Guide is 256 pages; MSRP is $39.99.
The NPC Codex is 320 pages; MSRP is $39.99.
ARG+NPC Codex=576 pages; sum of MSRPs is $79.98.
Difference between giving you 576 pages in 2 books vs. 1 book: $29.99.
I stand corrected. Not a major complaint. Just that imo the book is heavy to carry around and read unless one has a surface close by. the large size also adds stress to the binding of the pages. Some sections of the book are becoming ungluded from the spine. Eventually maybe we can see a pocket edition of the core book.
|
|
Not only cheaper but given its weight you can hunt and kill a bear* with the core rule book also.S.
*Not actually recommended. Likely outcome is a bear who will show you the true meaning of Barbarian RagePounce (sorry to you optimisers - no Lance).
I take it then that you have never seen the youtube video where some fans put the Hero System 5E revised core book through a ballistics test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Wmj46S5qo . It's funny that some gamers say the Hero system 5E core is too big. The PF core is only slightly smaller.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Namely, it is very confusing and hard for TOTALLY NEW players to understand.
The Core Rule Book for instance in clearly written by those that have played D&D from the very start. :) This shows in the current layout. It can be very confusing for a new player to find out what to do. From how to make a new character to what happens when I level? What body slots are there? What is concentration?...etcWhat I would like to see in a "Pathfinder 2.0" would be a more user friendly version of the current Pathfinder. NOT a new system, the current one works fine, but a more easy to UNDERSTAND version of Pathfinder. (Specifically the CRB.)
One more like... the Beginner Box set's layout. Something that I can pass to a friend (With no RPG experience) for a week and he can pop up at the table with a character that work.PF 2.0 could be a simple "updated" look for PF. Like a updated version of a software. It can still do all...
THIS!!! THIS!!! THIS!!!
May I place my pre-order...or better yet, why not have a KICKSTARTER driver for this? I could care less about video games, but I would be happy to donate for a new more USER FRIENDLY version of the Core Rulebook!
Everyone realizes you could just take the prd info and make your own print on demand book using them with the layout you like as long as you use the OGL correctly, right?
"Just"?
"Just"?
Yeah, you know cut and paste. It isn't that hard. I made my own versions of the 3.5 OGL material just to have a back up in case new players couldn't get PHB.
I must be much lazier than you.
I take it then that you have never seen the youtube video where some fans put the Hero System 5E revised core book through a ballistics test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Wmj46S5qo . It's funny that some gamers say the Hero system 5E core is too big. The PF core is only slightly smaller.
Not only cheaper but given its weight you can hunt and kill a bear* with the core rule book also.S.
*Not actually recommended. Likely outcome is a bear who will show you the true meaning of Barbarian RagePounce (sorry to you optimisers - no Lance).
I am currently awaiting my Traveller 5 Core Book from Marc Miller's kickstarter. 656 pages. Could you dual wield the PFRPG Core book and this or would they each count as two handed weapons? :D
It doesn't really matter as I see it, with the way this Pathfinder Online is turning people off and making people quit the TT game it going to need to turn into a money grab system (like D&D has turned into) just to keep afloat..
yeah... that sounds kind of strange. I think it would either A) turn people off.... or B) drive them from TT.
I HAVE seen MMO's drive people from TT... but it was becasue they LOVED the MMO so much, they just didn't have TIME to play TT too...
But if the MMO is NOT interesting to people... wouldn't that free up MORE people for the TT?
|
It doesn't really matter as I see it, with the way this Pathfinder Online is turning people off and making people quit the TT game it going to need to turn into a money grab system (like D&D has turned into) just to keep afloat..
So the players are supposed to punish the company by qutting Pathfinder just because they may not like the MMO?
|
|
Well, we are talking about a fanbase where a substantial portion has declared openly that it doesn't matter what WotC puts out, they won't be getting it. Is it really that impossible to imagine them turning on Paizo in a similar manner?
We're not talking about the same thing though. The Pathfinder MMO effects the table top game in know way shape or form. I would still play 3.5 but I sure as hell wouldn't continue to play 4th edition nor does it seem like I will be playing Next. I didn't quit playing D&D when DDO came out and that sucked.
|
|
I am currently awaiting my Traveller 5 Core Book from Marc Miller's kickstarter. 656 pages. Could you dual wield the PFRPG Core book and this or would they each count as two handed weapons? :D
It maybe a big book. At least people have not used it yest in a ballistics test lol. It's strange that considering the reaction somewhat negative of the size of the Hero System 6E books that another publisher would want to make such a huge book. It's one thing if it's adventure module. Another if it's a core book. I personally have no major issues with a book that is as complete as possible. Yet from what I can see big books (400+) are for some reason terrifying to read for some of the fanbase.
|
|
See what is being forgotten is that way too many fans stayed away from 4E because they taught it played like a mmo. Some could not be even bothered to read the core 4E books. All it took was being told by someone that it was a mmo. Hell we have some who accuse Wotc of some worldwide conspiracy that involves creating 4E to screw the fanbase over on purpose. I don't agree wit that yet can understand and respect that.
When someone hates or has made their mind up about something no amount of reason or logic will make them change their minds. Whether it's this forum or another forum. Gamers will think that the mmo is a blatant attempt at money grab. An attempt to take players away from the TT version and get them playing a MMO. 4E was accused of this. I see no reason why all of sudden Pathfinder and the PF MMO would be exempt from this.
So as much as pF fans want to think it will not happen it will happen. When 4E came out this and other forums was a perfect example of that. To the point where they had to make it a rule of the boards not to engage in edition warring. Not saying this is a bad forum. I enjoy posting here. Yet it was a war zone on these forums for the longest time imo. So expect the same to happen with the PF MMO. Maybe not here but elswhere it will happen.