| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read the rules as little as possible.there are rules?
Dammit you win The Game.
Dammit you win The Game.I read the rules as little as possible.there are rules?
yay!
...I just lost the game...may i have another?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What the Original Poster seems to be missing about 3.5 is WotC's misuse, abuse, and overuse of Prestige Classes, publishing endless *books full of countless overlapping, contradictory, and easily abusable PrCs.
Prestige Classes were intended to represent unique organizations that characters could join, obtaining special skills and abilities tied to specific organizations or groups. Thus the name PRESTIGE Class, as in a Class that represents belonging to a unique, prestigious group.
They were not intended to be generic roles. The only P5Cs that cover generic roles were the Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge, filling gaps in the rule system, and they are still useful (even if the Magus largely covers the warrior-mage concept, the EK still has room to breathe as more of a Mage that can fight, rather than the Magus's role of total armored warmage.) But those two are special cases. (For example, was a concept such as "master of whip fighting" REALLY so prevalent that it deserved an entire 10 level PrC? No, but such a thing could easily warrant an Archetype with just a few variant class abilties.)
The Archetype mechanic fills the need that PrCs were used for MUCH more elegantly (as well as bringing back the concept of Kits, and doing a much better job of it,) and I am very glad that Paizo has chosen to relegate the PrC to the role it was intended for, and is using Archetypes to handle niche variant character types. Paths of Prestige was full of Prestige Classes that handled the concept in the way the they were originally intended, that of special, prestigious groups that a character needs to strive to join and can only become a member after having proved himself worthy. That is what PrCs are for; not for representing unusual roles (and game-mechanic abilities) which the base Classes don't cover. That is much better served by the Archetype.
I do NOT miss the misuse of PrCs, and am very, very happy that Paizo is once more using them for their intended purpose, instead of being abused and overused like they were in 3.5. What I think Paizo should do now (and something that I think would fill the OP's need for new material) is release a book or two full of more Archetypes for every class, in a way similar to how Prestige Classes were (wrongly) handled in 3.5, but they should practice MUCH more restraint than WotC did with their flagrant OVERuse of PrCs. Perhaps *books for each broad category of Classes, something along the lines of "Archetypes of Magic," "Archetypes of Divinity," "Archetypes of Skill," "Archetypes of Nature," and "Archetypes of War," or just simply "The Book of Archetypes." Or if they wanted to go all out (and have a long-running, lucrative line of probably solid-selling products,) have a book of Archetypes for each class; I wouldn't be unhappy to see a line including "The Archetypal Fighter" and "The Archetypal Magus."
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 we had a truckload of options.
I miss vision and inspiration.
Wizards easily put out about one core book a month ... Paizo makes a book it takes a year
For me, you miss all the worst parts of 3.5.
The parts of 3.5 I hated with a passion:
1) A book a month with a ton of options which makes understanding them hard.
2) Very little thought went into how those options worked with other stuff in other books.
3) There was generally never any errata to fix things that could be interpreted in a broken way.
4) The player base revelled in the broken interpretations and would endlessly argue that these two options meant you could move an infinite speed as a single move action or you could get more than one set of "spells per day" using XYZ.
5) You don't miss vision and inspiration, you miss carlessness and recklessness they put into the rules which results in easily exploited rules for unintended purposes.
In short, I'm so glad 3.5 is done and buried. Long live Paizo products.
|
Maybe if we're very quiet, he won't notice that we're here...Someone call Aux so he can expound about how none of the hardcovers since the Gamemastery Guide have been GM books.This is exactly what I've been waiting for since I first read that line.
That wasn't very nice - to talk about a poster who hasn't even posted in the thread. Bad form.
But to your comment - no, none of the books since the release of the GMG have been GM focused/system neutral books (barring the Bestiaries, which I stated when I first made this argument in that other thread).
None.
Carry on
Thanks Aux!
NP!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This may seem like a silly question, and also may have been asked and answered already, but... just how many characters are you guys making every year that you need a giant stack of books to pull options from?
I'm being serious here. It seems to me that there are enough permutations of races, classes, feats, skills, and other options that even just the Core Rules would be enough to last an entire campaign. I'm my groups' GM and I don't feel the need to have a giant pile of books to choose from, even though I'd LOVE to have them all. The only 3.5 splat books I own are Forgotten Realms and WarCraft (NOT World of...) and as much as I'd love to use some of those bits, my groups really don't need them. Granted, that's just us, but I am very surprised to hear anyone say that PF doesn't have enough options. I know no one said "no options," just "not enough," but between the Core, APG, Ultimates, ACG, Mythic, and setting books, I'd never get to all of it.
Really, a lot of complaints I see on forums tend to reflect player dissatisfaction with their GM's more than anything else. I'm not attacking anybody, but I really think a less than enjoyable game is much more on the GM's shoulders than the system's or the company's. Barring certain books is the GM's prerogative, but at the same time if a player brings a solid character concept to the table that needs a little splat here or there, whether it's 3.5 or 3PP, they should be flexible. After all, the character is the one thing the player should have the most control of in a world ruled by one person.
I'd be remiss, though, if I didn't say I wish Paizo would consider PF2. I think the old system didn't get fixed enough, as beloved as it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may seem like a silly question, and also may have been asked and answered already, but... just how many characters are you guys making every year that you need a giant stack of books to pull options from?
I'm being serious here. It seems to me that there are enough permutations of races, classes, feats, skills, and other options that even just the Core Rules would be enough to last an entire campaign. I'm my groups' GM and I don't feel the need to have a giant pile of books to choose from, even though I'd LOVE to have them all. The only 3.5 splat books I own are Forgotten Realms and WarCraft (NOT World of...) and as much as I'd love to use some of those bits, my groups really don't need them. Granted, that's just us, but I am very surprised to hear anyone say that PF doesn't have enough options. I know no one said "no options," just "not enough," but between the Core, APG, Ultimates, ACG, Mythic, and setting books, I'd never get to all of it.
Really, a lot of complaints I see on forums tend to reflect player dissatisfaction with their GM's more than anything else. I'm not attacking anybody, but I really think a less than enjoyable game is much more on the GM's shoulders than the system's or the company's. Barring certain books is the GM's prerogative, but at the same time if a player brings a solid character concept to the table that needs a little splat here or there, whether it's 3.5 or 3PP, they should be flexible. After all, the character is the one thing the player should have the most control of in a world ruled by one person.
I'd be remiss, though, if I didn't say I wish Paizo would consider PF2. I think the old system didn't get fixed enough, as beloved as it is.
Well, one thing to consider is that a person might not like all current character classes. I find it highly unlikely that I'll ever want to play a Druid or a Cavalier and much less a Summoner or Gunslinger. Then there's the fact that I have been roleplaying for 15 years now and I already have played a lot of the core classes, sometimes twice.
Archetypes are really only small or a bit less small permutations on the same class, so they are not as attractive to me as new base classes. Prestige classes are very niche, especially in Pathfinder.
And then there's the factor that, even if you got a few characters already lined up in your head, some of those may not last for a whole campaign. Let's see, I had badly wanted to play an archer Ranger, a Paladin and a Sorcerer. All three of those characters are dead (in three different campaigns with the same group, we rotate campaigns and DM's, although rather infrequently) and by now I am playing a Wizard, an Alchemist and another Sorcerer. That only leaves currently for me the idea of wanting to play an Inquisitor or try the Paladin concept again. Maybe even try out a Summoner to see if the class is really as awful (not in terms of power, I mean in terms of complexity and flavor) as I have pegged it for years. But that latter one is rather a thought experiment than the want to actually play the class.
So, yeah, I rather welcome new base classes from Paizo, because they mean new ideas and new mechanics.
|
What I really want is
Athletics: Swim, Climb, Jump -- basically, athletic forms of movement, things you need to have certain degree of power in your body to do. What unites them is movement and athletic ability to perform them well. Could also be the skill you need for stuff like riding a bicycle or whatever (not that Pathfinder has bicycles, but still). This would become a more valuable skill to have in its diversity.
Gymnastics: Balance, Tumble, Escape Artist -- Everything to do with swift, delicate movement and getting through difficult areas via agility rather than force. Escape Artist is another skill that at least I have hardly ever seen used, and if at all, it's to escape a grapple, and it's always sat as nonintuitive/wrong for a skill to be used versus a combat maneuver, as they're built mechanically different.
It sounds like you want what WotC did with 4e, they have an Acrobatics Skill and an Athletics skill, the former is Dex based, the latter Str based.
Acrobatics covers Acrobatic Stunts (swing from a chandelier, somersault over an opponent, slide down a staircase on your shield), Balance, Escape from Restraints, Reduce Falling Damage.
Athletics covers Climb, Jump and Swim.
One really clever thing is that both skills can be used to break out of a grab; Acrobatics check vs. Reflex (to wriggle your way out) or an Athletics check vs. Fortitude (to strongarm your way out).
|
|
What does everyone think of the Fly skill? It's inclusion bugged me.
I don't like it, just use Acrobatics (Aerobatics). Basically if you have a form of movement Swim, Burrow, Fly etc you get to use your acrobatics skill in that environment.
Sort of like the old James Bond RPG where you had a single Evasion skill, and different Fields of Experience like Skiing that allowed you to use the Evasion skill when using that mode of movement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I really want is
Athletics: Swim, Climb, Jump -- basically, athletic forms of movement, things you need to have certain degree of power in your body to do. What unites them is movement and athletic ability to perform them well. Could also be the skill you need for stuff like riding a bicycle or whatever (not that Pathfinder has bicycles, but still). This would become a more valuable skill to have in its diversity.
Gymnastics: Balance, Tumble, Escape Artist -- Everything to do with swift, delicate movement and getting through difficult areas via agility rather than force. Escape Artist is another skill that at least I have hardly ever seen used, and if at all, it's to escape a grapple, and it's always sat as nonintuitive/wrong for a skill to be used versus a combat maneuver, as they're built mechanically different.
It sounds like you want what WotC did with 4e, they have an Acrobatics Skill and an Athletics skill, the former is Dex based, the latter Str based.
Acrobatics covers Acrobatic Stunts (swing from a chandelier, somersault over an opponent, slide down a staircase on your shield), Balance, Escape from Restraints, Reduce Falling Damage.
Athletics covers Climb, Jump and Swim.
One really clever thing is that both skills can be used to break out of a grab; Acrobatics check vs. Reflex (to wriggle your way out) or an Athletics check vs. Fortitude (to strongarm your way out).
Yeah, pretty much. I think in some ways D&D4 simplified skills too much, but in many ways I think what they did with skills was some of the best aspects of the system. Not a big 4e fan generally, but in the few sessions of it I played, I remember liking the skill system a lot.
I hadn't known the break out of grab rule and that makes a heck of a lot more sense than Escape Artist, which seems to exist entirely for the purpose of having a way for dexterous people to get out of a grapple (as the squeeze through tight spaces aspect is rarely played).
What does everyone think of the Fly skill? It's inclusion bugged me.It does seem to be a silly skill. I would base it on Athletics for wings or Gymnastics for non-winged flight. I swear every new player sees it and thinks that they can fly "wow my character can fly?".
If I were using my own proposed system, I'd agree with possibly folding in into those two skills.
OTOH, Fly, WHEN used has a lot of particular permutations that makes its entry lengthy, and folding it into another skill would make a hella long skill description.
It hasn't always sat well with me, but at the same time, it seems a better way of managing flying maneuvers--when needed--than prior.
Maybe in my ideal skill set I'd envision, the permutations of fly themselves would be simplified (with really complicated/special maneuvers separated out into a function of feats when absolutely necessary), and then those simplified aspects would be folded into Athletics and Gymnastics.
This would also help managing mechanics of things like --- I've been trying to design a sort of glide-cloak (if any of you have ever heard of Zilpha Keatley-Snyder's Below the Root trilogy, basically shuba), but can't figure out if its functions should be based on the Fly skill or on Acrobatics in non-houseruled Pathfinder.
|
|
Yeah, pretty much. I think in some ways D&D4 simplified skills too much, but in many ways I think what they did with skills was some of the best aspects of the system.
I really liked how they collapsed the skill list to a really tight list, Streetwise replacing Gather Information & Knowledge (Local), Thievery replacing Sleight of Hand and Open Lock, Arcana replacing Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft (and also incorporating an At Will detect magic ability) etc. PF and 3.5 both suffer from too many knowledge skills IMHO.
Also Profession skills are mostly a waste of time in 3.5 & PF - 4e did away with them completely, with Backgrounds (and associated ad hoc bonuses) from PHB2 more proficiently covering the same ground IMHO.
Yeah, pretty much. I think in some ways D&D4 simplified skills too much, but in many ways I think what they did with skills was some of the best aspects of the system.I really liked how they collapsed the skill list to a really tight list, Streetwise replacing Gather Information & Knowledge (Local), Thievery replacing Sleight of Hand and Open Lock, Arcana replacing Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft (and also incorporating an At Will detect magic ability) etc. PF and 3.5 both suffer from too many knowledge skills IMHO.
Also Profession skills are mostly a waste of time in 3.5 & PF - 4e did away with them completely, with Backgrounds (and associated ad hoc bonuses) from PHB2 more proficiently covering the same ground IMHO.
I prefer Disable Device and Sleight of Hand separate as they can be very different -- and someone like a show magician might be very good at Sleight of Hand (to palm coins, etc.) but not good at disabling traps, and a trapsmith/locksmith who knows how to undo the effects of his own creations is not going to also be good at being a pickpocket.
Some Knowledge consolidations I can see. Awhile ago someone here suggested combining Local and Nobility into Knowledge (Society) which I think is a fantastic idea.
Profession skills have not been a waste of time in the Pathfinder games I've played in, but I think it very much depends on the GM and/or the adventure you run in. Often I've seen some modules and APs that make good use of them. What I like Profession is as a catch-all skill -- you use Profession (Sailor) to deal with tying rigging or ship navigation, you use Profession (Barrister) to come up with a good case before a trial, use Profession (Chef) to distract the hungry ogre with your delicious smelling food. But not everyone remember it can be used that way.
|
|
I dislike how many different product lines get put out and feel like it is almost like a micro transaction system where we keep having to buy this book or a companion or that setting or another ap to get very few items per purchase of actual worth while value of the product, problem is that a single spell or other rule bit is almost never worth the whole 13 or more dollars for it. The APs are nice and worth a lot more than a single feat or spell here or there but a really expensive investment, one I have been unable to justify for a long time. Since the APG, I have not seen a single hardcover with more than 6 pages that I use(correction, I liked a lot of the arg but as I cannot use most of what I liked in PFS, I had not counted it). Considering UC has a I think 2 such items that only get that page count up to 6 pages because their are 2 items printed on two separate pages, says a lot(or dies it) about how worth while I thought that book was. And I live options and cherish so many if the 3.5 books I have with other classes but most I'd Paizo's work fails to entice me to play it. So many of the fears especially are so awful, I feel like they were just a waste of space, similar to so many of the 3.5 prestige classes.
An entire thread that can be summarised as "Paizo's publishing choices and my opinions, YMMV".
I use the heck out of every book I buy, and I cherry-pick the ones I think will actually be of use to me, which means that all I have are the RPG line and a few APs. I have not yet regretted any of my choices, and while I do miss some things about 3.5, I have no issue with Paizo having a different focus for their products, nor do I feel a burning desire for them to reinvent the wheel, especially when it's fairly straightforward to forward-convert 3.5 material to PF.
I like the state of "Climb, Swim, and Acrobatics" as they are currently. I like that I can make a character that's not great a swimming but can still climb, or vice versa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's already been said, but I'm going to come out of semi-retirement to say it again: Any DM of mature outlook and sound mind will not outright ban 3pp for no reason. I have always told my players that 3pp will be judged on a case-by-case basis, and if anything was off-limits, there were reasons given for it before character creation started. Also, anything by Kobold Press/Open Design is fair game, because that is the highest quality of third-party player material I have had the pleasure of spending my money on. Anyone turns their nose up at that material has a hole in his head, I reckon.
Third-party material under Paizo's reign is infinitely better than it was with WotC's. Maybe I'm completely oblivious, but it seems to me that there is little to no 4e-support from 3pp, but a glut of 3pp working with Pathfinder rules. That's not edition warring, that's a personal observation. I have no hate for 4e, I just put all of my money into one game, and Pathfinder delivers what I want.
Also note that in 3.5 you only got a new feat every 3rd level, and half of a Fighter's levels were dead levels. There is so much more to Pathfinder than there was to 3.5. I loved 3.5, and that's why I latched on to Pathfinder as support for 3.5 crumbled away beneath my feet (woo, dramatic metaphor!). It not only offered me a way to stay with the rules I loved, but it made them better (obviously debatable with some of you, and I'm not interested in that discussion), and gave my characters even MORE options.
I don't know... I cannot see anything I sympathize with in the OP. I love Paizo, I love their business model, I love the work they do, and I love the way they handle the market. They are like the royal family of tabletop RPGs; they have class, dignity, and poise, and that's the vibe I get from reading any interaction 3pp publicly discuss having with them. Oh, and they allow a lot, and I mean A LOT of their content to be posted online FOR FREE. How many other games of this size and scale can you play for free? I'm sure there are others, but how many?
My hope. That 5th Ed crashes and burns... And Pathfinder buys up the rights to D&D... that way they can release APs and adventures in the Forgotten Realms, Eberon, and Ravenloft settings... not to metion all the iconic monsters that cant be reproduced by PF.
I don't think D&D takes up enough of Hasbro's profit share that it doing poorly would ruin the business.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think D&D takes up enough of Hasbro's profit share that it doing poorly would ruin the business.
I doubt D&D takes up enough of WotC's profit share that it doing poorly would ruin the business. When it comes to Hasbro, D&D is probably less to them than the amount they spend on toilet paper in company HQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has Hasbro ever sold a property?
No, which is one of the reasons it wont happen. The other is that one of paizo's stated goals is not to split its audience. The chances of multiple settings being used by paizo is essentially zero, without some kind of dramatic shift in the status quo (like Lisa getting her hands on the star wars liscense again).
Personally, the general changeover from prestige classes to archetypes and in-built class choices (i.e. bloodlines) is, to me, the best thing about Pathfinder.
What 3.5's prestige classes grew into was just so painfully restrictive. If there was a particular thematic vector you wanted, you'd look up the matching prestige class' requirements, and from there, generally, on top of your class(es), you'd have at least half your feats and skills locked in, and most likely half your stats locked in to qualify for those. It was almost like a logic puzzle, where you're reverse-engineering your whole character based on the prestige class you're aiming for, and it consumed so many customization options that after your feat requirements, and the skills/feats generally needed to effectively play your class, so there really isn't much of any wiggle room left to (mechanically) differentiate two characters with the same prestige class.
Preach it brother! Yes, one can certainly design a 20th level PC from the top down, dipping his way thru a half-dozen PrCs, a PC which is easily twice as powerful as a PC who stayed in the Base class. Sure, and some like that, which is cool.
Now, one thing I have been trying is playing every since Base class , and trying to play it as far as possible. It’s very hard to say “such & such class is weak” if you have never played it, or only played it for two levels. So, I now have a OA samurai. Pretty cool warrior type. 15th freaken level, got a killer sword.
Got a free level coming from a Deck. DM would like me to take a PrC for this level, just for fun. I can find about two half-decent PrCs that he qualifies for out of a dozen books. A dozen. Alignment restrictions or weird feat taxes (and he’s got a LOT of feats) or combos block nearly all. And it’s not the skills- Samurai gets 4SkP, I rolled a decent Int, I got a feat which made two skills class skills, so I got “mad skillz”.
But despite all the ‘choices” 3.5 fans here are trumpeting, I have almost none. The ‘choices’ really come from “reverse engineering” a new PC for 20 levels.
They're busy enough with Golarion. If they tried to support all of those they'll have the same problem with WOTC, does... they'll wind up doing a s&&&ty job on the whole bunch. As it is WOTC isn't supporting any ONE of those settings to the level that Paizo does with Golarion and I suspect because it's simply too much of a load in a relatively shrinking game market.
Right. Mind you, I can see a niche setting, like Ravenloft was, that’d be cool. But I want one and only one base setting, since I can adapt PF for Greyhawk or FR easily enough.
I sometimes wonder if I am the only one playing Pathfinder Basic regularly.
The last thing I bought was Pathfinder Basic and it will probably be the only thing I buy content for unless I start GMing regularly. At which point I may pick up an AP and supporting material. I love some of the campaign stuff but don't have a need for it now although Mythic Adventures is seriously tempting me. Its a neat take on the whole Epic level thing.
For me the amount of rules in the Pathfinder Core rule book quickly became more than I felt like dealing with and needlessly complicated things. Feats especially have become an irritant. I love the idea of them but the execution has been bothering me more and more which is one of the reasons I rejoiced when Basic was released.
But despite all the ‘choices” 3.5 fans here are trumpeting, I have almost none. The ‘choices’ really come from “reverse engineering” a new PC for 20 levels.
Well yeah... thats how it worked. You had to plan your character out. There really is no us vs them mentality unless its directed at those who say they miss things from 3.5. Just cause I miss the freedom of prestige classes doesn't mean I dont enjoy what PF has done. I do. I haven't even glanced at 5th ed because I'm happy with PF. The question was do you miss anything... and yeah. I miss prestige classes. Im not even argueing they are the best thing ever. But I enjoyed the bajillion splat books I could flip through.
They're busy enough with Golarion. If they tried to support all of those they'll have the same problem with WOTC, does... they'll wind up doing a s&&&ty job on the whole bunch. As it is WOTC isn't supporting any ONE of those settings to the level that Paizo does with Golarion and I suspect because it's simply too much of a load in a relatively shrinking game market.Right. Mind you, I can see a niche setting, like Ravenloft was, that’d be cool. But I want one and only one base setting, since I can adapt PF for Greyhawk or FR easily enough.
Meh. Golarion is... ok. Kinda generic. I really dislike how they set up the deities (expecially using lucifer... my Southern Baptist side cringes). The APs are amazing but the settings are just ok. I was just a huge Forgotten Realms junkie and miss the setting. I could transfer everything over to FR but thats alot of work. I get that D&D will probably never be sold but I can wistfully imagine PF AP + FR. Would be epic.
2) Very little thought went into how those options worked with other stuff in other books.
3) There was generally never any errata to fix things that could be interpreted in a broken way.
4) The player base revelled in the broken interpretations and would endlessly argue that these two options meant you could move an infinite speed as a single move action or you could get more than one set of "spells per day" using XYZ.
True.
This was a nice thing about 4th ed, they at least fixed stuff if you subscribed.
The PF munchkin base still does this with 'snocone wish machines" and what not, but there are very few of these things, Thank goodness.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think D&D takes up enough of Hasbro's profit share that it doing poorly would ruin the business.I doubt D&D takes up enough of WotC's profit share that it doing poorly would ruin the business. When it comes to Hasbro, D&D is probably less to them than the amount they spend on toilet paper in company HQ.
Correct. To put this in perspective, check out Hasbro's 2013 Form 10K. Normally, depending on how they're organized, corporations will report annual figures for their major subsidiaries. Hasbro lists M:tG as one of its major brands and notes that M:tG sales are increasing. WotC as a whole gets a single mention, buried in a list in the back. Of D&D Next, which you'd imagine is a pretty important WotC initiative, there is nary a mention at all.
So your typical Hasbro shareholder or senior exec probably cares about D&D only if it a) starts making more money that M:tG, or b) somehow screws up some other, more successful brand, like M:tG. Neither of which are exactly likely scenarios.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may seem like a silly question, and also may have been asked and answered already, but... just how many characters are you guys making every year that you need a giant stack of books to pull options from?
I'm being serious here. It seems to me that there are enough permutations of races, classes, feats, skills, and other options that even just the Core Rules would be enough to last an entire campaign.
There’s two markets here, Gelion. One is the theorycrafter. They love to design new PC’s, dozens and even hundreds, even if they play only a couple. I understand this, and applaud their skills (they often find design faults) , but this is not a market that should drive the design.
The other is the “toon” campaign, where PC’s are killed off at a high rate, but every player has a stack of new “toons” ready to drop in at a moments notice. Clearly continuity and even roleplaying must take a back seat here. I can’t understand this school of playing at all.
|
I think it's a lot less that Pathfinder has only a few as much as that they don't have Char Op forums to make everyone believe that the sky is falling whenever you see Divine Metamagic or Leap Attack.
I think a lot of people forget that Paizo didn't create Archtypes. They where in 3E, too, (not to mention Kits from earlier editions).
Yep, I believe they were simply called "alternate class features" in 3.5. Started popping up more frequently in the late-3rd era Races Of splatbooks.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't think D&D takes up enough of Hasbro's profit share that it doing poorly would ruin the business.I doubt D&D takes up enough of WotC's profit share that it doing poorly would ruin the business. When it comes to Hasbro, D&D is probably less to them than the amount they spend on toilet paper in company HQ.Correct. To put this in perspective, check out Hasbro's 2013 Form 10K. Normally, depending on how they're organized, corporations will report annual figures for their major subsidiaries. Hasbro lists M:tG as one of its major brands and notes that M:tG sales are increasing. WotC as a whole gets a single mention, buried in a list in the back. Of D&D Next, which you'd imagine is a pretty important WotC initiative, there is nary a mention at all.
So your typical Hasbro shareholder or senior exec probably cares about D&D only if it a) starts making more money that M:tG, or b) somehow screws up some other, more successful brand, like M:tG. Neither of which are exactly likely scenarios.
<--drafts K's and Q's for a living.
|
The irony of GMs that ban 3PP material in their games is they are banning material written by the same folks who wrote half their official Paizo material. Many of the 3PP use the same writers that work for Paizo. "It is 3PP" is a very weak excuse these days.
Where I find the most value with these products is filling in gaps that Paizo has clearly stated it has no plans do do anytime soon. For instance, a pre-gen of a town, mini adventures that fit in between an AP, expansion of rulesets given in Paizo books (most of the time written by the same designer as the original), Psionics (which Paizo said is a ways off from them taking a crack at), etc.
Don't miss the goldmine because you remember "how it used to be". It wasnt that bad before and its even better today.
The attitude I see, quite rightly, more of is "You can't turn up with a character made using 3PP and just expect to be able to use it, but anything from Paizo is legal." The GM always needs to be able to have final say on that kind of thing, and needs to make it clear they want to be consulted and given a chance to review anything they're not familiar with to make sure it fits in. That's not a ban on 3PP, just a call to come check it with the GM before using it.
As a GM, I'm less likely to use 3PP material from the GM side unless it's a pre-written campaign. Not because I don't want to, but because there's already so much already available officially that I simply can't afford to buy much more than that (and the OCD part of me that wants a complete Pathfinder collection refuses to just buy it piecemeal so I can afford other books too). I'm unlikely to buy, say, a set of 3PP naval rules, just because I simply can't afford it. On the other hand, if a player wanted to buy it for me to use in our game, I'd happily use it ;)
I actually view my old WotC 3.5 collection as 3PP now, and happily drag it into Pathfinder games.
|
I'm starting to almost resent Hero Lab for that reason alone. It's pretty annoying to consistently see "Nope, not in HL so not interested."
Then what I might do in your particular case is to what Hero Lab is noted for and add them yourself or go to the community page and find the third party material you are looking for there. Your GM can go there as well as find them. To say Hero Lab does not have the 3pp material is a falsehood that just takes a little research to find on the internet and the Lone Wolf web site and their forums. There is a HUGE community there that do the third party material and other stuff that Lone Wolf does not. Also not to mention that 3pp is frequently LOOKING for people to do their books and material IN Hero Lab too and will even pay if you are willing to do it. But it takes a knowledge of HTML and the Authoring Kit too I am sure.
But here is the Community page for Hero Lab in general in case your search fu is not as good as mine :)
Go to PFSRD Hero Lab.
|
|
Cheapy,
Also if you actually go to the Lone Wolf Web site and the Pathfinder forums.. you can request someone to do some sort of 2pp material. If at the very least you can get help to do it yourself. You might also want to get together with your GM if he/she is banning things not included in HL and figure out a way to get it included in your Hero Lab yourselves. Lone Wolf has opened up it's authoring and it's ability to add content for the consumer.. so if you do not see it included IN Hero Lab now.. there is absolutely NO reason you can't do it yourself with a little time and delving in to the works that is Hero Lab. Many a user has.
Has Hasbro ever sold a property?
No, but they've been known to partner with other independent toymakers/distributors to create/distribute a revived IP (as one example of an old IP being revitalized by Hasbro and designed and distributed by a small niche company).
But them doing something like that with D&D would be highly unlikely, I'd think. Books and game accessories are rather than different than dolls (although one might argue the collectors are equally fanatical). And I don't know if Paizo would be willing to work with that kind of licensing agreement (although they could be).
Why should they? Paizo DOESN'T NEED D+D. It's got it's own gig running and it's running it quite well. When the Salvatore novels stop selling, the Forgotten Realms will become a forgotten footnote.Has Hasbro ever sold a property?No, but they've been known to partner with other independent toymakers/distributors to create/distribute the IP (as one example of an old IP being revitalized by Hasbro and designed and distributed by a small niche company).
But them doing something like that with D&D would be highly unlikely, I'd think. And I don't know if Paizo would be willing to work with that kind of licensing agreement (although they could be).
Sure. I was simply responding to the discussion about what Hasbro might be willing to do with its IP.
But them doing something like that with D&D would be highly unlikely, I'd think. Books and game accessories are rather than different than dolls (although one might argue the collectors are equally fanatical). And I don't know if Paizo would be willing to work with that kind of licensing agreement (although they could be).
I don't even know if it'd be worth the licensing fees at this point. Pathfinder is doing well enough without the logo and the few extra monsters it'd bring, considering how much those fees would be likely to run to if Hasbro decided to either sell or license it out. It all comes down to X% of extra sales vs X% of licensing fees suddenly attached to every product.
The best way to do IMHO would be to license the D&D name for the core rulebook, and inside the back cover list all the Pathfinder-branded (and non-license-fee-attracting) modules, expansions, settings, and accessories to go with it ;)
Still, all very much speculation. Personally I believe Hasbro would put the trademark to sleep for a bit and relaunch later (and possibly keep it alive via other products) rather than sell/license it off.