Getting back on track - can anyone speak to the amount of powers each class gets? I know and have read you can multi class in PF and so you get to dabble in other classes and obtain their powers so I suppose the list for one character is pretty much endless, but what about balance of spells and whatnot? Can anyone speak to those two things:
1. Number of powers/spells
2. Balance of themAnd I suppose one last thing: In D&D there are so many combinations for classes in terms of power selection, feat selection, etc. and where you could still be useful. Is it like that in PF?
Anddd again, just friendly conversation and inquiry here.
Answered for both 4e and PF:
1. "Lots and lots, or more than I'll probably ever use, and I use a lot."
2. This is a matter of much contentious debate that will immediately explode into edition wars if we go down this path.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So spell casters are pretty much discouraged from multi classing? That's a shame. I love spell casters and would love to multi class one :P
The general argument against multi-classing spellcasters is that a new level of spellcasting is almost always a more powerful option than taking a new level of any other class, coupled with the observation that capstone abilities require 20 levels so if you multi-class you will never get them.
To me this matters only in two cases:
1. I'm going to be playing my character up to 20th level (I almost never do)
2. Power is the most important consideration (it almost never is)
If you want to multi-class, multi-class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the online OGC site to be a huge help in playing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even the Oxford English Dictionary (the dictionary of choice for the discerning Brit) notes that "literally" can be used in an informal manner as an emphasis, often to humorous effect.
Damnit, I am literally going to scream.
(For the record, I did. It was quiet. But it was a scream.)
Derailment almost over: in written form, I feel that the emphasis-laden meaning should be presented in italics (which, in my experience, is a standard means of emphasising prose), since that is how it is generally used in the spoken language, so there is a tangible difference between:
I am literally going to scream.
and
I am literally going to scream.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled edition wa... Ummm... discussion.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So spell casters are pretty much discouraged from multi classing? That's a shame. I love spell casters and would love to multi class one :P
Unless you're planning on taking a prestige class like Arcane Archer or Arcane Trickster, you shouldn't multi-class spellcasters. Any time you multi-class, you delay access to your highest level spells, and those spells are very important. Given that the bulk of the power of the class is in their spells, delyaing or diluting that ability can quickly render the character ineffective. Multi-classing can be done, but it's usually not a great idea. If you want a class with some spellcasting ability, but which is not a dedicated spellcaster, I'd recommend playing something like the bard, ranger, or paladin. Each of those classes has some spellcasting, but it's supplemental to their core abilities.
Pathfinder is much more about specialization than 4e, and it rewards players who stay focused on doing one thing very well rather than a handful of things decently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The introduction of 4.0 WOULD actually be an interesting topic for a paper about product marketing.
You have a niche hobby (gaming) and you want to expand that niche hobby by simplifying and introducing elements that might appeal to people associated with a broader (but associated) niche hobby (video gaming).
I'd love to sometime read a clinical, objective analysis of 4.0 related to balancing efforts to preserve your core customers while reaching out to new customers, and what variables are involved. (For example, you could argue that gaming customers are comparatively loyal/stubborn about certain elements).
One of my favorite points to make is that new editions that obsolete old material are becoming more of an issue than they were in the past.
We once saw something like 15 years between editions. We're also now in the middle of an economic mess. Speed of reboots (5 years-ish nowadays?) plus economic issues = less likely to see the worth in buying into a whole new set of (lets face it, expensive) books. There was a point where my RPG library was probably worth more than my car... So yeah, switching to a new system is something I don't take lightly any more after going from BECMI D&D to AD&D2e, to 3e, and then 4e.
For me, being 99% compatible with my current shelves of 3.5 OGL stuff is the #1 priority. Even if something with better mechanics comes along, it's pointless to me if it's just going to disappear a few years later, and if I can't use my existing books with it. With the kind of investment in books I have, I want them to last. I'll happily take a new system's core rulebook, just so long as 3.5e stat blocks can plug into it without any real effort (which is just what Pathfinder did, and why I switched to it). That's why I'm hoping the recent signs of edition-neutrality in WotC material is something they're looking at doing a lot more of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for powers, spells and balance I think you need to play it yourself. It may seem like a cop out but seldom will you find a bunch of folks agreeing. I feel that there is enough interesting and unique stuff each class (or mix of classes) can do to make everything worth playing.
In addition to hurting spellcasting, Pathfinder has a number of other aspects specifically intended to deter people from multiclassing. Mutliclassing into another class almost never improves any other existing class features, meaning that your abilities are generally all intended for lower-level adventures than the challenges you're up against. In addition, Pathfinder gives you a "favored class bonus" as an additional incentive to stay in your first class, in case the penalties weren't enough to discourage you.
You can still totally multiclass and have a lot of fun with it, but in my experience it requires a DM who's willing to throw lower-level challenges at you so that you can still function appropriately, and other players who are also making weaker characters (so they don't overshadow you too much).
I have no idea what 4e does with multiclassing, so I'll defer to others for that.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What's OGL and OGC stand for?
/noob
Open Gaming License and Open Gaming Content. Without going too deep into the industry stuff, Pathfinder is created based on a license WotC put out for D&D 3e/3.5. As a result, the rules of nearly every Pathfinder book can be found online for free.
Most of the block text you quoted is deep industry stuff that isn't relevant to playing the game.
I think they just use hybrid classes now, not sure. I think tehy did away with multiclassing in favor of that. But again...not sure.
If the Magus and the previews for the Advanced Class Guide are any indication, I think that's exactly what they're doing.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't see the assertion that it appears they were trying to reach a broader video game market to be at all a bad thing. In fact, it would be a very logical decision on their part.I have no way of proving this assertion to be true. It was an opinion I formed after reviewing the game, based on the creation of things like elite monsters and minions, rechargeable powers, healing surges, set classes (and a focus on balancing those classes with matching mechanics) and so forth. It (the similarity between 4.0 and MMOs) IS a commonly expressed opinion held by people who fall on all points of the 3.X/4.0 spectrum (including those who love 4.0).
I disagree that such an assertion would even require evidence of a deliberate attempt (ex: a quote from publisher specifically saying to make the game more MMO friendly) but creativity does not take place in a void. Any new game system is going to consider what works and what does not work in previous game systems, so it is very likely (and, in fact, even probable) had some MMO concepts in their heads while creating the game.
Again, I'm not presenting this as an accusation. In fact, I would consider introducing a pen and paper game with elements that MMO players would find familiar to be a very reasonable design move on someone attempting to broaden their customer base.
I do think there is significant evidence to say that the style of 4.0 certainly feels (to most people) to be MMO inspired, without there being evidence as to whether that was a deliberate or simply a subconscious intent.
Take the edition skirmishing to another thread, please.
Take the edition skirmishing out of the edition war thread?!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
um, someone asked me a question, which I answered, in a way, I might note, that specifically said I don't consider the difference to be a positive or negative
It's like talking to my kids...
Can you and your brother take your off-topic discussion, irrespective of who started it, to another thread so this one can stay on-topic and helpful rather than become the toxic pile of sludge that even the best intended edition war conversation result in.
Again, I'm not presenting this as an accusation. In fact, I would consider introducing a pen and paper game with elements that MMO players would find familiar to be a very reasonable design move on someone attempting to broaden their customer base.
I do think there is significant evidence to say that the style of 4.0 certainly feels (to most people) to be MMO inspired, without there being evidence as to whether that was a deliberate or simply a subconscious intent.
Sloan, in the presence of direct assertions to the contrary from the game designers, I am not prepared to call them liars.
I have no doubt that some of the designers played MMOs and some of the concepts from those games likely informed some of their design decisions, but I am sure that the same is true of other hobbies they had.
My own personal opinion is that the similarities that exist between 4e and MMOs is only very, very slightly more obvious than the similarities that exist between 3.5 and MMOs. The end result is adequately explained, for me, simply by convergent evolution of design. Those were common concepts in the game design world and have been applied in both areas.
The reason I find this interesting is that I have RARELY seen anyone assert that 4e was influenced by MMOs and that was a POSITIVE thing. It is almost always intended to be a negative comment, and to me that smacks of guilt by association rhetoric.
But we'll never know for certain because the game designers who do know have spoken, but people don't believe them.
What's OGL and OGC stand for?
/noob
OGL = Open Game License
OGC = Open Game Content (meaning: "stuff released under the Open Game License")The OGL was the thing that meant D&D 3.5 was supported by endless reams of addon material by third party publishers (so, people other than Wizards of the Coast). It's also, incidently, the thing that allowed Paizo to use the D&D 3.5 ruleset to build Pathfinder without having to get into icky copyright complications (there's a whole dozen pages I could write on that, including why game rules aren't subject to copyright anyway but why you still really need the OGL or something similar in order to make it safe enough for people to do it). To put it in laymans terms, it means any company can legally write an adventure, setting book, or rulebook that adds onto (or even copies) the D&D 3.5 rulebook (but not any of the official settings, which still belong 100% to Wizards, plus they also reserved a few things such as certain monsters)
Whenever someone talks about "3.5 OGL" or "OGL 3.5", they usually mean "Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 3.5" - except they're not actually allowed to say that due to the trademark being owned by Wizards of the Coast.
It was the first time to my knowledge anyone had done such a thing with an RPG - allowing other publishers to produce material for it, rather than simply competing against it with their own games.
It'd be wrong to say all this without mentioning Ryan Dancey, the (at the time) Wizards employee who made it all possible by pushing the idea there and getting it accepted.
So, if there was no OGL, we'd have no Pathfinder today. Or if we did, it'd be a very different game to D&D 3.5.
Paizo themselves have released (to the best of my knowledge) every rule they've added to the game under the OGL too, meaning anyone else can take those and add to them, or make their own new game, as long as they follow the terms of the license.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder has literally exploded in popularity in the last years."Exploded in popularity" is a metaphor, and hence figurative. It therefore cannot, by definition, also be "literal."Stuffy, I am totally with you here, misuse of "literally" has always been right up there with "irregardless" in my most irritating grammar errors.
But if you are truly a stuffy grammarian, you should know that BOTH of those are now completely acceptable according to the latest dictionaries and grammar guides. "Literally" now literally means "figuratively" in the dictionary, and "irregardless" now means "regardless".
You just can't stop "progress."
I admit I have a habit of those near meaningless emphasis words at the start of my sentances. I would likely be embarrased if someone went back through my posts and took a count on the number of sentances that start with 'honestly'. Its definately far far too many. So I have contributed to the 'progress' that has lead to 'literally' meaning 'not literally'. I need to go listen to one of George Carlins rants on nonsensecal word usage as penance now.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
WNxTyr4el - if you have unanswered questions, you might want to post a new thread with a title that's less likely to attract the edition warriors, something like "new player seeking advice on getting into Pathfinder." Now that we're on the second page, the chances of getting useful information will start to plummet as no one bothers reading your original post, and instead starts responding to the edition war stuff. There are a lot of helpful posters here on Paizo, but you won't find them in an edition war thread.
definately
...
Sloan, we are in complete agreement on that. I'd love to see someone dig into the history of the creation of 4e, and maybe if someone did we could put some meat on these assertions that they were trying to create a tabletop version of an MMO.
But I'd be surprised if they did, and I'd be a whole lot more interested in the actual design process to see why certain decisions were made and what happened as they got close to reaching market with it.
That would be a fascinating read. Something like "The Soul of a New Machine" which took the reader through the process of computer manufacture and marketing. I'd love to read it.
Greylurker, don't hold back like that. Tell us how you really feel. :p
Don't get me wrong, as a game in and of it's self 4E isn't bad, there was a lot you could do with the system particularly later on. The Feat Dip idea for multi-classing is something I wouldn't mind seeing in Pathfinder (Kind of have it with Eldritch Heritage, be nice if they expanded on that towards the other classes)
It's main problems was it's marketing and it's original development team and I personally feel those are the main reasons it never gained much traction.
The game itself was a fine game, it's only real failures were the people behind it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a pro PF person I would narrow it down to these reasons.
1. Legacy Issues - I have been playing D&D for a long time, and when I started trying to convert some of my legacy characters to 4e they just didn't come out the same. Too much got lost in translation.
2. Rules Separation. I bought what I though was the core 4e rulebooks, and then I went to create a druid, and it wasn't there. Worse, I couldn't even slap together house rules for a druid from the rules I did have in front of me. In some ways the 4e ways of presenting the rules is more modular and self contained(IE all the key rules for running a fighter are in one place), but to me their way of splitting the rules for what I think of as the core classes across multiple books felt too much like I was getting half a game for full price.
3. OGL - As a DM, the availability of 3rd party material is awesome. You can find so many cool ideas out there. Sure the balance may be garbage, but the ideas are cool. Combine that with the fact that you don't HAVE to buy or borrow a core rule book before to play the game, and you have a game that is a lot easier to get into financially.
4e has a lot of great ideas and cool stuff, but for me at the end of the day it was easier for me to add the stuff I liked from 4e into PF as house rules than to go the other direction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to hurting spellcasting, Pathfinder has a number of other aspects specifically intended to deter people from multiclassing. Mutliclassing into another class almost never improves any other existing class features, meaning that your abilities are generally all intended for lower-level adventures than the challenges you're up against. In addition, Pathfinder gives you a "favored class bonus" as an additional incentive to stay in your first class, in case the penalties weren't enough to discourage you.
You can still totally multiclass and have a lot of fun with it, but in my experience it requires a DM who's willing to throw lower-level challenges at you so that you can still function appropriately, and other players who are also making weaker characters (so they don't overshadow you too much).
I have no idea what 4e does with multiclassing, so I'll defer to others for that.
4E multiclassing came in 2 forms.
The first was Feat Dip. you had a number of feats that let you gain access to a little of the abilities of another class. It wasn't really multiclassing. You were still your original class you just got to add a couple of abilities from a different class onto it. It was actually an interesting tool that I used a fair bit. I had a Star Pact Warlock who feat dipped into Cleric who considered himself a Priest of the Gods that lived in his head. And a Rogue who Feat Dipped into Fey Pact Warlock, His story was that he had stolen magic from a Fey lord and was now on the run trying to stay ahead of the Fey who were out to claim his soul in exchange.
Feat Dip wasn't really satisfying to a lot of folks though so they later came out with Hybrids, where you literally take Half of Class A and Half of Class B and mush them together to form your class.
It seems this thread has gotten derailed. If you're still interested in helping me, see this thread here
Thanks to everyone who helped me out!
Linkified
|
I going to say something a Pathfinder player/defender would likely never say. From a pure mathematical/mechanical perspective 4e is the superior game.
However, and from may vantage point it's a big however, the class parity was it's biggest downfall. Playing a fighter was very similar to playing a wizard/cleric/ranger/rogue/anything really. It lost something, almost like character classes where being designed to fit a preset template as opposed to a theme or cleaver original idea. I just didn't care for the AEDU system at all. A few minor other qualms I had was the way every class progressed the same in BAB, and only had minor differences in saves and skills.
That being said there was some ideas I'd wished people would have keep their mind open to, namely the three tiers of play (heroic, paragon, epic) which I thought played well and helped keep the game on track over 30 levels. I also warmed up to the way Hp's worked in 4e, essentially they start out higher and grew more slowly, and they were not randomly determined. I liked the embrace of high fantasy, and the idea of adding some more unusual races right to the core rules. I even liked the hybrid classing over pathfinders multi-classing. The most controversial design choice in 4e that I really liked was the idea that everything was core. No need to argue what was or wasn't allowed at the game table, everything was.
Despite this, it was a wash, to many things I just didn't like vs things I did like. Since I had a lot, to say the least, of 3.5 books it seemed to be a natural progression to switch to pathfinder. I have no evidence to back it up, but I suspect other people felt the same, hence why pathfinder is the number one RPG right now. But really, if you like 4e
play it, there's nothing wrong with the system.
I going to say something a Pathfinder player/defender would likely never say. From a pure mathematical/mechanical perspective 4e is the superior game.
Despite preferring Pathfinder, I tend to agree.
However, and from may vantage point it's a big however, the class parity was it's biggest downfall. Playing a fighter was very similar to playing a wizard/cleric/ranger/rogue/anything really. It lost something, almost like character classes where being designed to fit a preset template as opposed to a theme or cleaver original idea. I just didn't care for the AEDU system at all. A few minor other qualms I had was the way every class progressed the same in BAB, and only had minor differences in saves and skills.
That part I actually felt was a good thing. Once you had learned one class you knew how to play them all, the system was based around similarities rather than exceptions which made it far easier to learn and to process in your head. I also liked it from the prospective of programmer as it made it far easier to turn into code form.
3.5e/Pathfinder is an endless mess of nested if...then...else statements with callback functions and (the bane of understandable code ) goto statements, while 4e was a nice clean case or select statement :)
Since I had a lot, to say the least, of 3.5 books it seemed to be a natural progression to switch to pathfinder. I have no evidence to back it up, but I suspect other people felt the same
Well, add me as evidence to that :) It's my main reason for switching to Pathfinder, too. At the end of the day I'm far less worried about what system I play than I am about ensuring it's compatible with everything else I have. Plus the real attraction of RPGs for me is in the campaign settings, not the mechanics - and I love Golarion.
Compatibility is the reason I switched to Pathfinder, and the Golarion setting is the reason I'm staying.
My group played 4e for 2-3 years between 3.5 and PF. Although there were some things that disappointed me about 4e I still had fun, because I like playing with the people in my gaming group and the combats had new dynamics I hadn't experienced before. But, on the whole I find games in the vein of 3.5 and PF to have more depth and more intrinsically rewarding. If you are new the D&D then 4e will be easier to learn. If you choose PF I suggest you find a gaming group to help you along.
Didn't see it mentioned, but PCGen is a free character creator that handles Pathfinder. It's volunteer run, so it's not as fast a turnaround on new books as Hero Lab, but it's pretty decent if you're not doing any majorly tweaked builds. I use it to generate NPCs as a GM all the time, makes my life much easier.
On the topic of 4E vs PF, I will say that PF was the only thing that kept me in d20. Without getting into bashing, I'll just say that I found a lot of design choices in 4E to be bizarre to the point of incomprehension. The other nail in it was, as others have stated, the customer service of Wizards.
Paizo excels at customer service, they put up with me on the threads afterall. :)
Balance wise, I would have to say 4E is probably more balanced internally (at least, the core rules are). That's not to say PF is unbalanced, just that due to the design philosophies, 4E tends to be more internally consistent in a balance framework. Having said that, Balance is not always the most desirable goal. Henry Ford said you could have any color car you wanted, as long as it was black. If we instead reversed it and said you can have any color car you want as long as it's a Model-T, things would be balanced, but not very interesting. :)
I wonder sometimes if I sat down with someone who actually knew the rules for 4E if I might enjoy it. The couple times I tried it ended up being a 3.5/4E mashup more than an actual 4E game.
I like Pathfinder. I prefer Pathfinder. 4e is an excellent game too. Tri, if you enjoy tactical battle simulation, as I do, I think you would probably enjoy playing 4e. I played a campaign through to epic level eventually becoming a demigod. And I had a blast doing it.
But there were definitely things I missed in 4e, and one of them was the clear distinction between classes. Another was the lack of true cosmic reality altering powers.
But there is no doubt that combat was richer, more consistent, more conducive to rewarding tactical cleverness and easier to coordinate between party members.
If that sounds interesting to you, you'd probably like 4e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have one DM who really groks 4.0 and we have a blast playing it with him. But like I always have said- it's much more your fellow players and your DM that make a game fun, not the system. You can have fun with just about any system. I had lots of fun with Tunnels and Trolls, even tho the math breaks down horribly later in the game. I had fun playing Chivalry & Sorcery even tho the math breaks YOU down at every aspect of the game. I have been playing since 1974 so I have played a LOT.
4th ed has some very cool aspects, esp if your DM is a subscriber. You get constant updates, WoTC changes things as they get reported quite often. The system for doing up a PC does a beautiful sheet with every skill & power written out etc. And you can do even a high level PC in less than a hour. OTOH, if you don't have access- good luck!
2nd ED is actually just about the best for Roleplaying. The rules are loose and open and there's not a lot of tactics which can get in the way of Roleplaying. And you can pick up used copies of the books at reasonable prices.
3.5? It does break down at higher levels once you add in all the splat books, but it's still a solid, fun, popular system, and you can also pick up used copies of the books at reasonable prices.
But right now, Pathfinder is IMHO the best. It's extremely well supported without expensive subscriptions. The Devs are active and pretty cool guys. The base system is there for all, free. There are some top writers, both in writing the game and the fiction. (Read some of the Pathfinder fiction, James Sutter has done a really good job of selecting authors!). 3rd Party Publishers (3PP) write scads of good stuff too. No wonder it's now the #1 Fantasy RPG.
Mind you, OP, you can have fun playing even one of those 3PP niche systems languishing down there on the bottom shelf of your FLGS.
But here's the thing- since they are all fun with the right group of guys/gals- the issue is finding that group of players. So, the more popular a game is, the better luck you'll have. And for some, the ability to get lots of merchandise is a BIG plus. Thus, taking everything into consideration, PF may be your best choice.
This thread's a pretty great read. Gave me a new perspective on the "edition" wars.
This thread's a pretty great read. Gave me a new perspective on the "edition" wars.
The "wars" were pretty laughable, but in retrospect it a little pathetic how crazy things were.
This thread's a pretty great read. Gave me a new perspective on the "edition" wars.
If we mostly stick to what is GOOD about each edition, then we should be able to keep it civil and informative.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like Pathfinder. I prefer Pathfinder. 4e is an excellent game too. Tri, if you enjoy tactical battle simulation, as I do, I think you would probably enjoy playing 4e. I played a campaign through to epic level eventually becoming a demigod. And I had a blast doing it.
Honestly, the biggest issue with 4E is 4E.
Not the system, the words 'Fourth Edition'. That's the biggest problem with 4E. Not the rules per se, it's the fact it's D&D 4E.
If you took the system, slapped the name 'Fantasy Regilium' on it, gave it all new packaging, and put it on the store shelves, it would likely do pretty good, certainly better than 4E with the same marketing blitz money.
What causes the biggest edition war and consternation is that it's nothing like anything before it. It's name recognition, which WoTC was counting on, actually was it's biggest detriment.
|
And for that matter, 3rd edition D&D in general was an updated version of 2nd edition D&D that can still play a lot like that edition - it was designed to do so in many ways but with a more advanced game rule engine.
For you maybe. In my opinion, it plays much differently, and the engine is not more advanced, but instead more clunky. It also manages to take the biggest criticism of prior editions, the fact that spell-casters were more powerful at the high levels, and exacerbate it greatly, by removing most of the spell-caster's weaknesses and vulnerabilities.
And for that matter, 3rd edition D&D in general was an updated version of 2nd edition D&D that can still play a lot like that edition - it was designed to do so in many ways but with a more advanced game rule engine.For you maybe. In my opinion, it plays much differently, and the engine is not more advanced, but instead more clunky. It also manages to take the biggest criticism of prior editions, the fact that spell-casters were more powerful at the high levels, and exacerbate it greatly, by removing most of the spell-caster's weaknesses and vulnerabilities.
True. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was less clunky, limited spell users by requiring them to earn more experience, actually train under someone and fit into a particular hierarchy. They had to own spell ingredients and some had to kill their boss to progress. I miss the good old days.
A third party setting which incorperated all this would appeal to me greatly. Although probably would sell only two copies (I like to buy a spare).
Call of Cthulhu is practically perfect as games go... if only they had kobolds and bards.
|
|
As this thread is targeted at a person new to RPGs, I think we should try to keep it to the basics. Showing him d20pfsrd.com isn't really all that helpful...that site can give even long-time veterans option paralysis. Likewise, he doesn't need an in-depth discussion about the merits of a legal appendix that is slapped onto the last page of a product...the OGL has no bearing on how the game is actually played or whether or not he will actually like that game or not.
The choice between Pathfinder and 4E is largely a matter of opinion. You already own the 4E red box, so if I were you, I'd give that a good chance before throwing it to the side in favor of another system you aren't sure if you will like.
Hell, my own personal opinion and recommendation would be to leave both PF and 4E by the side of the road and grab Swords & Wizardry instead. Great yet simple game, has tons of support already existing and tons more forthcoming, and the PDF of the complete rulebook will (hopefully) be released for FREE within a coupe of weeks.