Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder?


4th Edition

451 to 500 of 1,528 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

I love to give and be given word riddles, as a person. Paizo don't, for a number of reasons I do appreciate.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I kind of like the idea of giving the players metagame assistance with riddles based on character skill ranks - if you have 5 ranks/training/whatever in a skill, you get to do a Wikipedia search; 10 ranks and you get to use Google; etc.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
I kind of like the idea of giving the players metagame assistance with riddles based on character skill ranks - if you have 5 ranks/training/whatever in a skill, you get to do a Wikipedia search; 10 ranks and you get to use Google; etc.

Haha thats awesome. You probably just made Hama faint.


Sissyl wrote:
Especially Dragonborn always felt very Meh. Getting them shoehorned into Forgotten Realms was pathetic.

Depends on how you view "shoehorned". They way in which the race was placed in the Realms needed work, I agree. I think they would've had far more success in just using existing lore such as Saurials or Dragon-kin, both of which were Canon Dragon-like races that could've easily been used with Dragonborn stats. But the idea of dragon-like races in Faerûn is something that's been consistent within the Realms for quite a while.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll be buying the PHB, just to see what they did with it, but I don’t expect to play it. I didn’t like what I saw in the playtest, and I'm not nostalgic about the 2nd edition rule set (and that’s version I grew up with). Terrible interior art, lackluster classes with little to no options (brown books didn't help), and very static combat. No thanks. Not that Pathfinder is 150% better, but it and 3.0/3.5 are significant improvements in my opinion.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Everybody knows that 6E, sorry, D&D NextPlusAdvance will be announced few days afer EnWorld announces their super-mega-campaign-arc for 5E. It happened with War of the Burning Sky and it happened with Zeitgeist, so it'll happen again. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Everybody knows that 6E, sorry, D&D NextPlusAdvance will be announced few days afer EnWorld announces their super-mega-campaign-arc for 5E. It happened with War of the Burning Sky and it happened with Zeitgeist, so it'll happen again. :)

Wait, EnWorld is still a thing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just give it about 3 years and they will release a revised 5th edition. It happened with 3rd, and 4th.


So, it's not safe to assume it will still be three years. I would guess two by now, and five years before 6th edition.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am sticking with Pathfinder. Instead of getting a new rule set every few years, I keep the learning more and more about the Pathfinder Universe through the player companions and campaign settings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Essentials wasnt a revision, despite nay-sayers best efforts. The only thing it did was meagerly attempt to draw in a crowed that had largely left long before in a vain attempt get a bigger profit. Now I like the essential line and my group uses pre- and post-essentials material together with absolutely zero problems. It was actually designed for that to be frank.

As for D&D next, who knows? I don't particularly see a revision like we saw with 3rd or a reversal in design ideas like we saw with 4e. I think the intent is to keep the game simple and just tack on modular rules.


So there will be a relatively small core system, plus modular extra rules. Brilliant. What that ends up at is this: Either you basically make exactly everything "core", or you do not. If you do not, you are "splitting your fan base", which is a Bad Thing (tm). Also, every module that is not "core" will sell worse than those that are. Thus, there is only one way this choice can go. Every adventure published needs to assume a certain lineup of rules, and having multiple options there means devoting page space to stuff that will not be used by everyone.

I will believe they have a solution to this when I see it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DaveMage wrote:
Pathfinder. I don't need another system.

Can't agree more


Sissyl wrote:
So there will be a relatively small core system, plus modular extra rules.

Modular "extra rules" will most likely be placed in the Dungeon Master Guide. Pretty much where these things always are.

Sissyl wrote:
Brilliant.

I think so, it apparently worked for 3rd Edition.

Sissyl wrote:
What that ends up at is this: Either you basically make exactly everything "core", or you do not.

I don't follow. What's your definition of "core". I take it to mean that the "Core" of the system is going to be pretty much assumptions that every module and adventure is based off of. This is a good thing. CORE is AC, HP, Saving Throws, Multiclass rules, Class-based, XP-based, weapons, etc. System things and etc. They are [u]not[/u] options that people make assumptions about such as Fighter or Dwarf being automatic or always allowed choices.

Sissyl wrote:
If you do not, you are "splitting your fan base", which is a Bad Thing (tm).

The fan base is already split. It now comes down to if you want to run "core" or perhaps a better term is "Basic". Basic is the base assumption where options are concerned. I also think every single adventure will the fully, 100% usable with the Basic rules. People who [u]only[/u] like Basic won't miss out on anything produced.

Sissyl wrote:
Also, every module that is not "core" will sell worse than those that are.

Modules (perhaps you mean adventures?) are probably going to be designed to extend FROM the Core rules and adjust accordingly. If they produce a Gothic Horror module, one should expect changes to the core like HP, regaining health, diseases and other add-ons. That, again, is pretty much how it's always been done.

Sissyl wrote:
Thus, there is only one way this choice can go. Every adventure published needs to assume a certain lineup of rules, and having multiple options there means devoting page space to stuff that will not be used by everyone.

Not necessarily. I mean, I believe adventures published will most likely reference modules or differences from "core" that have already appeared in the DMG. In my Gothic Horror module, there's likely a chance we'll see references to changing X, Y, or Z if you want a more deadly or harder game. Again, nothing wrong with that. People who only use CORE rules (ie. just the Basic rules) will still likely be able to play exactly the same adventure with little to no change.


So you don't think the expected proliferation of splat books full of extra crunch will be part of their modularity? In effect then, the modularity will happen only in the DMG, and any other new rules will be all core? Or are you saying there will not be books full of extra crunch published?


Well I hope we get new "crunch", I'd be hard pressed to buy a book that's 90% flavor. I don't, however, look at mechanics as changes to core. They're all just additional options. If they're good, they'll integrate well with the core mechanics and people can easily use Basic options right next to Super Dragon Magic 9 supplement. When I look at 4e, I don't see a whole lot of rules that take the assumptions of core elements and turning them on their head, especially when I compare it to 3rd edition.


In 4th, EVERYTHING was Core, explicitly so, which is the exact opposite to a modular approach.


I'll look at the Next books, just as I looked at 4th. They'd have to really impress me to convince me to switch though, and I don't think they have that level of skill available to them.

I've bought less than half as many Pathfinder books than my 3.0/.5 collection, but I feel like they contain more useful information. I'll stay with a system that gives me options that interest me, and that I'm already invested in and skilled enough to run how I like.


Sissyl wrote:
In 4th, EVERYTHING was Core, explicitly so, which is the exact opposite to a modular approach.

And 4e never claimed to be super modular. For one, most of the classes were based on AEDU. Two modules were Psionics and Martial "essential" classes because they removed the assumption of AEDU. Inherent bonuses were another module. However these differences still worked perfectly fine with the CORE rules.

Lets take my example of Super Dragon 9. Inside we get new spells, a few draconic-based feats, some options for Dragonborn, and new sub-classes for the Druid (dragon shape), Fighter (Dragoon path), Paladin Oath to Bahamut, yadda yadda. None of this changes the
Core rules, just adds to them. Someone wants to grab the Basic Fighter from the free online form and someone wants to be a Dragoon, no biggie. Is this bad?


Sounds good.

The problem comes when an adventure is built on stuff that comes from Super Dragon 9. Maybe an organization described there, maybe spells from the book, or the like. Now that adventure needs to decide if it REQUIRES Super Dragon 9 or not. If it does, then for the purposes of that adventure, SD9 can be said to be Core, and it is not modular design. If it doesn't, fewer people will buy SD9, because it's optional, but yes, it will be modular.

Which will they go for, do you think?


To be fair Sis, going by what we've seen of Next/5e published thus far (Ghosts of Dragonspear castle and the rest of the sundering adventures) I'd guess that anything from Super Dragon 9 that is absolutely required would be reprinted in the adventure, or free to download on the web.


Sissyl wrote:

Sounds good.

The problem comes when an adventure is built on stuff that comes from Super Dragon 9. Maybe an organization described there, maybe spells from the book, or the like. Now that adventure needs to decide if it REQUIRES Super Dragon 9 or not. If it does, then for the purposes of that adventure, SD9 can be said to be Core, and it is not modular design. If it doesn't, fewer people will buy SD9, because it's optional, but yes, it will be modular.

Which will they go for, do you think?

Hitdice wrote:
To be fair Sis, going by what we've seen of Next/5e published thus far (Ghosts of Dragonspear castle and the rest of the sundering adventures) I'd guess that anything from Super Dragon 9 that is absolutely required would be reprinted in the adventure, or free to download on the web.

This. Most assuredly that if an adventure is written with a ton of dragon-esque content and revolves around dragons, there probably will be tags or options or suggestions that involve Super Dragon Magic 9 supplement. Hopefully the most important stuff directly involving the adventure is re-written down for convenience. We already saw this with 3E published adventures (such as NPCs with specific feats being re-written, spells too). It'll also probably reference SDM9 supplement to help provide a stronger Dragon-themed adventure for players who want to explore or continue side-quests that are perhaps only mentioned in the direct adventure.

Of course this is all speculative and we won't know for certain HOW they're going to do anything. I have my reservations as well as hopes. I don't think what we're asking for is too much trouble and they appear to be doing just that with many of their products already. Only time will tell.

(P.S. Now I'm really hoping for a Dragon-based Supplement called Super Dragon Magic, haha. I might even have to just write one!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Diffan, if the paper trail weren't so obvious, I'd copyright the name Super Dragon 9 this instant. :P


Hitdice wrote:
Diffan, if the paper trail weren't so obvious, I'd copyright the name Super Dragon 9 this instant. :P

Funny enough, I'd buy it

;)


It may be as you say. Then again, reprinting everything will make for a lot of page space not useful to those who have the rules materials it was presented in. I guess we'll see what their vaunted modularity will mean.


Sissyl wrote:

Sounds good.

The problem comes when an adventure is built on stuff that comes from Super Dragon 9. Maybe an organization described there, maybe spells from the book, or the like. Now that adventure needs to decide if it REQUIRES Super Dragon 9 or not. If it does, then for the purposes of that adventure, SD9 can be said to be Core, and it is not modular design. If it doesn't, fewer people will buy SD9, because it's optional, but yes, it will be modular.

Which will they go for, do you think?

Pathfinder has the same problem when it uses stuff that isn't in the PRD. Does that make the referenced material "core?"


Sissyl wrote:
In 4th, EVERYTHING was Core, explicitly so, which is the exact opposite to a modular approach.

Pathfinder kind of assumes the same thing regarding their hardcover lines. AP's regularly use non core book classes, monsters, items, etc, and GM's are expected to either look up those stats in the books or PRD.

I suppose the PRD makes it go down easier, but I for one would hope that WoTC doesn't have entire books of rule material that are never mentioned again in any other product. The 3.0/3.5 editions often had this problem, and it was a major cause of complaint.


I don't care when, or if, they release a new edition. I use what I like. Period. If you are in an organized play set up this matters. Otherwise, no. That goes for both WotC and Paizo btw :) It will be interesting when Paizo decides on a revision / new edition...

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I for one would hope that WoTC doesn't have entire books of rule material that are never mentioned again in any other product. The 3.0/3.5 editions often had this problem, and it was a major cause of complaint.

One thing worth noting is that 3rd edition had the same rules for PCs and NPCs. 5th edition, from what I know, does not. If most books released are PC option books, they probably won't get brought up or mentioned in future modules simply because those modules won't be using PC rules.

In Pathfinder, if you've got a human inquisitor as a villain, that inquisitor will reference things from the PRD and will probably run very much the same as a PC inquisitor. In D&D, if you've got a human inquisitor (or D&D-comparable class not in the Player's Handbook), you probably won't need to reference whatever sourcebook introduced the inquisitor class because the NPC will run on different rules.

If supplementary material stays focused on players as in the past, and if the philosophy of making NPCs run on different rules than PCs continues to have a hold in the new edition, then most of those supplements will continue not to be referenced in published adventures because they won't be using the rules in those books.

Whether this design philosophy is up your alley probably plays a large part in determining whether you are a fan of the new edition or now.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Another factor that makes me getting it questionable is that most likely, the policy of monster names from 4th will continue. Yes, I understand that they want copyrightable stuff to build their brand, but I loathe the idea of fighting chokewinddeath elementals, fleshripwind elementals, freezechokestorm elementals and hurricaneslashmurder elementals. Not to mention bloodcurdler cultists, bloodfear cultists, bloodhate cultists and bloodmurder cultists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sticking to Pathfinder.


Sissyl wrote:
Another factor that makes me getting it questionable is that most likely, the policy of monster names from 4th will continue. Yes, I understand that they want copyrightable stuff to build their brand, but I loathe the idea of fighting chokewinddeath elementals, fleshripwind elementals, freezechokestorm elementals and hurricaneslashmurder elementals. Not to mention bloodcurdler cultists, bloodfear cultists, bloodhate cultists and bloodmurder cultists.

I didn't buy nor play any 4th edition, are these real names they used for monsters or an exaggeration?


Exaggeration to show the pattern. I guess it makes it easy to make several power ratings for one creature. I find it pathetic.

Actual examples:
Fire archon emberguard, fire archon blazesteel, fire archon ash disciple, ice archon hailscourge, ice archon rimehammer, ice archon frostshaper
Cyclops guard, cyclops warrior, cyclops impaler, cyclops rambler, cyclops hewer, cyclops battleweaver, cyclops storm shaman
Carrion crawler scuttler, carrion crawler, carrion crawler putrefier, enormous carrion crawler
Manticore striker, manticore impaler, manticore spike hurler, manticore sky hunter


EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Another factor that makes me getting it questionable is that most likely, the policy of monster names from 4th will continue. Yes, I understand that they want copyrightable stuff to build their brand, but I loathe the idea of fighting chokewinddeath elementals, fleshripwind elementals, freezechokestorm elementals and hurricaneslashmurder elementals. Not to mention bloodcurdler cultists, bloodfear cultists, bloodhate cultists and bloodmurder cultists.
I didn't buy nor play any 4th edition, are these real names they used for monsters or an exaggeration?

An extreme exaggeration. Just checked the Compendium for "Cultists" and we have two: Human Cultist (lvl 6) and Human Blood Cultist (lvl 10).

Now there are LOTS of different kinds of Orcs, but it speaks far more to their role and usage rather than a Different monster altogether. For example there are Orc scouts, berserkers, darkblades, archers, bolt throwers, etc. that all have different ways in which they engage PCs in combat.

Just did a search for Elemental too, and we have 35 of them. SOme are "lesser" versions, some are "Greater" versions. Some are connected to Genasi. There's some variation, such as a Fire Elemental Spark, but it's a minion (meaning a lesser creature which can be brought down with 1 shot) and thus the name speaks to the role the monster is used in. But there really aren't that many.

EDIT: Further, I don't know anyone who actually refers to them in their description other than saying their usual name. No one refers to them as Orc Bolt throwers, they're just orcs. No one says "OMG!! There's a Manticore Spike Hurler coming at us!!!" people just scream about a manticore.

Though, I have to ask: Why is this a big deal?


Why? Because it is an adaptation to the IP system. You can't own the word manticore because it is clearly in the public domain. But you CAN own "Manticore spike hurler". So, instead of new monsters with some thought behind them, 4th gave us an entire menagerie of stupid monster names that evoke nothing and were only made to differentiate the monster from other similar monsters of a lower level.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You mean like a video game?


I wasn't the one who said it, but yes.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diffan wrote:


Though, I have to ask: Why is this a big deal?

Because it makes you *feel* like if you're playing World of Warcraft.

Sure. You're not playing WoW. You're playing D&D. I get it! But it looks and feels like it were a MMO, with all those Ice Archon Frostshapers, disenchanting magic items into dust and having Shadow Bolt firing Warlocks right off the bat.

WotC wanted to rub off the MMO demographic by making a game which would instantly connect with video gamers thanks to using certain tropes, slang and presentation concepts familiar to them. Heck, it was even stated openly by then-brand management that the future of PnP RPGs is to ride the video game bandwagon, hence the way 4E was presented and all the (ultimately, abortive) digital initiatives such as Gleemax and VTT. The goal was to try and capture the video game demographic by making video gamers move over to PnP gaming.

The ironic thing was that an average D&D gamer, the core demographic as far as WotC is concerned, is a nostalgic guy who considers video games, and MMOs in particular, to be what 'killed' or 'eclipsed' his hobby, or at very least considers himself to be the one who engages in the 'superior' hobby, which is more refined and sophisticated than mashing buttons on a keyboard. And that's why 4E backfired so horribly - the core demographic rejected the presentation. You can - quite correctly - point out all the ways in which 4E was an actual RPG and had nothing to do with MMOs and video games but at the end of the day, it's the first impression that counts. Few people were willing to give 4E second looks, and the utterly abysmal handling of its' launch and marketing didn't help much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Why? Because it is an adaptation to the IP system. You can't own the word manticore because it is clearly in the public domain. But you CAN own "Manticore spike hurler". So, instead of new monsters with some thought behind them, 4th gave us an entire menagerie of stupid monster names that evoke nothing and were only made to differentiate the monster from other similar monsters of a lower level.

And the bolded part is where we differ. The name change implies a different use that interacts with the PCs. It also speaks to any particular monster's proficiency. Were it not the case, monster stat blocks would be pages long OR the monster's effect would be cut dramatically. For example, I'd like to throw CR 3 Orcs at my party, but the orcs use Javelins. Now I look into the Bestiary and look for Orcs......I see the Common Orcs and Blood Orcs that use Javelins. So now I have to go and create a CR 3 Orc that use javelins, which in PF/v3.5 is just like making another character with all the hassle of Skill points, feats, class levels and save adjustments and all that crap. Yea, I have better things to do with my time. Instead I'll just play 4E where I see the Orc Scout entry and change out Shortbow damage for Javelin damage and be done with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Diffan wrote:


Though, I have to ask: Why is this a big deal?
Because it makes you *feel* like if you're playing World of Warcraft.

:roll eyes: and of course I don't really take anyone seriously with claims like that. It's as fallow and lame as when people complained that the 3.5 Warlock was "SO BROKEN!!" because it had at-will magic. At those points, you just gotta shake your head and laugh.

Gorbacz wrote:


Sure. You're not playing WoW. You're playing D&D. I get it! But it looks and feels like it were a MMO, with all those Ice Archon Frostshapers, disenchanting magic items into dust and having Shadow Bolt firing Warlocks right off the bat.

So what your saying is that people would rather have what....10 monsters? You get Orcs, Dragons, Undead (*gasp* a Vampire spin-off..oh noes!!), Demons, Humanoids, Elves (*gasp* DROW? Not another spin-off!!), Goblins, and Giants.

And if you want Goblins to have crossbows....well do all the math and mechanics and make it up yourself. If you want a Zombie-lord....too bad, you can't unless you re-write the system. Oh, you wanted an Orc Warchief.....go ahead and tack on 5 levels of Fighter. I'm sure the group would LOVE to wait 46 minutes to put the Bare-Bones monster together.

Awesome design! But it's cool because it doesn't *feel* like a video game.

Gorbacz wrote:
WotC wanted to rub off the MMO demographic by making a game which would instantly connect with video gamers thanks to using certain tropes, slang and presentation concepts familiar to them. Heck, it was even stated openly by then-brand management that the future of PnP RPGs is to ride the video game bandwagon, hence the way 4E was presented and all the (ultimately, abortive) digital initiatives such as Gleemax and VTT. The goal was to try and capture the video game demographic by making video gamers move over to PnP gaming.

And that's not a bad thing, especially since VIDEO games were the ones who took the slang and jargon and crap to begin with. Meatshield, Skill-Monkey, Heal-Bot, Uber-charger are ALL tropes and terms I learned and heard from D&D. Heck, I don't even play MMOs.

Gorbacz wrote:
The ironic thing was that an average D&D gamer, the core demographic as far as WotC is concerned, is a nostalgic guy who considers video games, and MMOs in particular, to be what 'killed' or 'eclipsed' his hobby, or at very least considers himself to be the one who engages in the 'superior' hobby, which is more refined and sophisticated than mashing buttons on a keyboard.

Agreed, WotC didn't count on Grognard elitists to be as vocal and cantankery as they were.

Gorbacz wrote:
And that's why 4E backfired so horribly - the core demographic rejected the presentation.

Meh, it was a LOT more than that. I'm sure that played a part but people were boycotting WotC even before people saw the rules. The h4te was full-swing months before 4E even launched. It's even documented here on Paizo's forums.

Gorbacz wrote:

You can - quite correctly - point out all the ways in which 4E was an actual RPG and had nothing to do with MMOs and video games but at the end of the day, it's the first impression that counts. Few people were willing to give 4E second looks, and the utterly abysmal handling of its' launch and marketing didn't help much.

Despite the h4te early on, 4E reached #1 and remained there until 2010, around the time the designers decided to launch Essentials. I think the drop off of people after the initial buy (in 09') and the departure from the fan-base due to essentials helped throw 4E into the backseat as it were. And, like you said, marketing sucked as well as their consistency with internal IP like the Forgotten Realems (which would've been WAY better if they actually took the time to build it up after the Spellplague instead of dropping the bomb and walking away).

Anyways, to get back to monsters, I don't feel D&D:Next will go 4E's route of making LOTS of different named monsters to extend the IP. I think the game is modular enough AND simple enough that people don't HAVE to tinker with every single thing to get a monster's schtick to work (such as my Orc Javelin example).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ummm... javelins? You do realize that an interesting monster SHOULD be able to do more than one single shtick? Take your lvl 3 orc javelin thrower (not to be confused with the lvl 6 orc javelin hurler, the lvl 9 orc javelin flinger, the lvl 12 orc javelin deadeye or the lvl 15 orc javelin sharpshooter). It has some stats, a regular attack, and one or two special attacks that it can use whenever they happen to recharge. Put it in a situation where it's following the heroes into the dungeon, and trying to get them to walk into a trap it knows about (the lvl 14 devious orc trap triggerer was busy). What will it do? Why, THROW JAVELINS, of course (as long as it has properly recharged)! The 5th level orc chieftain you were talking about earlier, though, will have the data necessary to handle those situations.

I also seriously question the idea that "I need to throw entire encounters at the PCs without prep time" should be a major measurement of quality. Certainly, if you have a CR and a theme in PF/3.5, you should be able to find a monster or two that could work if you really needed to. If you knew you would need this, you could simply plan up the randomish encounter beforehand for the more fancy stuff. But the 4th concept of "we need more random fights here" is, again, a concession to video game style of adventuring.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
:roll eyes: and of course I don't really take anyone seriously with claims like that. It's as fallow and lame as when people complained that the 3.5 Warlock was "SO BROKEN!!" because it had at-will magic. At those points, you just gotta shake your head and laugh.

Well, that kind of makes any conversation with you aimless, but I'll just make one parting shot:

Diffan wrote:
h4te killed 4E

I can give you links to dozens of posts here, at EnWorld and elsewhere which ridiculed Pathfinder ca. its launch and expressed their sincere hope that it's going to die in flames days after release. There were even people who hoped that Paizo will go bankrupt and whatever remains of it will be picked up by an actually serious company such as Necromancer Games and used to produce outstanding 4E stuff.(Which is delightfully ironic given what ultimately happened when Necro dabbled in 4E).

Sorry. I know that 4E fans like to think that it's haters and trolls that killed that outstanding gem of modern game design and marketing, but haters plague every game (just ask the WoD and WFRP people about what happens when new editions of their games come out), and they never bring it down by themselves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Might wanna tone it back on the edition warring. Would hate to get this thing locked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I was just saying I doubt the naming convention of 4th is going away in Next, and that is one thing that will put me off on buying Next. *shrugs*


Sissyl wrote:
Ummm... javelins? You do realize that an interesting monster SHOULD be able to do more than one single shtick? Take your lvl 3 orc javelin thrower (not to be confused with the lvl 6 orc javelin hurler, the lvl 9 orc javelin flinger, the lvl 12 orc javelin deadeye or the lvl 15 orc javelin sharpshooter). It has some stats, a regular attack, and one or two special attacks that it can use whenever they happen to recharge. Put it in a situation where it's following the heroes into the dungeon, and trying to get them to walk into a trap it knows about (the lvl 14 devious orc trap triggerer was busy). What will it do? Why, THROW JAVELINS, of course (as long as it has properly recharged)! The 5th level orc chieftain you were talking about earlier, though, will have the data necessary to handle those situations.

Or it could do a number of standard actions that anyone can do like Bull Rush. Though none of this really illustrates your point of having a dozen different named monsters or why that's an actual problem. As for the different names, the reason for that is quite simple and you listed it already, different levels of difficulty and to remove confusions for the DM. Further, it is just meta-game knowledge as I said before, no one screamss "Watch out for the Orc Javelin Flinger!!" THey say "watch out for the Orc with the Javelin". The level and name only have mechanical bearing on the mechanics side just for the DM to differentiate uses and proficiency. I still fail to see why that's bad, mechanically speaking?

Sissyl wrote:
I also seriously question the idea that "I need to throw entire encounters at the PCs without prep time" should be a major measurement of quality. Certainly, if you have a CR and a theme in PF/3.5, you should be able to find a monster or two that could work if you really needed to. If you knew you would need this, you could simply plan up the randomish encounter beforehand for the more fancy stuff. But the 4th concept of "we need more random fights here" is, again, a concession to video game style of adventuring.

Really? So you've never used Random Encounter tables ever in your D&D experiences? I mean, they're pretty prevalent in nearly every single edition of the game. It also speaks FAR more to the Sand-box style of gaming than it does to the video game genre you like to casually refer to. And, further, it's a lot hard to level up/down a monster when I play v3.5 or Pathfinder and thus I have to re-write or change a significant aspect of the monster to keep it relevant to the PCs. Using the Orcs, If I wanted to throw my PCs into an Orc-based adventure would it be easier to 1) write up orcs that fit the flavor that I want OR 2) have a variety of orcs of intermingling levels and features already done so I can devote more time to other aspects of the adventure?

This is actually where my use of reflavoring started, in 3E when monsters started to lose their value due to level and instead of re-writing new ones or taking the painstaking task of leveling them up, I'd start to use other monsters of comparable level and just say "here's an Orc with a LARGE weapon and raging" instead of Flesh Golem stats. It worked in a pinch, however it wasn't nearly perfect.


Gorbacz wrote:
Diffan wrote:
:roll eyes: and of course I don't really take anyone seriously with claims like that. It's as fallow and lame as when people complained that the 3.5 Warlock was "SO BROKEN!!" because it had at-will magic. At those points, you just gotta shake your head and laugh.

Well, that kind of makes any conversation with you aimless, but I'll just make one parting shot:

Ok? I find myself shaking my head at most people who emphasize their opinion as fact (in this case, the video game analogy to 4E or to the supposed OP Warlock of 3E or even the brokeness of the Tome of Battle) in regards to D&D. I find most claims to be extreme exaggerations often based on regurgitated material and with nearly zero amount of personal experience.

Gorbacz wrote:
Diffan wrote:
h4te killed 4E

I can give you links to dozens of posts here, at EnWorld and elsewhere which ridiculed Pathfinder ca. its launch and expressed their sincere hope that it's going to die in flames days after release. There were even people who hoped that Paizo will go bankrupt and whatever remains of it will be picked up by an actually serious company such as Necromancer Games and used to produce outstanding 4E stuff.(Which is delightfully ironic given what ultimately happened when Necro dabbled in 4E).

Sorry. I know that 4E fans like to think that it's haters and trolls that killed that outstanding gem of modern game design and marketing, but haters plague every game (just ask the WoD and WFRP people about what happens when new editions of their games come out), and they never bring it down by themselves.

Fair enough, I probably should have stated that h4te helped kill 4E. I admit it wasn't the sole reason. I admit that there were things they did wrong. I admit that the system was a vast departure from what came before and that had an impact on the outlook for a lot of people. 4E certainly isn't without it's faults, glaring sometimes. No system is perfect. However I think it's disingenuous to say that the hate 4E received is on par or equal to any other system. I feel it was significantly more so than nearly any single edition received.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Diffan you do realize you are in the home of the best so to speak? The nice safe bubble the mods at the WoTC board like to project around 4E do not exist here.

People will directly tell you what they do not like about 4E and you will not have a chorus of the usual suspects making up every excuse under the sun when here it is a fundamental dislike of the 4E rules system that drove us away form 4E in the 1st place. My PFRPG PDF still has the 2009 watermark on it.

I kind of prefer OSR games these days but Paizo kept the bed warm so top speak and Golarion filled a hole after they blew up the realms. I had fun porting Red Manrtis Assassin to Castles and Crusades anyway.

Another edition another boycott maybe if we sink 2 in a row WoTC will get the message.I'll buy the start box and see if my players want to try the adventure a lot of big ifs beyond that as I do not see heavy D&DN purchases unless they do a stellar jopb somehow. Modular= big whoop I have 2nd ed for that and I do not have to mod out martial healing to play it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Zardnaar: These boards are not the place for edition warring either. Still, 4th edition is certainly not immune to having the stuff that doesn't work criticized.

Scarab Sages

I've played the play tests for the last few years and the larger event at gencon last year. I'm registered for some at this Gencon.

I haven't been impressed.

I did like the advantage and disadvantage mechanisms with extra dice as well as the skill focus extra dice. I also liked the way AC seemed to only move slightly higher with level however I can forsee a very boring fighter path sequence.

I think in NEXT, everyone will want to play casters; the GM has far more latitude in spell effects and grey areas to allow magic the center of attention.

Where 4th Ed was heavily mechanics based, NEXT is the exact opposite. I cannot see this version working in a living campaign style, the rules are simply too loose and rely on the story telling aspects to run the game. There will be a ton of table variation. One of the table's GMs at last year's Gencon recommended not using minis....as they take away the imagination.

451 to 500 of 1,528 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.