I might pick up Next if I like it, although I'm having fun with Pathfinder and certain OSR games, so I don't think that I'm going to "abandon" any RPGs by picking up a new one.
"Well, it's only the rules that have changed."
Pretty much. Not a common perspective, but I'm happy with it. :)
I still wish there was a clearer indication of whether an edition breaks compatibility or not, as many other RPGs manage iterative editions without doing so.
Yeah, a correlation of my "who cares about the rules" attitude is a certain frustration at continual tinkering with them. The abrupt change from 3.5 to 4 after the relatively moderate change from 3 to 3.5 clearly caught many flatfooted - WotC should have been clearer they were using a logarithmic scale.
|
No, I won't be switching; I might take a look at the free online rules, but I'm pretty happy with Pathfinder. Besides, it looks like Next is neither as modular as promised nor "complex" enough for my group (and I hate "tinkering" with systems). The core system may be simple and fast to DM, and therefore more beginner-friendly than PF, but that's not what I'm looking for in RPGs.Considering the newest sets of info coming from Origins, it's likely that D&D:Next will have a LOT of modularity coming down the line. From conversion guides, THAC0 adjustments / uses, different healing levels and how rest is probably treated, to a wide approach to sub-classes and customization (because multiclass is level-by-level like in 3e) it's likely to be just as modular as 3.5 and probably a lot more than 4E.
As for complexity, I just don't think it's honestly fair to compare Next's unreleased rules yet with the VAST amount of info and material that any edition of D&D (Pathfinder included) has produced. From what I've read, we're getting 12 classes into the PHB (Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Mage, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, & Warlock) along with multiple build options for each. Further, I believe they said the usual races will make it (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling) plus others like the Half-orc, Gnome, Tiefling, and Dragonborn. Then there will be Feats and other sub-systems that help differentiate your characters from one another.
Will all of this equal to Pathfinder's system? No, probably not. But give it time and, knowing WotC, we'll see many supplements over the next two years that probably rival PF in the amount of customization allowed.
Ugh, I hated THAC0 back in the day... why would anyone want to use that mechanic, except perhaps for the sake of nostalgia? And this is exactly the kind of tinkering I hate; not really modules but disparate variant mechanics that don't even necessarily mesh together well. If "modularity" in Next is equivalent to picking your favorite houserules from a bunch of rulebooks, it's not worth my time or money. Consider how "modularity" works in PF -- for example, variant channeling, archetypes or even the Mythic rules. I could play a core fighter alongside a black blade magus or a warpriest that uses subdomains and has Mythic Ranks. Now, they might be a bit asymmetrical in how powerful they are, but most of the time you couldn't even tell they're using different modules/subsystems. However, Next apparently has d100 wild surge tables for core classes and whatnot; and if one of the PCs uses THAC0 and the rest don't, you'll notice that immediately. YMMV, of course.
Now, as far as "complexity" goes, I don't mean just customization/options; I'm talking about how the core/basic math in the game works (i.e. "bounded accuracy" and all that it entails). I also don't like the return to 'Your Strength is now 19, except if it's already higher'-type of magic items we had in AD&D (and apparently now in Next, too). Honestly, there are very few things I like in what I've seen of Next so far, and I don't see any point in buying the books.
Again, YMMV and all that. ;)
Yes, it does
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given all the money I've invested into collecting the Pathfinder books, my wallet says we'll be staying with PF..
Ugh, I hated THAC0 back in the day... why would anyone want to use that mechanic, except perhaps for the sake of nostalgia?No, I won't be switching; I might take a look at the free online rules, but I'm pretty happy with Pathfinder. Besides, it looks like Next is neither as modular as promised nor "complex" enough for my group (and I hate "tinkering" with systems). The core system may be simple and fast to DM, and therefore more beginner-friendly than PF, but that's not what I'm looking for in RPGs.Considering the newest sets of info coming from Origins, it's likely that D&D:Next will have a LOT of modularity coming down the line. From conversion guides, THAC0 adjustments / uses, different healing levels and how rest is probably treated, to a wide approach to sub-classes and customization (because multiclass is level-by-level like in 3e) it's likely to be just as modular as 3.5 and probably a lot more than 4E.
As for complexity, I just don't think it's honestly fair to compare Next's unreleased rules yet with the VAST amount of info and material that any edition of D&D (Pathfinder included) has produced. From what I've read, we're getting 12 classes into the PHB (Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Mage, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, & Warlock) along with multiple build options for each. Further, I believe they said the usual races will make it (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling) plus others like the Half-orc, Gnome, Tiefling, and Dragonborn. Then there will be Feats and other sub-systems that help differentiate your characters from one another.
Will all of this equal to Pathfinder's system? No, probably not. But give it time and, knowing WotC, we'll see many supplements over the next two years that probably rival PF in the amount of customization allowed.
Beats me? I hated THAC0 too but I'm not going to begrudge people who did like it. It probably IS in there for nostalgia's sake and for easier reference on converting older material. Different strokes and all that..
And this is exactly the kind of tinkering I hate; not really modules but disparate variant mechanics that don't even necessarily mesh together well. If "modularity" in Next is equivalent to picking your favorite houserules from a bunch of rulebooks, it's not worth my time or money. Consider how "modularity" works in PF -- for example, variant channeling, archetypes or even the Mythic rules. I could play a core fighter alongside a black blade magus or a warpriest that uses subdomains and has Mythic Ranks. Now, they might be a bit asymmetrical in how powerful they are, but most of the time you couldn't even tell they're using different modules/subsystems.
Well yeah, that's exactly what D&D:Next is trying to accomplish. Take the starter set's pre-generate Fighter character. You could play him right alongside someone who created their character right from the Player's Handbook with feats and Maneuvers. No problems at all. AND you'll probably have a closer balance than what's available in Pathfinder. The system is designed for that sort of customization. One character uses feats where one doesn't, no problem. Another character uses the multiclass rules and the others don't, no big deal.
However, Next apparently has d100 wild surge tables for core classes and whatnot; and if one of the PCs uses THAC0 and the rest don't, you'll notice that immediately. YMMV, of course.
Wild Surge table is for one specific sub-path of the Sorcerer and they'll probably have a Dragon-blood Sorcerer too. Not seeing the big deal with this? However I believe your mistaken with players using different Armor systems. Either the group/DM decides that everyone is using THAC0 or no one is. Same thing with the different healing rates they talked about.
Now, as far as "complexity" goes, I don't mean just customization/options; I'm talking about how the core/basic math in the game works (i.e. "bounded accuracy" and all that it entails). I also don't like the return to 'Your Strength is now 19, except if it's already higher'-type of magic items we had in AD&D (and apparently now in Next, too). Honestly, there are very few things I like in what I've seen of Next so far, and I don't see any point in buying the books.
Again, YMMV and all that. ;)
At first I agree with you that I hated the "set Strength to 19" aspect of the Gauntlets but then I started thinking about it and it made more sense. Take the Wizard with Strength of 10, put the gauntlets on him. In PF/v3.5 he now has a Strength 12.....so he doesn't have Ogre Strength, he has slightly less wimpy Strength. It definitely created a disconnect with me when viewed in that light.
As for bounded accuracy, I think it's about time someone put a cap on the ridiculousness that were the bonuses and modifiers we saw in the last two editions. Even as a staunch 4E fan I felt the numbers bloat in 4E and in 3E/PF were just completely unnecessary. There's NO need for +29 to hit, 148 damage per turn. No need what-so-ever. Not to mention the crazy AC values one could reach. My 13th level character (v3.5) has an AC of 29. I'm nearly untouchable (95% chance miss) by a good portion of the monsters in the Monster Manual. I don't think that's a good thing. I want monsters to be a possible threat and have greater versatility than what we've seen. Bounded Accuracy is supposed to address that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There won't be many GOOP in a game hopefully.....by 5th everyone in PF has stat item+2...... ok, many, pc's do.......I am so looking forward to the magic coming back to the game by 'less magic' !!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given all the money I've invested into collecting the Pathfinder books, my wallet says we'll be staying with PF..
also this, except replace wallet with wife:)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although I think your position is more common, the "edition" thing doesnt bug me so much, but I suspect it's because I dont pay much attention to mechanics. The reason AD&D, 2E, 3.5 and 4E are all editions of the same game in my mind is that the flavor is relatively constant. The mechanics are basically just different ways of expressing that underlying flavor, in my view. Hence any changes are a relatively trivial thing.
In contrast, Pathfinder doesnt feel like D&D to me because it has its own flavor (monsters/campaign settings/etcetera).
Doesn't feel like D&D? It's 3.5 with new classes and Jason's houserules. As in, it's pretty much the exact same game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Might be a quirk of my group but we find a system fits each genre for us. So when we pick a fantasy system that's the system we use when playing fantasy.Kinda related - It'd be nice if the RPG industry could settle on a standard for naming game systems. "Edition" still feels misused to me when applied to D&D, because 3e and 4e were new systems, as opposed to 2e that felt more like an evolution of 1e. Bottom line, 3e was a new game, so was 4e, and neither were really a new edition of the previous incarnation. 3.5e I'll quite happily accept as a newer edition of 3e.
It feels kinda dishonest to market something as a new edition when that usually implies it's been revised and corrected rather than thrown out in favor of a complete redesign. I don't mind trying out a new game, but please don't try to sell it to me as being an newer version of the one I'm already playing. That's like telling me Linux is a new edition of Windows, they may be somewhat similar in concept but they're not exactly compatible out of the box.
I was very casual at the time and dont rememeber the 2E-3E change over marketing. I was a hardcore player though during the 3E-4E and remember that changeover. It didnt bother me but I do think "the game remains the same" video was a big mistake. It does seem to imply that 4E was a revision or update. There was lots of dicussion online about the development of 4E. It really shouldnt have been a surprise that they were making some big changes to D&D. Also, you could have thumbed a copy of the PHB before buying.
To be fair I think WOTC is trying to get away from the word edition. The first breaking stories about 5E all used iteration instead. People have been trained to think each new iteration is an edition. So they instantly started referring to D&D:next as 5E. Old habits die hard. Cant really blame them for something that was decided decades ago. It's also not like gamers are begging for edition to be dropped either. You have to admit its an easy way to differentiate iterations without having to re-name each one.
There WAS no real ad campaign for 3rd like there was for 4th, as far as I remember it. There was Dragon Magazine, which ran a series of articles the months before.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also feeling less love for Pathfinder as well. Too many flavorful and fluff options. Not enough rules or crunch.
*KERTHUNK!*
In case anyone is wondering, that was the sound of my jaw hitting the ground in disbelief.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are truly blessed in the jaw department.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
WotC said they are just calling it "D&D" not "D&D Next" or "D&D 5th Edition". Just D&D. I will always be referring to it as 5th edition.
The more I read this thread, and looking back at the last packet, the more curious I become. I wrote it off during the playtest because the monsters in the Monster pdf made me go WTF. It still does (what denotes a creature as a monstrosity? Why is this creature a monstrosity when this other one isn't?), but my problems with that portion may be taken care of with the actual Monster Manual book.
I need to look over the classes more, to see if I like what they do with them compared to what Pathfinder had done (the bloodlines for sorcerers and the rage powers for barbarians and such are the biggest factors as to why I really enjoy the Pathfinder classes).
Playing a simpler game without a buttload of various modifiers to everything does sound appealing.
Doesn't feel like D&D? It's 3.5 with new classes and Jason's houserules. As in, it's pretty much the exact same game.Although I think your position is more common, the "edition" thing doesnt bug me so much, but I suspect it's because I dont pay much attention to mechanics. The reason AD&D, 2E, 3.5 and 4E are all editions of the same game in my mind is that the flavor is relatively constant. The mechanics are basically just different ways of expressing that underlying flavor, in my view. Hence any changes are a relatively trivial thing.
In contrast, Pathfinder doesnt feel like D&D to me because it has its own flavor (monsters/campaign settings/etcetera).
Yeah, what i meant is that the mechanics of an RPG are a small part of what I get out of it and not very relevant to what I identify as "the game". The flavour differences are the significant determinant for me.
No mind flayers, golarion instead of realms, guns and increased scifi/pulp stuff in general, cthulhuness all over the place. All that is what I actually focus on - which rules I happen to use is pretty unimportant to my experience. Those things make pathfinder feel like a different game to me.
To be fair I think WOTC is trying to get away from the word edition. The first breaking stories about 5E all used iteration instead. People have been trained to think each new iteration is an edition. So they instantly started referring to D&D:next as 5E. Old habits die hard. Cant really blame them for something that was decided decades ago. It's also not like gamers are begging for edition to be dropped...
Maybe because I wasn't gaming during the more incremental pre-WotC edition changeovers, or maybe just because I have low standards for terminology, the word 'edition' doesn't bother me either, and I pretty much expect each one to be a notable change from the last.
For the sake of discussion though, I'd be interested in possibly more appropriate terms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't feel like D&D? It's 3.5 with new classes and Jason's houserules. As in, it's pretty much the exact same game.Although I think your position is more common, the "edition" thing doesnt bug me so much, but I suspect it's because I dont pay much attention to mechanics. The reason AD&D, 2E, 3.5 and 4E are all editions of the same game in my mind is that the flavor is relatively constant. The mechanics are basically just different ways of expressing that underlying flavor, in my view. Hence any changes are a relatively trivial thing.
In contrast, Pathfinder doesnt feel like D&D to me because it has its own flavor (monsters/campaign settings/etcetera).
Yeah, what i meant is that the mechanics of an RPG are a small part of what I get out of it and not very relevant to what I identify as "the game". The flavour differences are the significant determinant for me.
No mind flayers, golarion instead of realms, guns and increased scifi/pulp stuff in general, cthulhuness all over the place. All that is what I actually focus on - which rules I happen to use is pretty unimportant to my experience. Those things make pathfinder feel like a different game to me.
all of these things you mention, guns, sci-fi, pulp, and cthulhuness all existed in previous editions and settings they were just hidden more but they are there:)
Played a little bit more recently. I liked it, seems like a good game.
If a group I played with switched to it, but for me the game to beat is 13th Age, and I prefer that still. The fluff aspects of characters is just easier to customize and more open ended.
As for PF vs Next, I think Next benefits from essentially being 5 years newer. PF is very much based on roleplaying "technology" from 2000, but a lot of ideas and concepts have come around since then. Paizo has done a good job of updating and tweaking it, but under the hood it's basically still 3.0. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I personally have come to embrace a lot of these new ideas and concepts, so I like my games to incorporate them too. Next doesn't wholeheartedly embrace them, but it felt ever so slightly closer than PF.
If "edition" is no good... how about "release"? Or "version"?
Oh, as far as Sci-Fi in D&D...
The cat may already be out of the bag. And written by the guy who invented the game. 34 years ago. It doesn't just have guns, it has blaster rifles.
the realms have always had guns, go to any church of gond they'll hook you up, also the isle in the ocean with tinkler gnomes. gun rules have always been a part of dnd since the start:)
all of these things you mention, guns, sci-fi, pulp, and cthulhuness all existed in previous editions and settings they were just hidden more but they are there:)Doesn't feel like D&D? It's 3.5 with new classes and Jason's houserules. As in, it's pretty much the exact same game.Although I think your position is more common, the "edition" thing doesnt bug me so much, but I suspect it's because I dont pay much attention to mechanics. The reason AD&D, 2E, 3.5 and 4E are all editions of the same game in my mind is that the flavor is relatively constant. The mechanics are basically just different ways of expressing that underlying flavor, in my view. Hence any changes are a relatively trivial thing.
In contrast, Pathfinder doesnt feel like D&D to me because it has its own flavor (monsters/campaign settings/etcetera).
Yeah, what i meant is that the mechanics of an RPG are a small part of what I get out of it and not very relevant to what I identify as "the game". The flavour differences are the significant determinant for me.
No mind flayers, golarion instead of realms, guns and increased scifi/pulp stuff in general, cthulhuness all over the place. All that is what I actually focus on - which rules I happen to use is pretty unimportant to my experience. Those things make pathfinder feel like a different game to me.
I think some of us are edging a little too close to 'judgmental' here -- what is and isn't D&D is fairly subjective after all.
That said, all the motifs that Steve mentions have always seemed to be well within the bounds of the pastiche that is D&D. Maybe PF has more Cthulhu-type monsters, for example, but D&D has quite a few of its own -- mind flayers, beholders...and pretty much all aberrations and quite a few outsiders as well.
Oh, as far as Sci-Fi in D&D...
The cat may already be out of the bag. And written by the guy who invented the game. 34 years ago. It doesn't just have guns, it has blaster rifles.
True, but it was a single module and had essentially no effect on the campaign world. There weren't classes based on it. There wasn't an entire country built up around it. (Golarion really has two: Alkenstar for guns and Numeria for crashed space ship tech.)
So, it's always been there, but PF/Golarion does handle it differently. Brings it more to the foreground.
Though you can still ignore most of it, of course. Ban the gunslinger and guns. Possibly the alchemist. Don't use Golarion or keep the game away from those countries and just pretend they don't exist. But it's more work than avoiding guns in the realms, for example.
But you can't argue that such things have NO place in D&D. You know, since the guy who created wrote the module. I mean, you can argue with me about what does and does not belong in D&D, but Gygax wrote that. Straight from the horse's mouth and all that.
Sure, things have fluctuating levels of prominence, but the concepts aren't new. They are in fact canon.
|
|
Played a little bit more recently. I liked it, seems like a good game.
If a group I played with switched to it, but for me the game to beat is 13th Age, and I prefer that still. The fluff aspects of characters is just easier to customize and more open ended.
As for PF vs Next, I think Next benefits from essentially being 5 years newer. PF is very much based on roleplaying "technology" from 2000, but a lot of ideas and concepts have come around since then. Paizo has done a good job of updating and tweaking it, but under the hood it's basically still 3.0. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I personally have come to embrace a lot of these new ideas and concepts, so I like my games to incorporate them too. Next doesn't wholeheartedly embrace them, but it felt ever so slightly closer than PF.
Yeah I tend to prefer the antiquated old school ways myself. After 4E launched I felt like it was my turn to be one of those Grogs that stays behind while the world moves on. Paizo was in a unique position to sell me exactly what I needed; adventure material. Now I can continue running a system that fits like an old pair of kicks and get support for it to boot.
I am curious to see if 5E will be as modable as I hope. You dont always have the luxury of having completely matching playstyle preferences at the table. Will Next be able to big tent the fanbase? I am really interested in a modable D&D but my worry is that 5E doesnt have enough draw for any significant factions to switch their default system to 5E.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the realms have always had guns, go to any church of gond they'll hook you up, also the isle in the ocean with tinkler gnomes. gun rules have always been a part of dnd since the start:)And there were character classes built around guns? They appeared semi-regularly in modules? Anything like the prominence they have in PF?
Of course there wasn't a class built around guns. They're just weapons. If you wanted your Roland or Man With No Name clone, you just took a gun proficiency and used your imagination. No one had to do your imagining for you.
the realms have always had guns, go to any church of gond they'll hook you up, also the isle in the ocean with tinkler gnomes. gun rules have always been a part of dnd since the start:)And there were character classes built around guns? They appeared semi-regularly in modules? Anything like the prominence they have in PF?
I'm not sure about prominence but if you went by the character generation tools from the Player's Guide to Faerûn (v3.5) and chose the Sword Coast as your background you could get a pistol and a bag with 10 shots and powder as starting equipment. I'm sure a Rogue, Scout, Ranger, Ninja, etc. could put that to good use.
Further there have been several elements of "gunns" talked about in the Forgotten Realms, dating back prior TSR-era things.
|
|
the realms have always had guns, go to any church of gond they'll hook you up, also the isle in the ocean with tinkler gnomes. gun rules have always been a part of dnd since the start:)And there were character classes built around guns? They appeared semi-regularly in modules? Anything like the prominence they have in PF?I'm not sure about prominence but if you went by the character generation tools from the Player's Guide to Faerûn (v3.5) and chose the Sword Coast as your background you could get a pistol and a bag with 10 shots and powder as starting equipment. I'm sure a Rogue, Scout, Ranger, Ninja, etc. could put that to good use.
Further there have been several elements of "gunns" talked about in the Forgotten Realms, dating back prior TSR-era things.
Oh, but they didn't make a whole CLASS built around it. So it's more important now. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, but they didn't make a whole CLASS built around it. So it's more important now. ;-)the realms have always had guns, go to any church of gond they'll hook you up, also the isle in the ocean with tinkler gnomes. gun rules have always been a part of dnd since the start:)And there were character classes built around guns? They appeared semi-regularly in modules? Anything like the prominence they have in PF?I'm not sure about prominence but if you went by the character generation tools from the Player's Guide to Faerûn (v3.5) and chose the Sword Coast as your background you could get a pistol and a bag with 10 shots and powder as starting equipment. I'm sure a Rogue, Scout, Ranger, Ninja, etc. could put that to good use.
Further there have been several elements of "gunns" talked about in the Forgotten Realms, dating back prior TSR-era things.
haha, so does that mean cave exploring isn't important or under utilized because we don't have a spelunking class?
|
|
In case anyone is wondering, that was the sound of my jaw hitting the ground in disbelief.
Getsd forklift steruggles to lifts jaw up. Yes I know Pathfinder has rules and crunch. Lately imo more and more options focus more on flavor and fluff and less on rules and crunch. Some options that when you read through them are just not worth taking. Craft Ooze is a good example imo
haha, so does that mean cave exploring isn't important or under utilized because we don't have a spelunking class?Oh, but they didn't make a whole CLASS built around it. So it's more important now. ;-)the realms have always had guns, go to any church of gond they'll hook you up, also the isle in the ocean with tinkler gnomes. gun rules have always been a part of dnd since the start:)And there were character classes built around guns? They appeared semi-regularly in modules? Anything like the prominence they have in PF?I'm not sure about prominence but if you went by the character generation tools from the Player's Guide to Faerûn (v3.5) and chose the Sword Coast as your background you could get a pistol and a bag with 10 shots and powder as starting equipment. I'm sure a Rogue, Scout, Ranger, Ninja, etc. could put that to good use.
Further there have been several elements of "gunns" talked about in the Forgotten Realms, dating back prior TSR-era things.
isn't that the Rogue?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
isn't that the Rogue?haha, so does that mean cave exploring isn't important or under utilized because we don't have a spelunking class?Oh, but they didn't make a whole CLASS built around it. So it's more important now. ;-)the realms have always had guns, go to any church of gond they'll hook you up, also the isle in the ocean with tinkler gnomes. gun rules have always been a part of dnd since the start:)And there were character classes built around guns? They appeared semi-regularly in modules? Anything like the prominence they have in PF?I'm not sure about prominence but if you went by the character generation tools from the Player's Guide to Faerûn (v3.5) and chose the Sword Coast as your background you could get a pistol and a bag with 10 shots and powder as starting equipment. I'm sure a Rogue, Scout, Ranger, Ninja, etc. could put that to good use.
Further there have been several elements of "gunns" talked about in the Forgotten Realms, dating back prior TSR-era things.
No way! He has some skills, sure, so he could pass for an amateur but no one is faster than a Spelunker down a cave wall! No one can navigate the treacherous descent into darkness or gets +5 to their Climb check as a class feature! No, the Spelunker is the ultimate class when it comes to cave diving and exploring. But don't expect him to fight or have any useful skills outside of caves, he's terrible at that. :-P
well my gazillion halfling rogues i've made over the years would disagree with you;)
IIRC, the specialty priests of Gond had some truck with smokepowder weapons.
|
|
haha, so does that mean cave exploring isn't important or under utilized because we don't have a spelunking class?Oh, but they didn't make a whole CLASS built around it. So it's more important now. ;-)the realms have always had guns, go to any church of gond they'll hook you up, also the isle in the ocean with tinkler gnomes. gun rules have always been a part of dnd since the start:)And there were character classes built around guns? They appeared semi-regularly in modules? Anything like the prominence they have in PF?I'm not sure about prominence but if you went by the character generation tools from the Player's Guide to Faerûn (v3.5) and chose the Sword Coast as your background you could get a pistol and a bag with 10 shots and powder as starting equipment. I'm sure a Rogue, Scout, Ranger, Ninja, etc. could put that to good use.
Further there have been several elements of "gunns" talked about in the Forgotten Realms, dating back prior TSR-era things.
Oh good lord, I give up.
You're all right. Each and every edition of D&D, from the Chainmail days right up through 4E and PF has had exactly the same emphasis on both guns and sci-fi elements. Regardless of whether there were actually any mechanics printed or how many pages were devoted to it. There are no perceptible differences in how much focus was on those elements.
D&D Next will be the same way, even before it's released, it already includes just as many sci-fi elements as any other version.
All the published settings (and even any imaginable unpublished ones) treat them the same way as well.
Or, maybe, Golarion is just a kitchen sink world designed to cram as much stuff into it as possible. There isn't any focus to speak of, really. They just threw in all kinds of stuff for everyone. No real rhyme or reason, just everything under the sun.
|
|
Of course there wasn't a class built around guns. They're just weapons. If you wanted your Roland or Man With No Name clone, you just took a gun proficiency and used your imagination. No one had to do your imagining for you.the realms have always had guns, go to any church of gond they'll hook you up, also the isle in the ocean with tinkler gnomes. gun rules have always been a part of dnd since the start:)And there were character classes built around guns? They appeared semi-regularly in modules? Anything like the prominence they have in PF?In 3.5? 3.5 had a class for everything. :)
Or in 1E, you begged your DM for permission, since there weren't any firearms rules in the PHB and as a player, you weren't supposed to be looking at the DMG.
It's a stupid argument. If someone doesn't like PF because of the guns/SF/Cthulhu/pulpiness of it, I think that's kind of a stupid reason, since it's easy enough to strip all that out for your game. But saying "No, you're wrong. All that stuff has always been part of D&D, so Golarion really does feel like D&D to you" or whatever the argument is supposed to be here, isn't going to convince anyone.
Other than the classes, level and race restrictions, and spell descriptions, there weren't any rules in the PHB. All of the combat rules, spell casting rules, etc, were in the DMG.
Probably not. The sheer amount of 3.0, 3.5, and d20 OGL material I have, not counting 3rd party sources for Pathfinder or the core books themselves, lessens any desire for me to drop another 2000$ or more on gaming supplies. Also, I have no interest in purchasing the starter edition, then the PHB, the DMG, and then the Monster Manual AGAIN. The Pathfinder Bestiary did a nice job in reimagining many core monsters, especially goblins, ogres, drow, etc. The alternate magic systems such as Tome of Battle, Psionics, Pact Magic, and Incarnum have received excellent Pathfinder conversions from Dreamscarred Press, so unless I see more options then wizard, fighter, etc, no real need.
As for sci-fi or guns/magictek/steampunk/giant space hamsters/starships/angry lawn gnomes riding feral foxes, that's up to the GM and players to decide on. It requires very little effort to strip those out of most games, or replace gun mechanics with using crossbows/regular bows. Clockwork bows, especially revolver crossbow feeds or clip fed rapid fire ballista, are based on invention. So are mechs.
|
|
Other than the classes, level and race restrictions, and spell descriptions, there weren't any rules in the PHB. All of the combat rules, spell casting rules, etc, were in the DMG.And you know, things like equipment. You could buy a sword. There is was, listed in the table of weapons. No guns there. :)
Not of course, that guns weren't a part of the game then. Definitely a valid option for players to choose. Just like power armor, blaster rifles and androids.
Funny, I don't see any of that in the Core Rulebook for Pathfinder. Unless you have some secret edition I'm unaware of.
all of these things you mention, guns, sci-fi, pulp, and cthulhuness all existed in previous editions and settings they were just hidden more but they are there:)Doesn't feel like D&D? It's 3.5 with new classes and Jason's houserules. As in, it's pretty much the exact same game.Although I think your position is more common, the "edition" thing doesnt bug me so much, but I suspect it's because I dont pay much attention to mechanics. The reason AD&D, 2E, 3.5 and 4E are all editions of the same game in my mind is that the flavor is relatively constant. The mechanics are basically just different ways of expressing that underlying flavor, in my view. Hence any changes are a relatively trivial thing.
In contrast, Pathfinder doesnt feel like D&D to me because it has its own flavor (monsters/campaign settings/etcetera).
Yeah, what i meant is that the mechanics of an RPG are a small part of what I get out of it and not very relevant to what I identify as "the game". The flavour differences are the significant determinant for me.
No mind flayers, golarion instead of realms, guns and increased scifi/pulp stuff in general, cthulhuness all over the place. All that is what I actually focus on - which rules I happen to use is pretty unimportant to my experience. Those things make pathfinder feel like a different game to me.
I know, but not in our games. I find them harder to ignore in pathfinder. As you say, they're more in the foreground.
I'm not trying to define what constitutes D&D on any objective level (objectively, I think the only measure is the name written on the box). I was just offering Matt another perspective (or idly chatting, really).
Doesn't feel like D&D? It's 3.5 with new classes and Jason's houserules. As in, it's pretty much the exact same game.Although I think your position is more common, the "edition" thing doesnt bug me so much, but I suspect it's because I dont pay much attention to mechanics. The reason AD&D, 2E, 3.5 and 4E are all editions of the same game in my mind is that the flavor is relatively constant. The mechanics are basically just different ways of expressing that underlying flavor, in my view. Hence any changes are a relatively trivial thing.
In contrast, Pathfinder doesnt feel like D&D to me because it has its own flavor (monsters/campaign settings/etcetera).
Yeah, what i meant is that the mechanics of an RPG are a small part of what I get out of it and not very relevant to what I identify as "the game". The flavour differences are the significant determinant for me.
No mind flayers, golarion instead of realms, guns and increased scifi/pulp stuff in general, cthulhuness all over the place. All that is what I actually focus on - which rules I happen to use is pretty unimportant to my experience. Those things make pathfinder feel like a different game to me.
On the flip side, that sounds weird to me. Would you say that playing in Eberron using 3.5 rules would be less like D&D than playing in Forgotten Realms with PF? Or Spelljammer with 2E rules?
Cause I'd say that Eberron and Spelljammer are both farther away from classic fantasy tradition than Golarion is, but both were actually D&D.
Yeah, spelljammer and eberron didn't feel like D&D to me either.
If I used pathfinder rules to run a realms campaign I suspect it would feel like another edition of D&D. I ran Serpent's Skull using goodman games' DCC and it felt like a quirky edition of pathfinder.
To me, the flavour and story lines are the game. The rules are pretty unimportant. As such, the "edition" terminology hasn't really bothered me whether the change was small or massive. That was the only point - a comment on subjective experience and how that might impact on people's acceptance of the term.
I wish I'd used Gamma World as the example, since nobody cares about that so much and the point wouldn't have been lost or taken to be definitional. I find all editions of Gamma World to be different editions of the same game - the flavour is consistent even though the rules change a fair bit. The way I experience RPGs has very little to do with the rule set.