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


4th Edition

751 to 800 of 1,528 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

HangarFlying wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:


So to me, this is just a better starting point to get a 1st/2nd ed feel with some easy mods, while having a game that is actively supported. As much of the 4e-isms and 3rd-isms will be chucked and flushed down the toilet as I can possibly strip and rip out of the system. 5e just gives me less to...

Out of curiosity, if a 1e/2e feel in a living breathing game is what you're trying to accomplish, why not go with something such as Castles & Crusades? That game specifically already has all of the stuff you want to strip out stripped out.

Having read the D&D Basic PDF, it was interesting to see how much that 5e has that other game systems have already been doing for a number of years.

I actually backed the C&C core books (and screen) on their recent kickstarter and I already own several of their books.

I will probably be poaching a few different sources for my game - C&C will be one of them. But as I said earlier - even 2nd ed had some super inflated number (for Fighters, ironically) that I would like some better control over. Not sure if 5e is going to do it, but it's a smaller baseline I can add to vs. the Full BAB baseline for Fighters of 2nd ed, C&C, PF, etc + various modifiers that I would have to take away, or clamp down on.

Inflated to-hits is a disparity problem in 2nd ed (not 1st) games - once the various degrees of specialization came on the scene.

In any case I will support both systems - actually at this point I have spent a considerable amount more on C&C than I have on Basic (free).

Liberty's Edge

That makes sense. I never did play 1e, but did play 2e. Though, to be honest, my 2e play has been overshadowed by 3e, 3.5, & PF that I don't really remember the "style" of play that 2e provided.

I have read the 1e books (which, for their horrible organization, was a wonderful read), and I've just recently discovered C&C (alas, too late to support their KS, but I plan to invest).

Having read the D&D free PDF, I think it'll be a successful game; though having just literally read through the C&C 5th Printing PH, I couldn't help but feel that I was pretty much reading a similar product. I realize there are some significant differences, but compared to PF, C&C and 5e are much closer together.

The other thing that caught my eye was the low XP progression table. 300 XP to 2nd level? Obviously the monsters will be appropriately ratioed, but it still struck me as odd.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Apparently, Wizards of the Coast want people to get to 3rd level asap, so the amount needed to get from 1-2, and 2-3 is extremely small. 3rd level is when players can choose their focused path, so they want them to get to 3rd quickly. Why they didn't just do that at 1st, or even 2nd, I don't know. But oh well. I may change the experience progression, or just do away with experience points all together.


thejeff wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
- Alignment mechanics - I will bring them back, but to 1st ed/2nd ed levels, not the crazy that is PF/3rd ed games
Not to start an alignment thread, but what do you see that's so crazy different about alignment mechanics between AD&D & 3.x?

Having been an Avid 2E player the differance between 3.x alignment and 2E alignment is that 3.X alignment is a suggestion and 2E alignment is a straightjacket.

2E includes rules for EVERY CHARACTER suffering experience penalties and other kinds of frustration for daring to not guess exactly how their DM interprets each box of an arbitrary and self selected personality test.

As I remember there were generally more rules in 2E related to alignment particularly violating alignment than 3E has total verbage on alignment at all. If somebody really wants more of that then more power to them but its not the sort of game I would ever want to play again.

Grand Lodge

Auxmaulous wrote:
Inflated to-hits is a disparity problem in 2nd ed (not 1st) games - once the various degrees of specialization came on the scene.

Don't go blaming 2nd edition for weapon specialization! Like almost everything else in 2nd edition, that was something brought over from 1st edition...

Second edition AD&D brought little that was new to the table. Almost every single rule in 2nd edition came first from 1st edition (including THAC0)...

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
Apparently, Wizards of the Coast want people to get to 3rd level asap, so the amount needed to get from 1-2, and 2-3 is extremely small. 3rd level is when players can choose their focused path, so they want them to get to 3rd quickly. Why they didn't just do that at 1st, or even 2nd, I don't know. But oh well. I may change the experience progression, or just do away with experience points all together.

There are quite a few articles explaining the design decisions over at WOTC forums. I'll summarize a few of the ideas though.

Levels 1 and 2 are supposed to be like an introduction. These "apprentice" levels allow players to gain levels quickly and learn the process out of the gate before getting too far into the game. Some fans also wanted characters to start with low hp and few abilities to feel gritty.

By delaying archetype to level 3 it discourages multi-class dipping by not front-loading the classes.

My guess is that starting at level 3 will be a popular choice with 5E.

Dark Archive

Digitalelf wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Inflated to-hits is a disparity problem in 2nd ed (not 1st) games - once the various degrees of specialization came on the scene.

Don't go blaming 2nd edition for weapon specialization! Like almost everything else in 2nd edition, that was something brought over from 1st edition...

Second edition AD&D brought little that was new to the table. Almost every single rule in 2nd edition came first from 1st edition (including THAC0)...

Yeah, forgot about the UA (mess) - tried to block out the stupidity of game breaking double specialization.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:

Never got into 3.x before pathfinder, but there are some horror stories attached to the bloat...

Pathfinder cut it out and reworked the multiclass rules. Reworked the core classes. In my opinion they brought over and remade everything that they wanted for this game... I'm not going to track down a decade old book on the off chance something could be reworked to fit the new rules...

Well presumably, your player would provide the decade-old book for you to okay. And presumably you'd at least give it some consideration, because you want your player to have fun options to play, no? As I mentioned earlier, having a forum account means that you can tap the wisdom of those of us who do have experience with 3.0 and 3.5.

Still your call of course, but would you dismiss an idea out of hand because it doesn't come from PF?

I suppose it depends on what they want to bring.. I also suppose I'd be more flexible in Homebrew... However, playing in Golarion with the Paizo APs, I would be pretty hesitant to resurrect old game material.

There were a lot of d20 systems that were meant to be compatible, but now days, not so much.

We have epic threads here about what all has changed, what hasn't changed, and what 3.x players don't REALIZE changed... Multiclass, Feats, skills, there were a lot reworked from the looks of it.

We played the D20 Wheel of Time, and I notice some overlap, but it's quite a different game. I wouldn't allow someone to drag Saidar weavers over from that game into Golarion...No more then I could bring in Forgotten Realm classes into THAT game... Neither mechanics nor flavor fit the game we're playing... It's like starting a new Marvel avengers game, and having someone insist on playing Batman... Wrong book... wrong game...

If they hated the monk class and wanted to work up something else, or try to convert something... I'd probably be ok with that. But I really don't want to go through decades old prestige classes, figure out HOW they worked back then... What the prerequistes would mean for THIS game... and spend all my time doing conversions...

I'm sure there are exceptions, and I do like options... but I like the options to be designed and playtested for the game we're playing.


I don't even know what DnDN is going to be like. I mean there is this very short preview that i could read, but ultimately it doesn't seem terribly interesting. I'll look into it, maybe play it if the desire to play a DnD setting comes up, see what it does, but i expect I'll stick mostly with the system i already have tons of material for. (that's Pathfinder)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:
I don't even know what DnDN is going to be like. I mean there is this very short preview that i could read, but ultimately it doesn't seem terribly interesting. I'll look into it, maybe play it if the desire to play a DnD setting comes up, see what it does, but i expect I'll stick mostly with the system i already have tons of material for. (that's Pathfinder)

The "very short preview" is over 100 pages. It also seems to be the full guts of the system. Yeah, there will be a lot more stuff in the three core books (although the Basic Rules will supposedly be updated with a decent portion of those rules as the books are released), but there is enough there to create characters and run them to level 20. It already literally has more pages than my favorite fantasy RPG (and S&W actually has pictures). More pages doesn't necessarily mean a better system. If you disagree, I'm sure you'd be happy printing up the 900+ page beast that is FATAL. :P

As for interesting, I found D&D Basic Rules more interesting than any rulebook Paizo has put out since the APG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone know if the core books will be released for sale as pdfs or will they only be available as print copies?

I really like how paizo sells pdfs of their core books for $10, and it would be nice if WotC followed that model.


We are taking a break from PF very soon, DDN may be a contender for our regular Tuesday game


Kthulhu wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
I don't even know what DnDN is going to be like. I mean there is this very short preview that i could read, but ultimately it doesn't seem terribly interesting. I'll look into it, maybe play it if the desire to play a DnD setting comes up, see what it does, but i expect I'll stick mostly with the system i already have tons of material for. (that's Pathfinder)

The "very short preview" is over 100 pages. It also seems to be the full guts of the system. Yeah, there will be a lot more stuff in the three core books (although the Basic Rules will supposedly be updated with a decent portion of those rules as the books are released), but there is enough there to create characters and run them to level 20. It already literally has more pages than my favorite fantasy RPG (and S&W actually has pictures). More pages doesn't necessarily mean a better system. If you disagree, I'm sure you'd be happy printing up the 900+ page beast that is FATAL. :P

As for interesting, I found D&D Basic Rules more interesting than any rulebook Paizo has put out since the APG.

Okay short is perhaps not the right word but its still very incomplete, it only contains the, at least to me, least interesting classes, so I can't say a lot about whether it is going to give me the material i would need for a fun game.

Liberty's Edge

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

Does anyone know if the core books will be released for sale as pdfs or will they only be available as print copies?

I really like how paizo sells pdfs of their core books for $10, and it would be nice if WotC followed that model.

Mike Mearls has said he can't comment on that yet. We don't have an answer.


Charlie D. wrote:
P.H. Dungeon wrote:

Does anyone know if the core books will be released for sale as pdfs or will they only be available as print copies?

I really like how paizo sells pdfs of their core books for $10, and it would be nice if WotC followed that model.

Mike Mearls has said he can't comment on that yet. We don't have an answer.

Which to me is...somewhat troubling. It should be a no-brainer at this point. Though I'm generally pleased with 5E so far, the silence on PDFs and the OGL is disappointing.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:


On a side note, I just ran across an ENworld thread in which a bunch of fans are dogpiling a 5e DM for wanting to eliminate the hard cap on ability scores. A desire that I sympathize with, even if it has obvious balance implications.* I would have expected more replies with constructive ideas to eliminate the cap and maintain balance, or at least a few more "Yeah, rulings not rules!"

But it seems that 5e fans don't take house ruling any more lightly than other editions. :)

I would say that's a highly... let's use the word creative interpretation of what's going on in that thread.

Sovereign Court

Does Bill Slaviscek have anything to do with D&DN?
Because, if he does, I'm not touching the game with a ten foot pole.


I think he left the company a few years ago, meaning he had nothing to do with DnD Next (5E).


Hama wrote:

Does Bill Slaviscek have anything to do with D&DN?

Because, if he does, I'm not touching the game with a ten foot pole.
Quote:
I think he left the company a few years ago, meaning he had nothing to do with DnD Next (5E).

According to his website, he is currently working on Elder Scrolls Online. He doesn't seem to have done anything for 5e D&D. His last involvement with D&D seems to have been back in 2011.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
Which to me is...somewhat troubling. It should be a no-brainer at this point. Though I'm generally pleased with 5E so far, the silence on PDFs and the OGL is disappointing.

Silence is better for Wizards then promises they don't deliver. I think Wizards is wise to say nothing until they can back up what they say. It makes waiting harder but is helping show that currently Wizards delivers what it says it will deliver.

Liberty's Edge

Hama wrote:

Does Bill Slaviscek have anything to do with D&DN?

Because, if he does, I'm not touching the game with a ten foot pole.

Bill left in June of 2011 almost a year before the open playtest:

info


Charlie D. wrote:
Hama wrote:

Does Bill Slaviscek have anything to do with D&DN?

Because, if he does, I'm not touching the game with a ten foot pole.

Bill left in June of 2011 almost a year before the open playtest:

info

Why are you responding to such an obvious flamebait?

Hama wrote:
Won't buy, won't play. I will never, ever again touch anything with wizards of the coast logo.

Source.

It doesn't matter when Bill left WotC, Hama has already made up his/her mind.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not flamebait. Bill Slaviscek has ruined everything he put his paws on.

Like I said, won't buy. But now, might play. If someone else buys. So I can see for myself that either I was right, or that it's an ok game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man...

I sort of always liked the approach Alternity took to sci-fi games


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlie D. wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Which to me is...somewhat troubling. It should be a no-brainer at this point. Though I'm generally pleased with 5E so far, the silence on PDFs and the OGL is disappointing.
Silence is better for Wizards then promises they don't deliver. I think Wizards is wise to say nothing until they can back up what they say. It makes waiting harder but is helping show that currently Wizards delivers what it says it will deliver.

Yes, but...my point is that the decision on PDFs should have already been a firm "of course."

Grand Lodge

Generic Dungeon Master wrote:
I sort of always liked the approach Alternity took to sci-fi games

Same here... Alternity is one of my favorite sci-fi games.

I also liked his contributions to Planescape...


Digitalelf wrote:
Generic Dungeon Master wrote:
I sort of always liked the approach Alternity took to sci-fi games

Same here... Alternity is one of my favorite sci-fi games.

I also liked his contributions to Planescape...

Though he's only listed as a PS proofreader, I'm going to go ahead and say that anyone involved with both Planescape and 4e is someone I'd like to shake hands with. Mind you, I don't idolize people, so in regular fan language that translates as a teenage girl shrieking about her favorite boy band.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Though he's only listed as a PS proofreader

He wrote both Harbinger House, and The Deva Spark modules...


Charlie D. wrote:
Hama wrote:

Does Bill Slaviscek have anything to do with D&DN?

Because, if he does, I'm not touching the game with a ten foot pole.

Bill left in June of 2011 almost a year before the open playtest:

info

Bill also wrote Night of the Walking Dead for Ravenloft, my all time favorite module. I ran it twice for D&D and modified it once for Vampire the Masquerade in the Dark Ages. He is ok in my book!


Threeshades wrote:
Okay short is perhaps not the right word but its still very incomplete,

I think we'll kindly chuck the use of the word "incomplete", here. No one defines what is a "complete" tabletop game. Is the game playable? Yes. Is it free? Also, yes. It's silly to harp on the "completeness" of a game that isn't even released yet. (The worst is when people define "complete" as "containing my personal favorite handful of game elements.")

Quote:
it only contains the, at least to me, least interesting classes, so I can't say a lot about whether it is going to give me the material i would need for a fun game.

The Player's Handbook will contain a number of other classes. It's safe to say that you will eventually have everything you need for a fun game.


HangarFlying wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:


So to me, this is just a better starting point to get a 1st/2nd ed feel with some easy mods, while having a game that is actively supported. As much of the 4e-isms and 3rd-isms will be chucked and flushed down the toilet as I can possibly strip and rip out of the system. 5e just gives me less to...

Out of curiosity, if a 1e/2e feel in a living breathing game is what you're trying to accomplish, why not go with something such as Castles & Crusades? That game specifically already has all of the stuff you want to strip out stripped out.

Having read the D&D Basic PDF, it was interesting to see how much that 5e has that other game systems have already been doing for a number of years.

C&C is my D&D of choice atm with a side helping of Pathfinder which I will play but not DM.

Liberty's Edge

137ben wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
Hama wrote:

Does Bill Slaviscek have anything to do with D&DN?

Because, if he does, I'm not touching the game with a ten foot pole.

Bill left in June of 2011 almost a year before the open playtest:

info

Why are you responding to such an obvious flamebait?

Hama wrote:
Won't buy, won't play. I will never, ever again touch anything with wizards of the coast logo.

Source.

It doesn't matter when Bill left WotC, Hama has already made up his/her mind.

It isn't obvious flamebait to me. I liked Bill's early work but I disagree with his later decisions. Under his watch PDFs were pulled, Dragon/Dungeon went away as print, and promises were made that were not kept in regards to D&D DDI and the virtual tabletop.

I read the link. I don't want to be pulled into what looks like an ongoing battle. I just responded with facts to a post. I'm not taking sides.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Which to me is...somewhat troubling. It should be a no-brainer at this point. Though I'm generally pleased with 5E so far, the silence on PDFs and the OGL is disappointing.
Silence is better for Wizards then promises they don't deliver. I think Wizards is wise to say nothing until they can back up what they say. It makes waiting harder but is helping show that currently Wizards delivers what it says it will deliver.
Yes, but...my point is that the decision on PDFs should have already been a firm "of course."

Wizards has always approached PDFs differently than almost every other publisher. I don't know why they approach PDFs with such trepidation but taking time to make a decision on PDFs seems to be the norm for D&D.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Okay short is perhaps not the right word but its still very incomplete,
I think we'll kindly chuck the use of the word "incomplete", here. No one defines what is a "complete" tabletop game. Is the game playable? Yes. Is it free? Also, yes. It's silly to harp on the "completeness" of a game that isn't even released yet. (The worst is when people define "complete" as "containing my personal favorite handful of game elements.")

Who's harping? All's i'm saying i haven't seen the full game yet, so i feel that I can't judge it.

Quote:
Quote:
it only contains the, at least to me, least interesting classes, so I can't say a lot about whether it is going to give me the material i would need for a fun game.
The Player's Handbook will contain a number of other classes. It's safe to say that you will eventually have everything you need for a fun game.

That I can tell once i've read them. Sure the classes will come but what they will be like is not yet visible. So I reserve judgement.

I feel like you're trying to defend DnDnext from my lack of opinion on it.

The reason why i said it doesnt seem terribly interesting is that i already have a game that fills that kind of roleplaying niche quite nicely and that's Pathfinder.


bugleyman wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
P.H. Dungeon wrote:

Does anyone know if the core books will be released for sale as pdfs or will they only be available as print copies?

I really like how paizo sells pdfs of their core books for $10, and it would be nice if WotC followed that model.

Mike Mearls has said he can't comment on that yet. We don't have an answer.
Which to me is...somewhat troubling. It should be a no-brainer at this point. Though I'm generally pleased with 5E so far, the silence on PDFs and the OGL is disappointing.

I suspect we'll see PDFs of the core. I could be mistaken here, but didn't the OGL not come out until something like 6 months after the 3.0 PHB?

I STRONGLY suspect that we'll see an OGL for 5e. Mike Mearls is where he is at now because of it. There is a kickstarter campaign going on for Necromancer games right now using the OGL. I think that WotC realizes that they can't stop it. I think they'll embrace it.


gundark wrote:

I suspect we'll see PDFs of the core. I could be mistaken here, but didn't the OGL not come out until something like 6 months after the 3.0 PHB?

I STRONGLY suspect that we'll see an OGL for 5e. Mike Mearls is where he is at now because of it. There is a kickstarter campaign going on for Necromancer games right now using the OGL. I think that WotC realizes that they can't stop it. I think they'll embrace it.

I sincerely hope you're correct, on both accounts.


Where are people getting the idea that Wizards has a "no PDF" policy?
4e PDFs are all for sale.
3e PDFs are all for sale.
2e PDFs.
1e PDFs.
BECMI/OD&D PDFs

And, though not many have been released yet,
5e PDFs.

Seems like they've been pretty supportive of PDF sales.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a few posts. Advocating piracy is not OK here. And also, this discussion is veering very closely into edition war territory, let's reign it in please.


137ben wrote:

Where are people getting the idea that Wizards has a "no PDF" policy?

4e PDFs are all for sale.
3e PDFs are all for sale.
2e PDFs.
1e PDFs.
BECMI/OD&D PDFs

And, though not many have been released yet,
5e PDFs.

Seems like they've been pretty supportive of PDF sales.

Recently, perhaps. But the 3E core books were never available in PDF while they were current, and the 4E PDFs were unceremoniously pulled from the market -- and even from the downloads of those who had already purchased them. The situation was considered by many, myself included, to be a customer-hostile knee-jerk reaction.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a few posts. Advocating piracy is not OK here. And also, this discussion is veering very closely into edition war territory, let's reign it in please.

Have to take exception to this, Chris. Arguing the futility of withholding PDFs as an anti-piracy measure is in no way whatsoever "advocating piracy." Further, that's not an accusation I'd make lightly.

Sovereign Court

Yeah, i take offense to that. Maybe lighten up a bit?

Also, when did merely mention piracy become advocating it? What the heck?


137ben wrote:

Where are people getting the idea that Wizards has a "no PDF" policy?

4e PDFs are all for sale.
3e PDFs are all for sale.
2e PDFs.
1e PDFs.
BECMI/OD&D PDFs

And, though not many have been released yet,
5e PDFs.

Seems like they've been pretty supportive of PDF sales.

Despite their retraction of PDF sales some years ago, I'm also quite confident that WotC will continue their current stance of selling PDF material on dndclassics to include the new edition. When PDFs of the core books do become available I expect prices to be relatively high - most 3E, 4E and 5E transition material there now is a good bit higher in price than classic 1E/2E/Basic material.


In the interest of veering back towards the original question this thread asked...
Yes, to both, and add in older editions of the game as well.

So many fun games to play, so little time.

Dark Archive

By letting posts stand that discuss the activity, it could be perceived as them promoting it.

Not saying that's the case - I just see where they are coming from and why they would have to take every caution to protect themselves.

Sovereign Court

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Is there really someone who will see them leaving a post that mentions piracy as them promoting it?

How screwed up has this world become?

Dark Archive

Hama wrote:

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Is there really someone who will see them leaving a post that mentions piracy as them promoting it?

How screwed up has this world become?

Especially considering this is a rival company, yes.

They do not want to create the perception where these things are allowed to stand, as a tacit agreement that it's ok to do these things at all and to have an environment where these things flourish as an activity. That includes websites, links and even just talking about it as an act.

Sovereign Court

Talk about freedom of speech right?

751 to 800 of 1,528 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 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.