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


4th Edition

301 to 350 of 1,528 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

magnuskn wrote:
Diffan wrote:

I converted most of the Prestige Classss from Forgotten Realms 3.5 supplements to Paragon Paths and a few Epic Destinies. I also converted a good portion of magical items found in the Player's Guide to Faerûn 3.5 supplement to 4e items.

Further, I was able to convert some of the NPCs in my games to characters using 4e rules (it was actually easier) and most of my PCs without too much trouble.

I think some people just didnt want to go through the hoops of doing all the stuff for a game they probably didnt initially like.

The problem were not the mechanics (although since I hated 4E, they were a part of it for me personally), but that they gutted the storyline of the Realms. Yeah, the Time of Troubles changed things up a bit, but it didn't jump the timeline 100 years into the future, thereby killing off all the human characters one cared about. While ToT made some changes to the Pantheon, it didn't drastically cut down on the number of deities, conflating many into mere aspects of a greater deity.

I don't agree with the time jump (the length mostly, 25 years would've been better) but the deities.....yeah I wholeheartedly agreed with the culling of the deities. Half of them never came up in most of the published adventures or our home games. Over half received so little content that they were barely more than a few pages at most. When was the last time we saw ANY support for Shandakul (sp?) Or Lurue? The plethora of human-centric deities AND elven ones AND dwarven ones AND drow ones AND Mulhorandi ones AND ugh....the list goes on. The fact that some revealed themselves as other aspects was, IMO, a really intriguing idea that gave Deities a more interesting background and dimension.

magnuskn wrote:


I guess the one thing that most pissed me most off was the character assassination of Tymora, being wedded off to Tyr like some voiceless, choiceless chattel by Sûne. What the effing hell?

The storyline was never fleshed out or expanded upon. Perhaps Tymora had desires for Tyr? Perhaps she was lonely? Perhaps there was mlre at work than either deity knows about? The point is, no one really knows why the Courtship between Tyr and Tymora came about. So I think it's sorta strange to come to the conclusions that somehow Tymora was powerless in the situation we saw.

magnuskn wrote:


I don't know what it is with publishers and doing large time jumps, thereby killing off the cast of characters the fans actually cared about. BattleTech did the same thing and it basically destroyed the setting.

I think that cast had, approx. half a dozen "human" characters people actually cared about. Most were Chosen of Mystra, elven, dwarven, or had traces of Shade in them (such as Artemis) and thus, made the jump well enough. And for some others, namely RAS's characters, he was put into a position to move our heroes along. And, for the most part, I've only heard great things from the post-Spellplague era Drizzt books.

Some of the other changes, I also agree with such as the exchange of FR Mexico and Egypt being replaced by original areas and places. Problem was, they never received the attention they deserved due to 4e's setting restrictions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:

I think that cast had, approx. half a dozen "human" characters people actually cared about. Most were Chosen of Mystra, elven, dwarven, or had traces of Shade in them (such as Artemis) and thus, made the jump well enough. And for some others, namely RAS's characters, he was put into a position to move our heroes along. And, for the most part, I've only heard great things from the post-Spellplague era Drizzt books.

Some of the other changes, I also agree with such as the exchange of FR Mexico and Egypt being replaced by original areas and places. Problem was, they never received the attention they deserved due to 4e's setting restrictions.

Really? To my thinking, the Realms as previously described go back to the eighties, with hundreds, possibly thousands of characters that have played a role in some form or other, and most of these were human and not chosen/elven/dwarven. That you didn't care about them says more about you and your familiarity with the Realms. The entire point of the time jump was to kill off as many old NPCs and storylines as possible, to fit the Realms into WotC's "new, improved" points of light setting. They didn't bother to work out a new setting, though, since the new map is the exact same as the old one except for a few holes and destroyed cities. Nobody apparently changed a road, built a new city, or founded a new country in the HUNDRED YEARS they could have done so. The deities got the same treatment, and the new countries in Returned Abeir were (while written by Ed Greenwood as I understand it, he wrote them to their specs) not relevant except as places to put in the Dragonborn race.

It would have been fine if they launched a new setting. It could probably have been a good one, too. But then, of course, it would not have the best-selling name of the Forgotten Realms, so the bean-counters nixed that.

All in all, it's about the worst brand management in RPG history.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
All in all, it's about the worst brand management in RPG history.

Y'know, that's the thing: reworking the mechanics because management is unhappy with the OGL isn't necessarily brand suicide; making epic changes in your campaign setting isn't necessarily brand suicide; canceling your print magazines in favor a subscription only web service isn't necessarily brand suicide; but if you do enough things that aren't necessarily brand suicide at once, your customers aren't left with any single one thing to buy that they're fans of, and that is brand suicide.

(Not to edition war, still looking forward to Next/5E here.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad that I'm not a fan of FR, or any other setting with ongoing support.

Oh, the nerdrage!


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm glad that I'm not a fan of FR, or any other setting with ongoing support.

Oh, the nerdrage!

Yup. Me too.

As for "pugwampi", to describe the advantage/dsadvantage mechanic I think it came from this thread, or elsewhere on these forums. It wasn't me wot coined it yer honor!!!


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm glad that I'm not a fan of FR, or any other setting with ongoing support.

Oh, the nerdrage!

It's the only kind of rage I have, Tequila. :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Take a look at the products they made after the first three FR books for 4th edition. Funny how they stuck pretty closely to the things in the old Realms. Neverwinter (with solid info on how the mayor used to run things back in the 1300s). Baldur's gate. Books set in Waterdeep. Oddly, that was the most intact area left, hmmm?

They knew. They understood their mistake. They understood damn well what they had done, and tried to downplay it. Now they want to provide a primary setting for D&D Next as various time periods of the Realms, because they know their 1400s were generally loathed. The spellplague, the time jump, the various plots at the end of 3.X... it stunk.

I am not talking about brand suicide. I am talking about taking care of a brand without understanding the first thing about it, about capitalizing on it by wrecking it, and about believing the brand itself will sell if it's been changed to irrecognizability. Stupid 101.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Take a look at the products they made after the first three FR books for 4th edition. Funny how they stuck pretty closely to the things in the old Realms. Neverwinter (with solid info on how the mayor used to run things back in the 1300s). Baldur's gate. Books set in Waterdeep. Oddly, that was the most intact area left, hmmm?

They knew. They understood their mistake. They understood damn well what they had done, and tried to downplay it. Now they want to provide a primary setting for D&D Next as various time periods of the Realms, because they know their 1400s were generally loathed. The spellplague, the time jump, the various plots at the end of 3.X... it stunk.

I am not talking about brand suicide. I am talking about taking care of a brand without understanding the first thing about it, about capitalizing on it by wrecking it, and about believing the brand itself will sell if it's been changed to irrecognizability. Stupid 101.

The funny thing is that this happens quite frequently when an IP is bought or sold to another company and it never ends well...but people keep doing it. When Battletech was bought by WhizKids it was the worst disaster of all time..


Sissyl wrote:

Take a look at the products they made after the first three FR books for 4th edition. Funny how they stuck pretty closely to the things in the old Realms. Neverwinter (with solid info on how the mayor used to run things back in the 1300s). Baldur's gate. Books set in Waterdeep. Oddly, that was the most intact area left, hmmm?

They knew. They understood their mistake. They understood damn well what they had done, and tried to downplay it. Now they want to provide a primary setting for D&D Next as various time periods of the Realms, because they know their 1400s were generally loathed. The spellplague, the time jump, the various plots at the end of 3.X... it stunk.

I am not talking about brand suicide. I am talking about taking care of a brand without understanding the first thing about it, about capitalizing on it by wrecking it, and about believing the brand itself will sell if it's been changed to irrecognizability. Stupid 101.

Sis, I don't want to derail this thread into "What did WotC do wrong?" (I think it's probably the easiest way to get it closed) but you understand that when I responded to your "worst brand management in RPG history" with my description of incremental brand suicide, I was agreeing with you, right?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:

Take a look at the products they made after the first three FR books for 4th edition. Funny how they stuck pretty closely to the things in the old Realms. Neverwinter (with solid info on how the mayor used to run things back in the 1300s). Baldur's gate. Books set in Waterdeep. Oddly, that was the most intact area left, hmmm?

They knew. They understood their mistake. They understood damn well what they had done, and tried to downplay it. Now they want to provide a primary setting for D&D Next as various time periods of the Realms, because they know their 1400s were generally loathed. The spellplague, the time jump, the various plots at the end of 3.X... it stunk.

I am not talking about brand suicide. I am talking about taking care of a brand without understanding the first thing about it, about capitalizing on it by wrecking it, and about believing the brand itself will sell if it's been changed to irrecognizability. Stupid 101.

And they were warned about this by the fans at that time. I know, because I was among the people who were shouting those warnings from the rooftops (or better said, the WotC Realms forum). But they chose to not listen.

So, yeah, count me as skeptical, to say the least, about their newest work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
The storyline was never fleshed out or expanded upon. Perhaps Tymora had desires for Tyr? Perhaps she was lonely? Perhaps there was mlre at work than either deity knows about? The point is, no one really knows why the Courtship between Tyr and Tymora came about. So I think it's sorta strange to come to the conclusions that somehow Tymora was powerless in the situation we saw.

Okay, so the CG goddess of luck is married off to the LG god of justice in a brokered marriage (and, yes, that was specifically called out) by Sûne. There was exactly zero prior linkage between the two. Oh, yeah, let's not forget that Tyr and Helm (LN god, also of justice) duel to the death for Tymora. Tyr slays Helm.

Sure, you can say "You never know what happened before!", but it always stuck me very much as fiat writing, bad storytelling and a plain "WTF, WHY?" event. There had been no mention of Tyr having any interest in Tymora before, much less the reverse. It just was thrown in there for no reason whatsoever, aside from getting rid of Helm. Hence, horrible writing to get from point A to B. Not to mention objectification of a female deity. Done by the goddess of love, no less.

It'd be as if, out of nowhere, Shelyn marries off Desna to Erastil. No explanation as to why, aside from "they have to maintain cosmic balance something something". Could you imagine the reaction on this board to such an event?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm glad that I'm not a fan of FR, or any other setting with ongoing support.

Oh, the nerdrage!

I am glad I am not a fan of FR as well. But the talk reminded me of Dragonlance after the Dragons of Summer Flame book and their Age of Mortals crap.

And while I like Eberron as a setting, I never got invested in it as portions of it didn't appeal to me (mostly the whole Quori stuff). So any of the changes they did to that setting with 4th edition didn't concern me. But I can understand the rage the fans of FR feel about what happened.

As for more on-topic: As said earlier, I don't think I will be switching. There were many things about the playtest I didn't care for. And thier monsters were just all over the place with no explanation.


Adjule wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm glad that I'm not a fan of FR, or any other setting with ongoing support.

Oh, the nerdrage!

I am glad I am not a fan of FR as well. But the talk reminded me of Dragonlance after the Dragons of Summer Flame book and their Age of Mortals crap.

And while I like Eberron as a setting, I never got invested in it as portions of it didn't appeal to me (mostly the whole Quori stuff). So any of the changes they did to that setting with 4th edition didn't concern me. But I can understand the rage the fans of FR feel about what happened.

As for more on-topic: As said earlier, I don't think I will be switching. There were many things about the playtest I didn't care for. And thier monsters were just all over the place with no explanation.

they didn't make any changes between 3.5 eberron and 4th, thats part of the rub! you were essentially buying the exact same book flavor wise, twas just the rule set that changed:)


Hitdice wrote:
Sis, I don't want to derail this thread into "What did WotC do wrong?" (I think it's probably the easiest way to get it closed) but you understand that when I responded to your "worst brand management in RPG history" with my description of incremental brand suicide, I was agreeing with you, right?

I get that, but what I was saying dealt with the FR brand specifically. And since FR is apparently still on the table, it's not brand suicide, but brand capitalization and mismanagement.

At some point, the branding system is what gives them their money. And yet, it is also what gives us bizarrely bad sequels, endless book series, worn-out characters, monotonous music spewed out by mediocre artists year after year, and crap like the spellplague. It's not a new system. Considering how important branding is to the beancounters, it's surprising that they understand so little about how to take care of a brand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The relationship of the FR novels to the D&D rpg is totally weird. I always assumed that the rpg material would define the novels, but at one point Mearls was talking about design of the succubus, and how the monster manual entry would have to reflect the material established in one of the Sundering novels. Later he realized that it was an erinyes in the novel, so half of what he'd said was irrelevant to the design of the succubus, and all I could think was, "That sounds like a really odd set of hoops to have to jump through in the game design process."

My point being, I think trusting the bean counters of the creative types who've actually grown the customer base is always a terrible idea.

(Alright, maybe I am willing to derail the thread into "What did WotC do wrong?" :P )


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno. There isn't much more to say about it. They screwed up. The end. It may well be that they intend to make FR a big new setting, but who cares? The same bean counters are still in charge. They will say "we need younger fans, who according to our focus groups want a simple setting without backstories, a high action content, and sparkly vampires. Make it so."

For myself, if I run FR again, it will be with the 2nd edition materials.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand that some people didn't like the immense roster of deities that The Realms boasted or the immense roster of impossibly high level NPCs PCs could never hope to contend with. I even understand why (some of these gripes are ones I've had myself over the years). The wholesale slaughter and consolidation method was too much to bear. I don't know if they just expected people to keep hanging on "because it's The Realms" or what, but the facelift made it unrecognizable for a noticeable chunk of the fanbase. Hell, I thought the Time of Troubles mess was dumb/overkill. The Spellplague era stuff just left me with nowhere to continue buying in.

Granted, I can always continue playing in an older era of The Realms (and do, in fact) just fine. It would be a lot nicer of new content had a purpose for my table, though.


Looking forward to next
Can't say much of a fan of FR, or golarion, or anything with so many gods

Will use the rules and modules in Homebrand setting, though I may have a go in dragonlance setting again.


At its peak during 2nd edition, FR had thirteen greater gods. Which were most revered varied by region. These were the big ones, the ones that shaped the divine scene and politics. Beneath them were dozens of lesser deities, but in general, they had little influence and most of them could be safely ignored. I honestly don't see the problem. If you add in the demihumans, you get (I think) four or five more. Any lesser deity was important if you were dealing with its specific domain, or if a PC happened to worship it.


Adjule wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm glad that I'm not a fan of FR, or any other setting with ongoing support.

Oh, the nerdrage!

I am glad I am not a fan of FR as well. But the talk reminded me of Dragonlance after the Dragons of Summer Flame book and their Age of Mortals crap.

And while I like Eberron as a setting, I never got invested in it as portions of it didn't appeal to me (mostly the whole Quori stuff). So any of the changes they did to that setting with 4th edition didn't concern me. But I can understand the rage the fans of FR feel about what happened.

As for more on-topic: As said earlier, I don't think I will be switching. There were many things about the playtest I didn't care for. And thier monsters were just all over the place with no explanation.

Yeah, I can understand it too, in an academic sort of way. It's all just a little...fan-geek, is all.

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm glad that I'm not a fan of FR, or any other setting with ongoing support.

Oh, the nerdrage!

Yup. Me too.

As for "pugwampi", to describe the advantage/dsadvantage mechanic I think it came from this thread, or elsewhere on these forums. It wasn't me wot coined it yer honor!!!

Methinks the wolf doth protest too much. ;)

(Just kiddin', I actually think pugwampi is a cute name for 5th's A/D rule.)


Kagehiro wrote:
Granted, I can always continue playing in an older era of The Realms (and do, in fact) just fine. It would be a lot nicer of new content had a purpose for my table, though.

And this is the key right here! ^^^

When I discovered The Module Which Shall Not Be Named, which forever altered the canon of my favorite setting, I dropped the canon like a hot mess. To this day, I simply ignore The Module; the events contained within never happened, and never will. :)

If you're experiencing your favorite setting via organized play, you don't have the luxury of ignoring what you don't like, but at the same time...your favorite setting has the greater luxury of supporting organized events, right?.

*shrug*

Whatever I guess, people will always gripe.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If you're experiencing your favorite setting via organized play, you don't have the luxury of ignoring what you don't like, but at the same time...your favorite setting has the greater luxury of supporting organized events, right?.

Not if the organized events include the majority of what you don't like.

What would possibly make you think that organized events is valuable in and of itself? (I.e. what makes you think it's a "greater" luxury?)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Kagehiro wrote:
Granted, I can always continue playing in an older era of The Realms (and do, in fact) just fine. It would be a lot nicer of new content had a purpose for my table, though.

And this is the key right here! ^^^

When I discovered The Module Which Shall Not Be Named, which forever altered the canon of my favorite setting, I dropped the canon like a hot mess. To this day, I simply ignore The Module; the events contained within never happened, and never will. :)

If you're experiencing your favorite setting via organized play, you don't have the luxury of ignoring what you don't like, but at the same time...your favorite setting has the greater luxury of supporting organized events, right?.

*shrug*

Whatever I guess, people will always gripe.

I am curious about which module of which you speak. Of course, I have never played in a published setting until I got into Pathfinder. Even then, it was only through a few APs.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
R_Chance wrote:
Scott, WotC didn't even turn out a conversion booklet to smooth the transition from 3.5E to 4E like they did from 2E to 3E. .

To be fair, 4E was such a radical departure from the pre-existing d20 structure, that I'm very certain that it would have been impossible to make something that would even begin to fulfill that requirement.

They really didn't try to do a 2e to 3.0 conversion either, and 3.5 to 4 was far more radical a change.


LazarX wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Scott, WotC didn't even turn out a conversion booklet to smooth the transition from 3.5E to 4E like they did from 2E to 3E. .

To be fair, 4E was such a radical departure from the pre-existing d20 structure, that I'm very certain that it would have been impossible to make something that would even begin to fulfill that requirement.

They really didn't try to do a 2e to 3.0 conversion either, and 3.5 to 4 was far more radical a change.

But they really DID do a conversion document for 2E to 3x.

I remember it because right up until very recently I still had my physical copy of it. I just got rid of a bunch of my 3x hardback books including a 3x Players Handbook and this thing was just inside the rear cover.


LazarX wrote:


They really didn't try to do a 2e to 3.0 conversion either *snip*

Sure they did.

Edit - ninja'd!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
I am curious about which module of which you speak. Of course, I have never played in a published setting until I got into Pathfinder. Even then, it was only through a few APs.

I speak of Planescape's Faction War module, in which the Lady of Pain ultimately exiles Sigil's great Factions, regardless of what the PCs do.*

Understanding what this means requires a bit of background. Sigil, the City of Doors, is Planescape's centerpiece, its Waterdeep. And a big part of what makes Sigil unique and memorable -- arguably the thing that makes it more than just another Waterdeep, or even another City of Brass -- is its Factions. Rather than a hierarchy of nobles or priests, or even mages, Sigil is governed by these Factions. The Factions don't have to play a big role in a Planescape campaign, but they frame everything that happens in Sigil, and give Planescape its unique philosophical tone.

So exiling all of the Factions is like...I know hardly anything about Golarion, but I'll take a stab at this...the [in-game] Pathfinder Society being permanently disbanded. Or like Mystra of the Realms getting killed, and never getting resurrected/reborn/whatever. It changes the very tone and theme of the setting.

Apparently TSR was going to follow Faction War up with a module that would have reinstated Sigil's Factions, but the company went belly-up and then bought out by WotC before that happened. And so Planescape has been in stasis since the 90s, Sigil forever bereft of its defining Factions.

...Oh wait, I forgot, the Faction War never happened! And never will. ;)

*Planescape is a great setting, but its published adventures can be very Silly PCs you're just small fries now sit back and listen to the great story I wrote!


Arnwyn wrote:
What would possibly make you think that organized events is valuable in and of itself? (I.e. what makes you think it's a "greater" luxury?)

Being featured in organized play is a position that the vast majority of settings don't have, and having the option of going to an organized event to play one's favorite setting is a luxury that most fans don't have.

For example, my favorite setting is Planescape. I probably wouldn't like its presentation in organized play, but I don't even have the option of going to an organized event to play my favorite setting. That option is the greater luxury I don't have, so I'll settle for the common luxury that every fan has -- ignoring what I don't like in the comfort of my own campaigns.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not overly worried about the setting. We have used 1e Greyhawk (1986 boxed version) for every edition including PF.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kagehiro wrote:
I understand that some people didn't like the immense roster of deities that The Realms boasted or the immense roster of impossibly high level NPCs PCs could never hope to contend with. I even understand why (some of these gripes are ones I've had myself over the years). The wholesale slaughter and consolidation method was too much to bear.

I think the problem with ripping apart the Realms is that non-Realms fans were never really going to embrace the setting. The result of such a major change was that it ticked off existing Realms fans without drawing in a new audience.

Quote:
I don't know if they just expected people to keep hanging on "because it's The Realms" or what, but the facelift made it unrecognizable for a noticeable chunk of the fanbase. Hell, I thought the Time of Troubles mess was dumb/overkill. The Spellplague era stuff just left me with nowhere to continue buying in.

One thing that 4th edition impressed upon me is the fact that the D&D/Forgotten Realms brand names aren't nearly as strong as people thought it was. 5th edition seems to be taking that to heart, since there's been so much time to figure out what people consider to be D&D.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Adjule wrote:
I am curious about which module of which you speak. Of course, I have never played in a published setting until I got into Pathfinder. Even then, it was only through a few APs.

I speak of Planescape's Faction War module, in which the Lady of Pain ultimately exiles Sigil's great Factions, regardless of what the PCs do.*

Understanding what this means requires a bit of background. Sigil, the City of Doors, is Planescape's centerpiece, its Waterdeep. And a big part of what makes Sigil unique and memorable -- arguably the thing that makes it more than just another Waterdeep, or even another City of Brass -- is its Factions. Rather than a hierarchy of nobles or priests, or even mages, Sigil is governed by these Factions. The Factions don't have to play a big role in a Planescape campaign, but they frame everything that happens in Sigil, and give Planescape its unique philosophical tone.

So exiling all of the Factions is like...I know hardly anything about Golarion, but I'll take a stab at this...the [in-game] Pathfinder Society being permanently disbanded. Or like Mystra of the Realms getting killed, and never getting resurrected/reborn/whatever. It changes the very tone and theme of the setting.

Apparently TSR was going to follow Faction War up with a module that would have reinstated Sigil's Factions, but the company went belly-up and then bought out by WotC before that happened. And so Planescape has been in stasis since the 90s, Sigil forever bereft of its defining Factions.

...Oh wait, I forgot, the Faction War never happened! And never will. ;)

*Planescape is a great setting, but its published adventures can be very Silly PCs you're just small fries now sit back and listen to the great story I wrote!

Ooh, nice to see another person who hates that module. As far as my favorite published settings go, Planescape is probably second.

That module wouldn't have bothered me nearly as much if they had left it as a possible ending, and then pretended it hadn't happened in future products the way they do with most modules.
For comparison, early in 4e they released a series of nine loosely connected modules going from levels 1-30, the last of which ended in killing Orcus. The end of that module explains that future products will assume it hasn't happened and Orcus is still alive, but you (the DM) can adjust your world if you want to maintain continuity in your own game. I've heard that that is similar to what Paizo does with their modules...
And that is what the Faction War should have been. Instead, the 3e MotP assumed that the Faction War had actually happened (e.g., the section describing Mechanus says that the fraternity of order is based there).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:


LazarX wrote:


R_Chance wrote:

Scott, WotC didn't even turn out a conversion booklet to smooth the transition from 3.5E to 4E like they did from 2E to 3E. .

To be fair, 4E was such a radical departure from the pre-existing d20 structure, that I'm very certain that it would have been impossible to make something that would even begin to fulfill that requirement.

They really didn't try to do a 2e to 3.0 conversion either, and 3.5 to 4 was far more radical a change.

But they really DID do a conversion document for 2E to 3x.

I remember it because right up until very recently I still had my physical copy of it. I just got rid of a bunch of my 3x hardback books including a 3x Players Handbook and this thing was just inside the rear cover.

The conversion booklet made what could have been an immense task considerably easier in moving from 2E to 3E. And 3.5 wasn't even a road bump. My worlds been in play since 1974 though and parts haven't been updated all that recently. it occurred to me to check out what is in front of my players... 1E stuff. Done now :)

As for 4E being different, it was indeed. Too different, which is why I stuck with 3.X instead of converting. Well, that and the fact I preferred 3.X as a game system. 4E was ok, but it wasn't really the same game for me. Now 5E looks to be reasonably compatible (based on the playtest).

Switching is a possibility, just not a done deal for me. I've beaten 3.X into a shape I like and I'm not sure if I want to give it up. Still, there is simplicity going for 5E. 3.X in any form (short of True20 anyway) takes more effort / prep time to run than 5E. That may justify the time it would take to convert (if it gives a better ratio of play time to prep time). If it allows me to run my game the way I want to. It's sounding good. The DMG sounds interesting. Kind of a cross between an old 1/2/3E DMG and Unearthed Arcana (it includes alternate rules such as spell points, adds tactical and mass combat, etc.). The PHB seems to be a pretty complete package (unlike 4Es). They say they have fixed the "monster math" for the MM. I'm looking forward to seeing it all. Amazon is peddling pre-orders for about $35 a pop on all three vs. $50 retail. I prefer ordering from Paizo assuming they carry it and the possibility of ordering from a local shop is there. I'd also like PDFs of the books as well, but the gods know what will happen there.

In any event I enjoy reading Paizo books and will collect the core RPG line anyway, as I do now.

So, we will see what we will see :)

*edit* I still have my conversion booklet. And it's still handy when I run into the odd "uncoverted" / old school area. People have covered a lot of territory in the last 40 years... and they all seem to have different ideas of where to go next and what to do. Keeps me on my toes :D

And, that brings up that this month is *my* 40th anniversary running / playing D&D / PF. June 1974. Or was it July? D@mn. It was that summer, June I think. That's been awhile... but I'm not senile yet! Really! It's just been a long, long time you whippersnappers!


On the subject of Faction War, I am of two distinct minds about it.

First, it does lack something. Aspects of it aren't very good. Mainly, the entire war is mostly a backdrop and happens offscreen. A book three times its size would have been better, letting the heroes get involved, plot with their factions, and so on.

On the other hand... I am sort of grateful we got it. The war settled a number of plots that had been there since the beginning. If you read the previous materials carefully, they are there, and just knowing these things gave a DM quite a bit more to work with. There are so many settings where you never get the background secrets, and that is frustrating. While the factions were banished, this was because they had forgotten their job and instead focused on plotting against each other, raking in the dough, and administering the city. Instead of philosophers with clubs, they had become clubs for bean counters. Finally, we got more information on Sigil, which is great.

No, Faction War did okay. Not the least of reasons for this is they did not produce more stuff after it that used the new Sigil. In particular, they never released Die, Vecna, die!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Ooh, nice to see another person who hates that module. As far as my favorite published settings go, Planescape is probably second.

No true Planescape fan likes Faction War. You can't get the members-only jacket with anything less than loathing. ;)

(Yes, I just No True Scottsmaned PS fandom. And I don't care!)

Sissyl wrote:
First, it does lack something. Aspects of it aren't very good. Mainly, the entire war is mostly a backdrop and happens offscreen. A book three times its size would have been better, letting the heroes get involved, plot with their factions, and so on.

Yeah, a less railroady approach to the module would have at least made a good adventure. Like, assume the PCs are faction high-ups -- not necessarily even factols, but able to meaningfully influence events. Allow for several possible outcomes, ranging from 'The Lady disposes of Duke Rowanwood and his accomplices' to 'The Lady disbands several troublesome Factions.' Let the PCs start their own Factions to fill the void left by disbanded Factions! (In fact I wonder how some of the Factions have lasted this long, anyway.)

Anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with Faction War if its follow-up module hadn't been stillborn, or if, as 137ben mentioned, WotC hadn't made its fallout part of the canon.

Sissyl wrote:
No, Faction War did okay. Not the least of reasons for this is they did not produce more stuff after it that used the new Sigil. In particular, they never released Die, Vecna, die!

Heretic! ;)

(I'm actually not familiar with Die, Vecna, Die, though my keen powers of deduction give me a good idea of its plot.)


Let's just say: Vecna uses his newfound power as a God to teleport into Sigil...

Oh, and as for PS fandom, I have the five different shirts, the special edition record covers, the autographs of the entire design team, the laptop, crew jackets for every tour... I was a fan before it grew so commercial. =)

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I'll give D&D Next a shot. If the core rules impress me, I might use them and adapt Pathfinder material to it. I like Pathfinder, but I've been hoping for a tighter, cleaner rule set. But likely, I'll probably stick to Pathfinder.


Cyrad wrote:
I'll give D&D Next a shot. If the core rules impress me, I might use them and adapt Pathfinder material to it. I like Pathfinder, but I've been hoping for a tighter, cleaner rule set. But likely, I'll probably stick to Pathfinder.

I'm starting to think about looking for any interesting (read: simpler) mechanics I can adapt and graft into my PF game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Let's just say: Vecna uses his newfound power as a God to teleport into Sigil...

*facepalm*

There are no words.

Sissyl wrote:
Oh, and as for PS fandom, I have the five different shirts, the special edition record covers, the autographs of the entire design team, the laptop, crew jackets for every tour... I was a fan before it grew so commercial. =)

You lie! :o


I am still running 3.5 with slight Pathfinder modifications.

I participated in a very early D&D Next Playtest and I liked the system. I pre-ordered the Player's Guide on Amazon (at a nice discount) to see if this new edition has anything interesting I can use to modify my current 3.5 game.

As a number of other posters have noted though, I have enough 3.5 material to run till I die so I won't be switching away from 3.5 probably ever. If I do it would be to run Cthulhu or Star Wars game.


What Wizards has been leaking feels like an E3 release to me, but I'm excited for DDN! I'll stay with PF, but who says you can't enjoy both! Plus, my old group's getting back together and they're all interested in next... So, looks like I'm playing!

And on the subject of Vecna, I played in a PF game where we traveled space and time... only to KILL Vecna for good before he ascended to godhood... We were also being manipulated by a daemon the whole time as well, but oh well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm glad that I'm not a fan of FR, or any other setting with ongoing support.

Oh, the nerdrage!

I am glad I am not a fan of FR as well. But the talk reminded me of Dragonlance after the Dragons of Summer Flame book and their Age of Mortals crap.

And while I like Eberron as a setting, I never got invested in it as portions of it didn't appeal to me (mostly the whole Quori stuff). So any of the changes they did to that setting with 4th edition didn't concern me. But I can understand the rage the fans of FR feel about what happened.

As for more on-topic: As said earlier, I don't think I will be switching. There were many things about the playtest I didn't care for. And thier monsters were just all over the place with no explanation.

It wasn't so much Dragons of Summer Flame, that actually went well with DL.

Gamewise, it was when they decided to segue into the ideas of post Dragons of Summer Flame and kill DL D&D wise and come out with a card based RPG instead.

Storyline and flavorwise, it got derailed with (as you said, the Age of Mortals). DL with Summer Flame was fine, but when they handed it to authors and creators that really didn't understand the magic of DL and created this entire intergalactic dragons that take over the world junk instead of letting mortals decide (as had been pushed in the novels prior to that) it got really derailed. Some still liked it, but I think that was the point they lost a lot of the old fans.


Really? I hated "Dragons of Summer Flame". That's the book that broke my addiction to Dragonlance novels.

It seemed to me that "Summer Flame" did the job of throwing out the old world and old fandom. The original Chronicles trilogy kept emphasizing the point "The gods didn't abandon us. WE abandoned THEM." Then in "Summer Flame", the gods say "Oh, by the way, we're leaving Krynn now. Bye bye!" It seemed to me that this ridiculous step - and the business of changing the nature of magic - were taken to make the transition into the Saga system.

Perhaps, as you say, the Age of Mortals stuff was made even worse, by authors who didn’t understand Krynn. I wouldn’t know. After forcing myself to finish “Summer Flame”, I didn’t even consider reading any novel that took place after that. But I don’t care that Weis and Hickman wrote “Summer Flame”. It’s clear to me that they wrote it based on the decision to switch to Saga.

Dark Archive

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Gamewise, it was when they decided to segue into the ideas of post Dragons of Summer Flame and kill DL D&D wise and come out with a card based RPG instead.

I actually still have that on my bookshelf right now. One of my favourite magic systems to date. =/


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
137ben wrote:
Ooh, nice to see another person who hates that module. As far as my favorite published settings go, Planescape is probably second.

No true Planescape fan likes Faction War. You can't get the members-only jacket with anything less than loathing. ;)

(Yes, I just No True Scottsmaned PS fandom. And I don't care!)

Sissyl wrote:
First, it does lack something. Aspects of it aren't very good. Mainly, the entire war is mostly a backdrop and happens offscreen. A book three times its size would have been better, letting the heroes get involved, plot with their factions, and so on.

Yeah, a less railroady approach to the module would have at least made a good adventure. Like, assume the PCs are faction high-ups -- not necessarily even factols, but able to meaningfully influence events. Allow for several possible outcomes, ranging from 'The Lady disposes of Duke Rowanwood and his accomplices' to 'The Lady disbands several troublesome Factions.' Let the PCs start their own Factions to fill the void left by disbanded Factions! (In fact I wonder how some of the Factions have lasted this long, anyway.)

Anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with Faction War if its follow-up module hadn't been stillborn, or if, as 137ben mentioned, WotC hadn't made its fallout part of the canon.

Sissyl wrote:
No, Faction War did okay. Not the least of reasons for this is they did not produce more stuff after it that used the new Sigil. In particular, they never released Die, Vecna, die!

Heretic! ;)

(I'm actually not familiar with Die, Vecna, Die, though my keen powers of deduction give me a good idea of its plot.)

Faction War is a very good book, with good info on Sigil, though in my planescape campaign, the factions never died. Though we never got that far. Loved Planescape. I keep tinkering with the idea of running again. I did a fairly cool 3.5 Planescape campaign--- just love the vast variety of PC concepts (the party consisted of a Human Cleric of Zeus (Free League), a Rogue Modron Psion (No faction yet- just left the Modrons!), A Gloaming Sorcerer (Transcendent Order), and A Bariaur Ranger (Anarchist)


Aaron Bitman wrote:
It seemed to me that "Summer Flame" did the job of throwing out the old world and old fandom. The original Chronicles trilogy kept emphasizing the point "The gods didn't abandon us. WE abandoned THEM."

I always thought that the whole "Mortals abandoned us gods" thing rang hollow. The gods dropped a flaming mountain on a city full of people, then nobody has their prayers answered for however many hundreds of years until finally some random tribal chic heals her boyfriend. C'mon, Paladine, you can't tell me that every single mortal in Istar was just paying lip-service, or that in all those years afterward, nobody decent prayed to you. I think it's pretty clear who abandoned whom.

Not that I like the DL 'next gen' stories any better -- in fact the original DL books are the only ones I really enjoyed as a kid -- but DL never struck me as very consistent to begin with. Though hey, maybe I just don't understand the setting. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Faction War is a very good book, with good info on Sigil, though in my planescape campaign, the factions never died. Though we never got that far. Loved Planescape. I keep tinkering with the idea of running again. I did a fairly cool 3.5 Planescape campaign--- just love the vast variety of PC concepts...

I too love PS' built-in explanation for the walking menagerie trope that so many D&D parties fall into! A half elf, a modron, and a tiefling walk into a bar...yes please!

I recently reread some of my old PS material, and one of the campaign suggestions actually bars the use of most core races! Which sticks out as is a bizarrely metagame restriction, especially considering PS' cosmopolitan tone, and most DMs probably don't/didn't enforce it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


I too love PS' built-in explanation for the walking menagerie trope that so many D&D parties fall into! A half elf, a modron, and a tiefling walk into a bar...yes please!

Planescape is probably one of the few settings I'd actually allow that party to walk into a bar without it sparking an incident :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:


Planescape is probably one of the few settings I'd actually allow that party to walk into a bar without it sparking an incident :)

Planescape was the setting our players OWNED a bar... and that was actually the 'hook' for most of our adventures :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
C'mon, Paladine, you can't tell me that every single mortal in Istar was just paying lip-service, or that in all those years afterward, nobody decent prayed to you.

There were true clerics, who disappeared shortly before the Cataclysm, presumably being brought to another plane (except for some, who might have willingly given up their clerical powers to stay behind and help others.) And there could have been true clerics in the centuries thereafter, who kept their clerical powers and communion with the gods a secret. Decent people might have prayed, but too many had turned away, forcing the gods' hands and necessitating the Cataclysm, and the suffering for the centuries thereafter.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
...but DL never struck me as very consistent to begin with. Though hey, maybe I just don't understand the setting. ;)

You clearly do understand it. (I guess you knew that. I mean, I'm guessing that emoticon is meant to indicate that you're joking, but I'm not sure.) Yeah, the DL world is loaded with inconsistencies and ridiculous premises. But still, to take a repeatedly emphasized theme and reverse it for the sake of a merchandising decision was going too far for me.


Aaron Bitman wrote:

Really? I hated "Dragons of Summer Flame". That's the book that broke my addiction to Dragonlance novels.

It seemed to me that "Summer Flame" did the job of throwing out the old world and old fandom. The original Chronicles trilogy kept emphasizing the point "The gods didn't abandon us. WE abandoned THEM." Then in "Summer Flame", the gods say "Oh, by the way, we're leaving Krynn now. Bye bye!" It seemed to me that this ridiculous step - and the business of changing the nature of magic - were taken to make the transition into the Saga system.

Perhaps, as you say, the Age of Mortals stuff was made even worse, by authors who didn’t understand Krynn. I wouldn’t know. After forcing myself to finish “Summer Flame”, I didn’t even consider reading any novel that took place after that. But I don’t care that Weis and Hickman wrote “Summer Flame”. It’s clear to me that they wrote it based on the decision to switch to Saga.

I never felt Dragonlance was a very good game setting. I really WANTED to like it... but it never felt like there was any room in the world for MY stories.

Before the War of the Lance... there was no divine magic. That cut out a good portion of the Classes. During the War of the Lance... That's ALL that was going on. Everything revolved around that one story... After Summer Flame they broke the world again cutting out or messing with all the magic this time...

I just couldn't find a place to put a story that wasn't already severely documented in lore... or was a 'broken' world.

Kind of felt that way about the Wheel of Time setting too... Every adventure my friend ran.... was in someway supporting the characters in the book who were doing the REALLY important stuff...

301 to 350 of 1,528 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.
Recent threads in 4th Edition