You know what folks, I have this little festival of hurt feelings we're having right now here in one browser tab and the Facebook PF2 playtest group (which just passed 1.000 people in couple of hours) in the other tab and let me tell you, there's a world of difference when people post under anonymous aliases and when they (mostly) post under their real names in a public group where their friends and family can see their posts. :P
That's just the Russian bots. :) (JK, obvs)
My thoughts, as if anyone actually cares:
Do we actually know that there's more non-standard options going to be available? Like has it been mentioned anywhere or something? Because ~without~ them, it feels (and this is purely subjective on my part) like they're going for the VTT angle that 4E was supposed to take before THE GREAT TRAGEDY. And since 5E dropped the digital implementation ball ~and~ Paizo has experience with publishing online game content now, that's kind of a Blue Ocean for them. I could see it happening, but I don't know if it IS happening.
But a lot of the complaints are easily explained from that lens, so I don't know what others think about that thought. Not that that's necessarily bad, 4E was never fully implemented, what DID get implemented had plenty of fun segments (and admittedly a few unfun ones, I'm looking at you samey magick items), and if anyone could do it right it's Paizo, but is it just an illusion caused by wanting to test only the most common archetypes is kind of my question.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A slightly tweaked PF1 won't get them anywhere.
I heavily disagree, which is probably no big surprise. If they'd adjusted the math to make higher level play better, cleaned up problematic areas of the current edition and nerfed casters a bit + made martials more capable, I'm pretty sure it would have had a way better reception than what we got on our hands now.
But of course we heavily disagree on what direction the game should take, that much has been made evident and clear over the last two days.
Oh, sure, but people are way more nice about it.
Uh-huh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem keeping group morale up.
None in my group are interested in it outside of a few things possible to port over to PF1.
The reasons vary; in games, can't transfer character, it's still a playtest wait for the final release, etc etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also not that impressed with this new edition but I'm also understanding that the range of bonuses seem to be smaller deliberately so I'm not going to judge until I've actually PLAYED the game hence the playtest.
It took me over a little over an hour to make a 1st level human barbarian using the rulebook. I wasn't even certain that I'd calculated everything correctly.
Later that evening (even though I said that I never would) tried Hero Lab Online to make that same character and had it done in a little under 20 min and only becasue I was unfamiliar with the interface.
I'm going make a few more characters "by hand" now that I kinda know to go A(ncestry)-B (ackground)-C (lass). I know that I learn through repetition and growing familiarity. I see some of the responses here and while some of the gripes seem legit and would go toward possibly making the game better I've also learned to ignore the hyperbole.
I don't think the game as it stands now is the garbage fire that some people here are making it out to be. I'll reserve my judgment until after I've played it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was 4th Ed actually one of the best selling RPGs of all time, I know initial sales were good. I guess the real money came from the DDI subscriptions?According to Hasbro, far better even! The point was that both 4e and 5e are two of the best selling (if not the best-selling) RPGs of all time. I can’t fault Paizo for trying to emulate them.The 4e bottom line may not have been inmpressive (depends on exactly how much they spent on things like marketing and infrastructure), but analysis of the overall revenue shows 4e is only behind 5e in terms of sales (not counting inflation adjustment for older D&D editions and separating 3.5 from Pathfinder).Well, according to what I have heard/read, Amazon etc, 5th Ed is apparently selling as well as it did back in the early 80s.
Probably because it is D&D but it is probably on the low side of D&D sales.
With various sources (Gygax, Dancey)the highest selling D&DS in order are.
Probable sales rankings.
5E?
1E or B/X red box.
2E
3.0
3.5
Pathfinder
4E
OD&D
5E may have also outsold 1E and/or the red box. Its doing very well. No one even TSR knows how well 1E and Red box sold but generlaly its 1 million+ to 1.5 million.
Adjusted for inflation 5E may not have hit the peak year of 1983, but they have done better than say 81 and 82 with less product which likely means the 5E PHB is carrying the bulk f the sales.
No one knows how well 4E did but Mearls admitted they drove away their fans and one of the designers called it a disaster. If it sold alright it would have been on presales, seems sales tanked fairly hard afterwards.Some numbers are knowns about (500k 3.0, 750k 2E, 40k OD&D).
One of the Paizo staffers also gave a figue of Pathfinder at 250k in 2014, while Dancey gave 3.5 250k-350k sales. Not all 3.5 players went to Pathfinder so 3.5 probably outsold Pathfinder but its possible PF is ahead of 3.5. Note 3.5 did not do that well by D&D standards it only outsold OD&D at 40k and maybe 4E.
Only 1E and the Red Box are viable contenders to 5E sales, maybe even put together 12 or 15 million players for 5E apparently. Online its about 5 times bigger than Pathfinder.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, I want to apologize for exploding on you yesterday. I had a really s@&&ty first impression of the game and overall not the best day and then, you know, *that guy* went all "graaah, leave and never come back!". So I went way overboard. Sorry about that, I was a douche.....but that's not a new thing.
Edit: 5 seconds, dragon! By 5 seconds!
Happens to all of us.
|
Its honestly weird to me. My impression is that Paizo forum is negative about playtest, my local PFS scene is overall interested in trying out with both positive and negative thoughts about it and my own player party I don't know what their opinion on the released playtest is because all of them haven't had chance to read it, but they were based on blogs positive and they wanted edition change even before edition change was announced <_< Meanwhile on places like enworld overall comment section seems to be like "Pfft, who plays pathfinder, we play 5e I'm sure 2e will be more of the same"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so, Facebook, the End of Civilization, agrees with you? Never a good signNice job in completely ignoring the actual point made.Sorry, Gorbacz made a point? I must have missed that.
Anyway, the playtest forums are pretty civil, I must say. I see a lot of disappointment and negative feedback, but not the hysteric outrage that usually accompanies change. So, I really don't see how hyperbole is a point
This not everyone loves it but its not like the 3E-4E transition or the 4E-5E playtest. It lacks the vicious part of it and most people are civil even if they are negative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm certainly not a fan of the whole Ancestry mechanic in general. I feel like it's an overly complex replacement for something that should be relatively simple.
Also don't like that Barbarians STILL don't have an unarmored option. C'mon, I can't be the only one that likes bare-chested barbarian hunks.
I like being the shamanistic manly hulk barbarian sometimes yes. Full plate mail is cool sure. But some times you just have to be a sexy pile of murder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This negative reaction does go along with an early concern I had. I was worried that they were changing too much and would run into backlash from the old players who came to PF1 explicitly because of the negative reaction to the D&D 4 change. Paizo seemed to go for maximum change with the option to potentially dial things back later. But there is less chance of having a 'later' if the initial reaction puts a lot of people off. I can understand why they did it, it's better to overshoot and then dial back instead of make something that's only slightly changed and therefore doesn't do much to expand the appeal. But I suspect PF1 players are a bit more resistant to major changes because of the bad experience with 3.5 to 4.
Plus it's not like what we got is without flaws. The way magic has been knocked down is possibly excessive for example. I still think this could be turned into an excellent second edition, but maybe not in the time they have. This is a drum I've been beating since the announcement, but I think it's still valid. There needs to be at least one more iteration of the rules before they lock down a final version. This schedule of playtest for 5 months and then get to writing a final release for next GenCon would be fine for a smaller change, but with this level of overhaul I don't think it's going to cut it. It looks like a lot of the playtest version will need to be changed, but those changes need to be tested too to see if they're too much or not enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reactions from the table so far:
* Loving the streamlined chassis
* Concerned about individual elements
* Concerned for the "busyness" of the layout
* Concern for decision paralysis
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This negative reaction does go along with an early concern I had. I was worried that they were changing too much and would run into backlash from the old players who came to PF1 explicitly because of the negative reaction to the D&D 4 change. Paizo seemed to go for maximum change with the option to potentially dial things back later. But there is less chance of having a 'later' if the initial reaction puts a lot of people off. I can understand why they did it, it's better to overshoot and then dial back instead of make something that's only slightly changed and therefore doesn't do much to expand the appeal. But I suspect PF1 players are a bit more resistant to major changes because of the bad experience with 3.5 to 4.
Plus it's not like what we got is without flaws. The way magic has been knocked down is possibly excessive for example. I still think this could be turned into an excellent second edition, but maybe not in the time they have. This is a drum I've been beating since the announcement, but I think it's still valid. There needs to be at least one more iteration of the rules before they lock down a final version. This schedule of playtest for 5 months and then get to writing a final release for next GenCon would be fine for a smaller change, but with this level of overhaul I don't think it's going to cut it. It looks like a lot of the playtest version will need to be changed, but those changes need to be tested too to see if they're too much or not enough.
With magic I think they just needed to identify the most broken effects. In 3.5 for example the warmage was not broken so you don't really need to fix boom spells, 5E may have messed that part up.
Overhauling the other classes and fixing saves would also help dial back magic but a bit more organically. If save or dies functioned more like AD&D where high level characters are semi immune they become high risk/reward type spells.
90% of 3.5 and Pathfinder spells are probably fine. Its that 10% or so that cause problems and fixing them or even removing them should be options then you can tweak the other classes or things like spell slots.
Then you only have to overhaul the ones that are still broken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This negative reaction does go along with an early concern I had. I was worried that they were changing too much and would run into backlash from the old players who came to PF1 explicitly because of the negative reaction to the D&D 4 change. Paizo seemed to go for maximum change with the option to potentially dial things back later. But there is less chance of having a 'later' if the initial reaction puts a lot of people off. I can understand why they did it, it's better to overshoot and then dial back instead of make something that's only slightly changed and therefore doesn't do much to expand the appeal. But I suspect PF1 players are a bit more resistant to major changes because of the bad experience with 3.5 to 4.
Plus it's not like what we got is without flaws. The way magic has been knocked down is possibly excessive for example. I still think this could be turned into an excellent second edition, but maybe not in the time they have. This is a drum I've been beating since the announcement, but I think it's still valid. There needs to be at least one more iteration of the rules before they lock down a final version. This schedule of playtest for 5 months and then get to writing a final release for next GenCon would be fine for a smaller change, but with this level of overhaul I don't think it's going to cut it. It looks like a lot of the playtest version will need to be changed, but those changes need to be tested too to see if they're too much or not enough.
Totally agree on both points.
The nerfs on magic went too far I posted my thoughts here
I need to read now through the magic part. I'm trying to. Wake different classes and races to see how things work out.
Was 4th Ed actually one of the best selling RPGs of all time, I know initial sales were good. I guess the real money came from the DDI subscriptions?According to Hasbro, far better even! The point was that both 4e and 5e are two of the best selling (if not the best-selling) RPGs of all time. I can’t fault Paizo for trying to emulate them.The 4e bottom line may not have been inmpressive (depends on exactly how much they spent on things like marketing and infrastructure), but analysis of the overall revenue shows 4e is only behind 5e in terms of sales (not counting inflation adjustment for older D&D editions and separating 3.5 from Pathfinder).Well, according to what I have heard/read, Amazon etc, 5th Ed is apparently selling as well as it did back in the early 80s.Probably because it is D&D but it is probably on the low side of D&D sales.
With various sources (Gygax, Dancey)the highest selling D&DS in order are.
Probable sales rankings.
5E?
1E or B/X red box.
2E
3.0
3.5
Pathfinder
4E
OD&D5E may have also outsold 1E and/or the red box. Its doing very well. No one even TSR knows how well 1E and Red box sold but generlaly its 1 million+ to 1.5 million.
Adjusted for inflation 5E may not have hit the peak year of 1983, but they have done better than say 81 and 82 with less product which likely means the 5E PHB is carrying the bulk f the sales.
No one knows how well 4E did but Mearls admitted they drove away their fans and one of the designers called it a disaster. If it sold alright it would have been on presales, seems sales tanked fairly hard afterwards.Some numbers are knowns about (500k 3.0, 750k 2E, 40k OD&D).
One of the Paizo staffers also gave a figue of Pathfinder at 250k in 2014, while Dancey gave 3.5 250k-350k sales. Not all 3.5 players went to Pathfinder so 3.5 probably outsold Pathfinder but its possible PF is ahead of 3.5. Note 3.5 did not...
My guesses would be probably varied. From what I've read over the years...It seems the numbers would pan out like this...
AD&D + D&D had around 25 million gamers all told (AD&D and BECMI) at it's height.
5e supposedly has somewhere in the range of 9 to 10 million gamers.
4e I would guess had somewhere in the range of 2 to 3 million gamers.
(though if you take just 30,000 of those gamers and have them subscribe to DDi at $10 a month that makes $300K a month and close to 3.6 million dollars a year just from DDi. That's at 1% subscribing to DDi. Increase that a little higher giving them just 5% and that means they get 18 million a year from DDi. Not the 50 million Hasbro wanted at a minimum, but not something to shirk at either).
3e+3.5 probably had somewhere in the range of 5 million gamers if I recall the numbers spouted out.
(compared to around 500,000 gamers of AD&D near the end of it in the late 90s, a great ways down from it's height. In that light, 3e practically saved the D&D rpg from a dwindling death).
They ALWAYS claim that the current edition is the best selling edition ever for D&D, at least since 3e.
This has made me skeptical of whether they are actually being completely honest, or are saying that from some sort of slanted statistic that they've twisted in such a way that they can claim that it is the best selling ever, even if by most metrics it is not.
This negative reaction does go along with an early concern I had. I was worried that they were changing too much and would run into backlash from the old players who came to PF1 explicitly because of the negative reaction to the D&D 4 change. Paizo seemed to go for maximum change with the option to potentially dial things back later. But there is less chance of having a 'later' if the initial reaction puts a lot of people off. I can understand why they did it, it's better to overshoot and then dial back instead of make something that's only slightly changed and therefore doesn't do much to expand the appeal. But I suspect PF1 players are a bit more resistant to major changes because of the bad experience with 3.5 to 4.
Plus it's not like what we got is without flaws. The way magic has been knocked down is possibly excessive for example. I still think this could be turned into an excellent second edition, but maybe not in the time they have. This is a drum I've been beating since the announcement, but I think it's still valid. There needs to be at least one more iteration of the rules before they lock down a final version. This schedule of playtest for 5 months and then get to writing a final release for next GenCon would be fine for a smaller change, but with this level of overhaul I don't think it's going to cut it. It looks like a lot of the playtest version will need to be changed, but those changes need to be tested too to see if they're too much or not enough.
With magic I think they just needed to identify the most broken effects. In 3.5 for example the warmage was not broken so you don't really need to fix boom spells, 5E may have messed that part up.
Overhauling the other classes and fixing saves would also help dial back magic but a bit more organically. If save or dies functioned more like AD&D where high level characters are semi immune they become high risk/reward type spells.
90% of 3.5 and Pathfinder spells are probably fine. Its that 10% or...
Or, in some of the instances, I think they could raise the ability to save vs. spells (increase saves, so good saves and weak saves have better bonuses), and focus on the damage vs. level that they've introduced in the playtest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To echo others, nope. My group is looking forward to it.... aside from some wonky wording everybody likes it mostly.
Maybe its a brand loyalty thing? My group rotates games through different systems - Deadlands, Shadowrun, Rogue Trader.
So perhaps because we have less of an attachment to any one ruleset, the changes don't bug us as much? While more dedicated/conservative tables are the ones rebelling against the drastic changes?
Not saying anybody's opinions are wrong or right, just wondering if there's a pattern.
What the hell is AoS?Age of Sigmar.
Apparently its a Warhammer thing.
One would hope PF2 ends up as well as AoS honestly. Both started similarly enough, since all the old fans of Warhammer Fantasy absolutely hated the old fluff getting nuked and replaced with some really vague ultra fantasy stuff that wasn't even a proper singular world (more sundered elemental realms) and that's before getting into the standard bevy of rule changes and such.
But the thing is...people have turned around on AoS. The fluff has been fleshed out and gotten lots of new people interested, the models are all generally high quality, and the rules have worked well enough. Sure a lot of people prefer the Old World (like me) but the update certainly has gone quite a bit better than the admittedly awful looking early days.
Which is largely why I brought that particular comparison up. Many of the complaints have clear parallels. Which isn't to say that the result will be the same, but anyone feeling discouraged that their positive reaction to PF2 is being drowned out in complaints might like to know that lots of loud objections don't mean the game won't do well.
What does whether or not the game doing well have anything to do with anything though? It's not as if the complaints and 'loud' objections are necessarily wrong or hollow. And AoS and the End Times are still widely hated by some WHFB holdouts, they just slowly attracted new players.
Quite the opposite -- my group ended our current campaign in order to get going on a PF2 playtest, and so far our email responses have been positive.Is anyone else having trouble maintaining group morale now that the playtest has appeared?
Yes!!!
...Was 4th Ed actually one of the best selling RPGs of all time, I know initial sales were good. I guess the real money came from the DDI subscriptions?According to Hasbro, far better even! The point was that both 4e and 5e are two of the best selling (if not the best-selling) RPGs of all time. I can’t fault Paizo for trying to emulate them.The 4e bottom line may not have been inmpressive (depends on exactly how much they spent on things like marketing and infrastructure), but analysis of the overall revenue shows 4e is only behind 5e in terms of sales (not counting inflation adjustment for older D&D editions and separating 3.5 from Pathfinder).Well, according to what I have heard/read, Amazon etc, 5th Ed is apparently selling as well as it did back in the early 80s.Probably because it is D&D but it is probably on the low side of D&D sales.
With various sources (Gygax, Dancey)the highest selling D&DS in order are.
Probable sales rankings.
5E?
1E or B/X red box.
2E
3.0
3.5
Pathfinder
4E
OD&D5E may have also outsold 1E and/or the red box. Its doing very well. No one even TSR knows how well 1E and Red box sold but generlaly its 1 million+ to 1.5 million.
Adjusted for inflation 5E may not have hit the peak year of 1983, but they have done better than say 81 and 82 with less product which likely means the 5E PHB is carrying the bulk f the sales.
No one knows how well 4E did but Mearls admitted they drove away their fans and one of the designers called it a disaster. If it sold alright it would have been on presales, seems sales tanked fairly hard afterwards.Some numbers are knowns about (500k 3.0, 750k 2E, 40k OD&D).
One of the Paizo staffers also gave a figue of Pathfinder at 250k in 2014, while Dancey gave 3.5 250k-350k sales. Not all 3.5 players went to Pathfinder so 3.5 probably outsold Pathfinder but its possible PF is
DDI at its height had around 80k IRC. But I don't know if they were active players or ones who signed up for it at some point.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with 3.5/PF multiclassing is that it produces exactly two kind of characters:
1. Optimized builds where the player knows EXACTLY what he or she is doing (1 level dip of Fighter, multiclassing into a PrC, some hyper specialized build that requires X levels of Y and A levels of B).
2. Thematically cool characters that end up cripplingly weak. Rogue 3/Monk 2/Sorcerer 3 is hopelessly behind almost every level 7 singleclassed character.
And the problem is that 3.5/PF doesn't tell you that. It relies on meta-knowledge, gleaned from forums and optimization guides, to save you form shooting yourself in the foot. If nobody at the table has that meta-knowledge (read: a group of newbies) then at some point John who made the Rogue/Monk/Sorcerer will discover that Jane and her Druid are just simply that much better than he is.
|
|
That might work for martials, but any system where you slow down your spell progression (by more than, say, one level) puts you automatically so far behind straight-classed casters that you don't compete. Suddenly you have a situation where some kinds of multiclassing are mmmkayish (Fighter/Ranger) while others are horribadwrong.
Really, the only good way of doing this is going the way of Muticlass Archetypes, which Paizo kind of did, except of course we should see how they work in practice and how to improve them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I help influence them to not nerf everything from the last version of the game?Exactly this, if magic remains in the final version as it is in the playtest I will never play PF2, so it will be good to know if the nerfs can be reversed or the playtest is a waste of my time.
I cannot tell you with certainity, but my gut hunch is that, if those are the only two possible options, the playtest will be waste of your time. Because while I can see some spells being changed, it seems like leaving Simulacrum style spells aside is a design goal, not an oversight.
I don't think PF2 intends to have PF1 style of magic, regardless of what individual playtesters think. Unless it's a massive thing that virtually all players will vote against (and here's a hint, that's not going to be the case if we see how often the martial-caster disparity debates flare up), that's not going to substantially change.
Now, THIS or THAT spell getting a buff, or a further nerf, that's possible based on feedback. The whole spell system going back to PF1 levels, I doubt it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To echo others, nope. My group is looking forward to it.... aside from some wonky wording everybody likes it mostly.
Maybe its a brand loyalty thing? My group rotates games through different systems - Deadlands, Shadowrun, Rogue Trader.
So perhaps because we have less of an attachment to any one ruleset, the changes don't bug us as much? While more dedicated/conservative tables are the ones rebelling against the drastic changes?
Not saying anybody's opinions are wrong or right, just wondering if there's a pattern.
In some cases, you just know what you like and don't see a reason to change? For me and my group, it's that simple.
DDI at its height had around 80k IRC. But I don't know if they were active players or ones who signed up for it at some point.
I don't know where you get your info, but this is demonstrably false. Active DDI Subscribers could see the number of current subscribers each month. There were more than 80k subscribers in 2013 alone, 3 years after the release of Essentials and even after the announcement of D&D Next.(via forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?679348-DDI-Subscribers-and-Revenue)
This represented a substantial decrease of the highest numbers I saw on my account, where WotC published that there were 270k+ active subscribers shortly before the release of Essentials.
In addition, I don't know about these 250k, 300k, figures, etc. you are citing, because they are laughably low. The PHB3 (which introduced the monk and psionics) alone was a New York times bestseller (released in 2010) and outsold any Pathfinder supplement other than the Pathfinder Core Rules. And all the major 4e supplements before that were even higher on the bestseller lists, for longer. There was absolutely no decline in 4e sales after release. In fact, there was a demonstrable spike in 4e sales after Penny Arcade began doing the series of live plays with Chris Perkins. In particular, sales in 2010 (2 years after release) were very high (probably bolstered by the release of a new-psuedo edition in 4e Essentials late in the year). I will admit that sales began tanking shortly after the release of Essentials though, in 2011.
Is anyone still recruiting for the playtest? I'd be up for a PbP, my old group has problems actually getting it together to game, and I'd like to be able to provide feedback based on play rather than just how the rules read. Can't do voice though, if that's a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Had my first game session since the PDF dropped. There was a lot of disappointment and anger over certain choices, mostly the way magic and casters have been pretty severely weakened (very few spell slots, lack of auto-scaling, short durations, many spells having limited targets like dimension door and haste until you have a 7th level slot, that removes some of the main uses of them, concentration for summoned creatures that can be dispelled by damage equal to your level, the lack of actions for summoned creatures, etc). Things looked pretty ugly at first. One said we needed to change the topic of conversation away from the playtest because they were just too angry at some of this. I figured we just weren't going to do the playtest.
But things calmed down with time. We started to discuss both positive and negative aspects of the system. The visceral reactions seemed to fade. Everyone agreed that they still wanted to run the playtest, and were actually planning on doing so at that session after the current adventure got to a stopping point. It went longer than expected and basically got to the stopping point at the end of the night. So we'll start the playtest next week, which will give everyone a chance to more fully read the book and have characters ready, I'm certainly way behind in reading and wasn't ready and another player was seeing it for the first time, so that will be helpful. Things started to seem a bit more hopeful by the end. We'll have to see how the actual test goes, but it looks like the initial feelings of betrayal have passed and now we'll just test the heck out of the system and find both what we like as well as what we hate, and contribute with feedback to get an end result we can deal with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with 3.5/PF multiclassing is that it produces exactly two kind of charactersNot at all, there are trends, but it's not nearly as cut and dry as that.
Pf1e multiclassing is great to customize and built your own class. Let's say I want to play a wizard, that REALLY do damage with fireballs. I dip 1 level into crossblooded sorcerer to get that nasty +2 damage per die if I'm draconic/orc. Or let's say I want to build a sorcerer that it's based on color spray. I dip 1 level into oracle, to get that cool ability to improve color spray.
What Pf1e multiclassing is not good, is to actually build multiclassing options. If you actually want to be a sorcerer/oracle, instead of a custom sorcercer class that has features of the oracle class, it's much worse.
My only issues so far have been with the layout and presentation. I like the mechanics I've seen. It's just that it is difficult for me to make sure I have all the options straight. A lot of page-flipping.
I really like the action economy. The numbers being reined in. Hero points in core. Building block character creation (if I could find all the options). The rarity system. Truly awesome spells being reserved for 10th level spells. Spell heightening. Cantrips.
So much good stuff.
Just... can't find it very quickly.
Was 4th Ed actually one of the best selling RPGs of all time, I know initial sales were good. I guess the real money came from the DDI subscriptions?According to Hasbro, far better even! The point was that both 4e and 5e are two of the best selling (if not the best-selling) RPGs of all time. I can’t fault Paizo for trying to emulate them.The 4e bottom line may not have been inmpressive (depends on exactly how much they spent on things like marketing and infrastructure), but analysis of the overall revenue shows 4e is only behind 5e in terms of sales (not counting inflation adjustment for older D&D editions and separating 3.5 from Pathfinder).Well, according to what I have heard/read, Amazon etc, 5th Ed is apparently selling as well as it did back in the early 80s.
Yes because its D&D. Probably did not sell that well relative to the other D&Ds except OD&D and maybe 3.5 and I suspect a lot of that owuld have been near release.
Can you contact me on the ENworld forums or give me a contact these forums have no private message function (or much of any function).
