.At least in a joking manner.
but I would take Pathfinder's over 4e
Anyone considering using Pathfinder's 3.75 rules over the Fourth Edition ones set in the Realms?
-I am. On Tuesday I am going to start DMing a game set in the Realms. I am using some of the Pathfinder Rules. :D
-When I DM the "Weave" adventures, I plan on adding more Pathfinder Rules. I am going to wait untill the final Pathfinder Rules Revision (August 2009), before I convert to it fully.
-2000th post folks!!! :P
18DELTA
-2000th post folks!!! :P
-Puny. Congrats. ;)
-Puny. Congrats. ;)
-:P Well I don't hang out here all day and start lore/fluff flamewars with people so...
. Oh yeah and scoring with the Hottie's so...:embarrass Having a legion of devoted 'minions' that die from one hit from some '4E uber-munchkin's' so...
Oh yeah and a Netbook devoted to ALL things Elven in the Forgotten Realms so....
-Love you guys, even if I dont agree with some. But hey its America right.
-Yes you to Stigger.
:88E: :coolcthul :88E: :coolcthul :88E: :coolcthul :88E: :coolcthul 18DELTA :D
-:P Well I don't hang out here all day and start lore/fluff flamewars with people so...
-You should try it (any of the above). All are gratifying.
-You should try it (any of the above). All are gratifying.
-This 'Grasshopper,' 'Padawan learner' is not worthy O' Dark Lord. Slayer of a God!
:embarrass 
18DELTA ;) :P :D
-This 'Grasshopper,' 'Padawan learner' is not worthy O' Dark Lord. Slayer of a God!
18DELTA ;) :P :D
All right Grasshopper, you'll miss it when you least expect it.
All right Grasshopper, you'll miss it when you least expect it.
-Huh?
-On a side note: Pathfinder RPG Beta Preview #1
-Saw it here first folks.
18DELTA :D
-Huh?
-On a side note: Pathfinder RPG Beta Preview #1
-Saw it here first folks.
18DELTA :D
No, I saw it first on my mail :D
No, I saw it first on my mail :D
-Sure, why don't you just rub it in then. :embarrass
-Typical Sun Elf for ya folks. ;)
-Was it an E-Mail?
18DELTA
As to Pathfinder vs 4e... while I find the Pathfinder rules very, very interesting, I don't care for the setting much. 4e... don't care much for the rules or the setting to be honest. My current plans are for a hybrid of Star Wars Saga, Pathfinder, and 3.5e rolled into one strange mess. :D
-You should try it (any of the above). All are gratifying.
Going outside, playing paintball, and hanging out with actual girls in real life as opposed to online is also gratifying. Try it sometime Karsus;)
Going outside, playing paintball, and hanging out with actual girls in real life as opposed to online is also gratifying. Try it sometime Karsus;)
-I do two of the three.
-I do two of the three.
Good, you're learning.;)
-And, of course, only one is slightly related to either Pathfinder, or the Forgotten Realms, or 4e.
-Ah, but which of the two is for me to know. ;)
-And, of course, only one is slightly related to either Pathfinder, or the Forgotten Realms, or 4e.
The girl right
Nope, the paintballs he's constantly pelted with hurt him the same way 4e does... :P :D
Just one step closer to my ultimate goal of utterly destr-I mean teaching Karsus about the true meaning of life, yeah that's it.:D
What I've seen from Pathfinder I've found mostly boring - in the same way I found Greyhawk mostly boring. It feels like bland generic fantasy. There is nothing about Pathfinder that draws me into it.
I love the way they set up the players guides. I love the designs and the layouts and the art... it's all perfect - except for the blandness. I don't really feel compelled to explore the world, but at the same time I can't imagine really exporting much to even use.
The 3.75 rules don't interest me. I'd rather use the 4E Rules straight out the box or heavily homebrew them.
As for the 4E Realms, I do not know how much I will use, but I an contemplating the shift, and at the very least heavily modifying the setting to make it more to my liking. I doubt there will be much Realms specific material released, since they are going "one Core to rule them all" in terms of settings – so I have no real need to stick to FR cannon anymore. I can use the past lore, the Spellplague and the time jump as a jumping off point for my own changes to the Realms.
:bounce: :bounce: You guys are crazy. I laughed soooo hard my belly started to hurt. :D :P 18DELTA :D
I confess, what I like most about Pathfinder is that it provides an option for producing D20 supplemental material after the transformation to 4E.
-The 3e Open-Game License still exists, so even if Pathfinder didn't exist, this would still be a possibility.
I do plan to have a closer look at what Pathfinder has to offer though. I'll take good ideas wherever I can find 'em.
I'll still keep up with it, but gaming in it has lost its luster. Not to re-hash what has been said a thousand times before, but I don't care for the new Realms, and gaming in the past when you already know the outcome seems kind of futile.
I'll be using Golarion with Pathfinder, because then I know everything will be 100% compatible (for instance, 3P has its own gods in the core rules). I plan on using TONS of FR material in it though, just as I used tons of GH material in FR when I began running it (and Mystara before that).
Ergo, MY Golarion will feel just like the Realms, and play like the Realms, and even have many of the 1e/2e/3e Realms NPCs and locales lurking about, without having to worry about some player saying I'm not running something correctly - not that that has ever happened, but its far less likely in a setting with NO novels (yet) and a brand-new history - everyone is zeroed-out, just like the WotC team attempted with FR.
I've even toyed with the idea of placing Faerûn somewhere in my version of Golarion, just like I imagine Oerik (GH's main continent) lying where Anchorme is in my version of FR.
I think using a 'mirror image' of one or the other would work best, and most likely would do that to Faerûn, like so -
That being said given the choice of continuing on with the 3.5 FR with Pathfinder, playing 4E in the 4E Realms or some variation thereof, I would rather play 4E than Pathfinder. I love the Realms, all of it, the Lore, the personalities, the organizations and the personality of the Realms itself.
However, I am going to give the 4E Realms a chance.
Pathfinder does a good job of fixing some of the big problems of 3.5, but not all, especially on the DM side of things.
Bel
-When you do that, at tilt it about -90 degrees, it looks a lot more like a map of the real world. Never really noticed that.
-When you do that, at tilt it about -90 degrees, it looks a lot more like a map of the real world. Never really noticed that.
what, the US?
what, the US?
-Of the world. Chult becomes similar to Latin/South America, The Moonshaes become similar to Japan, the Anauroch becomes close enough to the Gobi Desert. Rasheman appears around where Russia would.
-Of the world. Chult becomes similar to Latin/South America, The Moonshaes become similar to Japan, the Anauroch becomes close enough to the Gobi Desert. Rasheman appears around where Russia would.
thats a bit of a stretch
But I like that - it feels 'right', even though it could be considered derivitive. It seems like everything has its own place, rather then a mish-mosh of cultures randomly spread all around.
Anyway, I was just reading through the Gazeteer in depth last night (up until now, I just perused it by skipping around to stuff that interested me), and it occurred to me that Paizo uses the word 'Pathfinder' as a substitute for Adventurer in EVERYTHING.
Is that an attempt to steer clear of a WotC IP, or are they just trying to create their own 'sacred cows'?
I personally prefer adventurer in everyday parlance - referring to a group as 'Pathfinders' instead of 'Adventurers' seems a bit... alien... to me.
;) :P
I understand what you mean though - in Golarion, the Pathfinders are 'Organized Adventurers', in the same way that the Mafia is 'Organized Crime'.
I like that it's an effective way for the DM to 'steer' the players, wihthout it feeling so much so. It just seems that Paizo over-uses that term for EVERYTHINg.
And it's so open to interpretation by each DM - it includes regular adventurers, cartographers, xeno-biologists (called 'naturalists' in the "ye old days"), treasure-hunters and tomb-robbers, archaeologists, big-game hunters, etc, etc...
I like it - it reminds me of the 'Monster Society' that was used to frame the 'Ecology of..." series in Dragon back in the day.
Is that an attempt to steer clear of a WotC IP, or are they just trying to create their own 'sacred cows'?
-Can't do that, copyright a commonly used word in the language, with a normal, everyday meaning, and all that. As in the actual word itself, and not a business or whatever.
Pretty nice. Plus, Barbarians get bite attacks. Can't beat that.
You can also buy a physical copy of the rules (also in Aug) for $24.99, but I'll wait until the final release before I purchase a 'hard copy', which as you say is almost a year off (about ten months, I think).
Hey LK - check THIS out!
It's the book we always hoped for in FR! Paizo really knows how to give the fans what they want. :D
Hey LK - check THIS out!
It's the book we always hoped for in FR! Paizo really knows how to give the fans what they want. :D
-Damn them...Even "stealing" my title...
Not because of Pathfinder though, still not planning on buying the CS. :P
-Have they? 'Adventurers'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinders_%28military%29
-Damn them...Even "stealing" my title...
Yeah, 'cause "Elves of " is real original
Yeah, 'cause "Elves of " is real original
-It is indeed.
I'm going to keep using 3.5 rules until the end of the current campaign I'm running (which just jumped into the Realms a few sessions ago - the party got plane shifted there when they destroyed a portal).
After that, it's anyone's guess. If I run a Realms game, it's likely to be 3.5e or the Pathfinder 3.75 rules... At least until more classes et al come out for 4e. Right now I can't see how to convert some of the key NPCs of the Realms to 4e (for example - Storm Silverhand), so until I can do that (or find workarounds I can live with), I'll be staying in the 3rd Edition of DnD.
On the other hand, I like what I've seen and played of 4e. I may make my next campaign another homebrew just to work with the new rules - if I can talk my reticent player into playing it. (I finally got the books - my other half surprised me last week by bringing them home after work (went and got them from our F(not so)LGS. :D).)
(How come people who have never played WoW in their life think they can get away with comparing the 4e Rules to World of Warcraft? I mean honestly...)
(How come people who have never played WoW in their life think they can get away with comparing the 4e Rules to World of Warcraft? I mean honestly...)
-Uh, the designers of 4e kinda admitted that the two are similar, based on the fact that MMORPGs first borrowed from D&D, and then D&D borrowed from MMORPGs.
Heya,
I'm going to keep using 3.5 rules until the end of the current campaign I'm running (which just jumped into the Realms a few sessions ago - the party got plane shifted there when they destroyed a portal).
After that, it's anyone's guess. If I run a Realms game, it's likely to be 3.5e or the Pathfinder 3.75 rules... At least until more classes et al come out for 4e. Right now I can't see how to convert some of the key NPCs of the Realms to 4e (for example - Storm Silverhand), so until I can do that (or find workarounds I can live with), I'll be staying in the 3rd Edition of DnD.
Why do you need to stat out a bunch of NPC's? If you are going to use a few of them, I doubt you will use them in combat encounters. And if you do, simply stat them out on your own. Can't be that hard.
And yes, 4E has some similarities to WoW. For good and ill.
Why do you need to stat out a bunch of NPC's?
'cause there are plenty of people who enjoy looking at them.
Right now I can't see how to convert some of the key NPCs of the Realms to 4e (for example - Storm Silverhand)
Are you going to stat yourself?
'cause there are plenty of people who enjoy looking at them.
Are you going to stat yourself?
-Both of these quotes sound...Well, they can probably be misinterpreted.
Few responces to a few people here...
-Uh, the designers of 4e kinda admitted that the two are similar, based on the fact that MMORPGs first borrowed from D&D, and then D&D borrowed from MMORPGs.
It is, in my opinion, a very long bow to draw. Some of the things in 4e (and I've played it now) might be seen as similar to World of Warcraft, if you squint hard and turn the book upside down. But honestly, the mechanics of WoW and the mechanics of DnD4 are very different. First of all, does DnD have mana pools, energy pools, and rage pools? No. Ah ha! I hear you exclaim, DnD does have different sources of power! But, no, that comparison isn't valid either... Rage, Energy, and Mana all work differently, not so Arcane, Martial, and Divine. In 4e, they work the same. I could go on at length, talking about the classes and the way they work, and the mechanics of combat and gear, but what would be the point? This is a case of people seeing what they want to see.
As for which came first... Well that is the whole "chicken and egg" question, isn't it? DnD most certianly came first, DnD was around when MMORPGs weren't even MUDs yet. So if anything is going to be compared it should be "WoW is a little like Dungeons and Dragons, don't you think?" (Actually, WoW is a little like Warhammer (the wargame not the RPG), since the original Warcraft game was supposed to be a Warhammer game, but stuff happened and it was not to be... That's why some of the look of Warcraft is reminicient of Warhammer, even if the feel hasn't been retained.)
Are you going to stat yourself?
Heh...
When there's a bard class, I probably will. ;)
-Both of these quotes sound...Well, they can probably be misinterpreted.
And should be as far as I'm concerned! :D
You're bad!
:embarrass
It is, in my opinion, a very long bow to draw.
-I'm just, in a very limited manner, paraphrasing what they, the people who designed the game, said. Mearls.
-I'm just, in a very limited manner, paraphrasing what they, the people who designed the game, said. Mearls.
Yes, yes. I knew that. I was responding in part to those whom you quoted and those who are not designers and yet still compare DnD to WoW. You just happened to write the most relevant post.
I can see why the designers want to make the comparison stick in people's minds... Or in net parlance "I see wut dey did thar"... World of Warcraft has around 10 million subscribers, and I'm sure they'd love to emulate that... I can see that WoW did have an influence on DnD, as much as DnD inspired and influenced most fantasy based MMORPGs.
On the other hand, some of the non-designers who compare the two games... They do it as if it's a bad thing, and they do it as if it were a fact, as if you could substitute Azeroth for the DnD core world... As if the two games were completely interchangeable. Which is most certainly isn't true in the least.
I happen to like WoW, I also happen to like DnD. I've played both, and I think the comparisons are without substance. Other people don't agree, well that's fine. We're all entitled to our opinions.
This isn't to say "ZOMG THEY R TEH SAME!", but rather to point out how on first glance, someone might notice something that strikes a very similar chord in terms of concept, even if the underlying mechanics are dissimilar. I'm also not placing a value judgment on whether or not borrowing concepts from WoW is good or bad - I too have played and enjoy both (and still do - my guild is working on taking down Illidan now). My issues with 4th Edition have less to do with any particular mechanics, and more to do with how I perceive the entire mess has been handled.
One interesting thing I came across recently, relevant both to 4e/The Realms, and to Pathfinder, is a note at the end of a review of 4th Edition at scifi.com:
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/games/sfw19037.html
Essentially, it compares the styles of play, and suggests where people may or may not find something more akin to what they're looking for, from 3.5/Pathfinder, or from 4th Edition.
You're bad!
:embarrass
This should hardly be news to you, of all people. ;)
As to the rest, I don't think it really matters where they got ideas and concepts from, so long as people are having fun with what they created. So long as they are, then they've done their job. That it doesn't appeal to some is just part of doing business... sucks if you're one of those, I'll admit, but that's life.
Right now I can't see how to convert some of the key NPCs of the Realms to 4e (for example - Storm Silverhand), so until I can do that (or find workarounds I can live with)
Fortunately it won't be a long wait. The PHB2 comes out in March 2009, and it'll likely have, at the least, the Barbarian, Bard, and Druid. Possibly the Sorcerer, too, as well as a couple new classes (Shaman seems a given). So less than 8 months.
When I first sat down to try the game, I looked down at the character given to me, and tried to figure out how best to use the abilities he had. I (having spent a lot of time playing a hunter in WoW) immediately noted "Hunter's Quarry", an ability that allowed me to designate one target at a time, to whom I would deal additional damage. This stuck out to me, because as a Hunter in WoW, I have the ability "Hunter's Mark", which... allows me to designate one target at a time to whom my ranged attacks deal more damage. :D
The paladin ability "Divine Challenge" is just like a WoW Paladin's Righteous Defense. Except that Divine Challenge causes damage and an attack penalty to the monster so "marked" if they don't attack the Paladin, while Righteous Defense forces up to three monsters attacking a team mate (whom the Paladin must target in order to use the ability) to attack the Paladin... In other words, not at all the same.
Hunter's Mark increases the Attack Power of you and all of your team mates who are attacking the monster, which means it effects all attacks while it's in effect. Hunter's Quary increases the damage of the Ranger on a single attack in a round. Hunter's Mark would be equivalent to a +x bonus to hit and damage on all attacks, not just a +xd6 bonus to a single attack in a single round. It's superficially similar.
This isn't to say "ZOMG THEY R TEH SAME!", but rather to point out how on first glance, someone might notice something that strikes a very similar chord in terms of concept, even if the underlying mechanics are dissimilar. I'm also not placing a value judgment on whether or not borrowing concepts from WoW is good or bad - I too have played and enjoy both (and still do - my guild is working on taking down Illidan now). My issues with 4th Edition have less to do with any particular mechanics, and more to do with how I perceive the entire mess has been handled.
Lucky. My guild consists of my family, we're just starting to dabble with instances (we're going to be attempting Shadow Labyrinth next! :eek
... I'd like to be assaulting the Black Temple, but I am an Australian on a US server which means my play time doesn't coincide that well with US guilds.As for 4e, what is it about the way it has been handled that rubs you up the wrong way? I'm curious. There's plenty that has bothered me, but it's more to do with the way the Forgotten Realms has been handled, rather than with the way the system itself has been handled.
One interesting thing I came across recently, relevant both to 4e/The Realms, and to Pathfinder, is a note at the end of a review of 4th Edition at scifi.com:
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/games/sfw19037.html
Essentially, it compares the styles of play, and suggests where people may or may not find something more akin to what they're looking for, from 3.5/Pathfinder, or from 4th Edition.
Will have to take a look at that.
This should hardly be news to you, of all people. ;)
*sigh* No it's not news. ;) :D
As to the rest, I don't think it really matters where they got ideas and concepts from, so long as people are having fun with what they created. So long as they are, then they've done their job. That it doesn't appeal to some is just part of doing business... sucks if you're one of those, I'll admit, but that's life.
Couldn't agree more.
(I just don't like people denigrating my other hobby, that's all, just because they don't like the new look and feel Dungeons and Dragons.)It's superficially similar.
More or less my point, yes. The underlying mechanics are different, but it's not a huge leap to conclude that they drew the idea from such things, especially when the designers themselves have admitted to doing so. Again, though, pointing out that people could make the comparison on that level was my point, rather than trying to insist they were direct clones. ;)
Lucky. My guild consists of my family, we're just starting to dabble with instances (we're going to be attempting Shadow Labyrinth next! :eek
I can imagine - I used to play from GMT +9 (Japan/Korea), and I imagine it would be all but impossible to find a raiding guild. Much as I'd love to start up a discussion comparing WoW and other aspects (to include roleplaying, and the difficulties faced in trying to roleplay in WoW), I don't want to get too off-topic here - but hit me up in private if you want.
As for 4e, what is it about the way it has been handled that rubs you up the wrong way? I'm curious. There's plenty that has bothered me, but it's more to do with the way the Forgotten Realms has been handled, rather than with the way the system itself has been handled.
The majority of my dissatisfaction comes from the way the entire thing has been handled. The whole mess with the Forgotten Realms is the biggest part, but there are other things I think they could have done a lot better. They used chainsaws where scalpels might have been better, and removed a number of elements that many people liked, at the insistence of a vocal subgroup - yet, despite their claims that such things were necessary on principle, they left perhaps the most egregious case (Drizzt) untouched. Even when alternatives were proposed, to attempt to address what they wanted to do without causing as much collateral harm, the response was to refuse to do anything differently.
Bottom line, I felt like I was being told that my opinion wasn't needed or wanted - I was one of the 'old' players, and I'd better just suck it up and walk it off. I felt taken for granted, and I felt that my business was deemed expendable. Maybe that's not the case, but they did a great job of giving me the feeling it was.
Now, as far as the basic underlying rules, I don't have any inherent dislike of them. At the same time, I also don't feel any pressing need to adopt them. 3.5 still works great for now, and the people over at Paizo are working to address what problems there were - this time with a scalpel. I've downloaded the free Pathfinder Alpha-3 playtest rules, and I like what I see so far. So why do I need to change to a ruleset for whom my favorite settings are not being published, or are being published in what I consider to be a warped, twisted way?
Back in the glut of different roleplaying systems prior to the advent of the d20 OGL, there were a lot of systems that played better than 2nd Edition AD&D. However, I didn't switch to them and convert all my D&D stuff.
Couldn't agree more.
I don't really see anything wrong, in principle, with borrowing concepts from WoW that work, even if I will poke a little fun over it. After all, WoW borrowed so many things from D&D that the list would be a mile long.
Fortunately it won't be a long wait. The PHB2 comes out in March 2009, and it'll likely have, at the least, the Barbarian, Bard, and Druid. Possibly the Sorcerer, too, as well as a couple new classes (Shaman seems a given). So less than 8 months.
Interesting take, given that we can probably expect 5th Edition within 5 years. A long time to wait for what have long been considered core classes.
The majority of my dissatisfaction comes from the way the entire thing has been handled. The whole mess with the Forgotten Realms is the biggest part, but there are other things I think they could have done a lot better. They used chainsaws where scalpels might have been better, and removed a number of elements that many people liked, at the insistence of a vocal subgroup - yet, despite their claims that such things were necessary on principle, they left perhaps the most egregious case (Drizzt) untouched. Even when alternatives were proposed, to attempt to address what they wanted to do without causing as much collateral harm, the response was to refuse to do anything differently.
Bottom line, I felt like I was being told that my opinion wasn't needed or wanted - I was one of the 'old' players, and I'd better just suck it up and walk it off. I felt taken for granted, and I felt that my business was deemed expendable. Maybe that's not the case, but they did a great job of giving me the feeling it was.
To give a very recent (less than 24 hours) example of why this way of doing things was the wrong way I can mention the 120+ conflict that happened in my country:
Thanks the the National Executive branch of the government, who in their lust for more money they tried to put extremly heavy taxes to farmers (which is against our constitution to change taxes without giving them to the Legislative Branch to discuss them and reject or aprove them), last night (after 100 days of waiting for the President to send those taxes to be discussed, while they were already in effect, and I'll say again, it was anticonstitutional to impose them that way), after a lot of pressure from their part (using smearing adjectives against the oposition, lying all they could, using the national funds to give them as "gifts" to those who voted favorably to those taxes, and so on) they were rejected by the Senate (voted 36 YES and 36 NO, so the Vice-President had to reject them because he votes when there is a tie like this).
WotC did the same thing by trying to impose us something we didn't want, and using some of the worst marketing schemes I've seen in my whole life, our response was to rally against it, and in the end I'm thinking they are going to suffer from all what you mentioned just like my government destroyed itself thanks to their choices.
The apparent decision that WoTC seems (from my viewpoint) to have made is that the new customer base they intend to appeal to is far more lucrative than the preexisting one, and that they are willing to risk alienating portions of that base in order to appeal to the perceived desires of the customers they are trying to attract. From a business standpoint, that's certainly a reasonable conclusion to make.
My counterpoint to that is that it is unwise to burn your bridges, particularly when it is not necessary. I feel that WoTC could have achieved most or all of their stated goals in appealing to newer groups, without unduly antagonizing many of the older fans. I certainly was not predisposed against the 4th Edition ruleset, or against a 4th Edition update to the Forgotten Realms, on principle. I *wanted* to like them. It is quite possible to address the needs of your base, even while attempting to appeal to a new, larger group - politicians do this all the time, albeit to a greater or lesser degree of success. I know in the case of D&D/FR, I wouldn't mind WoTC trying to bring in new players, provided I don't feel abandoned in the process.
Many people have cited "New Coke" as the classic (no pun intended) example of this sort of corporate behavior. The key elements are making radical changes to an existing product to appeal to a new demographic, angering the old consumer base, while failing to truly capture the target one. Whether or not this will be the case for 4th Edition, I don't know. I do think they've made some pretty big blunders - the GSL being among them - but whether they'll really feel the pinch or not is another matter. I honestly hope it's not a spectacular failure, a la New Coke, even in spite of the fact that I feel irritated over my perceived treatment. I think it would be a significant blow to the hobby, if that happened.
However, I'm still not going to spend money on a product that doesn't interest me, from a company that is pointedly not addressing my needs or wants.
After seeing the 4e MM (my son bought it... and yes, I haven't spoken to him since :P ), I have to say I am totally 'off the fence' as far as the creatures are concerned - the scaleability of creatures to any level encounter simply by changing the prefix in front of the beasties name not only smacks of MORPGs in general, but just screamed WoW to me on nearly every page.
Right near the front of the book, both Boars and Crocodiles (WoW's Crocolisks) get their own (scaleable) entries. If you've ever run an Orc in Durotar, thats pretty much all you kill (along with scorpions and Raptors) for the first ten levels or so.
I always envisioned a perfectly balanced, scaleable P&P RPG similar to a MORPG, with a single set of rules to determine the abilities of each class.
Now that I have my 'dream rules', I am sorely dissapointed. Its everything I hoped they would be... and they are as bland as tofu. Sometimes we should be careful what we wish for.
I'll go back to WoW... at least it had gorgeous eye-candy - I can't think of any other Internet 'service' I'd rather spend $15 a month on.
Right near the front of the book, both Boars and Crocodiles (WoW's Crocolisks) get their own (scaleable) entries. If you've ever run an Orc in Durotar, thats pretty much all you kill (along with scorpions and Raptors) for the first ten levels or so.
WoW Player 1: "So what's the first thing you're going to do when the next expansion comes out?"
WoW Player 2: "Eh. Probably kill a boar."
:D
Sometimes I like to just go in and explore - they do have some incredibly gorgeous visuals (if you have a GREAT vid-card cranked all the way up, and a screamingly fast computer coupled with high-speed Internet access).
Why is that?
Because for all that WoW offers, there are other things it doesn't offer. WoW is many things, but above all it is a Massively Multiplayer Online game. It is not an RPG, in the purist sense of the term. That isn't to say you can't roleplay at all in WoW - many people do. However, it's swimming against the current.
So what does that have to do with 4e, FR, Pathfinder, any of that? Well, I'm not going to make any blanket allegations that 4e follows WoW to that extent, any more than previous editions did. Certainly, smooth gameplay helps in that it makes for less of a potential distraction from the storytelling aspects. However, too much of a combat oriented feel can potentially shift the main focus of the game away from the story, and more to the tactical aspects.
I'm fine with 3.x in that sense for the most part, albeit with a few exceptions. Those are the same areas that Pathfinder is attempting to address.
Again, though, that's just my opinion. In the end, we don't even need rules at all to play - just our imaginations, and some agreement on how we resolve conflicts and confrontations that arise in the story.
And ANY edition, or even any set of rules, can do that for us.
Albeit some better than others... never again on Phoenix Command... horrible ruleset. Realism taken to an incredibly ugly extreme.
Try Aftermath.
An incredibly complex game sytem for recreating an... Aftermath (post Armegeddon, Mad-Max style games).
They had a COMPLETE list of every gun type, and varied the damage caused by cross-referencing the calibur with the 'charge' (regular, 'special', 'magnum', etc...).
I learned more about firearms then I ever wanted to know - the rules for aiming and hit locations were pretty cool though, and I adapted them to D&D years ago. :D
They were pretty much on the other end of the extreme from TSR's own Gamma World.
1) Good gameplay. We like what it does, and it doesn't get us bogged down in the mechanics of the game, or focus too heavily on the non-story stuff.
2) Compatibility. It's a lot of work to convert source material from one system to another, be it 3.5 to 4.0, 4.0 to 3.x, White Wolf to 3.5, whatever...
Provided that #1 is at rough parity between two sets of rules, I'm going to choose based on #2. That is, one system might be marginally better, but not so much so that I'm going to do all that legwork. I'll either dump the setting and make my own custom world, or play under the setting's rules.
That being said, I would only see 4th Edition as the system of choice for one thing - Post-Spellplague 4th edition Realms as printed by WoTC.
If I'm going to play prior to the Spellplague, I'll likely be using the Pathfinder rules, or some mesh of 3.5 and Pathfinder. Likewise, if I decide to extrapolate my own FR timeline that ignores the official events, I'll be working from a 3.x/PFRPG base.
If I'm making a homebrew game, at present I still intend to stay with 3.5 and into Pathfinder.
Try Aftermath.
An incredibly complex game sytem for recreating an... Aftermath (post Armegeddon, Mad-Max style games).
They had a COMPLETE list of every gun type, and varied the damage caused by cross-referencing the calibur with the 'charge' (regular, 'special', 'magnum', etc...).
I learned more about firearms then I ever wanted to know - the rules for aiming and hit locations were pretty cool though, and I adapted them to D&D years ago. :D
They were pretty much on the other end of the extreme from TSR's own Gamma World.
Yes, but did they have you calculating ballistic data, taking into account wind speed, projectile drop, KET, etcetera and so forth, with multiple types of ammunition? Not just 'charge' mind you, but different types altogether, like say Full Metal Jacket versus a Glaser Safety Slug versus a Lead Round Nose versus a Jacketed Hollow Point, ad nauseum... was enough to drive one bonkers after a few hours. Don't even get me started on the rules for silenced weapons...
In order to stat myself I would need the old 1e optional rule for Comeliness so I can get a 21
-You could also use the 3e rules for Flaws. ;)
I play WoW, as I've stated. WoW has some pretty amazing things going for it. That said, I also still play clunky old Neverwinter Nights (1), with its 2001 era engine, and all its rule flaws (both from 3.x itself, as well as with issues arising from a computer port of those rules).
-Hey, what's wrong with Neverwinter Nights?
Hey, what's wrong with Neverwinter Nights?
There are a lot of things, actually. I've done a lot with the server/module I host to try and upgrade and improve it (mostly because NWN2 multi-player is horrid, by comparison), but there are still some things we run into a wall with.
For one, prestige caster classes won't work properly with sorcerers and bards - the game refuses to let them learn new spells of higher level. Everything else, we were able to fix.
Two, the combat engine is still a black box, so while there are some things we can alter to 3.5, or fix as we desire, we still can't touch the inner workings of that, leaving a lot of feats unable to be implemented properly.
Then of course there's the eye candy issues - even though it's been improved massively, graphics wise, both by Bioware and by the modding community, it still pales next to anything current.
That being said, it's still where I spend a lot of my time. :D
[...] -Hey, what's wrong with Neverwinter Nights?
Multiplayer: what Fire_Wraith said.
Singleplayer: I'll just say that even IWD had a better story and plot.
Singleplayer: I'll just say that even IWD had a better story and plot.
There's more to the singleplayer NWN experience than just the modules that come with the game, though. You can download many more (many of them very good) off NWVault.
NWN is still great because of the modules, makes it feel a little more like tabletop. You don't have to keep playing the same story.
Yeah, that's one thing I love about it.
-Hey, I still play it, from time to time. Never on the internet, though. Never had an internet connection good enough, until recently.
I can recommend some good servers if you're interested. /shameless plug
:D
Edit:
Hrm, for some odd reason my .sig isn't showing up now. Anyway, I can forward the sites for some relatively good FR worlds, as well as suggest a few others, if anyone is interested.
Double Edit: And now it is. Oh well.
Incidentally, how many other games still have people actively playing it this many years after its release? Even, perhaps more importantly, after the release of the sequel? Not too many, I'd imagine.
There's more to the singleplayer NWN experience than just the modules that come with the game, though. You can download many more (many of them very good) off NWVault.
Heh, I see Oberoni has finally gone digital, too. ;) :P
I'm more of a singleplayer guy myself, and therefore expect a strong singleplayer experience from a roleplaying game. And NWN1 falls terribly short of that. Discussing NWN1's failures in detail would require half a dozen threads by itself.
I agree that there are several very good modules, but that doesn't change the fact that the game itself (not the graphics engine or the scripting framework) is barely worth the CDs it's on.
Actually, from my perspective NWN2 was a much better game... until Act 3.
Another great game ruined by a crappy ending. 
I'm more of a singleplayer guy myself...
-Always thought you were a girl.
Heh, I see Oberoni has finally gone digital, too. ;) :P
I'm more of a singleplayer guy myself, and therefore expect a strong singleplayer experience from a roleplaying game. And NWN1 falls terribly short of that. Discussing NWN1's failures in detail would require half a dozen threads by itself.
I agree that there are several very good modules, but that doesn't change the fact that the game itself (not the graphics engine or the scripting framework) is barely worth the CDs it's on.
Actually, from my perspective NWN2 was a much better game... until Act 3.
NWN was not a singleplayer game with a multiplayer version. I tend to think of it more as a game toolset for making single and multiplayer games, that came with a singleplayer demo module.
NWN2 was more the reverse - it was a singleplayer game that had multiplayer as an afterthought, and this shows in the multiplayer interface. Many people I've known that tried NWN2 multiplayer were very disappointed, even after multiple patches to try and get it up to speed.
As far as the NWN2 Singleplayer ending...
Show
Rocks fall, everyone dies.
I haven't been able to play NWN2 because of the system reqs, which is an ongoing problem in the computer world, they need to slow down on requiring top end systems for every new game, because it limits a lot of players. Leave all the fancy graphics and features to the platforms and give us PC users games that run on the average system, that people actually own, and don't require a $2000 system to play a $50 game that is over after 100 hours of play.
As to RoMD... never even finished it, one of maybe three games I can say that about. NWN2... yeah, had me until act III. MotB though, I really enjoyed that one. A bit sketchy in places, but overall it was very fun.
.Because for all that WoW offers, there are other things it doesn't offer. WoW is many things, but above all it is a Massively Multiplayer Online game. It is not an RPG, in the purist sense of the term. That isn't to say you can't roleplay at all in WoW - many people do. However, it's swimming against the current.
So what does that have to do with 4e, FR, Pathfinder, any of that? Well, I'm not going to make any blanket allegations that 4e follows WoW to that extent, any more than previous editions did. Certainly, smooth gameplay helps in that it makes for less of a potential distraction from the storytelling aspects. However, too much of a combat oriented feel can potentially shift the main focus of the game away from the story, and more to the tactical aspects.
For me, 4e brings alot to the table in terms of combat and making the rules for that go smoother. Other aspects of the game which I consider along the lines of RPing can be done without lots of rolls or having a certain spot on my character sheet. For an example, the streamlining of the Skills (from 35 to 17) was better for me because I thought many of the skills could've been represented by others, namely spot/listen, hide/move silently, etc.
Other aspects of 3.x which I had problems with was the unbalance of classes to which it was (at higher levels 10 to 20) more or less boring to the standard melee character. 3e helped by providing tactical feats, weapon style feats, and special weapon feats in other sources but to me, that still paled in comparison. If you read any of the Char-Op boards, they'll likely tell someone to PrC/multiclass into a caster as soon as possible to maximize your effectiveness compared to your party's druid/cleric/wizard/sorcerer.
Even though Pathfinder rules will change, I don't see them fixing these to the extent that it will rejuvenize the core product. But as I have said, my friend is really getting into the setting of Pathfinder and is excited about it's rules so I will keep my hopes high as long as he's paying.
-Always thought you were a girl.
NWN was not a singleplayer game with a multiplayer version. I tend to think of it more as a game toolset for making single and multiplayer games, that came with a singleplayer demo module.
And that's the problem. The marketing campaign for NWN1 was using the name of BG2 as a comparison (I even remember the promise that you could import your BG2 character to NWN
). And if you compare the plot of BG2 to the "plot" of NWN1 you can probably understand why many people were disappointed. They hoped for a similar experience like in BG2, and basically got "Forgotten Realms Diablo". But I'll just reference you to the first line of my sig. :P
NWN2 was more the reverse - it was a singleplayer game that had multiplayer as an afterthought, and this shows in the multiplayer interface. Many people I've known that tried NWN2 multiplayer were very disappointed, even after multiple patches to try and get it up to speed.
Yep. Been there, done that. NWN2 is horrible in multiplayer. Especially if the designer of the module didn't isolate the cutscenes and area transitions, and forced the whole party along.
As far as the NWN2 Singleplayer ending...ShowRocks fall, everyone dies.
And that's the problem. The marketing campaign for NWN1 was using the name of BG2 as a comparison (I even remember the promise that you could import your BG2 character to NWN
When I originally first picked up the game, I got bored and stopped playing somewhere around the second or third act of the original campaign (I forget which). I only started playing the game again when I discovered multiplayer - more specifically, the more MUD/PW-style multiplayer.
Anyway, regarding the topic of PRPG vs 4E thing. So far I'm somewhat suspicious about PRPG. From what I've seen in the Alpha PDF and read from the discussions on the forums, I'm absolutely not convinced that they corrected the most glaring setbacks of 3E. The CMB is one of the (few) very good ideas they had. The rest is imho just "meh".
Well, consider for one that it's still in Alpha testing - and publicly so. Anyone can go and give feedback on their forums, and know that the designers read it. I find that kind of refreshing, personally. Tell me it isn't at least a little tempting to weigh in on what you think is wrong, and present your perfect solution for it? :D
Is it going to be perfect? Of course not. No set of rules is. There are likely underlying issues in 4e that haven't come to light yet, much as there were with 3e, that don't come out in playtesting, but only get sifted to the bottom through large amounts of playing on a mass scale. A lot of things have been changed with PFRPG thus far, to the point that I can see a clear difference in running 3.5 versus running those. However, I can still adjust 3.5 adventures and source materials with little difficulty, making them still useful to me.
I haven't been able to play NWN2 because of the system reqs, which is an ongoing problem in the computer world, they need to slow down on requiring top end systems for every new game, because it limits a lot of players. Leave all the fancy graphics and features to the platforms and give us PC users games that run on the average system, that people actually own, and don't require a $2000 system to play a $50 game that is over after 100 hours of play.
-Here, here. I second this motion.
-It's not like anything hints of a gender one way or another. ;)
-Here, here. I second this motion.
They only cater to the market. Starting with HL² and Doom 3 there's been a constantly increasing demand for better and better graphics in computer games. Oblivion and Crysis wouldn't have happened if the mentioned mediocre - at least from a plot/gameplay point of view - games had not been that successful.
Also, it's never been cheaper to get an insanely powerful computer than today. Quadcore CPU? 8 GiB RAM? 1 TB harddisk? SOTA graphic adapter with 1 GiB graphics ram? For less than 1000€? Check! And if don't want to spend that much, you can still settle for a dualcore CPU, 4 GiB RAM, a 300 GB harddisk, and a not-so-SOTA graphics adapter with 512 GiB ram.
As said, powerful computers are dead cheap today compared to some years ago. The raw power of the CPUs and graphics adapters is practically exploding. It only depends on how much you want to grab of this power. ;)
-It's not like anything hints of a gender one way or another. ;)
I thought that using an undead male elf as my avatar would be a pretty strong indicator.
Anyway, how many girls do you know that study computer science, have LaTeX and DocBook as hobbies, and like Warhammer 40k and Dawn of War? :PNWN1 is still better than most of the other D&D games made, it is expandable (by the players no less).
This is perhaps the key element to it, and why we're still playing it even now. No other game has even attempted to replicate it, except perhaps NWN2 - and NWN2 missed the point, focusing more on single player, to the detriment of multiplayer.
I haven't been able to play NWN2 because of the system reqs, which is an ongoing problem in the computer world, they need to slow down on requiring top end systems for every new game, because it limits a lot of players. Leave all the fancy graphics and features to the platforms and give us PC users games that run on the average system, that people actually own, and don't require a $2000 system to play a $50 game that is over after 100 hours of play.
We originally looked at changing to NWN2 when it first came out, and a lot of the people I play with started learning to use the prerelease toolset beta with that intent. The first big problem we faced was that a lot of the players and DMs wouldn't be able to run the game. However, the poor nature of NWN2's multiplayer interface made this issue largely a moot point. We weren't going to make the game unplayable for a large chunk of our playerbase, in order to change to a bad interface, all in the name of prettier graphics.
Heh, I see Oberoni has finally gone digital, too. ;) :P
I don't get it, sorry.
I'm more of a singleplayer guy myself, and therefore expect a strong singleplayer experience from a roleplaying game. And NWN1 falls terribly short of that. Discussing NWN1's failures in detail would require half a dozen threads by itself.
Well yeah, that's exactly what I was talking about--singleplayer modules. I only play singleplayer, myself.
I agree that there are several very good modules, but that doesn't change the fact that the game itself (not the graphics engine or the scripting framework) is barely worth the CDs it's on.
Modules are games though, just not the one that happened to come with NWN when you bought it. And there are more than several good ones. Best of all, almost all of them are free.
Not arguing with you, just giving you information.
I don't get it, sorry. [...]
The Oberoni Fallacy, aka "Just because you can fix it doesn't mean it wasn't broken." ;)
[...] Not arguing with you, just giving you information.
I've left NWN1 behind me a long time ago... :P
Anyway, back on topic. In my opinion PRPG leaves much to be desired. Paizo rides the "WotC sucks" wave and pushes the "3.X compatible" schtick of PRPG - which is just the thing that prevents them from actually fixing the darned system.
RACES
The races as a whole are not balanced with each other. Some gain an absurd amount of bonuses compared to the other races (*cough*dwarves*cough*) or are shoehorned into a specific class role with their abilities (*cough*elves*cough*).
Also, the racial mechanics are not consistent with each other. Why do elves still have their sleep immunity in addition to the save bonus, while gnomes only get the save bonus? And some things are simply ridiculously stupid. So, as a dwarf or gnome I can evade blows better when fighting an ogre, but my training against large combatants is completely worthless when facing an enlarged human?
The races as a whole are not balanced with each other. Some gain an absurd amount of bonuses compared to the other races (*cough*dwarves*cough*) or are shoehorned into a specific class role with their abilities (*cough*elves*cough*).
Also, the racial mechanics are not consistent with each other. Why do elves still have their sleep immunity in addition to the save bonus, while gnomes only get the save bonus?
And some things are simply ridiculously stupid. So, as a dwarf or gnome I can evade blows better when fighting an ogre, but my training against large combatants is completely worthless when facing an enlarged human? - Dwarves: Again the strongest of all races. Their racial bonuses increase the ability scores governing the two most important saves, they get darkvision 60ft, and a flat +2 bonus to saves against poisons/spells/SLAs.
- Elves: Forced into the caster role. Their racial bonuses increase abilities required as a wizard (or eventually rogue), while their other primary racial trait is flat-out worthless when you're not a caster. Also, their racial weapon proficiency does little for non-casters.
- Gnomes: Pretty well balanced although on the weak side. Their racial bonuses increase one score that's most important for melee combatants, and another score that's important for social characters. However, their SLAs are still wonky (e.g. the 1/day limit for cantrips).
- Half-elves: Very good. Nothing too strong ot too weak. Also, no racial trait that caters only to a small selection of classes.
- Half-orcs: "Big and dumb." As they were, just not as bad. Their "orc ferocity" trait does nothing in high-level combat, because the main problem wasn't going to below 0 - it was going to below -10 from what few HPs you had left. Also, why do half-orcs suffer an Int penalty but half-elves don't suffer a Con penalty? A half-orc's orc parent is not dumber than a half-elf's elf parent is frail.
- Halflings: Quite well balanced. Like with gnomes, their racial bonuses to ability scores are split between combat (defense and ranged) and social. But why in Bahamut's name does their "fearless" trait have to break the basic rules for stacking bonuses? I'm not even through the races chapter and already the rules consistency goes down the drain.
- Humans: Also quite balanced. However, the floating racial bonus to an ability score combined with the "weapon training" trait caters to casters more than to martial characters.
Anyway, back on topic. In my opinion PRPG leaves much to be desired. Paizo rides the "WotC sucks" wave and pushes the "3.X compatible" schtick of PRPG - which is just the thing that prevents them from actually fixing the darned system.
Rather than turn this into a point by point debate, it seems to me that your argument (in general) is that 3.5 is broken to the point that there is no point in trying to make minor fixes - but rather, that large sections need to be replaced entirely. Honestly, I think this is where we're going to ultimately disagree, because I don't think that 3.5 is so completely broken that it's unplayable without ripping out the engine, powertrain, and really everything except the upholstery.
Personally, 3.x compatible is a selling point for many of us (*gasp*). Also, as LK generally indicates, demanding that everything be equally balanced, and yet still have a unique and individual feel to it, are often opposing drives. It's not completely a zero-sum equation, but the two are hardly unrelated. One of the oft-quoted complaints about 4e I hear, ironically, is that the classes are too similar in what they can do, to the point that we're all driving the same car, just with different color schemes.
However, let's consider this from another angle.
Yes, Paizo/Pathfinder is starting from 3.5, and attempting to remain 3.5 compatible. However, it's unfair to claim that this is all because they think "WotC sucks" and are jumping on the bandwagon. While I can't speak for Paizo, everything I've seen indicates that the core reason for working off of 3.5 for PFRPG, rather than (say) 4ed, is pretty basic:
They can't.
The reason (again, as I understand it) is that due to the nature of the 4th Edition GSL, and the 3.5/d20 OGL, it's what they have to work with. :P
Let me reiterate once again that these are the Alpha playtest rules. It's unfair to consider them as a finished product, rather than a work in progress. Furthermore, why not actually take your suggestions and post it on their forums, specifically created for such?
I for one find it remarkable that Paizo is doing something like this, rather than shroud the whole thing in secrecy, and try and make sweeping decisions about things that gamers (like me) feel very strongly about. I like being asked my opinion before they make final decisions, even if they decide not to listen to me. It's a heck of a lot better than presenting the changes, then responding to issues raised by myself and others by saying "tough, this is how it is, take it or leave it."
-Being that I am developing my own Sorcerer with different bloodlines, it is indeed hard to make things balanced, so that no one bloodline seems better than any of the others, and at the same time, make each one unique, so that it doesn't seem like a palette swap every time you see a different bloodline.
Which is exactly why the 4e rules appear 'tasteless' (as in "no flavor", not "in bad taste").
It seems like everyone does the same exact thing, but swaps out different words to make it sound like you're doing different stuff.
If I've learned anything from 4e, it's that it is possible to give a game TOO MUCH balance.
The idea is that every PC is supposed to be different; but if everyone is exactly equal in firepower and effectivness, then whats the point of even choosing a class?
The Oberoni Fallacy, aka "Just because you can fix it doesn't mean it wasn't broken." ;)
Are you saying I commited a fallacy?
I didn't say anything "fallacious". NWN was meant about fans creating modules to share with the community, and that's exactly what people did. That's really all I was saying.Rather than turn this into a point by point debate, it seems to me that your argument (in general) is that 3.5 is broken to the point that there is no point in trying to make minor fixes - but rather, that large sections need to be replaced entirely. Honestly, I think this is where we're going to ultimately disagree, because I don't think that 3.5 is so completely broken that it's unplayable without ripping out the engine, powertrain, and really everything except the upholstery.
Compare it to a computer game. The game's got awesome graphics, but the collision detection and scripting framework are bugged to hell and back. Can you fix that game or can't you? What's more important to you, that the final product looks and plays good, or that it only contains "original" content for the sake of it?
You could fix 3.5. Even easily so. But for that some sacred cows just have to die. You can't repair a system if you insist on holding on to - and more, repeating - the same old and known errors.
Personally, 3.x compatible is a selling point for many of us (*gasp*).
Well, if that's the case why aren't people nerdraging across the forums because Paizo is doing the exactly same things in PRPG as WotC did in 4E?
Like, turning clerics and wizards into some "Gauntlet" style classes with infinite "zap" powers? IIRC it was Lord Karsus who brought exactly this point up in other debates. Now?
Also, as LK generally indicates, demanding that everything be equally balanced, and yet still have a unique and individual feel to it, are often opposing drives.
Sure. But in pursuit of that goal you don't have to make the game even more complicated.
Take the PRPG barbarian and monk for example. They both have class features that are powered by a point system. However, while the monk simply uses Wis mod + 1/2 monk level to determine how many points he gets, the barbarian has 4 + Con mod at first level plus 2 + Con mod at each subsequent level.
WTF?! What the heck was wrong with making those classes use the same mechanic? That's micromanagement and different mechanics for the sake of micromanagement and different mechanics. It doesn't serve any actual purpose.
Also, it shoots any DM who simply wants to put some barbarian levels on a monster in the back. Now he has to track two resources for the monster - hit points and rage points (and both probably on a "per round" basis), in addition to whatever other stuff the monster already has (SLAs, charged items, etc).
It's not completely a zero-sum equation, but the two are hardly unrelated.
But there's a slight difference there. Let's take a look at sorcerers again, shall we?
- The abyssal bloodline gives the character two 1d6+Str claw attacks as natural weapons.
- The destined bloodline grants a (su) melee touch as a standard action that gives any single creature a 1/day bonus to a single attack roll, skill check, save, or ability check equal to 1/2 your caster level whenever you use it (but no more than once per day for any given target).
- The elemental bloodline allows access to a ranged touch attack with a 30ft range dealing 1d6 + 1/2 caster levels acid/fire/cold/electricity damage.
The bloodline feature granted by the abyssal bloodline is useless unless you're going for a gish, which pretty much predefines your spell selection (in addition to making your survival at low levels highly questionable). The destined bloodline feature is pretty much useless for a character in a small party (or even a solo campaign) that's not some sort of "me got some henchmen" leader type. The elemental bloodline feature is clearly the strongest of these for a "typical" sorcerer who stays back and fires away with magic.
If you look at the bloodlines, sure, they evoke a certain image about different sorcerer characters. But if you want to play a certain type of sorcerer and then look at the bloodlines with your concept in mind, you'll likely find that many don't fit and you're forced into a certain bloodline to not waste your class features. Playing against the odds (or rather, class mechanics) is a slippery slope in DnD (*cough*daggerthrowing paladin*cough*).
One of the oft-quoted complaints about 4e I hear, ironically, is that the classes are too similar in what they can do,
to the point that we're all driving the same car, just with different color schemes.
Sure, if you insist that a Ferrari F430, a Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder, a Jaguar XKR, and a Mercedes SLR are the same because they are all 4-wheeled sports cars. ;)
And in fact, it's PRPG that is 3E with a different paint job. Similar to the d20 EQ rpg. :P
However, let's consider this from another angle.
Ok.
Yes, Paizo/Pathfinder is starting from 3.5, and attempting to remain 3.5 compatible. However, it's unfair to claim that this is all because they think "WotC sucks" and are jumping on the bandwagon.
Have you even taken a look at their forums?
If you thought the anti-4E flaming here was bad... 
While I can't speak for Paizo, everything I've seen indicates that the core reason for working off of 3.5 for PFRPG, rather than (say) 4ed, is pretty basic:
They can't.
The reason (again, as I understand it) is that due to the nature of the 4th Edition GSL, and the 3.5/d20 OGL, it's what they have to work with. :P
So? Other companies seem able to circumvent the limitations of the GSL pretty easily (e.g. Kenzer). Or they could have produced their setting system-neutral.
Also...
Let me reiterate once again that these are the Alpha playtest rules. It's unfair to consider them as a finished product, rather than a work in progress. Furthermore, why not actually take your suggestions and post it on their forums, specifically created for such?
Again, you have seen their forums, right?
Also, my suggestions would probably require to rework much more than Paizo (or their customers
) were willing to take. First of all, I'd kill off the old paradigm (or sacred cow... hmmm... holy hamburgers 
:D ) of "only casters get to do cool stuff" and give impressive abilities to all classes, or turn everyone into a caster (sort of) like in EarthDawn. You remember the "Class Acts" article on arcane fighters? Bingo! That way you wouldn't have to be stuck with that frigging ridiculous "realism" where a fighter should only have to "full attack - 5ft step - full attack - ..." because anything else would be "too much" for him. 
But that then begs the question how much and how often do they want to change the rules? At some point you have to freeze any changes and make sure you hammer out all the bugs from the system. It just can't work the other way, messing around with rules and mechanics right up to the day the whole thing is sent off to the printers.
We'll see what Paizo decided on when the Beta phase hits the street. If there are any serious changes in the rules or the design after that point, something went horribly wrong in their process.
I for one find it remarkable that Paizo is doing something like this, rather than shroud the whole thing in secrecy, and try and make sweeping decisions about things that gamers (like me) feel very strongly about. I like being asked my opinion before they make final decisions, even if they decide not to listen to me. It's a heck of a lot better than presenting the changes, then responding to issues raised by myself and others by saying "tough, this is how it is, take it or leave it."
But you should always remember: it's not what "all people" want that is best. Especially in our times with things like the internet where a quite small minority can create a quite large amount of presence ("vocal minority").
It's like democracy. It just can't work with people believing everything they read in The Sun (or whatever tabloid you've got), easily being manipulated into screaming for whatever a magazine suggests to them when pushing a "scandal" or another. Some people must have a really low Will defense.
Are you saying I commited a fallacy?
I was just joking. :P I know what you trying to say, but Bioware's PR failed horribly. They made the connection to BG2 and tried to sell off NWN as a "great roleplaying game", while in reality it was - as you said - little more than a modding framework with a demo campaign. ;)
First of all, I feel that you're making a gross number of assumptions here, which I have stated already, and that you seem to have breezed right past.
I've played 4th Edition. I don't like it, and I've stated that many times. I don't, however, keep insisting that nobody could like it, or that it's some horrible attempt to bilk people for money. I think the idea that different people may want different things should be grossly obvious.
Just because you think that 3.5 is ridiculously broken because not everything is perfectly capable of the same thing doesn't mean the rest of us share your underlying philosophy. Stop trying to act like something that is a matter of opinion is really a matter of fact.
All in all, I'm not too impressed with PRPG. On my personal scale, it gets 4/10 points. PRPG seems just too much like "pimp my ride" - spraying the old car with vivid paint and giving it an impressive stereo with a touch screen while leaving the rusty floor pan and the defunct brakes in.
You know, I enjoyed reading your comments about the game.
I was just joking. :P I know what you trying to say, but Bioware's PR failed horribly. They made the connection to BG2 and tried to sell off NWN as a "great roleplaying game", while in reality it was - as you said - little more than a modding framework with a demo campaign. ;)
No argument there.
Of course, I have to admit I thought the idea of trying to transfer an extremely high level PC from a totally different ruleset (the BG PC) into NWN was a bit ridiculous to begin with. I mean, if you (and I mean "you" in the general sense) really want to use your BG PC in a NWN module, you might as well just rebuild the character.
Like, turning clerics and wizards into some "Gauntlet" style classes with infinite "zap" powers? IIRC it was Lord Karsus who brought exactly this point up in other debates. Now?
-Right. I don't like how their Clerics have unlimited Orisons (or whatever they are called), and how Wizards/Sorcerers have unlimited Cantrips. I do like what they did with Cleric Domain Powers/Spells, though. It's a minor difference in flavor (Supernatural/Special Abilities, rather than normal spells), but one that I like. Mechanically, it's all the same, with the Domain Powers/Spells.
If you look at the bloodlines, sure, they evoke a certain image about different sorcerer characters. But if you want to play a certain type of sorcerer and then look at the bloodlines with your concept in mind, you'll likely find that many don't fit and you're forced into a certain bloodline to not waste your class features. Playing against the odds (or rather, class mechanics) is a slippery slope in DnD (*cough*daggerthrowing paladin*cough*).
-My sister successfully ran a dual-pistol wielding Paladin for eight levels, before the campaign ended. Awesome character, and a great overall campaign. Probably the best I've ever been in.
You know, I enjoyed reading your comments about the game.
Actually, if you want to see a ton of critiques and illustrations of issues with the system, you need go no further than Paizo's own forums. It is, after all, an Alpha printing, and there's still a lot of debate on any number of things. Nobody at Paizo thinks it's a finalized set of rules - that's why they're playtesting them, and taking quite a long time to do so. The final version isn't due to be published for over a year.
-Right. I don't like how their Clerics have unlimited Orisons (or whatever they are called), and how Wizards/Sorcerers have unlimited Cantrips. I do like what they did with Cleric Domain Powers/Spells, though. It's a minor difference in flavor (Supernatural/Special Abilities, rather than normal spells), but one that I like. Mechanically, it's all the same, with the Domain Powers/Spells.
I am sort of dubious about that notion, and am looking forward to trying it out. They specifically note that it required removing (or rather, radically altering) both Cure and Inflict Minor Wounds, as a result of balance issues. Some I can see as not being much of an issue (Light, for example) - others, eh, not so sure about.
It's also interesting to watch the changes to Turn/Rebuke Undead, which I find fascinating - but again, there's an ongoing debate as to whether the current version does too much, makes clerics too powerful as healers vis a vis other classes, etc. I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays, too.
I do like the changes to domains and to spell school specialization, as well as bloodlines, even if there may be minor potential issues in how those are implemented, in terms of specific powers, that I'll likely suggest changes for.
That's really the big thing though - I can make these suggestions, and they'll be taken into consideration. :P
Actually, if you want to see a ton of critiques and illustrations of issues with the system, you need go no further than Paizo's own forums. It is, after all, an Alpha printing, and there's still a lot of debate on any number of things. Nobody at Paizo thinks it's a finalized set of rules - that's why they're playtesting them, and taking quite a long time to do so. The final version isn't due to be published for over a year.
Understood.
I'll take your advice.No argument there.
You know, I was actually more curious about how they wanted to do that than actually being able to do that. Especially after ToB was out. :D Apparently, they decided that going a different route was the better plan - something I can wholeheartedly agree with.
You know, I enjoyed reading your comments about the game.
Heh, thanks. :D
I know I'm a grumpy old bastard (being undead is no cakewalk :P ), but what's the saying?
[indent]"Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth." --Lillian Hellman[/indent]
;) And now, looking at my post, I realize that I forgot the " ;) :P " at the bottom I wanted to put in there.
-I was looking for Neverwinter Nights 2, and it sucks; I can't find it. The box is empty. The instruction manual is still there, but the CD is gone...I forgot about that. I was erasing stuff on my computer to free some room for it, to see if it'd work this time, too...
Hmmm that's bad.
-Right. I don't like how their Clerics have unlimited Orisons (or whatever they are called), and how Wizards/Sorcerers have unlimited Cantrips. I do like what they did with Cleric Domain Powers/Spells, though. It's a minor difference in flavor (Supernatural/Special Abilities, rather than normal spells), but one that I like. Mechanically, it's all the same, with the Domain Powers/Spells.
The problems with that are (domain/level):
- Artifice/12: Fabricate
- Death/16: Create Undead
- Glory/16: Resurrection
- Glory/20: Gate for summoning good creatures
- Healing/16: Greater Restoration
- Knowledge/12: True Seeing
- Knowledge/16: Legend Lore
- Luck/20: Miracle
- Travel/20: Astral Projection
If you use these as spells, they are (more or less) balanced by the cost of their material components. However, as SLAs they lack any components. And that's the problem. Also, how is a spell like fabricate supposed to work if it doesn't have material components (because the whole spell's point is turning its components into something else)? Making [high-level] spells into SLAs usable freely without any checks and balances (even if only on a "per day" basis) is never a good idea. And even less, when doing so "for flavor".
-My sister successfully ran a dual-pistol wielding Paladin for eight levels, before the campaign ended. Awesome character, and a great overall campaign. Probably the best I've ever been in.
Did I mention that was a 4E paladin? :P The whole thing started with a thread on ENworld. One player insisted on not using Lay on Hands for the benefit of the party, and in combat only threw daggers from behind the other characters.
The problems with that are (domain/level):
...
-That's why they are Alpha rules. With Clerics (and, I always seem to play the Cleric), I liked Domain Abilities, but the concept of Domain Spells never sat well with me. Again, it's an aesthetic thing, but why bother making them spells, and then give you the extra slot to allow you to take that spell without having to take one less spell in the list.
One player insisted on not using Lay on Hands for the benefit of the party, and in combat only threw daggers from behind the other characters.
-Storywise, this Paladin was denied the ability to Lay on Hands for a few levels, being as that she did not know that she was a Paladin. Once the DM revealed this, then the player in question used it freely. Before that, only in times of dire emergencies, when the character attempted to bandage a character did it "magically" happen.
Overall it was pretty shoddy, because some domains were far better than others, and there was no restrictions on how many times you could memorize a given spell. Trickery domain, for instance, gave improved invisibility at 5th level, and you could take it as many times as you wanted.
Interestingly enough, the developers appear to have intended to put in more domains, as many of them are partially defined in the hak files - Charm, Chaos, Law, to name a few. They were just never finished, though. That's part of the beauty of NWN though, however unintended - you can fix things like that, to some degree.
Overall it was pretty shoddy, because some domains were far better than others, and there was no restrictions on how many times you could memorize a given spell. Trickery domain, for instance, gave improved invisibility at 5th level, and you could take it as many times as you wanted.
And, you could choose the Good and the Evil Domain, for the same character.
And, you could choose the Good and the Evil Domain, for the same character.
-They're neutral. ;)
-They're neutral. ;)
You could be a good person or evil person and do that too, though.
There were no restrictions on it.You could be a good person or evil person and do that too, though.
It was one of the things that NWN2 handled better than NWN, generally. As I recall, NWN2 even paid attention to gender, such that if you were a male drow cleric, it wouldn't let you pick Lolth as your deity. Well, something to that extent at least, as I remember that being one of the cited examples. :D
-That's why they are Alpha rules. With Clerics (and, I always seem to play the Cleric), I liked Domain Abilities, but the concept of Domain Spells never sat well with me. Again, it's an aesthetic thing, but why bother making them spells, and then give you the extra slot to allow you to take that spell without having to take one less spell in the list.
I agree that it's a good idea on paper. But the execution is flawed. I'd have prefered giving a casterlevel boost to certain spells, or simply adding the listed spells to his spell list (which would also have solved the problem of the infinite spell list). But giving out SLAs and SUAs is imho a bad idea.
Also, the cleric doesn't need compensation for the lost domain spell slots he should have never had in the first place!
-Storywise, this Paladin was denied the ability to Lay on Hands for a few levels, being as that she did not know that she was a Paladin. Once the DM revealed this, then the player in question used it freely. Before that, only in times of dire emergencies, when the character attempted to bandage a character did it "magically" happen.
Uhm, no. :P If you read the linked thread you'll notice that the player was just being an ass. Letting your party members [almost] die because "it's their time" is a very poor excuse, even (and especially) for a paladin of the Raven Queen. The player was just being difficult on purpose. Same thing goes for not defending the other party members from enemies but hiding behind them and throwing 1d4 weapons around.
;)[...] You remember the "Class Acts" article on arcane fighters? Bingo! [...]
That was the class acts on warriors from Dragon #355, "Eldritch Warriors".
By taking alternative class features instead of bonus feats, you could turn the standard fighter into some sort of imbued warrior. If you took all features, you got the following:
- Level 1: worn armor doesn't count against your encumbrance, slows as if one category lighter, max Dex bonus +1, ASF halfed
- Level 2: resistance 5 (against a single type; acid, cold, electricity or fire)
- Level 4: evasion against spells and magical effects if light encumbrance or less
- Level 6: gain SLA 3/day (dependent on element chosen for resistance; magic stone, obscuring mist, feather fall, or burning hands), +1d6 elemental damage to all unarmed/melee attacks (same as element chose for resistance)
- Level 8: don or remove armor as full-round action, +1 insight to AC
- Level 10: 25% fortification
- Level 12: resistance 10 (improved from level 2), gain +2d6 elemental damage to all unarmed/melee attacks (improved from level 6), gain SLA (dependent on element chose for resistance; stone shape 3/day, water breathing 3/day, freedom of movement 1/day, fire shield 1/day)
- Level 14: +2 insight to AC (improved from level 8), 75% fortification (improved from level 10)
- Level 20: resistance 20 (improved from level 12), gain +3d6 elemental damage to all unarmed/melee attacks (improved from level 12), increase SLA uses (stone shape at will, water breathing at will, freedom of movement 3/day, fire shield 3/day), +3 insight to AC (improved from level 14), 100% fortification (improved from level 14)
You could switch out the fortification against SR 11+HD at 18th level, however. It's a bit wierd to describe because bth fortification and SR replaced (at least in parts) your level 18 bonus feat.
Anyway, this is imho a good example how you could give warriors nice things without forcing them to be gishes.
Personally, I've seen people mostly avoid clerics. They seem to be among the least popular classes in games I've played in, of late, for whatever reason. This is entirely anecdotal, of course, but it just struck me that nobody wanted to play the "healbot", but they all complained when they had to do without one.
Most of the players seemed to gravitate towards the other three archetypes - namely, melee types, sneaking types, and mage types. Most of these didn't play just one single class, but rather, mixed and matched prestige classes in to give them an 'edge', but usually it was one from their primary focus - ie, rogues taking shadowdancer or assassin, for instance. Even mages tended to stop leveling in wizard/sorcerer, and start taking levels in a spellcaster prestige class.
One interesting idea that's still being debated on the Paizo forums was altering Turn Undead into Channel Energy. The short of it is that it replaced Turn Undead with an ability that (for good aligned clerics) healed living creatures for 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels, and damaged undead for the same amount, plus a will save or flee, or (for evils) that did damage to the living, healed undead, and made the undead save or be controlled by the cleric, with neutral clerics able to choose at start which of the two they could do.
The general idea, from what I understand, was to allow clerics a little flexibility in healing, and allow them to not feel forced into taking all their spells as healing (or converting all of them into heals) - and thus, get a chance to be more than just the healbot. It's interesting to read the different views people have on this, though most of the playtest reports seem positive (ie, those who actually played a game out using the rule).
I agree that it's a good idea on paper. But the execution is flawed.
-Well, that's what Alpha rules, and playtesting, and all of that is for.
Uhm, no. :P If you read the linked thread you'll notice that the player was just being an ass.
-I was talking about the campaign *I* was in.
Personally, I've seen people mostly avoid clerics. They seem to be among the least popular classes in games I've played in, of late, for whatever reason. This is entirely anecdotal, of course, but it just struck me that nobody wanted to play the "healbot", but they all complained when they had to do without one.
-People often say this, but I never get it. Like I said, I always seem to play the Cleric, because I enjoy it. My role has never been "reduced" to the 'healbot', and I don't think I was playing my characters 'incorrectly'.
-People often say this, but I never get it. Like I said, I always seem to play the Cleric, because I enjoy it. My role has never been "reduced" to the 'healbot', and I don't think I was playing my characters 'incorrectly'.
Some of this is probably just perception on the various players' parts - at least, that's my general take. I've played clerics, and never felt forced into doing just that. Perhaps it's the influence of MMOs nudging their way in, where at least at the upper end, if you're a healer, you pretty much Heal all the time? (Speaking in terms of role that is, not to say that a Priest in WoW can't be a Shadow Priest and focus on damage - but then you're not healing, per se) I don't know.
I just always find it amusing to see people not want to play a cleric, then complain about how much money they're spending on healing potions, etc. :D
Of course, I can still see how this makes sense in general, and gives the class more flexibility on healing (and makes evil clerics potentially much scarier). What's your take on the power, in general, LK?
What's your take on the power, in general, LK?
-I've never had the "brokenness" problems that other cite, in any of the games I've been in. But, just because something doesn't exist in practice doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist, in theory, and vice versa. Of course, I've never played with people who know the rules very well (myself included), and have actively tried to "optimize" their character to the umteenth degree, nor have I ever played in a prolonged campaign past Level 14 (I played in a one-shot 20th Level campaign, where we fought the Tarrasque, but that's all). Like anything else, if you have people who play the class "at face value", you're not going to have too many problems, I don't think. If you have people who play the class, looking for each and every little way to increase the power of it, then I'm sure things are going to get out of hand.
-Well, that's what Alpha rules, and playtesting, and all of that is for.
As I said, I'm waiting for Beta. We'll see then what they did and what they did not.
-I was talking about the campaign *I* was in.
Then, sir, you horribly misquoted. Loose 2pts SAN. :P
Adding the spells to the spell list was one of the things that was done for clerics in NWN1. Personally, it seemed to make for a potentially unbalancing ability, worse than the 1/day SLAs.
Depends. Power spells [usually] have a costly component attached to them, either material (which makes repeated castings very expensive and prevents the caster from getting some magical items), focus (which can be easily destroyed/stolen or is too heavy/difficult to transport), or experience (which cuts back the caster's advancement and prevents him from becoming more powerful quickly).
However, SLAs are completely without costs. And when you look at the costs of some of the spells I mentioned (e.g., greater restoration 5000gp) that's quite a lot of money that can be saved. However, the Universal school speciality is even worse: limited wish and wish as SLAs. I mean, come on! Just because you hit level 20 doesn't mean that you have to throw reason and balance out of the window.
While I realize that some spells might run into issues without material components, that's no worse than any other number of preexisting feats or abilities that either eliminate the need for components, or let you turn spells into SLAs. [...]
Some spells effectively cannot function without material components. Again, how is fabricate supposed to work? The spell takes its components as raw materials and... well... fabricates what the caster wants out of it. If you take away the components then what the heck is the spell fabricating from?
[...] Most of the players seemed to gravitate towards the other three archetypes - namely, melee types, sneaking types, and mage types.
Perhaps this should then be taken as a motivation to do away with the distinction between arcane and divine spellcasting. Magic is magic, or isn't it? You could always put that "granted by the gods"/"stolen from a demon"/"power through my draconic blood"/"learned by extensive study" stuff in the flavor part of the system. :P
Most of these didn't play just one single class, but rather, mixed and matched prestige classes in to give them an 'edge', but usually it was one from their primary focus - ie, rogues taking shadowdancer or assassin, for instance.
Sure. DnD is a game that rewards specialization and punishes generalisation, after all.
Even mages tended to stop leveling in wizard/sorcerer, and start taking levels in a spellcaster prestige class.
Because the base classes had nothing that the PrCs didn't get as well and then some more. Only with psionics you started to see PrCs that didn't give full manifesting/spellcasting advancement to balance out some of their abilities.
Things like "Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil" or "Radiant Servant of Pelor" should have never happened.
One interesting idea that's still being debated on the Paizo forums was altering Turn Undead into Channel Energy. The short of it is that it replaced Turn Undead with an ability that (for good aligned clerics) healed living creatures for 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels, and damaged undead for the same amount, plus a will save or flee, or (for evils) that did damage to the living, healed undead, and made the undead save or be controlled by the cleric, with neutral clerics able to choose at start which of the two they could do.
However, this mechanic doesn't solve a very prominent problem: good clerics are stronger than evil clerics. A neutral party will benefit much more from a good cleric than from an evil cleric, and if only because of the more powerful/numerous/easy healing he provides. And that shouldn't be.
The general idea, from what I understand, was to allow clerics a little flexibility in healing, and allow them to not feel forced into taking all their spells as healing (or converting all of them into heals) - and thus, get a chance to be more than just the healbot. It's interesting to read the different views people have on this, though most of the playtest reports seem positive (ie, those who actually played a game out using the rule).
Actually, I would prefer a rule like this: a cleric can only spontaneously convert spells into spells granted from one of his domains, and nothing else. Therefore, a cleric would have to take the healing domain as his "conversion" domain to be able to channel his prepared spells into cure spells, just like he would have to take the destruction domain as his "conversion" domain to be able to channel his prepared spells into inflict spells.
This would make each cleric unique and prevent the situation that good clerics are automatically better and stronger than evil clerics.
Depends. Power spells [usually] have a costly component attached to them, either material (which makes repeated castings very expensive and prevents the caster from getting some magical items), focus (which can be easily destroyed/stolen or is too heavy/difficult to transport), or experience (which cuts back the caster's advancement and prevents him from becoming more powerful quickly).
However, SLAs are completely without costs. And when you look at the costs of some of the spells I mentioned (e.g., greater restoration 5000gp) that's quite a lot of money that can be saved. However, the Universal school speciality is even worse: limited wish and wish as SLAs. I mean, come on! Just because you hit level 20 doesn't mean that you have to throw reason and balance out of the window.
I never said I liked everything about it. Personally, I don't like the current version of the Universal school, and wonder why one is even necessary, given that there's no real loss to specializing, unlike Specialist Wizards from 2nd/3rd edition who had to give up use of a school of magic.
That being said, I'm not sure that the removal of components and costs, in many cases, is as necessarily game-breaking as you believe. A lot of my 3.0/3.5 gaming over the past five years has been in the context of online multiplayer Neverwinter Nights (due to the fact of being deployed overseas in the military), and there are no material components in NWN. So, while I would certainly agree that there are a few spells, like wish or limited wish, that need to be taken into account, I don't think that it's a game-breaking notion.
Furthermore, I'd be more inclined to just make a change such that spell-like abilities still incur any XP costs when used. There, easy. :D
Some spells effectively cannot function without material components. Again, how is fabricate supposed to work? The spell takes its components as raw materials and... well... fabricates what the caster wants out of it. If you take away the components then what the heck is the spell fabricating from?
Again, easily fixed. Honestly, that's really not even so much a material component as it is a 'spell target'. It would be like me saying I have Stone to Flesh as an SLA - I don't need material components, but I still can't cast it if there isn't any stone around.
Sure. DnD is a game that rewards specialization and punishes generalisation, after all.
Because the base classes had nothing that the PrCs didn't get as well and then some more. Only with psionics you started to see PrCs that didn't give full manifesting/spellcasting advancement to balance out some of their abilities.
Okay, so... you'd prefer a game where people took their base class, and only that, and never diversified?
We had that - it was the D&D original edition, with Fighters, Mages, Clerics, Rogues - oh, and Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings (as classes, not just races).
Or are you saying that the base classes should be the standard, and people who want to diversify ought to pay a price for that, vis a vis the base class?
Honestly, in any game there are going to be people that min-max the system to such an absurd degree that there is only one (or very few) options that are considered useful. As long as there are different options to produce different flavor, I don't see it as being a bad thing if the base classes are just that - base classes - and that people like to further customize their character by taking prestige classes at higher level.
However, this mechanic doesn't solve a very prominent problem: good clerics are stronger than evil clerics. A neutral party will benefit much more from a good cleric than from an evil cleric, and if only because of the more powerful/numerous/easy healing he provides. And that shouldn't be.
I'm not sure I see why a good-aligned cleric shouldn't be a better healer than an evil cleric - or why being a better healer makes them a stronger cleric (unless, of course, we're subscribing to the clerics as healbots theory :D ). Also, if you really wanted to run an evil-centric game, and wanted a healing priest, it's really not that hard to extend the "Neutrals can choose whether they are going to channel negative or positive energy, at 1st level" rule to evil PC clerics.
Bottom line though... why are you posting these things here? If you want to see changes made in the system, go post them on Paizo's Pathfinder-Alpha feedback forums. After all, if people don't make suggestions for changes, that pretty much guarantees it won't change. :P
I never said I liked everything about it. Personally, I don't like the current version of the Universal school, and wonder why one is even necessary, given that there's no real loss to specializing, unlike Specialist Wizards from 2nd/3rd edition who had to give up use of a school of magic.
Coincidentally, the most powerful specialist was a diviner. Generally speaking, there was at least one divination of each spell level you definitively wanted to have prepared. The final result was that you had your "me wants" spell and freed up your other slots for the offense/defense/utility spells all for the cost of a single school (and if you dropped evocation you barely missed out on anything).
That being said, I'm not sure that the removal of components and costs, in many cases, is as necessarily game-breaking as you believe. A lot of my 3.0/3.5 gaming over the past five years has been in the context of online multiplayer Neverwinter Nights (due to the fact of being deployed overseas in the military), and there are no material components in NWN. So, while I would certainly agree that there are a few spells, like wish or limited wish, that need to be taken into account, I don't think that it's a game-breaking notion.
NWN also had a "Parry" skill, so I don't think using "NWN did it" is a good argument. :P Also, there was hardly anything "creative" you could do with the spells in NWN but exactly what they stated. For example, you could use Disintegrate only to attack one creature, but not to destroy a building's structure to make it collapse, or something like that. This greatly reduces any potential for possible abuse.
Furthermore, I'd be more inclined to just make a change such that spell-like abilities still incur any XP costs when used. There, easy. :D
House rules! Bad! :P
Again, easily fixed. Honestly, that's really not even so much a material component as it is a 'spell target'. It would be like me saying I have Stone to Flesh as an SLA - I don't need material components, but I still can't cast it if there isn't any stone around.
A really bad analogy. If you look at the spell descriptions:
[...]
Target: Up to 10 cu. ft./level; see text
[...]
Material Component
The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created.
[...]
Target: One petrified creature or a cylinder of stone from 1 ft. to 3 ft. in diameter and up to 10 ft. long
[...]
Material Component
A pinch of earth and a drop of blood.
you'll easily see where the problem is. Fabricate turns the material components == raw materials into something else. But if there are not material components, the spell just cannot do anything. It's a "
" case of a spell being able to be cast without material components but not functioning without material components, which leads the whole material components system ad absurdum.Okay, so... you'd prefer a game where people took their base class, and only that, and never diversified?
No. I prefer a game where staying in your base class was not a dumb idea compared to PrC'ing asap. I prefer a game where uberspecialization doesn't make you stronger overall by giving you full spellcasting advancement and a crapload of special abilities to boot. I prefer a game where powerful abilities actually do have strings attached and need to be payed somehow.
After all, the fighter has to sacrifice feat slots to crappy feats (Dodge) to be able to take good feats (Spring Attack), so why doens't the wizard or cleric have to sacrifice something to get their worldbending p0w3rz?
We had that - it was the D&D original edition, with Fighters, Mages, Clerics, Rogues - oh, and Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings (as classes, not just races).
Hehe, reminds me of the 2nd and 3rd editions of The Dark Eye. :D
Or are you saying that the base classes should be the standard, and people who want to diversify ought to pay a price for that, vis a vis the base class?
See my comment above regarding sacrifices.
Anyway, I think using something like d20 Modern's base classes and advanced classes system for a fantasy system could be a quite good idea. The system could be quite close to the EQ2 d20 system. Base Class -> Advanced Class -> Prestige Class, and with each step the character gets more focused and specialized.
Honestly, in any game there are going to be people that min-max the system to such an absurd degree that there is only one (or very few) options that are considered useful. As long as there are different options to produce different flavor, I don't see it as being a bad thing if the base classes are just that - base classes - and that people like to further customize their character by taking prestige classes at higher level.
A possible solution would be to do away with PrC requirements and just require people to stay in their base class until level 10.
I'm not sure I see why a good-aligned cleric shouldn't be a better healer than an evil cleric - or why being a better healer makes them a stronger cleric (unless, of course, we're subscribing to the clerics as healbots theory :D ). Also, if you really wanted to run an evil-centric game, and wanted a healing priest, it's really not that hard to extend the "Neutrals can choose whether they are going to channel negative or positive energy, at 1st level" rule to evil PC clerics.
A good cleric is stronger than an evil cleric because of his spontaneous channeling into healing spells. The good cleric can prepare all sorts of offensive/buffing spells while still having his full healing potential available, while the evil cleric is forced to explicitly prepare healing spells. Not only does this create a very unfair base for gameplay, it also forces the evil cleric into some sort of "egoist" role because he cannot just heal his comrades when they need it the most.
Heaven forbid you want to play an evil cleric who actually cares for his comrades and doesn't fall into the "bwuahaha" evil of too many comics and cartoon series. ;)
Bottom line though... why are you posting these things here? If you want to see changes made in the system, go post them on Paizo's Pathfinder-Alpha feedback forums. After all, if people don't make suggestions for changes, that pretty much guarantees it won't change. :P
Well, the reasons for me not doing so are twofold.
#1: I don't plan on buying into Pathfinder as I'm already set on 4E.
#2: There's only Pathfinder on Paizo's forums, even in General Discussion.
Anyone considering using Pathfinder's 3.75 rules over the Fourth Edition ones set in the Realms?
Not so much the rules as (maybe) porting in a bunch of Pathfinder's stuff or Korvosa and so on into the 4E Realms.
Maybe along the southern Dragonmere or in what's left along the southern coast of the Sea of Fallen Stars.
NWN also had a "Parry" skill, so I don't think using "NWN did it" is a good argument. :P Also, there was hardly anything "creative" you could do with the spells in NWN but exactly what they stated.
My point was that I haven't seen any explosive abuse of some of these spells. You cited Greater Restoration - I fail to see how it's going to be used in a radically different manner. Furthermore, these were in actively DM adjudicated games, so people *could* use that disintegrate spell in a creative fashion, via roleplay.
House rules! Bad! :P
How is it a 'House Rule' if we suggest it, and it gets put into the actual Pathfinder rules? :P
you'll easily see where the problem is. Fabricate turns the material components == raw materials into something else.
You completely missed my point.
Spell A changes/transmutes/alters something. The object it alters is considered the "material component" of the spell.
Spell B changes/transmutes/alters something. The object it alters is considered the "target" of the spell.
The difference is entirely semantic. Neither spell will work without the target/material component.
A good cleric is stronger (emphasis added) than an evil cleric because of his spontaneous channeling into healing spells.
Again, you're implying a fairly sweeping value judgment here.
The good cleric can prepare all sorts of offensive/buffing spells while still having his full healing potential available, while the evil cleric is forced to explicitly prepare healing spells.
And one of the major suggestions on the PFRPG playtest forums is "since we now have channel energy, shouldn't we do away with spell conversion?"
Not only does this create a very unfair base for gameplay, it also forces the evil cleric into some sort of "egoist" role because he cannot just heal his comrades when they need it the most.
Heaven forbid you want to play an evil cleric who actually cares for his comrades and doesn't fall into the "bwuahaha" evil of too many comics and cartoon series. ;)
...evil tends to be selfish. What's surprising about that? Am I supposed to complain that Blackguards don't have the ability to heal via Lay on Hands? Seriously. I could see complaining if Evil Clerics were not allowed to use healing, as was suggested in early editions of D&D, but that's largely fallen by the wayside.
Well, the reasons for me not doing so are twofold.
#1: I don't plan on buying into Pathfinder as I'm already set on 4E.
Honestly, this is my major complaint here.
(rant)
Your attitude, from the beginning, has been one of "I'm not interested in this, so I'm going to rant and nitpick on an Alpha Playtest to try and convince you that you should ignore that and..." ...what, come play 4ED too? If you're not interested, fine - don't be interested. But don't get so all-fired offended and try and turn this into a rant against a system that's busy trying to solicit ideas in an open playtest. I'm not busy ranting against the perceived flaws of 4ED to the point that I insist it's an inherently bad system, and that no one should play it, even if they want to play in worlds or eras primarily covered by source materials that are actually compatible with other rule sets.
As for your second statement, that's patently false. There is, indeed, a 4E discussion board on Paizo's forums. http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition
As to the fact that the rest of the boards are largely dominated by the Pathfinder RPG... WELL NO %$#@%$#%$#ING @$#$@#$@#.
Ahem. Apologies for that. :D
I'm tired of people who somehow feel they must crusade against those of us who, for whatever reason, actually like something different than 4th Edition. I'm not going and trolling the 4E boards here (I don't count the FR board as being a purely 4E one - after all, it's supposed to be edition neutral). I don't even do it on Paizo's 4E forum. And when I do post about 4th Edition, I try my absolute best to present my admittedly biased personal viewpoint up front, and keep my comments limited in scope.
(/rant)
Yes, there are flaws in Pathfinder Alpha. There just so happen to be flaws in 4th Edition, for that matter. That doesn't mean I wouldn't recommend people interested in playing in the post-spellplague setting from using the ruleset they were meant to be played with - 4th Edition.
[...] You cited Greater Restoration - I fail to see how it's going to be used in a radically different manner. [...]
Like, spamming this thing 1/day because you save yourself the 5k gp component?
[...] And one of the major suggestions on the PFRPG playtest forums is "since we now have channel energy, shouldn't we do away with spell conversion?"
Taking any bets how the "majority" would decide on that? And yes, I am pessimistic in that regard.
[...] ...evil tends to be selfish. What's surprising about that?
That it is a stereotypical, stupid, and overused cliche?
Illana was the mayor's step daughter. Thourm was a woodcutter's son. Gildar was a merchant's son. Tyra was the local herbalist's daughter. Illana is the eldest of the group and they've been growing up in a small village ever since. They are best friends, and always stick together. One day they were out in the wood, enjoying some freetime when their village was attacked. They saw the smoke from the fires, and quickly ran back. When they arrived they found their homes burned and their families and friends slain. The village was destroyed, not a single life spared.
Having lost everything and everyone they held dear, and knowing that they couldn't survive on their own in the wilderness, they decided to travel to the next city. There their pleas for sending out soldiers to kill whoever did this fell on deaf ears. The local baron was bound by his duties to send soldiers for the kingdom's war with a neighboring nation, and thus couldn't spare any men to investigate the destruction of a meaningless hamlet.
The four grew bitter and disappointed. They had barely more than the dirty cloths on their skin and were shunned by the local citizens as "dirty beggars". But they still kept their friendship and cared for each other, swearing never to let down or betray one of them. Being the eldest, Illana took it upon herself to look after her friends and cared for them like a mother would. Thourm was looking for work to keep them fed, but he whereever he found work he was only abused by being payed much less than necessary to keep the group fed and sheltered. He came "home" each day with an aching back, and Tyra cared for him.
Illana was actually quite handsome, and several times men approached her with a certain "offer". Always refusing, because it was against her upbringing to sell her body, she turned away disgusted from these men. But after three months in the city the situation turned dire. Tyra caught a terrible fever that just wouldn't go away, Thourm had lost his last job three days ago and they had not eaten a good thing for almost four days. Not knowing what else to do, Illana accepted one man's offer to "accompany" him for some quick money to buy some food and pay a healer to look after Tyra.
Things got better, but Illana was broken. She had never expected to be forced to sell her body. Disgusted with herself, she decided to accept it, that she did it to save her friends. Her friends didn't want her to do that any more and Gildar suggested that he could try to cheat or steal from some merchants. It went well for several weeks, but then Gildar was cought by some shady merchant's thugs. When they threatened to cut his hands off or kill him outright, Thourm saw red and killed them. Looting the corpses and disposing of them in the canals, they knew they had to get out of the city to avoid being hanged for murder.
Thus they took to the road, travelling from city to city, still looking for the one who destroyed their village. Illana handled most of the talking, and with time she learned how to play her charms to exploit and distract others. Thourm took up the role of the "serious guy", got himself a nice intimidating axe and some armor, protecting his friends from anyone who would harm them. Gildar got better at fast talking and con tricks, cheating merchants and stealing from other people. He also trained with daggers and other small weapons to protect himself in case someone would catch him again. Tyra got her hands on some alchemical formulas and a magical tome, and started studying magic. She uses her spells and brews to aid her friends, distracing their targets, and poisoning and harming their foes.
We finally have a party consisting of a female bard, a male fighter, a male rogue, and a female wizard that's clearly evil (killing and stealing and cheating for their own profit, driven not by desire for justice but for primitive - and likely bloody - revenge), and that would stick together no matter what happened.
Illana was the mayor's step daughter. Thourm was a woodcutter's son. Gildar was a merchant's son. Tyra was the local herbalist's daughter. Illana is the eldest of the group and they've been growing up in a small village ever since. They are best friends, and always stick together. One day they were out in the wood, enjoying some freetime when their village was attacked. They saw the smoke from the fires, and quickly ran back. When they arrived they found their homes burned and their families and friends slain. The village was destroyed, not a single life spared.
Having lost everything and everyone they held dear, and knowing that they couldn't survive on their own in the wilderness, they decided to travel to the next city. There their pleas for sending out soldiers to kill whoever did this fell on deaf ears. The local baron was bound by his duties to send soldiers for the kingdom's war with a neighboring nation, and thus couldn't spare any men to investigate the destruction of a meaningless hamlet.
The four grew bitter and disappointed. They had barely more than the dirty cloths on their skin and were shunned by the local citizens as "dirty beggars". But they still kept their friendship and cared for each other, swearing never to let down or betray one of them. Being the eldest, Illana took it upon herself to look after her friends and cared for them like a mother would. Thourm was looking for work to keep them fed, but he whereever he found work he was only abused by being payed much less than necessary to keep the group fed and sheltered. He came "home" each day with an aching back, and Tyra cared for him.
Illana was actually quite handsome, and several times men approached her with a certain "offer". Always refusing, because it was against her upbringing to sell her body, she turned away disgusted from these men. But after three months in the city the situation turned dire. Tyra caught a terrible fever that just wouldn't go away, Thourm had lost his last job three days ago and they had not eaten a good thing for almost four days. Not knowing what else to do, Illana accepted one man's offer to "accompany" him for some quick money to buy some food and pay a healer to look after Tyra.
Things got better, but Illana was broken. She had never expected to be forced to sell her body. Disgusted with herself, she decided to accept it, that she did it to save her friends. Her friends didn't want her to do that any more and Gildar suggested that he could try to cheat or steal from some merchants. It went well for several weeks, but then Gildar was cought by some shady merchant's thugs. When they threatened to cut his hands off or kill him outright, Thourm saw red and killed them. Looting the corpses and disposing of them in the canals, they knew they had to get out of the city to avoid being hanged for murder.
Thus they took to the road, travelling from city to city, still looking for the one who destroyed their village. Illana handled most of the talking, and with time she learned how to play her charms to exploit and distract others. Thourm took up the role of the "serious guy", got himself a nice intimidating axe and some armor, protecting his friends from anyone who would harm them. Gildar got better at fast talking and con tricks, cheating merchants and stealing from other people. He also trained with daggers and other small weapons to protect himself in case someone would catch him again. Tyra got her hands on some alchemical formulas and a magical tome, and started studying magic. She uses her spells and brews to aid her friends, distracing their targets, and poisoning and harming their foes.
We finally have a party consisting of a female bard, a male fighter, a male rogue, and a female wizard that's clearly evil (killing and stealing and cheating for their own profit, driven not by desire for justice but for primitive - and likely bloody - revenge), and that would stick together no matter what happened.
I'm sorry, I'm just tired of having things devolve into endless "my edition is better/this is why yours sucks" arguments, here or elsewhere, no matter how much you try and couch it in terms of this rule or that rule. You claim to want to debate the merits of things, yet at the same time you profess that you have no vested interest in seeing it succeed, and are bound and determined that it will not. At the same time, you're pretty much oozing hostility for Paizo on multiple levels, starting with your initial post that I took issue with.
Is it honestly that hard to accept that maybe some people actually like some of the aspects of the 3.5/d20/PFRPG rules, and would prefer them to 4th Edition?
[...] You claim to want to debate the merits of things, yet at the same time you profess that you have no vested interest in seeing it succeed,
So I must absolutely adore Pathfinder and find it the best thing since sliced bread before I am allowed to express my criticism with the rules that have been devised so far? That the designers are already giving in to an apparently very vocal minority and repeating mistakes of the old system (like still not seperating adventuring and background skills - damnit, Shadowrun has been doing this since two editions!)?
and are bound and determined that it will not.
How often do I need to repeat myself? We'll see which way they chose when Beta is released. Until then, my rating of 4/10 stands.
They claim to "fix" the old system, yet seemingly only redistribute the problems. They fix the polymorph mess, yet have the glorious idea of "hey, let's give limited wish and wish as SLAs to wizards because they weren't awesome enough before". They consolidate some skills, yet introduce a skill that is only viable for three classes when using certain kinds of spells (or a still horribly broken class feature).
In my book the changes we've seen so far are not drastic enough to make classes even remotely even.
At the same time, you're pretty much oozing hostility for Paizo on multiple levels, starting with your initial post that I took issue with.
First, I never said something bad about the designers or Paizo employees (contrary to what's been going on here).
And second, my initial post was harsh, true, but I presented my points quite detailed and provided reasons for my "jugdement" instead of only ranting "PRPG sucks, moneygrab111, changed too little/too much (depending on mood), etc". If you chose to "coincidentally" read over all my - valid - points and complaints, then that's not my problem.
Perhaps we should turn the thing around. Instead of my stating why PRPG fails to accomplish its goals with the current rules set you should state why it does accomplish its goals.
And just to prevent misunderstandings: I'm studying computer science and therefore my understanding of the terms "Alpha" and "Beta" may be significantly different from yours. Imo "Alpha" is not the beginning of the design phase, but rather a first test run of features that has already been decided upon. And "Beta" largely represents the finished product save for a few non-core features and bug-hunting.
Is it honestly that hard to accept that maybe some people actually like some of the aspects of the 3.5/d20/PFRPG rules, and would prefer them to 4th Edition?
That's your side of the fence. I'm not adressing you directly, but for every guy saying that PRPG will fail (which I never said, by the way) we have three guys saying that 4E killed roleplaying, plays like WoW, or is a f-ing money grab.
Sometimes I am tempted to wish for all roleplayers just ST*U'ing. For ever.
So my how is the fact that they detail only 20 or 30 gods going to affect how certain ex-FR fans (now Pathfinder Fans) feel about the setting? Does it make it less real? Or is FR the only setting that needed 150 to 200 gods? ;)
(Kinda in jest but kinda serious also.)
I'm not Pathfinder fan but looking at the list of authors, it's very likely that I'll become on the 16th of August
. Though I think my friend is going to get the CS for our story line and have us convert our characters to the new rules......yay. I heavily doubt I'll find support for the Tome of Battle classes/feats/abilities in any Pathfinder source. That being said, I'll still give it a try because it's something new and I want to see how they re-painted 3.x into something not so.......game-breaking?but this book is not about the rules
I don't care for their rules, unless I can borrow something new and unique, as for Tome of Battles, they should have converted all that into warrior feat/talent trees
It could have worked like that if the Figher had a feat for every level to which he could spend on maneuvers/stances. That being said, the ToB is, IMO, one of the best supplements for 3e and galvanized melee fighting to something more fun.
but this book is not about the rules
?? From what Rauric said, "Also included are new rules, new magic and spells", it's going to be somewhat about the rules. I do, however, want to see the nice map and a larger scale of where our characters have been adventuring for the past 5 months. Also, it would be nice to flesh our my character's past, ethnicity, home-region, and backstory. These are things to which I hope to find in their CS book.
Too true.
So my how is the fact that they detail only 20 or 30 gods going to affect how certain ex-FR fans (now Pathfinder Fans) feel about the setting? Does it make it less real? Or is FR the only setting that needed 150 to 200 gods? ;)
(Kinda in jest but kinda serious also.)
I love when people take things out of context (and I should know, because I am a MASTER at it :P ).
They have already said the world has hundreds of gods, and 'local ones' will be covered in just about every sourcebook, including info about the religion and priesthoods. What they have in the Setting Guide is just the main gods to the campaign area, not an all-inclusive list.
The 3e FRCS had exactly 30 Gods detailed, and only listed the names and portfolios of the minor ones - So I think the Golarion setting is perfectly on-par with the FR setting in this regard. They are treating it just like 3e FR did, and giving us more details in the splat books. The only difference is that Paizo has ONE setting, and all the 'splat' books for their rules will be written to THAT setting, and not to a 'generic world' that can be applied across the board. Ergo, each and every God, Class, Race, PrC, Feat, Talent, Skill, Maneuver, rule, and piece of background lore will be directly applicable to the setting, and won't require a series of 'class chronicles' articles to make them work within that context.
That's why I'm going to use 3PF with Golarion - anything else would require retro-fitting, and I already have a monumental task ahead of me where 4e FR is concerned, so I don't have that kind of time to devout to running a second setting.
And the real difference between what Paizo is doing and what WotC is doing is that Paizo is giving us more gods as we go along, whereas WotC gave us tons of gods already, and now is taking them all back.
Which do you prefer? Getting more of something, or having something you love taken away from you?
18DELTA
-Getting more of what I love. :D
18DELTA
Are we talking about BBWs?
And I'm leaving to Robin Sage and then I'm taking some Leave so I wont be around for while
Are we talking about BBWs?
And I'm leaving to Robin Sage and then I'm taking some Leave so I wont be around for while
-
-March on Soldier, March on. Enjoy your leave, you will have earned it.
18DELTA
?? From what Rauric said, "Also included are new rules, new magic and spells", it's going to be somewhat about the rules.
-In so much as the FRCS had rules, I'm sure.
And I'm leaving to Robin Sage and then I'm taking some Leave so I wont be around for while
-Good luck, and stay safe.
And the real difference between what Paizo is doing and what WotC is doing is that Paizo is giving us more gods as we go along, whereas WotC gave us tons of gods already, and now is taking them all back.
Which do you prefer? Getting more of something, or having something you love taken away from you?
I'd prefer they make Gods with some damn uniqueness to them instead of the same, old, re-hashed ideas from every other supplement we've seen. Besides, more isn't often better and I'd prefer Quality over Quantity.
-In so much as the FRCS had rules, I'm sure.
Yep, that's all I'm asking. But since they are re-doing classes, feats, skills, etc... I'd expect more than what was in the FRCS.
But since they are re-doing classes, feats, skills, etc... I'd expect more than what was in the FRCS.
-The setting book, and the actual rules are going to be two separate books, aren't they? That's the impression I got, but mind you, I'm not actually staying on top of this, being that I'm only remotely interested.
-The setting book, and the actual rules are going to be two separate books, aren't they? That's the impression I got, but mind you, I'm not actually staying on top of this, being that I'm only remotely interested.
Same here, I'm mostly going on heresay with added bits from my friend. All the class changes I know of came from Ra-Tiel's post so he'd better not be wrong!!! :P
Show
Paizo Publishing Tops 25,000 Unique Downloads of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Alpha
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Beta book to be released at Gen Con
Paizo announced today that unique downloads of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Alpha PDF had topped 25,000.
"When we announced our intentions to stick with the 3.5 rules via the Open Game License, many internet pundits declared us fools for not going with the flow of the new 4th edition," said Paizo's Publisher, Erik Mona. "The 25,000 individual download threshold suggests to me that we were right to identify a stable audience for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, and the response to our Open Playtest has been nothing short of phenomenal."
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a complete, standalone fantasy RPG that will be released as a massive hardcover book at Gen Con in 2009. Published under the 3.5 Open Game License, the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game updates the 3.5 edition of the world's most popular roleplaying game by adding new rules, new features, and correcting common game play complaints while also staying backward compatible to the 3.5 rules.
Last April, Paizo launched the hobby gaming industry's first wide-scale, completely open playtest of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Alpha rules and has released a total of three Alpha PDFs as free downloads on paizo.com. Next month, at Gen Con, Paizo will launch the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Beta which represents the final, 10-month long open playtest of the rules system. The Beta will be available as a free PDF download on paizo.com as well as a 408-page, full-color, soft-cover book for $24.99.
To learn more about the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, visit paizo.com/pathfinderRPG.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Beta book to be released at Gen Con
Paizo announced today that unique downloads of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Alpha PDF had topped 25,000.
"When we announced our intentions to stick with the 3.5 rules via the Open Game License, many internet pundits declared us fools for not going with the flow of the new 4th edition," said Paizo's Publisher, Erik Mona. "The 25,000 individual download threshold suggests to me that we were right to identify a stable audience for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, and the response to our Open Playtest has been nothing short of phenomenal."
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a complete, standalone fantasy RPG that will be released as a massive hardcover book at Gen Con in 2009. Published under the 3.5 Open Game License, the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game updates the 3.5 edition of the world's most popular roleplaying game by adding new rules, new features, and correcting common game play complaints while also staying backward compatible to the 3.5 rules.
Last April, Paizo launched the hobby gaming industry's first wide-scale, completely open playtest of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Alpha rules and has released a total of three Alpha PDFs as free downloads on paizo.com. Next month, at Gen Con, Paizo will launch the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Beta which represents the final, 10-month long open playtest of the rules system. The Beta will be available as a free PDF download on paizo.com as well as a 408-page, full-color, soft-cover book for $24.99.
To learn more about the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, visit paizo.com/pathfinderRPG.
Golarion is coming out at Gencon, whereas the PF rules won't be completed until next year's Gencon, so the setting would have to be edition-neutral (unless they plan on coming out with a 2.0 book to update evrything, which I doubt they'll do).
You can use their setting book with the 3e rules as-is, because that is what all of Paizo's current products are using.
The thing that makes me nuts is that EVERYTHING they produce is called PATHFINDER... and I don't even like the name.
Sounds like a boyscout merit badge...
When you say 'Pathfinder', you always have to specify what product line you are referring to (the rules, the setting, the modules, the gazeteers, etc...)
Confusion is the worst thing to inject into a product line, especially in it's infancy. So far those guys have been pretty business-savy, but the decision to use the same name on everything I think will come back and bite them in the tukus.
Show
It has been a long time in the making, but the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting Hardcover is finally on the way! This mighty 256-page tome brings you the world of Golarion, the setting for our Pathfinder products.
This book is a true heavyweight among campaign setting sourcebooks! The amount of content presented to GMs and players alike in this book is staggering—check it out:
contributions from 30 authors, including established luminaries and RPG Superstar finalists
art and maps created by more than a dozen artists
dozens of PC races, including Golarion's human ethnic groups
11 class entries, plus 5 new prestige classes
examinations of nearly 40 empires, kingdoms, and other major places
more than 50 new regional and general feats
20 major deities, 10 lesser gods, 8 archdevils, 13 demon lords, 6 angelic empyreal lords, and 4 archdaemons
details of 5 important organizations and 13 lesser groups influencing the world
almost a dozen domain spells
an assortment of magic items and equipment
And more! There's also a look at the Darklands, the flora and fauna of Golarion, langauges, lost kingdoms, psionics, technology, time and space, trade, weather and climate, an appendix and map showing you where all of the Pathfinder Adventure Paths and Pathfinder Modules published so far have taken place, a pronunciation guide, new characters, regional random encounter tables, an index, and—oh yeah—a full-color poster map!
Grab the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting—it's your world now!
This book is a true heavyweight among campaign setting sourcebooks! The amount of content presented to GMs and players alike in this book is staggering—check it out:
contributions from 30 authors, including established luminaries and RPG Superstar finalists
art and maps created by more than a dozen artists
dozens of PC races, including Golarion's human ethnic groups
11 class entries, plus 5 new prestige classes
examinations of nearly 40 empires, kingdoms, and other major places
more than 50 new regional and general feats
20 major deities, 10 lesser gods, 8 archdevils, 13 demon lords, 6 angelic empyreal lords, and 4 archdaemons
details of 5 important organizations and 13 lesser groups influencing the world
almost a dozen domain spells
an assortment of magic items and equipment
And more! There's also a look at the Darklands, the flora and fauna of Golarion, langauges, lost kingdoms, psionics, technology, time and space, trade, weather and climate, an appendix and map showing you where all of the Pathfinder Adventure Paths and Pathfinder Modules published so far have taken place, a pronunciation guide, new characters, regional random encounter tables, an index, and—oh yeah—a full-color poster map!
Grab the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting—it's your world now!
-Those fools.
-?
18DELTA
-That's what they said, not me. "...many internet pundits declared us fools..."
-Oh...:embarrass
18DELTA ;)
-What's that? Flip mat?
I think Diffan's referring to these.
-Meh, I don't see the..."glitter" in playing with miniatures. I don't use 'em. A pencil, paper, and a map, all that's good enough for me...
-Ah, thank you.
You're welcome. :D
-Meh, I don't see the..."glitter" in playing with miniatures. I don't use 'em. A pencil, paper, and a map, all that's good enough for me...
Really depends. Minis can help you visualize combat more easily and make the situation much more clearer than merely describing it with "you stand over there, and the ogre is by that tree and, uh, yeah, there's a bunch of orcs charging at you".
Also, using only graph paper to represent the combat environment can become quite a chore - speaking from (3E) experience.
Erasing and redrawing effects like wall of fire and positions of monsters and characters is annoying. The setup I'm using for my games is three sheets of DIN A2 paper with 1" grid printed on, three sheets of heavy plastic film (the kind usually used to cover advertisement posters in the outdoors), and a set of dry-erase markers.
If you don't want to jump on the mini bandwagon (I'm still a poor student who can't afford that :P), you can just as well use tokens. There's a very good program you can find here that allows you to make customized tokens from images and pictures. Works like a charm and is dirt cheap. Just make the tokens and print them out.
If I have the battle laid out in front of me, then I know the Ranger CAN'T make the shot, because it would go right through the fighter's head...
unless, of course, he really doesn't care. :D
LK - 4e is most certainly NOT for you... but then we knew that already, didn't we? ;)
I spent about half my time routing miniatures to people all over the world (some aren't available in some countries), and running contets, and providing prizes at my own expense. It was fun, but then I couldn't afford the hobby anymore.
We had a sort of unofficial contest over there about who's 'addiction' was worst - we all posted pictures of our painting rooms - What? You don't have an entire room in your house just for minis?
- and I came in third. There were actually two people 'sicker' then me.I had a series of photos, but the only one I still have on my Photobucket account is this one -
You can see my main work-area, with a computer JUST for mini-related stuff (opening web pages with how-to's and painting techniques). I have WAY OVER 10,000 metal miniatures at last count. Just about everything visible in that pic is a WIP - I have boxes and boxes of un-started ones all around that room.
We use to refer to as a 'Lead Addiction'. :D
So, yeah... I use minis... a LOT. :P
I play both ways, but I prefer miniatures - as a DM, I need to know where everybody is and what they are dong, and without the minis you can get a lot che.. err... fudging of stuff by players.
If I have the battle laid out in front of me, then I know the Ranger CAN'T make the shot, because it would go right through the fighter's head...
-See, I guess I just have the ability to do that with dots on paper. I don't use like half of the rules in the PHB, with Attacks of Opportunity, and certain Movement ones, and all that kind of stuff, so that also helps.
LK - 4e is most certainly NOT for you... but then we knew that already, didn't we? ;)
-Yeah, kinda, sorta. The 4-Gotten Realms, anyway. The 4e ruleset has a bunch of things that I like. And, a bunch of things I don't.
-See, I guess I just have the ability to do that with dots on paper. I don't use like half of the rules in the PHB, with Attacks of Opportunity, and certain Movement ones, and all that kind of stuff, so that also helps.
Now I start to see where some people get the "4E == videogame" stuff from.
They leave everything out that makes it more interesting. :P :P-Yeah, kinda, sorta. The 4-Gotten Realms, anyway. The 4e ruleset has a bunch of things that I like. And, a bunch of things I don't.
Imho the FL for the FR boards should not be biased in such away. It somehow undermines the point of "edition neutrality". *shrug*
I can see how it would get expensive, though.Imho the FL for the FR boards should not be biased in such away. It somehow undermines the point of "edition neutrality". *shrug*
Who isn't biased in some way, though?
Yeah, I don't have Markus's skills at Minis, so I have to purchase them from a professional painter. Rino's bard was pretty expensive for NJFRCC. I think I spent a total of 125 dollars for 4 minis. But you know, it's worth it.
I agree--I love "my" mini.;)
I'm not that great a mini-painter; the people I used to pal around with win trophys and stuff - their minis almost look as if they are going to come to life and walk off the table - truly amazing attenton to detail at that scale. I was like the 'mascot' of the group, LOL.
I probably paint better then average, but not much (last I checked my CMON rating was around a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10). Also, like everything else in my life, 99.9% of the ones I started remain un-finished - in the past thirty years I think I only completed 100 to my satisfaction (others appear done to the casual observer, but I know they need a bit more work).
Wow, that looks really cool.
Yes, YES it was.
When my wife kic... ask me to leave, all of that had to go into storage.
She now rents out that work-room to a friend of hers - but the desk and shelving I put-up is still there... calling to me...
If you haven't guessed, I'm like a big kid, and that was my 'play room'.
Also had a mini-frig and cable, so I never had to leave (probably why she asked me to, now that I think about it).
I'm playing both right now, and honestly while Pathfinder tries to bring balance to the game by fixing some of the more irking problems of 3.X, I personally find 4E to be more enjoyable and more balanced. Playing in a three party Pathfinder game featuring a straight cleric, straight druid, and straight rogue, I still dominate as the Druid.
Our group is split 2-2 right now with our 5th member returning soon on which version of DnD to play, so we're playing both.
Home brewed rules solve everything.
Now I start to see where some people get the "4E == videogame" stuff from.
-How are things that make it interesting being left out? Said rules make things burdensome. "Do I get an attack of opportunity?". "I don't know, let me check...Did you move two feet?". "No". "Then you don't". "I want to move two feet, then". "Doing that means they get an attack of opportunity"...
Imho the FL for the FR boards should not be biased in such away. It somehow undermines the point of "edition neutrality". *shrug*
-Are we going to get into this debunked rhetoric again?
-How are things that make it interesting being left out? Said rules make things burdensome. "Do I get an attack of opportunity?". "I don't know, let me check...Did you move two feet?". "No". "Then you don't". "I want to move two feet, then". "Doing that means they get an attack of opportunity"...
Of course the DM should know the rules... which in your example he clearly doesn't. :P
-Are we going to get into this debunked rhetoric again?
LK - 4e is most certainly NOT for you... but then we knew that already, didn't we? ;)
-Yeah, kinda, sorta. The 4-Gotten Realms, anyway. The 4e ruleset has a bunch of things that I like. And, a bunch of things I don't.
Are we getting into this debunked rhetoric again?
You know my position regarding that topic, I know your position. We should leave it at that.Of course the DM should know the rules... which in your example he clearly doesn't. :P
-I'll ask again: How are things that make it interesting being left out? Specifically, concerning using miniatures in lieu of a map, or vice-versa?
We should leave it at that.
-Then why bring it up in the first place?
-I'll ask again: How are things that make it interesting being left out? Specifically, concerning using miniatures in lieu of a map, or vice-versa?
AoO definatly MAKE it interesting.
And they are not hard to use, if you know the rules. And everyone in our group does... so it goes pretty fast...
The only sucky thing about AoO is tumble. But if you either leave out the part of it being able to negate AoOs or just make it an opposed check to tumble/an attack roll (defenders choice) you are all fine.
We play D&D on Paper, with 10mm being 10ft. So 1mm = 1ft.
For characters and monsters we have coloured rivets of different sizes, the smallest 5mm diameter, the biggest 15mm diameter. For bigger creatures we use random stuff we have at hand
.Works like a charm. We played with dots on paper earlier, but you have to erase like 500 times a day. That sucks. The rivets make it easy to see who is who and where you are and where the others are while not being FREAKING HUGE like the miniatures. Honestly. If I use an A1 paper i get about a whole freaking huge fortress on it with surroundings... If you play with those 1" squares you would be able to fit one normal building on it...
To PF: We actually play in the FR with the A3. It is an awesome system, but it still has some flaws (like the grappling in A3 sucks ;) ).
But overall they have greately improved the system in A3. Just mind the pools the Barbarian/Monk/Paladin now have...
Or the a bit depowered Druid and Cleric
Or the once again working formulars for magic weapons, which they screwed up completely in 3.5... or the new Greater Magic Weapon.
And they finally removed those stinky Save or Die spells without making them useless. Well... except for the Word series death effect (which I hope they will have removed in favour of something better in Beta).
We will take a look into the PF core Setting, too. Elaine Cunningham is doing the Elf stuff (she definatyl rocks) and even Ed is contributing. So lets see how it turns out.
Otherwise we will just keep on playing in the FR setting, which also works just fine with the PF rules.
Not that anyoe on this board cares, but I like miniatures WAY more then is healthy - I used to run the International Mini-Exchange on Coolminiornot.com.
I spent about half my time routing miniatures to people all over the world (some aren't available in some countries), and running contets, and providing prizes at my own expense. It was fun, but then I couldn't afford the hobby anymore.
We had a sort of unofficial contest over there about who's 'addiction' was worst - we all posted pictures of our painting rooms - What? You don't have an entire room in your house just for minis?
I had a series of photos, but the only one I still have on my Photobucket account is this one -
You can see my main work-area, with a computer JUST for mini-related stuff (opening web pages with how-to's and painting techniques). I have WAY OVER 10,000 metal miniatures at last count. Just about everything visible in that pic is a WIP - I have boxes and boxes of un-started ones all around that room.
We use to refer to as a 'Lead Addiction'. :D
So, yeah... I use minis... a LOT. :P
...can I come over to your house to play?
:D Looks nice! I don't think I got near that many miniatures, but I've got quite a few, too. I'm not much of a painter, but I do paint miniatures on occasion. I do a lot more painting, though, whenever I'm playing Warhammer regularly. Here're some of my minis. They look nice... from a distance...
I occasionally complain about the paint jobs on the D&D Minis, but then I think about my own painting skills and shut the hell up. :D
-I'll ask again: How are things that make it interesting being left out? Specifically, concerning using miniatures in lieu of a map, or vice-versa? [...]
Because movement, positioning, and AoO are a central part of 3E's combat system? ;)
By leaving that whole block out you'd be doing the same thing many people accuse 4E of... "dumbing it down". You then don't have to consider your movement options and can run around and past enemies like a headless chicken. :P
-So, he's a Roman wearing Samurai power armor, wielding a laser pistol. Ah, the games you kids play these days...:P
Warhammer 40k is over 20 years old. :P
And that's not a laspistol, it's a plasma pistol.
;)
Because movement, positioning, and AoO are a central part of 3E's combat system? ;)
-I'm still talking about maps and miniatures, here. I said, "Specifically, concerning using miniatures in lieu of a map, or vice-versa?"
I'm just wondering where you're getting the samurai bit from. He's got the crest on his helmet, the wreath on his chest, the gladius, and those whatchamacallits hanging from his belt. That screams Roman, you little punk. :P
-Looks like a Samurai to me. He has his ornate helmet-mask, his armor, his padding, his laser gun...
-I'm still talking about maps and miniatures, here. I said, "Specifically, concerning using miniatures in lieu of a map, or vice-versa?" [...]
Evasive as always. :P
Using miniatures can make it easier to present the dynamic chaning of the battlefield (5ft step here, charge there, bull rush this, dimension door that, etc) without having to erase and redraw basically the whole map every round. It makes it easier to visualize where which character and monster is.
Minis complement maps, they don't replace them. Actually, you don't have to use minis. I'm using spare dice and picture tokens to represent monsters on the map. Very cheap (you can print out like 30 tokens on a single sheet of paper) and works just as well.
Also, I was talking about AoO what you were first talking about before you switched suddenly over to minis. :P
I don't do 40K, but I have a WoodElf army, and enough odds and ends to probably cobble together a decent Dark Elven (naturally) or Vampire Counts force.
If I did SciFi, I'd go Orks (because they look 'kewl').
I have a Warmachine Cryx Army (Undead), and those 'fat guys' you see in that pic are part of that.
I LOVE minis - I even have a Babylon 5 fleet, and I never, ever watched the show. :D
On Topic: (sort of)
This is so much more fun then comparing two completely different game-systems that appeal to different audiences (when BOTH are good, in their own way).
18DELTA
...can I come over to your house to play?
:D Looks nice! I don't think I got near that many miniatures, but I've got quite a few, too. I'm not much of a painter, but I do paint miniatures on occasion. I do a lot more painting, though, whenever I'm playing Warhammer regularly. Here're some of my minis. They look nice... from a distance...
I occasionally complain about the paint jobs on the D&D Minis, but then I think about my own painting skills and shut the hell up. :D
-Those are Warhammer 40K Ultramarines right? :D
-The group I game with has like 2 big boxes full of WotC Mini's. Every now and then we will all buy a set of mini's and throw them into the pile. We probably have like 500 plastic mini's.
I use them in my game. The other2 DM's use them. Its a win/win situation.18DELTA
I don't do 40K, but I have a WoodElf army, and enough odds and end to probably cobble together a decent Dark Elven (natuaraly) or Vampire Counts force.
I started with an Undead army, but after a while I started collecting Bretonnians. Love the army, especially the latest iteration (with the addition of Pegasus Knights, Grail Reliquae, and Trebuchet).
If I did SciFi, I go Orks (because they look 'kewl').
I've been meaning to check out their latest codex, especially since I heard they brought back the Wyrdboyz and the Shock Attack Gun. Though I don't know why I'm so thrilled about the latter, especially considering the horrid death inflicted on one of my Dreadnoughts at the hands of one.
I LOVE minis - I even have a Babylon 5 fleet, and I never, ever watched the show. :D
Check it out, it's great. As for the mini game, I've been meaning to check it out, myself. I'd love to have an Earth Alliance fleet. So how's the B5 miniature game? Any good? Also, do you know if there're any Star Trek miniature games out there? That would be nice.
-Those are Warhammer 40K Ultramarines right? :D
Yep. Ultramarines 3rd Company to be exact. Although after getting a gander at THIS guy, I'm gonna start painting up some 2nd Company units, too.
-The group I game with has like 2 big boxes full of WotC Mini's. Every now and then we will all buy a set of mini's and throw them into the pile. We probably have like 500 plastic mini's.
I've got something in the neighborhood of 300 or so D&D Minis, including the Colossal Red Dragon, the black dragon, and Icingdeath. Believe me, I'm itching to put those dragons to use! :D
You can see one (with a rider) in the background (above the monitor) - Todd McFarlane is off the Shiz!
I think the Brettonians are sexy too - a nice 'Arthurian' feel to them.
Babylon 5 minis is great - I love it! I play Centauri, and there ships are all massive juggernaughts of destruction.
I haven't seen any decent Star Trek minis (although I own tons of the Micro-machines ones), but I used to play P&P Star Fleet battles years ago and it was fun.
Using miniatures can make it easier to present the dynamic chaning of the battlefield (5ft step here, charge there, bull rush this, dimension door that, etc) without having to erase and redraw basically the whole map every round. It makes it easier to visualize where which character and monster is.
That is why we use rivets... but they have certain advantages:
A dimension door will kill any map you are playing on. The new Paizo one is 24 squaresx 30 squares. My DD has a range of 400 ft + 40ft/lvl... (80 squares + 8 squares/lvl).
With an A1 Map with a scaling of 1cm = 10ft its perfectly possible to dimensiondoor 600 ft and being still on the map. You can finally use the options you have for movement to make smart tactical decissions not limited by the map too much.
Also without squares you have the advantage of FREELY moving. You want to run on squares? Sorry... only straight or diagonal. You cant just run in an angle of 18.5 Degrees of direction you came from.
Why is Pathfinder opposed to FR? Pathfinder is (first of all) an rule system.
Of course they have an own setting, too. But who forces you to use their rules in that setting?
Why is Pathfinder opposed to FR? Pathfinder is (first of all) an rule system.
Of course they have an own setting, too. But who forces you to use their rules in that setting?
There are quite a few people over on the Paizo boards that are using 4th Edition rules in the Pathfinder World, simply because they like the gameworld, but for whatever reason, prefer the 4th Edition rules. In the same way, there are people that don't like 4th Edition, but still intend to play games set in the Forgotten Realms, regardless of the time-frame they pick.
There is nothing that stops anyone from playing whatever system you want, in whatever setting you want.
As to the question of what rules set is easiest to use with a given setting... well, isn't that obvious?
4e Post Spellplague/100 years sourcebooks will be best used with 4e. 3.x era Realms setting sourcebooks... 3.5, or Pathfinder Rules. It's not that hard, and honestly it bothers me that some people seem to take it as some kind of jihad against those people who would dare suggest using 'heathen rules'. It makes me not even want to discuss the matter, because it's like talking politics or religion with someone who fanatically disagrees with you - a bad, bad idea. This goes for rabid fans of either side, incidentally - while I'd consider myself a 3.x/Pathfinder fan, that certainly doesn't mean that I can't/won't admit that some people, maybe, just maybe, might like 4th edition rules better overall.
Ornate helmet, armor, and padding automatically equate to samurai?
-Only when they look like they belong to a samurai, as in the image you provided.
Why is Pathfinder opposed to FR? Pathfinder is (first of all) an rule system.
Of course they have an own setting, too. But who forces you to use their rules in that setting?
-No one. Rules and settings are divorced from each other. You can use the Forgotten Realms, and use 1e rules, 2e rules, 3e rules, 4e rules, Pathfinder, GURPS, whatever.
-Only when they look like they belong to a samurai, as in the image you provided.
Looks more like this guy then a samurai, but oh well.
Looks more like this guy then a samurai, but oh well.
-No, he very obviously looks like a Roman. Whaddya think I am? Stupid or something? :P
Bel
There are quite a few people over on the Paizo boards that are using 4th Edition rules in the Pathfinder World, simply because they like the gameworld, but for whatever reason, prefer the 4th Edition rules. In the same way, there are people that don't like 4th Edition, but still intend to play games set in the Forgotten Realms, regardless of the time-frame they pick.
There is nothing that stops anyone from playing whatever system you want, in whatever setting you want.
As to the question of what rules set is easiest to use with a given setting... well, isn't that obvious?
4e Post Spellplague/100 years sourcebooks will be best used with 4e. 3.x era Realms setting sourcebooks... 3.5, or Pathfinder Rules. It's not that hard, and honestly it bothers me that some people seem to take it as some kind of jihad against those people who would dare suggest using 'heathen rules'. It makes me not even want to discuss the matter, because it's like talking politics or religion with someone who fanatically disagrees with you - a bad, bad idea. This goes for rabid fans of either side, incidentally - while I'd consider myself a 3.x/Pathfinder fan, that certainly doesn't mean that I can't/won't admit that some people, maybe, just maybe, might like 4th edition rules better overall.
I think the biggest problem for me about Pathfinder is that not all of the 3.5 content will be available for the Pathfinder world. Take the feat Extra Rage from Complete Warrior for example. Since rage now goes by points and not per/day, this will have to either be altered by the DM or not allowed since the mechanic no longer works or is supported by Pathfinder. Other supplements, rules, feats, PrC's, etc. will not have support in Pathfinder and (as my friend has stated to me) not be encourged/allowed in those campaigns. Another example is the Paladin's choice at 5th level. He can choose the Special Mount or gain bonuse/abilities with his weapon but not Charging Smite listed in the PHB2 for fear of unbalancing the game. And from what my friend said, all the content you'll need to play Pathfinder will be the PFCS and the PF player's guide. He said this goes for feats and PrCs listed in the book as "OK" for use in the setting. So i'll wait to see what I can use from 3.5 but I'm not holding my breath.
Beautiful stuff.
Also check-out Privateer Press - if you like the Steam-punk feel of some the Warhammer stuff, you're going love this!!!
I also HIGHLY recommend Cool mini or Not for all your miniature love - its got tips, tricks, How-tos, and tons and TONs of miniature pics you can vote on or just drool over.
* If you come across any of mine, please give 'em a 10... I need all the help I can get. :P
On Topic
Good Point, but since they are striving to keep it backwards-compatible (to the detriment of building something better, in some cases), you should be able to use most-everything from your 3e splatbooks and 3rd party sources.
In some cases you will have to abjudcate how it will work in PF (like Rage Feats), but that shouldn't be too hard (I'd just give extra Rage points for the Feat). Also, if you hang on their forums (which is a bit of a chore, I must admit), you will see lots of threads regarding these issues and plenty of great advice.
I have almost every mini Reaper ever made right up until three years ago. :D
Beautiful stuff.
Yeah, I love them. I bought these figures just the other day.
Sir Titus, Guardian Knight (This is gonna be the figure I use for my LFR character)
Almaran the Gold, Paladin With Flaming Sword (I'll switch to this guy soon as I get a few levels in LFR, and hopefully pick up a flaming sword)
Lonnia, Female Duelist
Lamann, Sorcerer (I'm probably going to use this guy when I play a Wizard)
Alaine, Female Paladin
Urian (This is the figure I'm using next time I play a Fighter)
Almaran the Gold, Paladin With Flaming Sword
-Boy, he looks familiar.
Lonnia, Female Duelist
-I own this one.
Any nice kitty cat miniatures?