So through the years I bought all the editions and countless books (even if I didn't need them, they made for good reading). I was a big fan of the 2nd ed and thought the system was fine as is (course I picked out things that always irked me and would complain to those who would listen but really wouldn't have changed anything).
Then along came the revised editions which was mostly optional rules and some clarifications to certin rules. This was ok as the rules and system stayed the same for many years and all was right with the world.
Then came the fall of the mighty TSR and in steps the Wizard of the Coast. People will say that change is good and in order to survive you must change with it. This is true but we must remember it is only as good as the change itself. Wizard came in and quickly decided that they needed a new system when really all they neded to do was tweak the system they already had.
Then after this new 3.0 change came about they decided they needed a better one (about a year later) and 3.5 was born. After many debates and complaints taht the Mighty Wizard was just out for making money and that there was nothing wrong with the old system people began to accept the changes. All was right in the world, players began to see the 3.5 system as the way the game should be (with a few tweaks here and there).
Then from their tower upon high the Wizards began to see the people become docile in their game system and dedided that action must be taken, but not just any simple action no they needed something that would shake the loyal fans right down to the lowest levels of their souls. The Mighty Wizards brought forth to this realm the 4th edition ( a system which I must say is full of great art work and a great way to play World of Warcraft in pen and paper form but not anything like the older systems).
I was like all the other players who had played this game for many years and bought this new and strange edition. I got a group together and and we went to the Keep on the Shadowfell we had fun but most of the players (a few new to playing rpgs and some who were old school) felt that the system was trying too hard too be a tabletop MMO (Warcraft) and the old schoolers thought that they were making it easier for the characters to survie and removed the element of death from the game. So all in all it is not an edition that I will continue with and have gone back to 3.5.
I then caught wind of Paizo doing their own revised 3.5 Pathfinder edition and started looking into it. I must say that it looks very promising. I liked the fact that they let players helped playtest the system and put in their thoughts of how they thought things should be and what works and what needs to be fixed or tweaked.
Paizo seems to realized that in an age of computer MMOs and and a declining interest in playing pen & paper games that if they want to keep people buying their products then they should include the people in the making of these products instead of just puching out as much as possible and hoping people will buy it like Wizards does.
Paizo seem to be taking into account of the human factor in pen & paper games. So while I love me some D&D the 4ed is just not what D&D is for me and I will go with Piazo and the Pathfinder system to keep my D&D world alive. This is just my feelings and opinions and wish Wizards the best of luck just as I wish Paizo luck with their new system. Dose any one else think that Pathfinder will draw alot of people away from 4th ed?
Dose any one else think that Pathfinder will draw alot of people away from 4th ed?
Nope. The people who would be "drawn away" weren't going to play 4th anyway, so I don't see WotC losing anything.
When I see designers whose work I enjoy, I try to emulate what makes them so effective. One thing Paizo employs is a writing convention known as the paragraph. By firmly pressing down the key labeled "Enter" on your keyboard, you'll notice the cursor moves down one line.
This creates a gap between one though and the next. It helps to separate ideas into smaller "chunks" which make them easier to digest, and it's much easier on the eye, for the reader, to have some "white space," rather than a single dense block of text.
That said, I have no idea what else you said, beyond something about liking Pathfinder. Me too. Press enter more often.
Even if you do in entirely randomly, even in the middle of sentences
it will probably look
a lot
better.
The original form of Pathfinder was significantly more divergent from 3.5 than the present version... which unfortunately for it, caved and decided to cater to the "OH MONTE MONTE MONTE OH MONTE" crowd instead of developing their own game loosely based on 3.5. Basically it's an even more doomed to failure game than Hackmaster was.
By the way I didn't actually read your giant run on paragraph. I just answered the thread title.
Please space your paragraphs.
Anyways, I don't think Pathfinder will actually draw anybody away from anything. Everybody who is still playing '3.5 with house rules', as Pathfinder has been called, aren't gonna shell out the bucks for 'more house rules'.
...One thing Paizo employs is a writing convention known as the paragraph. By firmly pressing down the key labeled "Enter" on your keyboard, you'll notice the cursor moves down one line.
This creates a gap between one though and the next. It helps to separate ideas into smaller "chunks" which make them easier to digest, and it's much easier on the eye, for the reader, to have some "white space," rather than a single dense block of text.
That said, I have no idea what else you said, beyond something about liking Pathfinder. Me too. Press enter more often.
Even if you do in entirely randomly, even in the middle of sentences
it will probably look
a lot
better.
Made of Win.
I'm pretty curious to see what will change. The Beta differed wildly from the Alpha. Paizo is good at what they do - I've got a lot of faith it will come out well.
Monte Cook ruined D&D for me. I did my best to fix the -crap- he made and sure my players had fun but I sure as hell didn't. I'll never forgive him for 3e.
If you liked Beta you are going to hate the finished product. the finished product is alot more like a reprint of the 3.5 phb from what I hear.
So I have broken it up to make it easier for you to read it.
Alas, I am too late to advise against this. You said some things that don't even remotely hold up under scrutiny, so it was for the best that they were hidden in your lack of formatting.
Both were really fun games, with very flavorful classes. And questionable balance.
But, Monte cook is a genius with fluff, and content design. Whether some of his rules were cumbersome or balanced...
And yes, there was some "rules mastery" inherent to the system. That's still there in 4e, or any RPG where you can build a better character, or a worse character. i.e., any RP that doesn't just use premade characters.
I'm not going to jump in front of a bullet for him, but I think the hobby as a whole is worse for Cook's absence.
What's with all the Monte Cook hate? Seriously.
I'm ambivalent about Monte but I get the distinct impression that many people believe that Monte was responsible for two things in 3.0's design.
1. The system mastery aspect of 3.0. It's one thing to design niche feats or feats which you think are good but turn out not so good in practice (see many a M:TG card). It's another thing to design feats that purposely are a newbie trap.
2. The powering up of magic. I've ranted and raved about this before myself, but 3.x really, REALLY increased the power of magic in a system where it ALREADY WAS the uber. Most of the magic shenanigans people fairly or unfairly lay at his feet.
Personally, I think Cook wasn't solely responsible and Tweet & Williams had a hand in this but for better or worse, just as Mearls is seen as the 4e lead designer (even though he is not), Cook is seen as 3e's "father" to speak.
(You know, for the longest of time, I thought Monte was related to Zeb Cook, the "father" of 2e - it was only a couple of years that I found out they weren't related)
I'm more referring to 3.0 (and thus 3.5 because really other than what is tantamount to typo correction they are the same damned book over all). Which was his and Skip's baby.
I feel that 4e has more -game mastery- not so much Rules Mastery. Most of 4es seems to involve more strategic thinking, not knowledge of the Rules Cyclopedia volume 7.
I'm glad he's not active anymore myself. WOD is certainly better off without him, and D&D has become better for it.
Bleach: actually if you read his "review" of 3.5 he pretty much admits that he was the one responsible for ZOMG SYSTEM MASTERY, and the ramping up of Casters. Tweet and williams seem more like yesmen, than actually capable of their own Initiative.
Nope. The people who would be "drawn away" weren't going to play 4th anyway, so I don't see WotC losing anything.
This.
Out of curiosity, I'll probably get the pdf when it's released. If they manage to fix 3e up a little without making an already complicated system more complicated, it'll be a miracle.
It's another thing to design feats that purposely are a newbie trap.
I'm curious which feats you are referring to? I seem to remember from when I played 3e and 3.5e that there would lots of feats (the vast majority it seemed...) where I'd look at them and say "nah, that sucks, lets stick with weapon focus." But were they purposefully designed that way?
The pro- or anti- Monte Cook thing seems odd to me. 3e had lots of flaws, many of which are fixed by 4e. But I never got the sense that it was purposefully designed in a bad way. It was just a matter of people in 2000 knowing less about good game design than people in 2008.
Or has Monte been trolling forums and posting "4E SUCKS. WHERE'S MY NECROMANCER. MINIONS SHOULD HAVE MORE HP!!!" ? :D 'Cuz if he has, I'd understand the hate more. :P
Nope. The people who would be "drawn away" weren't going to play 4th anyway, so I don't see WotC losing anything.
It's naive to think that no one will be drawn away from 4ed. There are groups where some wanted to switch and others just went with it. You'll see some of those and other groups switch to Paizo. That's a fact. However, I think the numbers will be negligable.
I'm curious which feats you are referring to? I seem to remember from when I played 3e and 3.5e that there would lots of feats (the vast majority it seemed...) where I'd look at them and say "nah, that sucks, lets stick with weapon focus." But were they purposefully designed that way?
http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html
It's in here where he says that the 3.0 system was designed with system mastery in mind. It was one of his gripes about 3.5, that they were disrupting the learning curve.
Nope. The people who would be "drawn away" weren't going to play 4th anyway, so I don't see WotC losing anything.
This, generally. Way too much of their formal and informal marketing is built around the incessant refrain of "not 4e" that it's hard to coutenance that there'd be much demand at all, amongst those who don't dislike 4e. People who never started playing 4e, or who bought the books and decided they didn't like it, sure. But I don't see any significant "drawing away" of regular 4e groups being in the cards.
Heck, if I wanted to run a 3.5 game, I'd just use my 3.5 books, being as they're actually compatable with each other. And also, I've already paid for those. At least books like ToB and the PHB 2 took steps to try to fix the actual problems 3.5 had, whereas Pathfinder, judging from the previews, has actually taken pains not to address the major problems using similar ideas, as they're "not enough 3.5-like enough", to paraphrase many-a Paizo forum-goer.
http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html
It's in here where he says that the 3.0 system was designed with system mastery in mind. It was one of his gripes about 3.5, that they were disrupting the learning curve.
I can't access that particular page at work, but that wouldn't happen to also be the one where he tries to argue that there were no problems whatsoever with 3.0 and that 3.5 was motivated by nothing -nothing- other than an effort on WotC's part to bilk its customers of extra cash?
Because, I'll be honest, the day he tried to claim that 3e had no problems at all was the day I lost any real respect for him as a game designer.
Pathfinder is made for people who want a "fixed" 3rd ed but they don't want what 4th offers. people who like the way 4th ed does things won't be satisfied by pathfinder... it's still too much a "3.75" instead of really doing it's own thing.
from what i've seen it inherits a lot of the main problems 3.5 has and will probably create new ones.
while 4th ain't perfect, pathfinder seems to me is just 3.5 with a large neon sign asking people to move into the new, shiny suburb while all they did was add a coat of paint to neighboring ones and hope it looks nice.
paizo's strength has always been it's fluff but never it's mechanics, IMO. i never played a paizo adventure or bought a paizo book because of a "wow, that's a cool subsystem" it was always "wow, that's a cool plot" with some ho-hum mechanics that really don't float my boat in it.
i do wish them good luck with pathfinder, they just won't get my money unless the large gist of the book is one heck of a setting.
I can't access that particular page at work, but that wouldn't happen to also be the one where he tries to argue that there were no problems whatsoever with 3.0 and that 3.5 was motivated by nothing -nothing- other than an effort on WotC's part to bilk its customers of extra cash?
Because, I'll be honest, the day he tried to claim that 3e had no problems at all was the day I lost any real respect for him as a game designer.
I dunno, I just read the linked article, and he talks about lots of flaws with 3e:
Things that should have changed, but didn't:
* Caster level is still a prerequisite for magic item creation. This was an error in the 3.0 DMG and remains. You still have to be 17th level to make a 1st-level pearl of power.
and
I regret that we didn't spend more time in particular on the ranger
and
The big problem with fiends in 3.0 was that they had a lot of cool powers but didn't last long enough in the fight to use them.
Also, when he talks about mastery, he seems to be using it in a different sense than Bleach was talking about. Here's Cook:
During the design of 3.0, one of the things that we realized was a huge strength of D&D is a concept we called "mastery." Mastery, in this context, is the idea that an avid fan of the game is going to really delve into the rules to understand how they work. We actually designed 3.0 with mastery in mind. For example, we created subsystems that worked like other systems, so that if you knew how one worked, you'd find the other one easier to understand. But I digress.
His example of mastery is a game system where one subsystem looks like another, so once you've learned one, it's easier to understand the others.
Again, I'm no Monte Cook defender per se. I didn't really even know there was a pro- and anti- Monte Cook thing. But I still don't see what sins he's performed, other than designed 3e, which was certainly inferior to 4e, but that's kinda how improvements in game design generally work. Maybe he's said a bunch of dumb stuff elsewheres?
But I don't see it here.our 3rd ed gm is planning on updating the 3rd ed game to pathfinder once he gets the core books. he's really into their changes and has been updating our game with some of their stuff. our 4th ed game though? s'not a blip in the water.
Pathfinder is made for people who want a "fixed" 3rd ed but they don't want what 4th offers. people who like the way 4th ed does things won't be satisfied by pathfinder... it's still too much a "3.75" instead of really doing it's own thing.
from what i've seen it inherits a lot of the main problems 3.5 has and will probably create new ones.
while 4th ain't perfect, pathfinder seems to me is just 3.5 with a large neon sign asking people to move into the new, shiny suburb while all they did was add a coat of paint to neighboring ones and hope it looks nice.
paizo's strength has always been it's fluff but never it's mechanics, IMO. i never played a paizo adventure or bought a paizo book because of a "wow, that's a cool subsystem" it was always "wow, that's a cool plot" with some ho-hum mechanics that really don't float my boat in it.
i do wish them good luck with pathfinder, they just won't get my money unless the large gist of the book is one heck of a setting.
What's hilarious is that this has resulted in Pathfinder having its own Pathfinder, as another house released previews for an RPG called Trailblazer, with essentially a tagline of, "Well, we're going to try to actually fix 3.5. For realz."
I can't access that particular page at work, but that wouldn't happen to also be the one where he tries to argue that there were no problems whatsoever with 3.0 and that 3.5 was motivated by nothing -nothing- other than an effort on WotC's part to bilk its customers of extra cash?
Because, I'll be honest, the day he tried to claim that 3e had no problems at all was the day I lost any real respect for him as a game designer.
That might be the other one that I couldn't find. He merely mentions how system mastery is one of the awesome things about D&D in this one. I was looking for the one where he said how like in MtG certain feats (toughness) were basically Timmy cards, but I couldn't find it.
...age of computer MMOs and and a declining interest in playing pen & paper games ...
I disagree with this statement. Computer MMOs did not bring a decline in pen and paper rpg games. In the last few years I have seen a growth in interest in games like Dnd. It seems a whole crowd of young gamers is coming along whose first exposure to heroic sword and sorcery fantasy gaming was WOW. DnD is far more social activity than playing WOW, that is what they seem to enjoy about Dnd. I have taught Dnd for decades, the young bloods entering the game now, come with a host of gaming knowledge. They already know about leveling up, attack bonus, AoE, LoS. The taught me a new term called DPS (Damage Per Second), which I say is DPR (Damage Per Round) in DnD. If you ask me MMOs is a gateway for new players entering old school pen and Paper games like DnD. I think MMO like WOW have been a boom for pen and paper games like DnD.
I really doubt Paizo is going to sink WotC with the new Pathfinder. I love Paizo, They kept my interest in 3rd edition for the final years of the editions Official run. But I made the switch to WotC and 4e because it wasn't going to be another version 3rd edition. I loved playing 3rd edition, but I was looking for something new. I didn't want to invest my time and money into another 3.x edition. It seems I wasn't the only old school DnDer looking for a new edition when 4th edition came out. But there are many players who still wish to play 3rd edition. Change is difficult and plain unwanted by some people. So I applaud Paizo for taking a bold step and catering to these gamers who wish to stick with 3rd edition. But I think the majority of gamers have moved on and new gamers are getting the new edition. I think Paizo is going to have an audience for years to come. They may well carve out a niche with "exclusive hard core gamers", who want nothing to do with the WOW kids now entering into the hobby. But that is not me.
I'm curious which feats you are referring to? I seem to remember from when I played 3e and 3.5e that there would lots of feats (the vast majority it seemed...) where I'd look at them and say "nah, that sucks, lets stick with weapon focus." But were they purposefully designed that way?
The pro- or anti- Monte Cook thing seems odd to me. 3e had lots of flaws, many of which are fixed by 4e. But I never got the sense that it was purposefully designed in a bad way. It was just a matter of people in 2000 knowing less about good game design than people in 2008.
Or has Monte been trolling forums and posting "4E SUCKS. WHERE'S MY NECROMANCER. MINIONS SHOULD HAVE MORE HP!!!" ? :D 'Cuz if he has, I'd understand the hate more. :P
Nah....Monte's way more classy than that.
The one feat I distinctly remember Monte talking about was Toughness and there are other feats such as Monkey Grip that eithe rhim or Williams mention as being "purposely bad, but will catch a newbie".
Personally I don't blame them for certain 3.x issues such as the poor Monk (on paper, the monk looked phenomenal, but it took a couple of years before people realized - ok, this sucks). Similarly, the creation of the Big Six didn't happen right away until arund 3.5
I do hold them responsible for most of the magic problems though. Gygax and Zeb Cook weren't idiots. There's a very good reason why Shapechange in previous editions didn't grant innate magic abilities, or anything that depended on the mind of the creature to use.
Similarly, there were many a reasons why magic items even such as scrolls and potions were such a pain to create (the 2e DMG explicitly says "don't make magic item creation easy as you give the wizards more slots and they are already powerful)
Its like every limiter there was on magic in previous editions, Monte et al simply got rid of it and then they seem to act surprised that magic became so dominant.
Yeah, right.
While I don't really like most of his work in general, his WoD stuff left me pretty unimpressed to be honest, I don't think there was the sinister motives going on that some seem to be claiming. In particular the money-grab thing... my take is that he was more upset about the plan morphing in intention and scope, so that 3.5 became a necessary purchase rather than an optional one. I think what was originally envisioned was more like what happened with SW Saga's reprint with the errata and clarifications, rather than what amounted to a very different game, despite having a common foundation, which we got with 3.5e .
Computer MMOs did not bring a decline in pen and paper rpg games. In the last few years I have seen a growth in interest in games like Dnd. It seems a whole crowd of young gamers is coming along whose first exposure to heroic sword and sorcery fantasy gaming was WOW. DnD is far more social activity than playing WOW, that is what they seem to enjoy about Dnd. I have taught Dnd for decades, the young bloods entering the game now, come with a host of gaming knowledge. They already know about leveling up, attack bonus, AoE, LoS. The taught me a new term called DPS (Damage Per Second), which I say is DPR (Damage Per Round) in DnD. If you ask me MMOs is a gateway for new players entering old school pen and Paper games like DnD. I think MMO like WOW have been a boom for pen and paper games like DnD.
I agree wholeheartedly, and have had the same experience.
monte's stance on toughness (which he was defending) if i remember is that (and i'm paraphrasing) it's good for a one-shot cause you probably won't be grabbing crafting/ect feats and might use the extra HP... IE good if you're not planning on actually using the character for a campaign. he also admits it's a downright horrible feat for an ongoing game.
Oh, that makes a lot more sense to me. I can see how that would be taken different ways (since the rule book certainly doesn't tell you toughness sucks for basically any long term 3e character).
I disagree with this statement. Computer MMOs did not bring a decline in pen and paper rpg games. In the last few years I have seen a growth in interest in games like Dnd. It seems a whole crowd of young gamers is coming along whose first exposure to heroic sword and sorcery fantasy gaming was WOW. DnD is far more social activity than playing WOW, that is what they seem to enjoy about Dnd. I have taught Dnd for decades, the young bloods entering the game now, come with a host of gaming knowledge. They already know about leveling up, attack bonus, AoE, LoS. The taught me a new term called DPS (Damage Per Second), which I say is DPR (Damage Per Round) in DnD. If you ask me MMOs is a gateway for new players entering old school pen and Paper games like DnD. I think MMO like WOW have been a boom for pen and paper games like DnD.
I really doubt Paizo is going to sink WotC with the new Pathfinder. I love Paizo, They kept my interest in 3rd edition for the final years of the editions Official run. But I made the switch to WotC and 4e because it wasn't going to be another version 3rd edition. I loved playing 3rd edition, but I was looking for something new. I didn't want to invest my time and money into another 3.x edition. It seems I wasn't the only old school DnDer looking for a new edition when 4th edition came out. But there are many players who still wish to play 3rd edition. Change is difficult and plain unwanted by some people. So I applaud Paizo for taking a bold step and catering to these gamers who wish to stick with 3rd edition. But I think the majority of gamers have moved on and new gamers are getting the new edition. I think Paizo is going to have an audience for years to come. They may well carve out a niche with "exclusive hard core gamers", who want nothing to do with the WOW kids now entering into the hobby. But that is not me.
This is my favorite post here. I love everything about it.
Thinking that MMOs have hurt tabletop gaming is simply unfounded. Yes, they're popular. No, they aren't a substitute good. Two years ago I started DMing for a new group of college freshmen. Every last one of them had grown up with experience playing MMOs. All of them ended up being fantastic D&D players. This is anecdotal, of course, but even the statistical data we have shows that the D&D playerbase has not declined with the rise in popularity of MMOs.
And yeah, that's pretty much exactly how I feel about Paizo.
There are some who wanted PF to be as close as possible to 3.5 as possible, however, there ARE some differences (mch moreso than 3.5 when compared to 3.0).
Then as mentioned earlier, there's Trailblazer.
Personally, while I'm going to spend the $10 for the PDF, I seriously doubt I'll switch. I simply can not justify going back to the amount of time I used to spend prepping my games with 3.x and more importantly, I don't think any of the other DMs (who were created by seeing how easy 4e was) have the time or inclination to be a good 3.x DM.
I can't access that particular page at work, but that wouldn't happen to also be the one where he tries to argue that there were no problems whatsoever with 3.0 and that 3.5 was motivated by nothing -nothing- other than an effort on WotC's part to bilk its customers of extra cash?
Because, I'll be honest, the day he tried to claim that 3e had no problems at all was the day I lost any real respect for him as a game designer.
Sort of but no?
He talks about how the planned implementation of 3.5, stemming back from before 3.0 shipped, was to be a "tidy up" release to give the cash flow a mid-edition boost. Basically 3.5 was conceived as an errata-included, new artwork, spit polished copy of the PHB with only the worst of the worst mechanical problems being changed, but according to Monte it arrived two years early and as an entirely different type of product.
My favorite line in the review is an aside about potions, and how there's nothing in the potion creation limitations that has anything to do with balance, it's just that a potion of Magic Missile is weird.
As for Pathfinder...
I bought the Beta...
I pretty much walked away from Pathfinder when they started charging people to playtest for them, especially given that a popular refrain on the internet when a product isn't up to someone's standards is to claim that Company X is "charging me to beta test for them." When it's not actually true people claim they're being taken advantage of, but when a company truly is charging people to beta test their product... people buy it.
I guess I shouldn't be terribly surprised. Blizzard could probably get away with charging people kidneys, livers, souls, and firstborn to beta-test SC2 or D3.
I simply can not justify going back to the amount of time I used to spend prepping my games with 3.x and more importantly, I don't think any of the other DMs (who were created by seeing how easy 4e was) have the time or inclination to be a good 3.x DM.
This. Above almost everything else this is what sold me on 4e. I only bought the core bundle to see what advances I could steel for my own personal 3.75 revision, but after seeing how much the DM's workload was reduced by the new edition, and how much needless effort would be required to make 3e work that way, I packed away my giant 3.5 library and never looked back (well except for flavor).
...Okay, truth be told I actually look back constantly, and every so often I actually consider going back, but then I give my self a good slap to remind me that 3.5 wasn't half as good as nostalgia or pre-4e naivety make it out to be. I might one day PC again in some 3.X system, but it would take something more than pathfinder to ever make me consider DMing that old mess again.
The Mighty Wizards brought forth to this realm the 4th edition ( a system which I must say is full of great art work and a great way to play World of Warcraft in pen and paper form but not anything like the older systems).
You're right! I think that all the people who are currently playing 4e but wish they weren't playing "WoW in pen and paper form"* are going to flock over to the pathfinder in swarms. Swarms and swarms of them. Their passing will throw up great clouds of dust and the earth will not see sunlight for many days.
*There aren't any.
I pretty much walked away from Pathfinder when they started charging people to playtest for them, especially given that a popular refrain on the internet when a product isn't up to someone's standards is to claim that Company X is "charging me to beta test for them." When it's not actually true people claim they're being taken advantage of, but when a company truly is charging people to beta test their product... people buy it.
I guess I shouldn't be terribly surprised. Blizzard could probably get away with charging people kidneys, livers, souls, and firstborn to beta-test SC2 or D3.
The physical copies of the Pathfinder beta were indeed charged for. I understand there are little things like printing costs for 400+ page books which made it desirable to Paizo, if not necessary, to recoup some of the money spent. The PDF download of it has always been free though.
Does any one else think that Pathfinder will draw alot of people away from 4th ed?
Not in the least. A few people who have tried 4e and become disappointed will possibly be drawn to it, but not even close to the multitudes* that are coming to 4e from never having played before.
*Personal experience only. 70% of my 4e gaming group players are new-to-D&D.
The Mighty Wizards brought forth to this realm the 4th edition ( a system which I must say is full of great art work and a great way to play World of Warcraft in pen and paper form but not anything like the older systems).
BUZZZZZ! Trite comparaison of 4e to MMORPG! You lose!
Sorry, but I stopped reading right there!
Now as for the title... Pathfinder will attract people who didn't like 4e in the first place so it won't change a single thing. Its just they'll move to that system instead of something else.
If the rumors we've heard are true, and even the fairly bad fixes the Beta had are getting trashed, then only the people who didn't think it needed to be fixed will care -- except they already have to books... and the Beta of Pathfinder. In fact, a lot of them don't have the books and just use the SRD, so no money for anyone.
4e players won't got to Pathfinder, because Pathfinder is the thing they left when going to 4e.
And the people that wanted 3.5 fix and didn't like how 4e did it still have nothing because of all the poison friends Paizo got shackled with.
Basically 3.5 was conceived as an errata-included, new artwork, spit polished copy of the PHB with only the worst of the worst mechanical problems being changed, but according to Monte it arrived two years early and as an entirely different type of product.
3.5 always felt like it was rushed to print.
There were decent fixes, reactionary fixes, and just mess with it ideas all included.
You can see some of the same things in 4e (for those of you not as familiar with 3.X) in the multiclassing section of the PhB and the scaling of attacks & defenses as one levels. Basically places where a bit of further thought or follow through would have been greatly useful.
-James
It's hilarious.
I mean, I'm a simulationist at heart, and 3.5 was really good for doing that. The rules framework was relatively solid, but they murdered it with all the random specific overuling of stuff, poorly balanced classes, and a real lack of ability to reference existing material. If you think you had a hard time going through your stacks of 3.5 books, just imagine what it was like in R&D, with the stacks of unfinished material, books that won't be out for another ten years, and books that have material 'hidden' in unlabled sections.
3.5 was hell on organization and access. But it's still a fun system when properly used, and I still love it. I'm playing 4E now, but I still love 3.5, and I still play the occasional game of it. Mostly my playing of it has to do with access- I'm not a DM, so I always have to find someone running a game like that if I want to play. But if I don't... it really isn't a big loss.
I'd love for the 'this thread isn't flaming 4E- oh look, imma flamin' 4E' to stop. It's ridiculous, often hyppocritical, and bloody annoying at best.
If Pathfinder has merits, it has merits, and people will play it. But I don't think it will 'steal' people away from 4E, at least not in any quantifiable amount.
As said earlier, the people who will leave entirely are the people who weren't staying with 4E anyways. The sort who probably didn't buy the books, subscribe to DDi, or any of that sort. WotC isn't losing any business by them leaving.
Also: @OP. STOP TREATING YOUR OPNIONS AS GOSPEL!
'4E is a great way to play WoW in pen and paper' No. What you're actually saying is "I think 4E is a great way to play WoW in pen and paper" and damnit, but if you're going to make a blatant inflammatory comment in a thread you're asking for reasonable discussion, you should preface that it's your opinion, and not gospel.
My favorite line in the review is an aside about potions, and how there's nothing in the potion creation limitations that has anything to do with balance, it's just that a potion of Magic Missile is weird.
Ya know, I can actually see Potions of (Attack Spell) working pretty well. Granted, they are unusual compared to how things normally work. But they could do something along the line of allowing the drinker to cast the spell they "drank" as if they had "memorized" it. It would be a neat thing for non-casters to boost their abilities with.
Things getting tough for the Fighter? Well, good thing that I switched out my normal glass of milk for breakfast with a tall cool glass of CONE OF COLD!
But yeah, as others have said, the only people who are going to buy Pathfinder are disgruntled 3E players, and even then it won't be all of them. I like the observation that the only ones who would concider buying it are the ones who just want to play 3.5 anyway, so why buy it?
I can't see many new players (those who have never played D&D) being drawn to the PF, because their entire marketing platform is "It isn't 4E!". That sort of thing is lost on people who aren't invested in 3E. On top of that, I've never seen PF actually advertised anywhere. The only people who seem to know about it are people who are avid D&D players. It looks like Paizo is honestly hoping that the handful of disgruntled 3E players who want to buy what is esentially a houseruled 3.5 will keep them afloat.
My personal opinion on the system is "meh". It just seems like they changed things at random. That and gave everyone a death effect by level 20 at least. Except the Fighter, of course. While everyone around him gets neat new abilities, he gets about three or four static +1s to AC and attack.
Ya know, I can actually see Potions of (Attack Spell) working pretty well. Granted, they are unusual compared to how things normally work. But they could do something along the line of allowing the drinker to cast the spell they "drank" as if they had "memorized" it. It would be a neat thing for non-casters to boost their abilities with.
Things getting tough for the Fighter? Well, good thing that I switched out my normal glass of milk for breakfast with a tall cool glass of CONE OF COLD!
Hmm, I like that idea. Or maybe you could use some like thrown weapons; instead of tossing an alchemist's fire you could throw a potion of Color Spray.
Hmm, I like that idea. Or maybe you could use some like thrown weapons; instead of tossing an alchemist's fire you could throw a potion of Color Spray.
Yeah, but I still prefer the drinking a spell method. Ask yourself a question: Which is cooler?
- Throwing a flask of colours at your opponent?
OR
- Barfing a rainbow at enemies to blind them?
Dose any one else think that Pathfinder will draw alot of people away from 4th ed?
Nope. I've run literally 1000's of sessions of a wide variety of RPGs, play tested several of them before they hit the market, designed several wargames, etc.
It is very hard to say what kind of success Paizo will have with Pathfinder, but it and 4e are two totally different products. Granted they are in theory both sprouting from the D&D tree if you will, but the real world doesn't actually exist in conformance to your wishes for 4e to go away and be replaced by Pathfinder.
WotC is a much larger company than Paizo, with a much stronger distribution channel, potentially limitless resources, a very strong brand, and a good product.
Paizo is a much smaller company. They are certainly well enough established for a game company, but the truth is that pretty much all game companies are marginally profitable hand to mouth affairs (and those are the good ones). I have no opinion about Pathfinder itself or the quality of the creative talent at Paizo, but the product they will be offering is a rehash of an older product that was already losing way in the market. They can't hope to match the production quality or distribution that WotC enjoys.
Pathfinder may be successful in its own modest way just like 100 other RPGs have been. Only 1 in many 100's of those games ever made money. Paizo, I would think, has a fair chance of making a go at it. Probably a good bit better than most, but the best they are ever likely to achieve is much less than what WotC has already achieved with 4e. That's just the reality of business.
4e IMHO is a fine game and has already outsold 99% of all RPGs ever written. I don't think Pathfinder will even make a dent in that. A relatively small number of die hard 3.x fans will play it, and a small number of new gamers will fall in with it, just like they might start playing CoC or GURPS or other fairly successful systems that are out there. But for every 1 such new player, 4e will suck in 10 or 100. It isn't about quality of game either really. 4e is by far good enough and it simply has 100x the marketing and distribution.
- Barfing a rainbow at enemies to blind them?
lol! Sound like something from a weird Japanese game :P
It reminds me of how the villains in Dragonball (but never the good guys) would fire blasts of energy from their mouthes XD
lol! Sound like something from a weird Japanese game
ROYAL RAINBOW!
Although Eric Mona (on Enworld) claimed their target was people who were tired of D&D but wanted another game in the "heroic fantasy" genre.
He seriously said that? "Tired of D&D? Then pick up D&D with house rules!"
What. A. Moron.
Dose any one else think that Pathfinder will draw alot of people away from 4th ed?
No. The few people who have even heard of 4e D&D might not even hear about Pathfinder. I realize that sounds gruff but I think its reality.
As for discussing specific 3.5 designers, with all due respect, screw it. I'm a hobbyist, not a designer. I don't care if Monte is the 'father figure' or Gygax himself. If the game is fun, I'll give it a try, no matter who's at the helm. In any case, holding a 'grudge' against somebody seems a bit silly ;).
Rather, I suspect that most Pathfinder players will come from the following categories:
- Players that have been following Pathfinder and awaiting its final published arrival.
- Players that are 3.5 holdouts looking for a 3.5 clone heavily supported with published adventures.
- Players that became disenchanted with D&D entirely in the wake of the 4e announcement.
- New players that are friends with Pathfinder players.
Pathfinder faces the same extra challenge that every RPG that isn't the most recent version of D&D faces, which is the effect that having a smallish market share has on how easy it is to find a group. (On the other hand, being identical to 3.5 makes it relatively easier to find players willing to give it a shot.)
I'm curious about Trailblazer, which I haven't heard much about. Paizo is already basically binding and selling the 3.5 SRD with sweet art; how can it be possible to be MORE like 3.5? (Does Trailblazer have Devis???)
If I want to play 3.5, I'll just play 3.5 with all of its good and bad things (I still do). In my opinion, Pathfinder has the same idea as 4E does about what was wrong with the previous edition and tries to change it. But where I find 4E to mostly have fixed the things I didn't like, Pathfinder blunders with those changes into too timid or just plainly wrong direction, or even worsens the problems.
So if I desire some errata, I'd rather take Tome of Battle instead of Paizo's new handbook. I'm sure that at least some people who liked ToB but were disillusioned with 4E think the same way.
Also, standard WoW allegory is the path to the dark side. You have to resist making statements like that.
I guess I shouldn't be terribly surprised. Blizzard could probably get away with charging people kidneys, livers, souls, and firstborn to beta-test SC2 or D3.
You have keys for Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3? I will give you my organs... anything you want... give me the keys.... ... my preciousss...
Second, I will be taking a look at Pathfinder at Gen Con before I buy it. Will I convert from 4E to Pathfinder? Heck no! I love 4E and I plan to stay with it but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy Pathfinder as well if it worthwhile. If it ends up being a reprint of D&D 3.5 I will probably save my money. I still have all of my 3/3.5 books and they have never lost their value. But like I said, I want to give Pathfinder a chance because Paizo is a quality company and they make good products most of the time.
Really, Paizo's window of opportunity was last summer. While I'm sure it's gonna be a great product for the hardcore Paizo fan, by and large, it's too little too late at this point.
I heard that Ed Greenwood is writing some stuff for Pathfinder.
Who the hell is Ed Greenwood, and why should anyone care about him?
Who the hell is Ed Greenwood, and why should anyone care about him?
Ed Greenwood created the Forgotten Realms.
He also wrote 22 FR novels, 7 non-FR novels, and over 200 articles for Dragon Magazine throughout the years.
On a silly side-note, Ed also dressed as Elminster at TSR's request at many conventions.
As for the rules design? Meh. They changed some stuff but all I saw was a general buff to the iconic classes, like extra hp and class powers. It's not that the changes are wrong or anything, they just don't address the real issues with 3rd edition as I see them.
For me, 4th edition did a good job of reinventing D&D and making the game more fun. As these are the official D&D 4th edition boards, it's not surprising most people here share my opinion. I'm pretty sure people on the Pathfinder board see things differently.
To be honest, I have no problem with Pathfinder. Paizo is a decent company, and they were badly screwed over by WotC when they pulled the Dungeon and Dragon mags and PDFs, so I wish Paizo all the best.
Pathfinder fans can't shut up about how Pathfinder is so much better and how it fixes everything about D&D 3.5. In their religious zeal, they fail to see:
- Pathfinder is just yet another D&D-derived D20 system. There is also Iron Kingdoms, and Arcana Unearthed, and who knows what. It's not the saviour, it's just yet another.
- The final version is not even out yet.
- Pathfinder is not about fixing the basic issues with 3rd edition, 4th edition is. Pathfinder is about continuing to play an RPG that is as much like 3rd edition as possible, and getting new stuff for the system to print. Which is a good thing, just stop pretending Pathfinder is something it is not.
- Most people who play 4th edition also enjoyed their time as 3.5, 3.0, AD&D 2nd and so on players. They'll probably enjoy a session of Pathfinder or two. Just because you prefer one edition doesn't mean you hate the old or new one.
- 4th edition is not like an MMO. Jeez. Last time I checked we still play it without Internet connection, computers, heck, grab some candles and you can play it without electricity. And similar to above, just because you play Pen & Paper doesn't mean you must hate MMOs. Why do I even bother to answer.
I liked the fact that they let players helped playtest the system and put in their thoughts of how they thought things should be and what works and what needs to be fixed or tweaked.I am pretty sure 4E did this as well.
Oh, I play in Deadlands AND 4E campaigns at the same time. People can buy two and play systems at once if they wish.
But I'm a Pathfinder Fan Hater. Pathfinder fans suck. They troll the 4th edition boards, and they can't shut up about how Pathfinder is so much better and how it fixes everything about D&D 3.5. In their religious zeal, they fail to see:
Thank you so very much for introducing me to this term. I regularly browse TVtropes.org, yet I had never before stumbled across this particular article. I now have a label for one the groups I despise above all others.
Unfortunately since you have self identified yourself as a fan hater I suppose I am now obligated to hate you, but that doesn't make me any less grateful.
Thank you so very much for introducing me to this term. I regularly browse TVtropes.org, yet I had never before stumbled across this particular article. I now have a label for one the groups I despise above all others.
Unfortunately since you have self identified yourself as a fan hater I suppose I am now obligated to hate you, but that doesn't make me any less grateful.
You're welcome. Acknowledgement of mutual despise is always a great basis for a good discussion.
4e rules are a complete overhaul which works for me, so I will not go back.
However, Pathfinder modules and story arks are nicely done. Too bad they are not build on a better set of rules.
First, XunValDorl of HouseKilsek, please put most of your sig into Sblocks or something. You wrote one line of text and then spammed us a billions lines of crud.
Note that a huge part of those billion lines of crud boil down to calling a poster a "dick." Very mature.
He seriously said that? "Tired of D&D? Then pick up D&D with house rules!"
What. A. Moron.
The exact quote:
"It is our hope and expectation that new gamers who tire of Dungeons & Dragons but don't want to move away from the genre of heroic fantasy will give Pathfinder a shot."
It's in this thread, post 155.
To be fair to him, I suspect he would have liked to say gamers who tire of 4th edition D&D, but was trying not to start a flame war.
What amuses me about this is that in the scenario where Pathfinder is wildly successful, any company that wants to compete can publish the SRD with a few additions for characteristic generation and experience rules, and be instantly more compatible with 3rd edition. Anyone who remembers Mongoose Publishing's Pocket Players' Handbook will have seen the sort of product. So they aren't just competing with existing 3.5 books, but future ones too.
as for me.
the way I see it
I will look at it
and drive you all
nuts
for
making
me
read all
this
with you all
more or less saying the same thing.
next time around Basically, its a fresh coat of paint on 3.5E D&D and nothing more. Therefore, it appeals primarily to people satisfied with 3.5E and looking for nothing more than said fresh coat of paint. People who are happy playing something else or are frustrated with 3.5E beyond what a fresh coat of paint can fix really aren't served by Pathfinder.
I'd be more curious on how many pllayers Pathfinder pulls away from base 3.5E.
Thank you so very much for introducing me to this term. I regularly browse TVtropes.org, yet I had never before stumbled across this particular article. I now have a label for one the groups I despise above all others.
I see most genre stuff as Tainted by the Fanbase, myself.
Oh and just for good measure, death to Eleminister.
A system which I must say is full of great art work and a great way to play World of Warcraft in pen and paper form but not anything like the older systems
And with that, you have officially lost any benefit of any doubt that I was even close to giving you.
That might be the other one that I couldn't find. He merely mentions how system mastery is one of the awesome things about D&D in this one. I was looking for the one where he said how like in MtG certain feats (toughness) were basically Timmy cards, but I couldn't find it.
I think this is what your looking for:http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142
you want a balanced dnd game, then throw out the classes and do a system like the elder scrolls, class means little, and your skills mean everything.
this is how dnd 5.0 will be
all hail Akatosh
Those who went to 4e (mostly) were unhappy with 3.5. They won't leave 4th (a game which they left 3.5 behind to play) to play 3.5...
My sentiments exactly. The players Pathfinder will pick up are the players that 4e was not geared towards in the first place. They are 3e players looking to feel like their system is still new and exciting. 4e was geared towards players who were burnt out of 3e. Those players won't want anything to do with a "new version" of 3e, which is what Pathfinder is.
there is still no such thing as balance in game terms, atleast not in dnd.
you want a balanced dnd game, then throw out the classes and do a system like the elder scrolls, class means little, and your skills mean everything.
this is how dnd 5.0 will be
all hail Akatosh
Actually, classes do more to maintain balance in a game system than anything else. One of the major problems of classless games (such as White Wolf's storytelling system) for me is that they are utterly unbalanced. Sure, all characters have equally powerful OPTIONS, but mechanical execution of CONCEPTS greatly diverge from each other in power. In effect, the game plays no differently than 3e D&D did, in the sense that you get a situation that is equivalent to "all spellcasters are gods." Of course, its actually "everyone with this particular skill combination is a god," but its really pretty much the same situation with a different semantic description. I have learned that I actually like "class power packages" that help to keep different concepts in line with each other in terms of balance.
And yes, D&D 4e is balanced. Is it perfectly balanced? I don't know that any pen and paper RPG will ever be perfectly balanced. But its probably one of the best balanced pencil and paper RPG games that I have seen to date.
Those who went to 4e (mostly) were unhappy with 3.5. They won't leave 4th (a game which they left 3.5 behind to play) to play 3.5...
You're leaving out people who were happy(more or less) with 3.5E and yet still found 4E to be an upgrade. That definition would include most of my gaming group.
there is still no such thing as balance in game terms, atleast not in dnd.
you want a balanced dnd game, then throw out the classes and do a system like the elder scrolls, class means little, and your skills mean everything.
this is how dnd 5.0 will be
all hail Akatosh
D&D attempted a quasi-classless system with 3.5E style multiclassing, and when it came time to design the next edition they completely scrapped that and brought back more or less ironclad classes.
Classes = D&D, no way the next edition is scrapping it.
there is still no such thing as balance in game terms, atleast not in dnd.
you want a balanced dnd game, then throw out the classes and do a system like the elder scrolls, class means little, and your skills mean everything.
this is how dnd 5.0 will be
all hail Akatosh
actually a skill based system is even easier to unbalance. i've never played elder scrolls, but if it's anything like GURPS (a skill based system) the balance will lie entirely on GM placed limits and player consensus to obey those limits.
class-based games tend to be easier to balance since they have built-in caps that are easier to regulate the advancement and manage them, while class-less games can feature the largest disparity since it's technically possible to put all your eggs in one basket or put each egg in it's own basket.
Does any one else think that Pathfinder will draw a lot of people away from 4th ed?
No. The Pathfinder crowd that is going to try and stick with Paizo are pretty much the same people that have been there during the beta. I highly doubt that the finished Pathfinder product is going to draw any appreciable numbers away from the D&D 4E audience.
If you go to the Paizo boards, you won't see anywhere near as many "New Gamer Here" or "New to Pathfinder" posts as you do at the Wizards of the Coast's D&D boards. It is the same crowd that was there when Paizo announced Pathfinder eighteen months ago.
Atomic dinosaurs still ravage cities, and people with pointy sticks got a pencil sharpener. The ones in the middle may be a little more interesting.
That said, I'm not, and never will, play Pathfinder. When I was playing 3.5, i was more-or-less satisfied. When i picked up 4e, I read the PHB, thought about it, and became a devotee. That, and I played a few games of 3.5 and realized that I no longer liked it.
I guess, then, that I am a 3.5 player who escaped to 4e.
actually a skill based system is even easier to unbalance. i've never played elder scrolls, but if it's anything like GURPS (a skill based system) the balance will lie entirely on GM placed limits and player consensus to obey those limits.
class-based games tend to be easier to balance since they have built-in caps that are easier to regulate the advancement and manage them, while class-less games can feature the largest disparity since it's technically possible to put all your eggs in one basket or put each egg in it's own basket.
It depends on how the skill-bassed system works. It's not always the case that you can spend "experience points" as you want the way you can in GURPS. Runequest is one of the purer skill-based systems, and does things differently. Exactly how varies by edition, but generally at the end of the adventure you roll to see whether a skill improves - exceed your current skill level to do so. As is immediately apparent, it's a lot harder to improve skills that you're already very skilled at than it is to improve ones you aren't so good at. There are admittedly various bonuses to be had to these improvement rolls and different editions have different ways of determining which skills you can advance this way, but in my experience characters often have several skills clustered at the same general skill level for things they do frequently, others some way behind that they do sometimes, and a lot of skills at or just above their base level which you might have done one or two times. But it's very rare for anyone to be a "one trick pony".
The previews range from trivial to laughable.
Atomic dinosaurs still ravage cities, and people with pointy sticks got a pencil sharpener. The ones in the middle may be a little more interesting.
Atomic dinosaurs rule!!!
Paizo doesn't "include the people in the making of these products" any more than any other game company does. Every company puts out things that they hope people will buy. I got sick of 3.5 because of the abuse that could be done with the system, and I'm not sure that Paizo can fix those problems without people screaming "Nerfhammer!" and complaining until the end of time.
In any case, though I played 3.5 and play 4th edition now, for me "D&D" comes in a box with dice that one marked themselves with the included wax crayon. This is 4th edition AD&D to me... so you kids get off my lawn. :D
I have been a D&D player for many years (since 1983-Started with 1st ed.) and have enjoyed many countless hours of fun filled fantasy.
Paizo seems to realized that in an age of computer MMOs and and a declining interest in playing pen & paper games that if they want to keep people buying their products then they should include the people in the making of these products instead of just puching out as much as possible and hoping people will buy it like Wizards does.
Paizo seem to be taking into account of the human factor in pen & paper games. So while I love me some D&D the 4ed is just not what D&D is for me and I will go with Piazo and the Pathfinder system to keep my D&D world alive. This is just my feelings and opinions and wish Wizards the best of luck just as I wish Paizo luck with their new system. Dose any one else think that Pathfinder will draw alot of people away from 4th ed?
I agree with most of the other responses... the 4th edition haters will go to Pathfinder, and most of the 4th edition players will likely take a look at Pathfinder but aren't likely to drop 4th edition in favor of Pathfinder. I imagine there will be a lot of groups that run both.
I'd imagine most D&D players(of any edition) who aren't on the internet heavily have never heard of Pathfinder. I'd also imagine many 4th edition players who are on the internet wouldn't look at Pathfinder with anything more than morbid curiousity, not unlike gawking at a highway accident.
I'd also imagine many 4th edition players who are on the internet wouldn't look at Pathfinder with anything more than morbid curiousity, not unlike gawking at a highway accident.
Ooh! Ooh! Me!`Me!
He's talking about me!Nope. The people who would be "drawn away" weren't going to play 4th anyway, so I don't see WotC losing anything.
What he said!
I really don't have anything against Pathfinder or Paizo. I do have a moderately sized beef against the hype that surrounds it and some of their more rabid fans.
I keep hearing about how great Paizo is. I have no real knowledge about their work, so I'm not going to say that they aren't.
But it just seems odd to me. If they are so awesome, why is their big, flagship game esentially another company's game with some minor tweaks? Shouldn't they be able to make their own game without relying on WotC to... well, pretty much make the game for them?
I keep hearing about how great Paizo is. I have no real knowledge about their work, so I'm not going to say that they aren't.
But it just seems odd to me. If they are so awesome, why is their big, flagship game esentially another company's game with some minor tweaks? Shouldn't they be able to make their own game without relying on WotC to... well, pretty much make the game for them?
Paizo did the Dungeon & Dragon magazines before WotC decided to handle those in-house instead of renewing the contract.
their fluff is excellent, and now that they don't have WotC hanging over their heads they aren't as restricted as to what content they put out (two words: Mammy Graul... shudder) it's really awesome.
i never trust their mechanics at face value though. as bad as some of the WotC stuff is, i usually find Paizo stuff to be worst.
If you think 3.5 is fine the way it is, you don't need Pathfinder.
If you want to actually use some of the hundreds of 3.5 books beyond the core, you can't use Pathfinder.
Pathfinder is strange because it is basically tweaked 3.5, something you only need if you actually think the edition is borked just enough to need adjustment, but not borked enough to require a whole new edition. Love 3.5 enough to want to continue using it, but hate it enough to need a new system and to throw out the entire collection of supplemental material.
Will the new Pathfinder 3.5 rules pull alot of 4e players away?
Nope.
No, Wizards pushed me towards Pathfinder due to their EPIC FAIL with 4E. I never thought that I would ever sop playing D&D. Had it since basic red box set. But I am jumping off of this sinking ship and swiming for the shore.
I've played since the red box edition. 4E is the BEST edition of Dungeons & Dragons Yet. Go play your imitation 3.x DnD game Pathfinder. I'll continue to evolve with the best edition of Dungeons & Dragons yet, the FOURTH EDITION.
I've played since the red box edition. 4E is the BEST edition of Dungeons & Dragons Yet. Go play your imitation 3.x DnD game Pathfinder. I'll continue to evolve with the best edition of Dungeons & Dragons yet, the FOURTH EDITION.
Why is it that when someone comes in and posts that they don't plan on playing 4th edition and they don't like it fanboys like this have to have such smartass comments? Honestly are you like 12 years old because this really doesn't bring out your maturity.
Why is it that when someone comes in and posts that they don't plan on playing 4th edition and they don't like it fanboys like this have to have such smartass comments? Honestly are you like 12 years old?
Same reason some people who hate 4th ED post this fact ad nauseum on the 4E boards would be my guess.
Same reason some people who hate 4th ED post this fact ad nauseum on the 4E boards would be my guess.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions without a bunch of people being dicks.
So let me get this straigh: It's okay to say "4E sux, I will never play it!"
And it is not okay to say: "4E is the best edition ever, I will play it a long time!"
That's exactly what I get out of your post right now...
Once again you have answered my question.
Same reason some people who hate 4th ED post this fact ad nauseum on the 4E boards would be my guess.
That, and it's more than a little rude and immature and, well, wankerish to wander onto the 4e forums and say that you won't ever play it. If you're not going to play 4e, why visit the 4e forums? It's just asinine.
Seriously, pick another game company with a website. Go on their forums and tell them their game is bad and you'll never play it. The response will probably be even MORE vehement and will likely come with a banhammering.
That, and it's more than a little rude and immature and, well, wankerish to wander onto the 4e forums and say that you won't ever play it. If you're not going to play 4e, why visit the 4e forums? It's just asinine.
Seriously, pick another game company with a website. Go on their forums and tell them their game is bad and you'll never play it. The response will probably be even MORE vehement and will likely come with a banhammering.
Last time I checked giving your opinion within the confines of the CoC were free for everyone. Being a gobshite because someone gives their negative opinion about 4th edition is immature. If the game is so great then it will defend itself.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions without a bunch of people being dicks.
Oh, the irony...
Salla, I'll let you know if I ever head out your way, 'cause I think I like you, and would buy you a drink.
DaidojiTaidoru,
Everyone is entitled to their opinions without a bunch of people being dicks.
Maybe if people weren't dicks in posting their opinions, and would state their opinions rather than crying WoW, death of D&D, sinking ships blah blah blah, other wouldn't be dicks to them in return..
And to op, no i really don;t think Pathfinder is going to make much of dent (if any of a dent) in the 4th ed crowd. It seems the most devoted fans of 4th ed never really cared that much for 3rd ed in the first place, and the dedicated 3rd ed fans will stick with 3rd ed. Pazio would have been better served developing an original system, rather than trying to set them selves up as the saviour of a system that didn't need saving.
Maybe if people weren't dicks in posting their opinions, and would state their opinions rather than crying WoW, death of D&D, sinking ships blah blah blah, other wouldn't be dicks to them in return..
You are wise, sir or madam.
No, Wizards pushed me towards Pathfinder due to their EPIC FAIL with 4E. I never thought that I would ever sop playing D&D. Had it since basic red box set. But I am jumping off of this sinking ship and swiming for the shore.
Just remember your Paizo product is not a flotation device. So when ya start drowning in it remember to let it go and start swimming. We will be by in our 4th edition boat to drag ya to safety.
You are wise, sir or madam.
thanks!.. oh yea and it is sir! :DPersonally I can see pathfinder doing quite good, will tis hurt 4E in some way?
probably not, specially because of the name, as the market at least seems a bit segmented, plus the movements are relatively slow, so we are talking about small numbers that we might not notice
And then pathfinder is not even out, it will take some time to see what comes out, and if pathfinder pushes 4E a bit or is pushed back a bit.
But I am jumping off of this sinking ship and swiming for the shore.
Too bad you won't join us on our sinking boat, going into song.
*ahem*
We all live in a gnomish submarine,
A gnomish submarine, A gnomish submarine,
We all live in a gnomish submarine,
A gnomish submarine, A gnomish submarine,
And our friends are all aboard,
Many more DM next door,
And the game begins to play...
We all live in a gnomish submarine,
A gnomish submarine, A gnomish submarine,
We all live in a gnomish submarine,
A gnomish submarine, A gnomish submarine,
(Full attack now, Mr. Parker, full attack now!
Come shift over here, sir!
Ready Actions! Ready Actions!
Aye, aye, sir, fire!
XP! XP!)
As we live a life of ease
Every one of us has all we need,(has all we need)
Our dice, and minis,(bag of dice and new minis)
And a will to(and a will to) gain XP!(XP!) ( Hahaha! )
Too bad you won't join us on our sinking boat, going into song.
*ahem*
We all live in a gnomish submarine,
A gnomish submarine, A gnomish submarine,
We all live in a gnomish submarine,
A gnomish submarine, A gnomish submarine,
And our friends are all aboard,
Many more DM next door,
And the game begins to play...
We all live in a gnomish submarine,
A gnomish submarine, A gnomish submarine,
We all live in a gnomish submarine,
A gnomish submarine, A gnomish submarine,
(Full attack now, Mr. Parker, full attack now!
Come shift over here, sir!
Ready Actions! Ready Actions!
Aye, aye, sir, fire!
XP! XP!)
As we live a life of ease
Every one of us has all we need,(has all we need)
Our dice, and minis,(bag of dice and new minis)
And a will to(and a will to) gain XP!(XP!) ( Hahaha! )
Haha.. that is brilliant.. another cookie for your hoard!
Why is it that when someone comes in and posts that they don't plan on playing 4th edition and they don't like it fanboys like this have to have such smartass comments? Honestly are you like 12 years old because this really doesn't bring out your maturity.
Man, if you can voice your opinion like a 7th grader 4th edition epic fail. I can do the same 4th edition is the greatest DnD game EVER . You post like a lil' grom, expect replies in kind. How old are like 14?.;)
Seriously... 3.5 was an okay system but suffered WAY too much from "System Mastery", not to mention the fact that every book that came out was either not balanced at all or only balanced against the Player's Handbook, leading to the slew of broken builds that sprang into being on the CO boards.
I've played old D&D (not OLD old D&D; when I bought it was in a big black box at Toys 'R' Us), 1st edition AD&D (got books at a garage sale :D), 2nd edition AD&D, 3.0, 3.5 and now 4E, and you know what? 4E feels the most like D&D. Do I agree with everything it's changed? No, of course not. But it's infinitely better than 3.5 as far as the rules go. And it's nothing like World of Warcraft - I have a few friends who I've tried to get to play D&D and after explaining it, they even gave me a look like "This isn't like WoW, what are you talking about?"
System Mastery and the idea that you NEED to pore over the books to be any good can take a long walk off a short cliff, as far as I'm concerned. I'm an experienced gamer, but most of my group are totally new to D&D and had never played before. To the pro-3.5 people: Do you really think that these excited newbies should be PUNISHED for not reading the Player's Handbook in their spare time like I did and buying every book as soon as it came out so I could sit at a table, dozens of books around me, plotting out concepts and combining feats?
From what I've heard, Pathfinder hasn't changed much. They still leave all of the huge gaps of 3.5 (mastery, spellcasters overpowering, dipping required) while only fixing minor things. As someone else pointed out, people who didn't like 3.5 won't go to Pathfinder, because it's basically the same thing (I like to call it 3.5 SP2; SP1 being the 3.5 PHB2 and Tome of Battle); people who DO like 3.5 have no need for Pathfinder, because their game is complete (as far as "official" books go); and people who like 4E wouldn't want to go back to the "dark days" of system mastery and overpowering spellcasters.
It's lose-lose for Paizo. They broke away because they were bitter over having WotC retake Dragon and Dungeon magazine and jumped on the "Let's all hate on WotC for announcing 4E!" crowd. They wrongly assumed that there would be a mass exodus and rebellion among gamers when 4E was announced, and they could tap into this market by saying "Hey, everyone! We have a better-than-3.5 3.5 rulesset coming out. Come join us!" and get hordes of disillusioned gamers to flock to their side. Instead they got a few stragglers and bystanders, but the market reaction to 4E has been rather good with a few exceptions among third party publishers, who even in the 3.x days were largely ignored (I played 3.5 since it came out and never once encountered anyone who used or allowed something published by a company other than WotC. Including content from Dragon!).
In short, Pathfinder won't do much. It will have its fanbase, but they'll be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
*pours you a drink* Maybe we can't drink one together in real-life, but better virtual than not at all! ;)
Done.
Also, to back up Leich, don't be TFG with the double standard. All it does is irritate the people you're debating with (condemning?) and make your argument look a whole lot weaker.
With that said, I think ObiWayneKenobi hath gazed into his crystal ball (Scrying pool? Mirror? What do you use?) and seen the future, and stated it most eloquently.
With that said, I think ObiWayneKenobi hath gazed into his crystal ball (Scrying pool? Mirror? What do you use?) and seen the future, and stated it most eloquently.
I reach out into the Force, of course! :D
If you want to actually use some of the hundreds of 3.5 books beyond the core, you can't use Pathfinder.
This is wrong. Using your 3.5 books with Pathfinder material requires about as much tweaking as using 3.0 books with 3.5 material.
EDIT: I think Pathfinder is going to endure, because of the great setting. Paizo will use their rules in the next adventure paths, so people will have a strong incentive to buy the rulebooks. Also, they come quite cheap, if you buy the PDFs.
Honestly very few gamers in my area, have even looked into 4E.
Pathfinder seems to be gaining interest primarily in those of us who had no interest in switching to 4E in the first place.
In our gaming group, we haven't made a complete switch to Pathfinder, but are pulling the changes that we feel are compatible to our style of play, and have really enjoyed many of the changes that they have suggested.
EDIT: I think Pathfinder is going to endure, because of the great setting. Paizo will use their rules in the next adventure paths, so people will have a strong incentive to buy the rulebooks. Also, they come quite cheap, if you buy the PDFs.
I will continue to purchase the Pathfinder Path books to adapt for my 4E game, though, I will not be purchasing the Pathfinder RPG. The RPG looked interesting in the beginning when they were going to step away from the 3.5 rules. Then they regressed due to fan pressure and I lost interest. Considering the ease with which I can adapt various materials to 4E, I've been picking up all kinds of adventure materials that I find interesting. I've also been using some 3.X material and I picked up some early stuff before the lockout on pdfs. I picked up the In Search Of Adventure which compiles the early B1-9 adventures and plan to adapt that.
I do not wish ill of anyone in the gaming business. I certainly hope that Paizo remains in the business in whatever form they choose.
Two wrongs do not make a right...
The important thing to note is that everyone is wrong here. Then again, I'm also inclined to believe the 4E "fanboy" response to the 4E "hater" straw man is to set up the opposite straw man in an attempt to show how ridiculous the entire situation is. Perhaps it's best if we all stop using exaggerated metaphors describing the product itself when what we all mean to share are our feelings about the product.
Now, to the OP itself, I don't see Pathfinder being a serious competitor for the 4E player base for the following reasons:
1) It appeals to a gamer that enjoys a different kind of gameplay. Many of the people who transitioned to 4E and stayed with it do so for the mechanics of the game. It is highly unlikely that someone that enjoyed going from 3E to 4E will go to a system that is, by far, closer to 3E's than to 4E's.
2) It has less visibility. Whether we like it or not, Wizards of the Coast has important renown in the gaming community and not only with respect to RPGs. What's more: WotC also has the D&D franchise name on its side, which also improves its visibility. This factor will influence mostly the potential gamers who have not yet delved into RPGs. I believe it's safer to say that the layman has heard of D&D, but not Pathfinder.
3) It's to 3.5E what 3.5E is to 3.0E. There are many people who felt disenchanted by the release of 3.5E (although I'm not one of them) and preferred to keep playing with all the material they had purchased for 3.0E, instead of what they felt was a rehash of previously published books dealing with only a minority of problems, while at the same time charging full price. Essentially, the same situation applies here. The appeal to the current 3E fanbase is about the same as the appeal of 3.5E was to the 3.0E fanbase back in 2003-2004. If anything, Pathfinder will appeal to those gamers who got into the 3E bandwagon very late in its life cycle and enjoyed it. This is, likely, because WotC stopped publishing 3E material and Pathfinder products will tend to be more available.
pathfinder is quite compatible with 3 and 3.5E, the base system runs`t the same with changes here and there, making it a lot more backward compatible than 4E.
Well the core system still works almost the same in 4E, the biggest change is the skills and the powers, that make it a bit less backward compatible, but other than that.
While the base system runs mostly the same, there are several changes that make it run differently, mostly in a better way, for example a better system for grappling, better management of 0 level spells, skill points.
It also improves the balance of the game greatly, by re balancing spells, and adding class features to a class like the fighter, overall they balanced things upward too, making the fighter a lot more competent, and allowing the wizard to cast level 0 spells all the time, those 2 things where the main complains about 3.5 right.
Now if the game basically runs the same, is highly backward compatible (well more than 4E), and got rid of the main issues, I can see how it could attract players from 3.5E and maybe some of 4E.
I m not saying one is better than the other, but clearing some points abut the pathfinder game.
Now the effect, it will probably be to small to notice at first, this things move slowly. it won`t have a boom specially since there is little advertising about this games so the mass public does not participate.
Now if the game basically runs the same, is highly backward compatible (well more than 4E), and got rid of the main issues, I can see how it could attract players from 3.5E and maybe some of 4E.
I don't believe 4E was ever meant to be backwards compatible.
I don't believe 4E was ever meant to be backwards compatible.
And yet, I find it the easiest to adapt other things to. I find that I can bring things forward much easier than other editions allowed for in the past. I also find that I can bring in things from other sources with ease. This means that I can use much of the material on my shelf that has been collecting dust.
What's hilarious is that this has resulted in Pathfinder having its own Pathfinder, as another house released previews for an RPG called Trailblazer, with essentially a tagline of, "Well, we're going to try to actually fix 3.5. For realz."
That is so dang funny. That thought alone will keep me laughing for the next 4 weeks of working at camp, and I will come home with a good mood and the cash to get the Eberron Campaign Guide and get my 4e game going full tilt. Thanks.
They seem to be chasing a market that is willing to spend $50 to replace two books that they already have with one book that is very similar. While I know people who rejected 4e for various reasons, I don't know any D&D player who doesn't still have a copy of 3.5e, except for a few who had already rejected 3rd edition. Although Eric Mona (on Enworld) claimed their target was people who were tired of D&D but wanted another game in the "heroic fantasy" genre.
Then why not try something not based on v3.5, like Exalted, Savage Worlds, Anima, or basically anything else out there?
Instead they got a few stragglers and bystanders, but the market reaction to 4E has been rather good with a few exceptions among third party publishers, who even in the 3.x days were largely ignored (I played 3.5 since it came out and never once encountered anyone who used or allowed something published by a company other than WotC. Including content from Dragon!).
In short, Pathfinder won't do much. It will have its fanbase, but they'll be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
Most of the 3rd party v3.5 stuff was ignored because it was crap.
Why is it that when someone comes in and posts that they don't plan on playing 4th edition and they don't like it fanboys like this have to have such smartass comments? Honestly are you like 12 years old because this really doesn't bring out your maturity.
The individual he's responding to didn't quite say that. He called 4e an epic fail and claimed because of this epic fail he was forced to jump ship.
That's a bit differet than just claiming to dislike it and that your going to play something else.
What does TFG stand for?
TFG is, "That F'ing Guy." Not you; in this case, the TFG is....the guy with the double standard that irritates everybody.
Two wrongs do not make a right... no matter what liberals tell you.
But three lefts make a right.
Now, having said that, I have seen MAJOR douchebags on both sides of the coin. The 4e douchebags are more numerous and vocal simply due to the fact that this is the 4e website. Xun, you do kinda ask for a lot of the garbage you get hit with...
I will agree that there are d-bags on both sides of the debate; I think, though, that there are more on the 3e side than the 4e side, but that may be because I'm fervently on the 4e side.
I will agree that there are d-bags on both sides of the debate; I think, though, that there are more on the 3e side than the 4e side, but that may be because I'm fervently on the 4e side.
Its a matter of context. If somebody comes here, says they like 4E, prefers it to 3E and are happy for the change and happy to leave 3E behind, thats par for the course. This is 4E General Discussion, after all. If somebody comes here, says they like 3E, prefers it to 4E and is unhappy about the change and unhappy that 3E has been left behind, one must ask why you are hassling 4E fans with this opinion.
No, Wizards pushed me towards Pathfinder due to their EPIC FAIL with 4E.
Is that a pun?
Two wrongs do not make a right... no matter what liberals tell you.
No need for this, at all. And do you have any proof that any left wing government has ever spread the idea that 2 wrongs do make a right? I won't hold my breath.
On a broader note, stop posting political propaganda!
Now, having said that, I have seen MAJOR douchebags on both sides of the coin. The 4e douchebags are more numerous and vocal simply due to the fact that this is the 4e website. Xun, you do kinda ask for a lot of the garbage you get hit with...
Funny that, people liking 4e on the 4e website... If the anti-4e'ers don't like it, they can leave. This site isn't for them.
I think pathfinders world is superior to what WOTC has put out, because in my opinion, I like the constant updates and player interaction, WOTC offers the same with its living campaigns, but their choice of 1 setting per year prevents me from jumping heads in. I do have 90% of the 4ed books and think it is not an MMO. but it is also not world specific. Pathfinder is linked to its world...so in essence we are almost comparing apples to oranges..my $0.02 :D
Xun, you do kinda ask for a lot of the garbage you get hit with...
I don't come here to seek anyone's approval. I come here to state what I think.
Funny that, people liking 4e on the 4e website... If the anti-4e'ers don't like it, they can leave. This site isn't for them.
You do understand that the way to fix things is to listen to criticism, the criticism may not always be good but it is important. If you ignore something long enough it will not go away. What did you honestly think 100% of the posts here would be "Oh How I love 4th Edition, let me count the ways"?
You do understand that the way to fix things is to listen to criticism, the criticism may not always be good but it is important. If you ignore something long enough it will not go away. What did you honestly think 100% of the posts here would be "Oh How I love 4th Edition, let me count the ways"?
I like 4th edition, but it would be better if...
compared to:
4th edition sucks. They should scrap it and start over.
One is constructive criticism, and worth hearing. The other is not.
You do understand that the way to fix things is to listen to criticism, the criticism may not always be good but it is important. If you ignore something long enough it will not go away. What did you honestly think 100% of the posts here would be "Oh How I love 4th Edition, let me count the ways"?
Please explain how this:
No, Wizards pushed me towards Pathfinder due to their EPIC FAIL with 4E. I never thought that I would ever sop playing D&D. Had it since basic red box set. But I am jumping off of this sinking ship and swiming for the shore.
...is constructive criticism?
I like 4th edition, but it would be better if...
compared to:
4th edition sucks. They should scrap it and start over.
One is constructive criticism, and worth hearing. The other is not.
But the thing is everyone is entitled to it no matter how you may not like it. Everyone doesn't explain themselves and how they feel in the same way. You have to learn to adapt to the feelings of others.
But the thing is everyone is entitled to it no matter how you may not like it. Everyone doesn't explain themselves and how they feel in the same way. You have to learn to adapt to the feelings of others.
Bolded may be the most ironic sentence ever typed by a human being.
Please explain how this:
...is constructive criticism?
A good business would want to sit and figure out why we pushed our customer to go with another game. It is not a good business practice to have the "Oh well that's just one customer gone, we have hundreds others to make up for it".
But the thing is everyone is entitled to it no matter how you may not like it. Everyone doesn't explain themselves and how they feel in the same way. You have to learn to adapt to the feelings of others.
Crap isn't entitled to being listened to. It also isn't entitled to being free from being called crap.
A good business would want to sit and figure out why we pushed our customer to go with another game. It is not a good business practice to have the "Oh well that's just one customer gone, we have hundreds others to make up for it".
Yes, a good business would. The question is, can they do anything based on a post like that? This guy presumably popped in, posted a couple, "4e sucks! its yucky dirt and it h8 it!1" comments and then likely never visited the forums again. How does that help WotC figure out how they pushed this person away? Answer: it doesn't, so WotC is forced to ignore this person and rely on the people who do provide actual constructive feedback.
A good business would want to sit and figure out why we pushed our customer to go with another game. It is not a good business practice to have the "Oh well that's just one customer gone, we have hundreds others to make up for it".
Well, if dumping one customer serves the hundreds better, it generally is.
Bolded may be the most ironic sentence ever typed by a human being.
Look, lets say you work in an office with 6 people. You have Bob, Mary, Joey, Larry, Peter, and Sam. Lets say they all have the same problem and they come to you for help, well you will most likely have to explain it in a different way to some and another way to the rest. Bob, Mary and Joey you might be able to sit there at your desk and tell them how to do it, while with the others you may have to physically get up and show them visually how to do it.
Well, if dumping one customer serves the hundreds better, it generally is.
Then you don't have good business practice.
Look, lets say you work in an office with 6 people. You have Bob, Mary, Joey, Larry, Peter, and Sam. Lets say they all have the same problem and they come to you for help, well you will most likely have to explain it in a different way to some and another way to the rest. Bob, Mary and Joey you might be able to sit there at your desk and tell them how to do it, while with the others you may have to physically get up and show them visually how to do it.
And what does this have to do with anything?
Look, lets say you work in an office with 6 people. You have Bob, Mary, Joey, Larry, Peter, and Sam. Lets say they all have the same problem and they come to you for help, well you will most likely have to explain it in a different way to some and another way to the rest. Bob, Mary and Joey you might be able to sit there at your desk and tell them how to do it, while with the others you may have to physically get up and show them visually how to do it.
I didn't claim it was incorrect statement. I said it was ironic given who was saying it and where.
Then you don't have good business practice.
Serving 201 customers moderately well is worse than serving 200 customers very well.
Its just good buisness practice.
Unless you're the 1 customer, and then it sucks to be you. That one customer seems to post a lot.
Yes, a good business would. The question is, can they do anything based on a post like that? This guy presumably popped in, posted a couple, "4e sucks! its yucky dirt and it h8 it!1" comments and then likely never visited the forums again. How does that help WotC figure out how they pushed this person away? Answer: it doesn't, so WotC is forced to ignore this person and rely on the people who do provide actual constructive feedback.
As long as WoTc take the initiative to find out why the customer doesn't like it then we are good. If the customer still doesn't like it or is being trouble then you move on.
Serving 201 customers moderately well is worse than serving 200 customers very well.
Its just good buisness practice.
Unless you're the 1 customer, and then it sucks to be you. That one customer seems to post a lot.
I hope you don't own a business. I'm not being an ass I am just being honest.
Then you don't have good business practice.
I beg to differ. In an actual case that came up recently (I can dig up an article if you like), a Wal-Mart (or some other grocery store) refused to bake a birthday cake for a neo-Nazi couple who had named their son Adolf Hitler (they wanted the cake to have a swastika and say, "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler"). The couple refused to do business there again. Would Wal-Mart have been a better business practice to make the cake for them and lose several other people as customers for being perceived as neo-Nazi sympathizers? No, of course not.
The fact is, you can't please everyone, or even most people generally; you have to pick the subset to please that benefits your business the most. You certainly can't please people who refuse to tell you what you're doing wrong.
As long as WoTc take the initiative to find out why the customer doesn't like it then we are good. If the customer still doesn't like it or is being trouble then you move on.
Question: In the case of knight17's post, how should WotC have taken the initiative to determine why s/he does not like 4e?
Well, if dumping one customer serves the hundreds better, it generally is.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek
Then you don't have good business practice.
Actually, it's GREAT business practice. Driving away customers that cause problems can drive up profit. It's why muzak is used in parking lots to drive away teens. Remove the complainers or the people who drive others away; keep the purchasers and build a reputation for not fooling around with undesireables.
I hope you don't own a business. I'm not being an ass I am just being honest.
I do run a business, and two things it has taught me is that you can't please everybody, and some people can't be pleased no matter how hard you try. Fighting against those two things consumes more resources than any return they could provide.
In the RPG world, people want different things. Contradictory things. Pleasing one person will displease someone else. You can't serve them all, unless you put out a wishy-washy game that makes nobody happy.
I do run a business, and two things it has taught me is that you can't please everybody, and some people can't be pleased no matter how hard you try. Fighting against those two things consumes more resources than any return they could provide.
In the RPG world, people want different things. Contradictory things. Pleasing one person will displease someone else. You can't serve them all, unless you put out a wishy-washy game that makes nobody happy.
:OMG! Is all I can say.
I do run a business, and two things it has taught me is that you can't please everybody, and some people can't be pleased no matter how hard you try. Fighting against those two things consumes more resources than any return they could provide.
Absolutely right. Having helped run the family business in the past, this is absolutely accurate.
:OMG! Is all I can say.
I seriously hope you have the ability to marry rich. I'd hate to see you have to hack it in the business world with that idealistic attitude.
And yet, I find it the easiest to adapt other things to. I find that I can bring things forward much easier than other editions allowed for in the past. I also find that I can bring in things from other sources with ease. This means that I can use much of the material on my shelf that has been collecting dust.
What you're describing is an entirely different concept. Backwards compatibility implies that you're working with the previous iteration of the material pretty much as is. For example, handling .doc files in Word 2007 or playing with Sword and Fist prestige classes in a 3.5E game. That you find it easier to adapt other material in 4E speaks of 4E's flexibility, as a system, not of its backwards compatibility.
You have to learn to adapt to the feelings of others.
This goes both ways. I don't think dropping in the 4E boards with inflammatory statements meant to invalidate the 4E fans' pastime shows any kind of consideration for the feelings of the 4E fans. It's pretty much like going to church only to tell everyone there that their god is a worthless hoax. It shows lack of good taste and doesn't provide any kind of constructive criticism.
:OMG! Is all I can say.
I work in a convinience store. Let me teach you something:
The customer is always right. Until the customer starts insulting you, your colleagues, your other customers or a combination of the above.
At that point you are not paid to take any crap and people pay you for goods and service, not the right to insult you. At that point you politely, but firmly, tell that customer to put down whatever he's holding and get out.
Some jackass in line once started to insult a lady I was serving, calling her ugly and claiming he had AIDS and did not care about anything and could spit in all out mouthes and crap. I kicked him out of the store and got congratulated by the other customers.
Want another exemple? We sell bus passes at my store. However we don't accept credit cards to pay for them. Why? Credit card transactions cost us 2% each, and we don't actually make profit from the bus passes. Essentially we would be losing money to let customer use a service we gracefully offer to attract profit in the first place. The other day a lady was visibly OUTRAGED at the idea, even after I AND the manage explained we would be losing money on it. Her reaction was to say she would complain to the transit authority.
AH!
So someone coming in here and insulting the game as a 'epic fail' and a 'sinking ship' and then walking off is nothing more than that guy I had to kicked out and YOU Xun remind me of the outraged lady. Irrationnal and always expecting things companies offer as a service to be an undeniable right.
This forum is not a democracy, its a privately owned domain, so that right of opinion you keep talking about means zilch.
If someone wants to give WotC CONSTRUCTIVE criticism its going to be far more useful to just EMAIL that criticism to them directly instead of bothering the fans. WotC rarely mine the forum for clever ideas... this IS the Internet after all.
..., I'm also inclined to believe the 4E "fanboy" response to the 4E "hater" straw man is to set up the opposite straw man in an attempt to show how ridiculous the entire situation is. ....
Thank you Sir. I like to call it satire. In a public forum such as this, any and all outrageous statements of opinion are subject to satirical comment. Welcome to a public online forum.
As another thought to the discussion; Accepet for minis, I never did purchase any DnD material from WotC Since the I purchased the core 3.5 rule books. I realy liked the stuff coming out of Paizo including, Game Mastery material. The publishers and editors there were a big part of the message board community over there. You gotta love that kinda stuff But with 4th edition I haven't looked back to Paizo. I wish the best of luck, for them and all those 3rd edition hold outs.
I work in a convinience store. Let me teach you something:
Edited for length.
This is very true.
On this note, I recently came into some knowledge that I was previously unaware. A company can "fire" a customer. We recently had to send a letter to a customer to let them know that they were no longer to call us or come into the store and that doing so would be grounds for legal action. Customers are only entitled to service as long as they are being reasonable. If a customer kept coming into our store and ranted or insulted the employees, he would be legally banned from our store.
I think that, all things said, WotC has been fairly patient with most of these anti-4E posters. More so than they need to be as far as I'm concerned.
So someone coming in here and insulting the game as a 'epic fail' and a 'sinking ship' and then walking off is nothing more than that guy I had to kicked out and YOU Xun remind me of the outraged lady. Irrationnal and always expecting things companies offer as a service to be an undeniable right.
In the three years I've worked in retail, that's pretty much what I learned to classify as the bad customer or the customer not worth having. In the end, they end up requiring far too much effort for the profit they bring and take away precious time from customers that have reasonable expectations. They're way too low a return on investment, which makes catering to them a bad business decision. Unless they have the power to disrupt the rest of your customer base, it's better to just ignore them. They can start having unreasonable expectations when they can impose unreasonable consequences on you.
This is very true.
On this note, I recently came into some knowledge that I was previously unaware. A company can "fire" a customer.
Wow, you didn't know that? Businesses used to be much more up-front about it - how many times have you seen a "We reserve the right..." sign next to register or posted on the wall of a business?
Pathfinder 3.5 may just scratch that itch. Or Hackmaster 5e. Hackmaster 4e was a joke because it was required to be a joke by the license granted to them by WotC. It didn't stop them from winning game of the year with it, and the new Hackmaster 5e is built from the ground up without any of the silliness, so I'm looking forward to that as well.
I don't think either system will pull away 4e players, but there's certainly players out there who are looking for something a little better, rp-wise, than 4e can provide.
hmm to be fair...
It also improves the balance of the game greatly
The examples so far point largely in the other direction, with a less than reassuring "don't worry, there's lots of kewl stuff that you don't see."
Frankly PHBII, Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic etc. are probably a better investment for someone who wants to stick to 3.5.
And instead of invalidating a huge part of your own library of books, you'd better just keep playing 3.5 instead. Houserules with a pricetag? No thanks.
Again, you're wrong. PRPG does nothing to invalidate your old books. The changes are so that you can easily tweak 3.5 material to use with PRPG.
I work in a convinience store. Let me teach you something:
The customer is always right. Until the customer starts insulting you, your colleagues, your other customers or a combination of the above.
At that point you are not paid to take any crap and people pay you for goods and service, not the right to insult you. At that point you politely, but firmly, tell that customer to put down whatever he's holding and get out.
Some jackass in line once started to insult a lady I was serving, calling her ugly and claiming he had AIDS and did not care about anything and could spit in all out mouthes and crap. I kicked him out of the store and got congratulated by the other customers.
Want another exemple? We sell bus passes at my store. However we don't accept credit cards to pay for them. Why? Credit card transactions cost us 2% each, and we don't actually make profit from the bus passes. Essentially we would be losing money to let customer use a service we gracefully offer to attract profit in the first place. The other day a lady was visibly OUTRAGED at the idea, even after I AND the manage explained we would be losing money on it. Her reaction was to say she would complain to the transit authority.
AH!
So someone coming in here and insulting the game as a 'epic fail' and a 'sinking ship' and then walking off is nothing more than that guy I had to kicked out and YOU Xun remind me of the outraged lady. Irrationnal and always expecting things companies offer as a service to be an undeniable right.
This forum is not a democracy, its a privately owned domain, so that right of opinion you keep talking about means zilch.
If someone wants to give WotC CONSTRUCTIVE criticism its going to be far more useful to just EMAIL that criticism to them directly instead of bothering the fans. WotC rarely mine the forum for clever ideas... this IS the Internet after all.
QFT
It's pretty obvious Xun has never had a real job that involved working directly with customers.
Wow, you didn't know that? Businesses used to be much more up-front about it - how many times have you seen a "We reserve the right..." sign next to register or posted on the wall of a business?
It was more the officialness of the "firing". I've always known that you could "reserve the right to serve someone". It just never came up until recently with this particular customer.
Again, you're wrong. PRPG does nothing to invalidate your old books. The changes are so that you can easily tweak 3.5 material to use with PRPG.
It doesn't invalidate old books, but it makes them a hassle to use, requiring either time consuming conversion or handwaving away the rough spots(which leaves a bad taste in my mouth).
QFT
It's pretty obvious Xun has never had a real job that involved working directly with customers.
He might be the sort of customer that gets fired. That could explain his philosophy that businesses should bend over backward for everybody, regardless of their behavior.
Again, you're wrong. PRPG does nothing to invalidate your old books. The changes are so that you can easily tweak 3.5 material to use with PRPG.
Or we could just continue to use the shelves and shelves of existing 3.5 material, no tweaking required.
That's the problem with PFRPG, it bills itself as "Continuing 3.5" when it's really a 3.7 batch of houserules, and has largely reneged on it's promise of fixing things. It still has Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards. For every bit of complexity they remove, they add more. It still has huge bloated stat blocks for higher level monsters.
There is a group of players out there for whom the PF changes are exactly what they want. But compared to the group "Perfectly happy with existing library of 3.5" and "Wanted actual fixes," I have to wonder how viable that group is as a customer base.
What's hilarious is that this has resulted in Pathfinder having its own Pathfinder, as another house released previews for an RPG called Trailblazer, with essentially a tagline of, "Well, we're going to try to actually fix 3.5. For realz."
Actually, that turned out to be useful. I checked out Trailblazer and while it is not 'Pathfinder having its own Pathfinder' it is an interesting piece of design work aimed at improving 3.5.
The author makes it clear on EnWorld that with Trailblazer he is working on issues he perceives with 3.5. His approach is not connected with PF.
-vk
I work in a convinience store. Let me teach you something:
The customer is always right. Until the customer starts insulting you, your colleagues, your other customers or a combination of the above.
At that point you are not paid to take any crap and people pay you for goods and service, not the right to insult you. At that point you politely, but firmly, tell that customer to put down whatever he's holding and get out.
Some jackass in line once started to insult a lady I was serving, calling her ugly and claiming he had AIDS and did not care about anything and could spit in all out mouthes and crap. I kicked him out of the store and got congratulated by the other customers.
Want another exemple? We sell bus passes at my store. However we don't accept credit cards to pay for them. Why? Credit card transactions cost us 2% each, and we don't actually make profit from the bus passes. Essentially we would be losing money to let customer use a service we gracefully offer to attract profit in the first place. The other day a lady was visibly OUTRAGED at the idea, even after I AND the manage explained we would be losing money on it. Her reaction was to say she would complain to the transit authority.
AH!
So someone coming in here and insulting the game as a 'epic fail' and a 'sinking ship' and then walking off is nothing more than that guy I had to kicked out and YOU Xun remind me of the outraged lady. Irrationnal and always expecting things companies offer as a service to be an undeniable right.
This forum is not a democracy, its a privately owned domain, so that right of opinion you keep talking about means zilch.
If someone wants to give WotC CONSTRUCTIVE criticism its going to be far more useful to just EMAIL that criticism to them directly instead of bothering the fans. WotC rarely mine the forum for clever ideas... this IS the Internet after all.
See you and I work in two totally different environments. You work in a "convenience" (had to correct you) store and I do accounting work for one of the largest banks in the United States. The way you and I handle customers is totally different.
See you and I work in two totally different environments. You work in a "convenience" (had to correct you) store and I do accounting work for one of the largest banks in the United States. The way you and I handle customers is totally different.
That's the source of your problem right there. In an environment where you have a few customers each of which represents a non-trivial percentage of your revenue/profit, you do have to bend over backwards to suck up to jerk clients. But Xun, you gotta realize that WotC is much, much closer to a convenience store or grocery store in its business model than it is to a banking firm like yours; in fact, most businesses have business plans closer to a convenience store's or a grocery store's than to yours.
Also, for the love of all things small and fluffy, could you please sblock your sig?
See you and I work in two totally different environments. You work in a "convenience" (had to correct you) store and I do accounting work for one of the largest banks in the United States. The way you and I handle customers is totally different.
What bank? I'm a fiscal law focus lawyer. My firm represents 3 of the largest five banking institutions. I'm a bit curious which of the large banks you work for because your attitudes aren't very representative of any of them.
That's the source of your problem right there. In an environment where you have a few customers each of which represents a non-trivial percentage of your revenue/profit, you do have to bend over backwards to suck up to jerk clients.
I own 2 businesses, and I can atest to both sides of the "customer's always right" coin, as both businesses are as different as black and white.
The first business is a hardware store/lumber yard. It is a small, independently-owned operation and gets most of its clientelle from word of mouth and local advertising. The majority of the customers are repeat customers. If someone comes in showing their butt, being disrespectful, harassing the help, etc., I can give them the boot without a second thought and it won't affect overall profits one bit.
The second is a major franchise-managed hotel. While it is also independently owned, it answers to the franchise-owner (Best Western). One single disgruntled guest can make a snowball of trouble that will be noticed all the way up the franchise-chain. If a guest is displeased, they can go online and file a complaint with Best Western. I have 7 days to respond to and resolve that complaint or I get fined. I cannot afford to dismiss any single customer in this particular business, or it could cost me a fortune, as well as running the risk of having Best Western drop my hotel from their chain. Considering that 90% of my reservations come directly from Best Western Online, it would be financially disastrous to tell a grumpy or abusive guest to get lost. Losing Best Western's advertising and backing would ruin me, and quick.
I really feel that WotC more closely resembles the first business over the second one in that a single angry customer could not, theoretically, cost the company multiple-thousands of dollars in fines and penalties. Yes, they would lose any money that customer might spend with them, but that's about it. There's significantly more positive word-of-mouth about WotC than there is negative...the negative just seems to be extremely vocal about it.
See you and I work in two totally different environments. You work in a "convenience" (had to correct you) store and I do accounting work for one of the largest banks in the United States. The way you and I handle customers is totally different.
Yet with all this responsibility as a big time banker, you still feel the need to call people names like "Dick and Gobshite" to make a point. hmmmm
Yet with all this responsibility as a big time banker, you still feel the need to call people names like "Dick and Gobshite" to make a point. hmmmm
Makes sense to me...I've always considered bankers part of Satan's upper echelon, so a few thrown-out insults is not a surprise. :P
And in fairness, he said he was an accountant, not an actual banker. Its subtly different. ;)
I like 4e, but it doesn't satisfy me as far as a genuine fantasy RP game goes. It's clearly a skirmish boardgame with some RP rules tacked on to provide some sort of connection between combat encounters. It's fun, and my group likes it, but it feels like something's missing.
Pathfinder 3.5 may just scratch that itch. Or Hackmaster 5e. Hackmaster 4e was a joke because it was required to be a joke by the license granted to them by WotC. It didn't stop them from winning game of the year with it, and the new Hackmaster 5e is built from the ground up without any of the silliness, so I'm looking forward to that as well.
I don't think either system will pull away 4e players, but there's certainly players out there who are looking for something a little better, rp-wise, than 4e can provide.
*Sigh*
I'm just going to pull out the standard "Oh, I guess I have been playing 4E wrong then because I've been playing it as a Roleplaying game, hur hur hur" statement.
4E is not "clearly a skirmish boardgame with some RP rules tacked on to provide some sort of connection between combat encounters". To me, that is not the clear intent or implimentation of the system. That is your opinion, and if that is the way you play 4E, it is your own fault. And please don't give me the old "3E was 'better' for roleplaying than 4E" crap, because it isn't true. 4E has as much, if not more, encouragment to roleplay as any other edition of D&D.
I really think the reason this type of stuff gets bandied about by people is because they improved the combat to a level where it is now fun and interesting. This seems to make people forget to roleplay, leading me to believe some will only roleplay to try to gloss over how terrible the actual game is.
I'm not going to say "You are doing it wrong", but please, leave your opinion as just your opinion. 4E is, to me, clearly a roleplaying game that doesn't allow the roleplaying to hinder the game, and vice-versa. It is the best example I have seen so far of an RPG that both provides a fun game and encouragment to roleplay.
All I'm saying is stop pretending that the actual system is just a "skirmish boardgame" (wouldn't that require that there be, ya know, a board for the game, instead of letting the DM do what they want?). I've played skirmish boardgames, and while 4E combat is similar to those games, it also encourages RP just as much as any other RPG. That perfect pairing of fun game and fun roleplaying is what I like about 4E.
And stop pretending that other editions of D&D had "more roleplaying". They didn't.
Do lets try to avoid getting all classist on each other...
I agree. I really hate when threads degrade to being about a poster instead of the actual topic.
On that note, let me convert some of my previous post into relavent post material.
Another reason I believe that Pathfinder doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of "pulling alot of 4E players" away is the actual game part of things. The roleplaying aspect between them is pretty much the same, unless PF still uses straight-jacket alignment and the assciated crap that that brings like Detect X and Smite X. But where the games really differ is the actual game portion, the "skirmish boardgame" part, if you will.;)
D&D combat has always been based around a "skirmish boardgame" feel, because that is how it started. Pathfinder uses the 3.5 combat system, a clunky, boring math-fest where you either have a laundry list of options, many of which can end the battle in one round and even bypass HP (you know, the mechanic that was put into place to show how you could avoid losing a battle?), or you can stand perfectly still in one spot (because otehrwise you can't use your full attack!), slowly chipping away at your opponents HP with a single attack option until the other type of character comes along and finishes the battle for you.
4E uses a system where everyone is useful in combat at all times, and where regardless of class you always have myriad interesting options to perform in combat. It also pushes teamwork as the main route to victory, instead of just buffing yourself to godhood and then blasting alone til you win. It also encourages movement and clever use of terrain and scenery through pushes, pulls, slides, shifts, and teleports provided by various powers. At the same time, having a basic framework that every character works under allows for ease of use and quick advancement, so you can level up fast so you can get back to the roleplaying and fun.
I really think that that is one of the greatest strengths of 4E. The combat is now much more involved for every character and more enjoyable. They actually worked at making this aspect of the game better, instead of letting it stay stangnant like usual.
As you so freely like to advise...
That is your opinion and I wish you would state it as such other than stating it as irrefutable fact.
I know a number of people who feel otherwise...
He did.
I really think that that is one of the greatest strengths of 4E. The combat is now much more involved for every character and more enjoyable.
The context of the statement clearly shows that his statement was stated as an opinion.
I'd imagine most D&D players(of any edition) who aren't on the internet heavily have never heard of Pathfinder. I'd also imagine many 4th edition players who are on the internet wouldn't look at Pathfinder with anything more than morbid curiousity, not unlike gawking at a highway accident.
That is how I just looked at Trailblazer. Their website lists the problems with 3.x and then they suggest a cure to the five minute work day. Guess what...they use the 10 minute rest to restore hp, and class abilities.
Hlethvagi
I think Paizo does really good settings and I'll check out the new rules.
Currently I am playing in both a 3.5 and 4ed game, so I get the best of both worlds!
Yet with all this responsibility as a big time banker, you still feel the need to call people names like "Dick and Gobshite" to make a point. hmmmm
Hey when I am outside of work I can say certain things and besides I have an Irish fiancee so I pick up on a lot of things she says. The Irish are very expressive.
What bank? I'm a fiscal law focus lawyer. My firm represents 3 of the largest five banking institutions. I'm a bit curious which of the large banks you work for because your attitudes aren't very representative of any of them.
Umm if you are familiar with banking then you know I am not at liberty to discuss anything affiliated with the bank that I work for. Also, if you know anything about banks then you know that each customer is important no matter how much money they have with that bank. At the bank that I work for you are required to take a class that helps you deal people that comes from all walks of life. You do not handle every customer nor do you handle every employee the same.
I never said that one customer is going to make you or break you, it's all about good business practice. You treat every customer fairly to the best of your abilities, unless they are directly being out of control then other measures will have to be taken. But when you work for a large company they do not have the he is just one customer we have plenty of others to take his place. I don't care what kind of lawyer you say you are, I deal with the public and I deal with employees everyday. We are taught that "every" customer and employee is important.
To those who are breaking away to play Pathfinder, I say this:
"Have fun."
That's all.
Umm if you are familiar with banking then you know I am not at liberty to discuss anything affiliated with the bank that I work for.
None of the big five have any policies about commenting on your job as long as you don't divulge any time sensitive or proprietary information. The closest is Bank of America has a contractual policy to not to discuss at what pay grade you are as an employee. None of the banks have a written or even understood employment clause that would prevent you from naming your employer. With that said I'm going to go ahead and call BS on you "doing the accounting for one of the major banks in the US". Try again to give your opinion regarding a business model using a false job, I'd pick something a little less grandiose than working for "one of the major banks in the US".
I bought the first three 4th edition books and my gaming buds and I tried it out for 6 months or so.
About half of us decided to stick with 3.5.
When Pathfinder came out a couple more switched back.
I just got the Pathfinder rulebook last week, its freakin huge, at least 1d6 damage as a thrown weapon.
I like still being able to use my 50 plus 3.5 books and I like the minor rule changes to skills, races and classes too.
Another random thing I noticed about the local gamers, all of the dudes who still play 4e have never played World of Warcraft and the most of the Pathfinder crowd still play WoW. Weird huh?
I doubt that it's going to even be a drop in the bucket. It's too much like 3.5 and the people that switched wanted to get -away- from 3.5 (even if they don't totally love everything about the present rules) The original form of Pathfinder was significantly more divergent from 3.5 than the present version... which unfortunately for it, caved and decided to cater to the "OH MONTE MONTE MONTE OH MONTE" crowd instead of developing their own game loosely based on 3.5. Basically it's an even more doomed to failure game than Hackmaster was. By the way I didn't actually read your giant run on paragraph. I just answered the thread title. Please space your paragraphs.
I am not sure that selling out your first print run, on pre-orders alone could sensibly be called 'failure.' The game has a solid player base. It may well decline over time, nearly all games do.
But, to the question at hand. Will PRPG pull players away from wizards of the coast. Short answer, i doubt it.
Long answer, while the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game will not drag people away from from wizards, Pathfinder already has, and may well do more. It certainly pulled me away from white wolf to a large extent, and i was an avid fan of all things world of darkness, and the paizo boards have a fairly large number of people who swear by 4e as a game system, but whom come to golarion and the rest of pathfinder because they like the source material and adventures for more than the rediculously poor setting material that is being released by WotC at this time. So as a rule, i'd say people who are playing 4e, will generally be sticking with WotC for rules supplimentation, but the war for worlds, that is far more open.