As a 3.5 fan what will Next offer me that Pathfinder doesn't?

So far I'm not seeing a lot of solid reasons to go with Next over Pathfinder. 
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
Less is more. As someone who currently plays Pathfinder only because the existing alternatives are worse, I always look forward to a system-reset back down to one book and simple feats and not needing to cross-reference anything.
The metagame is not the game.
Well, I could list some improvements I've seen, but what sort of thing specifically are you looking for?
Interesting character creation, well designed adventure modules, and art that inspires rather than takes up page space are three things that I like about Pathfinder that I haven't seen a lot of in Next.
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
We have no idea on the art or published adventures. But I find character creation interesting - especially the warlock and sorcerer stuff a while back.
      I hear talk of a variety of things 5e will offer that Pathfinder won't, which is why I expect to be playing Pathfinder once WOTC makes it hard to get 4e stuff.
So far I'm not seeing a lot of solid reasons to go with Next over Pathfinder. 



.......or v3.5 or 4E for that matter. I'm pretty much in the same boat as you are right now.

The only thing that D&D:Next can do for me so far is replace my current E6 varient v3.5 games. Without the numbers bloat, magical item requirements, and character options being more lateral rather than vertical I think D&D:Next has potential to make interesting characters without making them OP/Broken characters. That being said, it doesn't do tactical combat as well as 4E nor does it have the versatility and flexability that v3.5 allowed (which is it's own slew of problems if not houseruled in a fashion). D&D:Next as some cool mechanics and a decent idea (being modularity) but I just don't see it taking over what we currently have for free via the OGL, Pathfinder, 4E, plus what 13th Age is putting out.
I'm probably going to play both, but it's far too early for me to say which system I'll like better when D&D is finished.

There are certain things I like about Pathfinder/3.5: the huge variety of classes, races, feats, spells, such that I feel like I will never run out of character concepts; the interesting combat tactics and overall versatility of the system without having to make up new rules all the time, because they have come up with a rule for just about everything; the fact that monsters and NPCs are built with the same mechanics as PCs so it is really simple to customise them and create new ones and know how powerful they are immediately. I also have a few problems with that system: chracters become far too powerful as they progress (especially in Pathfinder), skill checks become irrelevant at high levels with +20 skill bonuses possible, high level combat becomes so complicated that it can take a very long time.

D&D 5th edition has already answered a few of those concerns with the whole bounded accuracy concept, so that is the main thing I would say it has to offer that Pathfinder does not. As for all other aspects of the game, it is far too early to tell. What we have is a very basic and incomplete version of the system, and we have no idea how many classes, races, feats, spells and such will end up in the game, or what kinds of tactical combat rules. But so far it has been looking pretty good on the front of customizability, with every class having options within the class to choose from. Clerics are looking even more versatile than Pathinder's. Hopefully the Sorcerer will be as great as theirs. Rogues are more versatile than ever.

I look forward to seeing more, but I don't really view it as a competition.
One big thing that might interest you is the possibility of balance without the "sameness" of 4e. You might also appreciate simpler combat, especially at higher level.

Bounded accuracy is also more "Realistic" in certain ways. Characters in 3e tended to scale in bizarre ways, for instance the skill system meant you got amazing at a few things and stayed medicre or terrible at everything else. Monsters are still threatening, even to higher level charactersm if they are used in enough numbers. 
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
So far I'm not seeing a lot of solid reasons to go with Next over Pathfinder. 

As a fan of Pathfinder I see it has a lot of flaws. If you think it's perfect then there'll be no reason to go with Next over Pathfinder. The only reason to move to a new edition is if you think there are flaws in the current one that are fixed in the new edition.

Interesting character creation

It feels as interesting as Pathfinder does. You pick a race, background and class. You get to pick feats that provide options (and unlike Pathfinder where you're pretty much expected to take Weapon Focus/Spell Penetration, Next's feats add options rather then simply increasing numbers) to help customise your character.

well designed adventure modules

This has yet to be a focus of the playtest so I'm hardly surprised that you've not found this issue addressed.

and art that inspires rather than takes up page space are three things that I like about Pathfinder that I haven't seen a lot of in Next.

We're unlikely to see Art as part of the playtest. While we'll get previews, we won't know how they feature in relation to the rest of the book. As such I'm not surprised you haven't found this issue addressed.

One big thing that might interest you is the possibility of balance without the "sameness" of 4e. You might also appreciate simpler combat, especially at higher level.

Our level 9 party had the fight of who could produce the best spell to nullify the enemy with the enemy doing the exact same thing to us. It was long, not particularly interesting but I did have fun as I enjoy playing with the people at the table.
I feel the same way, but part of that is a big part of what appeals to me in any system is lots of options, and a playtest that's primarily getting skeletons in place is almost definitionally going to have far fewer options. Character creation is boring because there are few options currently defined. The use of art is impossible to really comment on because we've only seen limited concept art.

Here's my attempt at an argument for next.

One of PF's biggest weaknesses, in my mind, is that it initially went too far in attempting to maintain compatability with 3.5. This obviously made an enormous amount of sense at the time, and was key to one of the primary reasons the system exists in the first place, which is so that Paizo could keep the adventure paths they sold more relevant. It also probably served as a big draw to the system initially. Unfortunately - and I say this as someone who loves Pathfinder - I think in the long run it's a detriment. 3.5 is an extraordinary system. It's the system that made me love TTRPGs in the first place. It's also a system with many well-acknowledged issues lurking right in its core. Pathfinder addressed some of them, but many of them it did not or could not, and as a result it's a system with some issues. It's a 14-ish level system in a 20-level box, for one. Meanwhile, the umbilical cord of strong 3.5 compatibility is no longer particularly relevant. I haven't even heard of a PF game using 3.5 material in quite some time.

Next can (potentially) sidestep that. It has the opportunity to create something that feels a lot like 3.5 - or at least (purely theoretically at this point) can feel a lot like 3.5, with the right options selected - while learning from some of the things that were issues in 3.5, and, without the requirement of 3.5 compatibility, address them more effectively than PF could.

That's my best shot. I agree that it's not remotely obvious that Next will be successful at that, so there's some degree of giving it the benefit of the doubt involved, but I don't think there's currently anything about Next's design path that makes me want to never choose it over pathfinder. (It's perfectly understandable that a group would rather game with Pathfinder than with the current playtest, of course, because PF is a complete system.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I play Pathfinder, and to me it's just 3.5 with even more complexity and bloat tacked on to a system that was already too complex and bloated. It's like they felt that they had to make a bunch of changes and additions where many weren't needed, only to justify the game's existence as a new edition. The sorcerer, for example, was greatly improved by the addition of bloodlines, because in 3.5 it was a bland and boring class. The ranger, on the other hand, didn't really need all of the extra stuff they piled onto it, and now it feels overloaded. Sometimes less is more.

I also think the rules in Next are generally better than 3.5 and Pathfinder. I love bounded accuracy, backgrounds, simpler rules overall, resistance instead of damage reduction, the lack of clunky or outdated mechanics like iterative attacks, spell resistance, energy drain, and countless others. I like Next's emphasis on ability scores and skills being an optional bonus rather than being necessary to even have a chance, as it is in Pathinder where character's skill bonuses can be in the stratosphere. Pathfinder failed to fix most of 3.5's problems, and even added some more of its own. It's a very imbalanced game. While 5e isn't perfect and still has a ways to go, I think it's just a far better, more streamlined and smoother system than Pathfinder.
Pathfinder to me just has too much for you to pick, not enough to create. There is tremendous amounts of added complexity and "bloat"
in Pathfinder. In about 4 year's time they feel like almost the entire run of 3/3.5.

Just the variants and archetypes on classes alone could be a 200 page book right now.

 
 Less bloat, less number porn and a game that is easier to run and is not awful to play at high levlel.

 Paizo has done such a great job dressing up 3.5 though as it all looks so pretty and those adventure paths. Pathfinder is like that really hot girl you should not like and she is totally insane but she puts out. The classes in PF also get a bit whacked out and they basically powered all of them up from 3.5 and gave the spellcasters a slight nerf.

 You could run D&DN and set it in Golarion. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

So far I'm not seeing a lot of solid reasons to go with Next over Pathfinder. 

The D&D name.  D&D is still the entry point to the hobby for many, if not most new players, if you want 'fresh meat,' Pathfinder may not bring much in once 5e is out.  

Aside from that, I can't think of anything.  If you like 3.5, you can keep playing 3.5 and keep getting ongoing support and new products for it from Paizo and other d20 publishers.  If you wanted 'modularity' or 'balance' or 'bounded accuracy' or 'fast combat' or "Theatre of the Mind" or anything else 5e is selling, you wouldn't have stayed so happy with 3.5, anyway.

For that matter, even if 5e were a 3.5 re-print or Pathfinder rip-off, why would you come back to WotC when Paizo has treated you so much better?

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!



For that matter, even if 5e were a 3.5 re-print or Pathfinder rip-off, why would you come back to WotC when Paizo has treated you so much better?




That's certainly a consideration. All Pathfinder material is available online for free, ALL of it. The game isn't built around making a profit. Another big factor in which game I'll prefer in the future will certainly be what price Wizards decides to sell the D&D books for.

That's certainly a consideration. All Pathfinder material is available online for free, ALL of it. The game isn't built around making a profit.



Umm.

1. Don't they have to put everything online for free due to the OGL? (I'm not sure on this.)
2. I'm pretty sure Paizo isn't a nonprofit organization. If you prefer their business model to WOTC's, fine, but they're not doing it out of altruism.

Also, it's a bit rich to describe 5e as a Pathfinder ripoff. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10

That's certainly a consideration. All Pathfinder material is available online for free, ALL of it. The game isn't built around making a profit.



Umm.

1. Don't they have to put everything online for free due to the OGL? (I'm not sure on this.)
2. I'm pretty sure Paizo isn't a nonprofit organization. If you prefer their business model to WOTC's, fine, but they're not doing it out of altruism.

Also, it's a bit rich to describe 5e as a Pathfinder ripoff. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10


1: no they don't
2: you're right on that acount

EDIT: LOL Penny arcade 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com

That's certainly a consideration. All Pathfinder material is available online for free, ALL of it. The game isn't built around making a profit.



Umm.

1. Don't they have to put everything online for free due to the OGL? (I'm not sure on this.)
2. I'm pretty sure Paizo isn't a nonprofit organization. If you prefer their business model to WOTC's, fine, but they're not doing it out of altruism.

Also, it's a bit rich to describe 5e as a Pathfinder ripoff. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10


From what I have seen so far with Pathfinder all the BASE material is free not fluff stuff which might not mean much to most people. Most of their profit comes from mags and adventure modules the only things other then book fluff you can't seem to get online for free. Also the OGL does not require them to post their products for free online its just how they have picked to draw business as far as I have seen.

That's certainly a consideration. All Pathfinder material is available online for free, ALL of it. The game isn't built around making a profit.



Umm.

1. Don't they have to put everything online for free due to the OGL? (I'm not sure on this.)
2. I'm pretty sure Paizo isn't a nonprofit organization. If you prefer their business model to WOTC's, fine, but they're not doing it out of altruism.

Also, it's a bit rich to describe 5e as a Pathfinder ripoff. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10


From what I have seen so far with Pathfinder all the BASE material is free not fluff stuff which might not mean much to most people. Most of their profit comes from mags and adventure modules the only things other then book fluff you can't seem to get online for free. Also the OGL does not require them to post their products for free online its just how they have picked to draw business as far as I have seen.




(Content Removed)

(ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Discussion of Piracy is against the Code of Conduct)   
Play the game that you wanna play. If Next doesn't interest you, don't play it. If Pathfinder is your favourite, play that. Otherwise, I dunno... play Next so that you can offer feedback that might assist in changing Next into something more to your liking. Personally, I'm enjoying the mix of rules clarity, classic D&D vibe, and simplicity that D&D Next offers. It feels like D&D, but with fewer of those headache conversations that D&D is known for producing.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
So far I'm not seeing a lot of solid reasons to go with Next over Pathfinder. 



Not sure. I'm not finding much to lure me away from 4e. I cast off the overpowered bloated crap that was 3e to the wonderfulness that was 4e and haven't looked back. Now they're adding in 1e/2e type stuff back in (at least in feel) and I'm not digging it. Seems like it's just going to splinter things more.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf

That's certainly a consideration. All Pathfinder material is available online for free, ALL of it. The game isn't built around making a profit.



Umm.

1. Don't they have to put everything online for free due to the OGL? (I'm not sure on this.)
2. I'm pretty sure Paizo isn't a nonprofit organization. If you prefer their business model to WOTC's, fine, but they're not doing it out of altruism.

Also, it's a bit rich to describe 5e as a Pathfinder ripoff. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10


From what I have seen so far with Pathfinder all the BASE material is free not fluff stuff which might not mean much to most people. Most of their profit comes from mags and adventure modules the only things other then book fluff you can't seem to get online for free. Also the OGL does not require them to post their products for free online its just how they have picked to draw business as far as I have seen.




called a torrent everything can be free if you look in the right place


Not really comcast moniters and report torrent users.

That's certainly a consideration. All Pathfinder material is available online for free, ALL of it. The game isn't built around making a profit.



Umm.

1. Don't they have to put everything online for free due to the OGL? (I'm not sure on this.)
2. I'm pretty sure Paizo isn't a nonprofit organization. If you prefer their business model to WOTC's, fine, but they're not doing it out of altruism.

Also, it's a bit rich to describe 5e as a Pathfinder ripoff. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10


From what I have seen so far with Pathfinder all the BASE material is free not fluff stuff which might not mean much to most people. Most of their profit comes from mags and adventure modules the only things other then book fluff you can't seem to get online for free. Also the OGL does not require them to post their products for free online its just how they have picked to draw business as far as I have seen.




called a torrent everything can be free if you look in the right place


Not really comcast moniters and report torrent users.

Video game companies like Blizzard had a polite word with Comcast after that.  It turns out not all torrenting is of questionable legality, and reporting something as a crime when you haven't verified it is a crime is of questionable legality.
The thing you need to realize is that you cannot talk about D&DN as it is presented right now, or even as D&DN-Core will ever be presented. It will leave you wondering "why is D&D now just a lack-luster retro-clone".

What you need to understand is with the modular approach D&DN is taking, you'll be able to take the elements of your favorite edition - the things that you really liked about that edition, provided you aren't liking something totally obnoxious (See Note 1) - and put them into D&DN. D&DN will be just like your favorite edition in those respects. The exact math might be a bit off; little nuances will be changed, but the big aspects of your favorite edition will be in there.

If your favorite edition is 4e, you'll be able to put in modules that will give you the exact game you want.
If your favorite edition is 3e, you'll be able to put in modules that will give you the exact game you want.
If your favorite edition is 2e, you'll be able to put in modules that will give you the exact game you want.
If you like aspects from more than one edition, you'll be able to put in modules that will give you the exact game you want.

Will your D&DN be better than your current edition? Maybe. More importantly, regardless of what modules you use at your gaming table, you'll be able to use modern campaign supplements and adventures.

If you don't really care that they have an edition that can do all that, if none of that excites you, and if you're not at all interested in an (admittedly questionably) improved version of your current preferred edition, and you don't like using modern campaign settings or pre-made stuff, then no, D&DN is not for you (but by your own admission, no edition of D&D other than the one you're already using will ever be good enough for you, so I don't know why you're even here).


Note 1: Such as really enjoying how long fights are in 4e, just the time aspect of it, or really liking the caster supremacy of 3.5, or you really just think Thac0 is the end-all-be-all of any gaming system - in that case, nothing can appeal to you because you like bad things things the overwhelming majority doesn't like.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

The thing you need to realize is that you cannot talk about D&DN as it is presented right now, or even as D&DN-Core will ever be presented. It will leave you wondering "why is D&D now just a lack-luster retro-clone".

What you need to understand is with the modular approach D&DN is taking, you'll be able to take the elements of your favorite edition - the things that you really liked about that edition, provided you aren't liking something totally obnoxious (See Note 1) - and put them into D&DN. D&DN will be just like your favorite edition in those respects. The exact math might be a bit off; little nuances will be changed, but the big aspects of your favorite edition will be in there.

If your favorite edition is 4e, you'll be able to put in modules that will give you the exact game you want.
If your favorite edition is 3e, you'll be able to put in modules that will give you the exact game you want.
If your favorite edition is 2e, you'll be able to put in modules that will give you the exact game you want.
If you like aspects from more than one edition, you'll be able to put in modules that will give you the exact game you want.

Will your D&DN be better than your current edition? Maybe. More importantly, regardless of what modules you use at your gaming table, you'll be able to use modern campaign supplements and adventures.

If you don't really care that they have an edition that can do all that, if none of that excites you, and if you're not at all interested in an (admittedly questionably) improved version of your current preferred edition, and you don't like using modern campaign settings or pre-made stuff, then no, D&DN is not for you (but by your own admission, no edition of D&D other than the one you're already using will ever be good enough for you, so I don't know why you're even here).


Note 1: Such as really enjoying how long fights are in 4e, just the time aspect of it, or really liking the caster supremacy of 3.5, or you really just think Thac0 is the end-all-be-all of any gaming system - in that case, nothing can appeal to you because you like bad things things the overwhelming majority doesn't like.



But that is all just potential.  Its been covered on these forums a lot at this point.  D&DN isn't magically more open to modularity.  One can hope that they intend to do more to support  that on their end, and more to ensure the balance of those modules, but we won't know until we see them.

Furthermore, the Devs just posted a FAQ wherein they stated that you will not be able to change Bounded Accuracy with a module.  Considering that this is a pretty sizable departure from previous D&D editions, its hard to say how much change they are actually open to.

Direct from the horse's mouth:
"It’s unlikely we’re going to explore tinkering that much with the baseline math of the game in a rules module.  We want to focus on rules modules that contribute to world building and tone-setting for campaigns." 

 
And that is starting to sound a lot like the same old hat supplement books that we have been buying for decades.  There is nothing wrong with those, I love em.  New classes and feats and settings... always cool.  But if you aren't tinkering with the baseline math, that means that the skeleton we are looking at will be the game, with various quantities of flesh added on top.
I will take 5E over Pathfinder. 

I can't put a 5E module on Pathfinder but I can put a Pathfinder module on 5E.  Laughing

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

So far I'm not seeing a lot of solid reasons to go with Next over Pathfinder. 


Nothing, likely, but it'll have optional rules and modules that you may want to use for your PFRPG games.
I will take 5E over Pathfinder. 

I can't put a 5E module on Pathfinder but I can put a Pathfinder module on 5E. 


Not sure about that if you can move something one way because of similarities then you should be able to move it the other. 
Interesting character creation, well designed adventure modules, and art that inspires rather than takes up page space are three things that I like about Pathfinder that I haven't seen a lot of in Next.


It seems likely, Paizo will publish adventures for Next too.

Hopefully the WotC legal team learned the lesson from their heavy-handed 4e GSL debacle, that caused Paizo to break from WotC in the first place.

Interesting character creation, well designed adventure modules, and art that inspires rather than takes up page space are three things that I like about Pathfinder that I haven't seen a lot of in Next.


It seems likely, Paizo will publish adventures for Next too.

Hopefully the WotC legal team learned the lesson from their heavy-handed 4e GSL debacle, that caused Paizo to break from WotC in the first place.



The GSL had nothing to do with Paizo leaving, the fact that Wizard withdrew the Dragon/Dungeon license from them, did. 
Interesting character creation, well designed adventure modules, and art that inspires rather than takes up page space are three things that I like about Pathfinder that I haven't seen a lot of in Next.


It seems likely, Paizo will publish adventures for Next too.

Hopefully the WotC legal team learned the lesson from their heavy-handed 4e GSL debacle, that caused Paizo to break from WotC in the first place.



The GSL had nothing to do with Paizo leaving, the fact that Wizard withdrew the Dragon/Dungeon license from them, did.


In the beginning, Paizo bolted because the WotC license tried to force them to give up selling 3e if they wanted to sell 4e. The answer was, no, and Paizo stuck with 3e. Eventually Paizo revamped 3e, hence Pathfinder. The inflexibility by the WotC legal team was shortsighted with harmful longterm consequences.
Interesting character creation, well designed adventure modules, and art that inspires rather than takes up page space are three things that I like about Pathfinder that I haven't seen a lot of in Next.


It seems likely, Paizo will publish adventures for Next too.

Hopefully the WotC legal team learned the lesson from their heavy-handed 4e GSL debacle, that caused Paizo to break from WotC in the first place.



The GSL had nothing to do with Paizo leaving, the fact that Wizard withdrew the Dragon/Dungeon license from them, did.


In the beginning, Paizo bolted because the WotC license tried to force them to give up selling 3e if they wanted to sell 4e. The answer was, no, and Paizo stuck with 3e. Eventually Paizo revamped 3e, hence Pathfinder. It was a huge error by the WotC legal team.




Everything that I read (written by a lead at Paizo) said that the split was because WotC wouldn't let them in on what was going on with 4e, and wouldn't give them solid release dates or rules or anything to work from.  That meant that they had no way of creating material for Dungeon/Dragon, and would be months behind on releasing stuff.  So they could keep putting out 3.5 stuff... but after 4e came out, they wouldn't be able to use the Dungeon/Dragon license because they wouldn't have anyhting to publish for months.

So they decided to stick with what they knew, asked permission from WotC to effectively take stewardship of 3.5.  WotC said, cool beans but you can't use any of our names/places etc.  (because it isn't D&D) and you have to do it under the OGL.  All of this was done so that Paizo could keep publishing material... Pathfinder was simply a vehicle for more adventure paths and the like.  (sort of like a game company making a console... its not about selling the console, its about selling the games)

So Pathfinder was initially just a way to pass the time during the transition period raher than shuttering the company until they could catch up to 4th.  The rest is history.
Interesting character creation, well designed adventure modules, and art that inspires rather than takes up page space are three things that I like about Pathfinder that I haven't seen a lot of in Next.


Considering they're working on basic character creation, I'm not sure why you would expect the more advanced things to be visible at this stage.  You can't do interesting/advanced character creation (e.g. 3e-style multiclassing) if the single classes are so unfinished that some of them get pulled for redesign.  You can't do adventure modules if you're doing things like adjusting the damage targets across the board.

What you're looking for is what a mature, complete RPG system delivers.  We're not there yet, and it'll be a while.  But it doesn't mean that's not where we're headed.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The gsl and ogl had everything to do with paizo making pathfinder. They wanted a system to sell their adventure paths and wizards basically told every company who at first wanted in on 4th ed. to bend over. By far the biggest mistake of wizards in how they handle 4th was how they wrote up the gsl. It scared away almost every company that was interested in 4th.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

It was a double whammy of the GSL and Paizo needing income after they lost the Dragon/Dungeon licenses. Lisa Steven put her houese on the line to start Paizo and had bills to pay. Pathfinder ws originally 3.5, PFRPG came later.

 Fear is the Mind Killer