Community

Nov 3, 2010 -- 5:30AM, Guest232734764 wrote:

4E hasn't failed; its still an improvement over 3.5 and Revenge of Spellcaster Edition, I mean Pathfinder.

Essentials, however, just might kill it.

I'm not saying 4e was a failure in terms of game mechanics.  I quite like it, in fact.

It's a failure in terms of profit.  They wouldn't have fired every creative mind behind it otherwise, and taken such a huge PR risk with essentials, otherwise.

Ggroy may be correct, that someone not currently in the RPG market might buy the IP.

I think WoTC will still be behind 5e, DDI may however, be dead or viewed to be unprofitable.

DDI has generally been a failure, that also likely hurt 4e's sales due to the CB, and the lack of tools. DDI is effectively back where it was when the CB was launched, as the monster builder is buggy (and I still cant update after letting it download for 3 days) and all their recent dev time has gone into a new CB to replace the old with less features in some attempt to reclaim the loss in sales due to the original CB.

This is in addition to the common view on these forums that the magazine quality is declining (even its fluff is dryer than before).

That said, 5e might revitalize DDI because it they can release a whole lot of support easily again. However, with the new online CB, i wouldnt be surprised if it abandons 4e when it rolls around and create another debacle. Atleast with the offline one those who 'stay behind' in 4e, or simply wish to finish their campaigns before converting wouldnt have been screwed.

I think 5e will likely be WoTC's last D&D though, as 4e doesnt seem to be doing as well as hoped, as shown by the radical change, which seems to be further alienating customer groups. Thats not saying the changes wont bring new people, but the net gain likely won't be too extensive. This will likely cause 5e to have a lower dev budget and try more things that will likely continue to annoy its userbase. The  good news for 5e is atleast the GSL prevents someone from making a '4e pathfinder' like game.

Nov 3, 2010 -- 8:48AM, Damon_Tor wrote:

Ggroy may be correct, that someone not currently in the RPG market might buy the IP.

The problem with that assessment is that there not only isn't a potential buyer of the magnitude of Hasbro/WotC, but there isn't a seller either.  This isn't a licensed product, it is owned SOLELY by Hasbro, and they don't sell of stuff very often.  If they will do anything with it if it is failing (and it is not, by all accounts), is cease production on it for a few years, let the market regenerate, then go from there.

The money that would be made by selling D&D off would be short term profit.  The heads of a company the likes of Hasbro aren't dumb enough to throw it away for chump change.  Even if Paizo was selling Pathfinder at a 100% profit for a period of several years, they wouldn't even come close to the capital Hasbro would want for it.

Nov 3, 2010 -- 9:04AM, Silver_Blaze wrote:

Nov 3, 2010 -- 8:48AM, Damon_Tor wrote:

Ggroy may be correct, that someone not currently in the RPG market might buy the IP.

The problem with that assessment is that there not only isn't a potential buyer of the magnitude of Hasbro/WotC, but there isn't a seller either.  This isn't a licensed product, it is owned SOLELY by Hasbro, and they don't sell of stuff very often.  If they will do anything with it if it is failing (and it is not, by all accounts), is cease production on it for a few years, let the market regenerate, then go from there.

The money that would be made by selling D&D off would be short term profit.  The heads of a company the likes of Hasbro aren't dumb enough to throw it away for chump change.  Even if Paizo was selling Pathfinder at a 100% profit for a period of several years, they wouldn't even come close to the capital Hasbro would want for it.

I think from a strictly business perspective, D&D is kind of an odd fit for Hasbro.  It's not a toy line, it's a book line with some peripheral products attached. 

As far as I can tell, Hasbro originally bought WotC to get its hands on M:tG.  D&D isn't core to what they do, which is selling collectibles and toys to families and kids.  I'm sure they appreciate D&D as a steady (if unspectacular) revenue stream, but doubt they have much interest in it beyond that.

Companies often 'refocus' during hard times by selling off parts of their business that they have acquired that are not part of their core focus.  Assuming Hasbro was in a cash crunch, D&D would be just the kind of thing they would be looking to dump, moderately profitable or not.

This is all purely speculative, as far as I know Hasbro is doing okay thanks to a steady stream of Hollywood movie tie-ins courtesy of one Michael Bay.

Don’t forget about the D&D fiction books as a revenue stream to WotC/Hasbro.  A lot of folks, many of who do not play D&D, buy and read the books.

Lucas will buy it.

-Cal

The only statistic Iv read was before Essentials and from an article that didnt specify its source. IIRC it said: There are more D&D players than ever before, and there are more players playing 4e than any other edition put together.

It seems D&D 4e is doing well enough.

I suspect, WotC created Essentials because ...
• WotC wanted to steal customers from Pathfinder: old school grognards whor reliable customers.
• Certain designers have nostalgia, and its a personal artistic expression.
• Digital 4e evolves: WotC needed to reformat current rules without obsoleting the books so far.
• WotC wanted an 'essential' entry point that is 'evergreen' and immune to digital evolution. (Good luck with that.)



D&D 4e Core is doing well. Essentials seems to be doing well. The future will support both Core and Essentials. The Christmas retail season just started with Halloween, and will only get better.

I think WotC look at things like the success of WoW, the persistence of Pathfinder, even the tough economy in which a large corporation has an advantage over smaller efforts, and feel they want to do better in the marketplace.

In 5e WotC will

 

a) eliminate the DM from the game (greatest barrier to entry gone, beancounters rejoice)

b) combine it with a collectible cards game aspect that's no longer optional but hardcoded into the basic game (beancounters just having an orgasm)

A lot of people commenting on this just don't understand how mega-corporations work. 4e is doing okay and is still outselling Pathfinder. The problem is that Hasbro wants more and more profit. That's what mega-corps are all about; do whatever it takes to boost shareholder return. RPG's are a marginal profit item. Essentials was probably ordered to act as a quick sales boost before 5e is released in 2012-2013.

With regards to D&D being sold to Paizo or anyone else, I think the odds of that are pretty slim. D&D brings a well known brand name to Hasbro's stable. Look at all the cross-marketing currently underway...  novels, comic books (soon to be graphic novels), board games, and computer games. You KNOW Hasbro is working on a line of ties, probably tied to another cartoon show and/or feature length movie.  Yes, the last D&D movie was an abomination but if Batman has taught us anything, fans are always willing to at least give reboot movies a try.

In short, the RPG is probably a small part of Hasbro's plan for D&D. Sell it to Paizo? not a chance.

     If you look at Hasbro's past actions they tend to stop producing under-performing lines of toys and games, and just hold onto them (often for long periods of time) in order to create a little anticipation for their re-release/ return at some later date.  As an example, they have "pulled the plug" on the G.I. Joe line- their flagship property, and the toy that both launched the action figure industry and put Hasbro on the map almost 50 years ago- twice.  The first time it returned soon after as the microman-inspired line popular through the '80s, and the second time it was out of production for YEARS.  I see no reason to expect D&D to fare any better under their control.  Given the name recognition of Dungeons & Dragons and the loyalty of it's fan-base Hasbro would have to be in truly dire straits to ever consider letting it go, and so far as I can tell there is no reason to think that is going to happen any time soon.  
     As for the specific success of D&D, I think we'll need to see what happens this Christmas season before we know for sure how it is doing.  I saw the new "red box" at a Wal-Mart the other day, and that has the potential to make it the most widely distributed release in the games history!

I'm going to hold on to this thread and bump it twice: once on Jan 1st 2012, and once on Dec 31st, 2012. Assuming the Mayans weren't right, we'll have a good laugh, especially when it hovers above the "Paizo files for Bankruptcy, nobody wants Pathfinder" news thread.

I recall the second year of Pokemon not selling 2 billion like it did the first year, and Hasbro actually was said to think that they had lost a billion dollars.

No, imaginary sales are not lost sales.

And I don't think 4th has failed at all.

I think Essentials has been clumsy, but if they make money, it's not like THEY will need to care.

There is a lot they MIGHT do for the game, but, I don't have enough faith in Wizards to think it will happen.

Piazo, I have no real knowledge of them. I have not bought and read their 'other version' 3.5 enough to know if it really is just 3.5 with too few differences to matter.

I think they only made Pathfinder because they saw enough disinterest in 4th and figured they would milk that market some more.

Paizo is to me, just another Paladium. They are still out there regardless of how much fate has tried to kill them. I know plenty of people still happy to by Kevin's books.

I don't think Paizo is in any specific hurry to do 5th edition.

My group and i switched to 4e from 3.5. We loved 4e for the first year, but after a time and several characters, we felt the game was bland. My players complained to me that they felt every class was essentially the same, with maybe a peanut chip instead of a chocolate chip.

So we took a break from 4e and I was invited to play Pathfinder. It was a lot of fun, and the classes were different enough to be fun to play. I introduced my group to Pathfinder and they loved it enough to give it a chance. We have been playing Pathfinder now for well over a year.

Then the word came down about essentials. My players are skeptical, but I am as excited about essentials as I was about the orginal 4e. I started playing with 2e, and I have run every edition of the game (yup, even ran a fighting man once).

I say that the essentials lines feel to me like the older editions, and i believe it will do well.

I do not think Paizo even wants D&D, because they are doing fine with Pathfinder, and even if my group and I decide to get back into 4e via essentials (which I plan to spring on them via shock and awe much like my d20 pokkyclyse camapign a few years back, mwa ha ha) we will still run Pathfinder as a different rule set.

Just like when we used to run Star Wars d6 and Ad&d 2nd. it breaks up the monotony.

As far as Hasbro is concerned, i doubt they will ever sell of D&D. It has moved beyond a mere rpg and has joined with the collective consciousness of the planet earth. Ask anyone on the street, and 90% will be able to tell you something about Dungeons & Dragons.

It's a cultural icon.

Nov 4, 2010 -- 11:44AM, TsukinoUsagi wrote:

I think they only made Pathfinder because they saw enough disinterest in 4th and figured they would milk that market some more.

No, I don't think so. Paizo was already busy producing adventures and their own setting material after their contract for publishing Dungeon and Dragon expired. The announcement of 4e - which wasn't hard to foresee - made it clear that they either had to follow the leader and adopt 4e as their system of choice or travel down a different route. It was actually WotC's negligence with the writing of the GSL which forced Paizo as a company with a very busy publishing schedule to act. Instead of risking to wait for 4e and the GSL, Mrs. Stevens decided to make their own 3.5e spin-off. They had to do it because they need the rulebooks in print, and it was clear that WotC would stop distributing 3.5 books with the advent of 4e.

Nov 4, 2010 -- 11:44AM, TsukinoUsagi wrote:

Paizo is to me, just another Paladium. They are still out there regardless of how much fate has tried to kill them. I know plenty of people still happy to by Kevin's books.

They're still out their because they found their own target group. While this group is probably nothing compared to WotC's, it should be big enough to sustain Paizo. They will face tough times when part of the loyal fanboys who promote Paizo today will turn into vocal haters some years down the road.

Nov 4, 2010 -- 11:44AM, TsukinoUsagi wrote:

I don't think Paizo is in any specific hurry to do 5th edition.

No, of cause not. I expect them to move somewhat away from their origin at WotC's bosom. There are probably a lot of people thinking about them as you seem to do. Convincing these group to buy Paizo stuff would need products which don't feel like D&D-like products.

---

Huldvoll

Baron von Bomberg

Wizards has made some ham-fisted moves of late. The handeling of the Gamma World Game Day required a combined buy in of at least 80 dollars between a DM and four players, and the handeling of the recent changes to the character builder leave a lot to be desired.

Many people enjoy the current builder feel a little nervous about storing their characters "in the cloud" rather than on their own hard drive.

However, I have no complaints about the way fourth edition plays. A less ambitious publishing schedule would be worth it if Wizards focused on quality over quantity.

Wizards needs to turn a profit, which is undestandable, and I would rather not see Paizo take over the D&D intellectual property. However, it would be nice if Wizards made a few less bizarre decisions.

This isn't the first time a game company has gone through an odd period. Take a look at some of the products TSR put out during their time.

4th edition was doomed at the start.  From the first day of "We are going have all these things ready to go on LAUNCH DAY, then barely anything.

The books were haphazardly put together, so much that we now have over 100 pages of errors and corrections (aka errata).  Proofreading, ever hear of it?  Every single mistake, every single misprint, every single inconsistency makes the company look unprofessional.  Couple that with the constant lies and the "soon" comments, and you have the perfect making for people to burn their D&D books in the middle of the street.

But perhaps, thats Hasbro's game all along eh?  If WotC was indeed was bought for M:TG, then why take D&D at all?  Personally, I think Hasbro should let D&D the hell alone.  Give D&D back to the TRUE gamers.

Take the Wizard class for instance - how many "Wizards" does this flippin game need?  We have the wizard, the sorcerer, the warlock, the mage and coming soon the necromancer (unless they screw this one up as well - which they will).  Take the basic concept of the wizard that has always been.  He was a book loving, studious, Merlin type.  He was almost impossible to keep alive and in that THAT was the challenge.  But they split all the powers up into multiple classes that do little more than act as 5 uneven, repetitive splits that do nothing but step on each other's toes.

This game needs exactly 4 classes - The fighter to wear the heavy armor and use large weapons, the wizard to stand near the back and blast the crap out of the bad guys, the cleric to heal and inspire his comrades, and the rogue to steal the DMs wallet - THAT'S IT

All of the these other 26+ classes are unnecessary.  You want a druid, put him in the cleric book.  You want a ranger, put him in the fighter book.  All of the "specialist" wizards go in the wizard book, and the bard and assassin types go in the rogue book.  I mean how flipping hard is it.

The game has always had a classical feel to it, up until now.  There are so many inconsistencies with things that are just crap and don't make sense.

It's simple:  the classes should be fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue.  The races should be human, elf, dwarf, halfling.  Done - Now take that wizards - free of charge AND FIX THE GAME

Nov 3, 2010 -- 4:45AM, Damon_Tor wrote:

That's my prediction.

4e failed, Essentials won't save it.  Hasbro will cut it's losses, and sell the IP to the one company still making a profit off D&D.

Discuss.

It'll never happen. Erik Mona has said that some fans apparently have to have a highly distrorted view of the scale of Paizo vs WotC and that seems to be what you're displaying here. He has openly said that Pathfinder does well within its niche market but that the market share that WotC's DnD holds dwarfs Pathfinder by orders of magnitude.

Take it directly from the higher-ups at Paizo: they simply aren't big enough to take on WotC's DnD.

Nov 4, 2010 -- 5:45PM, Nightshade1 wrote:

4th edition was doomed at the start.  From the first day of "We are going have all these things ready to go on LAUNCH DAY, then barely anything.

The books were haphazardly put together, so much that we now have over 100 pages of errors and corrections (aka errata).  Proofreading, ever hear of it?  Every single mistake, every single misprint, every single inconsistency makes the company look unprofessional.  Couple that with the constant lies and the "soon" comments, and you have the perfect making for people to burn their D&D books in the middle of the street.

But perhaps, thats Hasbro's game all along eh?  If WotC was indeed was bought for M:TG, then why take D&D at all?  Personally, I think Hasbro should let D&D the hell alone.  Give D&D back to the TRUE gamers.

Take the Wizard class for instance - how many "Wizards" does this flippin game need?  We have the wizard, the sorcerer, the warlock, the mage and coming soon the necromancer (unless they screw this one up as well - which they will).  Take the basic concept of the wizard that has always been.  He was a book loving, studious, Merlin type.  He was almost impossible to keep alive and in that THAT was the challenge.  But they split all the powers up into multiple classes that do little more than act as 5 uneven, repetitive splits that do nothing but step on each other's toes.

This game needs exactly 4 classes - The fighter to wear the heavy armor and use large weapons, the wizard to stand near the back and blast the crap out of the bad guys, the cleric to heal and inspire his comrades, and the rogue to steal the DMs wallet - THAT'S IT

All of the these other 26+ classes are unnecessary.  You want a druid, put him in the cleric book.  You want a ranger, put him in the fighter book.  All of the "specialist" wizards go in the wizard book, and the bard and assassin types go in the rogue book.  I mean how flipping hard is it.

The game has always had a classical feel to it, up until now.  There are so many inconsistencies with things that are just crap and don't make sense.

It's simple:  the classes should be fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue.  The races should be human, elf, dwarf, halfling.  Done - Now take that wizards - free of charge AND FIX THE GAME

Wow. I don't agree with a single word you have said.

Nov 4, 2010 -- 5:45PM, Nightshade1 wrote:

It's simple:  the classes should be fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue.  The races should be human, elf, dwarf, halfling.  Done - Now take that wizards - free of charge AND FIX THE GAME

Play with just Heroes of Fallen Lands = your problem solved.

Nov 5, 2010 -- 1:05AM, Lord_Ventnor wrote:

Nov 4, 2010 -- 5:45PM, Nightshade1 wrote:

It's simple:  the classes should be fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue.  The races should be human, elf, dwarf, halfling.  Done - Now take that wizards - free of charge AND FIX THE GAME

Play with just Heroes of Fallen Lands = your problem solved.

Naw, can't do that.  Those pesky Eladrin mess everything up.  Now if only there was a way to ignore them.  Hmmm.

Now, if you play with the Red Box...

"This game needs exactly 4 classes - The fighter to wear the heavy armor  and use large weapons, the wizard to stand near the back and blast the  crap out of the bad guys, the cleric to heal and inspire his comrades,  and the rogue to steal the DMs wallet - THAT'S IT"

It is clear some do NOT agree with you, but then some DO.

I've always felt that the more they give us in spelled out detail, the more they take away from us being ROLE gamers.

I'd rather Wizards was about pulishing for the only guy that NEEDS to buy %#%#@$ books, the DM.

Players shouldn't need to buy books much at all.

A player should be able to show up with pencil paper eraser and their own funny shaped dice at the most. 4th edition, has become quite the marketing spectacle indeed.

Players Handbook
2 and 3
Eberron Players
Forgotten Realms Players
Likely a Dark Sun players eventually.
Power books a plenty for players.

There's a reason I have tight limits on what I will permit at the table. I can't carry those books around even if I didn't mind paying out a fortune to get them.
And what player likes joining a game and then realizing they need to start shelling out a fortune in books?

All the races they have made available, maybe that would be a good thing to put in the DMG actually. A better method of turning an odd race into a PC. Instead of cramming many Player's books with many fancy races, that really could have been done more efficiently.

But theres no money in efficiency eh.
Which is why I don't mind Wizards being about making money (it's a business eh), but forget my being nice about it. They're in this for your money. You're nothing but a wallet to them.
I think at least Gary was in it for the game.

Paizo wants to buy...that's news.

I don't think WotC is going for sell...at least not for a few years and LOT more downturn.  Perhaps if it is to sell, the name brand can be sold, but the brands themselves (D&D, AH, Magic...etc.) stay with WotC.  They can keep dreamblade...

Or, if they want to invest in a single property...a couple hundred million for Alternity?

Make a good enough offer, there might even be discussions on the brand name of AD&D?  or if it's an outstanding stellar offer...even D&D...

But, strangely enough (or not) I'm thinking that Paizo probably doesn't have that kind of money.  For out of print stuff, they MAY make a good enough deal on the cheap (some of the smaller games, such as OOP boardgames that may never see the light of day again) they might though...but I don't think Paizo want's to be going into that business quite yet.

Just my two copper.

Disney will buy the DnD brand name. Like Disnaey bought the Marvel brand name and intelectual property. Because Disney needs content to make toys and movies with.

I could live with D&D under Paizo control (I think).  They seem like a good company, doing good things with Pathfinder (which I don't play but it looks solid).  I wouldn't want to go back to the last edition though, I'd rather move forward to the next edition.

For the most part, D&D edition change is an exciting time for me.  No reason for me to expect any different under Paizo.  TSR did okay, so does WotC I think

=== === ===

Anyway, here's what I posted for :

Nov 3, 2010 -- 6:09AM, Cyber-Dave wrote:

I like both 4e and Pathfinder, and I have yet to see any objective data to prove that either is doing poorly. The most favorable estimate of Pathfinder still only had it tied with 4e sales. And, it seems like all evidence based on objective sales data says that D&D is still, by and large, outselling Pathfinder.

Oh, and I pray to god Paizo never has anything to do with D&D beyond picking up its leftovers and trying to resell them. Pathfinder is the worst piece of crap I have seen in a LONG time.

Okay, what did I miss?  You're contradicting yourself here.  No ?

/\ Art

Nov 4, 2010 -- 5:45PM, Nightshade1 wrote:

4th edition was doomed at the start.  From the first day of "We are going have all these things ready to go on LAUNCH DAY, then barely anything.

The books were haphazardly put together, so much that we now have over 100 pages of errors and corrections (aka errata).  Proofreading, ever hear of it?  Every single mistake, every single misprint, every single inconsistency makes the company look unprofessional.  Couple that with the constant lies and the "soon" comments, and you have the perfect making for people to burn their D&D books in the middle of the street.

But perhaps, thats Hasbro's game all along eh?  If WotC was indeed was bought for M:TG, then why take D&D at all?  Personally, I think Hasbro should let D&D the hell alone.  Give D&D back to the TRUE gamers.

Take the Wizard class for instance - how many "Wizards" does this flippin game need?  We have the wizard, the sorcerer, the warlock, the mage and coming soon the necromancer (unless they screw this one up as well - which they will).  Take the basic concept of the wizard that has always been.  He was a book loving, studious, Merlin type.  He was almost impossible to keep alive and in that THAT was the challenge.  But they split all the powers up into multiple classes that do little more than act as 5 uneven, repetitive splits that do nothing but step on each other's toes.

This game needs exactly 4 classes - The fighter to wear the heavy armor and use large weapons, the wizard to stand near the back and blast the crap out of the bad guys, the cleric to heal and inspire his comrades, and the rogue to steal the DMs wallet - THAT'S IT

All of the these other 26+ classes are unnecessary.  You want a druid, put him in the cleric book.  You want a ranger, put him in the fighter book.  All of the "specialist" wizards go in the wizard book, and the bard and assassin types go in the rogue book.  I mean how flipping hard is it.

The game has always had a classical feel to it, up until now.  There are so many inconsistencies with things that are just crap and don't make sense.

It's simple:  the classes should be fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue.  The races should be human, elf, dwarf, halfling.  Done - Now take that wizards - free of charge AND FIX THE GAME

No.

Nov 5, 2010 -- 5:22PM, goldomark wrote:

Disney will buy the DnD brand name. Like Disnaey bought the Marvel brand name and intelectual property. Because Disney needs content to make toys and movies with.

If Hasbro were to sell D&D this would be the most likely scenario. Of course, then a dire rat would probably be shown to wear red shorts...

Nov 5, 2010 -- 6:38PM, magikot9 wrote:

Nov 5, 2010 -- 5:22PM, goldomark wrote:

Disney will buy the DnD brand name. Like Disnaey bought the Marvel brand name and intelectual property. Because Disney needs content to make toys and movies with.

If Hasbro were to sell D&D this would be the most likely scenario. Of course, then a dire rat would probably be shown to wear red shorts...

I never said it would be a good thing. But Hasbro is the owner of Barbie^TM and DnD pictures aren't more, or less, anatomically incorrect then before Hasbro was the owner.

Nov 5, 2010 -- 5:37PM, Artifact wrote:

Anyway, here's what I posted for :

Nov 3, 2010 -- 6:09AM, Cyber-Dave wrote:

I like both 4e and Pathfinder, and I have yet to see any objective data to prove that either is doing poorly. The most favorable estimate of Pathfinder still only had it tied with 4e sales. And, it seems like all evidence based on objective sales data says that D&D is still, by and large, outselling Pathfinder.

Oh, and I pray to god Paizo never has anything to do with D&D beyond picking up its leftovers and trying to resell them. Pathfinder is the worst piece of crap I have seen in a LONG time.

Okay, what did I miss?  You're contradicting yourself here.  No ?

/\ Art

I think the better question is, what did I miss? I certainly do not like Pathfinder. I have no idea how that first bolded line got in there. I don't know if I was quoting someone and forgot to type the quote tags, or if I was low on sleep and I mistyped that first line, or what. I don't even remember making that post...

Nov 5, 2010 -- 7:13PM, Cyber-Dave wrote:

Nov 5, 2010 -- 5:37PM, Artifact wrote:

Anyway, here's what I posted for :

Nov 3, 2010 -- 6:09AM, Cyber-Dave wrote:

I like both 4e and Pathfinder, and I have yet to see any objective data to prove that either is doing poorly. The most favorable estimate of Pathfinder still only had it tied with 4e sales. And, it seems like all evidence based on objective sales data says that D&D is still, by and large, outselling Pathfinder.

Oh, and I pray to god Paizo never has anything to do with D&D beyond picking up its leftovers and trying to resell them. Pathfinder is the worst piece of crap I have seen in a LONG time.

Okay, what did I miss?  You're contradicting yourself here.  No ?

/\ Art

I think the better question is, what did I miss? I certainly do not like Pathfinder. I have no idea how that first bolded line got in there. I don't know if I was quoting someone and forgot to type the quote tags, or if I was low on sleep and I mistyped that first line, or what. I don't even remember making that post...

S'okay, I figured you might have been sleep typing .

I love this political tactic of equating: "I don't like this thing," with: "This thing is failing miserably because no one likes it." But if you want to have your little D&D Tea Party, then go ahead. I'm comfortable knowing you are just part of a vocal minority going through the normal death throes associated with realizing you've become out of touch with normal society. It's always darkest before dawn, and the echoes of your frantic Chicken Little cries will eventually cease and one day be forgotten.

I can't see Hasbro selling D&D. It's not they way they work.

What's probably happening is they'll watch the essentials sales figures for the next 6 months, if there good, okay, if they're disappointing then it'll be 5e it time for Christmas 2012.

However, if they keep to the current business model, you won't know they're going to can 4e until after they've just sold you a couple of expensive books that you won't be able to use in 3 months time.

I don't like essentials, so I'm not buying or using them.

I really disliked they way they obfuscated they change in the character builder to online, so It's a big part on me requesting they cancel my subscription and refund me.

Those of you who like it here and now, enjoy yourselves whilst it lasts.

Just remember caveat emptor

Nov 4, 2010 -- 7:12AM, Alter_Boy wrote:

I'm going to hold on to this thread and bump it twice: once on Jan 1st 2012, and once on Dec 31st, 2012. Assuming the Mayans weren't right, we'll have a good laugh, especially when it hovers above the "Paizo files for Bankruptcy, nobody wants Pathfinder" news thread.

+2 to this. I might even make it my sig.

Nov 5, 2010 -- 6:54PM, goldomark wrote:

Nov 5, 2010 -- 6:38PM, magikot9 wrote:

Nov 5, 2010 -- 5:22PM, goldomark wrote:

Disney will buy the DnD brand name. Like Disnaey bought the Marvel brand name and intelectual property. Because Disney needs content to make toys and movies with.

If Hasbro were to sell D&D this would be the most likely scenario. Of course, then a dire rat would probably be shown to wear red shorts...

I never said it would be a good thing. But Hasbro is the owner of Barbie^TM and DnD pictures aren't more, or less, anatomically incorrect then before Hasbro was the owner.

Not correct, Mattel owns Barbie.  Hasbro really doesn't have a doll on that order.

Just figured I would let you know. Knowing is half the battle (G.I. JOE!).

Though, if they did make D&D G.I. Joe-based figures, it would be friggin' sweet.

If piazo buys D&D it will be the end of the game as we know it I hate the pathfinder system as it is too much like 3.5. They did fix some od the issues with 3.5 uin pathfinder but all in all still very broken.

Nov 5, 2010 -- 5:22PM, goldomark wrote:

Disney will buy the DnD brand name. Like Disnaey bought the Marvel brand name and intelectual property. Because Disney needs content to make toys and movies with.

Hey, the Disney buying Marvel thing gave us some great mix'n'match Marvel/Disney fanart. If Disney was to buy D&D...

Oh, wait Show

Nov 3, 2010 -- 5:45PM, Caliber42 wrote:

Lucas will buy it.

-Cal

DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: REVENGE OF THE ANTIPALADINS

Nov 3, 2010 -- 4:45AM, Damon_Tor wrote:

That's my prediction.

4e failed, Essentials won't save it.  Hasbro will cut it's losses, and sell the IP to the one company still making a profit off D&D.

Discuss.

I think your prediction regarding 2012 has less merit than that of the ancient Mayans.

LOL!

Nov 3, 2010 -- 5:30AM, Guest232734764 wrote:

4E hasn't failed; its still an improvement over 3.5 and Revenge of Spellcaster Edition, I mean Pathfinder.

Essentials, however, just might kill it.

Truer words were never spoken.

The "Revenge of Spellcaster Edition"  was a pretty clever comment in regard to Pathfinder.

Nov 4, 2010 -- 5:45PM, Nightshade1 wrote:

DURPA DURPA DURRRR!

Well said.

Nov 10, 2010 -- 10:41PM, kimby wrote:

Nov 3, 2010 -- 5:30AM, Guest232734764 wrote:

4E hasn't failed; its still an improvement over 3.5 and Revenge of Spellcaster Edition, I mean Pathfinder.

Essentials, however, just might kill it.

Truer words were never spoken.

The "Revenge of Spellcaster Edition"  was a pretty clever comment in regard to Pathfinder.

Agreed

Nov 7, 2010 -- 10:28PM, Guest232734764 wrote:

Nov 3, 2010 -- 5:45PM, Caliber42 wrote:

Lucas will buy it.

-Cal

DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: REVENGE OF THE ANTIPALADINS

Poor dialogue while roleplaying gives a +2 to all skill checks.

Nov 3, 2010 -- 4:45AM, Damon_Tor wrote:

That's my prediction.

4e failed, Essentials won't save it.  Hasbro will cut it's losses, and sell the IP to the one company still making a profit off D&D.

Discuss.

Based on what peer-reviewed statistics that you have there Mr. Limbaugh?

Nov 3, 2010 -- 5:30AM, Guest232734764 wrote:

4E hasn't failed; its still an improvement over 3.5 and Revenge of Spellcaster Edition, I mean Pathfinder.

Essentials, however, just might kill it.

Warning: Do not read while drinking. May have to spit in lap to avoid spitting on laptop on table. Also, awesome and agreed 100%.

Nov 3, 2010 -- 11:14AM, gold_piece wrote:

Don’t forget about the D&D fiction books as a revenue stream to WotC/Hasbro.  A lot of folks, many of who do not play D&D, buy and read the books.

No kidding. If they sell D&D, they sell Drizzit. It will never happen. They will just stop publishing D&D as RPG, in favor of nothing but novels and board games, if it came to that.

Nov 3, 2010 -- 8:22PM, Haldrik wrote:

I suspect, WotC created Essentials because ...
• WotC wanted to steal customers from Pathfinder: old school grognards whor reliable customers.
• Certain designers have nostalgia, and its a personal artistic expression.
• Digital 4e evolves: WotC needed to reformat current rules without obsoleting the books so far.
• WotC wanted an 'essential' entry point that is 'evergreen' and immune to digital evolution. (Good luck with that.)

Points 1 and 2, indeed. In fact, it makes me happy, as it reminds me of the old BECM days. I somewhat question beaking the brand up into 'Basic' and 'Advanced' again, as it did not work so well for TSR, however, this time they are actually compatible with minimum work, so it might be a lot less of a gamble.

Points 3 & 4, however, well, I think we'll find that if the new DDI model does not generate the revenue and book sales they wanted, we'll see DDI dropped as a product within a year.

Nov 4, 2010 -- 7:12AM, Alter_Boy wrote:

I'm going to hold on to this thread and bump it twice: once on Jan 1st 2012, and once on Dec 31st, 2012. Assuming the Mayans weren't right, we'll have a good laugh, especially when it hovers above the "Paizo files for Bankruptcy, nobody wants Pathfinder" news thread.

We could only hope. If you turn out to be right, however, I will have to track you down and buy you a beer at the pub.

This bet could get expensive...

Very clever ... starting rumors about DnD being sold will SURELY bring down the hated, lying W$oTC.

/sarc

Perhaps a better tack would be start charging them for living rent free in your head.  But please, keep fantasizing.  It's great entertainment while I wait for news on CB fixes and channels certain unhealthy obsessions in a harmless manner.

Points 3 & 4, however, well, I think we'll find that if the new DDI  model does not generate the revenue and book sales they wanted, we'll  see DDI dropped as a product within a year.

Though DDi has done some mis steps recently, don't look for Wizards to give up on it while 4th edition is still around. If the Sub service is scrapped, it will be with the turn over of a new edition, in favor of what should have happened in the first place, stand alone character generators, mappers, dm aids and such. If Wizards still has a hand in it, they should do an update service that renews yearly for monthly (or more often) updates. It should be about 10 percent of the stand alone program price for the annual fee.

I doubt that 5th edition will be structured level by level like 4th edition is, or have the half level gains math.

Whatever subs are lost or not gained by this overall trip and fall flat on face move, the only thing Wizards will do (and seemed to have done in the past) is cut manpower.

The problem with 4E is not the mechanics or Essentials.  It's the overly-restrictive GSL.

The OGL promoted competition.  In order to make money, Wizards had no choice but to produce the best quality product.  And for the most part, they did.

The GSL really handcuffs 3rd party contributions to the point where it is really not worth the effort for most companies to try to even work with (around) the license.  The result is Wizards having a stranglehold over 4E.  They don't have any 4E competition.  As a result, they can produce inferior product.

Keep in mind that I actually like the Essentials product line.  It fits seamlessly into my campaign.  The peripherals I get from Essentials are invaluable, such as the tokens and compact rules books, for example.  I make all my tiles myself, so the tilesets are of no use to me, but they seem to be of high enough quality.

So long story short, if they converted the GSL to be more like the OGL, you would see improvement across the board, particularly on the digital side.

The only problem with that is 3.x was crap. It had no game balence something 4th has done well, it has brought the martial classes back in line with the spell casters and that was something that was needed badly. While I dislike the direction it has taken lately I am holding judgement off until febuary when heroes of sword and spell drops and we see what full essentials 4th ed looks like. The open game licence is not the issue, it is how WOTC has misimformed us to the direction of the game.

Hasbro must learn that Dungeons and Dragons will never be a game that will turn over a huge profit margin. D&D is a game that has been created for the hobbist who envisions himself/herself as an imaginary hero in a far off land--slaying monsters. It is a social games that requires a group of people to work together to over to overcome the many obstacles found in imaginary worlds, which only experienced through ones own mind's eye.

 I predict that Hasbro will sell off the Dungeons and Dragons name to another company. I also predict that Walt Disney Studios will buy the rights to the Dungeons and Dragons name. Walt Disney Studios will continue to produce our most beloved roleplaying game. Furthermore, they will begin producing movies based on the Forgotten Realms books. After Walt Disney studios have made their profits on the first few movies, they begin producing Dungeons and Dragons toys that will be based on the these movies. At this time the Dungeons and Dragons name will have moved to the mainstream market, only then will it be truly profitable.

Game>Movies based on the game>toys based on the movies>PROFITS!!!

It worked for George Lucas and his Star Wars enterprise, why shouldn't it work for D&D?

  

Nov 28, 2010 -- 8:45PM, Zman123 wrote:

 I predict that Hasbro will sell off the Dungeons and Dragons name to another company.

  

Nov 28, 2010 -- 1:49PM, OpsKT wrote:

Nov 3, 2010 -- 11:14AM, gold_piece wrote:

Don’t forget about the D&D fiction books as a revenue stream to  WotC/Hasbro.  A lot of folks, many of who do not play D&D, buy and  read the books.

No kidding. If they sell D&D, they sell Drizzit. It will never happen. They will just stop publishing D&D as RPG, in  favor of nothing but novels and board games, if it came to that.

So, um, no. You're wrong.

Wait, I can see one situation where Hasbro will sell D&D.

Salvatore dies and/or stops writing Drizzit books. And then only if Hasbro can't convince to fans to accept a replacement author like they did for the Wheel of Time books.

Nov 28, 2010 -- 7:09PM, AH_Stormbringer wrote:

The open game licence is not the issue, it is how WOTC has misimformed us to the direction of the game.

Right.  It's the GSL that's the issue.  Or, the lack of OGL.  With no open gaming license, there is only one company that can offer any direction on Dungeons and Dragons, regardless of information presentation, and that company is Wizards.

Balance never existed pre-4E.  It never needed to exist.  It's an RPG, not an MMO.  While I do enjoy the new balance that has been introduced, it has nothing to do with the success that D&D has enjoyed for 3+ decades, regardless of whether you liked the system pre-4E or not.

Pre-4E, we always had options on where to get our D&D material.  Now, it's minimal.  Practically non-existent.

Nov 28, 2010 -- 9:03PM, OpsKT wrote:

Salvatore dies and/or stops writing Drizzit books. And then only if Hasbro can't convince to fans to accept a replacement author like they did for the Wheel of Time books.

One can only hope. Overrated hack.
Brandon Sanderson has done a exceptional job of emulating Robert Jordan's writing style.

I for one thought balence was needed a long time before 4th ed. I like to martial type characters and in the older editions I was only really useful till about 7to 9th lvl after that your martial type characters take a large step back and the casters dominate the game from that point forward. That was one of the big issues with D&D pre 4.0 and now at least all classes are equal pretty much through there entire 30 lvls. If wizards allowed more 3rd parties to put out products that hard earned balence would likely disapear and the game as a whole would suffer. If I was wizards I would not want compeditors making money off my intellectual property, which I paid designers to make. I for one hope that the open game licence is dead, it did more harm than good for 3rd edition.

Nov 28, 2010 -- 8:45PM, Zman123 wrote:

Hasbro must learn that Dungeons and Dragons will never be a game that will turn over a huge profit margin. D&D is a game that has been created for the hobbist who envisions himself/herself as an imaginary hero in a far off land--slaying monsters. It is a social games that requires a group of people to work together to over to overcome the many obstacles found in imaginary worlds, which only experienced through ones own mind's eye.

 I predict that Hasbro will sell off the Dungeons and Dragons name to another company. I also predict that Walt Disney Studios will buy the rights to the Dungeons and Dragons name. Walt Disney Studios will continue to produce our most beloved roleplaying game. Furthermore, they will begin producing movies based on the Forgotten Realms books. After Walt Disney studios have made their profits on the first few movies, they begin producing Dungeons and Dragons toys that will be based on the these movies. At this time the Dungeons and Dragons name will have moved to the mainstream market, only then will it be truly profitable.

Game>Movies based on the game>toys based on the movies>PROFITS!!!

It worked for George Lucas and his Star Wars enterprise, why shouldn't it work for D&D?

  

I think Hasbro knows quite well that DnD is a niche market, and it's potential for making money. And I think they are fine with what it does. It makes money, 4E is successful, Essentials is doing what it's meant to do, and making money.

I suspect that people who feel it's failing, are actually just hoping it fails.

Nov 29, 2010 -- 9:39AM, AH_Stormbringer wrote:

I for one hope that the open game licence is dead, it did more harm than good for 3rd edition.

Exactly how so?

Competition is always an excellent method to ensure high quality.

Nov 29, 2010 -- 9:56AM, Jharii wrote:

Nov 29, 2010 -- 9:39AM, AH_Stormbringer wrote:

I for one hope that the open game licence is dead, it did more harm than good for 3rd edition.

Exactly how so?

Competition is always an excellent method to ensure high quality.

Simple.

If WotC's D&D does not have easy access for other companies to use it as a frame for their in house content, then we have actual competition.

D&D vs. Warhammer Fantasy vs. HackMaster vs. Savage Worlds Fantasy Companion/Hellfrost.

that is competition.

D&D vs. D&D with extras thrown in by another company... that's not actually competition. PHB 1 and PHB 2 are not competing against each other, but PHB 1 and HackMaster Basic certainly are.

the OGL didn't promote competition, it promoted the idea of admiting you would lose the competition and gave you a way to "grab on and enjoy the ride."

Nov 29, 2010 -- 10:59AM, AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

Simple.

If WotC's D&D does not have easy access for other companies to use it as a frame for their in house content, then we have actual competition.

D&D vs. Warhammer Fantasy vs. HackMaster vs. Savage Worlds Fantasy Companion/Hellfrost.

that is competition.

D&D vs. D&D with extras thrown in by another company... that's not actually competition. PHB 1 and PHB 2 are not competing against each other, but PHB 1 and HackMaster Basic certainly are.

the OGL didn't promote competition, it promoted the idea of admiting you would lose the competition and gave you a way to "grab on and enjoy the ride."

Ah, well.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

More people with the ability to create publically for D&D equates to more quality products for D&D.  Of course there will be bad quality products as well, but Wizards would be setting the bar for everyone to reach for, including themselves.  Now...  They only set the bar as high as they want to for themselves.  It's very convenient and promotes mediocrity.

The only way that a D&D OGL would work now is if every product a company wanted to do would have to be cleared by WOTC first much like what Lucas does with Star Wars, if not those sub par products could hurt D&D more than help it.

Nov 29, 2010 -- 12:05PM, AH_Stormbringer wrote:

The only way that a D&D OGL would work now is if every product a company wanted to do would have to be cleared by WOTC first much like what Lucas does with Star Wars, if not those sub par products could hurt D&D more than help it.

That's not the only way it would work, but thank you for your input.

There's a basic concept of supply and demand.  Quality sells itself.  Companies succeed and fail on their own.  3rd party product would not impact Wizards.  It never has negatively impacted them in the past.  There is no reason to believe that it would now, all of a sudden.  People would still go to the source for the best quality product, as they always have before the GSL.  If a product is good, people buy it.  If it sucks, people don't.

Now with the GSL, they are the best quality D&D product only by default.

There is other companies make 4th edition material but for the most part it is not very good.I know that mongoose publishing makes 4.0 materials as these are on thier website. The only issue with haveing an open licence is that anyone can make whatever they want without the originators having an control over what is being made. Pathfinder is just a dime store knock off of D&D, and it shows just what the lack of control can do for a product. I like someones analogy that pathfinder/3.x edition was revenge of the spellcasters. It was a broken system that had an open licence that failed. I think wizards might have learned from that.

Nov 29, 2010 -- 11:12AM, Jharii wrote:

Ah, well.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

More people with the ability to create publically for D&D equates to more quality products for D&D.  Of course there will be bad quality products as well, but Wizards would be setting the bar for everyone to reach for, including themselves.  Now...  They only set the bar as high as they want to for themselves.  It's very convenient and promotes mediocrity.

Good news! Paizo is already doing this! Slapping a new name on the old edition does not make it stop being D&D.

Prediction:  Essentials is a huge success and revitalizes both D&D and 4e. Sometime after Christmas we'll see the 2011 product catalogue revised with a lot more new content, almost all of it based on Essentials.

Reason: I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who runs a FLGS and he says that sales of Essentials products have been very good. Another friend of mine is an assistant manager at Wal-Mart and he says that the Red Box has been flying off the shelves. I'm also hearing lots of annecdotal evidence from old players and friends who say they're ready to leave 1e, 2e, 3.x, Pathfinder and give 4e Essentials a try. This is exactly what WotC wanted to do and it appears to be working.

Rumors of the death of D&D and 4e are simply wishful thinking by the haters. Mike Mearls will keep his job and Hasbro will keep D&D and in a couple of years we'll be complaining about 5e and how 4e was so much better.

Sure, Paizo is borderline garbage.  It's easy to point at them as your example. 

But you ignore all of the fantastic digital utilities that took advantage of the OGL and SRD. Beyond that, all you have to do is go review the RPGNow site.  GSL has 24 products available.  OGL has 374 available.  Then go review the 4 and 5 star products (user ratings) found within those 374 products.  There are plenty to be found that are not WotC.  Products written by Ed Greenwood; products like Kingdoms of Kalamar, GM Mastery, and Under the Mountain.  All trapped in 3.5 stasis.

Fortunately, much of it translates to 4E.  Unfortunately, most don't want to be bothered fighting with the GSL to come out with new and exciting products.

Sorry, even if people do produce bad products, they simply don't get bought by customers.  And there is nothing out there that that would or could pollute or corrupt the core system.  They are all just options.  Putting the clamps on it ultimately punishes the 4E customers.

Yeah, keeping all of that talent restricted to OGL is bad.  Not letting them take advantage of the new 4E material is borderline tragic.  Sorry, there is nothing good about restricting that type of creativity and quality.  Not one single, solitary thing.

I get protecting your IP (FR, Eberron).  But the GSL is over the top.

EDIT:  I must have been in a sub-category when I grabbed the first numbers.  GSL- 137 product listings.  OGL- 5115 product listings.

Nov 29, 2010 -- 7:27PM, Jharii wrote:

Sure, Paizo is borderline garbage.  It's easy to point at them as your example. 

But you ignore all of the fantastic digital utilities that took advantage of the OGL and SRD. Beyond that, all you have to do is go review the RPGNow site.  GSL has 24 products available.  OGL has 374 available.  Then go review the 4 and 5 star products (user ratings) found within those 374 products.  There are plenty to be found that are not WotC.  Products written by Ed Greenwood; products like Kingdoms of Kalamar, GM Mastery, and Under the Mountain.  All trapped in 3.5 stasis.

Fortunately, much of it translates to 4E.  Unfortunately, most don't want to be bothered fighting with the GSL to come out with new and exciting products.

Sorry, even if people do produce bad products, they simply don't get bought by customers.  And there is nothing out there that that would or could pollute or corrupt the core system.  They are all just options.  Putting the clamps on it ultimately punishes the 4E customers.

Yeah, keeping all of that talent restricted to OGL is bad.  Not letting them take advantage of the new 4E material is borderline tragic.  Sorry, there is nothing good about restricting that type of creativity and quality.  Not one single, solitary thing.

I get protecting your IP (FR, Eberron).  But the GSL is over the top.

I just thought it should be pointed out that pretty much the absolute first 3rd party book that is compatible with D&D 4th edition was the Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign setting, and it does not use the GSL, which no one actually has to use in order to make products for D&D... they just can't put the D&D logo (you know, that thing that gets people to buy stuff for their D&D game) on it or use any of the trademarked portions of the game.

Never really cared for 3d party products during D&D 3.x and same now. 
Only in the end I was trying things like True20, SWSE and M&M, but it's not the time still to do such radical products. I'm sure we'll see something wonderful a couple of years before D&D5 is announced.

Nov 3, 2010 -- 4:45AM, Damon_Tor wrote:

That's my prediction.

4e failed, Essentials won't save it.  Hasbro will cut it's losses, and sell the IP to the one company still making a profit off D&D.

Discuss.

Thank for your opinion but it's wrong.

4th passed with flying colors, essentials is a great addition for new players.  Hasbro has made money and WotC has done a great job with 4th.  Instead of letting it stand still it has let the edition evolved.

The Troll has been slain next

hello resadent crazy person here,

from what i remeber from 5 months ago e4 was verry profitable. i have personaly bought EVERY nonessentails e4 book.and the red box(essentails is/was a bad move) if WotC would fix the tech issues and virtual table i would be verry happy. are they selling pdf books yet? also im shure there will be a market for virtual oneshot adventures with no dm once the virtual table is launched...my friends and i would really like it.

HATE THE DIRECTION ESSENTIALS IS GOING me too

Nov 29, 2010 -- 7:26PM, Style75 wrote:

Prediction:  Essentials is a huge success and revitalizes both D&D and 4e. Sometime after Christmas we'll see the 2011 product catalogue revised with a lot more new content, almost all of it based on Essentials.

Reason: I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who runs a FLGS and he says that sales of Essentials products have been very good. Another friend of mine is an assistant manager at Wal-Mart and he says that the Red Box has been flying off the shelves. I'm also hearing lots of annecdotal evidence from old players and friends who say they're ready to leave 1e, 2e, 3.x, Pathfinder and give 4e Essentials a try. This is exactly what WotC wanted to do and it appears to be working.

Rumors of the death of D&D and 4e are simply wishful thinking by the haters. Mike Mearls will keep his job and Hasbro will keep D&D and in a couple of years we'll be complaining about 5e and how 4e was so much better.

I fully endorse this message 100%.

To be perfectly honest, I bought the Red Box and was rather dissapointed. However, I also bought both of the "Heroes of..." books, the DM's kit, the Monster Vault, and the Rules Compendium, and have been thoroughly happy with each purchase (especially the Heroes books.)

It is my fervent hope that Essentials / "4e Revised" is the way of the future and that all future classes follow this format (and that past classes all get revised in future Class Compendium books.) I feel that they take some of the best ideas of 3e and 4e and mixes them together in a way that works rather well.

A lot of people seem to be complaining that the new format for the classes seems to pigeon-hole you into a build rather than giving all the options that they used to. Here are my thoughts on that:

1. This is true to a certain degree, but that's not really a bad thing. Greater direction in class design is in fact very much a good thing.
2. Even prior to Essentials the game was still set up around class builds, and while I understand that they were technically optional, usually going "build-less" just meant that your character was very well put together and wouldn't function as well as a character that was built around a build.
3. Prior to Essentials, many class builds didn't really live up to their potential because Wizards had to keep the illusion that builds were optional. Now, post-Essentials, builds are being treated more like individual classes with their own progresstion tables which allows them to create classes/builds that are a lot more focused and are able to fill different roles and follow much different story themes without feeling like a stretch of game design. The primary example would be the Knight and the Slayer... They are two different (well-made) classes that fall within the Fighter group which allows them to have their own game mechanics, party roles, and story themes, but still share a list of utility powers (like the spell lists of old.)

Along similar lines to the Knight & Slayer (or the Scout & Hunter) being seperate classes that share a common list of Utility powers, I think there's quite a bit they can do with that. Some of my ideas along those lines:

* Warlords would now be Leader role Fighters
* Avengers would now be either Striker Clerics or Divine-powered Rogues (it's debatable)
* Swordmages would now be Defender Fighter/Wizards (counting as both class-groups for the purposes of picking up Utility Powers and Feats)
* Bladesingers (coming out next year) I'm hoping will be a Striker Fighter/Wizard

The new Essentials way of creating classes could effectively remove the need for the Hybrid characters (which were a sorely-needed choice pre-Essentials.) (like the Swordmage or Bladesinger)

Dec 1, 2010 -- 8:02AM, kairiroses wrote:

Along similar lines to the Knight & Slayer (or the Scout & Hunter) being seperate classes that share a common list of Utility powers, I think there's quite a bit they can do with that. Some of my ideas along those lines:

* Warlords would now be Leader role Fighters
* Avengers would now be either Striker Clerics or Divine-powered Rogues (it's debatable)
* Swordmages would now be Defender Fighter/Wizards (counting as both class-groups for the purposes of picking up Utility Powers and Feats)
* Bladesingers (coming out next year) I'm hoping will be a Striker Fighter/Wizard

The new Essentials way of creating classes could effectively remove the need for the Hybrid characters (which were a sorely-needed choice pre-Essentials.) (like the Swordmage or Bladesinger)

NO! 

I agreed with you until this point.  Each class has it's own story.  Both Knights and Slayers are within the same story of Fighter, but have their own way of telling that story.  A Swordmage has a very different story from a Fighter and a very different story from a Wizard.  These aren't Hybrid characters or other classes with new power-sources.  There's a huge gulf in story between a Cleric and an Avenger, just as there is between a Rogue and an Avenger. 

Story >> Grid.  That is what Essentials is saying.  The story takes precedence.  Classes and their builds should reflect the story behind the class and/or build, and shouldn't try to pigeonhole their mechanics into already established systems.  They should balance out, but they should also play the way that best fits that class. 

I do like the new druid and the rogue, the mage is ok as is the cleric but the one thing I loved about 4th pre essentails was that the martial classes had alot of options the new fighters are way too simple for me. Its insulting to go back to swing my sword, I hit roll damage. All the tatics of the martial classes are gone and I think that is a step backwards not forwards.

Dec 1, 2010 -- 3:50PM, AH_Stormbringer wrote:

I do like the new druid and the rogue, the mage is ok as is the cleric but the one thing I loved about 4th pre essentails was that the martial classes had alot of options the new fighters are way too simple for me. Its insulting to go back to swing my sword, I hit roll damage. All the tatics of the martial classes are gone and I think that is a step backwards not forwards.

I thought so too, at first. But currently I'm DMing a group where one of my players (who also shared similar sentiments at first) plays a knight, and fact is, he's got plenty of options during combat. This is in no conceivable way like what I reffer as the 3e Fighter-who-just-stands-there-and-auto-attacks. The knight (and slayer) has a lot of things and tricks going for him during play.

Does he ULTIMATELY have 100% the same amount of choices during a day of adventuring as the classic fighter? Probably not, this is true. But the difference is not much to speak of, and the knight is in fact a lot more reliable than the classic fighter. 

No, the knight (and other essential martial classes) do not lose their tactical coolness as regards meaningful options.

I have played both fighters and I disagree the essentials fighter does not hold a candle compared to the PHB fighter. The ranger is a shadow of its former self and the rogue is the best martial essentials class. As far as the tactical aspect we may have a different idea of tactics sometimes simpl is better but not in this case IMO.

and I in turn disagree with you Stormbringer, the Knight and Fighter both go about their jobs differently and to be sure current.y the fighter has way more options during character creation but they both have tactical play just aimed at doing slightly different things (so that they then require different tactics to use effectively.) The Slayer on the other hand lost a bit of tactics since he doesn't fufil that guardian role anymore but has some great flavor and can do a lot with his power choices (especially once in the paragon tier.) so he can be as tactical or untactical as you like. (and the Rogue is awesome)

The e-classes in my mind mostly give if not a new twist then a lot more options for how you want to take a class. I really think once they release the Player Options book that's supposed to give rules for melding regular and Essentials stuff that the E-builds will really shine.

Stormbringer, if you don't like the Knight or Slayer, play a Weaponmaster.  It's what you're used to now, and it'll satisfy your expectations.  But Knight and Slayer aren't replacing the old builds of Fighters – they've just got renamed as Weaponmaster (Fighter). 

That said, there is a lot more to Knight and Slayer than swing the sword.  But this takes RolePlaying, rather than just RollPlaying.  Those stances are there for a reason.  When you play a Knight, you shouldn't ever be making a normal MBA attack, and that should be evident in your game if you're explaining what you're doing.  The exploits you carry out are based on your stance, whether you work in Power Attack to the attack, and what class features you've reach that add on to your effectiveness in battle. 

Roleplaying is extremely important if you want to highlight that you're doing something different than just the last step of the attack – the MBA.  It's a big chain of different things adding on to that attack, that makes it different, rather than a bundled and packaged attack in a single power.

If all wizards will release in the future is the oversimplified "essential" crap i will never look at a wizards product again until they release something that has to do with 4 edition Core devoid off anything related to "essentials".

So to me 4 edition is already dead since all that is released nowdays is the freaking "essentials" line of simplified gaming that have less then zero interest for me.

 

Dec 4, 2010 -- 6:19AM, ghostshade wrote:

If all wizards will release in the future is the oversimplified "essential" crap i will never look at a wizards product again until they release something that has to do with 4 edition Core devoid off anything related to "essentials".

So to me 4 edition is already dead since all that is released nowdays is the freaking "essentials" line of simplified gaming that have less then zero interest for me.

 

I think it's been confirmed that the number of Essentials products is finite (I think it was called a 6 months run) and they go back to previous incarnation after that.

Really... now show me  a single book that will be released in 2011 that is not a "essentials" book. Show me a book released in 2011 that give me ever option to develop my character in as many ways as possible with as many options as possible without a damn character sheet that tells you nothing and look like it was designed by a freaking wow player on crack that thinks the world needs to be simplified. Becasue they are to lazy to ever calculate why those numbers are in those fields in their character sheet.

Personally i will never in my life touch a "essentials" book of any kind nor will i ever allow it in any game i dm. For the same reason i sat down and explained to the new players i play with how you make a new character manually from scratch in 4 edition. I want them to freaking know why the heck they have that ac why their modifiers are what they are and i want them to understand the tactical aspect of using their skills and powers.

I absolutly hate simplification in any game format

 

Dec 4, 2010 -- 6:46AM, ghostshade wrote:

Really... now show me  a single book that will be released in 2011 that is not a "essentials" book. Show me a book released in 2011 that give me ever option to develop my character in as many ways as possible with as many options as possible without a damn character sheet that tells you nothing and look like it was designed by a freaking wow player on crack that thinks the world needs to be simplified. Becasue they are to lazy to ever calculate why those numbers are in those fields in their character sheet.

Personally i will never in my life touch a "essentials" book of any kind nor will i ever allow it in any game i dm. For the same reason i sat down and explained to the new players i play with how you make a new character manually from scratch in 4 edition. I want them to freaking know why the heck they have that ac why their modifiers are what they are and i want them to understand the tactical aspect of using their skills and powers.

I absolutly hate simplification in any game format

 

Then you should be playing FATAL. Essentials isn't as simple as you think it is. Except for the martial classes. The casters still get many choices for powers when they level up. The Mage still has access to wizard powers, the Warpriest has access to the cleric stuff. Even the martial classes still have access to the utilities of their parent classes. When the class compendium comes out, you'll be able to mix and match freely.

Actually, in many ways, some of the essentials classes are improvements over their phb1 counterparts. The Mage's schools of magic vs. implement mastery, and the Warpriest is less MAD than the str based battle cleric. 

The essential fighter is by far inferior to the PHB version and the ranger is just sad but the caster classes are good. The only good essentials martial class is the rogue to date.

Dec 4, 2010 -- 2:38PM, AH_Stormbringer wrote:

The essential fighter is by far inferior to the PHB version and the ranger is just sad but the caster classes are good. The only good essentials martial class is the rogue to date.

Actually, the Slayer has better DPR than the Rogue and the Thief.

Dec 4, 2010 -- 6:38AM, ADHadh wrote:

I think it's been confirmed that the number of Essentials products is finite (I think it was called a 6 months run) and they go back to previous incarnation after that.

Previous incarnation with the addition of sub-classes, item rarity, and enough fluff to choke an elephant on every single rule element.

Let's see, there is Neverwinter campaign for FR for one. I am actually gonna buy it as I wondered how the city fared after the spellplague. Hoping that it leads to a book for Sharn for Eberron.

Dec 4, 2010 -- 6:46AM, ghostshade wrote:

Really... now show me  a single book that will be released in 2011 that is not a "essentials" book. Show  me a book released in 2011 that give me ever option to develop my character in as many ways as possible

How about the very first players' book coming out in 2011. Its a reprint of the original classes from the PHB with updated errata and a new format. Also, the Heroes of Shadow excerpt today has powers that non-essentials wizards can take. It also says that any wizard can take any of the new necromancy and nethermancy spells.

Now, you show us a single book in 2011 that doesn't have options for "classic" DnD.

without a damn character sheet that tells you nothing and look like it was designed by a freaking wow player on crack that thinks the world needs to be simplified. Becasue they are to lazy to ever calculate why those numbers are in those fields in their character sheet.

Uh...then use the old character sheet?? This has nothing to do with the mechanics for Essentials. I could complain that my character sheets suck because they are hand-drawn on a brown paper bag but that wouldn't have anything to do with the mechanics either.

 

Personally i will never in my life touch a "essentials" book of any kind nor will i ever allow it in any game i dm. For the same reason i sat down and explained to the new players i play with how you make a new character manually from scratch in 4 edition. I want them to freaking know why the heck they have that ac why their modifiers are what they are and i want them to understand the tactical aspect of using their skills and powers.

Again, this has nothing to do with the Essentials since there is nothing stopping you from making every character from scratch or knowing where the bonuses come from. Are you confusing the Character Builder with the Essentials books?

I absolutly hate simplification in any game format

The irony being that this is the exact same thing people accused 4e of when it first came out.

     It's true though, that fourth edition simplified many aspects of the game when you compare it to 3rd edition. More generalized skill categories, no professions, no crafts. 4th edition also oversimplifies saving throws because they're just "beat a 10 on a d20." I understand the fifty/fifty overcome/succumb theory, I just think it's less realistic than having the different saves for different strengths. 
     It also limits characters in many ways, the first way being the amount of multiclass customization. There are no more level 6 characters with 2 levels of rogue, ranger, and bard (just an example). There is also no profit to be had from crafting magic items/weapons/wondrous items because it states somewhere in the rules that the cost of components and crafting should equal the market value or something like that. There is also less substance to skills and earning ranks, as well as a decrease in  the diversification of the amount of skills learned. 
     As a DM, I dislike the +5 single trained skills because a level 6 character in my party thinks "Thievery" means he can detect very well hidden traps, and got mad at me becuase I designed a trap that was not meant for anyone to detect regardless of skill level, and then he narrowly avoided being hit by the arrow thanks to a saving throw, when the point of trap and the XP bonus that it gave to the party was based upon nobody falling victim to it without detecting it.

What does a company do, when they buy the company they got their ideas from?

Paizo buys D&D from Wotc, make 5e, which looks alot like White Wolf Games.

     I think it would be more likely that Paizo would just kill 4th Edition and merge the Pathfinder and D&D brands. Most people I've talked to about D&D also know about Pathfinder, and a few have stated that Pathfinder is the only way they'd be willing to go from 3.5.
     Based upon my own small experiences, I think that would be the most advantageous route for Paizo in that situation. Unfortunately, I don't think Hasbro will give up D&D.

I never want to go back to the 3.5 days, with Wizards sitting around like Radan in the Mortal Combat movies. "I wouldn't do that, if I were you."

Dec 6, 2010 -- 10:35AM, Ayes2010 wrote:

4th edition also oversimplifies saving throws because they're just "beat a 10 on a d20." I understand the fifty/fifty overcome/succumb theory, I just think it's less realistic than having the different saves for different strengths. 

Anyone who's played 4E knows that "Saving Throws" are a duration mechanic. They are this editions "1d4+1 rounds", more or less. It's just simpler than having to roll and remember a duration. Better being able to resist an effect based on your, for example, fortitude, reflexes, or willpower is represented by (who would have guessed?) the effect needing to beat your Fort/Ref/Will Defense. Again, this is an incredibly basic 4E concept.

It also limits characters in many ways, the first way being the amount of multiclass customization. There are no more level 6 characters with 2 levels of rogue, ranger, and bard (just an example).

There isn't any point to doing this other than cherry-picking abilities. You can get the flavour of a character like that using 4E multiclassing/hybrids and other options. The only reason to specificlly say "I've got X levels of..." is to have the numbers there.

There is also no profit to be had from crafting magic items/weapons/wondrous items because it states somewhere in the rules that the cost of components and crafting should equal the market value or something like that.

Shockingly, the game is about adventurers going on adventures, rather than labourers sitting at home making horseshoes.

There is also less substance to skills and earning ranks, as well as a decrease in  the diversification of the amount of skills learned. As a DM, I dislike the +5 single trained skills because a level 6 character in my party thinks "Thievery" means he can detect very well hidden traps, and got mad at me becuase I designed a trap that was not meant for anyone to detect regardless of skill level, and then he narrowly avoided being hit by the arrow thanks to a saving throw, when the point of trap and the XP bonus that it gave to the party was based upon nobody falling victim to it without detecting it.

Wow, there is alot going on here, and it's not the fault of 4E.

I have no idea why the character thought theivery let him sense traps. That's Preception. Even beyond that, he IS better with traps than most characters. He just isn't automaticlly able to deactive every trap ever.

You bring up the "Saving Throw" thing again, and it becomes clear to me that you've been using the rules wrong. In future, remember that a trap like that would make an attack VS AC. Saving Throws would be made if they became, for example, poisoned by the arrow. I'd advise you to reread the books so you are familiar with the rules of the game. It'll probably help alot.

The last part just... makes no sense. You chose to make a trap that by design is undetectable, and then based an EXP bonus on it not hitting someone? That's a bit of a crap shoot, and I don't see a point. This is in no way the fault of 4E.


Basiclly, you seem to have some flawed understanding of the rules. As well, you seem to be blaming the rules for DM fiat. I'll agree that some things in 4E were streamlined. That's an exellent way to refine a game.

Dec 6, 2010 -- 10:35AM, Ayes2010 wrote:

It's true though, that fourth edition simplified many aspects of the game when you compare it to 3rd edition. ...4th edition also oversimplifies saving throws because they're just "beat a 10 on a d20."

Actually, it was 3rd Edition that simplified saves, going from the five different saves of AD&D to just three. All 4E did was change those three saves into defenses that the attacker rolls against (like AC) instead of having the player who is being attacked roll (which always seemed every bit as clumsy a rule to me as descending AC and THAC0). The new save mechanic is used as a catch-all rule for tracking durations. It's purpose is to do away with the over-complication of having a dozen different game effects going on, each with specific timers that end up forgotten or mixed up. There's a difference between oversimplification and streamlining something that was overly complicated.

Dec 6, 2010 -- 10:35AM, Ayes2010 wrote:

It also limits characters in many ways, the first way being the amount of multiclass customization. There are no more level 6 characters with 2 levels of rogue, ranger, and bard (just an example).

I can make a 4E character that is a rogue, ranger and bard at first level. Between hybriding and multi-classing you can make all kinds of different combinations in 4E.

Dec 6, 2010 -- 10:35AM, Ayes2010 wrote:

There is also no profit to be had from crafting magic items/weapons/wondrous items because it states somewhere in the rules that the cost of components and crafting should equal the market value or something like that.

The Player's Handbook says that all listed values are at base market price and that an item's actual cost will usually be 10-40% higher than base value (according to supply and demand). So, if you did want to spend time selling items, you could.

Dec 6, 2010 -- 10:35AM, Ayes2010 wrote:

As a DM, I dislike the +5 single trained skills because a level 6 character in my party thinks "Thievery" means he can detect very well hidden traps, and got mad at me becuase I designed a trap that was not meant for anyone to detect regardless of skill level, and then he narrowly avoided being hit by the arrow thanks to a saving throw, when the point of trap and the XP bonus that it gave to the party was based upon nobody falling victim to it without detecting it.

As someone else already said, this just sounds like you and your group not being familiar enough with the rules.

For the making and selling of magical items, technically a PC would make the item at full "crafting" cost (the list price in the book) and sell it at 20 percent of that cost (ending in a huge lost). It is the NPC vendor (like a Merchant in Guild Wars) that sell it at 10 to 40 percent markup. This is if you can find someone with that item to begin with, or a wizard willing to take a commission to make the item for you for the paltry profit. (10 to 40 percent)

If the DM is kind, and your really a player that wants to waste time making items, then a character may be able to sell made items for up to 20 percent mark up. It isn't likely in this edition, though.

The main problem is that the last edition had the EXP cost to counteract the profit of making items. This edition just takes away any profit motive altogether. With no real explanation as to why. (It costs the Crafting cost, but what do you get for that cost before the item is crafted?)

This is one thing that wasn't really addressed in the new (Random? Hah!!!) Parcel System with the Rarity system added in.

Well, if this happened then I'd have to quit playing D&D again. 3rd Edition (including 3.5) is about the most un-fun version of D&D I know of. I'd rather be playing a fun game.

I don't know why there's so much Essentials hate... I didn't like 4E at first but Essentials has really pulled me in. I like the basic design philosophy (the action matches the fiction); I think it is set up to be a far more immersive and interesting experience.

I like to have an effective character but I'm not an obsessive CharOpper. I don't know if that factors into the preference.

I am obsessive customizer and like having heroes with both weird luck and wild interesting effects, sometimes coming down due to confusion, deception and complexity of the battle and in others coincidence... and I find moar damage - moar attacks - moar boring than paint drying Give me player control over when the awesome hits the fan any day --  most definitely not about wanting to char-op nope. Never the wizards hand maiden never again. 

Nov 4, 2010 -- 6:20PM, Cyber-Dave wrote:

Nov 4, 2010 -- 5:45PM, Nightshade1 wrote:

4th edition was doomed at the start.  From the first day of "We are going have all these things ready to go on LAUNCH DAY, then barely anything.

The books were haphazardly put together, so much that we now have over 100 pages of errors and corrections (aka errata).  Proofreading, ever hear of it?  Every single mistake, every single misprint, every single inconsistency makes the company look unprofessional.  Couple that with the constant lies and the "soon" comments, and you have the perfect making for people to burn their D&D books in the middle of the street.

But perhaps, thats Hasbro's game all along eh?  If WotC was indeed was bought for M:TG, then why take D&D at all?  Personally, I think Hasbro should let D&D the hell alone.  Give D&D back to the TRUE gamers.

Take the Wizard class for instance - how many "Wizards" does this flippin game need?  We have the wizard, the sorcerer, the warlock, the mage and coming soon the necromancer (unless they screw this one up as well - which they will).  Take the basic concept of the wizard that has always been.  He was a book loving, studious, Merlin type.  He was almost impossible to keep alive and in that THAT was the challenge.  But they split all the powers up into multiple classes that do little more than act as 5 uneven, repetitive splits that do nothing but step on each other's toes.

This game needs exactly 4 classes - The fighter to wear the heavy armor and use large weapons, the wizard to stand near the back and blast the crap out of the bad guys, the cleric to heal and inspire his comrades, and the rogue to steal the DMs wallet - THAT'S IT

All of the these other 26+ classes are unnecessary.  You want a druid, put him in the cleric book.  You want a ranger, put him in the fighter book.  All of the "specialist" wizards go in the wizard book, and the bard and assassin types go in the rogue book.  I mean how flipping hard is it.

The game has always had a classical feel to it, up until now.  There are so many inconsistencies with things that are just crap and don't make sense.

It's simple:  the classes should be fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue.  The races should be human, elf, dwarf, halfling.  Done - Now take that wizards - free of charge AND FIX THE GAME

Wow. I don't agree with a single word you have said.

QFT

On a side note discovering this thread and getting to read all ten pages at once has provided a rare respite to my otherwise dreary day.

Good stuff.

Nov 4, 2010 -- 5:45PM, Nightshade1 wrote:

4th edition was doomed at the start.  From the first day of "We are going have all these things ready to go on LAUNCH DAY, then barely anything.

The books were haphazardly put together, so much that we now have over 100 pages of errors and corrections (aka errata).  Proofreading, ever hear of it?  Every single mistake, every single misprint, every single inconsistency makes the company look unprofessional.  Couple that with the constant lies and the "soon" comments, and you have the perfect making for people to burn their D&D books in the middle of the street.

But perhaps, thats Hasbro's game all along eh?  If WotC was indeed was bought for M:TG, then why take D&D at all?  Personally, I think Hasbro should let D&D the hell alone.  Give D&D back to the TRUE gamers.

Take the Wizard class for instance - how many "Wizards" does this flippin game need?  We have the wizard, the sorcerer, the warlock, the mage and coming soon the necromancer (unless they screw this one up as well - which they will).  Take the basic concept of the wizard that has always been.  He was a book loving, studious, Merlin type.  He was almost impossible to keep alive and in that THAT was the challenge.  But they split all the powers up into multiple classes that do little more than act as 5 uneven, repetitive splits that do nothing but step on each other's toes.

This game needs exactly 4 classes - The fighter to wear the heavy armor and use large weapons, the wizard to stand near the back and blast the crap out of the bad guys, the cleric to heal and inspire his comrades, and the rogue to steal the DMs wallet - THAT'S IT

All of the these other 26+ classes are unnecessary.  You want a druid, put him in the cleric book.  You want a ranger, put him in the fighter book.  All of the "specialist" wizards go in the wizard book, and the bard and assassin types go in the rogue book.  I mean how flipping hard is it.

The game has always had a classical feel to it, up until now.  There are so many inconsistencies with things that are just crap and don't make sense.

It's simple:  the classes should be fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue.  The races should be human, elf, dwarf, halfling.  Done - Now take that wizards - free of charge AND FIX THE GAME

Indeed, and you know what else we only need one of? Types of cheese.  And lettuce.  and there is only one right way to operate a logistics supply business.

And in fact, nothing should ever change ever because the people before us were smarter, better, more educated, and obviously never made mistakes.

I mean, seriously, if we just give into every namby pamby whim of the market place then we'll be no better than toyota in the 80's, or wal-mart circa...forever. Satisfying the overall population is the last thing we want to do.

I think Mussolini said it best,"The history of the saints is mainly the history of insane people."  So let us raise a glass and support the 4, and ONLY 4 VALID saints of D&D.

The Fighter, The Cleric, The Rogue, and the wizard. 

All others are #2, or lower.

I think the most hilarious thing about Nightshade1's post is that he can buy either the Red Box or the Rule's Compendium and Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and be quite happy with the game.

Protip:  Buy only what you want, and beyond that, only what you need.  If you think the game should only have Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue, and only Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling, buy Heroes of the Fallen Lands. 

Essentials is pratically MADE for people like him, and yet, despite my love of the Essentials products, I can't disagree with his logic more.

Nov 6, 2010 -- 3:09AM, PeterTheCynic wrote:

What's probably happening is they'll watch the essentials sales figures for the next 6 months, if there good, okay, if they're disappointing then it'll be 5e it time for Christmas 2012. 

Only 365 more days to find out!

Jan 1, 2012 -- 2:08AM, Alter_Boy wrote:

Nov 6, 2010 -- 3:09AM, PeterTheCynic wrote:

What's probably happening is they'll watch the essentials sales figures for the next 6 months, if there good, okay, if they're disappointing then it'll be 5e it time for Christmas 2012. 

Only 365 more days to find out!

Well, I'd guess we'll know around Gencon.

I don't know if they let go a load of people when the rate of releases dropped, I'm sure someone else out there can tell us.

If they didn't, then it does seem to suggest something else is being worked on. In that case 5E is a logical supposition.

Bravo for carrying through on your promise. I don't thinks Hasbro will sell because 1) D&D is taking in profit, and even if it's minsicule, it's still somthing, and 2) the crossovers between M:tg and D&D (designers and stuff, not actual material) are good, and they help magic, which is why hasbro has WotC in the first place. (that, or the guy at the top likes D&D)

Nov 3, 2010 -- 6:57AM, VisanidethDM wrote:

I won't comment on the quality of the Pathfinder mechanics (I know a lot of people who loves playing Pathfinder because they loved playing 3.5; I just don't feel Pathfinder improved 3.5 in any shape or form).

However, from any perspective you look at it, Pathfinder is, in terms of creativity and intellectual honesty and commercial ethics, one of the most disgusting events in the history of tabletop gaming. Competing against a company by reselling their own products, and more importantly suffocating the market share that could have gone to much more deserving competitors who are actually doing something new on their own, is absolutely and unquestionably the textbook definition of lameness.

anyway shape or form? turn undead and grapple.

I still love d&d, I won't move on to pathfinder, but you are clearly wrong about it no doing anything to d&d.

Honestly wotc chose to **** over their players with giving up on 3.5.  I think it is hilarious. WoTC is clueless about business. 4E is cleary the proof of this.

I was never quite sure why WotC sold out to Hasbro. They seemed to be making boatloads of money off of Magic:the Gathering.

At the time of sale, they were making buttloads of money more from Pokemon than M:TG. I think WotC understood that a liscenced game like Pokemon wasn't going to be a commodity they could rely on forever. Hasbro had been making offers to them for years, and WotC knew that they could get an incredible buy-out offer from Hasbro by selling at the peak.

Keep in mind that WotC's founders were living off of charity and ramen noodles for the first three years, and that they intended their company to be primarily a RPG maker. So, I don't think they lost much sleep over receiving millions of dollars for no longer making CCGs. 

I think pathfinder and e4 ar both good games and I enjoy playing both of them. The biggest diference between the two companies in my eyes is the direction they have taken the games.

Paizo decided to stick with the roleplaying....focusing on adventures and not rule books.  They are starting to get mre rule books but nothing like WOTC. They also made a commentent to adventure paths and gaming aids....very much like DnD of old (ADnD for us old folks). The flushed out there setting, they created and breathed life into a living setting and then stay focus on their flagship product. In my eyes paizo cleaned up the version of DnD they wanted to support and are moving forward with that....


Wizards seems to gone more tactical with this edition, simplified a complex rule set, added more tacitcal flavor (powers) and they also have a ton of rule books. But have not focused a lot adventures or adventure paths. It also seems that their focus switched to encounters....which to me is sort of a board game version of DnD....not much roleplaying. I think the game it self can be vry role playing intensive but it is not supported that. I also think that WOTC made mistake by letting go the GreyHawk stuff (lol yes I am old) and has seemed to struggle to get its identity back since...it has always been part of the DnD mythos....I still use the old spell names.

As for DnD next..this to me proves that either Hasbro is trying to create some str o sell the brand o they are commented to making it bettter. I am not sure yet but I am hopeful.

I do not think Hasbro will sell DnD...I think as a game corporation they are trying to figure out role playing and how to make money off it (whihc may be diffacult in a corporate world). I do not think Paizo would buy the DnD brand even if they could they are carving out there own brand.....