You're right, why not is not a bad question. It is fine. But, let me put it into context.
DM: All right, we recapped the last 6 sessions where you guys have been walking through the mountain pass to rach the dwarven kingdowm of Frostcliff. Along the way, you've encountered a small village being ransacked by a yeti, and a cult of northmen that prays to the werewolf, Silvermane. You leveled, so tell me what your group of elves learned.
Player 1: I learned Samauri Movement. DM: Huh? Player 1: Yea, I took the feat out of "place title of Dragon Article here." DM: May I see it? Player 1: Sure. (hands the character sheet over.) DM: No. This doesn't fit. Player 1: Why not?
This is a real example. We had just as silly an example when treking through the Underdark for months.
I don't see it silly at all. I'd have asked the same question. In 4e, fluff and names are meaningless and can be altered at will, so that Samurai Movement could be Barbarian rush. You don't need training in skills/feats/powers in 4e, so you didn't have to find someone that has it to learn it. What was silly with it again?
Now there MAY be something in the context of the thing he learned that was based on an element that wasn't in your champain, I don't know what Samurai Movement does. If it was something that gave bonuses to katana's and you don't have katana's in your world, THEN I'd understand your point.
I don't see it silly at all. I'd have asked the same question. In 4e, fluff and names are meaningless and can be altered at will, so that Samurai Movement could be Barbarian rush. You don't need training in skills/feats/powers in 4e, so you didn't ha
Then again, I stop disruptive behavior the moment it starts. If a player tells me that their Kender swipes the Cleric's holy symbol, I tell him that he does not, and if he continues to try to disrupt the game, he will be asked to leave.
The kender abuse was when I was a player and not a DM so I couldn't toss him from the game.
The kender abuse was when I was a player and not a DM so I couldn't toss him from the game.
You're right, why not is not a bad question. It is fine. But, let me put it into context.
DM: All right, we recapped the last 6 sessions where you guys have been walking through the mountain pass to rach the dwarven kingdowm of Frostcliff. Along the way, you've encountered a small village being ransacked by a yeti, and a cult of northmen that prays to the werewolf, Silvermane. You leveled, so tell me what your group of elves learned.
Player 1: I learned Samauri Movement. DM: Huh? Player 1: Yea, I took the feat out of "place title of Dragon Article here." DM: May I see it? Player 1: Sure. (hands the character sheet over.) DM: No. This doesn't fit. Player 1: Why not?
This is a real example. We had just as silly an example when treking through the Underdark for months.
I don't see it silly at all. I'd have asked the same question. In 4e, fluff and names are meaningless and can be altered at will, so that Samurai Movement could be Barbarian rush. You don't need training in skills/feats/powers in 4e, so you didn't have to find someone that has it to learn it. What was silly with it again?
Now there MAY be something in the context of the thing he learned that was based on an element that wasn't in your champain, I don't know what Samurai Movement does. If it was something that gave bonuses to katana's and you don't have katana's in your world, THEN I'd understand your point.
YMMV again. I enjoy refluffing somethings and thinking how mechanics work in another way.
Gamma World is especially great for this! The only reason I've homebrewed another list of origins is if I think the mechanics can't pull off what I want. I had a table in a GW one shot composed of: steampunk necromancer, anthro wolf druid, cybernetic mad scientist, grey alien in a gangster "zoot suit", and internet-elemental... all with only a little bit of homebrew (I snagged the caninoid, gunslinger, and technomancer origins from homebrew. Plus some omegatech was either converted from D&D4 or made up. Otherwise, stuck to book mechanics.
Rambling tangent aside, some people love sticking to a default fluff and having mechanics that support that fluff first. It's not wrong, just another style of play. I sometimes do this myself.
I don't see it silly at all. I'd have asked the same question. In 4e, fluff and names are meaningless and can be altered at will, so that Samurai Movement could be Barbarian rush. You don't need training in skills/feats/powers in 4e, so you didn't ha
Then again, I stop disruptive behavior the moment it starts. If a player tells me that their Kender swipes the Cleric's holy symbol, I tell him that he does not, and if he continues to try to disrupt the game, he will be asked to leave.
The kender abuse was when I was a player and not a DM so I couldn't toss him from the game.
Fair enough. Continued disruptive behavior at the table is just as much the fault of the DM as it is the player in question (first time is all player, after that, the DM becomes complicit in every subsequent event).
The kender abuse was when I was a player and not a DM so I couldn't toss him from the game.[/quote]Fair enough. Continued disruptive behavior at the table is just as much the fault of the DM as it is the player in question (first time is all player,
Rambling tangent aside, some people love sticking to a default fluff and having mechanics that support that fluff first. It's not wrong, just another style of play. I sometimes do this myself.
Well that's fine, but I'd need to know that up front to find the example silly. As/is, the example isn't silly unless some houserule that I don't know MADE it silly or the ability/feat does something funky I don't know about.
Well that's fine, but I'd need to know that up front to find the example silly. As/is, the example isn't silly unless some houserule that I don't know MADE it silly or the ability/feat does something funky I don't know about.
So, in 4e, every supplement is designed according to some core assumptions about the game.
There's absolutelly no difference between any edition in that aspect. A system's basic books lay down the most basic rules, and all suplements should follow those standards, even if adding new rules for specific things.
Believing some system is "bullet-proof" against bad suplements is an illusion. There is nothing inherent in any system of rules that can't be torn apart later by bad design.
What might have happened in 4ed was a better supervision from the original creators of the system as to what should or not be released in the suplements. That's a good thing, of course. But it's a thing of management. It has nothing to do with a system "allowing" more or less bad suplements. That "tight grip" on the suplements can extend to any release from any edition, and I sincerely hope they do so in 5ed (and if they don't we can always ignore the bad stuff that comes later).
Granted, many suplements were completelly out of control. I've seen it in all editions. Some even appear to be competing with others to see who can come up with the most overpowered characters.
"Damn that Rastlin is looking awesome in that new edition of Dragonlance, so I'll make my Elminster even more powerful, after all Forgotten Realms can't stay behind!" *Adds more ubber-powerful magic rules* (or something like that... just a random example)
But do keep in mind... there's nothing so well written that can't be twisted later by bad writing.
Especially when you have too many authors creating independently (see the Star Wars universe of books for example, with its 967967860987 books written by 9698769867 authors, many of which are... just bad).
In the end it's always up to each DM decide what can or can't be used in his game.
There's absolutelly no difference between any edition in that aspect. A system's basic books lay down the most basic rules, and all suplements should follow those standards, even if adding new rules for specific things.Believing some system is "bulle
Rambling tangent aside, some people love sticking to a default fluff and having mechanics that support that fluff first. It's not wrong, just another style of play. I sometimes do this myself.
Well that's fine, but I'd need to know that up front to find the example silly. As/is, the example isn't silly unless some houserule that I don't know MADE it silly or the ability/feat does something funky I don't know about.
I guess a mentality that comes with said style of play, "this means this. You take this for that reason." Perhaps that's an extreme...
Well that's fine, but I'd need to know that up front to find the example silly. As/is, the example isn't silly unless some houserule that I don't know MADE it silly or the ability/feat does something funky I don't know about.[/quote]I guess a mentali
Rambling tangent aside, some people love sticking to a default fluff and having mechanics that support that fluff first. It's not wrong, just another style of play. I sometimes do this myself.
Well that's fine, but I'd need to know that up front to find the example silly. As/is, the example isn't silly unless some houserule that I don't know MADE it silly or the ability/feat does something funky I don't know about.
I guess a mentality that comes with said style of play, "this means this. You take this for that reason." Perhaps that's an extreme...
LOL I understand that. I had several debates with Baker, the creator of ebberon over rules only to find that after months of arguing, he was debating his houserules that he forgot where houserules!
It's been a LONG time since I thought about the old Warforged(3.5)+smelter=profit debate.
Well that's fine, but I'd need to know that up front to find the example silly. As/is, the example isn't silly unless some houserule that I don't know MADE it silly or the ability/feat does something funky I don't know about.[/quote]I guess a mentali
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />You're right, why not is not a bad question. It is fine. But, let me put it into context.
DM: All right, we recapped the last 6 sessions where you guys have been walking through the mountain pass to rach the dwarven kingdowm of Frostcliff. Along the way, you've encountered a small village being ransacked by a yeti, and a cult of northmen that prays to the werewolf, Silvermane. You leveled, so tell me what your group of elves learned.
Player 1: I learned Samauri Movement. DM: Huh? Player 1: Yea, I took the feat out of "place title of Dragon Article here." DM: May I see it? Player 1: Sure. (hands the character sheet over.) DM: No. This doesn't fit. Player 1: Why not?
This is a real example. We had just as silly an example when treking through the Underdark for months.
Not to be obtuse, but why not?
The Feat Samurai Movement may have some fluff attached to it, but in the end it is just a number of mechanical advantages. The idea that those advantages could only have been taight to the character by a Samurai is ridiculously stupid. Rename it Elven Step and refluff it, and let it go.
I was not DM, as that's how I would have handled it. But, I also show courtesy to the DM's judgement as well. If it would have been my campaign, I would have probably refluffed it. But, it wasn't. It was his. And since he said "it doesn't fit," then I assume the player should take that as it doesn't fit for him, and pick something else.
Not to be obtuse, but why not?The Feat Samurai Movement may have some fluff attached to it, but in the end it is just a number of mechanical advantages. The idea that those advantages could only have been taight to the character by a Samurai is ridic
So, what is "Everything is Core"? A lot of people assume that because "everything is core" it means that everything, from the actual core books to supplements and splatbooks, is on the table and available in a campaign.
People thought/think this?
Yes. This was the official view given. WotC backed this up by including warforged and the like in the Realms
Um, no they didn't. Just checked the FRCG and the FR-Player's Guide and there was no mention of Warforged in the Realms. Forgotten Realms novels don't mention them either. And I'm fairly certain that all the DDI FR articles that I downloaded and read never included Warforged.
IIRC there was a Dragon article that explained them. plus they were legal on Living Forgotten Realms. They exist there now.
dragonborn and eladrin in Eberron and Dark Sun, and the like.
This is a problem how? Just read the entries, yep sounds like the designers did a good job of incorporating fantasy elements into a fantasy campagin setting. Dark Sun even went into how Dragonborn are called Dray and gave unique spins on races like Elves and Halflings.
I don't recall saying it was bad, or even badly done.
It was not easy to exclude options from the Character Builder.
Sure it is. Tell your players "No Eladrin in my Eberron campaign. No Warforged in my Realms campaign. No Genasi in my Dragonlance game." Then, if the players use those options you tell them no, again and to choose something else. You don't need to change the program, just the person using it. In fact, I think it's GOOD that the designers put the PHB races into the core of the published settings. For one, it makes it easier on the DM to find ways of incorporating them into the campaign and for another, it spawns cool adventuring ideas. Yes, the designers probably expected every DM to adjust his own specific camapign according to the DM/Group wishes instead of making the most barest of bones options and putting more work on the DMs shoulders to incorporate things.
"But they're part of the rules. I thought we were playing by the rules. Are we? Can I still play a fighter or do I have to have that approved as well?"
People thought/think this?[/quote]Yes. This was the official view given. WotC backed this up by including warforged and the like in the Realms[/quote] Um, no they didn't. Just checked the FRCG and the FR-Player's Guide and there was no mention of War
Yes. This was the official view given. WotC backed this up by including warforged and the like in the Realms
Um, no they didn't. Just checked the FRCG and the FR-Player's Guide and there was no mention of Warforged in the Realms. Forgotten Realms novels don't mention them either. And I'm fairly certain that all the DDI FR articles that I downloaded and read never included Warforged.
IIRC there was a Dragon article that explained them. plus they were legal on Living Forgotten Realms. They exist there now.
Dragon 371, p39 — Origin Stories: Incorporating Races Fluff for Warforged in the Realms & Genasi in Eberron. Also has a sidebar for Shifters in the Realms.
Also has this nice little quote, among others, in a sidebar at the beginning:
However, in a vacuum of official support for a race not described in a campaign setting, you might wonder how your nonstandard race came to exist in the campaign. If so, this article aims to provide you with a list of several official possible origins for your game character.
That pretty much sums up my position as DM. If it's "officially supported" (ie, not 3rd party or Unearthed Arcana), I'll allow it in my campaigns (with one exception; I hate the vampire class), either straight or refluffed/defluffed, so long as the result fits in with the setting. If it's Unearthed Arcana, I'll probably allow it. If it's 3rd party, I might allow it.
I really don't comprehend the need by some people to decide not to allow things, even if it needs to be stripped down. Your world doesn't have drow? Fine, these aren't drow, these are eladrin with an alternative fey-blood magic ability.
Um, no they didn't. Just checked the FRCG and the FR-Player's Guide and there was no mention of Warforged in the Realms. Forgotten Realms novels don't mention them either. And I'm fairly certain that all the DDI FR articles that I downloaded and read
There's absolutelly no difference between any edition in that aspect. A system's basic books lay down the most basic rules, and all suplements should follow those standards, even if adding new rules for specific things.
I have to say, from someone who proudly runs 3e with only core, I find this statement incredibly amusing.
I have to say, from someone who proudly runs 3e with only core, I find this statement incredibly amusing.
um.., no they didn't. Just checked the FRCG and the FR-Player's Guide and there was no mention of Warforged in the Realms. Forgotten Realms novels don't mention them either. And I'm fairly certain that all the DDI FR articles that I downloaded and read never included Warforged.
I'd say you missed the issue that had an article which outlined possible ways to incorporate the race in the Forgotten Realms. Furthermore in LFR (the primary manner in which many people played in the Forgotten Realms during 4th ed) the race was quite playable and there were many of them walking around as PCs. Finally I can think of one LFR module which did include Warforged as monsters to defeat.
I would like a "Everything is balanced" design goal.
they tried that with 4th Ed. Not only did they fail abysmally at it (as witnessed by the copious amounts of errata produced), it sucked out the flavor and fun many people had with D&D.
As someone who played in LFR where "everything is core and thus playable" I became very burned on the everything is core aspect. I recall one adventure where the NPCs came running to the PCs about the terrible monstersnwho were terrorizing their village. These monsters being gnolls. Only problem was, gnolls were now a playable race thanks to a recent Dragon article and so more than half the table were gnolls. It really stretched credulity as to why this backward villager was coming to us for help.
The thing with "everything is core" was the idea that everything would be supported somewhat equally. When a new race came along, efforts were normally made to incorporate that into the published setting. Races and classes old (theoretically) gain equal support in supplements. And it worked up until PHB3 where we saw classes and races that would later garner next to no support. They also gave up on trying to include the more freakish races in the established settings.
As for what means for 5th Ed. The idea seems to have died with 4th Ed. Instead we're getting "everything is optional" with supplements including optional modules. We'll still get our splat books that have extra feats, spells and items (every edition has had these). But we won't hear the idea from WotC that everything is core.
I'd say you missed the issue that had an article which outlined possible ways to incorporate the race in the Forgotten Realms. Furthermore in LFR (the primary manner in which many people played in the Forgotten Realms during 4th ed) the race was quit
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />You're right, why not is not a bad question. It is fine. But, let me put it into context.
DM: All right, we recapped the last 6 sessions where you guys have been walking through the mountain pass to rach the dwarven kingdowm of Frostcliff. Along the way, you've encountered a small village being ransacked by a yeti, and a cult of northmen that prays to the werewolf, Silvermane. You leveled, so tell me what your group of elves learned.
Player 1: I learned Samauri Movement. DM: Huh? Player 1: Yea, I took the feat out of "place title of Dragon Article here." DM: May I see it? Player 1: Sure. (hands the character sheet over.) DM: No. This doesn't fit. Player 1: Why not?
This is a real example. We had just as silly an example when treking through the Underdark for months.
Not to be obtuse, but why not?
The Feat Samurai Movement may have some fluff attached to it, but in the end it is just a number of mechanical advantages. The idea that those advantages could only have been taight to the character by a Samurai is ridiculously stupid. Rename it Elven Step and refluff it, and let it go.
I was not DM, as that's how I would have handled it. But, I also show courtesy to the DM's judgement as well. If it would have been my campaign, I would have probably refluffed it. But, it wasn't. It was his. And since he said "it doesn't fit," then I assume the player should take that as it doesn't fit for him, and pick something else.
Your description makes it sound like you had a problem with your DM, not with "everything is core."
Not to be obtuse, but why not?The Feat Samurai Movement may have some fluff attached to it, but in the end it is just a number of mechanical advantages. The idea that those advantages could only have been taight to the character by a Samurai is ridic
I thought it was jsut a big marketing spin until they shoehorned 4th ed races into the 4th ed updates of pre 4th ed campaign settings. The less said about FR the better and Eberron was always presented as a place for any race you liked.
In Darksun they refluffed the Goliath as a half giant (meh) and the 2nd ed race was completely different. Dragonborn were refluffed as Dray evne though the Dray were a very rare race, unknown to the Sorcerer Kings and they actually had 2 races of Dray and they had no breath weapons.
Athasian elves also had no subraces so that kind of excludes the Eladrin and IIRC I think 4th ed clerics didn not exist either despite 2nd ed actually having clerics. I suppose designing a cleric with pacts and chaning the power source to elemental was to much work.
PoL should have been where you can fit all of that stuff in, FR should have been the old FR don't like it don't play there and DS could have been a place where you can have a large half giant with a +4 strength and power up the other races. Just label them as Darksun races and they are not supposed to be used in a normal 4th ed game. Hate FR? play PoL or Eberron. Want a high powered game on a post apocalyptic world play Darksun. Thats more or less what things like camapign setting are for- try somehitng different form the default assumptions.
I thought it was jsut a big marketing spin until they shoehorned 4th ed races into the 4th ed updates of pre 4th ed campaign settings. The less said about FR the better and Eberron was always presented as a place for any race you liked. In Darksun th
I thought it was jsut a big marketing spin until they shoehorned 4th ed races into the 4th ed updates of pre 4th ed campaign settings. The less said about FR the better and Eberron was always presented as a place for any race you liked.
In Darksun they refluffed the Goliath as a half giant (meh) and the 2nd ed race was completely different. Dragonborn were refluffed as Dray evne though the Dray were a very rare race, unknown to the Sorcerer Kings and they actually had 2 races of Dray and they had no breath weapons.
Athasian elves also had no subraces so that kind of excludes the Eladrin and IIRC I think 4th ed clerics didn not exist either despite 2nd ed actually having clerics. I suppose designing a cleric with pacts and chaning the power source to elemental was to much work.
PoL should have been where you can fit all of that stuff in, FR should have been the old FR don't like it don't play there and DS could have been a place where you can have a large half giant with a +4 strength and power up the other races. Just label them as Darksun races and they are not supposed to be used in a normal 4th ed game. Hate FR? play PoL or Eberron. Want a high powered game on a post apocalyptic world play Darksun. Thats more or less what things like camapign setting are for- try somehitng different form the default assumptions.
With that, here's to the new approach of "everything is modular". Save the weird retcons/contradictions and whatnot for extra (Magazine, side panel, fandom) or perhaps a setting variation splatbook (similar to my idea on a Modular Forgotten Realms! Save the seperate eras and whatnot for specific books to expand upon)
With that, here's to the new approach of "everything is modular". Save the weird retcons/contradictions and whatnot for extra (Magazine, side panel, fandom) or perhaps a setting variation splatbook (similar to my idea on a Modular Forgotten Realms!
I would like a "Everything is balanced" design goal.
they tried that with 4th Ed. Not only did they fail abysmally at it (as witnessed by the copious amounts of errata produced), it sucked out the flavor and fun many people had with D&D.
That's a misunderstanding of the situation. It's true that 4e had a lot of errata - a lot more than previous editions - but it's not because they failed abysmally at balance, but because they got relatively close - so close that it actually made sense to make the effort to hammer out the dents and shine out the scratches. (Also, the majority of the errata is not power-level errata to begin with.) Errataing 4e for balance (and releasing the unfortunate patch feats) is like shining the scratches out of a car that got dinged up a little bit. Errataing 3.5 for balance would be like trying to polish the scraches out of a car that was smashed to bits and lit on fire. With a lot of effort you could maybe make some small improvements, but it doesn't really make much sense to try to polish up little parts when you're not making much of a difference compared to the systematic issues.
they tried that with 4th Ed. Not only did they fail abysmally at it (as witnessed by the copious amounts of errata produced), it sucked out the flavor and fun many people had with D&D.[/quote]That's a misunderstanding of the situation. It's true that
I would like a "Everything is balanced" design goal.
they tried that with 4th Ed. Not only did they fail abysmally at it (as witnessed by the copious amounts of errata produced), it sucked out the flavor and fun many people had with D&D.
That's a misunderstanding of the situation. It's true that 4e had a lot of errata - a lot more than previous editions - but it's not because they failed abysmally at balance, but because they got relatively close - so close that it actually made sense to make the effort to hammer out the dents and shine out the scratches. (Also, the majority of the errata is not power-level errata to begin with.) Errataing 4e for balance (and releasing the unfortunate patch feats) is like shining the scratches out of a car that got dinged up a little bit. Errataing 3.5 for balance would be like trying to polish the scraches out of a car that was smashed to bits and lit on fire. With a lot of effort you could maybe make some small improvements, but it doesn't really make much sense to try to polish up little parts when you're not making much of a difference compared to the systematic issues.
I could balance 3.5 with a similar level of errata the 4th ed PHB got. Rewrite some of the classes, some feats and espicially spells and have a crack at the DMG and I could fix it. How many pages did the 4th ed PHB end up with in the end 60, 80, 100?
they tried that with 4th Ed. Not only did they fail abysmally at it (as witnessed by the copious amounts of errata produced), it sucked out the flavor and fun many people had with D&D.[/quote]That's a misunderstanding of the situation. It's true that
I could balance 3.5 with a similar level of errata the 4th ed PHB got. Rewrite some of the classes, some feats and espicially spells and have a crack at the DMG and I could fix it. How many pages did the 4th ed PHB end up with in the end 60, 80, 100?
Thought it was more than that. 27 pages, rewrite a few feats, get rid of natural spell feat, and rewirte and remove from the game most of the broken and overpowered spells and do a D&DN concentration mechanic on alot of cleric spells. Also buff saving throws to half level across the board and stop stacking save bonuses bia multiclassing.
Thought it was more than that. 27 pages, rewrite a few feats, get rid of natural spell feat, and rewirte and remove from the game most of the broken and overpowered spells and do a D&DN concentration mechanic on alot of cleric spells. Also buff savin
I would like a "Everything is balanced" design goal.
they tried that with 4th Ed. Not only did they fail abysmally at it (as witnessed by the copious amounts of errata produced), it sucked out the flavor and fun many people had with D&D.
Sounds like a personal problem.
they tried that with 4th Ed. Not only did they fail abysmally at it (as witnessed by the copious amounts of errata produced), it sucked out the flavor and fun many people had with D&D.[/quote]Sounds like a personal problem.
I would like a "Everything is balanced" design goal.
they tried that with 4th Ed. Not only did they fail abysmally at it (as witnessed by the copious amounts of errata produced), it sucked out the flavor and fun many people had with D&D.
Sounds like a personal problem.
Not really. 4th ed being that differnet more or less created Pathfinder, split the fanbase, created an ediiton war and in the end Pathfinder "won". FOr the 1st time ever D&D was beaten by a clone (PF wasn't the 1st one) and alot of players form both sides of the fence have lost there generational loyalty toTSR/WoTC.
THey canb and will buy form other gaming companies. There may even be a large desire forTSR era D&D style as the grognard sites seem to be increasing in size as people fed up with rapid edition cycles (3 in 8 years) think screw it les stick with 2n ed or whatever and houserule it into something we like.
Scary thing is its not just Pathfinder that is a problem. A huge chunk of the 3pp rallyed around Paizo and some of them are making quality product. That could be a problem further down the road should Paizo ever decide to do a Pathfinder 2 or a properly fixed version of 3.5 under the OGL. PF is popular if they actually fixed 3.5 or built a d20 fantasy game from the ground up I think I would be concerned at WoTC.
they tried that with 4th Ed. Not only did they fail abysmally at it (as witnessed by the copious amounts of errata produced), it sucked out the flavor and fun many people had with D&D.[/quote]Sounds like a personal problem.[/quote] Not really. 4th ed
Cool thread, Foxface! I have to admit, I am one of those people that misinterpreted "everything is core". However, I had been aware of the fact that everything followed one basic system, and tt it made optional content easy to add or ignore. Thanks for clarifying!
Cool thread, Foxface! I have to admit, I am one of those people that misinterpreted "everything is core". However, I had been aware of the fact that everything followed one basic system, and tt it made optional content easy to add or ignore. Thanks f
Not really. 4th ed being that differnet more or less created Pathfinder, split the fanbase, created an ediiton war and in the end Pathfinder "won".
You know, I'm sick and tired of people repeating an unproven claim. One which was actually pretty lame to begin with. (The statement "Pathfinder has surpassed D&D in most of the markets that I check," has so many logical holes in it that it could be factually true even if its actual sales were 1 one-millionth that of D&Ds.) If there's actual accounting reports to back up this statement, I'll believe it. I might give it credence in that WotC/Hasbro has been piss-poor on the electronic publishing front. The only evidence that I personally have is anecdotal — and thus, not properly valid, but tend to counter both the sales statement and the preference statement.
• I can walk into any bookstore and comic book store in the east metro Atlanta area — sadly, not that big of a number anymore, once you get past Barnes&Noble — and find D&D books. A couple (though way too far for me to drive on Wednesday nights) even run Encounters games. I've only found PF stuff once. Maybe PF is outselling D&D in that one comic book shop? But it's not outselling it anywhere else here. Hard to outsell something when you're not available.
• I've read and played more game systems than I can remember. 4 of 5 D&D editions (not including Next; I played Basic, but not 3rd), Shadowrun, In Nomine, Pendragon, old World of Darkness (both TT & LARP), Falkenstein, GURPs, Traveler, and at least a half dozen others that I can vaguely remember the gist of but not their names. I was able to teach my wife — a woman who can't figure out how to add contacts to her cell phone or email program — how to play 4e in under an hour. It took me a week to figure out how to make a character in PF.
So, anecdotally, I don't believe your statement that PF is "better" than 4e. Anecodotally, I don't believe PF is outperforming 4e. I will grant you, I may be wrong in at least one of those statements. But 4e did something that PF never did: got me to spend money on their game. And that, to me, is what counts.
You know, I'm sick and tired of people repeating an unproven claim. One which was actually pretty lame to begin with. (The statement "Pathfinder has surpassed D&D in most of the markets that I check," has so many logical holes in it that it could be
How many were we changed the phrasing of one sentence and reprinted the entire section... for context.
Some, but not as many in the PHB as in the other books.
How many were we changed the phrasing of one sentence and reprinted the entire section... for context.[/quote]Some, but not as many in the PHB as in the other books.
I think "everything is core" happened because too many people were getting too split and focused into specific game worlds. Warforged in FR mentioned above for example, were an easy import "back in the day", but I think WotC saw that people would stubbornly keep everything "not core" out of their games.
I don't think it was an issue of balance. I think it was an issue of not being creative enough to pick up a book and import it to your regular game. Many books in 3e have "How to use this book if you're not playing in this world". paragraphs in the front. D&D books were often used to mine ideas and I think non-creative/inspired people were not doing that.
I myself never played Dark Sun, but I loved the idea of canibal halflings.
I'll point to Races of Eberron. The book's trade dress is that of the core books. It doesn't look like an Eberron book. This was done to show that warforged could fit other settings and not be just stuck on Eberron.
I think "everything is core" happened because too many people were getting too split and focused into specific game worlds. Warforged in FR mentioned above for example, were an easy import "back in the day", but I think WotC saw that people would stu
Not really. 4th ed being that differnet more or less created Pathfinder, split the fanbase, created an ediiton war and in the end Pathfinder "won".
You know, I'm sick and tired of people repeating an unproven claim. One which was actually pretty lame to begin with. (The statement "Pathfinder has surpassed D&D in most of the markets that I check," has so many logical holes in it that it could be factually true even if its actual sales were 1 one-millionth that of D&Ds.) If there's actual accounting reports to back up this statement, I'll believe it. I might give it credence in that WotC/Hasbro has been piss-poor on the electronic publishing front. The only evidence that I personally have is anecdotal — and thus, not properly valid, but tend to counter both the sales statement and the preference statement.
• I can walk into any bookstore and comic book store in the east metro Atlanta area — sadly, not that big of a number anymore, once you get past Barnes&Noble — and find D&D books. A couple (though way too far for me to drive on Wednesday nights) even run Encounters games. I've only found PF stuff once. Maybe PF is outselling D&D in that one comic book shop? But it's not outselling it anywhere else here. Hard to outsell something when you're not available.
• I've read and played more game systems than I can remember. 4 of 5 D&D editions (not including Next; I played Basic, but not 3rd), Shadowrun, In Nomine, Pendragon, old World of Darkness (both TT & LARP), Falkenstein, GURPs, Traveler, and at least a half dozen others that I can vaguely remember the gist of but not their names. I was able to teach my wife — a woman who can't figure out how to add contacts to her cell phone or email program — how to play 4e in under an hour. It took me a week to figure out how to make a character in PF.
So, anecdotally, I don't believe your statement that PF is "better" than 4e. Anecodotally, I don't believe PF is outperforming 4e. I will grant you, I may be wrong in at least one of those statements. But 4e did something that PF never did: got me to spend money on their game. And that, to me, is what counts.
Never claimed PF was better than 4th ed as thats subjective. I like it better true and I like SWSE better than Pathfinder. Pathfinder "won" the war in the sense that PF is a viable commercial product. 4th ed has no new books coming out, PF has monthly releases, a minis line and a computer game coming out for it. Thats things D&D used to have. The release of 4th ed split the fanbase and thats not subjective. It was rejected by a large chunk of the 3.5 crowd who voted with their feet. One is still going and seems to be getting bigger or at least more products behind it and 3pp support, the other is dead and here we are testing D&DN. Thats the reality of it feel free to dress it up how you want.
I have over twice as many SWSE books than PF books, and I have around 15 times the amount of 3rd ed material than PF material and about 10 times the amount of 2nd ed material. Not exactly a raging PF fanboy. Its better than 3.5 for the most part and its not 4th ed are its main selling points for me. Still waiting for a fixed 3.5 or maybe a d20 verison of 2nd ed. 4.5 may also do it if they dump AEDU and role structure. I'll see how D&DN turns out and worry about it once its on the book shelf.
You know, I'm sick and tired of people repeating an unproven claim. One which was actually pretty lame to begin with. (The statement "Pathfinder has surpassed D&D in most of the markets that I check," has so many logical holes in it that it could be
While I was one DM who did often question the quality of Dungeon and/or Dragon material (only allowing selected material), the "everything is core" concept was an excellent one as a base.
It didn't stop be having standards for my own home games and campaigns (banning all fae races as PCs for example, as they are evil in my setting) nor for Wizards (the 4th Edition Dark Sun banned large amounts of material) but it did help with overall quality and the POTENTIAL (even if not always used) for crossability.
See that's what house ruling should be for. You changed the flavor of your world by house ruling out specific races for flavor reasons. Not because they were overpowered or broke the game...
See that's what house ruling should be for. You changed the flavor of your world by house ruling out specific races for flavor reasons. Not because they were overpowered or broke the game...
I understand where they were coming from with the policy, but it was a truly poor idea as implimented.
It hurt the notion that a DM can exclude things without any big issue, since the whole idea of "core" had prior to this point been the baseline game, without all of the splat books and add-ons. It also assumed that everything printed was going to receive the same level of playtesting, editing, and careful integration into what had prior to "everything is core" been a relatively small "core" game. Arguably this wasn't the case.
The worst thing in my mind that it created was the notion that anything that was "core" was by default automatically allowed into and found in all of the various campaign settings, with very slender exception. This resulted in races, monsters, and concepts utterly alien to some campaign settings being hamfistedly forced into them, at the expense of their preexistant lore and continuity. FR in particular suffered from this, and in the end barely resembles the setting it was prior to 4e (though the 'everything is core' isn't the only reason it was worked over such as it was).
You can't blame FR on 'everything is core' sorry, that was a pure fluff error on the developers part.
I have no problem with DMs excluding things for flavor reasons, I do have a problem with them having to exclude things to keep the game playable or to fix problems. That's the developers jobs, not the DMs...
You can't blame FR on 'everything is core' sorry, that was a pure fluff error on the developers part.I have no problem with DMs excluding things for flavor reasons, I do have a problem with them having to exclude things to keep the game playable or t
Not really. 4th ed being that differnet more or less created Pathfinder, split the fanbase, created an ediiton war and in the end Pathfinder "won".
You know, I'm sick and tired of people repeating an unproven claim. One which was actually pretty lame to begin with. (The statement "Pathfinder has surpassed D&D in most of the markets that I check," has so many logical holes in it that it could be factually true even if its actual sales were 1 one-millionth that of D&Ds.) If there's actual accounting reports to back up this statement, I'll believe it. I might give it credence in that WotC/Hasbro has been piss-poor on the electronic publishing front. The only evidence that I personally have is anecdotal — and thus, not properly valid, but tend to counter both the sales statement and the preference statement.
• I can walk into any bookstore and comic book store in the east metro Atlanta area — sadly, not that big of a number anymore, once you get past Barnes&Noble — and find D&D books. A couple (though way too far for me to drive on Wednesday nights) even run Encounters games. I've only found PF stuff once. Maybe PF is outselling D&D in that one comic book shop? But it's not outselling it anywhere else here. Hard to outsell something when you're not available.
• I've read and played more game systems than I can remember. 4 of 5 D&D editions (not including Next; I played Basic, but not 3rd), Shadowrun, In Nomine, Pendragon, old World of Darkness (both TT & LARP), Falkenstein, GURPs, Traveler, and at least a half dozen others that I can vaguely remember the gist of but not their names. I was able to teach my wife — a woman who can't figure out how to add contacts to her cell phone or email program — how to play 4e in under an hour. It took me a week to figure out how to make a character in PF.
So, anecdotally, I don't believe your statement that PF is "better" than 4e. Anecodotally, I don't believe PF is outperforming 4e. I will grant you, I may be wrong in at least one of those statements. But 4e did something that PF never did: got me to spend money on their game. And that, to me, is what counts.
Never claimed PF was better than 4th ed as thats subjective. I like it better true and I like SWSE better than Pathfinder. Pathfinder "won" the war in the sense that PF is a viable commercial product. 4th ed has no new books coming out, PF has monthly releases, a minis line and a computer game coming out for it. Thats things D&D used to have. The release of 4th ed split the fanbase and thats not subjective. It was rejected by a large chunk of the 3.5 crowd who voted with their feet. One is still going and seems to be getting bigger or at least more products behind it and 3pp support, the other is dead and here we are testing D&DN. Thats the reality of it feel free to dress it up how you want.
I have over twice as many SWSE books than PF books, and I have around 15 times the amount of 3rd ed material than PF material and about 10 times the amount of 2nd ed material. Not exactly a raging PF fanboy. Its better than 3.5 for the most part and its not 4th ed are its main selling points for me. Still waiting for a fixed 3.5 or maybe a d20 verison of 2nd ed. 4.5 may also do it if they dump AEDU and role structure. I'll see how D&DN turns out and worry about it once its on the book shelf.
You keep misunderstanding how businesses work. A small business would have been absolutely extatic with the sales of 4E and would have kept it going for years also. However if WotC had Paizo, they would have dropped it just as fast as 4E because it wouldn't have met their sales goals. The only time an edition hits the sales goals of WotC and Hasbro is on the release of a new edition when many people rush out and buy the core books. Its the same reason you see factories being shut down in the U.S., its not that they aren't profitable, its that they can be 5% more profitable in a different country. That is the corporate mentality that is in the process of destroying D&D...
You know, I'm sick and tired of people repeating an unproven claim. One which was actually pretty lame to begin with. (The statement "Pathfinder has surpassed D&D in most of the markets that I check," has so many logical holes in it that it could be
I don't buy into that Lokiare. Some money is better than no money and 3.5 was printed up to the end more or less, same thing with 2nd ed and 1st ed prinitng overlapped with 2nd ed.
4th ed is the first ediiton to go oop 2 years befroe the next ediiton hits the shelves. I don't think that is a good sign no matter how you cut it. DDI is still up so I would assume thats still making money. I'm not disputing 4th ed sold well to start with but it seems clear it did not retain the people who tried it.
I more or less expected PF to be a bit more successful than the other D&D clones but when they are supporting minis, a PC game is in the works and alot of 3pp has joined them thats not a great sign either.
Put simply the "yay 4th ed failed part" is vastly outweighed by "doh I'm not getting a fixed 3.5 anytime soon" and the "doh D&DN in its current form is boring" followed by "doh I would prefer d20 2nd ed or maybe 4.5 over D&DN".
Pathfinder won I suppose but its a own goal and a pyric victory IMHO.
I don't buy into that Lokiare. Some money is better than no money and 3.5 was printed up to the end more or less, same thing with 2nd ed and 1st ed prinitng overlapped with 2nd ed. 4th ed is the first ediiton to go oop 2 years befroe the next ediiton
Not to cause more division or start a flame war but, Pathfinder is currently outselling Dungeons and Dragons 4e. on Amazon .com. Pathfinder is #6 and 4th edition is #10 on the Fantasy gaming best sellers list. There are obviously multiple reasons for that, one being that 4e. support is ending with no new products for this year currently at least. To give insight as to the number of Pathfinder releases for 2013 let me sum up my observstions by saying Paizo is hawking some major numbers including, supplements, Campaign settings, miniatures, exet. it is a valid observation IMO that Pathdfinder has won over the 3.5 crowd and is gaining Major ground in the Fantasy gaming market. The game is fully supported online at no cost to the consumer and even expanded rules are a mouse click away and available. An online store is of course included for the Paper and pdf copies of the game. This info can be researched @D20pfpfsd.com/home the best sellers list can easily be seen @ Amazon.com, under the heading Fantasy Gaming best sellers. As a side note let me say that P.F. dominates much of the top 20 of the Best sellers list.
Not to cause more division or start a flame war but, Pathfinder is currently outselling Dungeons and Dragons 4e. on Amazon .com. Pathfinder is #6 and 4th edition is #10 on the Fantasy gaming best sellers list. There are obviously multiple reasons for
Not to cause more division or start a flame war but, Pathfinder is currently outselling Dungeons and Dragons 4e. on Amazon .com. Pathfinder is #6 and 4th edition is #10 on the Fantasy gaming best sellers list. There are obviously multiple reasons for that, one being that 4e. support is ending with no new products for this year currently at least. To give insight as to the number of Pathfinder releases for 2013 let me sum up my observstions by saying Paizo is hawking some major numbers including, supplements, Campaign settings, miniatures, exet. it is a valid observation IMO that Pathdfinder has won over the 3.5 crowd and is gaining Major ground in the Fantasy gaming market. The game is fully supported online at no cost to the consumer and even expanded rules are a mouse click away and available. An online store is of course included for the Paper and pdf copies of the game. This info can be researched @D20pfpfsd.com/home the best sellers list can easily be seen @ Amazon.com, under the heading Fantasy Gaming best sellers. As a side note let me say that P.F. dominates much of the top 20 of the Best sellers list.
Yup, it's pretty easy to win a race against someone not running.
Yup, it's pretty easy to win a race against someone not running.
Not to cause more division or start a flame war but, Pathfinder is currently outselling Dungeons and Dragons 4e. on Amazon .com. Pathfinder is #6 and 4th edition is #10 on the Fantasy gaming best sellers list. There are obviously multiple reasons for that, one being that 4e. support is ending with no new products for this year currently at least. To give insight as to the number of Pathfinder releases for 2013 let me sum up my observstions by saying Paizo is hawking some major numbers including, supplements, Campaign settings, miniatures, exet. it is a valid observation IMO that Pathdfinder has won over the 3.5 crowd and is gaining Major ground in the Fantasy gaming market. The game is fully supported online at no cost to the consumer and even expanded rules are a mouse click away and available. An online store is of course included for the Paper and pdf copies of the game. This info can be researched @D20pfpfsd.com/home the best sellers list can easily be seen @ Amazon.com, under the heading Fantasy Gaming best sellers. As a side note let me say that P.F. dominates much of the top 20 of the Best sellers list.
Yup, it's pretty easy to win a race against someone not running.
Actually, according to the rumors, Pathfinder surpassed D&D in end 2010 or 2011, when Essentials get released, and all products would be produced with his design. Design that was heavily criticized by 4e fans.
Actually, according to the rumors, Pathfinder surpassed D&D in end 2010 or 2011, when Essentials get released, and all products would be produced with his design. Design that was heavily criticized by 4e fans.
Maybe I'm cynical (OK, no 'maybe' at all, I'm cynical), but it seemed to me that the 'everything is core' maxim was a direct and transparent marketing ploy in response to the tendency of DMs, frustrated with the complexity and endemic power-gaming of 3.x, to run 'core only' games, to try to narrow players' options enough that they could run a game with a hint of balance and playabitity to it. Not that it worked: the most broken things in 3.5 were right there in the PH, CoDzilla, most obviously, for instance. 4e was meant to be less manifestly broken and exploitable, and the 'everything is core' marketing spin could, perhaps, most charitably, be construed as trying to get people to give 4e a chance to prove that it wasn't another optimizer's wet-dream full of fiddly traps and rewards for system mastery. Of course, that overlooked the fact that a large segment of the fan base /wanted/ a manifestly broken and exloitable optimizer's wet-dream full of fiddly trap options and blatant over-rewards for system mastery...
The big (rhetorical) question I have is whether those modules will be designed in the spirit of 4e, in that a DM would be able to add them without having to excessively worry about upsetting balance or the core play experience.
Little about the playtest nor the attitude of WotC articles about 5e suggests that 4e even existed, so I'd expect the opposite: that what balance there may be in 'core' 5e can be expected to go out the window the moment you apply a module. (And, it's starting to sound like the 'core' might be stripped down so far as to not even have classes, perhaps little more than the d20 core mechanic of "roll d20 + bonuses vs DC.")
And the followup question, should DMs even worry about it at all, even if the modules did "upset balance"?
Balance does not seem to be a meaningful consideration, WotC commentary dismisses balance as impossible, and promises 'guidelines' for those who want to take a stab at it.
Maybe I'm cynical (OK, no 'maybe' at all, I'm cynical), but it seemed to me that the 'everything is core' maxim was a direct and transparent marketing ploy in response to the tendency of DMs, frustrated with the complexity and endemic power-gaming of
Balance does not seem to be a meaningful consideration, WotC commentary dismisses balance as impossible, and promises 'guidelines' for those who want to take a stab at it.
Balance does not seem to be a meaningful consideration, WotC commentary dismisses balance as impossible, and promises 'guidelines' for those who want to take a stab at it.
Well that's just flatly wrong, in all regards.
Balance is impossible (and undesirable):
"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....
Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game."
" DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM's hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly."
Not to cause more division or start a flame war but, Pathfinder is currently outselling Dungeons and Dragons 4e. on Amazon .com. Pathfinder is #6 and 4th edition is #10 on the Fantasy gaming best sellers list. There are obviously multiple reasons for that, one being that 4e. support is ending with no new products for this year currently at least. To give insight as to the number of Pathfinder releases for 2013 let me sum up my observstions by saying Paizo is hawking some major numbers including, supplements, Campaign settings, miniatures, exet. it is a valid observation IMO that Pathdfinder has won over the 3.5 crowd and is gaining Major ground in the Fantasy gaming market. The game is fully supported online at no cost to the consumer and even expanded rules are a mouse click away and available. An online store is of course included for the Paper and pdf copies of the game. This info can be researched @D20pfpfsd.com/home the best sellers list can easily be seen @ Amazon.com, under the heading Fantasy Gaming best sellers. As a side note let me say that P.F. dominates much of the top 20 of the Best sellers list.
Yup, it's pretty easy to win a race against someone not running.
Actually, according to the rumors, Pathfinder surpassed D&D in end 2010 or 2011, when Essentials get released, and all products would be produced with his design. Design that was heavily criticized by 4e fans.
They are just that, however. Rumors :P Neither company releases their sales figures to the public so it would be really hard to prove either way.
Actually, according to the rumors, Pathfinder surpassed D&D in end 2010 or 2011, when Essentials get released, and all products would be produced with his design. Design that was heavily criticized by 4e fans.[/quote]They are just that, however. Rumo
Not to cause more division or start a flame war but, Pathfinder is currently outselling Dungeons and Dragons 4e. on Amazon .com. Pathfinder is #6 and 4th edition is #10 on the Fantasy gaming best sellers list. There are obviously multiple reasons for that, one being that 4e. support is ending with no new products for this year currently at least. To give insight as to the number of Pathfinder releases for 2013 let me sum up my observstions by saying Paizo is hawking some major numbers including, supplements, Campaign settings, miniatures, exet. it is a valid observation IMO that Pathdfinder has won over the 3.5 crowd and is gaining Major ground in the Fantasy gaming market. The game is fully supported online at no cost to the consumer and even expanded rules are a mouse click away and available. An online store is of course included for the Paper and pdf copies of the game. This info can be researched @D20pfpfsd.com/home the best sellers list can easily be seen @ Amazon.com, under the heading Fantasy Gaming best sellers. As a side note let me say that P.F. dominates much of the top 20 of the Best sellers list.
Yup, it's pretty easy to win a race against someone not running.
Kind of the point. 4th ed was more or less the 1st ediiton of D&D to exit the race that early in its edition cycle. In less than 2 years of being released PF "won" and that was while 4th ed was still in print and it may have been within 1 year/15 months.
When did the 4th ed printing cycle get cut in half? The haters were caling doom and gloom then but they also canceled the minis line and sure enough PF starts runing minis.
Yup, it's pretty easy to win a race against someone not running.[/quote] Kind of the point. 4th ed was more or less the 1st ediiton of D&D to exit the race that early in its edition cycle. In less than 2 years of being released PF "won" and that was
Balance does not seem to be a meaningful consideration, WotC commentary dismisses balance as impossible, and promises 'guidelines' for those who want to take a stab at it.
Well that's just flatly wrong, in all regards.
Balance is impossible (and undesirable):
"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....
Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game."
" DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM's hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly."
What you said, and what he said, are not the same thing. Perfect balance is impossible: balance is not.
Well that's just flatly wrong, in all regards.[/quote]Balance is impossible (and undesirable):DM's who want balance can have some guidelines:[/quote]What you said, and what he said, are not the same thing. Perfect balance is impossible: balance is n
Not to cause more division or start a flame war but, Pathfinder is currently outselling Dungeons and Dragons 4e. on Amazon .com. Pathfinder is #6 and 4th edition is #10 on the Fantasy gaming best sellers list. There are obviously multiple reasons for that, one being that 4e. support is ending with no new products for this year currently at least. To give insight as to the number of Pathfinder releases for 2013 let me sum up my observstions by saying Paizo is hawking some major numbers including, supplements, Campaign settings, miniatures, exet. it is a valid observation IMO that Pathdfinder has won over the 3.5 crowd and is gaining Major ground in the Fantasy gaming market. The game is fully supported online at no cost to the consumer and even expanded rules are a mouse click away and available. An online store is of course included for the Paper and pdf copies of the game. This info can be researched @D20pfpfsd.com/home the best sellers list can easily be seen @ Amazon.com, under the heading Fantasy Gaming best sellers. As a side note let me say that P.F. dominates much of the top 20 of the Best sellers list.
Yup, it's pretty easy to win a race against someone not running.
Kind of the point. 4th ed was more or less the 1st ediiton of D&D to exit the race that early in its edition cycle. In less than 2 years of being released PF "won" and that was while 4th ed was still in print and it may have been within 1 year/15 months.
When did the 4th ed printing cycle get cut in half? The haters were caling doom and gloom then but they also canceled the minis line and sure enough PF starts runing minis.
Read my post. It was in the Essentials release. Here:
Jan 9, 2013 -- 3:48AM, Brightmantle wrote: Not to cause more division or start a flame war but, Pathfinder is currently outselling Dungeons and Dragons 4e. on Amazon .com. Pathfinder is #6 and 4th edition is #10 on the Fantasy gaming best sellers list. There are obviously multiple reasons for that, one being that 4e. support is ending with no new products for this year currently at least. To give insight as to the number of Pathfinder releases for 2013 let me sum up my observstions by saying Paizo is hawking some major numbers including, supplements, Campaign settings, miniatures, exet. it is a valid observation IMO that Pathdfinder has won over the 3.5 crowd and is gaining Major ground in the Fantasy gaming market. The game is fully supported online at no cost to the consumer and even expanded rules are a mouse click away and available. An online store is of course included for the Paper and pdf copies of the game. This info can be researched @D20pfpfsd.com/home the best sellers list can easily be seen @ Amazon.com, under the heading Fantasy Gaming best sellers. As a side note let me say that P.F. dominates much of the top 20 of the Best sellers list.
Yup, it's pretty easy to win a race against someone not running.
Actually, according to the rumors, Pathfinder surpassed D&D in end 2010 or 2011, when Essentials get released, and all products would be produced with his design. Design that was heavily criticized by 4e fans.
But also reads Jenks post.
Yup, it's pretty easy to win a race against someone not running.[/quote]Kind of the point. 4th ed was more or less the 1st ediiton of D&D to exit the race that early in its edition cycle. In less than 2 years of being released PF "won" and that was w
It became "official" late 2010 or early 2011 IDK which. The rumour is it was 6 months ealrier which would be mid 2010 roughly.
I'm not sure when it was announced 4th ed was going on a reduced production run, I'm guessig early 2011. Whatever the exact date was its only around two and a half years into 4th eds cycle. Thats not a good sign t he optimists took the marketing line "we are going to focus on quality".
Same thing more or less happened in the 3.5 days. The first year or two had the good books come out (assuming you like 3.5 of course), the later half quality tended to plummet.
It became "official" late 2010 or early 2011 IDK which. The rumour is it was 6 months ealrier which would be mid 2010 roughly. I'm not sure when it was announced 4th ed was going on a reduced production run, I'm guessig early 2011. Whatever the exact
How exactly are you defining balance? Because "balanced" has a pretty concrete definition.
No it doesn't. Just look at any one of the multi-hundred post threads on the subject.
Perfect balance means no deviation from the balanced state. This is enforced balance, and it is bad. It makes the game boring, and the devs have it exactly right in this regard. Everybody sits in their little box, and nobody can go outside of it for fear that someone's feelings might be hurt. Perfect balance is tic-tac-toe. And it's utterly pointless.
Now, once you dispense with the idea of perfect balance, then you get to the situation where imbalance can exist, but balance is still maintained. At first this appears to not make any sense at all: isn't it not balanced, if it's imbalanced? And the answer is "not really."
There are many different kinds of imbalance. Some are bad, some are good. Some are necessary, even. To illustrate, let's look at some of the good ones.
Fighters and Wizards don't have the same AC. This is an imbalance. But this is an imbalance that generates good gameplay, as the tactics of each reflect this imbalance, and variability is created. Of course, the meaning of this imbalance can vary widely. If nobody is attacking them, then the AC difference doesn't matter. If they're surrounded by big ogres, then the AC difference matters quite a lot.
These sorts of effects are transient imbalances, and they are the core of gameplay. In all genres. A situation presents itself, two entities don't have the same conditions, therefore an imbalance is generated. Entity one has to do something in order to capitalize on the imbalance or mitigate it, as does entity two. This is present in everything from chess to football. The important part is that it is, in fact, transient: change the conditions, and the imbalance can be meaningless or even reversed in value. The agency of the player is maintained - what the player does determines how the imbalance affects the outcome.
Structural imbalance, on the other hand, is usually what people mean when they say they want the game to be balanced. They want a level playing field, they don't want the end result dicated by one initial choice. A caster compared to a noncaster at high level in 3.5 is a good example of this. Structural imbalance is bad for gameplay, in all forms. Furthermore, structural imbalance that varies over time does not cancel itself out. It is not 'balanced' that a wizard is crap at low levels but godly at high levels in 3.5. It just means that there are two different structural imbalances. They each ruin the gameplay, but in different ways. With structural imbalance, the agency of the player is removed - it doesn't matter what you do, the result is always going to be skewed in one direction.
The important part is to figure out whether an imbalance you've found is transient or structural. And that's not a strictly objective consideration. The severity and prevalence of an imbalance go into this determination, and those are both variable and subjective. Severity can be mathematically determined, yes, but how much people care is subjective. Prevalence can be sampled and an expectation value determined, but each individual table is going to have its own campaign style with its own frequency, and the population behavior won't matter to it.
But to paint broad generalizations like "they don't care about balance" is flatly wrong, shortsighted, and ignorant.
No it doesn't. Just look at any one of the multi-hundred post threads on the subject.Perfect balance means no deviation from the balanced state. This is enforced balance, and it is bad. It makes the game boring, and the devs have it exactly right
Thing is, for many 4e fans, Essentials was not 4e.
I just don't get this attitude at all. I can understand people not liking essentials. Theres alot of 3.5 splats I don't like but I do not claim that the minatures handbook, or the Complete Psion or the legacy weapon book is not 3.5.
I think the hardcore 4th ed players got an ideal in their head about the perfect version of 4th ed (whatever that is) and anyhting that deviated from this ideal was bad and not 4th ed. Even if essentials was a blatant grab at the old school crowd (which I don't see as essentials is still 4th ed to me). Maybe it was the everything is core mentality that was pushed in 4th ed IDK. In 2nd ed and 3rd ed if you didn't like something you basically ignored it. Players Option books in 2nd ed I don't think were that popular or at least on the grognard sites they are not but you don't really see people claiming they are not second ad and they do not get blamed for TSR tanking and 2nd ed trundled on for another 4-5 years after them.
Thats probably why I am sceptical of the blame essentials mentality and to me they ither indicate 4th ed bloated to fast as there is really only so much you can do with XYZ damage and 20 odd status effects form a design point of view or 4th ed was in trouble in 2009 and essentials was a rush job to appeal to the 3.5 crowd which I doubt as the 3.5 crowd doesn't really like them either because its still 4th ed at the end of the day. I liked parts of essentials but I only dealt with it via DDI and I have never seen a dead tree format essentials book.
Maybe it was the essentials length as a rubbish 3rd ed book was a stand alone product. THe next one might be better just wait and see.
I just don't get this attitude at all. I can understand people not liking essentials. Theres alot of 3.5 splats I don't like but I do not claim that the minatures handbook, or the Complete Psion or the legacy weapon book is not 3.5. I think the hardc
The design goals of Essentials were different from the original 4e design goals. Remember that every product that came after was released under Essentials design. One of the ones who disliked Essentials could give you a better view on the subject. I can talk about my preferences another time, but people really didn't liked.
The design goals of Essentials were different from the original 4e design goals. Remember that every product that came after was released under Essentials design. One of the ones who disliked Essentials could give you a better view on the subject. I
How exactly are you defining balance? Because "balanced" has a pretty concrete definition.
No it doesn't. Just look at any one of the multi-hundred post threads on the subject.
Perfect balance means no deviation from the balanced state. This is enforced balance, and it is bad. It makes the game boring, and the devs have it exactly right in this regard.
Perfect balance is, indeed, impossible. Thus, the idea that it might theoretically be 'bad' or 'boring' is irrelevant - no matter how hard you try for balance, it won't be /perfectly/ balanced. At the imperfect levels of balance we have to work with, complex, better-balanced games give more viable/meaningful options than equally complex but poorly balanced ones, because they have fewer 'trap' options and no (or few & swiftly errata'd) overwhelmingly superior ones.
While the impossibility of perfect balance is fine, as far as it goes, what really matters is what you take from that truism. Do you acknowledge that perfect balance is impossible, and affirm that you should always strive for the best balance possible? Or do you use the truism to CYA, and dismiss any balance problems? The L&L articles that so much as acknowledge that balance might be a design consideration seem to come down on the side of dismissing it. The game can't be perfectly balanced, so don't complain when it's not balanced, at all.
If that sounds cynical, BTW, that's because I'm self-admittedly very cynical. ;(
No it doesn't. Just look at any one of the multi-hundred post threads on the subject.Perfect balance means no deviation from the balanced state. This is enforced balance, and it is bad. It makes the game boring, and the devs have it exactly right
Thing is, for many 4e fans, Essentials was not 4e.
I just don't get this attitude at all. I can understand people not liking essentials. Theres alot of 3.5 splats I don't like but I do not claim that the minatures handbook, or the Complete Psion or the legacy weapon book is not 3.5.
It's similar to the attitude that 4e "wasn't D&D." You have a substantive change in direction, and that can feel like a completely different thing, rather than just a different take on the same thing.
To the extent that 4e could be put in the same set as other eds of D&D, putting Essentials in the same sub-set as 4e isn't unreasonable. Though 4e pre-Essentials and 4e post-Essentials do have some important, fundamental differences in design & design phillosophy - and in marketing. And, the 'failure' of 4e and ascendency of Pathfinder (in terms of sales) does coincide with the torch being passed from core 4e to Essentials. FWLIW, commercial success not being a strong indicator of quality for RPGs...
I just don't get this attitude at all. I can understand people not liking essentials. Theres alot of 3.5 splats I don't like but I do not claim that the minatures handbook, or the Complete Psion or the legacy weapon book is not 3.5.[/quote]It's simil
The design goals of Essentials were different from the original 4e design goals. Remember that every product that came after was released under Essentials design. One of the ones who disliked Essentials could give you a better view on the subject. I can talk about my preferences another time, but people really didn't liked.
I think thats what I don't understand. not sure if they stated wht 4th eds design goals were or if people kind of projected there own thoughts onto it. Essnetials seems balanced if a little boring and from what I have heard essentials characters won't create massive problems balance wise in a 4th ed game. Balance being a key goal of 4th ed I suppose.
All sorts of weird stuff go tried out in 2nd and 3rd ed in splats and alot of it doesn't match up with the usual D&D clices and tropes. Did 4th ed fans become very reactionary due to the edition wars? Anything that was different was bad? Thats what I don't get. Maybe Players Option was better recieved in the 2nd ed days, and 3.5 trundled on for another 5 years after 3.0 and essentials was more compatable with 4th ed than the 3.0 books were with 3.5.
Thats why I think there were other factors at work with essentials. Crap D&D books are nothing new.
I think thats what I don't understand. not sure if they stated wht 4th eds design goals were or if people kind of projected there own thoughts onto it. Essnetials seems balanced if a little boring and from what I have heard essentials characters won'
Do you acknowledge that perfect balance is impossible, and affirm that you should always strive for the best balance possible? Or do you use the truism to CYA, and dismiss any balance problems?
What you quoted, is both actually:
"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....
Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game."
The CYA is the first two sentences. But that last sentence, about it leading to a boring game, is indeed about striving for the best balance possible. With "best" meaning something other than "perfect." This is a crucial point, and I don't care how cynical you think you are, it's worth attempting to understand. Whether it's bad or boring is most certainly not irrelevant, because the goal is to design a game that isn't bad or boring. In fact, I'd argue that whether it's boring is way more relevant than just about any other criteria you could use.
What you quoted, is both actually:"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....Building everything i
I don't buy into that Lokiare. Some money is better than no money and 3.5 was printed up to the end more or less, same thing with 2nd ed and 1st ed prinitng overlapped with 2nd ed.
4th ed is the first ediiton to go oop 2 years befroe the next ediiton hits the shelves. I don't think that is a good sign no matter how you cut it. DDI is still up so I would assume thats still making money. I'm not disputing 4th ed sold well to start with but it seems clear it did not retain the people who tried it.
I more or less expected PF to be a bit more successful than the other D&D clones but when they are supporting minis, a PC game is in the works and alot of 3pp has joined them thats not a great sign either.
Put simply the "yay 4th ed failed part" is vastly outweighed by "doh I'm not getting a fixed 3.5 anytime soon" and the "doh D&DN in its current form is boring" followed by "doh I would prefer d20 2nd ed or maybe 4.5 over D&DN".
Pathfinder won I suppose but its a own goal and a pyric victory IMHO.
Whether you buy into that doesn't matter. Its simply how businesses work. If they think they can make more money by doing something else, even if it is only a 5% increase they are required by corporate bylaws to pursue that new method. They are required to increase profit every quarter or lose their jobs. That is how corporations work. So when they saw pathfinder take the lead, they knew there was a way to make more money, so they scrapped 4E and chased after it...
Whether you buy into that doesn't matter. Its simply how businesses work. If they think they can make more money by doing something else, even if it is only a 5% increase they are required by corporate bylaws to pursue that new method. They are requi
Balance does not seem to be a meaningful consideration, WotC commentary dismisses balance as impossible, and promises 'guidelines' for those who want to take a stab at it.
Well that's just flatly wrong, in all regards.
Balance is impossible (and undesirable):
"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....
Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game."
" DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM's hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly."
Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...
Well that's just flatly wrong, in all regards.[/quote]Balance is impossible (and undesirable):DM's who want balance can have some guidelines:[/quote]Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I onl
Thing is, for many 4e fans, Essentials was not 4e.
I just don't get this attitude at all. I can understand people not liking essentials. Theres alot of 3.5 splats I don't like but I do not claim that the minatures handbook, or the Complete Psion or the legacy weapon book is not 3.5.
I think the hardcore 4th ed players got an ideal in their head about the perfect version of 4th ed (whatever that is) and anyhting that deviated from this ideal was bad and not 4th ed. Even if essentials was a blatant grab at the old school crowd (which I don't see as essentials is still 4th ed to me). Maybe it was the everything is core mentality that was pushed in 4th ed IDK. In 2nd ed and 3rd ed if you didn't like something you basically ignored it. Players Option books in 2nd ed I don't think were that popular or at least on the grognard sites they are not but you don't really see people claiming they are not second ad and they do not get blamed for TSR tanking and 2nd ed trundled on for another 4-5 years after them.
Thats probably why I am sceptical of the blame essentials mentality and to me they ither indicate 4th ed bloated to fast as there is really only so much you can do with XYZ damage and 20 odd status effects form a design point of view or 4th ed was in trouble in 2009 and essentials was a rush job to appeal to the 3.5 crowd which I doubt as the 3.5 crowd doesn't really like them either because its still 4th ed at the end of the day. I liked parts of essentials but I only dealt with it via DDI and I have never seen a dead tree format essentials book.
Maybe it was the essentials length as a rubbish 3rd ed book was a stand alone product. THe next one might be better just wait and see.
Essentials was 4e, in the sense that it had 4e printed on the cover, so to speak. In many ways, it diverted from "traditional" 4e design principles in such a way as to not appeal to many (but not all) 4e fans.
If what you liked about 4e wasn't evident in Essentials, then you probably didn't like Essentials, even though it "belonged" to your favorite edition.
I just don't get this attitude at all. I can understand people not liking essentials. Theres alot of 3.5 splats I don't like but I do not claim that the minatures handbook, or the Complete Psion or the legacy weapon book is not 3.5. I think the hardc
How exactly are you defining balance? Because "balanced" has a pretty concrete definition.
No it doesn't. Just look at any one of the multi-hundred post threads on the subject.
Perfect balance means no deviation from the balanced state. This is enforced balance, and it is bad. It makes the game boring, and the devs have it exactly right in this regard.
Perfect balance is, indeed, impossible. Thus, the idea that it might theoretically be 'bad' or 'boring' is irrelevant - no matter how hard you try for balance, it won't be /perfectly/ balanced. At the imperfect levels of balance we have to work with, complex, better-balanced games give more viable/meaningful options than equally complex but poorly balanced ones, because they have fewer 'trap' options and no (or few & swiftly errata'd) overwhelmingly superior ones.
While the impossibility of perfect balance is fine, as far as it goes, what really matters is what you take from that truism. Do you acknowledge that perfect balance is impossible, and affirm that you should always strive for the best balance possible? Or do you use the truism to CYA, and dismiss any balance problems? The L&L articles that so much as acknowledge that balance might be a design consideration seem to come down on the side of dismissing it. The game can't be perfectly balanced, so don't complain when it's not balanced, at all.
If that sounds cynical, BTW, that's because I'm self-admittedly very cynical. ;(
Please stop repeating the fallacy that 'perfect balance is impossible'. Perfect balance IS possible, its simply not worth the trouble of pursuing. It can be accomplished, but it probably shouldn't as it would take 10 years and some very powerful software and hardware to run all possible combinations and then permute them into usable data, modify, and then repeat until they had a final product. Instead perfect balance is not worth pursuing...
No it doesn't. Just look at any one of the multi-hundred post threads on the subject.Perfect balance means no deviation from the balanced state. This is enforced balance, and it is bad. It makes the game boring, and the devs have it exactly right
Balance does not seem to be a meaningful consideration, WotC commentary dismisses balance as impossible, and promises 'guidelines' for those who want to take a stab at it.
Well that's just flatly wrong, in all regards.
Balance is impossible (and undesirable):
"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....
Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game."
" DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM's hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly."
Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...
Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?
Well that's just flatly wrong, in all regards.[/quote]Balance is impossible (and undesirable):DM's who want balance can have some guidelines:[/quote]Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I onl
Balance does not seem to be a meaningful consideration, WotC commentary dismisses balance as impossible, and promises 'guidelines' for those who want to take a stab at it.
Well that's just flatly wrong, in all regards.
Balance is impossible (and undesirable):
"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....
Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game."
" DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM's hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly."
Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...
Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?
Not if its cursed or has dragon skin and claws. I have to be able to play it as a Wizard with all the traditional fluff that goes with it and not be tied into things like innate abilities and limited spell lists that are missing iconic Wizard spells. If they create a second arcane class called a "Mage" and it is a carbon copy of 4E's Wizard, I would be fine with that...
Well that's just flatly wrong, in all regards.[/quote]Balance is impossible (and undesirable):DM's who want balance can have some guidelines:[/quote]Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I onl
I think thats what I don't understand. not sure if they stated wht 4th eds design goals were or if people kind of projected there own thoughts onto it. Essnetials seems balanced if a little boring and from what I have heard essentials characters won't create massive problems balance wise in a 4th ed game. Balance being a key goal of 4th ed I suppose.
Were Essentials characters fundamentally over or underpowered? In most cases, no (coughcoughVampirecough). What they did lack was equitable resources and freedom of choice compared to "old" 4e, all in the name of simplicity.
Was simplicity a wrong thing to pursue? I won't say that unequivocally. I personally didn't care for it, nor desired it, for a number of reasons, but I won't deny the appeal.
Part of the appeal of 4e to people like me was the near balance in effectiveness, yes, but it was also the equitable resources and general uniform structure to the design that made encounter and adventure planning easier, as well as made "sharing the spotlight" a little easier, since every character had a means to shine in their own way in each pillar.
Essentials lacked that in some respects.
Were Essentials characters fundamentally over or underpowered? In most cases, no (coughcoughVampirecough). What they did lack was equitable resources and freedom of choice compared to "old" 4e, all in the name of simplicity.Was simplicity a wrong t
Thing is, for many 4e fans, Essentials was not 4e.
I just don't get this attitude at all. I can understand people not liking essentials. Theres alot of 3.5 splats I don't like but I do not claim that the minatures handbook, or the Complete Psion or the legacy weapon book is not 3.5.
I think the hardcore 4th ed players got an ideal in their head about the perfect version of 4th ed (whatever that is) and anyhting that deviated from this ideal was bad and not 4th ed. Even if essentials was a blatant grab at the old school crowd (which I don't see as essentials is still 4th ed to me). Maybe it was the everything is core mentality that was pushed in 4th ed IDK. In 2nd ed and 3rd ed if you didn't like something you basically ignored it. Players Option books in 2nd ed I don't think were that popular or at least on the grognard sites they are not but you don't really see people claiming they are not second ad and they do not get blamed for TSR tanking and 2nd ed trundled on for another 4-5 years after them.
Thats probably why I am sceptical of the blame essentials mentality and to me they ither indicate 4th ed bloated to fast as there is really only so much you can do with XYZ damage and 20 odd status effects form a design point of view or 4th ed was in trouble in 2009 and essentials was a rush job to appeal to the 3.5 crowd which I doubt as the 3.5 crowd doesn't really like them either because its still 4th ed at the end of the day. I liked parts of essentials but I only dealt with it via DDI and I have never seen a dead tree format essentials book.
Maybe it was the essentials length as a rubbish 3rd ed book was a stand alone product. THe next one might be better just wait and see.
Zardnaar, I am fine with folks differing on opinions of their favorite edition of the D&D game , however I would request as a Matter of respect that you refrain from using such edition warring names such as 4 venger, and grognard. These terms imply a judgement of others prefered playstyles and will only invoke flame and grate on peoples emotions. If you want to use either derogatory term to describe oneself then that is a self definition. I.E. I Brightmantle an old school Pre WOTC D&D fan am a grognard. Not "I visit the Grognard sites and see _ ". You are inviting a flame war. I appriciate your opinions and insight but will report you if you continue this behavior. It is Baiting for an edition war. Nothing personal. Brightmantle, 1st Knight of the Brave order of WTF. Representing the entire D&D fanbase and welcoming Multi Edition Input to make Next the Best D&D ever, "Edition wars kill players and that kills D&D"
I just don't get this attitude at all. I can understand people not liking essentials. Theres alot of 3.5 splats I don't like but I do not claim that the minatures handbook, or the Complete Psion or the legacy weapon book is not 3.5. I think the hardc
Lokiare do you expect the mage on release though? Class varients have usually been in splats.
Foxface I understand people not liking essentials, I don't understand claims that its not 4th ed- see comments about 2nd ed 3rd ed having rubbish splats as well.
Brightmantle I'll try to change some of the wording. I am hard to offend on a personal level and it doesn't bother me if people call me a grognard or various other labels or 4 letter words.
I can understand why people don't like XYZ edition of the game but a 2nd ed sourcebook is still a second ed sourcebook even if its rubbish sound better?
Lokiare do you expect the mage on release though? Class varients have usually been in splats. Foxface I understand people not liking essentials, I don't understand claims that its not 4th ed- see comments about 2nd ed 3rd ed having rubbish splats as
I think thats what I don't understand. not sure if they stated wht 4th eds design goals were or if people kind of projected there own thoughts onto it. Essnetials seems balanced if a little boring and from what I have heard essentials characters won't create massive problems balance wise in a 4th ed game. Balance being a key goal of 4th ed I suppose.
Were Essentials characters fundamentally over or underpowered? In most cases, no (coughcoughVampirecough). What they did lack was equitable resources and freedom of choice compared to "old" 4e, all in the name of simplicity.
Was simplicity a wrong thing to pursue? I won't say that unequivocally. I personally didn't care for it, nor desired it, for a number of reasons, but I won't deny the appeal.
Part of the appeal of 4e to people like me was the near balance in effectiveness, yes, but it was also the equitable resources and general uniform structure to the design that made encounter and adventure planning easier, as well as made "sharing the spotlight" a little easier, since every character had a means to shine in their own way in each pillar.
Essentials lacked that in some respects.
Exactly!
If they had create a new Fighter class feature that was the same as the slayers and simply added them repeats of the same encounter power whenever they leveled up and got a new power, and then made a kind of template character that had all those powers pre chosen, I don't think anyone would have had a problem with the new 'Slayer' Fighter. Instead they locked the new class into simple land with no choices...
Were Essentials characters fundamentally over or underpowered? In most cases, no (coughcoughVampirecough). What they did lack was equitable resources and freedom of choice compared to "old" 4e, all in the name of simplicity.Was simplicity a wrong t
Foxface I understand people not liking essentials, I don't understand claims that its not 4th ed- see comments about 2nd ed 3rd ed having rubbish splats as well.
This is, Essential was not just splatbooks. Many people call it 4.5. Just for you to have some idea: if you have the Essentials products, you don't even need the 3 core books, and every splatbook released for 4e after followed the design style of Essentials, not 4e Core. In the 4e foruns, I remember people separating 4e into 4e Core (before Essentials) and 4e Essentials (Essentials and after).
This is, Essential was not just splatbooks. Many people call it 4.5. Just for you to have some idea: if you have the Essentials products, you don't even need the 3 core books, and every splatbook released for 4e after followed the design style of Ess
Lokiare do you expect the mage on release though? Class varients have usually been in splats.
Foxface I understand people not liking essentials, I don't understand claims that its not 4th ed- see comments about 2nd ed 3rd ed having rubbish splats as well.
Brightmantle I'll try to change some of the wording. I am hard to offend on a personal level and it doesn't bother me if people call me a grognard or various other labels or 4 letter words.
I can understand why people don't like XYZ edition of the game but a 2nd ed sourcebook is still a second ed sourcebook even if its rubbish sound better?
I absolutely expect the class on release, or something that would do the same thing like swappable casting systems or traditions that can turn any spell into an encounter spell or whatever, but yeah, it has to be in the first run of books. I'm not going to wait a long time just to get a playable class...
I absolutely expect the class on release, or something that would do the same thing like swappable casting systems or traditions that can turn any spell into an encounter spell or whatever, but yeah, it has to be in the first run of books. I'm not go
Lokiare do you expect the mage on release though? Class varients have usually been in splats.
Foxface I understand people not liking essentials, I don't understand claims that its not 4th ed- see comments about 2nd ed 3rd ed having rubbish splats as well.
Brightmantle I'll try to change some of the wording. I am hard to offend on a personal level and it doesn't bother me if people call me a grognard or various other labels or 4 letter words.
I can understand why people don't like XYZ edition of the game but a 2nd ed sourcebook is still a second ed sourcebook even if its rubbish sound better?
I absolutely expect the class on release, or something that would do the same thing like swappable casting systems or traditions that can turn any spell into an encounter spell or whatever, but yeah, it has to be in the first run of books. I'm not going to wait a long time just to get a playable class...
Thats why I have been kind of big on getting some 4th ed material into the playtests and having a different class structure thats more modular than what they have. Screw the monk even I am more interested in a D&DN Warlord.
Hands up if you are a monk fan vs warlord. Least popular class in 3rd ed probably, and a class that was in the PHB3 in 4th ed.
Due to space restraints I don't think alot of class varients are going to be core. An AEDU mage would be a great idea in 3.5 for example but I would not have it replace the traditional wizard although I might do that in my home games (considering making the warmage and beguiler the default wizards).
Its also probably why I may appear to be a bit obsessive with SWSE. A rekinned soldier/jedi could duplicate the 3.5 and 4th ed fighters- not 100% but in spirit anyway.
I absolutely expect the class on release, or something that would do the same thing like swappable casting systems or traditions that can turn any spell into an encounter spell or whatever, but yeah, it has to be in the first run of books. I'm not go
Lokiare do you expect the mage on release though? Class varients have usually been in splats.
Foxface I understand people not liking essentials, I don't understand claims that its not 4th ed- see comments about 2nd ed 3rd ed having rubbish splats as well.
Brightmantle I'll try to change some of the wording. I am hard to offend on a personal level and it doesn't bother me if people call me a grognard or various other labels or 4 letter words.
I can understand why people don't like XYZ edition of the game but a 2nd ed sourcebook is still a second ed sourcebook even if its rubbish sound better?
I don't have an issue with the opinion expressed thusly, "The Combat and tactics 2nd editon book was rubbish IMO because _". Rather, I have an Issue with "Second edition was rubbish and only grognards play it". Should someone say "D&D 4e was not D&D and only 4Vengers like it" I would also take issue. Feel free to voice your various and helpful opinions but keep the Flame blade in it's scabbard please. That is all I ask. Thanks
I have to, No, get to work with these people, lol.
I don't have an issue with the opinion expressed thusly, "The Combat and tactics 2nd editon book was rubbish IMO because _". Rather, I have an Issue with "Second edition was rubbish and only grognards play it". Should someone say "D&D 4e was not D&D
Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...
Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?
I won't.
Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?[/quote]I won't.
Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...
Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?
I won't.
Thats on you. Not everyone is going to be happy and if the wizard is not vancian you are basically excluding all of the pre 4th ed fans who care about that sort of thing. If the warlock and sorcerer are no vancian everyone gets something they will like I suppose even if it isn't perfect. Non vancian wizards are usually in a splatbook in 2nd and 3rd ed. Don't like vancian don't play a wizard and play XYZ is alot better than making all spellcaster vancian or all non-vancian.
Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?[/quote]I won't.[/quote] Thats on you. Not everyone is going to be happy and if the wizard is not vancian you are basically excluding all of the pre 4th ed fans who care about that sort of thing. If the
I won't be playing if there isn't a non-vancian wizard. Not because I want to play one, but because the people I play with do. The fighter and the wizard from packet one have effectively put an end to playtesting with my normal groups. I have had to playtest with people I have met on these forums and the forums for local meetup groups just to stay involved.
I really think you could give people 100% of what they want, but if the class name and fluff doesn't say wizard its going to get written off.
I won't be playing if there isn't a non-vancian wizard. Not because I want to play one, but because the people I play with do. The fighter and the wizard from packet one have effectively put an end to playtesting with my normal groups. I have had to
Problem is when you try and cater to people who say "I won't play unless..." its virtually impossable to play. Physical room in a book also excludes varients for every class. If lines get drawn in the sand fromWoTC PoV you may as well cater to the most popular option.
The wizard being non vancian by itself wouldn't kill D&DN for me by itelf but elminating vancian altogather is probably a bad idea regardless of how good the mechanical reasons are for that choice. Hence make the core wizad vancian and probably the cleric/druid and add some non vancian casters and the non vancian varients go into a splat book.
Wouldn't bother me that much if a level 10 vancian wizards new ability was being able to make his staff glow depending on how the classes power level related to the other classes and monsters they would be expecting to face.
Its not perfect but there you go.
Problem is when you try and cater to people who say "I won't play unless..." its virtually impossable to play. Physical room in a book also excludes varients for every class. If lines get drawn in the sand fromWoTC PoV you may as well cater to the m
Problem is when you try and cater to people who say "I won't play unless..." its virtually impossable to play. Physical room in a book also excludes varients for every class. If lines get drawn in the sand fromWoTC PoV you may as well cater to the most popular option.
The wizard being non vancian by itself wouldn't kill D&DN for me by itelf but elminating vancian altogather is probably a bad idea regardless of how good the mechanical resasons are for that choice. Hence make the core wizad vancian and probably the cleric/druid and add some non vancian casters and the non vancian varients go into a splat book.
Wouldn't bother me that much if a level 10 vancian wizards new ability was being able to make his staff glow deonding on how the classes power level related to the other classes and monsters they would be expecting to face.
Its not perfect but there you go.
Considering the wizard class possibly inspires the most ire of all the classes, I hope they can find a few extra pages in the book to give everyone what they want.
You might as well substitute the "page count" argument with the "Wookie Defense" if your using it to suggest that having a non-Vancian wizard means no pure Vancian or other derived type of Vancian wizard. Casters are already hogging the page count because of their spells. I think people could live with a few less redundant lesser, light, major, etc spells if they could get another build option to bring in more players.
I'm not understanding what your trying to say about the staff.
Considering the wizard class possibly inspires the most ire of all the classes, I hope they can find a few extra pages in the book to give everyone what they want. You might as well substitute the "page count" argument with the "Wookie Defense" if yo
I like vancian wizards but i'm not to worried about the power level they have so they can nerf them down from the heights of 3.5.
They could put a non vancian wizard in core but I think they will make it a splat due to the "why can't they give me XYZ class varient etc etc etc". I could be wrong just wait and see I suppose.
I like vancian wizards but i'm not to worried about the power level they have so they can nerf them down from the heights of 3.5. They could put a non vancian wizard in core but I think they will make it a splat due to the "why can't they give me XYZ
I absolutely love 4E but I also love the different pace and feel that the Essential line brought. I had aLOT of fun with the Knight class and I believe my wife has thoroughly been enjoying he Shadar-kai Berserker.
i also think D&D:next NEEDS to be as variable and modular as possoble upon release to catch a good initial number of people and keep them entertained as the system grows.
I absolutely love 4E but I also love the different pace and feel that the Essential line brought. I had aLOT of fun with the Knight class and I believe my wife has thoroughly been enjoying he Shadar-kai Berserker. i also think D&D:next NEEDS to be as
Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...
Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?
I won't.
Thats on you. Not everyone is going to be happy and if the wizard is not vancian you are basically excluding all of the pre 4th ed fans who care about that sort of thing. If the warlock and sorcerer are no vancian everyone gets something they will like I suppose even if it isn't perfect. Non vancian wizards are usually in a splatbook in 2nd and 3rd ed. Don't like vancian don't play a wizard and play XYZ is alot better than making all spellcaster vancian or all non-vancian.
Not at all.
I'm expecting them to deliver on the modular casting system.
So I can have my Wizard and you can have yours.
Then everyone WILL be happy.
...
Well, barring a few true haters who really will only be happy if they get what they want and everyone else gets screwed. But hopefully that's the one group that WotC DON'T put any effort into pleasing.
Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?[/quote]I won't.[/quote] Thats on you. Not everyone is going to be happy and if the wizard is not vancian you are basically excluding all of the pre 4th ed fans who care about that sort of thing. If the
Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...
Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?
I won't.
Thats on you. Not everyone is going to be happy and if the wizard is not vancian you are basically excluding all of the pre 4th ed fans who care about that sort of thing. If the warlock and sorcerer are no vancian everyone gets something they will like I suppose even if it isn't perfect. Non vancian wizards are usually in a splatbook in 2nd and 3rd ed. Don't like vancian don't play a wizard and play XYZ is alot better than making all spellcaster vancian or all non-vancian.
Wow, no where did anyone say they wanted to exclude vancian spell casters. We simply said we aren't going to be happy with only a vancian spell caster. If they have a vancian caster, and also have a non-vancian caster then we both get what we want...
Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?[/quote]I won't.[/quote] Thats on you. Not everyone is going to be happy and if the wizard is not vancian you are basically excluding all of the pre 4th ed fans who care about that sort of thing. If the
Problem is when you try and cater to people who say "I won't play unless..." its virtually impossable to play. Physical room in a book also excludes varients for every class. If lines get drawn in the sand fromWoTC PoV you may as well cater to the most popular option.
The wizard being non vancian by itself wouldn't kill D&DN for me by itelf but elminating vancian altogather is probably a bad idea regardless of how good the mechanical reasons are for that choice. Hence make the core wizad vancian and probably the cleric/druid and add some non vancian casters and the non vancian varients go into a splat book.
Wouldn't bother me that much if a level 10 vancian wizards new ability was being able to make his staff glow depending on how the classes power level related to the other classes and monsters they would be expecting to face.
Its not perfect but there you go.
Actually they could easily have non-vancian options. I have written several posts with examples of a single paragraph for each swappable casting system as a suggestion. I'm sure if someone like me can do this, the developers can do better...
Actually they could easily have non-vancian options. I have written several posts with examples of a single paragraph for each swappable casting system as a suggestion. I'm sure if someone like me can do this, the developers can do better...
I like vancian wizards but i'm not to worried about the power level they have so they can nerf them down from the heights of 3.5.
They could put a non vancian wizard in core but I think they will make it a splat due to the "why can't they give me XYZ class varient etc etc etc". I could be wrong just wait and see I suppose.
And many people won't pick up 5E if that is the case. Just like many people passed up 4E for the fact that their favorite core class wasn't in the PHB1...
And many people won't pick up 5E if that is the case. Just like many people passed up 4E for the fact that their favorite core class wasn't in the PHB1...
The core lasses will be there but I don't realy see them doing 14 classes+ varients for each one and I don't see them making vairents for some and not others. That and varient classes tend to go in splats. The classes will be there, whether or not its your preferred type IDK.
If they can't include core classe varients thats what I am meaning for some spellcasters can be vancian other do not have to be. If it is mixed I think these classes would be the best candidates for a 4th ed legacy.
Fighter Rogue Warlord Warlock Sorcerer
thats 5/14 and each edition could get kind of 25% of the classes and I was thinking 1st and 2nd are close enough for a 5/5/5 ratio. ATM the Monk and Cleric resemble the 3.5 classes atm, wizzie is pre 3rd ed and the current fighter and rogue seems influenced by 4th but they are kind of new.
The core lasses will be there but I don't realy see them doing 14 classes+ varients for each one and I don't see them making vairents for some and not others. That and varient classes tend to go in splats. The classes will be there, whether or not it
AEDU Wizard Spells Per Day Wizard Spells Level Per Day 1 2 at-will, 1 encounter, 1 daily 2 1 utility 3 1 encounter 4 - 5 1 daily 6 1 utility ...etc...etc...
They could literally put these charts next to each other on the same page instead of putting a picture next to it.
The other alternative is to format the spells so that anyone can choose how they want to memorize them, and invdividual DMs could ban the ones they don't want. Here is an example:
Blink 3rd-level transmutation You blink deep into the Ethereal plane coming back in time to take action. Requirement: You must be on a plane other than the Ethereal Plane to cast this spell. Effect: You vanish from your current plane of existence and appear deep in the Ethereal Plane. At the start of your next turn, you return in a space of your choice that is within 10 feet of the space where you vanished. Unless you have magic that can reach across planes, you can affect and be affected only by things on the Ethereal Plane while you are absent. At-will: You return at the start of your next turn and the spell ends. Encounter: As At-will except after the first round roll 1d20 and on a roll of 11 or higher the spell repeats, on a roll of 10 or less the spell ends. Daily: As Encounter, except the spell repeats until 1 minute is up, on a roll of 10 or less the spell doesn't blink the caster.
I like this the best as it allows the most customizability. Sure an at-will Wizard will have many many choices, but remember each of these choices is about 75% as powerful as other classes attacks. So they will have variety, but be weak in their individual actions. An encounter Wizard would have equal attacks to a Fighter, but only be able to choose one per round so they would be equal to the Fighter because they would have to choose a different spell each round. Some kind of simple rule to prevent the same spell from being memorized multiple times as encounter powers might be needed, or not. If they memorized as daily, you would simply have a standard vancian Wizard. If you mixed them up you would get an AEDU caster with some dailies, some encounters, and some at-wills. The at-wills wouldn't have to scale either because you could memorize any level spell as an at-will...
They don't have to. They can have swappable casting systems. Here's how it would look in the book:Vancian Wizard Spells Per DayWizard -Spell Slots per Spell Level-Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91
wouldn't eat up much space for that part. 4th ed wizard had 15 pages of powers though. TO get that page count down the wizard would be a shadow of the 4th ed one.
wouldn't eat up much space for that part. 4th ed wizard had 15 pages of powers though. TO get that page count down the wizard would be a shadow of the 4th ed one.
The core lasses will be there but I don't realy see them doing 14 classes+ varients for each one and I don't see them making vairents for some and not others. That and varient classes tend to go in splats. The classes will be there, whether or not its your preferred type IDK.
If they can't include core classe varients thats what I am meaning for some spellcasters can be vancian other do not have to be. If it is mixed I think these classes would be the best candidates for a 4th ed legacy.
Fighter Rogue Warlord Warlock Sorcerer
thats 5/14 and each edition could get kind of 25% of the classes and I was thinking 1st and 2nd are close enough for a 5/5/5 ratio. ATM the Monk and Cleric resemble the 3.5 classes atm, wizzie is pre 3rd ed and the current fighter and rogue seems influenced by 4th but they are kind of new.
Strangely they have almost done it with the Fighter and the Rogue. You can play a defender Fighter or a striker Fighter. You can play an assassin Rogue, a burglar Rogue, a thief Rogue, or a thug Rogue. So saying they can't do it is not true...
Strangely they have almost done it with the Fighter and the Rogue. You can play a defender Fighter or a striker Fighter. You can play an assassin Rogue, a burglar Rogue, a thief Rogue, or a thug Rogue. So saying they can't do it is not true...
Well there you go its not all doom and gloom. THe main point is not everyone is going to get exactly what they want. I like the D&DN cleric better than the 3.5 one even though it has domains only based on the 3.5 one. Monk recycles some 3.5 terms but its not a awful class in D&DN.
Well there you go its not all doom and gloom. THe main point is not everyone is going to get exactly what they want. I like the D&DN cleric better than the 3.5 one even though it has domains only based on the 3.5 one. Monk recycles some 3.5 terms bu
wouldn't eat up much space for that part. 4th ed wizard had 15 pages of powers though. TO get that page count down the wizard would be a shadow of the 4th ed one.
That's why I suggest the last option. I'd rather they just let the casters and DMs pick how the spell is memorized. Since a Wizard can only cast one spell per round and a spell takes an action, there won't be anything overpowered and really they might feel more like a Wizard because they have a variety of choices, but are no more powerful from round to round...
That's why I suggest the last option. I'd rather they just let the casters and DMs pick how the spell is memorized. Since a Wizard can only cast one spell per round and a spell takes an action, there won't be anything overpowered and really they migh
More or less agree I just dont think they will but 2 wizards in the core rules.
They won't have any Wizard in the Core Rules,
Not a Vancian Wizard and not a Non-Vancian Wizard.
Each and every single class is an optional module which you can include in or exclude from your game.
There are no core classes.
Which is the evolution from "everything is core" which we are seeing in Next.
With only the very basic mechanics and systems in the core we get a similar effect, "nothing is core" being pretty similar to "everything is core" when you are sitting at the table. What is played is up to the individual DM and their campaign.
I just hope that the careful monitoring and involvement of the design team in supplimentary material which made "everything is core" work so well is continued into Next.
My fear is that the "well, it's not core" attitude will result in another abomination.
They won't have any Wizard in the Core Rules,Not a Vancian Wizard and not a Non-Vancian Wizard.Each and every single class is an optional module which you can include in or exclude from your game.There are no core classes.Which is the evolution from
More or less agree I just dont think they will but 2 wizards in the core rules.
They won't have any Wizard in the Core Rules,
Not a Vancian Wizard and not a Non-Vancian Wizard.
Each and every single class is an optional module which you can include in or exclude from your game.
There are no core classes.
Which is the evolution from "everything is core" which we are seeing in Next.
With only the very basic mechanics and systems in the core we get a similar effect, "nothing is core" being pretty similar to "everything is core" when you are sitting at the table. What is played is up to the individual DM and their campaign.
I just hope that the careful monitoring and involvement of the design team in supplimentary material which made "everything is core" work so well is continued into Next.
My fear is that the "well, it's not core" attitude will result in another abomination.
Semantics really. THe 1st 3 D&DN books will be considered the core books regardless of labels. Whatever classes or class varients are in them will be seen as core stuff as the game aparently is going to be modular. To me modular seems to be a marketing ploy for splatbook, others seem to think they will get what they want. We will have to wait and see in that regard. I don't think a module for skill based android PCs will be coming out anytime soon.
They won't have any Wizard in the Core Rules,Not a Vancian Wizard and not a Non-Vancian Wizard.Each and every single class is an optional module which you can include in or exclude from your game.There are no core classes.Which is the evolution from
Do you acknowledge that perfect balance is impossible, and affirm that you should always strive for the best balance possible? Or do you use the truism to CYA, and dismiss any balance problems?
What you quoted, is both actually:
"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....
Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game."
The CYA is the first two sentences. But that last sentence, about it leading to a boring game, is indeed about striving for the best balance possible.
It's really not. If perfect balance is impossible /and/ perfect balance is boring, then there's no danger of a game being boring because it's "too balanced," because it can't reach that perfectly-boring state. It's an excuse to give up on delivering balance at all.
Of course, there's no telling what an unachievable state might be like. Perfect balance might make for an endlessly engrossing and enjoyable game or a boring one. There's no perfectly balanced game to test.
Perfect balance isn't possible, it's true, but what that really means is that any game, no matter how well-done, might be improved upon. Far be it from me to put a hopeful spin on anything, of course...
With "best" meaning something other than "perfect."
Sure. Perfection is impossible, so you strive to do the best you can. That doesn't mean you have to back off from improving things for fear that they'll be 'too good.'
What you quoted, is both actually:"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....Building everything i
With "best" meaning something other than "perfect."
Sure. Perfection is impossible, so you strive to do the best you can. That doesn't mean you have to back off from improving things for fear that they'll be 'too good.'
No, you missed my point. "Best" is not "closest to perfect."
Sure. Perfection is impossible, so you strive to do the best you can. That doesn't mean you have to back off from improving things for fear that they'll be 'too good.'[/quote]No, you missed my point. "Best" is not "closest to perfect."
Not if its cursed or has dragon skin and claws. I have to be able to play it as a Wizard with all the traditional fluff that goes with it and not be tied into things like innate abilities and limited spell lists that are missing iconic Wizard spells. If they create a second arcane class called a "Mage" and it is a carbon copy of 4E's Wizard, I would be fine with that...
We don't have the Vancian Wizard in the latest playtest. We've got a strange hybrid between a prepared caster and a spontaneous caster. 4th ed tweaked AEDU design for Wizards by allowing them to pick 1 daily spell out of 2 possible options for each daily slot they had. This was a shout out to the Vancian Wizard. Well the Playtest Wizard is a spontaneous caster, but they get to choose which spells they'll spontaneously cast today just as the 4th ed Wizard got to decide which daily spells they'd cast today.
On paper that might sound like a Vancian Wizard. But in actual play it comes across as something much more similar to a spontaneous caster, but with all the fluff of a wizard. It's weird. It's something we haven't seen before in any edition (not even Pathfinder). But it works and it's pretty cool.
In the playtest Vancian is dead and we've now got it's sister. The jury's out on whether the sister is cute and sexy or if she's been hit with the ugly stick a few too many times. But she's certainly different.
Many people call it 4.5. Just for you to have some idea: if you have the Essentials products, you don't even need the 3 core books, and every splatbook released for 4e after followed the design style of Essentials, not 4e Core. In the 4e foruns, I remember people separating 4e into 4e Core (before Essentials) and 4e Essentials (Essentials and after).
As someone who was a die-hard fan of 4th ed who had bought every single 4th ed book, I have not purchased a single 4th ed product since the release of Essentials. Essentials, to me, was a different edition. While technically it was backwards compatible. It was only compatible after they unloaded a METRIC TONNE of errata.
Now I'm considered a 4th ed hater. The problem is, certain deficiencies of 4th ed became apparent. Long fights were getting to me. As was the magic item merry go round. DMG2 fixed the magic item problem. But the combat problem is still quite apparent.
So people now call me a Pathfinder fan. Despite the fact I was considered one of the 4th ed purists. The playtest (and DMing a Pathfinder campaign) have really highlighted Pathfinder's faults though. Simultaneously Paizo have given up on any semblance of balance they once pursued in the goal of producing more and more splat books (just like WotC). Furthermore, the magic item merry go round. It didn't start with 4th ed. It appears to have started with 3rd ed (I'm not familiar enough with AD&D to say if it was present there). And Pathfinder's inherited it. Unlike 4th ed, there's no easy fix for Pathfinder.
So Pathfinder's faults are starting to get to me as well. So now I'm looking to 5th edition. If it fixes the two faults I had with 4th ed, without introducing any additional problems. I'll be happy. So far they appear to have met my design goals. We'll wait and see what the final product has. That said, I'm EXTREMELY tempted to buy the equivalent of the DMG, MM and PHB and then not buy a single other 5th ed rules book. That is how wary I am of WotC.
elminating vancian altogather is probably a bad idea
The beauty of D&D Next is where I'm comfortable in house ruling things in this edition, I can't do that with the same level of comfort in Pathfinder (simply due to how complex Pathfinder is). The current playtest Spellcasters are easy to houserule into Vancian. "You must prepare your spells into specific slots at the start of the day." Done. You've got Vancian spellcasting again. If after a few games you feel this penalises the spellcasters too much without giving them something in return you can always add Give them an extra slot each day (that way the Wizard can prep situational utility spells that don't always pop up). But that's between the players and DM at that table.
D&D Next is currently so simple to houserule, it really isn't that big a deal. The DMG really needs to explain this to DMs and the ramifications of their decisions and advice on how to handle a bad houserule.
Unfortunately I can't work out how to houserule encounter powers into D&D Next.
If perfect balance is impossible /and/ perfect balance is boring, then there's no danger of a game being boring because it's "too balanced," because it can't reach that perfectly-boring state. It's an excuse to give up on delivering balance at all.
The Pathfinder Core Rulebook (with the exception of the pre-Errata Paladin) is fairly balanced. It isn't balanced to the degree that 4th ed was, but it's balanced enough to have an enjoyable game. The Advanced Player's Guide (Paizo's PHB2) is somewhat balanced. The Summoner class is grossly overpowered. But other than that it's balanced for the most part. I've been informed that Paizo's latest major release, Ultimate Equipment, has nothing even resemblling balance. Multiple power gamers have informed me entire swathes of the book need to be banned.
A reasonable degree of balance is possible and desirable. It has been decided by WotC staff that balance to the degree that they attempted it in 4th ed (attempted. Not achieved) is not desireable. As someone whose played both 4th ed and a Core Rulebook only Pathfinder game. I much prefer Pathfinder's style of playing then 4th ed. I can play both happily (assuming combats were fixed in 4th ed), but I do prefer Pathfinder Core Rulebook only over 4th ed in terms of enjoyment.
I think I've got a PM from you Tony Vargas inviting me to join the "Old Guard of 4th ed" circa the release of Essentials. So I do hope that this comment holds some weight. I'm not a power gaming freak. I'm not a diehard 3.5e fan. I'm someone who started playing Dungeons and Dragons in 2008. After exposure to AD&D, 3.5e and 4th ed I've come to enjoy a game that's got a healthy serving of AD&D, some spice from 3.5e and a dash of 4th ed. For me, 5th ed gives me exactly what I want.
I'm probably the textbook case of "not a diehard fan" of any edition.
Hopefully not, the Wizard should be mechanically different from a Sorcerer, etc.
With the latest playtest packet I'm at a loss as to what form the sorcerer is going to take. The Wizard has beaten up the sorcerer and taken all it's things. All the sorcerer has left is it doesn't have a spellbook. That's it. That's not really having something so much as, not having something. So you could say the sorcerer's left with nothing.
We don't have the Vancian Wizard in the latest playtest. We've got a strange hybrid between a prepared caster and a spontaneous caster. 4th ed tweaked AEDU design for Wizards by allowing them to pick 1 daily spell out of 2 possible options for each d
Magic item merry go around did not exist as such in 2nd ed due to the fact you couldn't RAW buy magic ites so it was down to DM fiat to set the power level for magical items. If he gave out a +5 sword at level 8 he could also compensate with harder challenges. It did not exist in the 3rd and 4th ed magic mart versions of the game.
Magic item merry go around did not exist as such in 2nd ed due to the fact you couldn't RAW buy magic ites so it was down to DM fiat to set the power level for magical items. If he gave out a +5 sword at level 8 he could also compensate with harder c
Magic item merry go around did not exist as such in 2nd ed due to the fact you couldn't RAW buy magic ites so it was down to DM fiat to set the power level for magical items. If he gave out a +5 sword at level 8 he could also compensate with harder challenges.
I thought as much, but didn't want to unilaterally declare it.
With the latest playtest packet I'm at a loss as to what form the sorcerer is going to take. The Wizard has beaten up the sorcerer and taken all it's things. All the sorcerer has left is it doesn't have a spellbook. That's it. That's not really having something so much as, not having something. So you could say the sorcerer's left with nothing.
Yeah, will points alone is not enough to differentiate the sorcerer.
Yeah, will points alone is not enough to differentiate the sorcerer.
Magic item merry go around did not exist as such in 2nd ed due to the fact you couldn't RAW buy magic ites so it was down to DM fiat to set the power level for magical items. If he gave out a +5 sword at level 8 he could also compensate with harder challenges.
I thought as much, but didn't want to unilaterally declare it.
It did not exist in the 3rd and 4th ed magic mart versions of the game.
I don't understand what you're trying to say with this sentence.
I had a brain fart and made a wreck of that sentence. Magic mart was a 3rd and 4th ed thing for the most part.
I thought as much, but didn't want to unilaterally declare it.I don't understand what you're trying to say with this sentence.[/quote] I had a brain fart and made a wreck of that sentence. Magic mart was a 3rd and 4th ed thing for the most part.
