Pathfinder 1E If Paizo can, why can't Wizards of the Coast?

[Beginning of the End]

I'll need to add more bullywugs than the adventure originally used sometimes, due to the nature of the 4e combat system, but again that doesn't really change much about color. I MIGHT increase the size of a room, depending on what it looks like, but often that isn't necessary. And then I use the color from the adventure - because that is what matters to me.

But what makes this particularly interesting, frankly, is what this says about 4E compared to previous editions of D&D.

Because I can (and have) taken modules from 0E thru 3E and run them in virtually every other edition of the game. From 0E thru 2E I can literally do it without conversion: The stat blocks in a D&D adventure can be used without alteration in 2E and vice versa. Because 3E cleaned up and inverted the math, it's easier to just grab the appropriate stat block from the MM and plug it in, but the principle remains consistent. And with only a handful of exceptions (primarily giants and dragons, which kept having their power levels diddled with), encounter balance and design was incredibly consistent from 1974 to 2008.

But then we get to 4E and, as you say, suddenly that goes out the window because the game is fundamentally different on a mechanical level.

And that's hardly the end of the universe: I've run Tomb of Horrors in FUDGE, converted Exalted adventures to D&D, and played a Dragonlance Chronicles campaign that had been converted to GURPS.

But it does speak to how profoundly different 4E is compared to previous editions of the game.

 

[LuckyAdrastus]

Now if I've come across like an agressive douche, it's mostly like I feel that you and Lucky have come across like dismissive ones. Not a good way to respond I admit but the tone in this thread from the both of you definitely didnt do much to promote a mutual understanding.

Hey, I thought you said you didn't want to engage with me anymore, and I agreed? I haven't even posted in this thread for a while. Why the ad hominem attack against me now? What's the point of saying you'll don't want to discuss with me anymore, and when I agree, coming back to personally attack me afterwards?

Especially when the last thing I said to you was to wish you good gaming and say something nice about something you mentioned regarding playing D&D withe your kid and how that sounded like good parenting?

 

[AngryMojo]

But it does speak to how profoundly different 4E is compared to previous editions of the game.

I still maintain that 4e and previous editions aren't as fundamentally different as people make them out to be. Most of 4th edition can be seen by late 3.5, and bringing a player from one to the other isn't that difficult. When it comes to converting adventures, the only thing that makes it difficult is that previous editions assumed the PC's fought one monster at a time, while 4e assumes the PC's fight five monsters at a time. I've run 2nd and 3rd edition modules in 4e no problem, I just made sure when it said "One kobold" I replaced it with "Five kobolds" or "3 kobolds and 2 drakes."

From my experience, the largest transition from edition mechanics came from the 2e to 3e jump, and understandably so. 3e attempted to minimize or completely eliminate DM Fiat, which I consider to be far more intimately entwined with D&D than any other rule. If anything, 4e brings this back, as well as the assumption that not everything a character can do is spelled out on his sheet. As an example, the PHB3 psionic class writeup on Ardents state that ardents can feel and detect the emotions around them, but no "Sense Emotion" power or "Empathy" power is given. In Psionic Power, there's even a sidebar explaining that ardents do the empathic thing from time to time, and although there is no mechanical effect, it can and should be used in roleplaying.

In previous editions, nobody wondered if a Cleric knew numerous prayers, they just assumed he did because he's a cleric. Now, everyone assumes he must have a skill or a power stating "I know prayers." There's no skill to cover the knowledge of different types of blades, or military drills, but I'm pretty sure a fighter who fought as a professional mercenary for years is going to know that information, and I don't need a rule to tell me that.

Alright, enough rambling.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I still maintain that 4e and previous editions aren't as fundamentally different as people make them out to be.

Having converted an active campaign's entire stock of PCs from 1Ed to 2Ed to 3Ed to 3.5Ed over the years...and being unable to do that for all- heck, most- of them for 4Ed, I'd have to say I disagree with that statement.*

And this isn't a surprise, really: even in the rollout of 4Ed, certain WotC spokespersons stated that you were better off starting a new campaign than trying to convert an old one. After a while, WotC did post some conversion guides online...for single-classed PCs. And they didn't exactly get the word out on that, as opposed to the nigh-ubiquitous (for a time) 2Ed->3Ed conversion guide.


*Over time, rules additions like Hybrids have made some conversions more possible, but they still don't quite work for every PC.

 

[the Jester]

Because I can (and have) taken modules from 0E thru 3E and run them in virtually every other edition of the game. From 0E thru 2E I can literally do it without conversion: The stat blocks in a D&D adventure can be used without alteration in 2E and vice versa. Because 3E cleaned up and inverted the math, it's easier to just grab the appropriate stat block from the MM and plug it in, but the principle remains consistent. And with only a handful of exceptions (primarily giants and dragons, which kept having their power levels diddled with), encounter balance and design was incredibly consistent from 1974 to 2008.

But then we get to 4E and, as you say, suddenly that goes out the window because the game is fundamentally different on a mechanical level.

I've run modules for BECMI, 1e, 2e and 3.5 in 4e, converting on the fly and in my head as I go.... and it's worked fine.

When I say "converting," I mean converting encounters and sometimes monsters without so much as looking in a book.

I find that it is very easy, but YMMV.

 

[Stoat]

Having converted an active campaign's entire stock of PCs from 1Ed to 2Ed to 3Ed to 3.5Ed over the years...and being unable to do that for all- heck, most- of them for 4Ed, I'd have to say I disagree with that statement.*

Compare any edition of D&D to Warhammer FRP 1st or 2nd edition (I haven't played WRFP 3d.)

I suggest that the various editions of D&D are all more similar to each other than they are to Warhammer. I further suggest that the differences between any edition of D&D and Warhammer are greater than the differences between that edition and other editions of D&D.

 

[James Jacobs]

I can also say I'll give Paizo grief if they come out with a revised Pathfinder edition in less than 8 years time.

So will I.

 

[Mournblade94]

I am glad for 4e.

Simply because with the release of 4e a better D&D game in the form of Pathfinder was made. 4e is too far removed from the game I knew to be called D&D FOR ME (Please note that last part I am not saying it cannot be D&D for anyone else.)

I honestly think 4e was a money release, and they did little to improve the game. PLenty of people I know and like play 4e and we agree to disagree on this point.

If 4e was not released Paizo would not have had reason to improve 3.5.

I would not be surprised to hear that Pathfinder is providing considerable competition to D&D 4e.

 

[Mournblade94]

I still maintain that 4e and previous editions aren't as fundamentally different as people make them out to be. Most of 4th edition can be seen by late 3.5, and bringing a player from one to the other isn't that difficult. When it comes to converting adventures, the only thing that makes it difficult is that previous editions assumed the PC's fought one monster at a time, while 4e assumes the PC's fight five monsters at a time. I've run 2nd and 3rd edition modules in 4e no problem, I just made sure when it said "One kobold" I replaced it with "Five kobolds" or "3 kobolds and 2 drakes."

And yet I as a very competent gamer and DM as I am sure you are (No snarkiness) see 4e as an extreme deviation from what D&D previously was. I see differences in gameplay, philosophy, and construction.

I really do not get the assumption of PC's fighting one monster or monster type at a time. I never delivered encounters that way.

I also never accepted rules from the Book fo NIne swords. I did not like the direction of D&D then. I was more disappointed with 4e. I was hoping for a D&D SAGA release.

In any case, i see 4e as an extreme variation off of the previous design models.

 

[The Ubbergeek2]

And yet, this is still D&D. A lot remains yet.
Wher Pathfinder is not D&D if another form in spirit technicaly.

Anyway, is that even important? Is D&D as a name and brand important? iS BEING 'TRUTY' to D&D's legacy better than a better game, or if the new edition is better,w hy not say 'to heck with D&D'?