Vegepygmy
First Post
Absolutely. I have no doubt about it whatsoever.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Is it evidence that new editions don't need to be that different?
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Reading the pathfinder rulebook, I think you would have to calculate CM scores (easy) and that'd likely cover it for running a monster or module. Sure the PC classes are stronger in Pathfinder but a slightly weaker NPC version of the fighter (for example) isn't a horrible flaw.
Gothmog
First Post
What planet are you from?
But more seriously, a lot of things that WotC is now doing with 4e could have been done with 3.5 (Dark Sun for instance). There were many, many topics that WotC hadn't covered yet, and which people were asking for that never appeared prior to WotC bailing and going with 4e. I still wish they'd actually done more FR regional supplements, because once they started doing FR 'super modules' they abruptly stopped the regional supplements.
FC III, Giants, Fey, Dark Sun, continued FR support, 3.x DDI including a non-vaporware VTT, etc etc.
Fair enough, I misspoke. Other books could have been written for 3.x, but the major question is why? (see below for the rationale). While I would have loved to have seen books on Fey, Giants, FC III, and some fluff books for 3.x, I'm much happier they seem to be doing this for 4E.
However, in a mechanical sense, I think 3.x had backed itself into a corner. Yes, more could have been added and new subsystems designed to accomodate differet classes, power sources, etc...but WotC had already been working on "fixes" to problems in 3e (Bo9S, Complete Arcane, Unearthed Arcana, etc) which IMO (and many other people's) just seemed clunky and didn't work well. The big sellers for 3.x had always been "crunchy" books, but towards the last couple years of 3.x, the crunchy books had been overly specific, overpowered, and pretty lackluster. Combine those factors with waning interest in 3.x and mechanical problems many people had with the system, and it made more sense to rework/reboot the core system and incorporate the new design ideas into it as the foundation of the game than to keep tacking subsystems onto 3.x.
pawsplay
Hero
I can understand the impression that 3.5 was played out, but I do not think most Pathfinder fans see it that way. I bought the Rules Compendium because I thought it would be useful in my games. I appreciated an errata'd, updated version of the rules. As far as I know, the Compendium sold well, suggesting you can not only sell 3.75, you can sell 3.5 release 2.0A and find a market, if the product is good.
4e was announced about one month before I was about to announce my own OGL projects. I think there is still a lot to be done with the 3e engine. I got into Pathfinder not because I am angry at WotC or because of nostalgia or because I already own a bunch of books. I got into it because I am still running a 3.5 game, and to me, the 3e rules are a living, breathing system. WotC abandoned it, and Paizo made the commitment to pick up where they left off. Pathfinder is a success and will be a success because it enlists a nucleus of enthusiastic fans and designers who believe the 3e rules are good for at least another decade of play and design. This last Friday night, my gaming group sat down for thirty minutes after the game and converted their 18th level characters from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
After a period of interruption, my OGL projects are once again on the grid. I want to thank Paizo for that, and I want to thank everyone at WotC past and present who contributed to the Third Edition and who has supported the fan and publishing community.
4e was announced about one month before I was about to announce my own OGL projects. I think there is still a lot to be done with the 3e engine. I got into Pathfinder not because I am angry at WotC or because of nostalgia or because I already own a bunch of books. I got into it because I am still running a 3.5 game, and to me, the 3e rules are a living, breathing system. WotC abandoned it, and Paizo made the commitment to pick up where they left off. Pathfinder is a success and will be a success because it enlists a nucleus of enthusiastic fans and designers who believe the 3e rules are good for at least another decade of play and design. This last Friday night, my gaming group sat down for thirty minutes after the game and converted their 18th level characters from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
After a period of interruption, my OGL projects are once again on the grid. I want to thank Paizo for that, and I want to thank everyone at WotC past and present who contributed to the Third Edition and who has supported the fan and publishing community.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
But how many Rules Compendium book equivalents can there be?
The Book of Nine Swords was probably a great book. But using it in my group? Highly unlikely. It changes to many assumptions on the core game and it was bound to be unbalanced.
But that doesn't really mean that a "smaller" change would have been impossible. It just needs to be enough. Pathfinder adds a lot of new class features to every class. That just screams like an extension point for more rule books that people would actually want. Regardless of whether Paizo plans to actually do that or not. But - if they have the resources to do it and can make similar sales as with their adventures, they will probably do it eventually. And that's not because it's a money grab, but because fans love this kind of stuff and why shouldn't you give your fans something they want?
I think I prefer bigger edition changes. The changes planned for Warhammer 3E for example excite me. That Shadowrun finally overhauled its dice mechanics is genius.
To be fair, it's not like they had a lot of competition back in the 2e days.
Part of it comes down to this: do you think that the best/only business model for an rpg publisher like WOTC is to keep re-selling new iterations of the rules over and over... to keep making the core audience re-buy what they've already bought several times before?
That seems to drive some people's thinking: the only way to keep a brand alive is to keep re-selling the core rules to the core audience, over and over forever. It's basically the "Rent Model"... when you buy the D&D core rules, you're not really buying them; you're only renting them. In four years you'll have to buy the same rules again, only with a few changes to justify the fact that you're blowing another hundred bucks for PHB-DMG-MM.
If you think that's the only way an rpg publisher like WOTC can survive and thrive, then 4E is inevitable. As is 5E in a few years, and 6E a few years after that, ad infinitum.
I think that not only is that not the only business model, I think it's a short-sighted and ultimately ruinous one. But I understand that if you think the Rent Model is the only possible one, you've got nowhere to go but "Edition +1" as soon as you publish all the rules you can realistically publish.
That seems to drive some people's thinking: the only way to keep a brand alive is to keep re-selling the core rules to the core audience, over and over forever. It's basically the "Rent Model"... when you buy the D&D core rules, you're not really buying them; you're only renting them. In four years you'll have to buy the same rules again, only with a few changes to justify the fact that you're blowing another hundred bucks for PHB-DMG-MM.
If you think that's the only way an rpg publisher like WOTC can survive and thrive, then 4E is inevitable. As is 5E in a few years, and 6E a few years after that, ad infinitum.
I think that not only is that not the only business model, I think it's a short-sighted and ultimately ruinous one. But I understand that if you think the Rent Model is the only possible one, you've got nowhere to go but "Edition +1" as soon as you publish all the rules you can realistically publish.
Snoweel
First Post
I was so excited when this book came out, and was immediately convinced that 3.X was forevermore unplayable without it.
This all made me realise it was time for a new edition.
Hunter In Darkness
First Post
This was what I was hopping SW SAGA is a fine system, it would have made a killer 4e. Frankly if they had went that route chance are I would still be buying books with the D&D logo
Andor
First Post
I dunno. There was a lot of cool stuff coming out in the last couple of years of 3.5. The Tome of Magic, The tome of Battle, Incarnum (a mixed bag admitedly, but the totemist is one of my favorite classes EVER), reserve feats, PHB II, it was like they had just realized how big a canvas they actually had and were painting out from the little clogged up spot in the center we had been mucking about in for years.
On topic, most edition changes as other have said are nothing like as drastic as the 3e/4e split. I remember back when 3e had just come out and was winning the origins awards that year having a discussion with Eric from the Wizards Attic. He felt that 3e shouldn't be eligible for a 'best new game' award since it was a new edition of an existing game. I felt that since it was a different system written by different people working for a different company there was no question but that it should be eligible. I can't imagine even Eric argueing that 4e doesn't qualify as a new game.
