Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Is it evidence that new editions don't need to be that different?

[Herschel]

Now you're arguing semantics. I'll be the first to say it's more important who I play with than the system I play. If I like a new system but some of the people I play with don't and the rest don't care, I will resist changing to the new system because I genuinely like the people I play with regardless of how much I like said system.

You are still paying for Pathfinder, but it's basically Houseruled 3.5 and is a single cash outlay. $50 for what amounts to both Player's Handbook AND DMG isn't really very much.

Let me put it another way: I wanted a new car a while ago. Just something with a little more leg room (I'm 6'4"). I could have afforded it easily enough but my old car runs pretty well, was paid off and still gets great mileage. I also wanted to hand it down to my son when he got his license but he delayed getting it for a couple of years because as urban/suburban types he really didn't need it.

I resisted changing cars simply because I had in my mind what I wanted to do. I didn't owe my son a car or anything like that, but it was what I wanted and was practical. I love my new car and I also still think fondly of my old one. Neither one is bad.

 

[Tallifer]

I had not played Dungeons and Dragons since 1987, since 1st edition and Dragonlance. (I did hear about 2nd edition but never played it.) Frankly I much prefered other games like Runequest, Call of Cthulhu and Pendragon. AD&D was such a pile of contradictory mumbo-jumbo. Plus alignment (no other game I knew of had it, and no one could ever agree how a paladin shoudl behave or if assassins should be alllowed near a party) and horrible fiction (my DM knew more about Krynn than Middle Earth or Camelot).

I rediscovered the game through discovering that an old friend has a blog about Original Dungeons and Dragons (0e, little brown books). Reading this, I suddenly discovered that Dungeons and Dragons had had three more editions: 3.0,3.5 and 4e.

Out of curiosity I downloaded as much of 4e as I could find. I read the entire Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide in a day. I was amazed how lucid, clear, consistent, mechanically elegant and approachable it was. Each rule and explanation and spell was written so plainly and obviously. My imagination was sparked and I immediately started designing a campaign.

Soon I decided to take a look at 3.5. It seemed to me a sea of different rules sets cobbled together. I think that other new players might feel overwhelmed like I was. Therefore, 4th edition serves well to keep new players coming into Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[pawsplay]

This does not take in to account that 3E was basically played out. There's just really not much room left to add anything for the mass audience, which is the key to regular and future sales figures. It's three more books vs. 60.

Wow, it's almost as if you completely did not read my other post in which I stated I believed the opposite.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You are still paying for Pathfinder, but it's basically Houseruled 3.5 and blah blah blah

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[Herschel]

That's your opinion, as I have backed up and am entitled to mine.

 

[Herschel]

Wow, it's almost as if you completely did not read my other post in which I stated I believed the opposite.

I did read it, and I disagree completely. The complaints about repeated material were already commonplace with the latter books. Did they milk 3.5 dry? No, but it was obviously getting thin, at least from the WotC standpoint.

Pathfinder is breathing some new life in to it, good for them (and fans of the system). Perhaps "fresh eyes" are exactly what was needed. Either way, 3E had run its course from the WotC side and they (with their large amount of market research) decided it was time to move on. It worked out fairly well (timing-wise) with demos and such at Gen Con.

Pathfinder saw a market niche, maintained most of the system (basically consolidating good "house rules" to add to/enhance it) and can cater to those who didn't change (for whatever reason they decided).

 

[pawsplay]

I did read it, and I disagree completely.

I know. But it's not a convincing premise on which to base other arguments. Since the argument in question is actually whether 3.5 was "played out," it's begging the question.

 

[Herschel]

1. So your saying 4e is just an excuse to sell us the books we already have, like Draconomicon, etc?

2. I don't doubt that there NEEDED to be a 4e. It didn't need to be THIS 4e however.

3. While I generally agree, there could've been a closer sense of mechanical community. I seriously think taking the general 3e structure, fixing the math kernel and balance issues and embracing some of the newer fluff and design paragrim (such as point buy default) couldn't sold excellently as D&D 4e. I'm not sure they needed to change massive elements of the system (healing surges, the magic system, encounter/daily/will powers, etc) to make it successful.

1. Actually, yes. That's part of it. Book sales are a big part of the game. How many more Draconomicons would most 3E players have purchased? Dragons are popular and a great selling card.

2. Sales figures appear to show 4E is doing very well. It needed to be popular and sell, which it is. Multitudes of people really like it. Some of us (read: me) had to be converted. I know I had issues with some of the new stuff, flavor-wise, but the mechanics work really well in play. It's a good system. I honestly don't think it needed to be anything else. Could it have gone in a different direction? Sure, but their research and creative people decided this was the way to go.

3. I do think they needed to change substantial amounts of the 3E system. Healing surges, as a concept, really bug me. But in play they are one of the new mechanics that work really well. I also think the At-Will/ Encounter/Daily system works very well. It provides a lot more balance in class design rather than, for example, Wizards starting out very weak then becoming the most powerful class and leaving others in the dust. It's not perfect (doing everything in your power to hit with dailies is generally very beneficial) but it's a good step in a direction many apparently agee with.

I'll also add two of my favorite things I felt needed changed and were:
A: The system is more forgiving if you don't spend massive amounts of time planning your character. Re-training is amazing, especially when a new Paragon Path or the like comes out that I like better than teh one I had planned.
B: I feel the role playing aspect is back in the DM's hands. I felt the rules glut in a big way in 3E, especially in the rp parts of adventures. Now there are few skills and monsters already have special abilities so I don't need to build them or do a lot with templates.

As always, your mileage may vary.

 

[Herschel]

I know. But it's not a convincing premise on which to base other arguments. Since the argument in question is actually whether 3.5 was "played out," it's begging the question.

Then how do you think it should have played out? What products did you not see that could carry the line another even year or two at the current release schedule?

Yes, I am curious, this isn't a snark.

 

[Shemeska]

Then how do you think it should have played out? What products did you not see that could carry the line another even year or two at the current release schedule?

Yes, I am curious, this isn't a snark.

You must have missed it, but I listed a number of them on the second page of the thread.