Pathfinder 1E Could Pathfinder take D&D's place...

[brewdus]

I think my biggest problem with Pathfinder, aside from the fact that they're clinging desperately to cheesecake like it defines the genre, is the fact that Ultimate Combat had spells in it.

A book. Focused around non-casters. Had caster options.

Goddamnit.

Ultimate COMBAT. Spells are used in combat. I don't see a problem.

 

[brewdus]

This is completely wrong, though. Fighters are Defenders with a bend towards Striker, Rogues are Strikers with a bend towards... well, Striking, since that's all they did in combat, and so on.

It's just that a 3.x caster was every role, possibly, and that's really not very good for a co-operative game.

That's why I'm really loving my 4E Rise of the Runelords game and really wish Paizo would ditch their long-term death option of, "No we won't design for other systems," because they've very likely got a huge market in the 4E crowd with their above-average campaign design, but they refuse to expand into it.

i think Paizo has enough on their plate and makes a good amount of money with the Pathfinder RPG!

 

[Darwinism]

Ultimate COMBAT. Spells are used in combat. I don't see a problem.

There is a serious problem when a book meant to give more options to martial classes, the least powerful classes, gives even more power to the most powerful classes. Obviously there's a significant share of Pathfinder buyers who see no problem with caster supremacy, but it really does need to die alongside the same train of thought that brought us Seoni.

i think Paizo has enough on their plate and makes a good amount of money with the Pathfinder RPG!

The problem is that Pathfinder campaigns are easily translated to 4E, people are doing it because Paizo won't, and that's money lost for them simply because they don't want to possibly risk a part of the niche they've staked so solidly.

The problem with that particular niche is that it's analogous to model trains; people who like it now really like it, but there is hardly any new blood being invited. If Paizo wants to live past a few decades they're going to have to anger their more radical customers and branch out to other systems besides 3E.

 

[billd91]

There is a serious problem when a book meant to give more options to martial classes, the least powerful classes, gives even more power to the most powerful classes. Obviously there's a significant share of Pathfinder buyers who see no problem with caster supremacy, but it really does need to die alongside the same train of thought that brought us Seoni.

I'm guessing you haven't read much of Ultimate Combat. It's got plenty to improve martial classes and a large portion of the spells are for the spell-casting martial classes as well as combat and group buffs.

 

[billd91]

There is a serious problem when a book meant to give more options to martial classes, the least powerful classes, gives even more power to the most powerful classes. Obviously there's a significant share of Pathfinder buyers who see no problem with caster supremacy, but it really does need to die alongside the same train of thought that brought us Seoni.

Spare us the Puritanism. They also brought us heavily armored women as well. Diversity in art and presentation appeals to more than either Puritanism or pandering.

 

[sword3274]

The problem is that Pathfinder campaigns are easily translated to 4E, people are doing it because Paizo won't, and that's money lost for them simply because they don't want to possibly risk a part of the niche they've staked so solidly.

I disagree. I think it comes down to the "return on investment," factor. The 4e people who want the Paizo stuff is buying it and translating it to 4e. It's more cost-effective that way than to branch into a realm which their buying core is not interested in. I think it would be professional suicide if they started producing 4e supplements now - I feel they'd lose many of their PF enthusiasts to the point where publishing 4e material wouldn't make up for that loss.

The problem with that particular niche is that it's analogous to model trains; people who like it now really like it, but there is hardly any new blood being invited. If Paizo wants to live past a few decades they're going to have to anger their more radical customers and branch out to other systems besides 3E.

That can't taken seriously. 3.x lasted 8-ish years and was going strong when the plug was pulled. Pathfinder is putting out a lot of product, yes, but their releases are "tricky" - a lot of modules and setting accessories. Those alone seem to do well enough to pay for their own publication. So it comes to the big, meaty releases that makes the players' wallets take notice - the hardback supplements. Six, seven? In what...2 years? That's a pretty digestable pace, in my opinion. They're not hitting us with one hardback a month (thank goodness) in a endless assault to keep us broke. They're nickel-and-diming us, sure, with the plethora of small releases and the big hardbacks sprinkled in. But it seems to be doing quite well. Well enough to be the best selling rpg on the market. And this is only Pathfinder's "1st Edition," so who's to say how long it'll go.

I think a fairer question is, how long will Hasbro allow WotC to go with D&D in its current form? Will it last decades? I think "D&D" will, but that's not a fair question, since WotC can label a D&D game how they see fit. No, the question is, how long can 4e last and what will it's lasting effect be on the game of D&D?

 

[Ettin]

Spare us the Puritanism.

This accusation got me curious, so I'm going to talk to any girls I know who game and link them a few Pathfinder iconic females, maybe that armoured one with the window and tell them that finding something wrong with that makes you a Puritan.

I'll be back in an hour to report on my findings!

 

[ahayford]

This is completely wrong, though. Fighters are Defenders with a bend towards Striker, Rogues are Strikers with a bend towards... well, Striking, since that's all they did in combat, and so on.

It's just that a 3.x caster was every role, possibly, and that's really not very good for a co-operative game.

That's why I'm really loving my 4E Rise of the Runelords game and really wish Paizo would ditch their long-term death option of, "No we won't design for other systems," because they've very likely got a huge market in the 4E crowd with their above-average campaign design, but they refuse to expand into it.

What I meen is, 3e did not follow the same role philosophy that 4e does, and thus trying to apply 4e's roles system onto 3e isn't really constructive. 3E's biggest drawback for me is the relative imbalance between the utility of casters/everyone else.

 

[ahayford]

Ah I see, you picked the pictures that would most support your case, completely ignoring the paladin. Lets include Kyra, Lini, Meresiel, Reiko, Seelah

 

[prosfilaes]

The problem with that particular niche is that it's analogous to model trains; people who like it now really like it, but there is hardly any new blood being invited. If Paizo wants to live past a few decades they're going to have to anger their more radical customers and branch out to other systems besides 3E.

"wants to live past a few decades"? You're talking about a hobby that's barely 35 years old; who can tell what another 35 years will bring? I don't know what Paizo should be doing with Pathfinder in a decade or two; let's confine our discussions to the next five years or so.

In any case, I don't see why the same thing couldn't be said to TSR. For almost 25 years, TSR's (A)D&D stayed fairly close to old-school D&D; as far as I know, none of their other non-licensed systems--Gamma World, Boot Hill, Amazing Engine, Alternity--made much of an impact relative to D&D. Sure, 25 years after the birth of old-school D&D, 20 after AD&D, there came 3E, which was not GURPS, or Rolemaster, or Runequest or anything else their competitors were doing. If Paizo thinks, 20 years after 3E came out, in 2020, to produce its own revolutionary new edition, the more power to them. Like D&D 3, it will not be their competitor's product; it will be their own. What it will be like, how successful it will be, that's 10 years down the road.