Pathfinder 1E Dont try to out Pathfinder, Pathfinder

[GameOgre]

I know a lot of folks started playing with 3.5 and the tendency is to go back to what you know or started with but I think going back to a rules heavy revamped 3.5 type game that is updated would be a vast mistake.

Pathfinder already holds that spot and frankly I do not see WOTC pushing them off that spot. At least not without one heck of a fight and fractured experience.

D&D moved past 3.5 for good or bad and another company took advantage of that fact/mistake. That company is doing one heck of a job at filling that need based on sales.

I think what D&D Next needs to do is aim for streamlining the base system and creating a rules lite core that reflects a updated Classic game that (as has been said all over) has modeler options all over the place that could be used to add more and more crunch to the system.

Rules lite and D&D haven't been within spitting distance of each other in years and years. However I really think that's the core they need to shoot for.

Also ANY idea that works for any of the retro-clones could be stolen at will. 5E leeching on the retro clones and other games based on D&D would only be fitting! C&C's siege engine could be altered slightly and used as a option, S&W one save, ANYTHING is fair game here.

That's not a shot at the clones,heck I play them but they have feasted on D&D's blood for years now. It would be only fitting if D&D used the same method to make itself the best game it can be.

Adding options on options could make a game similar to 3.5 and even 4E without fighting for that one spot.

 

[delericho]

Absolutely right. There are things to learn from Pathfinder, just as there are things to learn from 4e. And 5e shouldn't be ashamed to learn those lessons, wherever they come from.

But 5e should be its own thing.

 

[hanez]

I know a lot of folks started playing with 3.5 and the tendency is to go back to what you know or started with but I think going back to a rules heavy revamped 3.5 type game that is updated would be a vast mistake.

Pathfinder already holds that spot and frankly I do not see WOTC pushing them off that spot. At least not without one heck of a fight and fractured experience.

D&D moved past 3.5 for good or bad and another company took advantage of that fact/mistake. That company is doing one heck of a job at filling that need based on sales.

I think what D&D Next needs to do is aim for streamlining the base system and creating a rules lite core that reflects a updated Classic game that (as has been said all over) has modeler options all over the place that could be used to add more and more crunch to the system.

Rules lite and D&D haven't been within spitting distance of each other in years and years. However I really think that's the core they need to shoot for.

Also ANY idea that works for any of the retro-clones could be stolen at will. 5E leeching on the retro clones and other games based on D&D would only be fitting! C&C's siege engine could be altered slightly and used as a option, S&W one save, ANYTHING is fair game here.

That's not a shot at the clones,heck I play them but they have feasted on D&D's blood for years now. It would be only fitting if D&D used the same method to make itself the best game it can be.

Adding options on options could make a game similar to 3.5 and even 4E without fighting for that one spot.

I sort of agree and sort of disagree. Pathfinder wasnt as much of an update to 3.5 as 3.5 needed. As someone who loves PF and 3.5, there is still a lot of change that could be made to make those systems better. 4e had a LOT of good ideas that made the system simpler and easier to use, made combat more interesting etc. Its just all the other things that 4e did made it feel like I was playing a completely different game.

I agree with modules to a point, but if I have to wait a year after release for the Vancian spellcasting module, and the noncombat skills module, I probably won't like the game.

 

[GameOgre]

[QUOTE
I agree with modules to a point, but if I have to wait a year after release for the Vancian spellcasting module, and the noncombat skills module, I probably won't like the game.[/QUOTE]


you bring up a good point that I had not even considered.

 

[hanez]

I think that some of the discussion around modules misses a point that is really well expressed in this article (http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/315800-4-hours-w-rsd-escapist-bonus-column.html#post5762025) I just read it, and its very good.

Particularly this quote

The limiting factor to the growth and strength of the TRPG market was not retail stores or shelf space, it was human brains within which these games could interconnect.
The more segmented those brains became, the weaker the overall social network was. Every new game system, and every new variant to those systems, subdivided that network further, making it weaker.

What he elaborates very well is that games live, die, and have value based on the likelyhood of the fact that your friends ALSO have those books/games.

So while I agree with modules, I think considerable effort needs to be placed in unification in the FIRST book (phb). So that people from all camps feel that there most important gamestyles are represented in that system.

 

[paladinm]

While I am glad that Paizo has kept 3.5.x alive (very successfully), I can't say I really care for their approach. It seems that they have basically just thrown more powers at each class. I was very comfortable with the Paladin's powers in 3.5, for example; a lot of what was added in PF seems like clutter. Same for the Sorcerer, Ranger, etc.

I think that WotC needs to go back to the roots of each class, how they functioned when they were created, and see what features from later editions (and clones) Reasonably make sense. That way the classes can be "rebalanced" without making 5.0 into another MMO.

 

[Knightfall]

Absolutely right. There are things to learn from Pathfinder, just as there are things to learn from 4e. And 5e shouldn't be ashamed to learn those lessons, wherever they come from.

But 5e should be its own thing.

Agreed. D&D Next needs to learn from all the editions. It has to honor the roots planted with OD&D/BECMI and evoke the fun of 1E/2E while creating a ruleset that is modern in design.