Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The 3e/3.5/PF DMG has NPC only classes. Commoner, Expert, Adept, Warrior, Aristocrat. By RAW this is for NPCs only I believe.

I don't remember for sure, but I thought it was advised that PCs shouldn't normally take these. Regardless, their wasn't really a good non-roleplaying reason to take these classes. The AD&D classes I referred to were stronger than PC classes, not weaker.

The MM has rules for advancing monsters by HD and type. By RAW you can't advance your PC elf by humanoid HD the way a monster can.

A MM elf can't advance by HD either. As a 1HD humanoid they must take class levels to advance. So PC elves follow the same rules. Ogre PCs, for example, must advance through all of their racial HD first just like MM Ogres. Presumably you could continue past your racial minimum HD but there was very little reason to do so since class levels are generally better.

I can't think of any 1e/2e/basic spells that monsters could get that PCs couldn't, just monster abilities. Any you can think of?

Not specifically. But NPCs did things off-screen in AD&D modules that the players would normally not be able to create on their own. The Tomb of Horrors seems like a prime example to me. I theory there must be some way they could create a replica of the tomb, maybe through liberal use of wisely worded wishes. But the place was basically a set piece used to challenge PCs. Many "new age" players would feel cheated (and thus dissatisfied) by the tomb as an impossible structure via RAW.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If you feel your blue dragon is missing them, just find an ability that matches what you're trying to do, and drop it into the blue dragon's stat block.

Houserules don't make for a good game.

Yes, as I already pointed out, WotC is guilty of trying to cater to the tabletop roleplaying game fanbase. That we are so hard to please that the company with the most experience in the industry can't make a decision without getting poo flung in its direction is not something that flatters us..

I don't care about he rest of the arguments, but "cater to the tabletop roleplaying game fanbase" is a pretty arrogant thing to say. If I dislike 4e, am I not in the "tabletop roleplaying game fanbase?"

Some people need to get over that a few people enjoy 4e, yeah, but others, such as yourself, need to come to terms with the fact that some people do not like 4e, and they have perfectly logical reasons for doing so. Things you enjoy, others might not, and it's not a flaw or bad judgement on their behalf.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I don't care about he rest of the arguments, but "cater to the tabletop roleplaying game fanbase" is a pretty arrogant thing to say. If I dislike 4e, am I not in the "tabletop roleplaying game fanbase?"

Touchy much? He didn't say you aren't part of the "tabletop roleplaying game fanbase." If you are part of that fanbase (we know you are), then WotC is trying to cater to you through their newest edition of D&D. The fact that they have succeeded with some fans and failed with others (you included) does not make his post the arrogant attack you are reading into it.

 

[Scribble]

I don't care about he rest of the arguments, but "cater to the tabletop roleplaying game fanbase" is a pretty arrogant thing to say. If I dislike 4e, am I not in the "tabletop roleplaying game fanbase?"

I think you misunderstand what he's saying... I don't think it has anything to do with what your preference in gaming is. Doesn't matter if you like 4e or 3e or 2 guys in the backyard hitting each other with sticks the rpg... The quote applies.

I think he's saying that by and large table top gamers tend to be a little on the ummm... sensitive side... (and I kind of agree with him.)

They tend to twist things they dislike into something way larger then it actually is.

You know, comic book guy style.

(ironic your post...)

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Touchy much? He didn't say you aren't part of the "tabletop roleplaying game fanbase." If you are part of that fanbase (we know you are), then WotC is trying to cater to you through their newest edition of D&D. The fact that they have succeeded with some fans and failed with others (you included) does not make his post the arrogant attack you are reading into it.

Not for nothing I kind of interpreted what Dannager was saying the same way that Prof did. As a result I pretty much ignored the post as I though it was really kind of an arrogant thing to say and decided not to respond to it.

 

[Windjammer]

DCs are listed, I stand corrected. Where are the Effects, Range, Area of Effect, etc? Not self-contained, that was my point. The hyper-linked SRD thing changes alot though if you have access to a computer at the table.
...

I can use any 4E creature on the fly by cracking open the book and scanning the stat block for a minute, tops, for even the most complicated creatures. You do sacrifice complexity, but a creature is self-contained.

I agree entirely with you - but here's something else to consider. While I find I can absorb a 4E statblock fairly quickly (where a new 3.5 creature really often took time to "get"), the difficulty is in absorbing the in's and out's of monster synergies you get in encounters for published modules in Dungeon or for LFR.

See, 3.5/PF encounters mostly don't trade heavily on such synergies (though they can). So while the creatures are individually harder to familiarize oneself with, there's no further time consuming task waiting there for you beyond that step.

In 4E, by contrast, there's a world of difference between (a) running that encounter with only quickly glancing at the monsters individually, and (b) absorbing them to check out for synergy effects at the tactical level. I've had some amazing moments of realization for playing some LFR modules several times. Some encounters are really brutal if you play them well, and a piece of cake if you miss a lot of the tactical "exchanges" between the monsters.

Thus I agree with what was said above: no matter the edition, there's much reward in a DM having prepped an encounter.

 

[carmachu]

Yes, as I already pointed out, WotC is guilty of trying to cater to the tabletop roleplaying game fanbase. That we are so hard to please that the company with the most experience in the industry can't make a decision without getting poo flung in its direction is not something that flatters us.

And they flung their share. And made several mistakes.

You sound silly with the "we're hard to please"? Really? I'd argue that WotC had a direction they were going, and it was damned the torpedos.

Paizo got its own share of flak for its own decisions. I'm sure if its fan base were larger, the criticism it received would have also been greater.

Why? I'd argue that whether you like paizo or not, whether you use it or not.....Paizo made better choices with their business decision then Wotc. Less antagonistic, more customer friendly.

Understand, this isnt pathfinder vs 4e or 4e vs 3.x.....Its about business and cutsomers. Your attitude throughout has been "hell with the customers, you cant make them happy". I'd argue thats a false dilema.

Oh no. WotC had to revise their proposed feature list for DDI. How awful.

Actually, speaking business wise, how much they amped up for the game table and otehr items, and didnt get it remotely out on time, yes it is awful. And a big deal.

Every company in the video game industry has done the same thing in the past. The one that really sticks out is Blizzard. They got so fed up with having to slog through the ire of their community that they ended up taking a "we're not saying anything until we're sure it's coming out" approach, and that's the same approach WotC was forced to adopt this last year. And really, the video game fan community is able to get over its frothing rage within a couple of weeks. There seem to be some people within the tabletop roleplaying community who are unable to let the issue go two years later, even though DDI is a truly excellent product package that almost everyone you'll find on here running 4e agrees is well worth the price of admission.

Sure, but DDI was a smaller part of 4e's Launch. The game table was a much bigger deal, if I recall. Very much a part of 4e welded to it.

But hey, keep going with the "stupid customer bit you cant make happy"

 

[carmachu]

Paizo did not suffer from the loss of the magazines. They understood the business deal they made with WotC from the beginning. They are not the helpless little company that WotC stamped all over as you surmise. I'd go so far to say that, based on commentary from Erik Mona and the direction Paizo took after the "incident," Paizo benefited from losing the magazines. Erik spoke about the issues of being in the business of finding advertisers over that of just designing games. The magazine industry is dying. Online is the way to go for that media. They could have started their own magazine if that was a lucrative venture. IMO, I believe WotC intentionally acted as the "bad guys" in the decision to end the magazines to help protect their friends at Paizo. If the flak from the cancellation of the magazines had fallen on their shoulders they might not have recovered. WotC could withstand the hit as the larger company.

Speculation and posible revisionism. There's no evidence that WOtc Intentionally acted as the bad guys. They were, in fact, the "bad guys".

Wotc MADE the decision to cancel the magazines. They were pulling in all licenses. So they, or course, deserve the balme for the matter. They werent white knighting for poor little Paizo. They made the call, they got the heat. Its really that simple.

The flak for the cancellation couldnt have fallen on their(Paizo) shoulders. They werent responsible for pulling the plug. WotC was.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

And they flung their share. And made several mistakes.

Do you have references to the "poo flinging" on WotC's part?

You sound silly with the "we're hard to please"? Really? I'd argue that WotC had a direction they were going, and it was damned the torpedos.

Well, geuss what? In business you need to make a decision and stick with it. If you approach something half-assed it is doomed to fail. It is pure fact that WotC must consider 4E to be a success at this point, because otherwise they would have changed directions at this point. Thy have listened to criticism. Not enough fluff in the MM? Announced today that MM3 will contain more fluff that the audience has asked for.

Why? I'd argue that whether you like paizo or not, whether you use it or not.....Paizo made better choices with their business decision then Wotc. Less antagonistic, more customer friendly.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I don't think they handled my remaining subscription to Dungeon well. And instead of offering a solution that satisfied me they blamed the problem on WotC. It is not WotC's fault that Paizo was unwilling to offer a solution that satisfied me as a customer. So everyone has their own opinion on who made better choices. I believe each company made the choice that was right for their company.

Understand, this isnt pathfinder vs 4e or 4e vs 3.x.....Its about business and cutsomers. Your attitude throughout has been "hell with the customers, you cant make them happy". I'd argue thats a false dilema. But hey, keep going with the "stupid customer bit you cant make happy"

This is exactly the attitude I got when Paizo added content to Dungeon that I didn't want (Polyhedron). This is the attitude I got when the page count of my pre-paid subscription was reduced by the change to a monthly format. They aren't saints, they make mistakess too.

Actually, speaking business wise, how much they amped up for the game table and otehr items, and didnt get it remotely out on time, yes it is awful. And a big deal.

Only for that niche of players that would use it. Continued research may have shown that the majority of players would not use the game table. The research may have also shown that of those players that use virtual tables many find existing methods to be adequate so as not to be interested in WotC's offering.

Speculation and posible revisionism. There's no evidence that WOtc Intentionally acted as the bad guys. They were, in fact, the "bad guys".

It is not a fact. You have no clue what went on behind the scenes. It is a fact that print magazine sales are declining, much like the newspaper trade. It is my recollection that Erik Mona was happy to see a new model where they weren't in the business of finding advertisers to support their income (because advertisers are also paying less for ad space in a falling media). Another poster mentioned stress around the change. Stress =/= Bad Things Happening. The change was a good direction for Paizo (obviously), but it would still be a stressful time moving to the new paradigm.

Wotc MADE the decision to cancel the magazines. They were pulling in all licenses. So they, or course, deserve the balme for the matter. They werent white knighting for poor little Paizo. They made the call, they got the heat. Its really that simple.

They didn't cancel the magazines! They pulled them in-house and the magazines continue today. Whether you like the new format or publisher is irrelevant. Who's to blame a company for keeping intellectual property they own?! Were they supposed to just give the names of the magazines up to a company that 1) didn't like being in the magazine business anymore (Erik did says he would love to continue the magazine if allowed, but its viability was slipping anyway) and 2) doesn't want to support the new edition. It's really that simple.

The flak for the cancellation couldnt have fallen on their(Paizo) shoulders. They werent responsible for pulling the plug. WotC was.

My speculation is that Paizo would not have continued publication of the magazines even if WotC had offered it to them. I mean, they decided against supporting 4E after learning the details. In business that could become "why offer when there is no interest?"

 

[Dannager]

Understand, this isnt pathfinder vs 4e or 4e vs 3.x.....Its about business and cutsomers. Your attitude throughout has been "hell with the customers, you cant make them happy". I'd argue thats a false dilema.

That's not true. You absolutely can make the customers happy. Most of them, at least. But unfortunately the tabletop roleplaying customer base has a disproportionately high number of what can only be called bad customers - the spoiled, entitled sort that would rather whine about how they would do things differently instead of appreciating the reality of the situation the hobby is in. These customers are not worth pleasing. WotC was right to ignore them because, truthfully, driving them away from the hobby would only improve it.

Sure, but DDI was a smaller part of 4e's Launch. The game table was a much bigger deal, if I recall. Very much a part of 4e welded to it.

The table was always designed as a part of DDI. What you're discussing is simply revisionism. The digital game table was simply supposed to be an option available to Insider subscribers. They ended up unable to complete it because the economy started to tank, corporate demanded cuts, and the software development team was seen as less important (and rightly so) than the RPG designers.