D&D 4E Paizo and 4e.

[Erik Mona]

Yes, well, you've just outlined a major challenge to our business right now. Let's say there's no bard in the PHB. A lot of our adventures take place in cities and we'd like to use bards, whether or not they're in 4.0. Either we don't use them, or we create our own version that is invalidated within a year, or we create our own version and stick with it. Each of these options has benefits and costs associated with it, and the whole business is fairly ugly.

I appreciate why Wizards of the Coast is tinkering with the PC races, classes, and monster assumptions, but it ain't making our lives any easier!

--Erik

 

[DaveMage]

Yes, well, you've just outlined a major challenge to our business right now. Let's say there's no bard in the PHB. A lot of our adventures take place in cities and we'd like to use bards, whether or not they're in 4.0. Either we don't use them, or we create our own version that is invalidated within a year, or we create our own version and stick with it. Each of these options has benefits and costs associated with it, and the whole business is fairly ugly.

I appreciate why Wizards of the Coast is tinkering with the PC races, classes, and monster assumptions, but it ain't making our lives any easier!

--Erik

I'm sure it won't end with classes. Since not all of the common monsters will be in MM1, you may have to come up with your own version only to be trumped by the "official" version in a later MM.

So then if you switch to the official version in a later product it won't match your original version leading to confusion. It will be especially painful if your version is weak compared to the official one. Since Mearls loves to tinker with monsters, I'm sure there will quite a few surprises in store....

Of course, one solution would be just to include your own unique monsters in your adventures, but then you get to deal with the fanbase (DMs) wanting to play with the "official" monsters in their games.

I don't envy you this...

 

[Erik Mona]

Welcome to my world. :/



--Erik

 

[James Jacobs]

Of course, one solution would be just to include your own unique monsters in your adventures, but then you get to deal with the fanbase (DMs) wanting to play with the "official" monsters in their games.

I don't envy you this...

I strongly suspect that "official" D&D monsters and "official" Pathfinder/GameMastery monsters are going to be different anyway. Take our goblins as an example... they look and act quite differently from the 3.5 goblins, and I suspect they'll be different from the 4th edition goblins as well. But they won't be changing from their first appearance in Pathfinder 1 and their first appearance in whatever editon of the game we're using 3 years from now; they'll remain toothy little fathead dog-hating sadists.

 

[Rechan]

Of course, one solution would be just to include your own unique monsters in your adventures, but then you get to deal with the fanbase (DMs) wanting to play with the "official" monsters in their games.

I don't see what the problem with this is. I mean, either you use the monsters in the Module, or you pick up the 4e MM and use that one. If it requires you to retool the story because Paizo Succubus is a Demon, not a Devil, well - that's what you get when you come to Paizo. After all:

I strongly suspect that "official" D&D monsters and "official" Pathfinder/GameMastery monsters are going to be different anyway. Take our goblins as an example... they look and act quite differently from the 3.5 goblins, and I suspect they'll be different from the 4th edition goblins as well. But they won't be changing from their first appearance in Pathfinder 1 and their first appearance in whatever editon of the game we're using 3 years from now; they'll remain toothy little fathead dog-hating sadists.

That kind of consistency is appreciated.

 

[Odhanan]

I strongly suspect that "official" D&D monsters and "official" Pathfinder/GameMastery monsters are going to be different anyway. Take our goblins as an example... they look and act quite differently from the 3.5 goblins, and I suspect they'll be different from the 4th edition goblins as well. But they won't be changing from their first appearance in Pathfinder 1 and their first appearance in whatever editon of the game we're using 3 years from now; they'll remain toothy little fathead dog-hating sadists.

To me, that's why the whole "Pathfinder's own world, particular creatures, particular classes (a la AU, i.e. that can plug to D&D's stuff with ease and uses Golarion as its "Diamond Throne" default setting, allowing people who don't like Pathfinder to still pick up its PHB and cherry pick their own stuff for their 4E homebrew) et cetera and just run with it approach, seems particularly appealing at this point.

Of course, one solution would be just to include your own unique monsters in your adventures, but then you get to deal with the fanbase (DMs) wanting to play with the "official" monsters in their games.

There's going to be a choice to make at some point: supporting Golarion and make it specific with its own variant PHB, monsters and so on, or just follow 4E and stay at the mercy of a third party's business plan.

I think the first solution is the best for long term survival because it allows Paizo later to create a full-fledged RPG when 5th edition is around the corner and be completely independent. That's the short to middle term that's a problem: how many customers would keep supporting Paizo if the company chose this route of "our world/rules/variants and we run with it"? Seems like there's a serious possibility from what I read on Paizo's boards, but then again, these are Paizo's boards... and they don't necessarily reflect the customer base Paizo needs to satisfy for the next while.

 

[Dave Turner]

To me, that's why the whole "Pathfinder's own world, particular creatures, particular classes (a la AU, i.e. that can plug to D&D's stuff with ease and uses Golarion as its "Diamond Throne" default setting, allowing people who don't like Pathfinder to still pick up its PHB and cherry pick their own stuff for their 4E homebrew) et cetera and just run with it approach, seems particularly appealing at this point.

My God, man, this is a single sentence. Think of the children.

 

[Thurbane]

It is my impression that Paizo is setting itself up as the anti-4e company, aided by the fans on its forums.

Meanwhile, the vibe I get from Necromancer Games they'll move to 4e as soon as possible, and adapt it as necessary to keep the feel they want.

Does anyone else get this impression?

Cheers!

All I can say is that whichever chooses to stick with 3.5, in whole or in part, will have me as an instant, loyal customer, since TSR/WotC has broken my heart one too many times.

 

[hong]

My God, man, this is a single sentence. Think of the children.

You could turn it into an entry for the Bulwer-Lytton contest.

"To me, that's why the whole "Pathfinder's own world, particular creatures, particular classes (a la AU, i.e. that can plug to D&D's stuff with ease and uses Golarion as its "Diamond Throne" default setting, allowing people who don't like Pathfinder to still pick up its PHB and cherry pick their own stuff for their 4E homebrew) et cetera and just run with it approach, seems particularly appealing at this point," thought Odhanan, while mulling on a glass of red wine and browsing EN World.​

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

[Goblins will] remain toothy little fathead dog-hating sadists.

Ok, first of all, that right there is why Paizo is so cool.

But the larger point is that I think you guys should just define your own bard, just as you did with goblins, own it, and make it stick.

Who cares what the "official" bard is at that point?