D&D 4E Paizo and 4e.

[Hussar]

True, but the thing is is that Favored Souls, Scouts, Shadowcasters, Warlocks, Ninjas and so on are suppose to be much less common then Bards, Sorcerers, and Druids. By promoting the Warlock to PHB1, WotC is assuming a setting where making a pact with an infernal being is alot more common then playing a lute. That doesn't seem right to me. Yea, WotC isn't FORCING a world where that's the default, but remember, all you're suppose to need to play the game is the 3 books and your imagination.

Nitpick - warlocks, as already stated, do NOT have to make pacts with infernal beings. There are already 3 types, so, statements of fact about WOTC's assumptions based on that are false.

The thing is is that I want to love 4E. I want 4E to be a great edition. I think its a little soon, but hey, I am not the one that makes those choices. But a world that assumes infernal pacts are not uncommon is not a world that I want to play in. A world where infernal pacts happen and they are occassional sidekicks to the BBG, sure. but not when they are highly intricate part of the setting.

Again, based on false readings of the small amount of information we have.

So in the end, I'm not going to upgrade. What I have now works for my group. And if Paizo puts out more 3.5 products, I'm there. If they put out products for a system that is reasonably compatable, I'll use them. If they come out with their own RPG, I'll probably have a 2nd game.

Perfectly fair.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Nitpick - warlocks, as already stated, do NOT have to make pacts with infernal beings. There are already 3 types, so, statements of fact about WOTC's assumptions based on that are false.

Ok fine. A Demon, a devil or a shadow equivilent of a demon/devil. Either way, my point is still valid about how the setting assumes that making a pact with abovementioned extraplaners is commonplace.

 

[tenkar]

I didn't mean to come off as hostile or rude (at least. not this time ), so I apologize for that. I wasn't also really calling out tenkar on his post. It just seemed a prime example of some of the things I've seen said (or paraphrased, I suppose) in this subforum. Seemed a nice post to reply too.

But again, I am not angry or heated, didn't mean to make anyone else feel that way either. My bad!

Eh, you forced me to elaborate on my point... or points... which was good.

Going from 3e to 4e is probably going to resemble going from 3e to True20 or even Savage Worlds... you might be able to save the flavor but the crunch will be very different if not incompatible in places.

 

[Twowolves]

Going from 3e to 4e is probably going to resemble going from 3e to True20 or even Savage Worlds... you might be able to save the flavor but the crunch will be very different if not incompatible in places.

Yeah, this is the vibe I'm getting. I think I might have mentioned it in another thread (or maybe this one, since it's pretty long now!), but the changes they are making seem to me to be a lot closer to games exactly like True20 or Savage Worlds than to D&D. I certianly don't have a problem with either of those games (nor others like them), but they are distinctly different in terms of flow and flavor. Which brings to mind the whole "4th ed = New Coke" comparison made elsewhere in this forum.

I suppose I'll patiently await 5th ed: D&D Classic!

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ok fine. A Demon, a devil or a shadow equivilent of a demon/devil.

Or some faerie queen, a lord of the hunt, Charon the boatman, the ghosts of your ancestors, a wolf spirit...all of these could fit in the feral/shadow categories. We don't know. What we do know is that you don't have to make pacts with fiends.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Are 3.5e warlocks more popular than 3.5e bards? Hard to say, but based on anecdotal evidence, I would probably say yes (and I love bards!).

I love Bards, too, but Warlocks can be "Diplomancers" just like the Bard, and they get to play a very active, direct role in combat. (The Bard is very useful in combat - but his influence is indirect due to the bonuses he grants)

I hope that the 4th edition Bard (which will come eventually, I am sure about that) will be better in the "butt-kicking" department.
(I remember that somewhere - maybe PHB II - they claimed the Bard can be a second-line melee fighter - having played a Bard myself, and having seen a few of them played by others, I can assure that this isn't a realistic proposition. Archer, yes, maybe. But frontline? All the disadvantages of the Rogue or Cleric with none of his benefits?)

 

[Wolfspider]

Trying to keep this thread focused (on Paizo and 4E), is this really true? Have they said as much? Are sales of Pathfinder and GameMastery Modules rising, holding steady or falling since GenCon?

What's the scoop, Wolfspider?

I don't have a scoop really, just my own intuition and reason, and I doubt that Paizo will share specific figures (although I seem to recall reading that Pathfinder is still doing very well, and that's great to hear).

But I have also heard at least a dozen people on various forums say that they have dropped their subscriptions. Even if these 12 people are the only ones in the world who have done so, it does represent a loss of at least some revenue (and all revenue is good revenue). Now, others may have picked up subscriptions to replace them, but that still represents a loss.

What I'm really curious about is how Castle Whiterock from Goodman Games will fare. I really love Goodman Games, and I plan on picking up the mega-adventure (probably in electronic format). I wonder how many people who planned on buying it won't now because of the impending release of 4.0....

 

[Twowolves]

I love Bards, too, but Warlocks can be "Diplomancers" just like the Bard, and they get to play a very active, direct role in combat. (The Bard is very useful in combat - but his influence is indirect due to the bonuses he grants)

I hope that the 4th edition Bard (which will come eventually, I am sure about that) will be better in the "butt-kicking" department.
(I remember that somewhere - maybe PHB II - they claimed the Bard can be a second-line melee fighter - having played a Bard myself, and having seen a few of them played by others, I can assure that this isn't a realistic proposition. Archer, yes, maybe. But frontline? All the disadvantages of the Rogue or Cleric with none of his benefits?)

A Charm Monster heavy bard can most definately be a big frontline boost. I thought they were really kinda weak, until the Greater Spell Focus: Enchantment 22 Charisma bard was charming ogre barbarians and hill giants left and right!

 

[dmccoy1693]

Or some faerie queen, a lord of the hunt, Charon the boatman, the ghosts of your ancestors, a wolf spirit...all of these could fit in the feral/shadow categories. We don't know. What we do know is that you don't have to make pacts with fiends.

You're dodging the main point of my posts by addressing technicalities. My point is is that pacts are now commonplace. That's a different kind of magic system. That kind of magic requires you to make a pact with SOMETHING for power. Editions 1-3.5 of D&D don't make the assumption that this is commonplace in the setting (I'm not talking about among players, I'm talking about in the setting). 4E makes that assumption. So 30 years of setting development is now flushed straight down the toilet.

 

[WayneLigon]

You're dodging the main point of my posts by addressing technicalities. My point is is that pacts are now commonplace. That's a different kind of magic system. That kind of magic requires you to make a pact with SOMETHING for power. Editions 1-3.5 of D&D don't make the assumption that this is commonplace in the setting (I'm not talking about among players, I'm talking about in the setting). 4E makes that assumption. So 30 years of setting development is now flushed straight down the toilet.

I honestly doubt you'll be able to tell the difference; in fact, I'll be downright surprised if you can find a major difference in any of the settings just because a single class now makes pacts. It doesn't flush 30 years of setting development. Pacts will be as commonplace as you want to make them unless you just follow every single word of a setting like it's some kind of bible or something.

To my mind, D&D has always had pact casters: we call them 'clerics'. I would feel confident in saying that in the vast, vast majority of campaigns, Clerics serve gods instead of taking the 'no god' or 'philosophy' approach. It's no different promising to serve a god than making a deal with a faerie creature or whatever for abilities.