D&D 4E Paizo and 4e.

[Wisdom Penalty]

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

Gimble. Gimble does.

 

[Cadfan]

Its a lot easier to make your own goblins than it is to make your own Bard. Players will come to the game wanting to play as a bard. Goblins, on the other hand, they come to the game wanting to stab. Players won't be so upset if the things they are stabbing are different than they expected, but they will care if the character class they want to play is different from what they expected.

 

[tenkar]

Its a lot easier to make your own goblins than it is to make your own Bard. Players will come to the game wanting to play as a bard. Goblins, on the other hand, they come to the game wanting to stab. Players won't be so upset if the things they are stabbing are different than they expected, but they will care if the character class they want to play is different from what they expected.

Then call it a Skald and be done with it... it's not like variant classes won't be popping up like weeds anyhow. That way they can coexist as two sides of the same basic coin.

 

[Odhanan]

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

I have no pity. I should be ashamed of myself.

PS: So should Victor Hugo. Ever read his introduction of the Hunchback of Notre-Dame? Deadly, man, deadly, but glorious.

 

[hong]

I always thought Victor Hugo reached his peak with The Three Musketeers, but then jumped the shark with The Phantom Of The Opera.

 

[BASHMAN]

I always thought Victor Hugo reached his peak with The Three Musketeers, but then jumped the shark with The Phantom Of The Opera.

Hugo didn't write the Three Musketeers. That was Andre Dumas. Hugo's greatest work was Les Miserables.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

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.

Highjack:

In three years time I hope I can show my yet unconcieved child a cute little plush Goblin from Paizo. It will be his/her best friend and we will never hav to buy a dog that I will have to walk and feed.
So, what about the Plush Goblin?

 

[Tharen the Damned]

Hugo didn't write the Three Musketeers. That was Andre Dumas. Hugo's greatest work was Les Miserables.

I thought he is in the parfume industry nowadays with his own brand (dedicated to his wife):
Hugo's Boss?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I thought he is in the parfume industry nowadays with his own brand (dedicated to his wife):
Hugo's Boss?

cha -- cha-- chiiing!

 

[Sundragon2012]

...If the 4e PH lacks a bard we will either avoid stories with bards until WotC gives us one or make one of our own that will suffice in the interregnum.

Of all the things that concern me about 4e, this is not one of them.

Actually, I'm not that concerned about 4e, and I'm really looking forward to it. A lot of the "sacred cows" issues have to do with elements of the game that have not traditionally been open and are unlikely to be open in the new edition.

I was initially bent out of shape about the changes to the Great Wheel and to the succubi, but Paizo can't really use the Great Wheel one way or the other, and we can easily include a "traditional" succubus in our stuff if we want to.

So I am not worried about the impact the 4e rules will have on our setting.

I haven't run the Paizo modules but I know a friend who has DM'd them so I got a chance to look them over and like what I see. However, by the very nature of the Pathfinder series I assume that the adventures are set in a unique setting ie. a world that isn't the bizarre, self-contradictory mishmash that is D&D 3.5's "core" setting.

I have to admit being perplexed at your unhappiness with the proposed 4e cosmology changes especially when I saw that the Adventure Path modules are set in their own world. If you are creating your own setting wouldn't it follow that you would want to create a set of core assumptions regarding your setting that would make it unique? Wouldn't it make sense to create your own planar cosmology and backstory to beings like succubi? Why would WoTC's decisions regarding how the planes are set up or whether or not succubi are demons or devils impact the choices you make in your setting?

I've read your work, you are a good writer. Instead of bridling under the changes that WoTC is making to arbitrary sacred cows, make your own. Make a cosmology that you like that is intimately tied to your world and a backstory that allows succubi to remain demonic if that is what you wish. You are the ultimate DM in a sense, a guy who has the opportunity to create a setting with a fanbase who already loves your work. You can easily decide to ignore, alter, change classes, planes, monsters, etc. as necessary to make your setting come to life.

Paizo is in a good position that despite the risks involved with the coming of 4e, the company has a rabid fanbase (I lurk on the Paizo boards from time to time) and can create something that might challenge FR in regards to popularity if handled properly. I wish I were in such a good position as I write up my own setting for publication. You are golden right now and if I were you I would take the Pathfinder setting, its unique IPs and run with it creating a setting unique enough to be compelling but familiar enough to not alienate D&D players who like vanilla fantasy.

You may have the next FR or Eberron on your hands and that would be quite a feat for a 3rd party publisher. Good luck.

I haven't bought a setting since Midnight 2nd edition which is IMO the best setting ever created for 3.5e. However, I would definately buy a quality setting from Paizo even if just for ideas to pillage for my own setting.



Sundragon