Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[Matthan]

Well, here's another voice to the crowd. When I first read the news, I was sad. I had honestly expected to run my first 4E game with a compatible Pathfinder series. I know some people are going to call me naive, but it just didn't occur to me that it wouldn't. I had heard people mention it and even read Erik Mona write that they would consider staying with the OGL, but I guess I just universalized my experience. I wanted to go to 4E, surely everyone would.

Now that I've had a day or so to think through it and follow the threads, I'm still sad that I won't get to enjoy their products. What they're making isn't for me. That's fair. And now, I get to follow something interesting. This is an occasion without precedent in the industry if I'm not mistaken. Because of the OGL, Paizo can try to support and be profitable with a prior edition of D&D. If nothing else, that will be fascinating to watch. It may not be what I want to spend money on, but it sure makes for some fun internet drama.

Of course now I'm in the market for a new adventure path (or whatever name the other companies decide to use) for 4E. I know I want to support a third party company with it. I'm anxious to hear more about Necromancer's plan. I've never bought their products, but I've heard good things. Of course, I never played first edition, so I don't know what feel I would be buying either.

Maybe EN Publishing will update War of the Burning Sky or do another path.

If anything, I think I'm more excited about the GSL getting out there. With Paizo out of the picture, there's a large niche for an enterprising company to try and fill. That's exciting.

 

[Henry]

Maybe EN Publishing will update War of the Burning Sky or do another path.

If anything, I think I'm more excited about the GSL getting out there. With Paizo out of the picture, there's a large niche for an enterprising company to try and fill. That's exciting.

I have a very strong feeling that, barring some massive fund drive, you won't see an EN Publishing Adventure Path for 4e until after January of 2009. Even then, funds or not, Russ would probably be happier upgrading ENWorld than spending it on a 4e project, because the more the community is supported, the more they can do with it as they wish - the 3e people can keep doing their thing, and the 4e community will have a rally-point to share info and develop their own stuff.

 

[Matthan]

I have a very strong feeling that, barring some massive fund drive, you won't see an EN Publishing Adventure Path for 4e until after January of 2009. Even then, funds or not, Russ would probably be happier upgrading ENWorld than spending it on a 4e project, because the more the community is supported, the more they can do with it as they wish - the 3e people can keep doing their thing, and the 4e community will have a rally-point to share info and develop their own stuff.

You're absolutely right. You know, I had forgotten about the money upfront thing in my dream to play that adventure series. Well, the niche is still there for any other companies to try and fill it. Here's hoping that a couple try for it. Variety is good, right?

 

[Azzy]

I'm not sure that people sticking with 3.5 think nothing needs to change. There's a lot of skepticism at the specific changes and the magnitude of changes in 4e but that's a far cry from the system being perfect.

Agreed. There were some changes in 4e that seemed interesting, but those got overshadows (for me) by the "why did you do that" rules. I wasn't opposed to the idea of a fourth edition, it's just the way that the designers went about 4e didn't particularly speak to me in a good way. Hey, maybe 5e will end up being more my speed--you never know. In the interim, I'm going to keep an eye on the Pathfinder RPG. It may just turn out to be what I'm looking for.

I am with you. When I read that stuff I say "huh? who are these people and how do they play D&D?"

Y'know, as one of 4e-"haters" (rolls eyes) I don't get this either. Deadlands is a game that also doesn't appeal to me, but I'd never say that it isn't conducive to roleplaying. Now, I might say that about GURPS, but then I find GURPS very tedious.

The rules have NOTHING to do with roleplaying for me. My groups have always roleplayed hard in every edition I have played and 4E will be no different and that fact that players have daily powers has zero effect on that.

Maybe I have been doing something wrong for the last 31 years.

Don't matter if you were as long as you and your group have fun, right?

BTW, you're an old fart. (I'm joking people, don't have a conniption.)

 

[see]

I mean, really? "Wow, that battle took a lot out of us. I'm out of spells, the cleric's only got Cure Lights left, and we already had the fighter and rogue go unconscious in the first fight. We've got to pull back and regroup. Another battle could take us all out.

If that's how tough you made the first encounter of the adventuring day, then presumably you and your players don't have any problem with the 15-minute adventuring day, or you're bad at pacing.

The fifteen-minute adventuring day is entirely a result of pacing decisions by the DM, by either making early encounters very tough, or allowing the players to unilaterally dictate when they will deal with encounters. It is not a defect of the rule system, and does not require a change to rules to fix; it simply requires the DM to adjust his approach.

(Rope trick? The invisible 3'x5' window is on the Material Plane — and so can be seen by creatures who can see invisible things, revealed by invisibility purge, etc.. Which means the hostiles can arrange a large welcome party to be waiting for the characters when the duration runs out . . . or it's knocked out by a dispel magic. Don't hose the players the first time they do it, of course, but if they do it regularly, they should have it backfire spectacularly eventually.)

 

[hong]

The fifteen-minute adventuring day is entirely a result of pacing decisions by the DM, by either making early encounters very tough,

You mean "making early encounters fun and interesting in their own right".

 

[Maggan]

(Rope trick?

Yes Rope Trick. The moment the dungeon suddenly starts teeming with monsters who can see the invisible, where there before had been none, that's the moment the DM gets a book in the head.

I think the encounters of the day should be roller coasters. I don't want to get up at nine and tell my adventuring buddies, "hey, the first encounter won't put us back too much, because otherwise the pacing is crap. Let's go through this without expending too many resources, huh".

If the DM metagames by hitting e.g. Rope Trick with all his metagame powers, then the players will do the same.

/M

 

[see]

You mean "making early encounters fun and interesting in their own right".

Tell me, when you watch movies, do you strenuously object to the fact that there isn't a full-blown plot and climax in every twenty-two minutes of film time, like there is in a TV series?

 

[hong]

Tell me, when you watch movies, do you strenuously object to the fact that there isn't a full-blown plot and climax in every twenty-two minutes of film time, like there is in a TV series?

Tell me, did I mention anything about a full-blown plot and climax?

 

[Azzy]

You mean "making early encounters fun and interesting in their own right".

Apparently not if the players blow their load right from the start.