Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[BadMojo]

Oh, no. I rue the idea of SAGA-ized skill points.

I thought I'd miss the old skill points, but after thinking about it, I can live with a Saga-esque skills. Skill points, for me, become book-keeping that outweights the fun at higher levels. For me it's a big part of what makes generation of high level characters so cumbersome. It's not easy, and you can find many, many errors in skills in products from very reputable D20 companies.

This also announcement comes right as I'm really beginning to enjoy Paizo's work with Pathfinder and losing interest in 4E. I started off really optimistic about 4E, but the more I see the less I like.

Maybe 4E will surprise me when it comes out, or grow on me after a while. For the short term, it's nice to have this as an option to 3.5.

 

[PeterWeller]

I'm pretty much a 4E fanboy at this point, but I'm still really happy for this. Paizo is providing a home of sorts for disaffected 3E fans, many of whom are already huge Paizo fans, so this will probably work out fairly well for them. I'm pretty sure they're going to end up going over to 4E in the next couple of years because I'm pretty sure the market is going to go that way, but by doing this, they're guaranteeing a revenue stream, which means I don't have to worry about them going under before they can get good 4E stuff out the door.

As for the rules, well, like I said, I'm pretty much a dyed in the wool 4E fanboy at this point, and I have to say, while they look like totally decent rules to me, they don't look anything like a fix. Giving core classes and races more abilities across the board doesn't do much to affect underlying balance and system issues. You can keep on giving fighters new treats, but as long as you keep giving wizards and clerics treats at the same time, the classes are going to remain imbalanced.

 

[Lizard]

This is where you are making an error IMO -not a legal one, but a realistic one. 4e rules are not compatible with the 3e SRD. So if they want to make Quint Fighter they will have to redesign it without keeping touch of the 3e SRD anyway. Not to say that they might not be allowed at all to make such a product or products that in your theory (but not in practice) they would need 3e SRD licensed for 4e.

They'd need access to the 3e SRD for any rules text, feat names, races, monsters, etc, which 4e doesn't include in its initial release. Since i suspect a lot of early 4e third party products will be attempts to 'fill the gaps' of 4e, this is going to be vital.

 

[Azzy]

While they're not necessarily exclusive, I think it is probably true that most gamers don't have the time or inclination to devote to more than one 'main' game they play when it comes to pen and paper RPGs, especially DMs. The binary thinking should not be a surprise at all. I know that I have no interest at all in maintaining rules mastery over multiple systems.

That isn't true in my personal experience. In the 21-22 years I've been playing D&D, most of the gamers and gaming groups I've known (including myself) have played multiple games--either trading out which is "main" one between campaigns or having different GMs run different systems concurrently.

 

[Spatula]

While they're not necessarily exclusive, I think it is probably true that most gamers don't have the time or inclination to devote to more than one 'main' game they play when it comes to pen and paper RPGs, especially DMs. The binary thinking should not be a surprise at all. I know that I have no interest at all in maintaining rules mastery over multiple systems.

Buying doesn't necessarily involve playing. Or playing long-term. Just as a personal example, I have bought the 3e FRCS (beautiful book, never played nor had any intention of playing a FR game), 3e OA (would have like to play, but haven't yet), d20 Modern (played one campaign and went back to D&D), d20 Cthulhu (never played), and probably some other stuff that I've forgotten about.

And regardless of one's future intentions WRT D&D, one can still harbor goodwill (or at least apathy) towards those who have different intentions.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

So Paizo decided to betray 4E?
They won't get my money anymore.
I'm just moving my Paizo bookmark from the RPG/D&D folder into the RPG/Others folder.

Well, they may have lost you but they gained me. Say yes to Paizo!

 

[Jack99]

I have to say that ever since the release of Pathfinder, Paizo has been doing 3e better than WOTC, IMO. Not surprising, since WOTC has been neck-deep in 4e, but I believe that Pathfinder (and Paizo's Dungeon and Dragon run) produced better 3e material than a lot of stuff at WOTC. So since they are so good at it, I'm happy to see that there will be future 3.5 options, because it is a good system, and I love to play it.

In what alternate reality is this true? Please point me to the awesome rules-making skills of Paizo. Just quote the book or the magazine, I am fairly sure I have most of them, and tbh, while Paizo is the shizzle as far as adventures goes, they have yet to prove being able to handle extensive rules and balancing of a system. Based on their alpha, I will go as far as say, that I think they are in over their heads.

So, in short, just in case my ramblings didn't make any sense.
- Paizo has a track record of making awesome adventures. Check
- Paizo has a track record of making a great world. Check
_ Paizo has a track record of making creative, balanced rules, fun classes... erhm, where? I have seen so many broken or boring things in Dragon Magazines. In fact, before Paizo took over Dragon, I used so much of the crunch, during Paizo's reign, I mostly used the fluff...

Either way, I too wish Paizo the best of luck with their project.

 

[xechnao]

They'd need access to the 3e SRD for any rules text, feat names, races, monsters, etc, which 4e doesn't include in its initial release. Since i suspect a lot of early 4e third party products will be attempts to 'fill the gaps' of 4e, this is going to be vital.

I do not get this. Why would I need 3e SRD to release a 4e class called barbarian that has an ability that is called rage? Or a race that its people are called gnomes and are very short.
I think I do not since Wotc cant have any copyright on this. For copyrighted proper names you have a point but many "proper" names are not.

IMO this will fall short not because of not releasing 3e SRD under GSL, but because the very GSL will prevent it. I do not expect you will be able to create anything other but fluff and some encounters for 4e and claim D&D appropriate under the GSL.

 

[JohnSnow]

There's a whole lot of unfounded binary thinking going on here in this thread, too. Just because someone buys the eventual Pathfinder rulebook & adventures doesn't mean they aren't also interested in 4e books (and vice versa). Being interested in one doesn't mean that you have to repudiate the other, though you wouldn't know it reading half the posts here...

I can't speak for anyone else, just myself.

I have no interest in playing two games. Third Edition is creaky, and it's showing its age. I'm certainly not interested in a hastily houseruled re-hash of it. And by the time the Pathfinder RPG is anything more than that, 4E will be out. Heck, there will probably be gnome bards available before Paizo starts charging.

So in other words, my interest in the Pathfinder RPG = nil.

As far as adventures, I wouldn't want to buy adventures designed for something other than Fourth Edition. Why? Two reasons:

1) I'd have to convert them. Unless Paizo is much better at writing adventures than everyone in the 4E adventure business (which I HIGHLY doubt), that's probably much more trouble than it's worth.

2) Buying OGL-compatible material will lead Paizo to mistakenly assume I want them to make more OGL-compatible material. Since that would be a VERY mistaken assumption, I choose not to confuse Paizo with my business.

As I've said, I have no problem with people not wanting to buy Fourth Edition stuff. I do have a problem with them continually hanging around in Fourth Edition forums to bitch about it. That'd be like me going over to the Paizo forums to talk about how much the Pathfinder RPG will suck. And quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.

That said, I think I should stop posting in this thread.

 

[Spatula]

If they hadn't, D&D would be a much smaller part of the marketplace. The OGL created a standard system in gaming, the 'long tail' of which kept reaching back to WOTC, even for 'stand alone' games. People buy Conan/B5/True 20 *in addition to* D&D; very few people use them without having first been D&D players. The D20 system kept gamers in the "D&D Space", even if they weren't playing D&D, leading to all sorts of ancillary beneficial effects for WOTC.

They're going to feel its loss.

The OGL was really visionary; it has kept people bored with D&D (or unsatisfied with aspects of it) from defecting to other systems, and got WotC's competitors (such as White Wolf) to buy into supporting the game. On top of that, on the off chance that any particular d20-derived game took off and became a wild success - it was still open content, and anyone (including WotC) could publish material for it.

But the safeguards to ensure the OGL could never be revoked were probably the smartest bit. Dancey must have known that future management would not be as farsighted as Adkinson was. Or maybe it was Adkinson's idea, seeing as he sold off WotC to Hasbro not long after 3e came out.