Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[Jeff Wilder]

Well, if we're being pedantic*

I've been out-pedanted!

 

[Plane Sailing]

As a player from way back when D&D was actually a roleplaying game

..snip...

Most 3.5 enthusiasts don't have an issue with 4E. They have an issue with WotC.

...snip...

So before you start throwing mud at Paizo or ignorantly marginalizing 3.5 enthusiats

Rather than launching a rant which implies that D&D is no longer a roleplaying game, generalising about a group of people that you don't know and ignorantly marginalise 4e enthusiasts, I recommend that you think twice before posting.

Whatever point you want to make will come across much better if you make it without swiping at other targets.

 

[xechnao]

Nonsense. It's an RPG with a tactical combat system. The "it's a boardgame" comment is getting old--especially since I've yet to see it come from anyone who's actually seen the whole rules set and given it a fair shake.

Ok, perhaps this is not the right place to bring this on but it makes sense to me to say that 4e is designed as a boardgame. You can have a tactical combat system without a board. 4e is not designed like this though. Nor Cadwallon even if it defines itself as a tactical roleplaying game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well it makes some sense what to suspect from the GSL regarding how 4e is made and the product line Wotc has already announced.

With GSL the only 4e rule additions I can see are talent paths on existing classes, magic items, equipment, fluff and encounters. No new classes or races for example. In the encounter field I can see monster design -so hopefully ToH would be ok for 4e- of course supposedly GSL actually does come out and tries to be as open as it can be.

No, i think new classes and races will be allowed by the GSL. If not, that would limit supplements to adventures, and while I am definitely mostly interested in that, I don't think it will make a viable GSL, even to the eyes of WotC.

My predictions:
Classes definitely look like something one should be able to add, but I suppose the class framework might be a little more limited. (Demanding at will/per encounter/per day powers to your class. 1/2 level bonus to all skill, defenses, and so on.)
The most important limitation will probably be there to avoid people rewriting the contents of the combat chapter or XP tables. Doing so means you essentially need a PHB to play any kind of GSL game, and that's their stated goal, as far as I know.
Variant rules like "Players roll all the dice" or "roll for defenses" or alternative level bonus progressions might also be off-limits with the GSL. (Hell, maybe even creating rules to remove +X items from the game.)

 

[xechnao]

No, i think new classes and races will be allowed by the GSL. If not, that would limit supplements to adventures, and while I am definitely mostly interested in that, I don't think it will make a viable GSL, even to the eyes of WotC.

If classes and races are allowed we are back to OGL again. Not only that but since Wotc has omitted popular races and classes in their first products and probably plans to cover them in future products they better not allow some kind of attrition they rather avoid.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If classes and races are allowed we are back to OGL again. Not only that but since Wotc has omitted popular races and classes in their first products and probably plans to cover them in future products they better not allow some kind of attrition they rather avoid.

No, we're not. As long as the major combat chapter and other core rules cannot be reprinted, people always need to have read the PHB to understand this parts. If you're not allowed to explain core terms like "per encounter" (or even what Extended Rest / Short Rest means), you can't give the players a complete game without the PHB 4E. And that's what the GSL seems to be about. That were to a major part the limitations of the D20 License, too, if I am not mistaken.

That's also the reason why the GSL "System Reference Document" will not reprent rules. It will only refer back to them, so nobody goes around and offers the contents of the PHB for free.

This means products like Spycraft, Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes are impossible. But you can still add Magisters, Unfettered, Executioner or Wheelman classes.

 

[xechnao]

No, we're not. As long as the major combat chapter and other core rules cannot be reprinted, people always need to have read the PHB to understand this parts. If you're not allowed to explain core terms like "per encounter" (or even what Extended Rest / Short Rest means), you can't give the players a complete game without the PHB 4E. And that's what the GSL seems to be about.

I think what you are thinking is not practically viable at this point. If one wants to give a complete product it is very easy for him to do if you allow him to make classes. Especially in 4e which follows exception based design.
Besides, what will the selling point of PHB then be? 15 pages???

 

[BryonD]

Nonsense. It's an RPG with a tactical combat system. The "it's a boardgame" comment is getting old

You know what has been old for quite some time? The persistent dismissing of other people's opinions as soemhow "wrong".

Anyone who is critical of 4e is labeled a "hater", but that gets passed off a just a convinent handle. And yet "boardgame" is required to be absolute truth. The reality remains that relative to 3E the game has moved toward a more gamist set up and feels (relatively) more like a board game than what we want. So our standards are not the same as yours. Fine. But if you want to support 4e, and particularly as someone who is viewed as connected to WotC, being arrogantly dismissive of other people's views is a pretty dumb way to go about it.

Designers have flat out stated that the system shifts to a more gamist approach. If you like it that way then good for you. But it isn't remotely "nonsense" that many of us strongly don't.

 

[airwalkrr]

New to the convo, so my points will be brief.

I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with this. I've been a huge fan of Paizo's over the past few years while I haven't been liking the direction WotC is taking D&D. I've worked with Jason since the LG days and he and I think a lot alike. For those of us who feel there is no need for a new game (which 4e is), he has made some most agreeable amendments, a few of which I use myself as house rules. From the looks of their alpha rules, the vast majority of my 3.5 collection will be safe and backwards compatible, which is a very convincing argument in the decision with whether or not to invest in 4e.

Just to be clear, I don't hate 4e or WotC. I don't fault WotC for acting rationally. However, I do not personally see the need to invest in a brand new game if Paizo is capable of delivering me a quality product that is compatible with 80-90% of my old stuff. 4e looks like it will be a great game so far, but I don't see it as an improvement on 3.5 so much as I see it as simply a new game. Saying 4e is an improvement on 3.5 is like saying Life is an improvement on Monopoly. Both games involve paper money, a board with pieces, and various financial investment decisions, and one was, to an extent, inspired by the other, but they are still quite different games with different strategies and aims. In this case, I think I will prefer making a few adjustments to my "Monopoly" rather than going out to buy a whole new game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know what has been old for quite some time? The persistent dismissing of other people's opinions as soemhow "wrong".

Anyone who is critical of 4e is labeled a "hater", but that gets passed off a just a convinent handle. And yet "boardgame" is required to be absolute truth. The reality remains that relative to 3E the game has moved toward a more gamist set up and feels (relatively) more like a board game than what we want. So our standards are not the same as yours. Fine. But if you want to support 4e, and particularly as someone who is viewed as connected to WotC, being arrogantly dismissive of other people's views is a pretty dumb way to go about it.

Designers have flat out stated that the system shifts to a more gamist approach. If you like it that way then good for you. But it isn't remotely "nonsense" that many of us strongly don't.

The board game might (and I am only saying _might_) be required if you enter combat. That would be the board game part. But there is a lot of stuff in the book that is not related to combat or the board-game aspects of combat. You don't need non-combat-board related skills, and certainly not skill challenges. You don't need a quest mechanic.

And as long as people claim that D&D 4E (or any other edition or any other game) is a board game just because one aspect of the game is related to the board, their opinion is dismissed. D&D is more a dice game then a board game, because basically everything that happens based on the mechanics is based on rolling some dice. Even the non-combat stuff.

I think what you are thinking is not practically viable at this point. If one wants to give a complete product it is very easy for him to do if you allow him to make classes. Especially in 4e which follows exception based design.
Besides, what will the selling point of PHB then be? 15 pages

I wager to say it's more then 15 pages. Their is a lot of core aspects in the 4E mechanics that if you can't reprint them, you can't have a full game. What's a slide vs a push vs a pull vs a shift vs a move? What means extended rest? What are healing surges? What's Second Wind? What can I do with the Thievery skill, or Bluff? What actions can people take? What's a round?
If you remove these from the PHB, nobody will be able to understand the majority of the rules. Look at your 3.x core rulebooks. Try to imagine a book that is reduced to the classes and, feats and skills. Without the combat chapter, without the explaination on feats, without the explaination on what skills are, what skill points are, how you distribute them. No XP Table. Could that be a complete game for someone that has never seen the PHB?