Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

Status
Not open for further replies.
When I hear people talk about needing DDi to play the game, or "renting" their characters, that could be "taken away" at any time, I always sorta wonder if I play in the only gaming group in the entire hobby that prints out their sheets and writes down what their features/feats/powers do. Really, DDi could get the plug pulled tomorrow, and even if it wouldn't be immediately available again via piracy(and it would), my game wouldn't really change.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ou're not paying for the privilege of tweaking your character to avoid nerfs.

Also, if you are forced to "re-spec" your character 3 times per tier because you keep getting hit with the nerf bat, you probably deserved it. I've never played a character that had to be significantly altered more than twice, and I make some ridiculous stuff. I can only imagine the sort of monster you must have created.

On the one hand, I agree.

But on the other hand...if the rules were well playtested to begin with, and the paper copies of the books were more than "betas" then we shouldn't expect this degree of errata, right?


In fact, a better way to sell books of quality might be to "beta" them to insiders, make the revisions and then sell them as paper copies.

Seems more sensible than hardcopy being beta and electronic being the final version.
 

This is balance run amuck. Too much balance is a bad thing,

I disagree. Balance is a virtue in game design worth striving towards.

You may be confusing balance with homogeneity. They are not the same, and what we see with rules updates is balance, not homogeneity.

They are killing the game with this incessant annoyance.
Hardly.

I don't suppose the never-ending cycle of errata-for-their-own-sake is fun for some.
There is no errata for its own sake.

Just because you don't personally see the need for something does not mean that need doesn't exist.

I don't think it is. Our wizard never exploited ping-ponging mobs into and out of zones...why does he deserve to have the one thing he is good at, minion clearing, completely negated by their latest bone-headed zone fix?
Wizards are silly-good at killing minions. They always have been, and they always will be. No update has changed that. If your Wizard thinks that any change to date has negated his ability to kill minions well, he is mistaken.
 

But on the other hand...if the rules were well playtested to begin with, and the paper copies of the books were more than "betas" then we shouldn't expect this degree of errata, right?

It is unrealistic to expect that a game as complex and flexible as D&D will be free of problems in need of being addressed. The fact that WotC is providing free updates on a regular basis and incorporating those updates automatically into the online toolset is something that should be lauded. It is ridiculous in the extreme that anyone is upset with them for this.

In fact, a better way to sell books of quality might be to "beta" them to insiders, make the revisions and then sell them as paper copies.

They have done exactly this, on occasion. Not with entire books, but with portions of books.

Seems more sensible than hardcopy being beta and electronic being the final version.

I disagree. Having the electronic version serve as the "final" version ("living" would be a better term, here, as no version is ever final in a game that evolves over time) makes a great deal of sense - electronic versions can be updated. Hardcopy is much more difficult and expensive to update.
 

The only packages that I picked up for HERO LAB were Bestiary 1 & 2 and the APG. I'm running COTCT rebuilding NPC's and monsters from 3.5 to Pathfinder and HERO LAB is a tremendous time saver. So for me too it is well worth the money.

Most of my Toronto gaming group have been using Herolab for the past year and all are very pleased with it.

The podcast hosts' gaming group have also been using it since the start of the year and we are all extremely impressed with Herolab. Their service has been top notch and the product is well maintained, promptly updated and, in general, I have completely integrated it into my gaming needs as both a GM and a player.

Herolab deserves to win an Ennie in 2011 AFAIC. Great people; great product.

Highly Recommended.
 

After the latest round of wizard nerfs, and killing Blinding Barrage for Rogues, I believe our wizard and rogue will be that much closer to give up on 4e for good.
Wait. Why did you actually examples that were overtly overpowered or broken? Wizards were actually broken in a manner that made it ridiculously easy to cheese. All they did was pretty much reworded the powers to bring them more in line with other zone powers like Caustic Rampart. Blinding Barrage was also a power which was overtly overpowered. Not only did it do 2[W] damage if it hit it also completely and utterly rendered an entire turn of the enemy null and void.
Baloney. If you're building a character with legal powers right in the builder for a game that is touted as being so well-balanced, then your accusation is unfounded. He didn't 'deserve' a nerfing for anything other than buying into a game that's in flux and frequently obsoleting its printings.
Actually the Wizard nerfs fixed one of the most unbalanced aspects of the game which almost verged on the realm of game breaking. Namely because if you were even rudimentary in utilizing optimization you could end up doing minimum 3d10+15 damage at level 5. It would actually go up to 4d10+20 if you went with the Essentials version of the class. Now spam that every single turn and you kind of realize that it needed fixing.
4e is a game where new players who don't have the builder almost invariably build crappy characters and haven't even added up the bonuses right. Even experienced characters in other game systems find the rules a big, confusing, obtuse mess.
I always got the impression that it was always a bigger problem with the 3.5E system more than anything. I can't tell though what exactly gave me that impression when I was looking through the 3.5 Players Guide.
 
Last edited:

In the MMO industry, there is WoW, and then there is everyone else. This is an exaggeration to a certain extent, because there are exceptions to this rule (EVE Online), but it holds in general. WoW is incredibly successful. It rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars every month. It is the most successful video game ever sold, I'd bet.

It's important to understand, now, that the model above is not the future of MMOs. It is a future, but it is not the future. And that's because the market will always have room for that one awesome game that everyone is playing, and that game (currently WoW) doesn't need a free-to-play model because everyone is already willing to pay to play it.

So, to recap, if you have the best product in your particular market (for WoW, that market is fantasy MMORPGs), you don't need to go free-to-play. Subscriptions work great. If your product is, by comparison, subpar, free-to-play is great because it gives you a revenue stream from your most dedicated players while populating your servers with less dedicated players who help make the game function.

No, it's not the most successful game ever sold. And even WoW is now free to play until level 20. It will grow larger than 20 free levels.

The whole idea of one giant game then "everyone else" is merely a snapshot of the current young and growing MMORPG market. And, despite what some people think, the MMORPG market is still young. Also, the "everyone else" portion of the MMORPG market adds up to a very large number. Eve online isn't WoW's biggest, strongest or most successful competitor either.

There's always been times when a young industry has had the "one star company", then everyone else. Atari, Nintendo, Sony ruled the game industry at various times. But, you'll never see that kind of domination in market share again in the video game sector. The same will happen with MMORPGS.
 

I think the problem is that the ever babbling stream of errata gives some people a feeling that 4e is an unfinished product. Certainly the first round of massive fixes to the use of skills left me with an impression that 4e was badly playtested in any regard except combat.

If they are still working on the rules years after they were released, I can understand that unfinished feeling. There comes a time when you should just say 'good enough'.

Me, I didn't even realize that the nerfs, fixes, and errata for the first books are still going on until reading this thread. :erm: Easy for WotC to fix though, they just need to say 'Done. It may not be perfect, but it'll do'.

The Auld Grump
 

Blinding barrage is broken?

It's a daily, a rogue is a striker, it's not OP. My ranger single shots enemies each pop with a daily routinely. Spreading damage around is good and blinding enemies, but not THAT good. It's a daily, for frig's sake. Oh wait, I guess because essentials people don't have any it's not fair that o-classes can, you know, actually do something spectacular once a day.

Our DM never once complained that it was OP in the three years our rogue has been using it. In fact, I don't think he's even commented on it once, other than to flourish up some interesting fluff to give it some colour. That's what D&D is SUPPOSED to be like. Now it's just...whoah, these dudes are blind for a turn? Wow, colour me impressed. I'd rather two enemies were bloodied or two dead or one solo dead, because that's the way 4e works. Dead is the best condition. Blind? For a round? not so much. I bet 1/2 the rogues will retrain out of it. This is notwithstanding the fact that there will be some other new daily that will take its place, and the whole rat race of people calling it to be nerfed will start over again. Weeee, ain't it fun!! I DO like balance, but not more than picking effective powers and options to make my character viable at his job, heroic even. A rogue daily that essentially amounts to throwing dust in the eyes is something I could presumably do in real life, without any training whatsoever.

Yeah, real impressive for a "striker" daily there. And it's not with sand, it's with a throwing dagger he's hitting all those guys. In the eyes. Now it's only Dex damage? Puhleeeze.

As for Snarling Wolf Stance, I used it twice before it was nerfed, and my DM started to think, hmmm, yes this is quite possibly too good for a l5 daily considering how many MBAs it can generate. Thing is, post-nerf, it's not really that good. I retrained it out because I like dailies that kill stuff faster, not those that spread around damage. My task as a striker is to kill the high-value targets quickly, not parade around in the middle of melee screaming "hit me" with my immediate interrupt, which, by the way, is much better used with Disruptive Strike and so on. (I currently have three immediate action powers as a hybrid warlord).

I never disagreed that SWS needed to be reined in, I just thought it was underhanded and slimy for them to publish a book with the exact same errata for the EXACT same power, except the ranged version, less than a month after I spent good money on that book. Which, indidentally, has gathered dust on my shelf ever since. Let's save the rain forest a bit, and skip out on buying these pre-obsolete books, shall we? I don't like wanton waste, and that's what wizards does with their splat books. It's called pre-planned obsolescence in capitalism, look it up if you don't believe me. The only galling thing is the ridiculously low threshold on the half-life of these books that some of you appear to be willing to tolerate. I'm not.

As for your other comments Re : Balance. If two things are perfectly balanced, yes, there is homogeneity there. All things are not created equal, nor should they be. Part of what makes your character special is the combination of flavor vs effectiveness. Finding the right balance there is somewhat subjective, but there will always be more powerful options and unlike Mao, I don't believe in culling the best and brightest, keeping the best down for the sake of not offending the weak.

We have a player who plays a druid in our game, level 12, and hasn't even chosen a PP yet. He could barely care about the game, enough to read the links about optimizing his guy. Well, guess what, he plays the game and can't hit anything, and when he does, he barely does any damage and you can just tell it's not a fun experience for him.

Every time I've made a character for a new player, taking their suggestions or even just tweaking their stats and powers around a bit, they've come to realize I was right (all I did, really, was look up the ratings in the char op guides and pick ones that went along with the flavour and weapons desired). Optimizing implies there are stronger and weaker options. If there weren't, just give us pre-rolled characters and call the game Pokemon instead of D&D.

I actually enjoy picking up those combinations that merge well together but aren't eggregiously broken or begging for a house rule, because I want to play a game that works for all parties involved (including the DM). But being in a mixed party with characters who built their characters badly is...somewhat, well, annoying. It's like being teamed up at school with weak or fat kids in a group. I used to be the fat kid that nobody wanted to team with. Now I've fixed those problems and optimized myself. I don't see why I shouldn't wince when I see pathetic swordsmen get slaughtered, even more so when they team up with me and aren't pulling their weight. Yes, I am an elitist.

"The fields are littered with the corpses of middling swordsmen." -Octavian, Rome (HBO).
 
Last edited:

On the one hand, I agree.

But on the other hand...if the rules were well playtested to begin with, and the paper copies of the books were more than "betas" then we shouldn't expect this degree of errata, right?


In fact, a better way to sell books of quality might be to "beta" them to insiders, make the revisions and then sell them as paper copies.

Seems more sensible than hardcopy being beta and electronic being the final version.

Well, then ask yourself why one round of changes for the PHBI was not enough.

That is what gets me about these CC changes. We are at three years, and who knows how many eratta releases, but they are still nerfing stuff.

What will be eratted in the next six months? The third best option or the fifth?

Yes, in 3.x I wanted eratta, but this has gone way too far.

Espeically as none of it is improving the classes, just weakening them.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top