D&D 4E What was Paizo thinking? 3.75 the 4E clone?

[Caliber]

My impression of the alpha, like a few others in this thread, is that is really isn't very compatible at all. Hopefully this gets sorted out in design, but looking at the suggestions already pouring in on their boards, I think Pathfinder is only going to diverge more as time passes.

I wonder how open the design will be in the end. Every open design project I've ever participated in has fizzled out pretty much, although in this case they'll hopefully have a stable hand running things up top.

All things considered, though, I think this was a bad move for Paizo, but I guess they probably know more that I do about what will keep their business running.

 

[Rauol_Duke]

In reference to this part of your post:

My impression of the alpha, like a few others in this thread, is that is really isn't very compatible at all. Hopefully this gets sorted out in design, but looking at the suggestions already pouring in on their boards, I think Pathfinder is only going to diverge more as time passes.

I saw this on Paizo earlier today:

To be honest, we really tried to push the envelop with some of these initial changes. Some, such as the combat feats, are sure to go under a fair amount of revision. That is why these boards are here. I want to make this the game that you want to play.

I suspect they are beoing more liberal with what they throw in the Alpha and will scale back the things that may be too much by the time the Beta comes out in August.

 

[grimslade]

And the one thing people are either deliberately ignoring or closing the possiblity of, is that Paizo isn't competing with WoTC.

They don't have to dethrone 4th edition.

They just need to make enough market to keep going.

Rolemaster Classic, HARP, Fantasy Hero, Exalted, GURPS Fantasy and other fantasy games are all alive despite the announcement of 4th edition.

But those aren't games based around the d20 engine.

Okay. How about True 20, Mutants & Masterminds and Conan? I don't recall Green Ronin announcing with a tear in their eye that 4th edition has caused the complete collapse of all their product lines and that they are closing down.

The market can and will support multiple game systems. Will any of them be D&D? No. Do they need to be? No.

This.
Listen, the original Pathfinder was a gamble. The drop off from Dungeon/Dragon subscriptions to Pathfinder subscriptions was large but there was enough of a base to thrive into a successful business. I presume there will be enough supporters of PF RPG to build Paizo as a business even with another percentage cut in the fanbase.

Plus, this is not a zero sum game. Some people will buy both PfRPG and 4E. Some to convert. Some to try something different.

The partnership with Necromancer and the fact that they use common freelancers with WotC means that Paizo has a toe in the water with 4E as well. If PfRPG is a bust (which I do not think will be the case) they are a small enough company to make a nimble move to other markets.

Put another way, if they went 4E they would compete with Necromancer, WotC, Goodman Games and others, so how is making there own d20 game any different? Smart move.

 

[BryonD]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about 4e, without seeing any of the rules. I'm not pro 4e. I'm pro wait and see the rules instead of pro 4e will kill my game.

Are you actually comparing a game that has been demoed to a game that is only partly developed and has been distributed with the sole intent of gaining feedback?

And who has even suggested that 4e will kill their game? 4e won't touch mine.....

 

[SSquirrel]

While it will (likely) never compete directly with 4E, Pathfinder can very well be successful enough to support a smaller game company. Paizo will probably cement itself as the #2 RPG publisher in the market.

Only if we're talking the directly riding the coattails of D&D market. Last I knew White Wolf was still rather a retail monster.

 

[Kishin]

Really...? Have you playtested this? Any evidence to this besides your eyeballing it?

Its pretty obvious. Rogues can sneak attack virtually anything and have a host of new tricks. Wizards and Clerics are even more powerful. (They should have left those two classes RAW. They don't need any more buffs.) The Fighter has a few bones thrown to it. Everything is definitely tweaked up a notch, and it plays havoc with the already highly circumspect CR system.

Paizo Adventure Paths already tend to be tough on less tweaked 3.5 characters (To sum up: Spire of Long Shadows) as it were. This could open the door for a few meatgrinder moments. I freely admit, however, that I haven't gotten to run Rise of the Runelords or Curse of the Crimson Throne quite yet, so I'm curious to see how those work out in relation.

I love the material Paizo's produced, and I definitely plan to continue to support their adventures. I do question some of their mechanical design decisions, but this is an early alpha, so it would be unfair to be too critical.

 

[HeinorNY]

Last I knew White Wolf was still rather a retail monster.

I've heard they are entering the book shredding business too.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Wizards and Clerics are even more powerful. (They should have left those two classes RAW. They don't need any more buffs.)

No, they really aren't. The Cleric domain abilities aren't as good, and the Wizards have lost the extra spells from specialisation, it's not a crazy nerf or anything, but they certainly aren't more powerful, in fact, a large part of the point of taking their abilities out of their spellcasting and making it a separate thing seems to be to prevent the whole "multiclass out at 6th, because there's no reason not to". Your average Wizard 6/Guild Mage 6/Archmage 6 will have fewer spells per day for no bonus, the same with equivalent Cleric builds.

Since these are the "Tier A" classes as it were, buffing the other classes is fine, because they're still less powerful than the most powerful classes.

 

[Ourph]

I love the material Paizo's produced, and I definitely plan to continue to support their adventures. I do question some of their mechanical design decisions, but this is an early alpha, so it would be unfair to be too critical.

On the contrary, if they're calling for open playtesting and feedback, the early alpha is the most opportune time to be critical. Wait too long and you may see changes you don't like cemented into the rules framework so thoroughly that later versions can't drop them without doing a full rewrite. I would suggest, if you've got problems with the early alpha document, you vote early and often for the changes you want.

 

[Keoki]

I am fairly confident that a lot of people are like me. I plan on switching to 4e, have no intention of switching to PF 3.75 or whatever the name is, but I still downloaded it immediately, to see what they were cooking up, and maybe steal an idea or two for my remaining 2½ months of playing 3.5.

Doesn't mean I think that PF 3.75 will tank, merely that 5k downloads mean very little.

I agree. 5,000 downloads does not necessarily equate to 5,000 purchased copies in '09, especially when the download is free. I'm sure there are many people, like Jack and myself, that download it out of curiosity, even if we have no intention of playing it. This does still bode well for Paizo, however, since there is obviously interest in the product, and the word is definitely out. Personally, I imagine Paizo will garner themselves a comfortable (for them) little corner of the D&D market, and its effect on 4E will be negligible. I suspect that those folks planning to stick with 3.5 will stick with it one way or the other. Every new edition loses some old players. WotC's gamble is that they'll gain new players, like they did with 3E.