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

[Raven Crowking]

I personally note that Pathfinder is very generous in terms of OGC, wheras the GSL seems (from comments only, 'cause ain't no one seen it yet) specifically intended to limit the type of 3rd party support that is possible.

If 3rd parties find it easier/more profitable to support Pathfinder/3.5, that can also benefit Paizo's sales. Of course, the existence of a viable "3.75" might make the GSL terms looser than they would otherwise be, to allow a greater range of 3rd party support. Or it might make the GSL more draconian to avoid a third party 4.5.

I, for one, look forward to the next few years. We live in interesting times.


RC

 

[Lurks-no-More]

It's not really all that widespread.

There are about an estimated 5.5 million people playing D&D regularly (defined as once or more a month). That 5,000 downloads is less than one-tenth of one percent of the total number of active D&D players. I'd also be interested in knowing the churn rate of those downloaders - what percentage of them, having read the rules, intend to purchase or play the finished product.

I, for one, downloaded the rules purely out of curiosity, wishing to see what's in there. I highly doubt I will purchase the final rules; most likely, I'm going to 4e, but if not, I'll stick with 3.5, because my group has the books for that and an existing campaign.

 

[Soel]

I downloaded the Alpha document, with absolutely no intention on using the rules as a whole. I'll check out many free downloads, just cause they're free, so why not? It was smart of them to have it free and open for playtest and feedback. No one loses anything for checking it out.

I didn't want Paizo to do a 3.75 (already do 3.75 with my own houserules.) I truly don't understand why they couldn't just stick with 3.5, even though I do understand them not going 4e. Even still, I want them to succeed, as they do some good work. It's not too much work for me to convert their adventures, no matter what edition I'm going to be using.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I truly don't understand why they couldn't just stick with 3.5, even though I do understand them not going 4e.

While I have no special knowledge, I think that the following were factors:

Some parts of 3.5 are not in the SRD, and thus cannot be easily referenced without the 3.5 books. As 3.5 goes out of print (if it hasn't already), this information will be harder for new players to come by. Specifically, this refers to XP & level progression, as well as some flavor text that is necessary for a new player to "get" the game.

In addition, I think that Paizo recognizes that there is some justification for a new edition, in terms of how the 3.5 rules currently work. It is rather the massive changes to the game background, the renaming of things to change OGC to IP, and problems with getting/accepting the GSL and what it implies about WotC's new business model that makes Paizo want to make their sales less reliant on continued WotC support.

Finally, a large enough group of folks apparently made their desire for a 3.75 clear to make the venture seem more profitable (in either the long or the short term, or both) to Paizo. You may not be a member of that group, but then some are not planning on switching to 4e either, and that doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent WotC from promoting/publishing 4e.

Of course, I have no special knowledge; this is just how the situation reads to me. YMMV, and I may be dead wrong.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

While I have no special knowledge, I think that the following were factors:

Some parts of 3.5 are not in the SRD, and thus cannot be easily referenced without the 3.5 books. As 3.5 goes out of print (if it hasn't already), this information will be harder for new players to come by. Specifically, this refers to XP & level progression, as well as some flavor text that is necessary for a new player to "get" the game.

In addition, I think that Paizo recognizes that there is some justification for a new edition, in terms of how the 3.5 rules currently work. It is rather the massive changes to the game background, the renaming of things to change OGC to IP, and problems with getting/accepting the GSL and what it implies about WotC's new business model that makes Paizo want to make their sales less reliant on continued WotC support.

Finally, a large enough group of folks apparently made their desire for a 3.75 clear to make the venture seem more profitable (in either the long or the short term, or both) to Paizo. You may not be a member of that group, but then some are not planning on switching to 4e either, and that doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent WotC from promoting/publishing 4e.

Of course, I have no special knowledge; this is just how the situation reads to me. YMMV, and I may be dead wrong.


RC

I think your reminder of "3.5 will go out of print" is a very important point. If the Pathfinder RPG is to work for a longer time, the core rulebooks for the game must stay available. The number of customers can't grow if people don't get access to the core rules required to play the game. And if they can pick just one book (Pathfinder RPG) as opposed to finding the 3 out-of-print 3.5 core rulebooks, it also makes the barrier for entry a lot lower.
If the Pathfinder RPG plan doesn't turn out so well, they can still jump to 4E, but if it works, they will be fully ready for it.

Your mention of IP is an interesting point, too, though. If I am not mistaken, the only ones that can use monsters like the Beholder or the Mind Flayer in a rule book are WotC. How important are these IP names to the "feel of D&D"? I am certain that there are endless adventure possibilities for Paizo without these monsters, but still, something is missing? Can this affect customers? Or does this mean that 3.5/Pathfinder and 4E actually can coexist simply because they offer different "subsets" of the D&D experience. (Pathfinder retains Vancian magic, many classic races, but 4E offers "unique D&D monsters)? Well, I don't know this is actually important, but we'll see.


For the record. I am also one of the 5000 downloaders in the first days, but I am fully intending to go for 4E. It' possible that some members of my play group will still pick up Pathfinder modules/path, since we're always in need of that.
Anyway, after reading the Alpha rules, I felt a bit relieved. "Looked like they didn't make a real "killer app" out of the RPG rules. Compatiblity and Balance seem not really that big". Admittedly, this will certainly change, and I am not objective and might have primarily seen what I wanted to see. But what I definitely didn't see was a "magic switch" that qould turn off all the smaller or bigger things in 3.5 that causes its flaws.
Obviously, that is not really necessary, since I enjoyed 3.x for 8 years, and many others did, too. But still, it flaws also revealed in this 8 years, and if there is something new and shiny offering to fix the flaws, I am more interested in playing that - and figuring out its flaws in the coming years.

 

[Dragonblade]

I've now read through a lot of the Pathfinder playtest threads here and elsewhere. After reading the discussions debating not only what is or is not broken, but what the fix should be, I'm increasingly convinced that 3.x is beyond redemption.

 

[Kishin]

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.

Ah, forgive me. I meant too critical in the sense of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', and dismissing it entirely, rather than actual constructive mechanical criticism.

 

[DaveMage]

I've now read through a lot of the Pathfinder playtest threads here and elsewhere. After reading the discussions debating not only what is or is not broken, but what the fix should be, I'm increasingly convinced that 3.x is beyond redemption.

Yes, you do seem to say the same thing every time you post.

Kinda like me, but the other way!

 

[Dragonblade]

Yes, you do seem to say the same thing every time you post.

Kinda like me, but the other way!

Kind of like my mirror universe double. Hmm, I have had a goatee in the past, maybe I'm from the mirror universe...

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think your reminder of "3.5 will go out of print" is a very important point. If the Pathfinder RPG is to work for a longer time, the core rulebooks for the game must stay available.

Absolutely.

Your mention of IP is an interesting point, too, though. If I am not mistaken, the only ones that can use monsters like the Beholder or the Mind Flayer in a rule book are WotC. How important are these IP names to the "feel of D&D"?

If all of the unique 4e monsters, dragonborn and tiefling as core races, warlock etc as core classes, and so on, do not make 4e feel "not like D&D", then I seriously doubt that neglecting a few names will make Pathfinder feel "not like D&D". After all, there are OGC snake people in the Tome of Horrors II & III, one can easily include OGC "itthidil" and "eye spheres" that DMs and players can easily translate if they want. I suspect that Pathfinder will do just fine.


RC