Quote from: fearsomepirate;1028571Yep. Because the reason for PF's existence is being unwilling to give up on 3.x. There's another d20-based D&D-alike game that did its own thing, rather than just cloning an old version. I've never heard a negative thing about 13th Age, but it's just not the hit Pathfinder is. And if Paizo had gone that way, I doubt PF would be successful.

   I still think it's the unending stream of support and character options that really make the difference here, with gamer conservatism/backwards compatibility a secondary element. Pathfinder 2E may prove an interesting test case for this theory.

Quote from: estar;1028576And what law of the universe says that a bad thing? And to desire further support for a game they like to play as a hobby?

Never said it was. Simply pointing out that given PF was founded on keeping 3.5 alive, it is unsurprising that any nontrivial changes to the 3.5 framework are being met with hostility.

Quote from: S'mon;1028586Me too - and in play they seem a bit ahead of the casters, if anything, especially when Feats are in use.

The only thing martials can ever do is hit stuff with their weapon. They have no utility.

Casters, on the other hand, can terrify, enchant, fly, teleport, scry, and pretty much do whatever they want that isn't just hitting stuff.

That is the only thing that keeps me from really engaging with 5e. After growing up on Hollywood action movies, martials hold absolutely no allure for me.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1028599Never said it was. Simply pointing out that given PF was founded on keeping 3.5 alive, it is unsurprising that any nontrivial changes to the 3.5 framework are being met with hostility.

A number of the changes I suggested were trivial. Rules like monster types and positive/negative energy are only of concern to casters and then highly situational. Removing excessive complexity would only be a good thing. Yet the response I get is irrational dislike of change with no compelling reason behind it.

The only reason I dig old school is because it doesn't have all these stupid puzzle pieces to keep track of. Some of the best combat maneuver systems I've seen originated from old school, and they boiled down to "describe your stunts to the GM, add bonuses to attack."

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1028564This sort of problem does not exist in old school rules where you can trivially reverse cure spells into inflict spells. It is very easy to remove or redefine the positive/negative energy distinction in old school rules because it is largely a matter of fluff. Really, what is the difference if undead are healed by cure spells and harmed by inflict spells? In terms of rules it changes almost nothing, but in terms of fluff it obviates the "mummies are animated by positive energy because mummy rot is a disease" argument that showed up in Van Richten's Guide to the Ancient Dead.

  Point of information: Van Richten's Guide to the Ancient Dead said that mummies are animated by positive energy because that's what the monster books said, going back to the 1E Monster Manual. Gygax clarified in the early 2000s that that was an error, but apparently that information hadn't made it to Skip Williams back in 1994.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1028611Point of information: Van Richten's Guide to the Ancient Dead said that mummies are animated by positive energy because that's what the monster books said, going back to the 1E Monster Manual. Gygax clarified in the early 2000s that that was an error, but apparently that information hadn't made it to Skip Williams back in 1994.

Set addressed that in his discussions about negative energy. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jwma&page=2?Why-do-evil-Gods-use-negative-energy#53

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1028571...

Yep. Because the reason for PF's existence is being unwilling to give up on 3.x. There's another d20-based D&D-alike game that did its own thing, rather than just cloning an old version. I've never heard a negative thing about 13th Age, but it's just not the hit Pathfinder is. And if Paizo had gone that way, I doubt PF would be successful.

...

Worse, others have tried to either replace the engine in place (Goodman Games did something that rebalanced the math?), or just tried new different approaches - like Fantasy Craft. They didn't experience the same success. Hell, Castles & Crusades is going along well, yet is not as popular. It was doing "simpler" long before 5e... I see this as disappointing because I don't personally like the class/level/d20 platform in general (I have tried to like it! I tried a bunch of different ones!!).

I believe Paizo's success is more than a "core engine" desirability. I also believe the a) pace of releases b) quantity of releases and c) QUALITY of releases played a huge role in what appeals to their current fanbase.

Mimicking Paizo's model with 5e could net yet another company the "Paizo effect" with 5e... (IMHO).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1028614Set addressed that in his discussions about negative energy. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jwma&page=2?Why-do-evil-Gods-use-negative-energy#53

With no supporting evidence, Set asserted that Gary Gygax connected the mummy to the positive material plane because it created life in the form of disease, and then suggested that Gygax's later claim that the connection was the result of a typo was a cover to support the game's "new shiny paradigm."  He didn't address the issue so much as come up with a little conspiracy theory to avoid addressing it.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1028611Point of information: Van Richten's Guide to the Ancient Dead said that mummies are animated by positive energy because that's what the monster books said, going back to the 1E Monster Manual. Gygax clarified in the early 2000s that that was an error, but apparently that information hadn't made it to Skip Williams back in 1994.

We can't assume that. Skip very well may have decided to make lemons from lemonade regarding a typo which was by then well ingrained in a lot of gamer's minds.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1028608The only thing martials can ever do is hit stuff with their weapon. They have no utility.

Casters, on the other hand, can terrify, enchant, fly, teleport, scry, and pretty much do whatever they want that isn't just hitting stuff.

Sounds like you've only played 3e. There's lots of nice things you can do in 5e with an ability check, especially in combat. Without considering all the class & feat specific martial abilities. Out of combat an (eg) Persuasion or History check can often be more useful than a 5e spell.

Edit: BTW ts there really no way to teleport without error in 5e? I couldn't find any when searching recently.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1028521Some people may like to have this thread on hand.

Thanks.  This is a useful resource.

RE: Ancestries

QuoteDeeper than just a new word for race. Choice you make at creation, then as you advance a series of decisions you make to make yourself, say, even more Dwarfy.

Pathfinder 2nd Edition: Even More Dwarfy!

JG

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1028620We can't assume that. Skip very well may have decided to make lemons from lemonade regarding a typo which was by then well ingrained in a lot of gamer's minds.

   Entirely possible, which is why I said 'apparently'. OTOH, if the knowledge that it was a mistake was around, why wasn't it corrected in 2E?

Quote from: S'mon;1028621Sounds like you've only played 3e. There's lots of nice things you can do in 5e with an ability check, especially in combat. Without considering all the class & feat specific martial abilities. Out of combat an (eg) Persuasion or History check can often be more useful than a 5e spell.

Edit: BTW ts there really no way to teleport without error in 5e? I couldn't find any when searching recently.

It's just called "Teleport." The way to teleport without error is either have a circle there or carry an object taken from the place you want to go to.

Quote from: 3rik;1028331FFG Star Wars managed to get people to actually pay for demo versions. Seems like Paizo is going to try how far you can stretch this business model...

I wonder if they'll also incorporate the FFG model of not giving a damn what the playtesters actually discover through play and just pushing through with what they already had in mind...

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1028426Customers have a lot of options. In entertainment, your #1 competitor isn't somebody else's product. It's disinterest. If there was no Pathfinder, a lot of people probably would have just quit playing D&D, or stuck to their old books.

Just like they did when Rules Cyclopedia came out?  Or when AD&D came out?  Or 2e, or 3e?  I doubt it, a lot of the time people jumped to the new edition because they believed that to stay relevant was to go to the new version.  And once they stopped whining and got into the game, it was just another game.  With Pathfinder, they didn't have to.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1028634I wonder if they'll also incorporate the FFG model of not giving a damn what the playtesters actually discover through play and just pushing through with what they already had in mind...

That's what they did with Pathfinder.  There was a serious contingent of players who wanted the Fighter class fixed from it's lackluster position as a playable in 3.x.  Instead we got the first printing which focused on Sorcerers and their 'bloodlines' because one of the creators has a fetish for that class.

And actually, FFG did listen to its test players.  Just not the one's that whined about the dice system.  For example, did you know that Droids originally had to 'wear' armour?  After some of us suggested changing the wording so that if you do buy armour, it's considered part of the chassis, same thing with weapons, if you wanted it built in.  They also 'corrected' the Talents issue where originally, if you switched occupations (Say like a Smuggler going into a Hired Gun) you lost all access to previous talents.  Instead now, they cost more in terms of XP.

They did listen.  More than Paizo did.