D&D Next vs Pathfinder

ggroy · April 17, 2012, 11:14:11 AM

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;531006I wish they would have made the movies like they did the comics back in 1990 or so.

But alas, no.

First movie looked like an episode of Stargate SG-1, but without any stargates.

Benoist · April 17, 2012, 11:27:15 AM

Quote from: James Gillen;530920Oh, you mean like that sequel to Highlander?

JG

What? Which sequel? :eek:

ggroy · April 17, 2012, 11:30:17 AM

Quote from: Benoist;531011What? Which sequel? :eek:

Sir Shithead? :pundit:

ggroy · April 17, 2012, 11:40:09 AM

Quote from: Marleycat;530997Kinda like 4e?

What would be amusing is if WotC/Hasbro will not acknowledge the existence of 4E, in several years. (ie. Erased from WotC/Hasbro's official corporate history).

Marleycat · April 17, 2012, 11:49:09 AM

Quote from: ggroy;531015What would be amusing is if WotC/Hasbro will not acknowledge the existence of 4E, in several years. (ie. Erased from WotC/Hasbro's official corporate history).

It'll never happen.

Benoist · April 17, 2012, 11:50:56 AM

Quote from: Marleycat;531016It'll never happen.

That's what I said before 4e got published.

Acta Est Fabula · April 17, 2012, 12:05:15 PM

Quote from: ggroy;531015What would be amusing is if WotC/Hasbro will not acknowledge the existence of 4E, in several years. (ie. Erased from WotC/Hasbro's official corporate history).

They've already said that one part of 4e they really want to keep is the 3 pillars. I.e., every class should be equal in combat, interaction, and exploration.

Just my $.02, but if you need rules to make you feel like an equal contributor for the interaction part of the game, then that's on you as a shitty role-player and shouldn't need to be codified into actual rules.

Marleycat · April 17, 2012, 12:08:12 PM

Quote from: Benoist;531017That's what I said before 4e got published.

I wouldn't be upset if I were wrong but 5e will have elements of 4e in it. It has to or it will fail, like it or not there are plenty of people that like the game. And to be honest it does have some very good elements in it. Problem is they are far and few between the crap in my opinion.

Marleycat · April 17, 2012, 12:09:35 PM

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;531018They've already said that one part of 4e they really want to keep is the 3 pillars. I.e., every class should be equal in combat, interaction, and exploration.

Just my $.02, but if you need rules to make you feel like an equal contributor for the interaction part of the game, then that's on you as a shitty role-player and shouldn't need to be codified into actual rules.

This is one of my big problems with the game. The catering to the Cult of RAW. Didn't SKR mentioned somewhere that 4e was built expressly to close off all the loopholes that were the essence of earlier iterations of DnD? Or am I just imagining that?

Koltar · April 17, 2012, 12:21:51 PM

Whatever happens - PAIZO still 'wins'.

Their flip-fold maps and map cards will work with EVERY edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Heck, even theirt flip-mat that is labeled as a 'Pathfinder Lodge' still can work for D&D as a nicer Inn or meeting place to stay at.

Also, PAIZO can keep going for at least another 5 to 8 years with the good will they earned over the past 4 or 5 years.

Their art is some of the best and people still have fond memories of their time publishing DRAGON and DUNGEON magazines.

- Ed C.

Rincewind1 · April 17, 2012, 02:58:00 PM

Quote from: Koltar;531022Whatever happens - PAIZO still 'wins'.

Their flip-fold maps and map cards will work with EVERY edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Heck, even theirt flip-mat that is labeled as a 'Pathfinder Lodge' still can work for D&D as a nicer Inn or meeting place to stay at.

Also, PAIZO can keep going for at least another 5 to 8 years with the good will they earned over the past 4 or 5 years.

Their art is some of the best and people still have fond memories of their time publishing DRAGON and DUNGEON magazines.

- Ed C.

Exactly. While WotC has the reputation of being filthy money grubbers.

thedungeondelver · April 17, 2012, 06:48:20 PM

I never thought much of the 3rd edition rules but it was clear that with letting Gary and Rob work with them on Greyhawk stuff for Dungeon Magazine (and Dragon) Paizo's hearts were in the right place.

Kaldric · April 17, 2012, 08:44:29 PM

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;531018They've already said that one part of 4e they really want to keep is the 3 pillars. I.e., every class should be equal in combat, interaction, and exploration.

I thought they'd said that each class would have a basic capability in all three pillars, so that everyone could contribute at least something, not that they'd be 'equal'. But I'm not sure where I saw that, so I could be wrong.

Marleycat · April 17, 2012, 09:19:56 PM

Quote from: Kaldric;531125I thought they'd said that each class would have a basic capability in all three pillars, so that everyone could contribute at least something, not that they'd be 'equal'. But I'm not sure where I saw that, so I could be wrong.

I think you're right though. They're also saying you could swap out a degree of effectiveness to focus in another. That's definitely old school, not 4e.

Bloody Stupid Johnson · April 17, 2012, 09:29:15 PM

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;531018They've already said that one part of 4e they really want to keep is the 3 pillars. I.e., every class should be equal in combat, interaction, and exploration.

Just my $.02, but if you need rules to make you feel like an equal contributor for the interaction part of the game, then that's on you as a shitty role-player and shouldn't need to be codified into actual rules.

That's crazy talk. You need to roll Diplomacy or its unfair on the gamers who have no social skills...

(I am kidding, but I've seen this fairly commonly at e.g. rpg.net. or the gaming den. Heaven forbid someone be able to use a player skill other than Character Optimization).