Pathfinder Boss Details Plans to Combat Dungeons & Dragons Next

[Rhykker]

Pathfinder Boss Details Plans to Combat Dungeons & Dragons Next

Pathfinder's response to the release of Dungeons & Dragons Next is a three-pronged attack.

With Dungeons & Dragons Next releasing this summer, top competitor and spawn of 3.5 edition Pathfinder doesn't plan to sit idly by and let Wizards of the Coast hog all the spotlight. Speaking with ICv2 [http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/28296.html], Paizo Publisher Erik Mona detailed the company's three-part plan to tackle the giant.

The first part involves releasing The Emerald Spire Superdungeon in June, a 160-page hard cover dungeon module with 16 levels, each designed by veteran game designers, including Keith Baker and Ed Greenwood. Part two comes in August in the form of the Pathfinder Advanced Class Guide, a hardcover rules expansion that will introduce ten new classes to the game, and the final part is the August release of the Iron Gods Adventure Path, a campaign setting that blends elements of sci-fi and fantasy.

Scott Thorne, owner of the largest game store in southern Illinois, weighed in on this plan in his weekly column on ICv2, [http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/28425.html] suggesting that releasing two books targeted for gamemasters may not be an optimal strategy. Thorne says that modules and other books oriented for gamemasters typically sell four to six times less than those targeted to players. Given that's roughly the ratio of players to gamemasters, the math adds up.

Still, Pathfinder isn't likely trying to compete head-to-head with Dungeons & Dragons Next; it's just making its presence known and biding its time. After all, it was the fallout of 4th Edition that resulted in the rise of Pathfinder. Mona acknowledged that Wizards of the Coast has the funds and the brand recognition to market itself extensively, and actually hopes that the company is successful in bringing new players to the hobby - evidently, with the intent of converting them.

"I, and most stores, have almost never had a new customer come into the store asking for Pathfinder," Thorne writes. "The Pathfinder RPG is almost unknown to the wider market."

Pathfinder knows it can't compete with 30 years of brand recognition - and it won't. It'll let Wizards of the Coast do all the heavy lifting, then swoop in with a robust lineup of products for those who have gotten a taste and are looking for more. Clever.


Permalink

 

[Something Amyss]

Or for people who are simply fed up with the changes. Even if the changes are good, before anyone jumps me. However, it's my experience that a lot of people went Pathfinder specifically because 4e "sucked," and I anticipate a lot of that with D&D 5/Next/They Changed It Now It Sucks edition.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I got tired of 3.5E a while back(though I'm not overly fond of 4E either). Pathfinder doesn't change things up enough for me to make what is essentially a lateral move mechanically. I've got a moderate amount of optimism that 5E(I refuse to call it Next) will either be the best D&D for me, or can be more easily house ruled into such than anything else WotC has put out since they acquired the brand.

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

People went to Pathfinder because D&Dv4 catered WAY too much to the MMORPG crowd and focused more on battles rather than on storytelling. The long time gamers did not like that. (And it did NOT help that the D&D modules read like stereo instructions in Swahili.)

If "Next" is more of the same MMORPG pandering, Pathfinder should have no problem because WotC is losing what made D&D great for the most part: ROLE PLAYING!

 

[TorchofThanatos]

I see Pathfinder's biggest strength is that most of the rules are online and free. I loved going to the D20pfsrd and finding everything I need there. Me and a group of my friends got to gather and bought the books purely to support them. We are planning on being the Advance class guide when it come out too. Can't wait to try out the new classes with some new campaigns.

 

[Octorok]

People went to Pathfinder because D&Dv4 catered WAY too much to the MMORPG crowd and focused more on battles rather than on storytelling. The long time gamers did not like that. (And it did NOT help that the D&D modules read like stereo instructions in Swahili.)

If "Next" is more of the same MMORPG pandering, Pathfinder should have no problem because WotC is losing what made D&D great for the most part: ROLE PLAYING!

I actually played Next during its public playest, for about a year or so. Wizards know about the issues in 4e and tried to fix them, at least. The combat doesn't drag on nearly as long, spells are spells again etc.

I can say fairly honestly that isn't MMORPG pandering. What it is, is a heavily streamlined 3.5 with *some* bits of 4e thrown in. It was fun for a few levels, but honestly, it suffers from a lack of options and choices mechanically. Our group is happy with the move to Pathfinder, and currently have no plans to return to Next. After level 3 or so, it was becoming pretty boring for our DM to run, and it felt like they were cutting too much to streamline it for new players. Feats are a shorter list of bigger options, with nothing to replace them. Class features are nice, but limited. Skill points were gone, IIRC, you just had "Trained/Untrained".

The difficulty for a new player rolling up a 3.5/Pathfinder character isn't the abundant options, just the poor layout. The options are spread everywhere, and important rules for character creation are hidden away in corners of the rulebook.

 

[The Great JT]

How They're Going To Compete With D&DN:

1. Keep doing what they're doing.
2. Iron Gods. It will be awesome, because it's like what Spelljammer should've been: Conan vs. The Magic Robots From Space.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Pathfinder is so bloated already, does adding MORE on top of it really make it better?

 

[beef623]

People went to Pathfinder because D&Dv4 catered WAY too much to the MMORPG crowd and focused more on battles rather than on storytelling. The long time gamers did not like that. (And it did NOT help that the D&D modules read like stereo instructions in Swahili.)

If "Next" is more of the same MMORPG pandering, Pathfinder should have no problem because WotC is losing what made D&D great for the most part: ROLE PLAYING!

I actually played Next during its public playest, for about a year or so. Wizards know about the issues in 4e and tried to fix them, at least. The combat doesn't drag on nearly as long, spells are spells again etc.

I can say fairly honestly that isn't MMORPG pandering. What it is, is a heavily streamlined 3.5 with *some* bits of 4e thrown in. It was fun for a few levels, but honestly, it suffers from a lack of options and choices mechanically. Our group is happy with the move to Pathfinder, and currently have no plans to return to Next. After level 3 or so, it was becoming pretty boring for our DM to run, and it felt like they were cutting too much to streamline it for new players. Feats are a shorter list of bigger options, with nothing to replace them. Class features are nice, but limited. Skill points were gone, IIRC, you just had "Trained/Untrained".

The difficulty for a new player rolling up a 3.5/Pathfinder character isn't the abundant options, just the poor layout. The options are spread everywhere, and important rules for character creation are hidden away in corners of the rulebook.

Same here, our group played next for about a year. We took our party up to around level 15, updating our characters when the new rules came out (except for the last 2 revisions). We didn't like what they did with the skills and the feat change completely killed it for us. We switched to Pathfinder shortly after the final revision and I doubt we'll be changing back.

We liked next for the most part and had a lot of fun with it, but what they ended up with just gutted character customization.

 

[Rodolphe Kourkenko]

I switched for Pathfinder not because the 4ed was bad (in fact i never played it) but because all the best materials regarding the third edition came from Paizo.

So, when the moment of the choice came, i choose them because i didn't wanted to have to buy and read a new set of expansives rules, because the magazines dropped heavily in quality when Wizard took them back and because Paizo did a good job (beside the layout ^^).

Paizo will survive the 5th edition, just because their stories are good and their fanbase dedicated.

Beside this, Rhykker, their is a thing i don't like in your article, you take a little example (Scott Thorne speaking about new players in his store, so he speak about HIS sphere of influence, which is, worldwide, little), to make a generality: new players don't come to pathfinder. I would like to have a global vision in a professional article.
Just my two cents ^^.

 

[Pinky's Brain]

I can say fairly honestly that isn't MMORPG pandering. What it is, is a heavily streamlined 3.5 with *some* bits of 4e thrown in.

Way way way too little from 4e remains (and I say that as 3eaboo). What would have been the problem including the Warlord and paragon/epic paths? Those are 4e innovations I have rarely heard anything bad about.

Next borrowed some of the 3e streamlining, but other than that it's more of a throwback to AD&D (including having a non-skill system which requires constant DM fiat) than an evolution of 3e.

For better or for worse, 3e and 4e created player bases who like mechanical complexity ... and Next can not serve those gamers. I think they should have made a game which united the 3e and 4e player bases, rather than getting everyone back to simpler times.

 

[scotth266]

Whenever I read a comment about how 4E is "MMORPG pandering." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0]

If the new edition of DND comes with some properly laid-out rules, then I'll be interested. Even 4E has the most un-intuitive rules layout imaginable, sticking important information (like how your Dex or Int mod can be added to your AC if you wear light armor) into random corners of the book.

 

[william12123]

I see Pathfinder's biggest strength is that most of the rules are online and free. I loved going to the D20pfsrd and finding everything I need there. Me and a group of my friends got to gather and bought the books purely to support them. We are planning on being the Advance class guide when it come out too. Can't wait to try out the new classes with some new campaigns.

I stand by a similar sentiment. Since the base rule-books are free, it's easy to pull me in. And now I've spent over 100$ on players companions, setting books & modules. The people at paizo are super in touch with their community, they always kep their ears open, and release a ton of awesome products.

I will say I love the complexity.

And I have this to say about 3.X: in that system, the amount of mechanical choice you have makes it as interesting to "build" a character as it is to play it at times.

Anyway, I'm with pathfinder, I'm loving it, and I will continue loving it.
Side note: I played a few months of D&D next before pathfinder, and while it was enjoyable, I felt I had sooo much more choice with pathfinder.
Side note 2: While I have never played 4e, I've wanted to. There are several interesting ideas (like epic/paragon paths) that seem interesting, I just have never found anyone that wanted to play 4e...

 

[LordMonty]

Roll-playing VS Role -playing. Lets hope the story telling is better handled in D&D 5th.

Also less watering down of settings like Faerun, frankly i missed the 3.5 god lists, when i found like ten in the core book adn the rest 'had died' I just headesked. The lack of real character choice was bad in 4th, pathfinder keeps 3rd's heart of variety and evolution of 1st and 2nd ed and just feels right.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I think this is the perfect time for a new system to come along and make a completely different approach where games can slide from super complex to ultra simple. And their primary platform should be online where people can get all the rules at any time for printing or tablets and start game sets over the internet very easily where things are also managed as they would be in a video game.

DnD and it's spin-offs while immensely fun require absurd amounts of stat management on paper, they are also so very set in their old approach that every edition is just a variation on something very old and odd.

 

[Something Amyss]

People went to Pathfinder because D&Dv4 catered WAY too much to the MMORPG crowd and focused more on battles rather than on storytelling.

Oh history, you never fail to repeat yourself.

I remember when 3.0 (then just called 3e) came out, and people complained it was too much like a video game, or too much like a collectible game, or too much like a minis game.

I wonder what 5e will be "too much like" and what would have been the case for 2E had the internet been so prominent during the transition from the 1e variants to 2.

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

People went to Pathfinder because D&Dv4 catered WAY too much to the MMORPG crowd and focused more on battles rather than on storytelling. The long time gamers did not like that. (And it did NOT help that the D&D modules read like stereo instructions in Swahili.)

If "Next" is more of the same MMORPG pandering, Pathfinder should have no problem because WotC is losing what made D&D great for the most part: ROLE PLAYING!

I actually played Next during its public playest, for about a year or so. Wizards know about the issues in 4e and tried to fix them, at least. The combat doesn't drag on nearly as long, spells are spells again etc.

I can say fairly honestly that isn't MMORPG pandering. What it is, is a heavily streamlined 3.5 with *some* bits of 4e thrown in. It was fun for a few levels, but honestly, it suffers from a lack of options and choices mechanically. Our group is happy with the move to Pathfinder, and currently have no plans to return to Next. After level 3 or so, it was becoming pretty boring for our DM to run, and it felt like they were cutting too much to streamline it for new players. Feats are a shorter list of bigger options, with nothing to replace them. Class features are nice, but limited. Skill points were gone, IIRC, you just had "Trained/Untrained".

The difficulty for a new player rolling up a 3.5/Pathfinder character isn't the abundant options, just the poor layout. The options are spread everywhere, and important rules for character creation are hidden away in corners of the rulebook.

Same here, our group played next for about a year. We took our party up to around level 15, updating our characters when the new rules came out (except for the last 2 revisions). We didn't like what they did with the skills and the feat change completely killed it for us. We switched to Pathfinder shortly after the final revision and I doubt we'll be changing back.

We liked next for the most part and had a lot of fun with it, but what they ended up with just gutted character customization.

Well, hopefully then some of the newer stuff (both Pathfinder and D&D5) will play well. I'd hate to see either franchise die off due to poor decisions regarding the material.

CAPTCHA: it happens

Yes...yes it does.

 

[william12123]

There are definitly interesting ideas in 5th. However, I get the impression it's "intent" is in such a completely different direction than 3.X that they only really compete in the broadest sense (Like how all "toys" compete for children's attention, but not in the way that Lego & Mega Blocks are direct competitors).

Hoepfully this will stay civil. Edition wars are never pleasant.

 

[Schadrach]

Pathfinder is so bloated already, does adding MORE on top of it really make it better?

I got tired of 3.5E a while back(though I'm not overly fond of 4E either). Pathfinder doesn't change things up enough for me to make what is essentially a lateral move mechanically. I've got a moderate amount of optimism that 5E(I refuse to call it Next) will either be the best D&D for me, or can be more easily house ruled into such than anything else WotC has put out since they acquired the brand.

Pathfinder isn't mechanically all that different than 3.5, but 3.5 wasn't all that bad mechanically. Most of 3.5s problems were, at the core, a matter of specific classes and abilities being poorly balanced. Just reducing the amount of front loading on certain classes (like there being a reason not to jump ship from Sorcerer to a prestige class as fast as you possibly can), tweaking some problematic feats, and toning down prestige classes makes all the difference in the world.

I was a bit disappointed that they dropped the level one school/bloodline abilities for wizards/sorcerers being at will though, the first time I played Pathfinder was in the playtest version before they made that change.