Pathfinder Boss Details Plans to Combat Dungeons & Dragons Next

[Schadrach]

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.

I never understood those complaints about 3e, they literally just reduced the number of arbitrarily different mechanics (like the way thief skills worked versus how saves worked vs the silliness that was THAC0, scrap 'em all and use d20+modifiers vs target number).

I never really heard the "minis game" thing until 3.5, and I suspect that was because they made a *lot* of examples in the books with grid paper and minis. Rather like how the page layout for skills in 4e made some people suggest they were turning D&D into a CCG.

 

[Fappy]

Pathfinder has been outselling 4.0 for years now. The shops I've been in my state always have the PF books up in the front and 4.0 stuff hidden in the back. I doubt they're too worried about having their thunder stolen with Next. Wizards has lost A LOT of credibility with its fanbase.

Stick to card games, guys. You're good at that

 

[Scars Unseen]

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.

Oh was that ever not the only problem with 3.5E. Challenge ratings were flawed, monster design in general was kind of fucked. The idea to make monsters functionally identical to player characters was an inspired piece of stupidity that made adventure design a tedium beyond anything I'd ever seen.

On the player side you have dead levels and trap feats. Multiclassing veered far from the designers' original intent. The mechanics of the game scale very, very badly which leads to wildly unbalanced play at high levels(Which is why I prefer to use the E6 rules when playing 3.5). The greater breadth of options made LFQW even worse than it was in prior editions. Saving throws scale badly, making Save or Die more of a problem, especially with spellcasting monsters since, as noted before, high hit die spellcasting monsters are now functionally the same as high level player spellcasters.

And then there are things about the edition I just don't like personally. For instance, ability scores have become disproportionately important in 3.5E to the point that they overshadow your actual class abilities. I dislike the mix-n-match multiclassing. I don't like the bonus stacking minigame. I dislike how numbers scale up over levels(it gets to the point where you can't challenge one player without making the others irrelevant because of the disparity). I believe that feats and skills limit your options rather than open them up.

I could go on and on. I just don't feel that 3.5E is anywhere near the improvement over AD&D that some people think it is. The only thing I like about it is how it standardized the d20 mechanic, and even then I sometimes think it went too far.

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.

I never understood those complaints about 3e, they literally just reduced the number of arbitrarily different mechanics (like the way thief skills worked versus how saves worked vs the silliness that was THAC0, scrap 'em all and use d20+modifiers vs target number).

I never really heard the "minis game" thing until 3.5, and I suspect that was because they made a *lot* of examples in the books with grid paper and minis. Rather like how the page layout for skills in 4e made some people suggest they were turning D&D into a CCG.

That may be because they started putting mini-relevant stats(movement in squares, space taken) in the monster manuals in 3.5E. It was still more easily ignored than in 4E, but between that and the miniatures handbook, they were definitely starting the push towards a miniatures tactical game.

Pathfinder has been outselling 4.0 for years now. The shops I've been in my state always have the PF books up in the front and 4.0 stuff hidden in the back. I doubt they're too worried about having their thunder stolen with Next. Wizards has lost A LOT of credibility with its fanbase.

Stick to card games, guys. You're good at that

Actually there is no real evidence that indicates which sells better overall because neither company releases sales figures. The best you could say is that one product sold better than another locally, and even that only applies in a small town if you happen to run the local FLGS or book store.

On top of that, Pathfinder doesn't really have any "thunder" to steal. Every edition of D&D I've ever played has split off part of the player base(which is why we have edition wars), but D&D remains the 800 pound gorilla of the industry. As the article says, you're talking 30 plus years of history; Pathfinder is unlikely to become the generic term for role-playing games any time soon.

 

[Pinky's Brain]

Challenge ratings were flawed

It's always going to be flawed unless you design encounters in the very restricted MMO way (ie. no terrain/vantage based tactical advantages, boss mobs are defacto immune to almost everything except DPS etc etc).

 

[Something Amyss]

I never understood those complaints about 3e, they literally just reduced the number of arbitrarily different mechanics (like the way thief skills worked versus how saves worked vs the silliness that was THAC0, scrap 'em all and use d20+modifiers vs target number).

And the same could be argued about mechanics in 4e. Granted, "simpler" often meant "worse," but not so much because it was like an MMO and more because it was just dumb.

I never really heard the "minis game" thing until 3.5, and I suspect that was because they made a *lot* of examples in the books with grid paper and minis. Rather like how the page layout for skills in 4e made some people suggest they were turning D&D into a CCG.

The Minis complaints started in 3.0, which may have been a touch irrational since all Wizards had done at the time was continue the miniature product line. I'm pretty sure some of the non-core books also used minis, but alas, almost all of my D&D books were destroyed so I can't verify.

I also find it weird because Star Wars Saga edition was met with some pretty hefty praise, despite having "card" elements, "MMO" elements, and a heavy "focus" on minatures. Maybe you could argue people had got the complaints about minis out of their system, but the rest was a move towards 4e.

Which goes back to history repeating.

 

[Something Amyss]

not sure how it's bloated, looking through my collection it's only about 7 Gb worth of pdf's, and I avoid the six page splat books.

My entire gaming collection of PDFs, including freebies like from the roleplaying day bundle, comes to about a fifth of that, so "not sure if serious."

Pathfinder has been outselling 4.0 for years now.

According to ICV2, they only jumped past D&D this year, and only during a period of no major releases for D&D. I'm not sure that counts as "for years."

 

[Scars Unseen]

not sure how it's bloated, looking through my collection it's only about 7 Gb worth of pdf's, and I avoid the six page splat books.

My entire gaming collection of PDFs, including freebies like from the roleplaying day bundle, comes to about a fifth of that, so "not sure if serious."

Pathfinder has been outselling 4.0 for years now.

According to ICV2, they only jumped past D&D this year, and only during a period of no major releases for D&D. I'm not sure that counts as "for years."

Also note that ICV2 is a wildly inaccurate way to track sales. They don't use sales numbers; they just call up a select number of retailers and ask for a ranking of top selling RPGs. So at best we know that for a span of time, some retailers were selling more Pathfinder books than D&D books by an indeterminable margin. Direct from publisher sales? Don't know. Online sales? Don't know. Retailers that weren't asked to participate in the survey? Don't know. Total number of each product sold by the retailers who were asked to participate in the survey? Again, don't know.

Basically ICV2's list is a good way to get a vague idea of what is popular at the moment, but little else.

 

[Schadrach]

Oh was that ever not the only problem with 3.5E. Challenge ratings were flawed, monster design in general was kind of fucked. The idea to make monsters functionally identical to player characters was an inspired piece of stupidity that made adventure design a tedium beyond anything I'd ever seen.

CR was flawed, I'll give you that. From a practical perspective, I always used it as a way to short-list monsters while planning, and nothing else. You know, look at party level, look at CRs of creatures that might be appropriate to what I'm planning, and make a quick "probably reasonable solo", "probably reasonable in a small group", "things I can probably have swarm the players" (Ghouls can be such bullshit, I once dropped half of a level 11 group with a very large number of them -- eventually someone fails that save versus the paralyze and then they usually just get eaten [paralyzed=helpless, helpless=coup de grace because they are eating you), a -- I once used a lot of ghouls in a town as zombie apocalypse scenario) and "things the players aren't meant to actually fight without securing a significant advantage" short-lists.

[QUOTE=Scars Unseen]On the player side you have dead levels and trap feats. [/QUOTE]

Pathfinder largely gets rid of those. Not every feat is equally optimal, but there are few that are "traps", they are as a rule at least situationally useful or a prereq for something that makes them worthwhile in the long run.

As far as dead levels, let me use the Pathfinder Sorcerer as an example. You gain class features as a sorcerer as often as a fighter gains feats (but on the odd levels and 20 rather than the even levels and 1). Any class that isn't a spellcaster generally gains something other than just HP, BAB, and saves every level in Pathfinder. The ones that are spell casters generally gain something over the the previous and spell progression most levels, and the rare level where you don't is almost always a level where you get a new level of spells, to make sure you at least get something cool.

Not all interesting customizations of your class progression come through multiclassing in Pathfinder either -- they have a mechanic called archetypes that are functionally 2e kits, substituting various class features for alternatives that fit a given theme. You see less use of prestige classes in actual play because prestige class abilities aren't generally wildly more powerful than base classes, just more specialized in a way that doesn't fit neatly into a base class progression.

In Pathfinder a straight Sorcerer did not necessarily lose out by not hopping into a prestige class as fast as possible and never taking another level of sorcerer ever.

Multiclassing veered far from the designers' original intent. The mechanics of the game scale very, very badly which leads to wildly unbalanced play at high levels(Which is why I prefer to use the E6 rules when playing 3.5).

Never fiddled with E6, might have to check it out.

The greater breadth of options made LFQW even worse than it was in prior editions. Saving throws scale badly, making Save or Die more of a problem, especially with spellcasting monsters since, as noted before, high hit die spellcasting monsters are now functionally the same as high level player spellcasters.

Pathfinder reduces, but doesn't eliminate the LFQW problem. Fighter-types all got some boosts than make them more dangerous, and some of the worst cheese in the spell list got fixed. Most old SoD spells now deal damage, so a min/max wizard has to rely on save-or-suck instead. As a rule, in Pathfinder a fighter in a group with a wizard or cleric doesn't feel nearly as useless as he used to, especially if you occasionally use attrition against them (which was how I always dealt with it in 3.5 -- smart villains grasp the whole "how casters work" thing too, and would try to wear them down [which usually crippled the casters more than anyone else]).

 

[Akisa]

Oh was that ever not the only problem with 3.5E. Challenge ratings were flawed, monster design in general was kind of fucked. The idea to make monsters functionally identical to player characters was an inspired piece of stupidity that made adventure design a tedium beyond anything I'd ever seen.

I disagree monster design was one of the better parts of the game. You can actually learn from your enemies rather than they always be some bull power. For example if a player doesn't know what power attack feat and faces an orc with it he can learn from the encounter and be "like wow that is useful perhaps I can learn from that". Instead of it being a list of abilities unique to an Orc. Granted there are some creatures with specific unique abilities, but that is what makes them unique as they're common place.

 

[Something Amyss]

Also note that ICV2 is a wildly inaccurate way to track sales.

And Fappy's method isn't?

Given the two, ICV2 is the best data we have. And that was kind of the point.

Context kinda matters here.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Also note that ICV2 is a wildly inaccurate way to track sales.

And Fappy's method isn't?

Given the two, ICV2 is the best data we have. And that was kind of the point.

Context kinda matters here.

My point is that the "best" data we have is useless for the sort of discussion that's going on. It's context lies outside the question of who is selling more of what. The only people who can answer that question aren't talking, so the discussion itself is pointless. I can say what games my group uses, and you can do the same for yours. No one can say which is used by the most people with any certainty worldwide or even locally in a community of any size.

Trying to claim that any given game sells best is about as pointless as claiming that it is the best objectively.

 

[Royas]

Also note that ICV2 is a wildly inaccurate way to track sales.

And Fappy's method isn't?

Given the two, ICV2 is the best data we have. And that was kind of the point.

Context kinda matters here.

I'd say the two methods are about equally accurate. Given the Paizo subscription service and their heavy use of PDF's, I'd suspect that they get a LOT of their sales online, directly to them. Retailers, while an important part of the supply chain, aren't nearly as relevant for tracking Pathfinder sales, they emphasize the direct sale model too much for that.

On the actual article, I left WotC before 4th edition even came out, because I saw the way the road was going when they canceled Dragon and Dungeon magazines. I left WotC because they treated their oldest, most reliable fans like dirt (or so it felt to me). After trying 4th edition, I was never happier about a decision. The new rules felt restrictive and limiting, and yes, much like a video game. My wizard basically could only "spam" one spell, again and again and again.

Paizo would have to screw me over just as badly to make me even consider looking at a WotC game again. The new incarnation of D&D isn't even on the map for me.

 

[Auberon]

My wizard basically could only "spam" one spell, again and again and again.

Granted, it somewhat solved the problem of Fighter & co having the sole option of "I hit it with my sword/axe/bow etc" while any caster had enough spells to either bypass entire thing by flight, teleport, invisibility or just throwing a few Save-or-Dies at it.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'd say the two methods are about equally accurate.

Then you're wrong. Arguing one or two stores' sales vs a large swathe of them is never going to be valid, even if you make digital sales excuses.

My point is that the "best" data we have is useless for the sort of discussion that's going on.

Fappy is claiming domination. The sales data we have is not useless for disputing that claim.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I'd say the two methods are about equally accurate.

Then you're wrong. Arguing one or two stores' sales vs a large swathe of them is never going to be valid, even if you make digital sales excuses.

My point is that the "best" data we have is useless for the sort of discussion that's going on.

Fappy is claiming domination. The sales data we have is not useless for disputing that claim.

Yes, it kind of is, because you do not have sales data. That is not what that chart gives you. The chart is a survey of dubious accuracy presenting little more than anecdotal evidence. However, the fact that the chart is useless (and that there is nothing else available to go by) itself disputes any claim that any product is dominating any other.

You don't have to provide evidence to dispute a claim which itself has no evidence. If someone claims that there is an advanced race of aliens living inside the moon, you don't have to come up with evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof lies with Fappy.

 

[SAMAS]

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

Bloat is somewhat inevitable for an RPG. As gamers, we don't add new members all that fast, so they have to keep us present customers buying to stay afloat. And since most of us don't buy the same books two or three times (unless we're really unlucky), that means they need new stuff for us to buy.