Pathfinder Boss Details Plans to Combat Dungeons & Dragons Next

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Pathfinder Boss Details Plans to Combat Dungeons & Dragons Next

Emerald Spire

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, 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, 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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

Octorok:

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.

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 ^^.

Octorok:
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.

Whenever I read a comment about how 4E is "MMORPG pandering."

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

OT: God I love Pathfinder, it's amazing when you find a good group.

I just hope they did something with the swashbuckler in the Advanced Classes guide. I mean, being a Fighter with Grit points is awesome, but as a melee it didn't look as if it would hold up with the other melee classes.

But knowing the group I'm in, once Emerald Spire is released, that's where our merry band of murderers and thieves will be going.

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.

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.

beef623:

Octorok:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Zachary Amaranth:

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.

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.

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 ;)

Schadrach:

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.

Schadrach:

Zachary Amaranth:

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.

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.

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 ;)

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.

Scars Unseen:
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).

Schadrach:

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.

Kalezian:

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."

Fappy:
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."

Zachary Amaranth:

Kalezian:

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."

Fappy:
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.

Scars Unseen:

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.

Scars Unseen:
On the player side you have dead levels and trap feats.

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.

Scars Unseen:
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.

Scars Unseen:
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]).

Scars Unseen:

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.

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.

Zachary Amaranth:

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.

Zachary Amaranth:

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.

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.

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.

Royas:

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.

Scars Unseen:

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.

Zachary Amaranth:

Royas:

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.

Scars Unseen:

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.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here