| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Portella |
Posted - 03 Sep 2013 : 15:18:39
Do a lot of you use pathfinder in the realms? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 08 Sep 2013 : 05:56:56
No doubt Paizo has presented itself as a very fan-friendly company and carried through activities to back up that notion. Not to say WotC is unfriendly, but they seem more and more removed in recent years, very much an ivory tower onto themselves. If they had a better pulse on the fanbase before and during the 4E era, the status of the companies that make up this field might be very different.
This thread has reminded me of a project I've always wanted to do but never coalesced. I might give a Pathfinder conversion of FR a try, but likely in the guise of a similar homebrew setting. Partly because my own views of where the Realms should be differs from the published and also I'm not keen on overusing Realmslore for a project directly encouraging play with a competing system. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 22:20:54
quote:
Originally posted by Portella
My main point is that RPG's are very community base from the 6 players ones right to the internet 100s of people to me it seems either of them have the right formula however paizo has it better by a margin. The beta they did worked wonders to drag people to their forums.
Oh, I think their open playtest of the Pathfinder ruleset was absolutely brilliant. It gave them a much larger playtester base than what WotC used for 4E, which meant an increased likelihood of finding issues (and no gag order, either!). And then they responded to those issues, working with the community to improve the ruleset. This not only showed a greater concern for the fanbase, it gave the playtesters more of an emotional connection to the rules -- they were involved in their creation, after all.
You can't buy that kind of publicity. Paizo did that one absolutely perfectly.
And it wasn't just a show, either -- I've twice had to deal with their customer support, and it's been a great experience each time. Some of the best customer support I've ever had -- and as someone in a customer support position, I know what that's all about. |
| Portella |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 21:23:08
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, personally, am not at all present on the Paizo forums, due in no small part to disliking the layout of their boards. And other than their fiction and the write-ups of the iconics, I'm not familiar with them having any web content.
WotC does have, at the least, web content, even if it's the same stuff we used to get for free, relabeled as a magazine and put behind a paywall.
I think you are being a bit unfare, here, Wooly. They do have quite a bit of free stuff still, including Ed's wonderful Forging the Realms series.
Yes, I agree that a lot of their pay content - especially some of the mediocre stuff near the beginning - was pretty bad and not nearly up to the quality of the old Dragon Magazine material, but they have been getting steadily better, and the 'magazine' (as they call it) is probably worth the money now (especially if you use 4th edition).
I am just as angry as you that they pulled all their 'old edition downloads' - stuff available for years for FREE - and stuck that behind a paywall - that was a dumb-arse move if I ever saw one (so who said, "how can we piss-off our fanbase even more?"), but I think you are applying way too much of that initial backlash/rage to what they have going on now. Many of us have tainted perceptions because of the really bad 'first impression' we got, but if you looked at it again without those preconceptions (and ignoring the fact that the crunchy bits are designed around 4e), then its not really as gawd-awful as some of us make it out to be.
Actually, I'm not all that pissed about them pulling the free downloads. I remain convinced that the files have not been pulled, they have simply been shuffled to a new location. WotC has a history of moving stuff around, and considering that there are still files from 2000 available on their site (if you know the URL), I'm not convinced that anything is ever actually pulled down.
I'm far more irked about them pulling the legally available pdfs from Paizo and other sites, back when 4E came out and was immediately pirated. Not only was that a knee-jerk over-reaction, it caused Paizo to break their agreement with the customers that the pdfs would be available for unlimited downloads. But even that isn't something that actively bothers me anymore -- it's just something that irritated me then, and that I've not forgiven WotC for doing. It's a point against them, but it's not worth the energy of being actively tweaked off.
About the web content... I recently signed up for the DDI, partially to see past content, partially to see what all is going to be coming with 5E.
And looking at what's available, I still don't see that it comes anywhere close to what they previously offered for free, in addition to the print magazines.
I used to check the Wizards site daily -- sometimes more frequently. I rarely went more than a couple of days without copying something from the site to a Word file. I recall checking late at night, sometimes, seeing if the new content was up yet so I could share it here before anyone else -- they were usually reliable enough that you knew what days of the week you could expect new articles. The days we got new Realmslore were the days I hit the site most frequently.
Now, even with the DDI, I'm not seeing all that much on their website. There has been some good stuff, but it's not anywhere near as much as they used to give us.
We used to get one or two bits of Realmslore for free, every week, even if it was nothing better than those Adventure Locale articles, some of which were obviously setting-neutral when written and then shoehorned into the Realms. Now we might get 2 or 3 a month, if we're lucky.
I'm not keen on their lack of free content, but I'm not going to sweat that too much. I just wish they offered as much behind the paywall as they offered before they had that.
My main point is that RPG's are very community base from the 6 players ones right to the internet 100s of people to me it seems either of them have the right formula however paizo has it better by a margin. The beta they did worked wonders to drag people to their forums. |
| Portella |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 21:20:49
Paizo has to work for many years still to put out as much content as there is in FR I am go on to add that this extends to this site the candlekeep. There is so much stuff people put here which is one of the reasons I keep coming back. |
| Portella |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 21:14:04
quote:
Originally posted by Dreamstalker
Currently I am working on a Forgotten Realms Pathfinder homebrew. I differ from the canonical Realms in a number of regards, taking from each edition elements I care for and remolding the setting that is something that exists without the Time of Troubles or the Spellplague and Abeir/Sundering meta-events in their entirety.
Personally I was a huge 3.x junkie. Crunchy systems combined with heavily immersive settings serve my roleplaying desires. Pathfinder does really well at tailoring from first level formidable characters with distinct flavor. Populating Rashemen with Barbarians Witches and Oracles instead of Cavaliers Wizards and Clerics alters not just the mechanics but highlights differences between them and Cormyr.
I realized today I made an account here some time ago so it is time to use it to full effect now that I want to resume my time in the Realms.
I get what you mean its what I have been thinking about doing homebrew FR using PF |
| Dreamstalker |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 20:38:50
Currently I am working on a Forgotten Realms Pathfinder homebrew. I differ from the canonical Realms in a number of regards, taking from each edition elements I care for and remolding the setting that is something that exists without the Time of Troubles or the Spellplague and Abeir/Sundering meta-events in their entirety.
Personally I was a huge 3.x junkie. Crunchy systems combined with heavily immersive settings serve my roleplaying desires. Pathfinder does really well at tailoring from first level formidable characters with distinct flavor. Populating Rashemen with Barbarians Witches and Oracles instead of Cavaliers Wizards and Clerics alters not just the mechanics but highlights differences between them and Cormyr.
I realized today I made an account here some time ago so it is time to use it to full effect now that I want to resume my time in the Realms. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 17:59:57
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, personally, am not at all present on the Paizo forums, due in no small part to disliking the layout of their boards. And other than their fiction and the write-ups of the iconics, I'm not familiar with them having any web content.
WotC does have, at the least, web content, even if it's the same stuff we used to get for free, relabeled as a magazine and put behind a paywall.
I think you are being a bit unfare, here, Wooly. They do have quite a bit of free stuff still, including Ed's wonderful Forging the Realms series.
Yes, I agree that a lot of their pay content - especially some of the mediocre stuff near the beginning - was pretty bad and not nearly up to the quality of the old Dragon Magazine material, but they have been getting steadily better, and the 'magazine' (as they call it) is probably worth the money now (especially if you use 4th edition).
I am just as angry as you that they pulled all their 'old edition downloads' - stuff available for years for FREE - and stuck that behind a paywall - that was a dumb-arse move if I ever saw one (so who said, "how can we piss-off our fanbase even more?"), but I think you are applying way too much of that initial backlash/rage to what they have going on now. Many of us have tainted perceptions because of the really bad 'first impression' we got, but if you looked at it again without those preconceptions (and ignoring the fact that the crunchy bits are designed around 4e), then its not really as gawd-awful as some of us make it out to be.
Actually, I'm not all that pissed about them pulling the free downloads. I remain convinced that the files have not been pulled, they have simply been shuffled to a new location. WotC has a history of moving stuff around, and considering that there are still files from 2000 available on their site (if you know the URL), I'm not convinced that anything is ever actually pulled down.
I'm far more irked about them pulling the legally available pdfs from Paizo and other sites, back when 4E came out and was immediately pirated. Not only was that a knee-jerk over-reaction, it caused Paizo to break their agreement with the customers that the pdfs would be available for unlimited downloads. But even that isn't something that actively bothers me anymore -- it's just something that irritated me then, and that I've not forgiven WotC for doing. It's a point against them, but it's not worth the energy of being actively tweaked off.
About the web content... I recently signed up for the DDI, partially to see past content, partially to see what all is going to be coming with 5E.
And looking at what's available, I still don't see that it comes anywhere close to what they previously offered for free, in addition to the print magazines.
I used to check the Wizards site daily -- sometimes more frequently. I rarely went more than a couple of days without copying something from the site to a Word file. I recall checking late at night, sometimes, seeing if the new content was up yet so I could share it here before anyone else -- they were usually reliable enough that you knew what days of the week you could expect new articles. The days we got new Realmslore were the days I hit the site most frequently.
Now, even with the DDI, I'm not seeing all that much on their website. There has been some good stuff, but it's not anywhere near as much as they used to give us.
We used to get one or two bits of Realmslore for free, every week, even if it was nothing better than those Adventure Locale articles, some of which were obviously setting-neutral when written and then shoehorned into the Realms. Now we might get 2 or 3 a month, if we're lucky.
I'm not keen on their lack of free content, but I'm not going to sweat that too much. I just wish they offered as much behind the paywall as they offered before they had that. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 16:49:26
yeah, I don't go to wizard's web site nor paizo's for forums unless a google search brings me there. I primarily come here and occasionally I've gone to the giant in the playground's site because there's a lot of people there who are rules lawyer/build experts.... but you gotta wade through the cheaters. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 14:36:51
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, personally, am not at all present on the Paizo forums, due in no small part to disliking the layout of their boards. And other than their fiction and the write-ups of the iconics, I'm not familiar with them having any web content.
WotC does have, at the least, web content, even if it's the same stuff we used to get for free, relabeled as a magazine and put behind a paywall.
I think you are being a bit unfare, here, Wooly. They do have quite a bit of free stuff still, including Ed's wonderful Forging the Realms series.
Yes, I agree that a lot of their pay content - especially some of the mediocre stuff near the beginning - was pretty bad and not nearly up to the quality of the old Dragon Magazine material, but they have been getting steadily better, and the 'magazine' (as they call it) is probably worth the money now (especially if you use 4th edition).
I am just as angry as you that they pulled all their 'old edition downloads' - stuff available for years for FREE - and stuck that behind a paywall - that was a dumb-arse move if I ever saw one (so who said, "how can we piss-off our fanbase even more?"), but I think you are applying way too much of that initial backlash/rage to what they have going on now. Many of us have tainted perceptions because of the really bad 'first impression' we got, but if you looked at it again without those preconceptions (and ignoring the fact that the crunchy bits are designed around 4e), then its not really as gawd-awful as some of us make it out to be. |
| Portella |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 14:02:44
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, personally, am not at all present on the Paizo forums, due in no small part to disliking the layout of their boards. And other than their fiction and the write-ups of the iconics, I'm not familiar with them having any web content.
WotC does have, at the least, web content, even if it's the same stuff we used to get for free, relabeled as a magazine and put behind a paywall.
I don't either, I don't even go to the wizards site. I tried but I can make myself a frequent user. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 13:51:37
I, personally, am not at all present on the Paizo forums, due in no small part to disliking the layout of their boards. And other than their fiction and the write-ups of the iconics, I'm not familiar with them having any web content.
WotC does have, at the least, web content, even if it's the same stuff we used to get for free, relabeled as a magazine and put behind a paywall. |
| Portella |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 13:28:02
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Producing a PFRPG version of 5E Realms could help pull in some curious eyes. The best we'll probably get is a rules edition neutral (agnostic) version. I don't see WotC marketing anything as explicitly Pathfinder compatible.
If 5E is as flexible as they're saying, maybe it's lite enough to easily convert.
Perhaps a better strategy is do whatever they need to for print, but push for Pathfinder (and other system) support on D&DI. This drives people towards their subscription service, the one subscription service they have compared to Paizo's half-dozen or so for their Pathfinder line.
WotC's subscription service is hardly worth comparing to Paizo's... With Paizo's subscriptions, you get a discount on the print book and the pdf for free when the print book ships. WotC's subscription service is barely more web content than what we previously got for free, and this content replaces the magazines we used to also get in print.
I didnt think they had one! :S
Mind you to be honest in this day and age wizard web site seems like it is stuck on the late 90s still. Paizo web site is not the best I I believe it needs a lot of work to make it better but it way much better then wizards .
In the end of the day both of these companies need the internet and grow their community because in truth it is where all of us go to to chat, complain and talk about their products. If that user journey is not great we wont be making it very often.
Candlekeep is exempt from that this forums are ancient i.e. have that ancient look, we know and understand that and we love it :) |
| Portella |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 13:23:15
quote:
Originally posted by idilippy
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Makes me wonder why WotC is even bothering with rules at all - I think it would have been far more lucrative for them to jump onto the Paizo bandwagon and just produce setting material (that is PF-compliant).
Let the tail wag the dog, so long as we keep getting the great FR lore we crave, what does it matter?
Uh, Paizo is producing a fair amount of rules, too. They're putting out setting material more frequently, but they are still doing rule books, as well. They just haven't gone the TSR/WotC route of "here's a book focusing on just this class! Here's a book focusing on these existing races and a couple we made up to fill page count!"
Their rule books have focuses more on combat in general, or equipment, or magic, as opposed to the tighter focus of the WotC splatbooks.
Their NPC Codex, as an example, came out in the last year, and got at least a couple of Ennie awards this year.
I don't think Markustay is claiming they aren't. I don't know if I should speak for someone since I could be way off base but I interpreted what I read as him saying that WotC should not bother producing a rule set, since Paizo is doing so already, and instead just publish their settings and make them Pathfinder compliant. I could have read that way wrong though.
Anyways, posting to say I am a Realms DM through and through who runs Pathfinder pretty exclusively now. I like AD&D, especially 2e, but haven't got any players with the same appreciation I have for that system. 2e got me into the Realms, and by extension into D&D altogether, so it always feels the most like the Realms to me. Still Pathfinder does a good job too and I like their rules just fine and their Adventures are top notch, especially their adventure paths.
I like them too the adventures path that is I have read or played any yet (I want to play them) but I am also very keen on homebrew campaigns and I am finding difficult in the PF arena to find a group who wants to play homebrew instead of a adventure path.
|
| Portella |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 13:19:00
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
quote:
Makes me wonder why WotC is even bothering with rules at all - I think it would have been far more lucrative for them to jump onto the Paizo bandwagon and just produce setting material (that is PF-compliant).
Let the tail wag the dog, so long as we keep getting the great FR lore we crave, what does it matter?
My thinking here is that WotC wants to continue to set the industry standard...something they may have lost the initiative on now.
They have certainly lost that position or at least and losing it to pathfinder but I think it is open for the grabs. |
| Portella |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 13:17:38
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
quote:
Originally posted by Portella
One concept that wizards introduced to D&D that I liked is the "Minions" 1 HP'ish monsters that can be killed very easily this gives the real heroic feel to gaming where your character is truly wading through a sea of goblins and hacking and slashing all of them to get real foe.
Great concept.
Indeed I loved that.
Yeah, that's one of the easier things to copy into any game really. 1HP enemies that die with one hit, but are still powerful enough to threaten the PCs, especially in numbers.
|
| Portella |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 13:15:53
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Producing a PFRPG version of 5E Realms could help pull in some curious eyes. The best we'll probably get is a rules edition neutral (agnostic) version. I don't see WotC marketing anything as explicitly Pathfinder compatible.
If 5E is as flexible as they're saying, maybe it's lite enough to easily convert.
Perhaps a better strategy is do whatever they need to for print, but push for Pathfinder (and other system) support on D&DI. This drives people towards their subscription service, the one subscription service they have compared to Paizo's half-dozen or so for their Pathfinder line.
Anything they publish in 3.5 will be instantly compatible/ish with pathfinder and moreover usable by paizo as it will be on OGL.
Or would it be on OGL? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Sep 2013 : 23:38:06
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Producing a PFRPG version of 5E Realms could help pull in some curious eyes. The best we'll probably get is a rules edition neutral (agnostic) version. I don't see WotC marketing anything as explicitly Pathfinder compatible.
If 5E is as flexible as they're saying, maybe it's lite enough to easily convert.
Perhaps a better strategy is do whatever they need to for print, but push for Pathfinder (and other system) support on D&DI. This drives people towards their subscription service, the one subscription service they have compared to Paizo's half-dozen or so for their Pathfinder line.
WotC's subscription service is hardly worth comparing to Paizo's... With Paizo's subscriptions, you get a discount on the print book and the pdf for free when the print book ships. WotC's subscription service is barely more web content than what we previously got for free, and this content replaces the magazines we used to also get in print. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 05 Sep 2013 : 23:31:32
Producing a PFRPG version of 5E Realms could help pull in some curious eyes. The best we'll probably get is a rules edition neutral (agnostic) version. I don't see WotC marketing anything as explicitly Pathfinder compatible.
If 5E is as flexible as they're saying, maybe it's lite enough to easily convert.
Perhaps a better strategy is do whatever they need to for print, but push for Pathfinder (and other system) support on D&DI. This drives people towards their subscription service, the one subscription service they have compared to Paizo's half-dozen or so for their Pathfinder line. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 05 Sep 2013 : 12:16:05
Idilippy has the right of it - I didn't say Paizo doesn't produce tons of rules, I merely said I think WotC is wasting their time doing so.
I don't sit here idle, I visit lots of websites (with lots of names) and get a feel for how things are and where they are headed, and the trend is that folks do NOT want to invest in 'another system'; not yet. You can see that in regards to Paizo itself, in a recent discussion about them coming up with a new edition. The general trend in conversation was that folks just invested tons of money in the PF system (and setting), and they are not about to put it all aside for something else. It was this 'nerd rage' that caused the edition wars - and everyone to flee to Paizo - in the first place (because somehow Paizo pulled a neat hat-trick and convinced everyone they weren't switching rules... and then promptly sold them hundreds of dollars of new rules...)
WotC isn't in that 'savior' position - they are stil cast as 'the devil incarnate'. If they stepped back, produced an amazing new version of FR for PF rules, people who are growing tired of Golarion would flock to their banner by the thousands, and in a about 3-5 years more folks would be playing FR again (then in Golarion).
And THEN WotC can produce a new set of rules and get away with it. Right now, a new ruleset is just gonna push the same buttons again. WotC can't play to it's strengths (having a hard time figuring what those are), they have to play to Paizo's one weakness, and that single weakness is customer attention disorder (the ADD of gaming). The cracks are beginning to show. They need to pry that open and get in there before they do anything crazy (like release yet another set of rules no-one will buy).
Thats why I am hoping beyond hope they release rules-neutral setting material, as they originally planned for 5e, because that would go a LONG way in getting those people back (including all the fledgling new customers Paizo has succored). At this point, it doesn't matter how good D&Dnext is, because no-one wants to invest in a new system. If they marry 5eFR to their new rules, guess what? FR sinks with the rest of the ship.
IMHO, of course. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 05 Sep 2013 : 10:08:21
They should do something similar with D&D Next like they did with 3e OGL. As Dark Wizard said, people play D&D, the setting varies but the rules stick so you can have some play Eberron, some the Realms, some play Sword and Sorcery, other may try Pathfinder setting and again others do a complete own setting. Yet all come from the D&D background despite differing companies and agendas. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 05 Sep 2013 : 05:45:56
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Makes me wonder why WotC is even bothering with rules at all - I think it would have been far more lucrative for them to jump onto the Paizo bandwagon and just produce setting material (that is PF-compliant).
Let the tail wag the dog, so long as we keep getting the great FR lore we crave, what does it matter?
As we recall from SKR's article way back in the noughts, rulebooks outsold setting material by a considerable margin.
Leaving the rules initiative to Paizo not only weakens WotC's and D&D's brand as a industry leader and cultural/historical icon. It's leaving cash on the table (for the taking by Paizo and others).
More people don't give a rat's tail stub for the Realms, or Eberron, or Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft, or any setting. A lot more people play D&D. And now also Pathfinder and other similar games (and therein lies the problem). |
| idilippy |
Posted - 05 Sep 2013 : 02:01:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Makes me wonder why WotC is even bothering with rules at all - I think it would have been far more lucrative for them to jump onto the Paizo bandwagon and just produce setting material (that is PF-compliant).
Let the tail wag the dog, so long as we keep getting the great FR lore we crave, what does it matter?
Uh, Paizo is producing a fair amount of rules, too. They're putting out setting material more frequently, but they are still doing rule books, as well. They just haven't gone the TSR/WotC route of "here's a book focusing on just this class! Here's a book focusing on these existing races and a couple we made up to fill page count!"
Their rule books have focuses more on combat in general, or equipment, or magic, as opposed to the tighter focus of the WotC splatbooks.
Their NPC Codex, as an example, came out in the last year, and got at least a couple of Ennie awards this year.
I don't think Markustay is claiming they aren't. I don't know if I should speak for someone since I could be way off base but I interpreted what I read as him saying that WotC should not bother producing a rule set, since Paizo is doing so already, and instead just publish their settings and make them Pathfinder compliant. I could have read that way wrong though.
Anyways, posting to say I am a Realms DM through and through who runs Pathfinder pretty exclusively now. I like AD&D, especially 2e, but haven't got any players with the same appreciation I have for that system. 2e got me into the Realms, and by extension into D&D altogether, so it always feels the most like the Realms to me. Still Pathfinder does a good job too and I like their rules just fine and their Adventures are top notch, especially their adventure paths. |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 04 Sep 2013 : 17:20:20
Yep, Paizo definitely puts out plenty of rules (although nothing near the quantity of Wizards' at-least-one-rulebook-a-month pace caused) - I try to collect it all in various word-files that I print out at the end of the year (one for spells, one for feats, one for magic items, and so on), and last year's files came to well over 50 pages, even without the monsters, or anything from the hardbacks.
And as for the monsters... I'm printing out all the ones from sources other than the hardback bestiaries, and I bought a third binder to keep them in yesterday. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Sep 2013 : 16:47:46
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Makes me wonder why WotC is even bothering with rules at all - I think it would have been far more lucrative for them to jump onto the Paizo bandwagon and just produce setting material (that is PF-compliant).
Let the tail wag the dog, so long as we keep getting the great FR lore we crave, what does it matter?
Uh, Paizo is producing a fair amount of rules, too. They're putting out setting material more frequently, but they are still doing rule books, as well. They just haven't gone the TSR/WotC route of "here's a book focusing on just this class! Here's a book focusing on these existing races and a couple we made up to fill page count!"
Their rule books have focuses more on combat in general, or equipment, or magic, as opposed to the tighter focus of the WotC splatbooks.
Their NPC Codex, as an example, came out in the last year, and got at least a couple of Ennie awards this year. |
| Drustan Dwnhaedan |
Posted - 04 Sep 2013 : 16:34:40
My group's gone over to PF completely (nobody liked what they did to the Forgotten Realms in 4e) . Fortunately, my DM's been working on a FR campaign for PF (mostly because it'll finally stop me from pestering him about it ). |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 04 Sep 2013 : 15:57:25
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I've bought the rules for PF, but I haven't had a group for a few years (since maybe a year or so before 4e came out.... damn hurricane Katrina sending people all over). I'd like to use the PF rules though for a campaign. However, with my old group, we were heavily invested in e-tools to make things easy. I've picked up the hero lab stuff just to see what its like, but I then came to realize it doesn't have any of the prestige classes from 3/3.5e.... and despite liking PF, I have to admit there's a lot from 3.5 that I'd import. Just wondering, has anyone seen anything for Hero Labs (or another program that's decent) where the 3/3.5e stuff can be imported (and yes I understand that maybe this isn't allowed by WotC due to licensing).
There are numerous projects going on for home rules and campaign settings to import into Hero Labs. I've been working on some Forgotten Realms material myself, but haven't "published" it yet since it's still a work in progress. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 04 Sep 2013 : 15:47:44
quote:
Makes me wonder why WotC is even bothering with rules at all - I think it would have been far more lucrative for them to jump onto the Paizo bandwagon and just produce setting material (that is PF-compliant).
Let the tail wag the dog, so long as we keep getting the great FR lore we crave, what does it matter?
My thinking here is that WotC wants to continue to set the industry standard...something they may have lost the initiative on now. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 Sep 2013 : 15:30:38
Makes me wonder why WotC is even bothering with rules at all - I think it would have been far more lucrative for them to jump onto the Paizo bandwagon and just produce setting material (that is PF-compliant).
Let the tail wag the dog, so long as we keep getting the great FR lore we crave, what does it matter? |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 04 Sep 2013 : 15:11:21
I've bought the rules for PF, but I haven't had a group for a few years (since maybe a year or so before 4e came out.... damn hurricane Katrina sending people all over). I'd like to use the PF rules though for a campaign. However, with my old group, we were heavily invested in e-tools to make things easy. I've picked up the hero lab stuff just to see what its like, but I then came to realize it doesn't have any of the prestige classes from 3/3.5e.... and despite liking PF, I have to admit there's a lot from 3.5 that I'd import. Just wondering, has anyone seen anything for Hero Labs (or another program that's decent) where the 3/3.5e stuff can be imported (and yes I understand that maybe this isn't allowed by WotC due to licensing). |
| Eli the Tanner |
Posted - 04 Sep 2013 : 14:12:30
quote:
Originally posted by Renin
Also, I still use 2E modules and adventures as I see fit. Just gotta make it PF is all-and that isn't a problem whatsoever.
Here too. Luckily paizo seems to have coverted many of the 1e/2e monsters and the archetypes are brilliant for old character kits.
I've been running a pathfinder conversion of city of the spider queen and other smaller fr adventures but the pathfinder rules are something of a gateway drug to golarion and we'll probably switch over once our current adventure ends. |
|
|
