Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Campaign Setting Hardcover!!!

[sckeener]

Hmm...I like the product, but I am not understanding where it fits in my subscription scheme.

Is it a rehash of material I will be getting in my pathfinder subscription but in hardcover?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

What I don't get is people saying they won't buy it unless it supports a system that doesn't exist yet. "If I decide to switch to 4.0, I might not buy it if it's 3.5" I understand. But a blanket statement that you're switching to 4.0 sight-unseen and won't look at something from a company with a proven track record, and that will be largely systemless fluff just seems shortsighted.

 

[Dragonhelm]

So what sort of things can we expect in the hardback? Geography, organizations, races/classes? I'd like to hear a bit on the content.

 

[GVDammerung]

People keep saying that. It may be HIGHLY probable, but that's not "reality".

It is possible that many will stick to 3.5 at least for some time, mainly because there wasn't an OGL for previous editions of the game. I for one have TONS of 3.X books in my RPG library. IF 4E doesn't allow me to recycle these products with a minimum of efforts, then there is a very strong chance I'm going to stick to 3.5 for a LONG time.

I cannot imagine that I'm the only one in this situation.

Here is an individual of wit and sagacity - whose opinion just happens to mirror my own.

Edition neutral? I'm in.

3X? I'm in.

4e? Umm. Well. You see the thing is . . .

 

[masshysteria]

We fully anticipate this product to be a 4th Edition product. We just can't commit to it being a 4th Edition product, yet, per the reasons I think we've talked about to death.

I'm digging this. When I first looked over it I thought, "Well, I like the Pathfinder modules, but if I'm going to make my own adventures from scratch I'll keep with Eberron for 3.5." But, seeing this, I'd gladly use Pathfinder as my 4E setting of choice.

Unlike some people, I'm not either/or when it comes to 3.5/4E. I'll probably run and play both. So it is good to see a quality setting like Pathfinder out the summer 4E drops, as I'm not too interested in the Forgotten Realms.

 

[catsclaw227]

What I don't get is people saying they won't buy it unless it supports a system that doesn't exist yet. "If I decide to switch to 4.0, I might not buy it if it's 3.5" I understand. But a blanket statement that you're switching to 4.0 sight-unseen and won't look at something from a company with a proven track record, and that will be largely systemless fluff just seems shortsighted.

I would agree that it seems shortsighted now, but in July/August when the product is being released and most people will back up their assertions with their wallet, then that decision won't be short-sighted.

Heck, any unflapple positions about 4e seem shortsighted when the release edition is still 6-7 months away.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Put me in the 4.0=yes, 3.5 = no column. I own plenty of 3.5 material, and am unlikely to buy any more any time soon.

You guys create great, great stuff, looking foward to this.

That's your mistake. You label it as "3.5e material". It's great roleplaying material. Whatever rules system will occupy the 5% or so of the book that will be devoted to gross banalities like rules will not turn a great book into a crappy one, nor could it save an otherwise crappy book.

It's possible that you could ignore those 5% or so of the book that don't cater to your preferred edition and use 4e's rules for it - unless 4e is rigged to be incompatible to this campaign setting. It seems quite clear that it will be incompatible to at least some 3e settings (Midnight anyone? A setting that makes magic a rare resource that will drain your life force if you do it too often and a ruleset that is all about heroes doing magic all day don't exactly go together like fish and chips)

 

[Zaukrie]

Well, at this point, I own FR (in all incarnations), Greyhawk, one homebrew, Planescape, Taladas, (whatever the TSR dragonworld was called), Mystara, and probably more I can't think of, plus mini-settings.

Another world is not compelling at this point (even Thieves World and Black Company or ASoFaI), unless it integrates fully with the new ruleset. I already have my 3.5 world(s) covered.

My first post was more about voting in disagreement with those that said they preferred 3.5 - I prefer 4.0 at this point.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Taladas, (whatever the TSR dragonworld was called),

Dragonlance.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Well, at this point, I own FR (in all incarnations), Greyhawk, one homebrew, Planescape, Taladas, (whatever the TSR dragonworld was called), Mystara, and probably more I can't think of, plus mini-settings.

Pffd. I also own FR3e, all Rokugan d20, most of Midnight, several d20 RPGs, a couple of other campaign settings and quasi-campaign settings, as well as a couple of other RPGs.

And a good new setting is always welcome - especially if it replaces an old, which Pathfinder will do (Wizards made it clear that they don't want me to buy any more FR, and I don't want to force my money upon them)

Plus, everything I've seen so far about Pathfinder is simply great. Paizo seems hellbent on working their burros off to make this good!

Another world is not compelling at this point (even Thieves World and Black Company or ASoFaI), unless it integrates fully with the new ruleset.

That's actually a huge turnoff for me. I made the Forgotten Realms truly Forgotten because they seem to force 4e upon it. I don't want any campaign setting to be a ruleset's bitch. Rules don't make a great setting. If it's a decent setting, and a decent set of rules, they can work together.

If Pathfinder won't work with 4e, it will mean that Wizards made 4e restrictive. That means that one of the most important features of D&D will have gone, and they can keep it.