question about pathfinder/solasta/d&d

[snuggleform]

I'm new to the scene of d&d, but having played these videogames I can't help but wonder what's the history/relationship between them. They're clearly different franchises, but at the same time they use suspiciously similar mechanics and names. For example a spell named Expeditious Retreat is a very peculiar name that all those games use. And very specific classes like wizards that can memorize spells, but sorcerers who don't have to.

So who ripped off who? Were there disgruntled employees who wanted to take a game in their own direction so they left a company and branched off or something? Is there bad blood between the creators/designers of these franchises or are they collectively ok with basically using a lot of the same material/names? Or is it something like the MCU where some company bought the rights to certain parts of this and that and that's how the branching off began?

[Count von Bunnyhopven]

Back in the days we had D&D 3.5 and everyone was hunky dory. Then wizards of the coast that owns D&D was bought by Matel and they releaseed D&D 4.0 which everyone hated. But Matel had already stopped supporting D&D 3.5. But then someone read the copyright laws in america and realized that rules are not copywriteable. So they just copied every rule and just changed the world everything happens on to Golarion instead of Aber-Toril and called the new game Pathfinder.

Problem solved!

More development happened over time and the pathfinder rules were expanded on. So nowadays people tend to refer to it as D&D 3.7 or 3.9 or something.

Eventually Matel released a new version of D&D called 5.0 that was actually good. But by then the damage was done and pathfinder already existed.

[steventirey]

Originally posted by Count von Bunnyhopven:

Back in the days we had D&D 3.5 and everyone was hunky dory. Then wizards of the coast that owns D&D was bought by Matel and they releaseed D&D 4.0 which everyone hated. But Matel had already stopped supporting D&D 3.5. But then someone read the copyright laws in america and realized that rules are not copywriteable. So they just copied every rule and just changed the world everything happens on to Golarion instead of Aber-Toril and called the new game Pathfinder.

Problem solved!

More development happened over time and the pathfinder rules were expanded on. So nowadays people tend to refer to it as D&D 3.7 or 3.9 or something.

Eventually Matel released a new version of D&D called 5.0 that was actually good. But by then the damage was done and pathfinder already existed.

Not quite. Wizards of the Coast released 3.0 D&D under the Open Gaming License, allowing anyone at all to make their own products using the rules as long as the terms of the license were followed. That wasn't hard, as only a few parts of the core rules were left out. Other companies were already making their own products with the D&D rules long before 4th Edition came out. That was the entire point of the Open Game License.

When it came time for 4th edition, WotC used a far more restrictive license. One that required a game company to release their material for either 4th edition or 3.0/3.5, but not both. Paizo then took all of the Open Content rules, made a few additions to patch the holes, and we got the Pathfinder RPG. Because by the terms of the Open Gaming License that WotC originally used, it was unrevokable. Once they released content as Open Content, it was out there to be used by anyone for eternity. And Paizo did this as they had already published several books for their Golarian setting for 3.X D&D, so they wanted to continue with that. (In addition to providing a system for all those people who were upset about WotC moving on and making 4th edition so different.)

WotC is also owned by Hasbro, not Mattel. Hasbro also acquired them before 3.0 D&D came out. Its also why there are D&D sets for K-reo (a Lego knockoff) and not Lego. Lego is owned by Mattel, K-reo by Hasbro.

[Schlumpsha]

Pathfinder was basically born out of the dissatisfication wrought by D&D's 4.0 edition. Pathfinder first edition builds upon D&D 3.5 open license, and further widened up the class customisation with archetypes, unique base classes and whole slew of other mechanics.

Heck, Alchemist was so popular with the masses that WotC basically took it wholesale and implemented the class into D&D as a result.

[snuggleform]

Interesting. So Solasta and Baldur's Original Sin are sanctioned by 5.0 matel? Do you think the creators/designers get crosseyed when they look at spells that have very peculiar names like Expeditious Retreat that are clearly lifted from each other?

Going forward, do you expect that 5.0 and pathfinder will continue to rip rules/spells off each other?

Also going forward, when will 6.0 come out? I assume like Windows they're obligated to release a new version every so often to generate cash. What do you think will happen to the playerbase, will they cling to 5.0 or go along with the next shift?

[Gralzeim]

Mattel has nothing to do with any of this.

And yes, Solasta is 'sanctioned' by Hasbro, as much as any other thing using the open license parts of D&D 5e is. Solasta lacks some things you'd find in a paid-for book, so the devs filled in some of that with their own creations. I don't know anything about Baldur's Gate 3, other than that it's also using the D&D 5e ruleset.

And no, nothing's 'lifted' or 'ripped off' from each other, they're all using the same core rulesets as a basis.

As far as Pathfinder goes, the stuff they're using isn't anything Hasbro has a specific lock on, so they're also not 'ripping off' anything.

[anfindel13]

In answer to your other question, "6.0" in currently being play tested by Wizards of the Coast, and is knows as "One D & D". Haven't looked at it at all to be honest, so I can't say how much it varies from prior iterations.

Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 were based on 2nd edition of D & D (and a smattering of 3rd Edition as well). BG 3 is based on certain licensed properties obtained from WotC that were approved for inclusion in the game - mostly from 5.0, but there is the possibility some changes from One D & D might be included - there has not been a final answer provided to the BG 3 community as yet.

[snuggleform]

When is Pathfinder 2.0 coming out?

Sure ok they might be using the same core rulesets fairly, but why do they use such ...similar naming schemes? I would have used something like "hasty retreat" not just rip off the name "expeditious retreat" for instance. Just because you are using the same rulesets doesn't mean you have to use the same spell names. It'd be like if I were playing command and conquer and they had a unit named zergling. Isn't it just kind of obvious you shouldn't do that?

[steventirey]

Originally posted by snuggleform:

When is Pathfinder 2.0 coming out?

Sure ok they might be using the same core rulesets fairly, but why do they use such ...similar naming schemes? I would have used something like "hasty retreat" not just rip off the name "expeditious retreat" for instance. Just because you are using the same rulesets doesn't mean you have to use the same spell names. It'd be like if I were playing command and conquer and they had a unit named zergling. Isn't it just kind of obvious you shouldn't do that?

Why change the name? It has the same exact effects, the name is already familiar to the target group (the ones dissatisfied with the events around the release of 4th Edition D&D) so its easier for them to understand, the fact it shares a name with a spell in a different game means nothing to anyone not familiar with the events, and the entire point of the Open Game License is to allow just such a thing. The OGL was meant to form a common ground for others to work from.

There is no reason to change the name. So it wasn't changed. Pathfinder wasn't meant to be a new game. It was marketed as a continuation of 3.5 D&D. So the 3.5 D&D names remained wherever possible.

[Schlumpsha]

Originally posted by snuggleform:

When is Pathfinder 2.0 coming out?

2019. It has been out for quite some time and even has spawned 9 Adventure Paths at this point.

[steventirey]

Originally posted by Schlumpsha:

Originally posted by snuggleform:

When is Pathfinder 2.0 coming out?

2019. It has been out for quite some time and even has spawned 9 Adventure Paths at this point.

Yeah, and it caused at least a few people to be upset. Pathfinder was supposed to be a continuation of the game they loved (3.5 D&D) and a number of D&D fans switched over to Pathfinder because of that. Then Pathfinder went and changed as well.

[snuggleform]

Originally posted by Schlumpsha:

Originally posted by snuggleform:

When is Pathfinder 2.0 coming out?

2019. It has been out for quite some time and even has spawned 9 Adventure Paths at this point.

Uh, so when it pathfinder 3.0 coming out?

Is WOTR based on 2.0? If not, are they going to release a successful game based on 2.0?

[Schlumpsha]

Originally posted by snuggleform:

Is WOTR based on 2.0? If not, are they going to release a successful game based on 2.0?

Wrath of the Righteous is a Pathfinder first edition Adventure Path, like Kingmaker. Owlcat hasn't adapted any second edition AP's as of yet.

Using second edition basically means to reinvent the wheel for Owlcat. Any and all classes and other mechanics would need either a retouch or a complete redesign. Plus making that new ruleset compatible with RtwP is another headache.

By sticking to first edition AP's Owlcat would be able to use the existing framework 1:1. This cuts down on working hours and allows for resources to be redirected at other parts of development. It makes more sense from a business perspective to stick to first edition for the next couple of Pathfinder games.

[snuggleform]

I see. Thanks for the catchup information guys.

When it Pathfinder 3.0 coming out? Do you think owlcat will try to adapt 2.0 or skip to 3.0?

[Max Kojote, M.SC]

We haven't even heard anything of Pathfinder 3.0 yet, and they're still actively doing work on 2.0 with more adventure paths and sourcebooks. Hopefully next month we'll get some revised crafting rules because the current ones are kind of... 'eh'.

[hilburnashua]

Originally posted by snuggleform:

When is Pathfinder 2.0 coming out?

Sure ok they might be using the same core rulesets fairly, but why do they use such ...similar naming schemes? I would have used something like "hasty retreat" not just rip off the name "expeditious retreat" for instance. Just because you are using the same rulesets doesn't mean you have to use the same spell names. It'd be like if I were playing command and conquer and they had a unit named zergling. Isn't it just kind of obvious you shouldn't do that?

Back in AD&D 1st and 2nd editions a lot of the spells had the names of specific characters that created them attached to them . Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Melf's Acid Arrow, Snillac's Snowball, Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer, Otto's Irresistable Dance, Tenser's Transformation and quite a few more. But because those names were under copywrite from those earlier editions when WotC created 3rd edition with the Open License they couldn't use those names attached to the old spells. So Melf's Acid Arrow became Acid Arrow.

And there wasn't any good reason to change spell names from 1st to 2nd edtion Pathfinder. They, kind of, did the same thing so it I imagine Paizo figured players would have an easier time adapting to the new system with the spells having familiar names. No need to reinvent the wheel in so far as names go.