I like 4E. I like how it consolidated 3.5's numerous subsystems into one consistent system for all classes, and I like its elegant simplicity.

I also like Pathfinder. I like how it added new options to otherwise bland classes like the fighter and the sorcerer. I also like how it is backwards-compatible with my 3.5 books.

What I don't like is the general notion in these boards that you have to choose between one or the other, but not both. They are not mutually exclusive. Preaching against 4E or Pathfinder does not make you more of a loyal fan to either game.

So let's all calm down and remember that D&D is NOT serious business. Don't overthink it, don't fret too much about it, and remember to have fun playing it.

Edit: Ooooooh! This is interesting. I recognize several posters here from the 4E forums. And it sounds like they actually like both games.

I hate 4e. But I dont have to play it . I find it cool ya can play and enjoy both and see nothing wrong with you doing so. I dont like 4e like I dont like Grups no biggie

"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

Pathfinder (or D&D 3.5) and D&D 4E are two different games. I played Mechwarrior, Gurps, and other systems before, and I don't consider myself heretic :P

And I also play both D&D 4E and PRPG, and enjoying both.

- Zorg

Edit: Ooooooh! This is interesting. I recognize several posters here from the 4E forums. And it sounds like they actually like both games.

Yup. Currently playing in 3.x, 4E, and Pathfinder campaigns and having a blast in all of them. Why do I "need" to take sides?

I've got nothing against the people that play 4th edition. If you enjoy it, good for you. Likewise, I have nothing against the people who play Rifts or GURPS. Playing role playing games is a 'niche hobby' and turning on the people that play it because they play a different system just doesn't make much sense. It isn't like we need to purge our ranks before a Revolution to dominate this country.... As far as I know, anyway.

That said, I don't like 4th edition. More than that, I don't like Wizards of the Coast. I used to. Very much. I'm still hurt at the way they treated me. I still feel abused, and I feel that they happily disregarded my feelings when they moved to 4th edition. This has more to do with Dragon and Dungeon magazine than the system, but there are concerns there, as well.

So, if you start a conversation about how wonderful 4th edition (an opinion that I do not share) I'll probably not say anything. But if you start talking about how it is superior to 3.5, I might slip up and start arguing against that point of view - instead of recognizing it as simply being an opinion.

I hope you like Pathfinder. What's more, I hope I like Pathfinder. I have a lot of concerns, but I do trust an open playtest far more than any other design option. So, here's to hoping for the best.

I think it makes you a lucky guy with enough time/groups to play as much "systems" as you want.

My current D&D is 4E, although I'll be running some Pathfinder playtests. I was going to keep playing 3.5, but running a one-shot recently made me rethink that.

DeadDMWalking--"disregarded your feelings"? You're an individual. No company cares about your feelings. They have to make decisions that appeal broadly, not to you specifically.

I think it makes you a lucky guy with enough time/groups to play as much "systems" as you want.

If I had to only play one game at a time, it would definitely not be any kind of D&D. There are tons of good games out there; D&D's main appeal is really that it's so widespread.

DeadDMWalking--"disregarded your feelings"? You're an individual. No company cares about your feelings. They have to make decisions that appeal broadly, not to you specifically.

Well, that's an attempt to avoid using any 'loaded terms'. Let's just say that they chose a course of action that I disagreed with. While they're certainly entitled to do so, I did want to let them know my feelings, since I had been a loyal customer and I didn't want to part company without letting them know why. They were extremely rude in a number of different ways. Maybe no company cares about my feelings, but I tell you what, Paizo does a good job of making it look like they do.

For example, I received a copy of the Campaign Setting. The printer hadn't cut the pages properly, and some of the pages were 'joined' along the top seam near the end of the book. I brought it to the booth at Gen Con - in separating the pages some of them had torn a little. It wasn't a huge deal - the book was serviceable but it wasn't as nice as I'd like it to be. They exchanged it, no questions asked.

Paizo has done nothing but good by me. That's why I'm still subscribed to all of the products that offer a subscription, even though I'm pretty convinced at this point that Pathfinder RPG won't be my cup of tea. I'm trying not to be pessimistic, and I'm trying to be patient to express my concerns at the proper time, but while Beta did fix some things (Combat Feats) there are other things that were ignored from Alpha 3 and they should not have been. I know Jason is busy and he may have missed some. In any case, I'll hang in with them until they either make a point of insulting me (like WotC) or it becomes clear that the product they offer is one that I'm not interested in.

Joseph Silver wrote:

Edit: Ooooooh! This is interesting. I recognize several posters here from the 4E forums. And it sounds like they actually like both games.

Yup. Currently playing in 3.x, 4E, and Pathfinder campaigns and having a blast in all of them. Why do I "need" to take sides?

Lucky you, you can play in two different groups. I barley found one for Pathfinder...

It doesn't make you a heretic. It just means you love D&D. Nothing wrong with loving the game.

I like 4th ed and DMed my first Pathfinder game yesterday. I will probably end up playing some 3.5/Pathfinder ybrid until 4th ed gets more options or something. 4th ed is a good system for the most part just a bit bland and not much to do outside combat.

Not a heretic .... just someone whose tastes diverge from mine at the moment.

And someone who has a LOT more time for gaming, and a LOT more disposable income to buy books for multiple systems, you lucky dog! =D

I like 4E. I like how it consolidated 3.5's numerous subsystems into one consistent system for all classes, and I like its elegant simplicity.

I also like Pathfinder. I like how it added new options to otherwise bland classes like the fighter and the sorcerer. I also like how it is backwards-compatible with my 3.5 books.

What I don't like is the general notion in these boards that you have to choose between one or the other, but not both. They are not mutually exclusive. Preaching against 4E or Pathfinder does not make you more of a loyal fan to either game.

I think it's really a matter of taste.

The considered opinion I've seen is that if you like intensively complex, well-balanced, high-powered, long sessions of miniatures wargaming, and extremely freeform diceless roleplaying outside combat, you'll love 4e. If that rather odd combination rubs you the wrong way (for any number of possible reasons), you won't like it. It happens to be quite intolerable for me, but if you love it, more power to you.

Pathfinder satisfies a different group of people -- largely the group who were satisfied by 3e -- people who want a large toolkit with lots and lots of options, on top of a fairly standardized rulesystem for dicerolling everything, particularly outside of combat. That happens to suit me, but rubs some people the wrong way!

It's quite easy to like both, though I suspect those who do are getting different kicks out of the two. 4e has been described by those who love it and those who hate it as an "excellent tabletop minatures combat game". Nobody would ever describe Pathfinder that way.

Joseph Silver wrote:

I like 4E. I like how it consolidated 3.5's numerous subsystems into one consistent system for all classes, and I like its elegant simplicity.

I also like Pathfinder. I like how it added new options to otherwise bland classes like the fighter and the sorcerer. I also like how it is backwards-compatible with my 3.5 books.

What I don't like is the general notion in these boards that you have to choose between one or the other, but not both. They are not mutually exclusive. Preaching against 4E or Pathfinder does not make you more of a loyal fan to either game.

I think it's really a matter of taste.

The considered opinion I've seen is that if you like intensively complex, well-balanced, high-powered, long sessions of miniatures wargaming, and extremely freeform diceless roleplaying outside combat, you'll love 4e.

Considering that a lot of role-playing in 4th Edition (and a lot of other non-combat activity) is designed to be handled with the skill challenge system (one that is very much not diceless), I have difficulty accepting your description of the system. Would you care to explain where you're coming from?

Considering that a lot of role-playing in 4th Edition (and a lot of other non-combat activity) is designed to be handled with the skill challenge system (one that is very much not diceless), I have difficulty accepting your description of the system. Would you care to explain where you're coming from?

A system which, unfortunately, doesn't work. By the admission of the people who designed it, too. The skill challenge system is so messed up that you basically have to toss it anyway.

And the classes have no out-of-combat powers to speak of. It's all, "I hit X, I get effect Y." 99% of the Player's Handbook is a combat guide.

In other words, if you want to do anything but kill, kill, kill, you've got to basically wing it. Even the fans of the system have tacitly admitted as much, by saying you don't need skills like Forgery because you can just free-form roleplay it if you really want to go into that much depth out of combat.

(Nevermind that in my experience, it's exactly those 'useless' skills like Forgery that can save the PC's bacon in games where combat isn't the be-all and end-all, and in such cases, it makes things more exciting if they've got a concrete measure of their skill, and are sweating a potential failure, rather than just saying, "oh, yeah, I just remembered, I'm a forger, too, so I just forge something.")

That's my take, anyway. Perhaps the gent you quoted has a different one.

Even if the skill challenge rules were workable as a concept, they are a downgrade. Skill challenge rules are about what you get when technical limitations make it impossible to include roleplaying but you have to make it look as if you tried anyways. Problem: Video and computer games have to take the workaround approach due to hardware limitations. Last I checked, tabletop doesn't have RAM and HD space caps. They can do the real thing. Why didn't they?

And the classes have no out-of-combat powers to speak of. It's all, "I hit X, I get effect Y." 99% of the Player's Handbook is a combat guide.

I think you will find that many of the classes do in fact have abilities usable outside of combat, unless you think a power that gives you a +5 to Diplomacy checks until the rest of the encounter (or 5 minutes) has many applications within combat. The Fighter would seem like the sole exception to this, as they have no out-of-combat abilities to speak of... much like in 3.5. ;)

That said, the skill challenge mechanic works fine post-errata and recent Dungeon adventures have demonstrated some creative applications for the system. I personally like the system, since it provides a framework for handling many different kinds of situations under a very simple mechanic without having to provide a subsystem for every conceivable encounter under the sun, which is fine if you prefer a more simulationist approach to your gaming. I'm more of a narrativist/gamist, as odd as that may sound.

I still keep to enjoy 3.5 alongside 4e, but 4e is more to my tastes in many ways.