|
I am trying to decide between 4E and pathfinder. i can only invest time and money into one game.
I just want to know why you chose Pathfinder. Not necessarily over 4E but maybe just in general, but you could include reason why you chose PFRPG instead of 4E if you like.
I am not trying to start a 4E vs PFRPG thread. I just want to here some thoughts on PFRPG.
|
I am trying to decide between 4E and pathfinder. i can only invest time and money into one game.
I just want to know why you chose Pathfinder. Not necessarily over 4E but maybe just in general, but you could include reason why you chose PFRPG instead of 4E if you like.
I am not trying to start a 4E vs PFRPG thread. I just want to here some thoughts on PFRPG.
IMO, it is a far more detailed and robust system which allows for more fine tuning and supports the "character vision" moreso then 4E does (My Opinion, YMMV). I use Pathfinder in conjunction with Hero Lab and it allows me to add in custom material into the character building, which is also a plus.
And if you want a ton of 4E books, I'll sell you mine in bulk. ;)
-Vaz
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have played 4e some and it is not a bad game. HOWEVER, the biggest thing that Pathfinder has going for it is the support of the Paizo folks and the Paizo fans. Without that I probably would not have continued with D & D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, loaded question. :)
I went with 4E for a while, but ultimately came back to Pathfinder because of:
1. Pathfinder Society. Organized play is important to me, and PFS does it right.
2. What I perceive to be WotC's mishandling of the D&D brand. Killing the PDFs was unacceptable, expecially given the number of needless rules "updates" published for 4E.
3. The relative lack of rules bloat in Pathfinder vs. 4E.
4. Paizo.com -- it's "home" for my gamer-self, and I wanted to support it.
YMMV
|
|
I started running Rise of the Runelords under 3.5, so when Pathfinder RPG was announced it was kind of natural to upgrade. If you like 3E, there are very high chances that you will like Pathfinder.
Also, it's d20 - which, despite all it's flaws and shortcomings is one of the most versatile and modular systems out there.
In my case, I simply did not get what I was expecting from 4e. It got rid of too many things I loved about D&D, changed other so much as to be nearly unrecognizable and then, worst of all for me, nuked the Forgotten Realms for the revision. It became a game that I lost enthusiasm for, in spite of buying my books on the release date and doing my best to keep an open mind in spite of the skepticism of my friends. Unfortunately, the rules were too sketchy, the differences between PCs and NPCs too great, and some things didn't make sense, such as the fact that nowhere in the core rules was there any explanation for how a necromancer actually could raise the dead without custom-building a ritual for it. It...disappointed me. I simply could not run the games that I wanted to run and had run without house-ruling half of the system away, which defeated the entire point of buying it for me.
And then I found Pathfinder. In many ways, I feel that the Paizo staff has a design vision that is almost perfectly in line with my own. Some might accuse me of fanboy-ism, but that's how I feel. Every change I've seen has simply felt right, and I can build and run the games I want to even more easily than before.
Or, if you want a very short answer...I have fun with Pathfinder. I didn't with 4e.
|
|
Adventure Paths were the biggest seller for me, but the rules are familiar and the developers are close to the community. Paizo also has a lot of support from 3rd party companies and you'll often find some of their developers also checking out the Paizo boards from time to time.
Also, the goblins. They made goblins evil again, and not just those green guys you kill in a cave. Revisiting monsters has added life back into the game that had begun getting stale after so many years. It's not just goblins, but a whole host of monsters. The goblins are just the most visible. This revitalization is wonderful.
|
|
Our game group is in their 30s and as the GM I no longer have the time I use to have. So I enjoy running the excellently designed adventure paths and tailor the AP to my PCs instead of creating the entire framework all by my lonesome like I used to.
Having spent a good number of years playing and enjoying 3e we all understand the rules and want to continue enjoying them. The skill that Paizo's designers wield after many years of 3e development shows in the quality products they release. The fat has been trimmed, mechanics finely tweaked, and seams filled in, all in the same familiar framework.
The APG is great example as it contains the equivalent of 5-7 books worth of previous WotC 3e game material in a single volume. With the corebook and the APG along my players feel they have an ample playground with which to create new and interesting characters. With 3-4 releases every year the creative pace is manageable without undue plundering of their customer base. Combine this with ample small release support in the form of modules and setting materials that customers can pick through and select their favs, awesome. Then there are all the free adventures available through the Pathfinder Society and you have more material than any game group quite knows what to do with.
Material and support of this magnitude can only come from a small company with a skilled group of designers that listen to their fans and have the creative freedom to really make a game they enjoy as much as their fans do.
I didn't want to abandon my 3e characters, and I also try to support the Open Licensing movement in all its forms.
|
I decided to go with Pathfinder for several reasons.
1. 3.5 was my favorite set of rules for Dungeons and Dragons. I've been playing since the 1st Edition days and love the 3.5 interation of the rules the most. Pathfinder built on and maintained my favorite edition. They've taken lots of what made the 3.5 ruleset great and made it even better. Something in my opinion, I thought would be impossible. Even little things, like rolling Spot, Listen, and Search all into one Skill called Perception, seems very intuitive and pure genius.
2. I played 4th Edition, and did not care for the direction that WotC is taking D&D.m If I wanted to play World of Warcraft or any other MMORPG, I would. I do not like many aspects of this version. Its heavy reliance on Minis, its computer game feel, etc.
3. I have always been a huge fan of Paizo's products and its great game designers. As long as Paizo continues to put out quality products and have respect for its fanbase, I'll follow them to the grave.
*
*
*
*
Hmm. I cannot advise you on 4e, as I haven't played it. But I can give you the reasons I went to Pathfinder instead of going over to 4e:
- Backwards Compatibility: I have a LOT of 3/3.5 e books. I like collecting. I didn't want to have to switch with so much invested in those rulebooks
- the whole D20/OGL open-source thing really appeals to my worldview. I like choices and being able to crosspolinate templates and the like from 3pps.
- Paizo employs some of the folks that I feel hew closest to my idea of fantasy role playing. I like the gritty edge to their stories, and I like the dedication they bring to the table
- I always thought Dragon/Dungeon had their glory years towards the end of its (print) run with Paizo at the helm, and I have been a loyal reader since issue #45. Thus I stuck around the forums here and have follewed the evolution of Pathfinder from a concept to a reality
- Out of the three different editions I have played I loved the third's mechanics best. From everything I have seen and heard from players of 4e, I really don't think I would have enjoyed the changes. I also am not a big fan of the older retro clones, at least rules wise.
|
I came to PF from 4e, and I gotta say it was because of three things:
1) Rules bloat. Dear God, the Rules Bloat. That horrendous, horrific, terrifying, monstrous, evil rules bloat.
2) I personally think that PF is a lot more flexible and customizable than 4e, so I (and my players since they all just mooch off of me) can make exactly what I want.
3) Rules bloat. It was getting ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.
Did I mention I hated the rules bloat?
It was the AP's that drew me in at first. Runelords was better than any adventure Wizards had ever come out with in my opinion. The fact that they made it 3.5+++ was also a bonus, but it really comes down to the story that they have developed for Pathfinder and the gamer community for me. They are both excellent. I also play in a couple of PBP's supported on this website so I couldn't ask for more.
|
|
It was the AP's that drew me in at first. Runelords was better than any adventure Wizards had ever come out with in my opinion. The fact that they made it 3.5+++ was also a bonus, but it really comes down to the story that they have developed for Pathfinder and the gamer community for me. They are both excellent. I also play in a couple of PBP's supported on this website so I couldn't ask for more.
Oh, you just reminded me!
I really loved Red Hand of Doom, and seeing that one of the names on the front cover was also on the APs drew me to them. PFRPG is just a natural growth of enjoying those adventures.
I am trying to decide between 4E and pathfinder. i can only invest time and money into one game.
I just want to know why you chose Pathfinder.
Well, it boils down to two main reasons:
1. I have no money and little time to invest in a new system. I got into PF with no money. Everything I needed to play is in the PRD.
2. No one in my group wanted to play anything that wasn't d20 System. It was my turn to DM, and I was tired of 3.5E. So, I figured, let's give PF a try.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
|
|
I tried a few scenarios with 4E. The higher level fights just felt like mid-level fights with bigger numbers. I know there's a reason for that, but I prefer my high level games to feel like deadlier games. Pathfinder preserves that from 3.5 (even though a lot of save or die effects changed into pure damage).
Oh, yes, and the adventures are better too :)
The mirror other sentiments in this thread, I consider RHoD and Ruins of Greyhawk to be the best of the 3.5 adventures, and they were both penned by Paizo folk. So I'm happy to support their business as well.
Our group had played 3.5, and it was at the point where the list of splatbooks we weren't allowing was longer than the ones we were allowing. Choosing which things out of each book and keeping track of it was too much. We were about to dump 3.5 (actually, we were about to give up on D&Desque gaming entirely)
Pathfinder looked like it had taken 3.5 and streamlined it, while retaining the option of compatibility with the splatbook tidal wave.
In practice, Pathfinder has invalidated our 3.5 splatbook library anyway - but by carefully lying to us about that, we were able to get people to buy the new books and make the transition.
4th Edition works better for our group as a system. However I prefer pathfinder because of the adventure paths, modules and Golarion fluff in general. Currently I'm converting them to 4th edition in the interests of meeting the group's preferences, but the quality of adventures and campaign supplements is what sold me on Pathfinder. (And what would ultimately make me prefer to play it over other systems, even though other systems suit our playstyle/lifestyle better).
After a few years away from 3.5, a system we loved in a lot of ways but were having a harder and harder time working around what we saw as the flaws in, we gave 4E a try at its launch.
I thought, and still think, it's a brilliantly concieved game. It sees to the heart of everything that I had come to hate about 3.X and fixed all of it to create an almost ruthlessly balanced game. The problem was, what resulted was something a big chunk of my gaming friends (and me) no longer had fun playing.
Being mostly old Living Greyhawk people, Jason Bulmahn has a certain amount of street cred with us, and generally we had the sense that he would see as broken a lot of the same things in 3.5 that we did. That hasn't borne out 100%, but it's been close enough that Pathfinder turns out to strike the best balance of keeping what we liked about 3.5 and fixing what we didn't like.
The Adventure Paths are a big draw too -- one of my major complaints about 3.X is that it's a nightmare to DM, especially in the sense of the investment of time to craft NPCs with class levels. Having a lot of high-quality options of pre-made adventures solves that problem to an extent.
Personally, I'm looking forward to a Pathfinder 2.0 that gets the game even more balanced, but I know that's heresy to suggest already.
|
|
Sweet! Thanks for all the awesome replies! And just for info one of the things I'm liking as I try to make my decision is what seems to be more edginess in PFRPG, and also the lack of rule books, and the PDF version of books available.
Keep em coming guys! I wanna hear more about why every one plays and loves this game!
Thanks!
|
|
I took a good look at where 4E was headed and was willing to make a jump to a new system, but when I looked at the my favorite adventure writers and realized they were all with Paizo (with the exception of Monte Cook at the time), I knew it made sense to go with the company whose adventures I wanted to DM. So for me, it was all about the adventure paths and Gamemastery modules.
Paizo has made great improvements to the 3.5 system, and it was a smooth adjustment for my players. The mechanics are less important to me. As long as they make logical sense and the mechanics don't grind play to a halt, I'm happy.
I also love Golarion. I don't have a sense that I'll ever run out of curiosity for the setting.
First and foremost, the quality of work Paizo puts out. A lot of care and detail go into their books; there are rarely sections that leave me feeling like one person wrote the outline and another person forced themselves to come back and fill it in, no matter what. Also, the Adventure Paths (once I began to buy them) are extremely impressive, especially from the DM side of things, but I didn't get them until I had already switched.
Second but still important, I'm a collector. I already had over 100 OGL PDF books, and I didn't want to invalidate their use (although I'd still be running 3.5 games even if I went to 4e for my primary system). As it turns out, the above paragraph invalidates most of the WotC books, as the options presented between the Core rulebook and the APG are enough to outdo the vast majority of player splat books.
Thirdly, and quite personal, I developed a strong dislike for WotC as a company. I still play 4E, but comparing what I got for buying three 4e books to three PFRPG books, I was much more satisfied that Paizo wasn't screwing me over for money. WotC pulled some of the juiciest classes from their first PHB, and added in some of the 'cool' factor to replace it; tiefling warlock, you're part demon and you shoot lasers out of your hands, yeah! much better than a silly ol' gnome bard! Although, having seen some of the other PHB's, I can appreciate the way they reorganized it. What really put the nail in the coffin on 4e was WotC pulling their PDFs - 3.5 and 4e. That meant, with my extra-mobile military lifestyle, if I wanted to play I'd have to carry them around (vice just having them on a netbook). So if I do have a beef, it's against WotC and not 4e.
Finally, Paizo got big bonus points with me by legitimately including Monte Cook's name in the Core rulebook credits. Anything Monte works on, I buy. I'm getting to feel the same way about the Paizo crew now.
|
|
I went with it because it's much closer to my D&D than 3.5, both in terms of mechanics and fluff. A great number of my disappointments with the background material throughout the 3.x era have generally been dealt with wonderfully in Pathfinder, a trend that began with Paizo's work in Dragon and Dungeon, honestly.
Not to say I hated 3.x stuff. I love a lot of it, and Eberron is the bee's knees. But there were a lot of elements here and there that bugged the hell out of me.
Still bugged that tieflings and aasimar are still tagged as outsiders though. Dammit 3.0...
WotC pulled some of the juiciest classes from their first PHB, and added in some of the 'cool' factor to replace it; tiefling warlock, you're part demon and you shoot lasers out of your hands, yeah! much better than a silly ol' gnome bard!
No, you're not even really part demon. You're the descendant of incompetent satanists who made a pact with fiends which they never read the fine print on, causing them to grow enormous horns and crocodile tails along with getting some anger management issues, but your ancestors never actually had sex with any demon or devil anywhere--presumably because all the fiends are chaste or even the succubi have standards, refusing to do even the sluttiest of your ancient ancestors.
Really, that is the 4e background for tieflings. I'm not making that up.
|
|
WotC pulled some of the juiciest classes from their first PHB, and added in some of the 'cool' factor to replace it; tiefling warlock, you're part demon and you shoot lasers out of your hands, yeah! much better than a silly ol' gnome bard!No, you're not even really part demon. You're the descendant of incompetent satanists who made a pact with fiends which they never read the fine print on, causing them to grow enormous horns and crocodile tails along with getting some anger management issues, but your ancestors never actually had sex with any demon or devil anywhere--presumably because all the fiends are chaste or even the succubi have standards, refusing to do even the sluttiest of your ancient ancestors.
Really, that is the 4e background for tieflings. I'm not making that up.
Even we have standards.
|
Oddly enough it plays a lot more how I and my friends (and the millions of hulkimaniacs) want a Dungeons and Dragons game to play over 4th edition. It's got a lot less disconnect with mechanics versus immersion then 4E. Paizo runs it a lot more like a game for people who can run it as dark or as light as they want too, so there are plenty of adult elements in the campaign setting they created while still giving you lots of tools to make things work how you want them to work.
Quality books, so far mostly balanced between what's been released without too much creep. Backwards compatibility isn't a huge factor for us, but it's nice that we can use our old modules. A lot of what I did like in 3rd edition D&D was written by the same people who have their names in all these Paizo books too, so that's more of a plus then anything.
4.5 just came out too, so you'd have to be careful buying 4E books as something to consider.
Though, if it wasn't the Pathfinder RPG we'd probably be trying others like Troll Lord's Castles and Crusades, or maybe even going back to 2nd edition AD&D.
4.5 just came out too.
Seriously... already?
Me and my group just didn't seem to get into 4th edition. I liked the game, especially some of the more tactical aspects of it, but from what I got from the very little I actually played, It was too clunky and it kinda forced you to do specific things. In 3.5/Pathfinder you could make your fighter do anything, whilst in 4th your actions seemed more limited by the at will abilities. At least that is what if felt like to me.
4E and PF are both good systems. I think objectively PF is better, but that is neither here nor there, as any choice of this nature boils down to preference.
Assuming that all other factors are equal between the system, that they are both objectively equal in quality, Paizo writes better adventures. A lot of people don't play adventures so this matters little. I like to run and to play in them, and Paizo is writes absolutely spectacular ones, it really is their forte, whereas WotC has gotten out of the business. What they publish are loosely thematic sets of encounters with a generic plot to hook them together. I try to say this with no vitriol, but they are truly drivel.
Having played both....though not 4e for a year now.
It depends on what you want in the game, whist pfrgp and 4e are both fantasy RPG's they emphasise different styles.
PFRPG is much more a simulation and relies on self-consistent(ish) rules with a focus on immersion,
4e is much more game based and has reasonably arbitrary rules especially around character powers (these work well in the context of the 4e game though)
4e is very(!) combat centric.
PFRPG is quite combat centric but has a range of other options. I normally play non-combatant characters. They'll wade into a fight but thats not their strength - I couldn't play that style of character in 4e.
Quality and style of Paizo goods are very good and blend the correct measures of fluff and crunch.
4e is pretty much all crunch.
Charactor classes in PFRPG are very varied in mechanics and style.
4e charactors are all the same, just will a different list of powers to choose from, but the mechanics are the same.
PFRPG takes more of an investment of time and effort.
4e you can prep and play games quickly
(Of course I believe the investment of time and effort makes for a richer and more enjoyable experience)
Cheers
Oh and Vancian Magic.
I'm sorry but its not DnD with out Vancian Magic
|
4E has no vancian magic...so it's not D&D anymore to me. Also 4E has no MC system...well at least it didn't till a few months ago (and I'm not sure if that is a good fix or not....). Also WoTC inability to learn to control rule bloat is getting quite annoying. With 3.0 they said they were gonna not make the mistake of TSR and pump out splat books. Then they go and make more books for 3.0 in 5 years then TSR did in 10. With 3.5, same promise as things are backwards compatable and 3 years later, even MORE bloat then 3.0. 4E beats em all. WoTC tactics seems very similar to TSR's towards at the end. Same tatic, new generation of suck...err gamers.
4E - Played a couple of times and not bad - I think that it is easier learn, actually and very "heroic".
Pathfinder - plays it regularly. A bit harder to learn than 4E, but I it's easier to make varied characters( I may be wrong here, as I haven't played 4E that much)
Whatever you choose - good gaming!
GRU
my impression:
WotC are in it for the money, the game is a means
Paizo are in it for the game, the money is a means
In other words, the 3.5 -> 4 switch seemed mostly motivated by 'making people buy new books' whereas 3.5 -> PF seems motivated by 'making the game better'.
:-)
ps: and the adventure paths are a brilliant idea.
pps: I don't mean to stab at WotC designers, but at the executives (if you can blame them for running a profitable business).
|
|
4.5 just came out too, so you'd have to be careful buying 4E books as something to consider.
No it didn't, the 4e Essentials line has just been released, basically the 4e rules with all rules updates incorporated and printed in a different format to encourage new players. I could use my 4e Paladon created using my PHB in a game using the Essentials books with no issue.
Although you could argue the amount of rules update makes it an effective 4.5, but that point is debatable.
Essentials is far more compatible with the first printing of the 4e PHB, DMG and MM than Pathfinder RPG is to 3.5 and Paizo promote the backwards compatibility as one of its major features.
|
|
4.5 just came out too, so you'd have to be careful buying 4E books as something to consider.No it didn't, the 4e Essentials line has just been released, basically the 4e rules with all rules updates incorporated and printed in a different format to encourage new players. I could use my 4e Paladon created using my PHB in a game using the Essentials books with no issue.
Although you could argue the amount of rules update makes it an effective 4.5, but that point is debatable.
Essentials is far more compatible with the first printing of the 4e PHB, DMG and MM than Pathfinder RPG is to 3.5 and Paizo promote the backwards compatibility as one of its major features.
DigitalMage, we know what makes you twitch, but is it really the best place to remind us of it again ?
|
|
Now to respond to the OP...
I haven't actually chosen Pathfinder - I bought the PDF and then a hardcopy of the book because my old group were converting over, but in the end I left the group with one of the factors being their conversion from 3.5 to PF. I am aiming to play & run 3.5 and 4e.
If I were considering PF versus 4e without having the background in 3.5 here are the factors I would take into consideration:
PDFs
Paizo produces PDFs, nicely bookmarked, internally hyperllinked and updated with errata. Absolutely great! The only bad thing is that the heavy images meant the core book PDF did not render quickly enough on my Eee PC to make it a workable option for use at the game table, so I ended up buying a hardcopy.
WotC have dropped PDFs :( however the ones I did manage to snag (Deluxe PHB, DMG and MM) are pretty good, bookmarked (though not with chapters at top level which annoys me no end), internally hyperlinked, and importantly able to render quickly on my Eee PC.
Rules
I prefer the 3.5 rules over 4e, despite running a 4e campaign at the moment, and as PF is closer to 3.5 than 4e is, if I didn't have 4e I would prefer the PF rules.
The rules are complex, and may be harder to learn, but give more variety and usefulness outside of combat. 4e can handle stuff out of combat rather well, but only in so far as Skills and feats, powers are pretty much tuned to combat and as such have short durations.
4e is much more balanced but it is sometimes at the expense of believability - Sleep spell has such a short duration because otherwise it would be too powerful in combat. It does mean 4e may be considered more fun that PF however, with Wizards not being able to outshine other classes.
Settings
Pathfinder pretty much has Golarion, and there is an intermingling of setting and system (e.g. you want rules for full Orcs as PCs? You need to buy Orcs of Golarion, even though that may not be your preferred setting).
D&D 4e keeps settings books to a couple of volumes and then presents material that is setting neutral. WotC also supports several settings - Forgotten Realms, Eberron and Darksun, Paizo only support Golarion. 3rd parties support other settings for both games.
I am not a fan of Golarion I much prefer Eberron and that is one of the key factors that made me choose 3.5 & 4e over PF.
Art and Layout
For me, 4e wins out here. Whilst it has some Wayne Reynolds art, it also has a lot of other stuff which just evokes more atmosphere for me. The PF art (Reynolds mainly) I have seen seems too comic book like for me.
4e layout is also clean black on white with colour where needed, much easier to read and reference and probably why the PDFs render so much quicker. Also classes, races etc are formatted to start on a new page without wasting too much space - much easier to reference and great to print out pages from the PDF.
PF has a heavy background and classes etc just flow from one to another - more efficient use of space but not as easy to reference or print out.
Adventure support
Paizo win out here with their APs, they seem to be regarded as better than WotC's official adventures for 4e to date, if a little rail-roady with too much information that may not see play.
I haven't read any adventures of either company but started to play in Rise of the Runelords (actually written for 3.5, not PF) and run some PFS scenarios (again for 3.5) and played in some Living Forgotten Realms. I did like the quality of the Paizo APs, the maps, players guides etc all seem to provide an immersive campaign.
Unfortunately, like many I am a busy person, but ironically for me this means published scenarios like the AP are not for me - it would take me much longer to read an AP than it would to write my own stuff, so I would prefer to spend the time reading material I will use again and again.
Summary
To be honest, in summary, I prefer 4e over PF, but prefer 3.5 over 4e, which may not make sense to some. However I suggest checking out both systems yourself - try to play in a few games of both (ideally with a few different GMs in case you get a crap GM and assume the system is at fault).
If you can't play at least check out the rules, WotC have a quickstart PDF of the 4e rules on their site and Paizo has the free online Pathfinder Reference Document (and the PDF is only $9.99).
Also consider whether what game your potential players are into - you could get into Pathfinder only to find no-one in your area plays it. I for example am in a Meetup group and we have several 3.5 and 4e games going but no Pathfinder games - but there are Pathfinder groups out there (as stated my old group became one).
4e qul
|
|
DigitalMage, we know what makes you twitch, but is it really the best place to remind us of it again ?
Morgen made a statement about 4e that was factually incorrect (whether he was aware of that or not) and it was a statement that may have swayed the OP and others in their decision of which game to pursue.
My post went on to explain exactly what Essentials was and that although some may see it as a 4.5 due to the sheer size of the rules update, that view is unlikley to be shared by those who feel Pathfinder is compatible with 3.5 (i.e. if you have no problem with mixing 3.5 and PF you should have absolutely no issues with mixing PHB and Essentials).
I don't think my post was out of place, apologies if it offends.
|
|
DigitalMage, we know what makes you twitch, but is it really the best place to remind us of it again ?Morgen made a statement about 4e that was factually incorrect (whether he was aware of that or not) and it was a statement that may have swayed the OP and others in their decision of which game to pursue.
My post went on to explain exactly what Essentials was and that although some may see it as a 4.5 due to the sheer size of the rules update, that view is unlikley to be shared by those who feel Pathfinder is compatible with 3.5 (i.e. if you have no problem with mixing 3.5 and PF you should have absolutely no issues with mixing PHB and Essentials).
I don't think my post was out of place, apologies if it offends.
Your statement about Essentials being "far more" compatible is incorrect as well. Magic Missile and Magic Item rules, I am looking at you.
You're trying to inject some good old edition warfare into a thread that didn't have anything to do with it. The OP clearly asked why we chose PF over 4E, not the other way round. And what we think about PFRPG.
|
|
My wife and I gave 4e a chance, playing locally, at RPGA events and when it dropped at Gen Con, but 4e is a fun game that does not play like the RPG I want.
Pathfinder is as fast as 4e, (Faster at high levels) and feels like the kinda of games that made me get into RPGs in the first place.
Pathfinder games tend to be more fun sessions when played with the same players.
Default setting is also better, but in the end, my friends and I just find pathfinder to be more enjoyable.
|
|
First of all, apologies to the OP for taking this off at a tangent but...
Your statement about Essentials being "far more" compatible is incorrect as well.
Are you stating that Pathfinder is categorically more compatible with 3.5 than Essentials is to 4e? Really? If so then Essentials must be a bigger change than I thought.
Magic Missile and Magic Item rules, I am looking at you.
Yep, I don't like the new Magic Missile too, it was a rules change for reason only of nostalgia - screw that! I have even stopped updating my Character Builder because of that!
The Magic Item rules I assume you are referring to the change to the number of uses of Daily Powers and that it is now being balanced by scarcity? Again, one of the bigger rules updates and one I am not a fan of (I liked the pacing mechanic of the original rules).
And yes, these sorts of things are why some may consider Essentials an effective 4.5, but I would argue it is not. The two lines seem to be compatible.
You're trying to inject some good old edition warfare into a thread that didn't have anything to do with it.
That was not my intention, I am merely trying to present a balanced view point and give some context to the level of change in the Rules Updates / Essentials line.
I like 4e I admit, but it has a lot of issues but I also like 3.5 more, but it too has a lot of issues.
Pathfinder also has lots of good stuff, including the stuff I like about 3.5 and some things I see as improvements on 3.5. However it just isn't enough given I have 3.5 and prefer Eberron.
But the OP seems to be coming at this choice without the 3.5 background and love of the Eberron setting, and if the OP is at all like me in terms of what he wants out of an RPG I would recommend Pathfinder and the Golarion and Freeport settings.
The OP clearly asked why we chose PF over 4E, not the other way round. And what we think about PFRPG.
It does seem my second post on this thread may not have been appropriate as I didn't choose PF (at least not in the long term), but I still feel my original post correcting misinformation is valid in this thread.
1) It's more similar to the game I used to play
2) Classes fell different
3) magic feels like magic
4) open content
5) PC starts as mooks and ends up as filled with world shattering awesomeness
6) improved some issues from 3.5
|
No, you're not even really part demon. You're the descendant of incompetent satanists who made a pact with fiends which they never read the fine print on, causing them to grow enormous horns and crocodile tails along with getting some anger management issues, but your ancestors never actually had sex with any demon or devil anywhere--presumably because all the fiends are chaste or even the succubi have standards, refusing to do even the sluttiest of your ancient ancestors.Really, that is the 4e background for tieflings. I'm not making that up.
I think the PG or rather the 'family friendly' fluff in 4e is a big turn off and ironically, offensive. I like all the curses and diseases, etc. I like sexy Dryads who can charm the socks off you. I like al the little pieces of non-PC stuff that is there, but easily ignorable or non insertable if they are not to your taste.
4e feels like it sold out to all the people who are convinced that Dungeons and Dragons turns their kids into anti-social potential suicides. To me, that is more offensive.
WotC pulled some of the juiciest classes from their first PHB, and added in some of the 'cool' factor to replace it; tiefling warlock, you're part demon and you shoot lasers out of your hands, yeah! much better than a silly ol' gnome bard!
That also struck me as an attempt to force me to buy Wotc Players handbooks 2-3 and essentials, all an attempt to sucker out more money for me. This also was more then vaguely offensive. This started in 3.5 and bugged me then. It continued in 4E and I chose not let my dollars follow to 4e.
|
|
Compare 4E Barbarian vs Pathfinder Barbarian. Guess which artwork makes me want to play one? :)
Anyways, you're right, Pathfinder art definitely feels too comic book like.
Could you repost the links please, the second and third don't seem to work for me (second attempts to open an index.php file and the latter just doesn't load). EDIT: The third one finally loaded, its the PHB2 cover.
I do agree the 4e barbarian looks goofy :)