Pathfinder=D&D?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

When 1 of my game club members suggested we play Pathfinder( we mostly play Table-top minitures games, Warhammer ect) I asked him if it was like D&D he said yes. He said the player response to D&D 4.0 was less than desireable, so Pathfinder was created.He said think of it as D&D 3.75.I still have my 3.5 book,and I see many similarities. I'm surprised Wizards hasn't yelled 'IP INFRINGMENT! ' on Paizo. One of our members actually worked with Gary Gygax on the original rpg he made,Chainmail.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
plusonetshirt wrote:
When 1 of my game club members suggested we play Pathfinder( we mostly play Table-top minitures games, Warhammer ect) I asked him if it was like D&D he said yes. He said the player response to D&D 4.0 was less than desireable, so Pathfinder was created.He said think of it as D&D 3.75.I still have my 3.5 book,and I see many similarities. I'm surprised Wizards hasn't yelled 'IP INFRINGMENT! ' on Paizo. One of our members actually worked with Gary Gygax on the original rpg he made,Chainmail.

Its not IP infringement. That is the entire purpose behind the Open Gaming License. It gives permission for anyone to do exactly what Paizo did when they made Pathfinder.


plusonetshirt wrote:
When 1 of my game club members suggested we play Pathfinder( we mostly play Table-top minitures games, Warhammer ect) I asked him if it was like D&D he said yes. He said the player response to D&D 4.0 was less than desireable, so Pathfinder was created.He said think of it as D&D 3.75.I still have my 3.5 book,and I see many similarities. I'm surprised Wizards hasn't yelled 'IP INFRINGMENT! ' on Paizo. One of our members actually worked with Gary Gygax on the original rpg he made,Chainmail.

Jeraa nailed it. Portions of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 were released under the Open Gaming License, Paizo was able to modify portions of the game to improve it while maintaining backwards compatibility (essential to keep their previous adventures viable). Opinions vary on how much change or compatibility should have been pursued (Paizo could have just reprinted the portions covered by the Open Gaming License with no changes, for instance).

Here's Lisa Stevens (Paizo's CEO) comment to Ryan Dancey from 2010:

Lisa Stevens wrote:

All I know is that, if you hadn't had the crazy idea to create the OGL and then champion it through the halls of WotC when all of us thought that you were insane, then I wouldn't have been able to have the success that Paizo has become, and I might well be out of this business that I love so much. Working with you was a constant stream of challenging my assumptions on the RPG business and in the end, I came away with a much better understanding about how it all works together. I am happy to say that you were right. And Paizo stands as a testament to your vision.

Thanks so very much my friend!

-Lisa


I was not aware of the OGL. So does anyone still play D&D 4.0, I heard it was more like a MMO on a tabletop,and old school D&D players didnt like it. I played D&D back when TSR owned it back in the day...somewhere around 1982,,

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people still play d&d 4.0, just like some people still play ad&d, basically just play whatever version you prefer. Of course here, we are big fan of pathfinder, but which version to play is whatever your group wants to do. Dnd 5th is out too, so just shop around.


plusonetshirt wrote:
I was not aware of the OGL. So does anyone still play D&D 4.0, I heard it was more like a MMO on a tabletop,and old school D&D players didnt like it. I played D&D back when TSR owned it back in the day...somewhere around 1982,,

Some people still play 4th Edition; there is a D&D 4th Edition (and beyond) forum at Paizo. The current talk is mostly about 5th Edition since that recently came out, but there are still those who play 4th.


I thought of one thing to add: since you weren't aware of the Open Game License, you might not be aware that Paizo makes many of their rules information available online on the PRD. I find it useful for looking up rules and wanted to pass it on in case you weren't aware.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
plusonetshirt wrote:
I was not aware of the OGL. So does anyone still play D&D 4.0, I heard it was more like a MMO on a tabletop,

You heard incredibly and painfully incorrectly. It's no more an MMO than any other edition of D&D has been.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Zhayne, what he has heard is not an unknown opinion. I too have heard this although I more often hear that it is more of an attempt at marketing to the MMO crowd rather than being an MMO on a tabletop.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's really more of an attempt by the 3.x crowd to marginalize 4e than anything else.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
I think it's really more of an attempt by the 3.x crowd to marginalize 4e than anything else.

Agreed and very much seconded. Their a segment of 3.5. Players in my area that refuse to play it run PF. Thinking it's too similar to 3.5. By that logic then PF is a failure.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
I think it's really more of an attempt by the 3.x crowd to marginalize 4e than anything else.

I believe the MMO comments are more because the game has a severe (one might even say crippling) lack of creativity in regards to abilities. Everything is square this, status that, [x]W, xd6. Made a floating hand? Guess what? It can move in any direction but up. Up is forbidden, because allowing Up movement would unbalance things. Warforged may not need to eat or breath, but that doesn't render them immune to anything. It's things like those that make 4E seem video-gamey. There is 0 creativity allowed in the rules and anything that *could* unbalance things is errata'd to the point of needing a video-game like patch log.

Again, the above is not a criticism of 4E. It is merely a statement of how it is designed. That kind of inflexible design would be fantastic for say a board game. It may be wonderful for some gaming groups. I, however, happen to like the direction up.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder = Pathfinder, they have gone way beyond their 3.5e roots and claiming Pathfinder = D&D belittles the amount of effort Paizo have put in over the years. D&D = D&D (currently 5e). If you like playing Warhammer then I would suggest that 4e might be something of interest to you. The 4e D&D mechanics make it really a very good skirmish level table top combat game that really promotes group play. Pathfinder also has good rules that make it again a good skirmish level table top war-game, but in Pathfinder group play can be overridden by individualism.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
plusonetshirt wrote:
I was not aware of the OGL. So does anyone still play D&D 4.0, I heard it was more like a MMO on a tabletop,
You heard incredibly and painfully incorrectly. It's no more an MMO than any other edition of D&D has been.

I picked up a 4th Edition PHB when it came out because I was tempted to get back into D&D. I had played Basic, AD&D, and 2nd Edition, but missed 3 and 3.5 (and my only other RPG experiences were Mechwarrior, Ars Magica, and a very little Rifts.) But I was also playing WoW at the time. What I saw when I read through the book were:

--Explicit roles for PCs, including tank, damage dealer, and support.

--Classes explicitly limited to choosing between one or two of those roles, without any real wiggle room to make them work against type.

--Each class has abilities on various cooldowns.
---Resource management via cooldown rather than Vancian casting.
---Abilities from different classes very clearly balanced to have the same effect as similar level and cooldown-length abilities of other classes playing the same role.

--Two full chapters on combat. (AD&D had half a page on combat in the PHB, and only a little more in the DMG.)

These were features I'd seen in MMOs but not in any RPG, certainly not in D&D. That initial shock turned me off to the game.

4th Edition was created with a much more modern understanding of how adventure games work. It uses a lot of features of MMOs, I don't think because it's trying to copy them, but because those features make the game mechanics work better. More coherently. AD&D is a basket case: There's no consistent logic for the rules, they're just a collection of solutions to problems that got patched in as needed, without any apparent thought for how they work as a system. 3.0 and the D20 system was an attempt to provide an internally consistent system, but it kept a whole lot of baggage from the original editions. 4th Edition was a rebuild from scratch using the state of the art at the time.

The problem with 4th Edition was that it lost the feel of the earlier editions. Mechanically, it's a better game than the earlier ones, hands down. But they threw the baby out with the bathwater and lost the feel of the game.

5th Edition is looking like an excellent evolution. It's again taken advantage of what we've learned about how games work, and made a coherent rules system implementing that knowledge. But it's also reached back to the early days and tries to create the same play experience of 1st or 2nd Edition. It's not a "rules light" game (D&D certainly never was,) but it really emphasizes and enables the narrative, in the same way that AD&D did.

Personally, my sweet spot right now is Pathfinder/3.5. I love all the character building options, I love Mathfinder, I'm comfortable with the level of intrusiveness of the current rules, and can build my narrative using those rules. Luckily, you're starting in a time where you have some great options: 4th Edition for a more tactical game, 5th Edition for that good old fashioned D&D feel with a modern rules system, and Pathfinder/3.5 for a really solid balance in between.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Pathfinder = Pathfinder, they have gone way beyond their 3.5e roots and claiming Pathfinder = D&D belittles the amount of effort Paizo have put in over the years. D&D = D&D (currently 5e). If you like playing Warhammer then I would suggest that 4e might be something of interest to you. The 4e D&D mechanics make it really a very good skirmish level table top combat game that really promotes group play. Pathfinder also has good rules that make it again a good skirmish level table top war-game, but in Pathfinder group play can be overridden by individualism.

Didn't mean to offend, I was just commenting on the similarities of DnD and Pathfinder,and we gave up on Warhammer and anything associated with GW some time ago.

I also want to say I'm happy to see a forum with intelegent conversation..unlike some other game forums Ive seen...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Akerlof, thank you for such a clear explanation as to why people see 4th edition as a "tabletop MMO". It has borrowed elements from it that were not present in any edition of D&D to date.

Liberty's Edge

plusonetshirt wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Pathfinder = Pathfinder, they have gone way beyond their 3.5e roots and claiming Pathfinder = D&D belittles the amount of effort Paizo have put in over the years. D&D = D&D (currently 5e). If you like playing Warhammer then I would suggest that 4e might be something of interest to you. The 4e D&D mechanics make it really a very good skirmish level table top combat game that really promotes group play. Pathfinder also has good rules that make it again a good skirmish level table top war-game, but in Pathfinder group play can be overridden by individualism.

Didn't mean to offend, I was just commenting on the similarities of DnD and Pathfinder,and we gave up on Warhammer and anything associated with GW some time ago.

I also want to say I'm happy to see a forum with intelegent conversation..unlike some other game forums Ive seen...

I get what you meant, just the whole Pathfinder is D&D and 4e D&D is WoW has been done to death on these and many other forums. Each of the above games play differently and each has merits based on the style of play. None play like a computer based RPG as none limit the player to a set of pre-programmed options on how to handle a situation.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying from originally GW is a great RPG, 2nd edition from Black Industries is one of my favourite RPGs full stop.


Akerlof nails it perfectly.

While D&D4 has very smooth, playable mechanics, it does so at the expense of the quirks that made D&D so loved as a game. D&D5 is pretty much a reversion to 2nd Edition, which was replaced by 3.X. Fact is, 3.X was the best interpretation of the rules so far, but with built-in deliberate errors to reward "system mastery" which made it a right royal pain to RPGers for all the sense they made to a company that made trading cards.

I regard PF as the "true successor" to the D&D name, even if it's not officially D&D. It's not perfect, I still think it could do with some fixes, and I don't like everything that Paizo have done, but it's still the best so far in my opinion.


At the risk of causing an edition war, 4e and 5e just feel kind of niche. I am not saying that they are bad. They just seem to lack the same mass appeal.


Akerlof nailed it as to 4E.

4E is very much a war game with video gamey elements.

4E's fine as a system, though I soured on it after Essentials happened to it. I didn't care for the Essentials rules, and I really didn't care for what was done with the D&D Insider Tools at that time.

4E also had some extreme setting changes - 4E Realms, tossing out Greyhawk as the default setting for the rather flavorless "Points of Lignt," radically changing the cosmology, etc. (That being said, some of the best 4E books were the fluff books dealing with the new Underdark, Abyss, Astral Sea, and Elemental Chaos. Especially the Astral Sea book; 4E had some very cool stuff going on there.)

Yeah, I'll agree that 4E is very niche.


I thought FR became the official edition for 3E. I don't remember any greyhawk books for 3.5.

Liberty's Edge

I can't really fault them for trying to get other fans beyond just tabletop fans with 4E. Every edition with 2E to me felt somewhat like it had computer game elements imo. Having to rest a certain amount of time to get spells back. Certain options being better then others. I know that some in the hobby like to pretend that computer games developers never borrowed from D&D and vice versa but both did. It became a running gag in our gaming circle then whenever we had to stop and rest. "Were hurt and out of spells. Time to click the fireplace icon in the upper right hand corner and rest for 8 hours".

I kind of liked some of the changes with 4E FR. Too many gods with too many similar portfoilios. Do we really need a god focused on the regular aspects of war. The one for strategic. Another for the chaos. Too many high level npcs. That they kind of made powerless in Fr novels on purpose.

To me it goes to show that the fanbase like to say the want change. Yet truly only want to complain and want no change. All the complaints that I hear about 3.5./PF were fixed to some degree or another in 4E. Yet the same people who complained about the problems in 3.5/PF then complained that they actually fixed the flaws of 3.5./PF. Which makes me glad I'm not a game designer and embaressed to be a fan of the hobby sometimes and certain fans within the hobby.


Kthulhu wrote:
I think it's really more of an attempt by the 3.x crowd to marginalize 4e than anything else.

Of course I can't talk for anyone else but me, but for me it's just exactly what I felt, not something that I found excuses about just to say something bad of D&D 4 for sport.

I had been sparsely following the news about D&D 4 while it was in the making, and was very excited about it. Then it came out and I devoured the PHB. But the more I went on reading, the more I had that videogame feeling (and other things) that left an unpleasant taste in my mouth. With the expectations I had at the start, it was even worse.
Then, later, I saw in the forums that I wasn't the only one, and there's good reason why; and I learned of this "Pathfinder" that was about to let out its alpha test...


memorax wrote:
I can't really fault them for trying to get other fans beyond just tabletop fans with 4E. Every edition with 2E to me felt somewhat like it had computer game elements imo. Having to rest a certain amount of time to get spells back. Certain options being better then others. I know that some in the hobby like to pretend that computer games developers never borrowed from D&D and vice versa but both did. It became a running gag in our gaming circle then whenever we had to stop and rest. "Were hurt and out of spells. Time to click the fireplace icon in the upper right hand corner and rest for 8 hours".

It seems strange to take that as a video game thing. Resting to recover spells goes back to the earliest days of D&D and certainly wasn't taken from video games. The early RPG computer games took it from D&D, I assume.

It became more mechanical and that mechanical attitude towards it may have filtered back into table top games. Though "8 hours" isn't the way it's worked in most versions of D&D. You generally can only regain spells once a day and only some classes need the 8 hours rest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I thought FR became the official edition for 3E. I don't remember any greyhawk books for 3.5.

The deities in the PHB were Greyhawk gods. The various spellcaster names (Mordenkainen, Bigby, etc.) were Greyhawk characters. The various subraces were Greyhawk, not Forgotten Realms (high elves instead of moon elves, grey elves instead of sun elves, hill dwarves instead of shield dwarves, etc.) The only Forgotten Realms stuff in the core rules was (As far as I can remember) the Red Wizard prestige class.

There were many Forgotten Realms books, yes. But the core rules defaulted to Greyhawk.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"memorax“ wrote:
All the complaints that I hear about 3.5./PF were fixed to some degree or another in 4E. Yet the same people who complained about the problems in 3.5/PF then complained that they actually fixed the flaws of 3.5./PF.

Not quite true (apart from some people). Most people (like me) never complained about fixed flaws. We complained about those fixes we had never asked for because they solved problems we never had, never perceived as problems or even considered as assets instead.

Now one player's bug may be another player's feature. Solve both "problems" and chances are that you alienate both players.

And that's what happened. The designers changed so much that it was nearly inevitable that some of those changes would be disliked by any given player (who happened to like the older version). And even if you had no problems with the system at all, you probably disliked their handling of the settings (especially the new realms, but also the general setting publication policy), or their new licensing policy.

I admit that I never cared much for the 4e system. But what I cared for was the OGL and the pre-4e Forgotten Realms. And what made me eventually convert to Pathfinder was that I simply prefer paizo products over WOTC products.


Jeraa wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I thought FR became the official edition for 3E. I don't remember any greyhawk books for 3.5.

The deities in the PHB were Greyhawk gods. The various spellcaster names (Mordenkainen, Bigby, etc.) were Greyhawk characters. The various subraces were Greyhawk, not Forgotten Realms (high elves instead of moon elves, grey elves instead of sun elves, hill dwarves instead of shield dwarves, etc.) The only Forgotten Realms stuff in the core rules was (As far as I can remember) the Red Wizard prestige class.

There were many Forgotten Realms books, yes. But the core rules defaulted to Greyhawk.

Alot of the things you just mentioned appear throughout the FR books....

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If 4E is World of Warcraft, then 3.x (in all its incarnations) is Diablo.

The Exchange

havoc xiii wrote:

Alot of the things you just mentioned appear throughout the FR books....

But they are Greyhawk in origin. And the promoted setting for organized play was Living Greyhawk. And while nearly every rule book contained greyhawk references, you wouldn't normally find any Realms references.


WormysQueue wrote:
"memorax“ wrote:
All the complaints that I hear about 3.5./PF were fixed to some degree or another in 4E. Yet the same people who complained about the problems in 3.5/PF then complained that they actually fixed the flaws of 3.5./PF.

Not quite true (apart from some people). Most people (like me) never complained about fixed flaws. We complained about those fixes we had never asked for because they solved problems we never had, never perceived as problems or even considered as assets instead.

Now one player's bug may be another player's feature. Solve both "problems" and chances are that you alienate both players.

And that's what happened. The designers changed so much that it was nearly inevitable that some of those changes would be disliked by any given player (who happened to like the older version).

I suspect something of the same is true for the switch to 3.0 as well, just sort of in the other direction. 3.0 fixed an awful lot of problems in 2E and a lot of players who'd moved away from D&D because of them came back. But it created a lot of new problems as well, which both 3.5 and PF have tried to address, but haven't really been able to other than the most egregious, since they're too rooted in the fundamental assumptions.

4E fixed a lot of those, but for many people, including me, changed the fundamental assumptions enough that it didn't scratch my D&D itch anymore, which 3.x still did, despite my frustrations with it.
Some people went back to earlier editions with the OSR, removing the problems they had with later versions, but I suspect many of them would eventually grow frustrated with the flaws of the earlier systems - which led us to 3.0 in the first place.

I haven't played enough 5E to know, but I'm sure it has its own flaws. And like with editions, it won't be obvious what the deep fundamental ones are until it's been out awhile and people adapt to it and get over the fact that it fixes the things they didn't like about previous versions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
If 4E is World of Warcraft, then 3.x (in all its incarnations) is Diablo.

Actually due to the way the 4E PHB had a "normal", "nightmare", and "hell" mode version of every armor, I've always thought of 4E as very close to Diablo 2, since way way back when I first read it.

And I honestly don't see very many video-game elements in 3E. I guess one could argue that skills with their "roll to succeed" is more "gamey" then 2E, but I would hardly call the mechanic video game like. And spells that require creativity to use like Shrink Item, Stone Shape, the entire Illusion school, the entire enchantment school (try to approximate a dominate effect in 4E without Psionics.... I'll wait), and many many more.

Diablo is a very limited game. It's effects are all combat effects. There is no way a Necromancer could get something like Magic Jar, or a Sorcerer to get something like Overland Flight.

May I ask what about 3E feels video-gamey to you? Because for the most part 3E is 2E without THAC0, same level progression for all classes and better codified rules.

Now 5E, I rather like despite it still giving casters the best stuff. It's neat and streamlined and is probably the system I would use to introduce a new player to D&D. My biggest complaint is that rolling good is more important to success then the characters abilities. I find it bizarre that a good roll can make the parties least charming member a great diplomat, while a bad roll can make the great diplomat completely flop. In that regard I much prefer 3.5/PF.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
I thought FR became the official edition for 3E. I don't remember any greyhawk books for 3.5.

Greyhawk was the assumed base setting for 3 and 3.5, however they basically did nothing to develop that setting other then through RPGA. It was kind of a weird way to do a base setting, especially when you look at how Paizo does it for Pathfinder. :D

WotC idea was here is a base world that we are not going to touch so you can do what you want with it.


plusonetshirt wrote:
When 1 of my game club members suggested we play Pathfinder( we mostly play Table-top minitures games, Warhammer ect) I asked him if it was like D&D he said yes. He said the player response to D&D 4.0 was less than desireable, so Pathfinder was created.He said think of it as D&D 3.75.I still have my 3.5 book,and I see many similarities.

This is very much how I see PF; it has some rules changes and some new classes, but the same is true of 3.5 compared to 3.0. All three are fundamentally the same game. PF 2e, whenever it happens, may truly be its own beast. We'll see.

I find it hilariously ironic that a vocal segment of the D&D fandom complains that 4e doesn't feel like D&D because it changed too much, while PF carries the 'spirit' of D&D...but totally isn't D&D! Sometimes coming from the mouths of the very same fans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
plusonetshirt wrote:
When 1 of my game club members suggested we play Pathfinder( we mostly play Table-top minitures games, Warhammer ect) I asked him if it was like D&D he said yes. He said the player response to D&D 4.0 was less than desireable, so Pathfinder was created.He said think of it as D&D 3.75.I still have my 3.5 book,and I see many similarities.

This is very much how I see PF; it has some rules changes and some new classes, but the same is true of 3.5 compared to 3.0. All three are fundamentally the same game. PF 2e, whenever it happens, may truly be its own beast. We'll see.

I find it hilariously ironic that a vocal segment of the D&D fandom complains that 4e doesn't feel D&D because it changed too much, while PF carries the 'spirit' of D&D...but totally isn't D&D! Sometimes coming from the mouths of the very same fans.

It's not inherently wrong to say that PF carries the spirit of D&D without actually being D&D. In fact, that's what's usually meant by "carries the spirit of" or "spiritual successor to".


Astral Wanderer wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I think it's really more of an attempt by the 3.x crowd to marginalize 4e than anything else.

Of course I can't talk for anyone else but me, but for me it's just exactly what I felt, not something that I found excuses about just to say something bad of D&D 4 for sport.

I had been sparsely following the news about D&D 4 while it was in the making, and was very excited about it. Then it came out and I devoured the PHB. But the more I went on reading, the more I had that videogame feeling (and other things) that left an unpleasant taste in my mouth. With the expectations I had at the start, it was even worse.
Then, later, I saw in the forums that I wasn't the only one, and there's good reason why; and I learned of this "Pathfinder" that was about to let out its alpha test...

You can speak for me too.

My biggest gripe with 4E was that there was no backward compatibility with earlier versions. For all the changes, you could "upgrade" from 2E to 3E and from 3.0 to 3.5 (and 3.5 to Pathfinder) to a degree. You couldn't do that from 3.XE to 4E. When it came out the DM then running a campaign for us dropped it half-way through to run a 4E game. After looking over the rules, I wasn't impressed.

You see, the big strength of the character class system is that each class can use different mechanics, and have different strengths in those mechanics they share. In a classless system, everything uses the same mechanics, but you can free-form the character free of the restraints of class. In 4E, every class used the same mechanics, end of; only the Powers (not spells, feats, abilities - all were just Powers) changed. They had kept the weakness of the class system - strait-jacket roles - but thrown out it's strengths. For me, that was a game-breaker, despite it solving the issues of the class imbalances.


For me, one issue I had with 4th edition is that too many rules and abilities were so hamfistedly 'balanced' that they weren't immersive anymore. Bringing back the whole 'verisimillitude' argument from the early days of 4th, there were too many abilities that only worked one way because that was the balanced way, with no consideration of how silly it seems in the context of the world. I described it as being able to see the gears of the world at work. ("What is the Matrix?") Anzyr had a more specific example with the spectral hand that couldn't go up.

It makes me muse how developing a rule for such a system is a three-way balancing act between game balance, immersion, and fun/expediency. (A rule requiring twenty-seven checks and saves to climb a ten-foot wall with consideration for tiredness, material of wall, angle, and overall roughness may be balanced, and it may be immersive, but it sure as hell doesn't sound like fun.) But that's a debate for another time.


Anzyr wrote:
May I ask what about 3E feels video-gamey to you? Because for the most part 3E is 2E without THAC0, same level progression for all classes and better codified rules.

I like the near-exhaustive list/discussion given by Akerlof up-thread. I only played 4E once myself but I remember my ranged attack with a bow driving the bad guy back one or two squares.

That was something Akerlof didn't mention. How does a normal arrow attack "shift" a guy back like that unless one is thinking "video game"?

But to answer your question. For 3E that would be a complete lack of facing on the battle grid.

And I don't even know what to make of shields. The whole point of using a shield is that it protects you from blows on your unarmed side. However, in game terms, your PCs shield becomes just a factor in the AC calculation. Merely a stat/mechanic. Neither 3E nor 4E seems to think of it any other way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Some comments:

Gauss wrote:
Akerlof, thank you for such a clear explanation as to why people see 4th edition as a "tabletop MMO". It has borrowed elements from it that were not present in any edition of D&D to date.

Not exactly.

"Explicit roles" were pretty hard-coded into 1st Ed AD&D classes, originally. Only fighters, paladins, and rangers (as well as cavaliers and barbarians after Unearthed Arcana) could make multiple attacks in a round (other than with certain missile/thrown weapons). Only clerics and druids (and, to a much lesser extent, paladins, rangers, and monks) could heal. Only thieves, assassins, and monks could climb walls (without using a spell), open locks (without using a spell), remove traps (clerics could only detect with a spell), or sneak around (again, without magic; the surprise mechanic for elves and halflings still didn't let them avoid notice). Some of that changed with the introduction of non-weapon proficiencies, but the only way to really fill multiple roles was to be a demi-human and multi-class, go through the "characters with two classes" kludge, or find a specific magic item. 2nd Ed AD&D relaxed some more of the restrictions, but most of them were still there.

"Cool-downs" were actually an optional system in 3.x (Recharge Magic from the 3.x Unearthed Arcana); also, one of the spell point systems in 2nd Ed AD&D from Player's Option: Spells & Magic (Channeling) used a mechanic where a caster could cast spells multiple times per day, but needed to rest/recover from fatigue/regain spell points in between castings.

"Two chapters on combat?" The 3.0 Player's Handbook technically had more than two (Combat, Magic, and part of Adventuring).

wraithstrike wrote:
I thought FR became the official edition for 3E. I don't remember any greyhawk books for 3.5.

For 3.0 D&D, Greyhawk was the official setting. However (IIRC), with the move to 3.5, WotC pretty much dropped Greyhawk (other than the default deity list for clerics in the PHB) to support the Forgotten Realms (and later Eberron) as being more popular.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The person who runs a Dungeons and Dragons game is called a "Dungeon Master". Can you find one instance of the phrase "Dungeon Master" in relation to the person running the game in any post-3.5 Paizo product? If you can, then Pathfinder = D&D. If not, Pathfinder is just another fantasy game based on the d20/3.5 D&D rules, but is not D&D.

Kinda pedantic, yeah. ;-)


Quark Blast wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
May I ask what about 3E feels video-gamey to you? Because for the most part 3E is 2E without THAC0, same level progression for all classes and better codified rules.

I like the near-exhaustive list/discussion given by Akerlof up-thread. I only played 4E once myself but I remember my ranged attack with a bow driving the bad guy back one or two squares.

That was something Akerlof didn't mention. How does a normal arrow attack "shift" a guy back like that unless one is thinking "video game"?

But to answer your question. For 3E that would be a complete lack of facing on the battle grid.

And I don't even know what to make of shields. The whole point of using a shield is that it protects you from blows on your unarmed side. However, in game terms, your PCs shield becomes just a factor in the AC calculation. Merely a stat/mechanic. Neither 3E nor 4E seems to think of it any other way.

I don't think AD&D or any other version uses shields much differently. That's not video gamey. It's an abstraction. It's back to what TriggerLoaded just said about "game balance, immersion, and fun/expediency".

A combat system that handled shields the way you want, would require a hit location system, with all the complexity that adds. You'd probably want to change armor from making it harder to hit to reducing damage. Ways to block other people's blows with your weapons, since that's really what you do most of the time in a fight.
But D&D combat has been abstract from the very beginning.

Lack of facing the same way. Introducing it as a mechanic instead of an ad-hoc GM fiat kind of thing, leads to all sorts of complexities. Especially considering you can easily move 30' in a round - what's your facing at any given point during that? Or do you only consider what the facing is when you stop and wait for everyone else to do their thing?

Which is itself an abstraction. In any kind of real fight people don't act one at a time and wait for others to finish their turns. But we do it that way so we can handle it.

Not video gamey. Just abstraction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:

The person who runs a Dungeons and Dragons game is called a "Dungeon Master". Can you find one instance of the phrase "Dungeon Master" in relation to the person running the game in any post-3.5 Paizo product? If you can, then Pathfinder = D&D. If not, Pathfinder is just another fantasy game based on the d20/3.5 D&D rules, but is not D&D.

Kinda pedantic, yeah. ;-)

Well, if you want to be even more pedantic and simpler, take a look at the front cover. Does it say, "Dungeons & Dragons"?

If not, it's not D&D.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

IMO, the biggest reason many feel that 4th Edition is "video-gamy" is that the system mechanics are more blatantly "disassociated" (exist mainly as game rules, rather than tied to narrative or simulation effects) than in previous editions. Note, this is different than abstraction (or simplifying); with "disassociated" mechanics, they don't work in a logical manner based on principles other than game mechanics (usually for balance reasons). For example, a "disassociated" power that lets an archer target a weak point (doing more damage and possibly other effects) once per combat; there's no logical reason to limit even making an attempt at targeting a weak point to once per combat; an "associated" power would allow multiple attempts, but make success something that's not guaranteed. As a game, 4th Edition works very well; as an aid to role-playing, the flaws in the "disassociated" approach to system mechanics tend to hinder the suspension of disbelief.

EDIT: Added some more details on "disassociated" vs. abstract.


memorax wrote:


To me it goes to show that the fanbase like to say the want change. Yet truly only want to complain and want no change. All the complaints that I hear about 3.5./PF were fixed to some degree or another in 4E. Yet the same people who complained about the problems in 3.5/PF then complained that they actually fixed the flaws of 3.5./PF. Which makes me glad I'm not a game designer and embaressed to be a fan of the hobby sometimes and certain fans within the hobby.

I agree to an extent, but I also think many of those fans did not intend for the fix to be that extreme.


Jeraa wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I thought FR became the official edition for 3E. I don't remember any greyhawk books for 3.5.

The deities in the PHB were Greyhawk gods. The various spellcaster names (Mordenkainen, Bigby, etc.) were Greyhawk characters. The various subraces were Greyhawk, not Forgotten Realms (high elves instead of moon elves, grey elves instead of sun elves, hill dwarves instead of shield dwarves, etc.) The only Forgotten Realms stuff in the core rules was (As far as I can remember) the Red Wizard prestige class.

There were many Forgotten Realms books, yes. But the core rules defaulted to Greyhawk.

I knew that, but now I get what was meant. I was thinking he meant "selling" when he meant "default".

With that aside it makes more sense to me to have the "selling" and "default" setting be the same one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
memorax wrote:


To me it goes to show that the fanbase like to say the want change. Yet truly only want to complain and want no change. All the complaints that I hear about 3.5./PF were fixed to some degree or another in 4E. Yet the same people who complained about the problems in 3.5/PF then complained that they actually fixed the flaws of 3.5./PF. Which makes me glad I'm not a game designer and embaressed to be a fan of the hobby sometimes and certain fans within the hobby.
I agree to an extent, but I also think many of those fans did not intend for the fix to be that extreme.

The "fix" was to basically reinvent the game. No one was asking for that. Don't get me wrong the reinvented game certainly attracted people who liked that, but I wanted improvements to the old game, not a brand new one. 5E handles this well and had that been 4th Edition I may well have converted, saving 3.5 for "advanced" play.

Liberty's Edge

Backwards compiability as a defense to me at least is not that much of a reason anymore. More often than even before PF was released. Many DMs stuck with core only for 3.5. At least in my experience at the gaming table and forums. Even here the rallying cry is "core only and not else!". I think for them to make actual fixes to the game they had too shed the baggage of third edition to some extent. Pathfinder kept with 3.5 chassis yet it also came with the same problems as well. Their a point where one can't keep using the same rules if they keep having the same flaws and issues imo. Even Call of Cthulhu 7E while the same has enough new material. That it's not simply a rehash with new art and organization.

Another problem is without any major changes why bother buying into the same system twice. Support of course is a reason. Yet if for example one has the entire 3E library it also seems redudant imo. That's onme of the reason I never got onboard with Hero System 6E. I bought PF which is mostly a rehash of 3.5. I was not going to do it a second time. Given that I had most if not all of the 5E Hero books.

It occured to me that if they had dropped some of the terminology from 4E. It would have been more accepted imo. Gamers saw terms like powers, healing surges and short and long rest. Then lost their minds. Funny though that 5E still has some of the same elements with more familiar terminalogy.I'm not a huge fan of 4E anymore. Yet not as much as PF either. So far alot of the material has been disappointing to me at least. The devs still refuse to find the proper middle ground. Fluff with the right amount of crunch.

Liberty's Edge

Anzyr wrote:


The "fix" was to basically reinvent the game. No one was asking for that. Don't get me wrong the reinvented game certainly attracted people who liked that, but I wanted improvements to the old game, not a brand new one. 5E handles this well and had that been 4th Edition I may well have converted, saving 3.5 for "advanced" play.

Sometimes it's not possible to do it with the existing rpg rules. Look at the PF. Martials still are not as good. Casters are pretty powerful. none of the new material with the exception of the Advanced Class guide really does it justice. Maybe Pathfinder Unchained yet I'm not holding my breath on that.

Palladium Books rules is a good example. no major changes or alterations. They used to be in the top ten alongside Wotc and White wolf. Now their not even in the bottom twenty anymore. No fixes to the rules meant fans left and went elsewhere. One can houserule. Yet houseruling never was, is or ever will be a selling feature of any rpg imo.

I get that some wanted a familiar game. I don't think with Pathfinder it maybe possible without major changes. Unchained may work yet it may also simply not be enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


The "fix" was to basically reinvent the game. No one was asking for that. Don't get me wrong the reinvented game certainly attracted people who liked that, but I wanted improvements to the old game, not a brand new one. 5E handles this well and had that been 4th Edition I may well have converted, saving 3.5 for "advanced" play.

Sometimes it's not possible to do it with the existing rpg rules. Look at the PF. Martials still are not as good. Casters are pretty powerful. none of the new material with the exception of the Advanced Class guide really does it justice. Maybe Pathfinder Unchained yet I'm not holding my breath on that.

Palladium Books rules is a good example. no major changes or alterations. They used to be in the top ten alongside Wotc and White wolf. Now their not even in the bottom twenty anymore. No fixes to the rules meant fans left and went elsewhere. One can houserule. Yet houseruling never was, is or ever will be a selling feature of any rpg imo.

I get that some wanted a familiar game. I don't think with Pathfinder it maybe possible without major changes. Unchained may work yet it may also simply not be enough.

It is possible to fix Fighters within the existing rules. Easily. It just requires people to accept that a level 7 Fighter is no longer bound by the laws of our not-going-past-level-6-world's physics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I don't think AD&D or any other version uses shields much differently. That's not video gamey. It's an abstraction. It's back to what TriggerLoaded just said about "game balance, immersion, and fun/expediency".

A combat system that handled shields the way you want, would require a hit location system, with all the complexity that adds. You'd probably want to change armor from making it harder to hit to reducing damage. Ways to block other people's blows with your weapons, since that's really what you do most of the time in a fight.
But D&D combat has been abstract from the very beginning.
Lack of facing the same way. Introducing it as a mechanic instead of an ad-hoc GM fiat kind of thing, leads to all sorts of complexities. Especially considering you can easily move 30' in a round - what's your facing at any given point during that? Or do you only consider what the facing is when you stop and wait for everyone else to do their thing?

Which is itself an abstraction. In any kind of real fight people don't act one at a time and wait for others to finish their turns. But we do it that way so we can handle it.

Not video gamey. Just abstraction.

OK, I'll accept that explanation. I still think the "no facing" rule is broke though.

I've related elsewhere my 3.5E rogue taking five rounds to sneak up behind an oblivious goblin only to get no bonus on my attack roll.

It didn't help my mood much that the DM said I did indeed get a bonus; "the goblin is flat-footed". Of course the goblin had a DEX of 10 so my bonus was a big fat 0. Very video-gamey.

With 5E at the very least I'll have Advantage in that situation and the rules encourage the DM to consider other factors as well.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
It didn't help my mood much that the DM said I did indeed get a bonus; "the goblin is flat-footed". Of course the goblin had a DEX of 10 so my bonus was a big fat 0.

I still don't know how that works since goblins have a racial bonus to Dex even in 3.5. It must have been a custom built goblin who dumped Dex. :/

1 to 50 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder=D&D? All Messageboards