I assume most people who post here will, which is why they're still attracted to the Paizo forums.
The follow up question, then, is why?
I was asked this question a short while ago by a friend. His point was that they're both basically the same type of game, so why play two versions instead of a completely different game (which I do as well, like non-d20 Call of Cthulhu).
So I started thinking about it, and some of the posts here, and I have an answer to the WHY question for myself.
My D&D campaigns have always tried to keep an internal logic, a certain degree of verisimilitude, and a low degree of metagaming. I was leery of 4E for reasons of verisimilitude (ok, you can only do so much of this with D&D, but there are degrees, and 4E has less of it in my view than previous editions) and metagaming.
But when I played 4E I had fun. Despite the above. To me, it's a different game in large part. It's video-gamish, metagamey, etc. And fun to play.
So I'm playing 4E because I enjoy it. And I'm playing Pathfinder/3.5 for the same reason. But I probably wouldn't be playing both if they didn't FEEL like very different games.
4E is streamlined, fun, and I got over the metagaming and verisimilitude because of it. But 3.5 gives me more in the way of the latter, and lets me more easily work with the kind of world I like to play in, where martial characters don't have quasi-magic powers, and everyone can't heal themselves, etc.
Make any sense?
I will be playing both.
Pathfinder because I like Paizo's adventures and I don't have the time necessary to spend on full scale conversions.
4e because I really like many aspects of the new rules. I confess, I also liked Book of 9 Swords, which many of the 3.5 fans decried as breaking the game. Perhaps that's why I like the new rules, I don't know.
In any event, yes, I will be playing both.
- Ashavan
I might end up playing both, but I kind of doubt it, mostly because I just don't have time to play 2 systems, and if I do take a break from one to play something different, than I want it to be real different. For instance, we play mostly dnd right now, but sometimes we break it up with other stuff like Call of the Cthulhu, Paranoia, All Flesh Must be Eaten or even board games. For now I see my next dnd campaign being a 4E one. We plan to give it a shot, if we don't like it then we might go for Pathfinder, but I like a lot of what I see.
I'm going to run a session this weekend as a trial, and what I have in mind will still have plenty of rping and story, so I certainly hope it won't feel too much like a video game. In my mind that has a lot more to do with the style of game players and dms like to run than the actual system.
I assume most people who post here will, which is why they're still attracted to the Paizo forums.
The follow up question, then, is why?
I was asked this question a short while ago by a friend. His point was that they're both basically the same type of game, so why play two versions instead of a completely different game (which I do as well, like non-d20 Call of Cthulhu).
So I started thinking about it, and some of the posts here, and I have an answer to the WHY question for myself.
My D&D campaigns have always tried to keep an internal logic, a certain degree of verisimilitude, and a low degree of metagaming. I was leery of 4E for reasons of verisimilitude (ok, you can only do so much of this with D&D, but there are degrees, and 4E has less of it in my view than previous editions) and metagaming.
But when I played 4E I had fun. Despite the above. To me, it's a different game in large part. It's video-gamish, metagamey, etc. And fun to play.
So I'm playing 4E because I enjoy it. And I'm playing Pathfinder/3.5 for the same reason. But I probably wouldn't be playing both if they didn't FEEL like very different games.
4E is streamlined, fun, and I got over the metagaming and verisimilitude because of it. But 3.5 gives me more in the way of the latter, and lets me more easily work with the kind of world I like to play in, where martial characters don't have quasi-magic powers, and everyone can't heal themselves, etc.
Make any sense?
I actually don't expect to ever really play Pathfinder. My current 3.5 group essentially just started AoW, and we don't plan on abandoning the campaign. But the group is mostly in agreement that it will be our last 3.5 game (and even if it were not, no one has expressed any interest in converting to Pathfinder ...)
At the same time, a few of us who have the time to play in two games are starting up a 4E game to run concurrently, until AoW is over and we'll combine together. As to why I post here ... well I've grown to like the community, filled with vitriol that it can be.
Hopefully one day Paizo will begin offering products that I will be willing to buy again, and then my presence here will be more easily explained! :)
I'm going to run a session this weekend as a trial, and what I have in mind will still have plenty of rping and story, so I certainly hope it won't feel too much like a video game. In my mind that has a lot more to do with the style of game players and dms like to run than the actual system.
In my view, that's not the case. We're a pretty heavy RP group, and that didn't change in 4E, but once you get into combat the mechanics themselves give it a very video-gamey feel. At least, that's how I felt about it. And there's nothing wrong with that either. Others may feel differently. I think if you've played quite a few MMOs you're bound to notice the design elements that run along those lines, however. At least as a DM. Again, I don't think that's bad. That sort of thing is what keeps 4E feeling like a very different game to me, and consequently keeps me interested in both 4E and 3.5.
I actually don't expect to ever really play Pathfinder. My current 3.5 group essentially just started AoW, and we don't plan on abandoning the campaign. But the group is mostly in agreement that it will be our last 3.5 game (and even if it were not, no one has expressed any interest in converting to Pathfinder ...)
At the same time, a few of us who have the time to play in two games are starting up a 4E game to run concurrently, until AoW is over and we'll combine together. As to why I post here ... well I've grown to like the community, filled with vitriol that it can be.
Hopefully one day Paizo will begin offering products that I will be willing to buy again, and then my presence here will be more easily explained! :)
Makes sense. I think there will be a lot of 4E material out there, though, so I hope Paizo sticks with 3.5/Pathfinder :)
Interestingly enough, I'm not a fan of Book of Nine Swords. I disallowed it in my game. If I had been running an oriental style campaign I might have given in, but I didn't want that feel in my Savage Tide campaign. I thought the books of nine swords powers seemed too mystical, and I wanted relatively non magical feeling warriors. However, I don't really feel that the martial powers of the martial classes in the 4E phb have the same feel as the Book of Nine Swords classes. Sure there are combat manouvers that are in some way similar, but to me they feel more like cool mundane abilities than mystical powers. Pushing a guy forward with your shield and then stepping into his space doesn't feel like something out of Gauntlet, Jade Empire or a Crouching Tiger style movie, it just seems like a pretty nifty but straight forward tactic. Sure there are some powers that do feel a bit like "powers", but those tend to be more in the epic tier, and for the most part I like the approach they took with it. I think they made an effort to make the things a fighter can do feel like things a skilled warrior could pull off, not things that would require mystical super powers to accomplish (some of the epic stuff gets a bit crazier, but I think that's to be expected when you get to that level of gaming, and you can easily keep your campaigns more mundane if that is your taste).
I've never played WOW or any MMO, so I don't really know anything about the comparisons that people toss around. I have yet to play 4E, but I have all the core books. I'm working on a trial adventure for this coming weekend, so Sunday will be my first play test of the system.
Right now I'm dming the last adventure of Savage Tide, and after running about 5 long term 3E games, I've started to notice a lot of things about the system that are grating on me, and I feel that the 4E designers have worked hard to address many of these issues. I don't think Pathfinder will accomplish this. I think that a lot of the stuff that bugs me about 3E will still bug me with Pathfinder. However, I do enjoy my 3E campaigns, and I have had blast running it. I just think I'll enjoy 4E more.
In my view, that's not the case. We're a pretty heavy RP group, and that didn't change in 4E, but once you get into combat the mechanics themselves give it a very video-gamey feel. At least, that's how I felt about it. And there's nothing wrong with that either. Others may feel differently. I think if you've played quite a few MMOs you're bound to notice the design elements that run along those lines, however. At least as a DM. Again, I don't think that's bad. That sort of thing is what keeps 4E feeling like a very different game to me, and consequently keeps me interested in both 4E and 3.5.I'm going to run a session this weekend as a trial, and what I have in mind will still have plenty of rping and story, so I certainly hope it won't feel too much like a video game. In my mind that has a lot more to do with the style of game players and dms like to run than the actual system.
Right now I'm dming the last adventure of Savage Tide, and after running about 5 long term 3E games, I've started to notice a lot of things about the system that are grating on me, and I feel that the 4E designers have worked hard to address many of these issues. I don't think Pathfinder will accomplish this. I think that a lot of the stuff that bugs me about 3E will still bug me with Pathfinder. However, I do enjoy my 3E campaigns, and I have had blast running it. I just think I'll enjoy 4E more.
Cool. I hope you enjoy the hell out of it. So far 4e has been a blast for me.
|
I'm not sure. A whole lot will depend on how well the next few months of 4e play out. I finally feel like I can GM a homebrew now that the administrative overhead in encounter and NPC creation has diminished.
At this point I am actually more likely to adapt Paizo scenarios to 4e than I am to play any 3.5 variant game.
Who has time?
Our group meets once per month (over 40 with kids) so we could play 3.5 for the rest of our lives. Maybe when the kids are old enough, we will play more often, probably Pathfinder.
I'm not sure. A whole lot will depend on how well the next few months of 4e play out. I finally feel like I can GM a homebrew now that the administrative overhead in encounter and NPC creation has diminished.
At this point I am actually more likely to adapt Paizo scenarios to 4e than I am to play any 3.5 variant game.
My husband feels that way too... he's thinking of converting his Eberron campaign, which means converting some 3.5 characters.
I'm curious to see how that goes.
- Ashavan
I will be playing both 4evil and Pathfinder.
My first experience with 4evil will be as the DM, in fact.
Paizo offer the best fantasy adventures in the industry... or at least the best dungeoncrawl or DnD type of adventures (I personally prefer the grim and gritty Warhammer Fantasy adventures but my players are a bit tired of playing low life that are corrupted and tainted by Chaos, mutants and demons... So Paizo adventure are a fresh breath of air...) My players want High level, Epic adventures... they want to battle 4-5 giants in the morning and kil the dragon or the demon lord at the end of the day... and most of Paizo adventure offers that...
Unfortunatly the 3.5 game mechanics don't support high level adventures very well... We really don't have the patience to rolls dices and wait for others players to resolve their characters actions during 2-3 hours for each combats... We want the adventure to follow it's course as an action-adventure movie pace... and 3.5 or Pathfinder RPG don't deliver...
Not all of my player are DnD veterans and most are casual gamers (and more gamists than simulationists) and we want our 4 hours game sessions to focus on the fun part... I use to prefer intense roleplaying session (without even rolling any dice) when I was younger as a univeristy students... I've been there, done that ... We use to play 2-3 each weeks... But now as we growth older, having children, and less and less time for our hobby... we need to maximize our 'fun' time...
I guess the 4E hit is mark as we are obviously it's target audience...
The monster and NPCs conversion/adaption are scarly easy as I can create any powers on the fly and fit the encounter to my players character level... so it will be Paizo adventure with the 4E rules for us! (Or some Dark Heresy RPG if I can corrupt a few of my players and damn their soul to the gods of chaos!)... :-)
I finally feel like I can GM a homebrew now that the administrative overhead in encounter and NPC creation has diminished.
At this point I am actually more likely to adapt Paizo scenarios to 4e than I am to play any 3.5 variant game.
Yep. My plan is to convert Paizo's stuff to 4e. Stats are easy (in 4e, anyway). The really hard part is coming up with great stories, locations, hooks, and characters.
That's what Paizo is good for.
I finally feel like I can GM a homebrew now that the administrative overhead in encounter and NPC creation has diminished.
At this point I am actually more likely to adapt Paizo scenarios to 4e than I am to play any 3.5 variant game.
Yep. My plan is to convert Paizo's stuff to 4e. Stats are easy (in 4e, anyway). The really hard part is coming up with great stories, locations, hooks, and characters.
That's what Paizo is good for.
Ditto, my group wants to try CotCT in 4e, so I am more than happy to oblige them.
We've fallen in love with Pathfinder, pretty much from day one. It is simply the beauty and awesomeness of the characters and the richness of the setting. We're just barely into our second campaign in the setting and it's magic.
That said, I don't plan on ending any of my 3rd edition games, or not running more. In fact I fully plan to dig out my 2nd edition books at some future date and run a good old school game.
4e, if anything, has stoked this desire. It's not a replacement for any other edition. It's a new kind of D&D, like a modern retelling of a classic story. Some elements are the same, but the whole is different, fresh and exciting. I can't wait to get in there and do all the stuff that 4e offers (#1 of which is to tie in all the previously "generic" setting material that didn't fit anywhere, but other things include exploring the different venues and rediscovering a lot of the races and monsters in this new world--the idea of a creepy, near invisible gnome, gaptoothed in ratty overalls leering with big dark eyes from behind the woodshed...ooh).
I guess I don't see the conflict, and I don't buy into 4e as a dumbed down wargame either. I intend to run rich, character centered stories in it--no minis, no maps, just all in our heads. It'll be awesome.
So yeah. I'm in for everything.
No. Just 3e/Pathfinder.
Interestingly enough, I'm not a fan of Book of Nine Swords. I disallowed it in my game. If I had been running an oriental style campaign I might have given in, but I didn't want that feel in my Savage Tide campaign. I thought the books of nine swords powers seemed too mystical, and I wanted relatively non magical feeling warriors. However, I don't really feel that the martial powers of the martial classes in the 4E phb have the same feel as the Book of Nine Swords classes. Sure there are combat manouvers that are in some way similar, but to me they feel more like cool mundane abilities than mystical powers. Pushing a guy forward with your shield and then stepping into his space doesn't feel like something out of Gauntlet, Jade Empire or a Crouching Tiger style movie, it just seems like a pretty nifty but straight forward tactic. Sure there are some powers that do feel a bit like "powers", but those tend to be more in the epic tier, and for the most part I like the approach they took with it. I think they made an effort to make the things a fighter can do feel like things a skilled warrior could pull off, not things that would require mystical super powers to accomplish (some of the epic stuff gets a bit crazier, but I think that's to be expected when you get to that level of gaming, and you can easily keep your campaigns more mundane if that is your taste).
Same deal with me. BoNS is verbotten in my 3.5 game. That said part of the reason I won't use it is that it does not mesh all that well with 3.5. When only a few classes are suddenly doing these crazy manoeuvres it breaks verisimilitude. When all the cool kids are doing it then its not so bat. Its just part of the core assumption.
I finally feel like I can GM a homebrew now that the administrative overhead in encounter and NPC creation has diminished.
At this point I am actually more likely to adapt Paizo scenarios to 4e than I am to play any 3.5 variant game.
Yep. My plan is to convert Paizo's stuff to 4e. Stats are easy (in 4e, anyway). The really hard part is coming up with great stories, locations, hooks, and characters.
That's what Paizo is good for.
Hear, hear.
So far I have no faith in WotCs ability to design anything but hack fests. They could convince me that they really are great story tellers but their not exactly doing a good job of it so far. I think they are good with rules and mechanics (well most of the time anyway) but stories have not been their strong point lately. Paizo writes some damn fine stories. I'll just have to figure out how to turn some of their descriptive scenes into more interactive Skill Challenges and I'm all set.
My first 4E campaign will be homebrewed...BUT...
The woods to the north of the village where the characters are starting from, the woods known to be infested with creatures that normally come out at night, the woods that the woodcutter lives on the edge of and he keeps several large dogs, the woods that strange laughter and singing comes from at night, the woods that contain a road that you have to get through in one day otherwise, the woods that have random small fires, you know those woods.
I may be taking other bits of Pathfinder (maps, monster fluff, and the like) and adding to my homebrew.
At this point I am actually more likely to adapt Paizo scenarios to 4e than I am to play any 3.5 variant game.
Same here.
So far, the first two adventure paths haven't really piqued my interest (though I'm sure they're excellent!). However, I am interested in looking at Second Darkness. I've been thinking of using the drow in my upcoming 4E game.
Contributor
|
I will play both. Initially I want to try them both out and see what my players like. If we go with 4E mainly, I will be converting Pathfinder material quite a lot.
I have a secondary reason as well. I hope to write material for both games (as in, to be published). I don't feel it's really possible to write effectively for any game if you don't play it.
My third reason is that I suspect most of my players and I will want to stick with Pathfinder for our main games, but 4E will probably be what we choose for pick up games, and games at cons (although of course I will also be involved in PFS).
As a DM, i actually don't know yet.
I tend to prefer the Pathfinder system (as it is compatible), but some things in 4e are interesting too.
I will buy both lines, for curiosity and collecting, but i might not use them as separate systems. I might rather pick some stuff from both and use it in my own houserules system.
In general, though, i don't think i will convert much to D&D4, as i don't think my players are ready for it. After more than 3 years of 3rd edition they still have difficulties to convert from AD&D2 ;)
Now, as a player, it will depends on the group i am playing with.
If they convert in any of these i will too.
As long i am playing, as long it's D&D, i am happy.
That's the only thing that matters.
|
I participate in two gaming groups (one near-weekly, the other bi-weekly) and there are three of us that DM/GM between those two groups.
Personally as a DM I will never run 4E and currently am running a Pathfinder campaign. I'd rather spend my time putting together a Shadowrun, Deadlands, or Star Wars (West End Games version) campaign if I decide to branch out from D&D for awhile again.
Our other DM (and the one crossover between groups) hates 4E more than I do, and has also stated he will not ever be running a 4E game. He will continue to run our ongoing D&D campaign that's been running since '93 in 3.5x (with discussions of converting to Pathfinder).
Our last DM (who occasionally will take over for a year to give our regular DM a break) hasn't made a comment on his opinions of 4E, but I'm fairly certain by the way that he plays and the fact that over half of our group loathes 4E, that if he decides to do 4E it will be in the other group he plays with.
|
I'll probably play both, but not at the same level.
- 3.X / PF RPG for Pathfinder's or long-running campaigns.
- 4e for short campaigns or one-shot adventures with people that doesn't enjoy long-running campaigns at all.
I'll probably play 3.X / PF more often (like five times more often) than 4e, and the expenses budget will be proportional -raising Paizo's joy, 'suppose. ;)
Aritz
EDIT
This comment is about DMing. As a player, I'll exclusively play 3.X / PF because that's the other DMs' preference for D&D games.
|
Wouldn't DM 4e if you paid me. In fact, I've already essentially turned down money to DM 4e. My FLGS was looking for DMs for Game Day, offering discounts on the core books - my exact response isn't exactly repeatable here, but it boiled down to an extreme "no."
Playing 4e? Maybe, somewhere down the road, after core book cycle 2 and the power source books (Martial, Arcane, Divine, etc.). If they can somehow turn down the uber-ness of 4e characters to make Dark Sun 4e a viable game, then I'd have to at least think about it, though I don't really know where I'd find a DM. (The only one of my players who's ever GM'd anything before is almost as much of a Paizo fanatic as I am, and he's sticking with 3e/Pathfinder AFAIK.)
Edit: I don't really know just how much of Pathfinder will be making its way onto my table, though, in all honesty. My players seem a bit hesitant to make the transition, but I'll try and nudge them into it.
I will be sticking with the Pathfinder route for now. Although I am open in the future to 4e, I also feel that I am not ready to commit to 'retiring' all of my 3/3.5 books (and I own EVERY core/splat book and quite a few of the hardcover adventures and world-specific books). I love collecting books and gaming materials, but I don't feel financially up to rebuying everything all over again (for the fourth time).
It's funny but I think that if Dragon & Dungeon had been around to break me gently into the whole 4e paradigm I would have been more likely to take the leap. I guess you can chalk me up to one of the established gamers WotC isn't particularly interested in anymore. No worries, I am content that my collection is still being supported by the Pathfinder system. Perhaps I will play 4e at some point, but only time will tell.
|
Contributor
|
If they can somehow turn down the uber-ness of 4e characters to make Dark Sun 4e a viable game, then I'd have to at least think about it, though I don't really know where I'd find a DM.
I find this statement a little baffling. It's been a while since I played Dark Sun, but my recollection was that the characters started ar 4th level minimum with Crazy high stats and abilities. I played a Mul; our party got lost in the desert with little food and water, so we built a palanquin with a canopy for shade, and my character carried the other 5 out of the desert without needing to rest. We conserved food and water because the rest of the party were resting in the shade. 4E is nowhere near that level of 'Uber.'
EDIT: This was our intro adventure to, so he was a starting character with no magic equipment or anything.
|
|
I'll be playing 3.5/Pathfinder RPG, but not 4E.
1) I own lots and lots of WotC 3.5 books. I want to make good use of the ones I enjoy (most of them), and am a little apprehensive about how the quality of 4E products may change over time (some of my late 3.5 purchases are regrettable).
2) The products produced by Paizo have only improved over time. I loved "Dungeon" and "Dragon" magazines, really dig "Pathfinder" the more I read and re-read the issues each month, and the Chronicles products I've added to my collection are consistently awesome. "Classic Monsters Revisited" and the "CotCT Item Cards" should arrive today!
3) Golarion is now my favorite fantasy world, even this short time it's been developed. What I've read of "Points of Light" in the preview books and on the 'net hasn't inspired me. In addition to using the material in tabletop games, one of the primary reasons I'll buy an RPG product is the game fiction.
4) The one thing that is very attractive to me with 4E is the tool that'd allow my friends who are scattered far and wide to play D&D together regularly. WotC's track record with electronic media is spotty, though, and the preview material for Insider has not replaced the "Dungeon" and "Dragon" experience in any meaningful way, so again....
I'll be playing 3.5/Pathfinder RPG, but not 4E.
|
|
I find this statement a little baffling. It's been a while since I played Dark Sun, but my recollection was that the characters started ar 4th level minimum with Crazy high stats and abilities. I played a Mul; our party got lost in the desert with little food and water, so we built a palanquin with a canopy for shade, and my character carried the other 5 out of the desert without needing to rest. We conserved food and water because the rest of the party were resting in the shade. 4E is nowhere near that level of 'Uber.'
EDIT: This was our intro adventure to, so he was a starting character with no magic equipment or anything.
4e seems to me to be "If it doesn't exist in combat, the rules don't need to cover it, and what does exist in combat is at 1st level more powerful than previous editions of the rules". Dark Sun combat was brutal, and even out of combat the weather or lack of food could easily kill you.
Basically, I have a really hard time picturing a 4e character starving to death.
3.5/Pathfinder only. No 4e.
|
|
4e seems to me to be "If it doesn't exist in combat, the rules don't need to cover it,
Not true. There are plenty of non-combat options. The only thing that seems to be truly missing are craft and profession skills.
and what does exist in combat is at 1st level more powerful than previous editions of the rules".
True to a certain point - 1st level characters in 4e fell more like 2nd or 3rd level characters in 3e but I would not say that it feels like a power game.
Basically, I have a really hard time picturing a 4e character starving to death.
I have a hard time picturing any D&D character of any edition starving to death - create food and water killed that meme.
Basically, I have a really hard time picturing a 4e character starving to death.
Oh, it's possible. The 4E DMG takes care of that quite nicely.
When deprived of food, water, or air, the rule of three applies. An adventurer can handle three weeks without food, three days without water, and three minutes without air outside of strenuous situations. After that, such deprivation is a significant test of a PCs’ stamina.
At the end of the time period (three weeks, three days, or three minutes), the character must succeed on a DC 20 endurance check. Success buys the character another day (if hungry or thirsty), or round (if unable to breathe). Then the check is repeated at DC 25, then
at DC 30, and so on. When a character fails the check, he loses one healing surge and must continue to make checks. A character without healing surges who fails a check takes damage equal to his level. In strenuous situations, such as combat, going without air is much harder. A character holding his breath during underwater combat, for example, must make a DC 20 endurance check at the end of his turn in a round where he takes damage. As with environmental dangers, a character cannot regain healing surges lost to starvation, thirst, or suffocation until he eats a meal, drinks, or gains access to air again, respectively. A character with 0 or fewer hit points who continues to suffer from one of these effects keeps taking damage as described above until he dies or is rescued.
|
|
Basically, I have a really hard time picturing a 4e character starving to death.I have a hard time picturing any D&D character of any edition starving to death - create food and water killed that meme.
Good luck finding a Cleric of Water, and one who's survived to reach 5th level.
And then even better luck finding the money to pay him casting the spell.
Just going to play 4E.
Don't have the time or inclination to play Pathfinder. I'm sure it's a great game but I am just not that interested. Though I might convert some Paizo adventures to 4E.
|
|
When deprived of food, water, or air, the rule of three applies. An adventurer can handle... three days without water... After that, such deprivation is a significant test of a PCs’ stamina. At the end of the time period the character must succeed on a DC 20 endurance check. Success buys the character another day... Then the check is repeated at DC 25, then at DC 30, and so on. When a character fails the check, he loses one healing surge and must continue to make checks. A character without healing surges who fails a check takes damage equal to his level...
OK, so a 4e character can go 3 days without any water without the need for any sort of check or save. A 3e character can go 1 day, plus Con score in hours, then he has to make hourly Con checks, DC 10 + 1 per previous check. Admittedly, it's only 1d6 of nonlethal, but the damage begins to add up.
Sample 4e character - 4th level Dwarven Fighter, trained in Endurance. 20 Con. Endurance check of +12. 14 Healing Surges. 53 hp, by my math.
50% failure rate for a DC 20 Endurance check on the 4th day, costing him 1 healing surge. He still has thirteen more before he even begins to take damage, and he has 13 days' worth of survival in his HPs, which seems to give him a good chance of living not just three days without water, but THREE WEEKS.
Just because the rules are even there doesn't mean they're much of a threat. This is the kind of stuff that makes me unlikely to even play 4e Dark Sun, assuming it ever comes out, and WotC hasn't had the best track record the past couple of years for reliability.
/Anyway, enough of a tangent - this is about 4e and Pathfinder plans, not the rules gaps in 4e.
I'll also play both, since D&D 4E is, imo, incomplete, so I'm unable to easily convert existing 3.5 material in 4E. The Pathfinder Adventure Path is good enough that I'll stick to PRPG for a while.
It's not the first time that I play 2 or more different RPGs, and it won't be the last. The fact that one is another edition changes nothing.
- Zorg
If they can somehow turn down the uber-ness of 4e characters to make Dark Sun 4e a viable game
Huh? I think actually that 4e characters are terrible weaklings compared to 3e ones: HP are without con (except for the con score once) and the best a wizard can do at level 30 is an 8d6 meteor swarm. That's not über. That's unter!
I do see many settings out there just not working with 4e (*coughmidnightcough*), but that's not because of the power level.
Call me Old School, but I want my meteor swarms be accompanied by rolling thunder - from my dice! :)
Edit: I don't really know just how much of Pathfinder will be making its way onto my table, though, in all honesty. My players seem a bit hesitant to make the transition, but I'll try and nudge them into it.
Tell them about Lillith's cookies. Or, if they're not the sweet-tooth types, about all the nice new options, the streamlined combat manoeuvres, the simplified skill system....
If that doesn't help, give me a call. We'll brainwash'em. >:)
So far, the first two adventure paths haven't really piqued my interest
You need to get your head examined ;-P
(Seriously: 40-foot tall GIANTS! Ancient lighthouses of DESTRUCTION. Dungeons of SIN - including LUST! Powerhungry BISEXUAL Villainesses WITH DRAGON POWERS! Blackjack!)
Same deal with me. BoNS is verbotten in my 3.5 game.
I'd erlaub it. Though right now, I have only core classes (and one Spherewalker), and for Curse, I'll probably ask them to stick to the core classes if possible (it would be a request,though, not a rule)
When deprived of food, water, or air, the rule of three applies. An adventurer can handle... three days without water... After that, such deprivation is a significant test of a PCs’ stamina. At the end of the time period the character must succeed on a DC 20 endurance check. Success buys the character another day... Then the check is repeated at DC 25, then at DC 30, and so on. When a character fails the check, he loses one healing surge and must continue to make checks. A character without healing surges who fails a check takes damage equal to his level...OK, so a 4e character can go 3 days without any water without the need for any sort of check or save. A 3e character can go 1 day, plus Con score in hours, then he has to make hourly Con checks, DC 10 + 1 per previous check. Admittedly, it's only 1d6 of nonlethal, but the damage begins to add up.
Sample 4e character - 4th level Dwarven Fighter, trained in Endurance. 20 Con. Endurance check of +12. 14 Healing Surges. 53 hp, by my math.
50% failure rate for a DC 20 Endurance check on the 4th day, costing him 1 healing surge. He still has thirteen more before he even begins to take damage, and he has 13 days' worth of survival in his HPs, which seems to give him a good chance of living not just three days without water, but THREE WEEKS.
Just because the rules are even there doesn't mean they're much of a threat. This is the kind of stuff that makes me unlikely to even play 4e Dark Sun, assuming it ever comes out, and WotC hasn't had the best track record the past couple of years for reliability.
/Anyway, enough of a tangent - this is about 4e and Pathfinder plans, not the rules gaps in 4e.
But if he fails a check doesn't he have to continue to make checks until he succeeds. He could lose multiple surges per day.
When deprived of food, water, or air, the rule of three applies.
4e is CRAP! Look at what they did to RULE-OF-THREE. In 3e, he was the son of a DEMON PRINCE! Had a cool tavern in SIGIL. Now he reminds people to EAT, DRINK, BREATHE?
Bullsh*%#! I'll go bomb the wizard building now. For Graz'zt!
But if he fails a check doesn't he have to continue to make checks until he succeeds. He could lose multiple surges per day.
Correct! If you fail a check you keep making checks until you have a success.
So, that dwarf could theoretically die on Day 4 if he consistently rolled poorly. Also, not every character is going to be trained in the Endurance skill. That DC 20 Endurance check could be a death sentence to your elf wizard.
The 4E rule works just fine.
|
|
Good luck finding a Cleric of Water, and one who's survived to reach 5th level.
And then even better luck finding the money to pay him casting the spell.
Uh, ok. Well hows about a PC cleric?
Below 5th you have the zero level create water and every ranger can forage.
D&D characters simply do not starve.
Below 5th you have the zero level create water and every ranger can forage.D&D characters simply do not starve.
Hehe. They do if they have no ranger or cleric! The 4E group I'm getting ready to DM looks like this:
- warforged fighter- tiefling warlock
- human fighter
- tiefling wizard
- human rogue
I'm going to suggest they stock up on trail rations. Except for the warforged, of course. ;-)