What about Pathfinder is Incompatible with 4E?


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

1 to 50 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

I've been wondering about this for a while: the Paizo staff has said before that one of the reasons they did not convert to 4E is because it would keep them from telling the kinds of stories they want to tell.

What exactly do they mean by that?


I think it means that they are not planning on going 4E with Pathfinder.

Nothing good will come from looking the issue more closely then that...but of course thats never stopped anyone, myself included, before.

Grand Lodge

Well simple examples would be there are no barbarians, bards, druid, monk, nor sorcerer.

There are no PC gnomes nor half-orcs.

No spells.

No time to master new rules for publication.

Horrible GSL making publishing under 4E all but impossible.

These are the ones I can see of the top of my head. The first three require the world they built to be remade.


Vic Werth and James Jacobs commented on the matter a bit in this thread on converting Curse of the Crimson Throne to 4e. I'll spoiler block my summary and response - some moderate spoilers for CotCT and Age of Worms await within.

Spoiler:

Jacobs states that in order to do CotCT in 4e, they'd have to design a bard class for Queen Ileosa and a barbarian class for the Shoanti tribesmen. I disagree with him on those specific points, actually - I think both Ileosa and the various Shoanti would be better served in 4th edition by creating them as NPCs with the appropriate selections of powers and skills, and targeted as an appropriate threat level. Queen Ileosa might be a solo leader with an inspiring aura keyed in to her performing abilities; Krozun might be an elite soldier with nasty rage-ey abilities that come on when he's bloodied. Neither requires an entire class to be designed, although they would require design work. And the important bit for Paizo is that they'd have to do all the design in a new and unfamiliar system.

I do think there are some real obstacles to presenting certain elements of Paizo's stories in fourth edition. For example, in The Champion's Belt in the Age of Worms, there's a gladiatorial contest which is rigged against the PCs. The party is brought out to fight, and then the fight is "unexpectedly delayed," letting limited duration potions and spells cast in preparation for the fight expire. That's a whole design vocabulary that doesn't exist in 4th edition D&D. 4e buff spells are short duration, and potions beyond healing don't really exist yet; there's no real concept of pre-buffing. These sort of changes in assumptions mean that a good deal of the design experience of Paizo and their contributers is no longer applicable.

I disagree with the specific formulation "We can't tell the kind of stories we want to tell using Fourth Edition," I agree with the broad point that it would require a lot of design work in an unfamiliar system, and a whole lot of learning onstage on the part of the Paizo crew. And that's setting aside the issue of the GSL.

Krome: going 4e doesn't mean there are no barbarians / sorcerers / bards / gnomes etc. in the world; it does mean, for now, that it is difficult-to-impossible for player characters to be those things. That certainly makes for a huge pain in the ass for Paizo. It wouldn't have required remaking Golarion, but it would have meant having to go back and revisit a bunch of design decisions they've already made once.


Fourth edition is gamist. It is a game first, and a story telling vehicle second. Many of the changes to the lore and the core are changes that invalidate what many of us grew up playing. Fourth edition is also an attempt to distinguish D&D from the cultural milieux of western fantasy. Things in fourth edition are easier to market as an IP for digital products. In a nutshell, fourth edition is geared to tell very different stories, and story takes a back seat to rules.

Pathfinder is a continuation of the pulp and fantasy traditions that the game grew from. It is a story telling vehicle, with rules that still interfere with that function, but are open and inclusive enough to let individuals engineer the game as they see fit, and tell the stories they want to tell.

Some refer to the difference as gamist vs. simulationist, although both games contain both characteristics.

So here is what is incompatible:

4E:
Rules make the world hard to visualise as a breathing, living entity.
The game worlds are made of small points of light, unaware of a larger context, which makes the game easier to pick up.
Creatures and characters follow different rules, and monsters statistics are solely there to illustrate the three things it can do in combat. There is no ecology, or need for one.
Characters have limits on them that exist solely as a mechanical handicap for game balance, viz. only a second tier, level 10+ character can use a ring.
4E limits choice to help new players learn the game. It is an attempt to recapture the success of the old red box days, when anyone could learn to play the game in an afternoon or so.
4E incorporates elements that make it more like a computer game, and less of a literary endeavor.

Pathfinder:
Pathfinder is developed to make widely divergent playstyles possible on one world, (and some planets) Realism is a focus, and the game is made for people who view story as primary, and rules as a malleable vehicle to help resolve arguments.
Golarion is a world that is linked together by trade, where there are civilisations with history, and trade routes. It is not as easy for beginners to play, because they need to do some reading up on the wider context.
Creatures are made in such a way that their capabilities outside combat can be used to make more compelling adventures. The fact that monsters can be changed with the same rules as characters, makes them less of an unknown quantity.
Characters have limits on what they can accomplish, but not on what they can be, own or do in a day, except for wizards and other spell casters, who are still able to do things that have no clear combat functions. There is an attempt to rationalise character abilities that seems lacking in 4E.
The barrier to entry is higher in Pathfinder. There is a game world to learn about, and a lot of possibilities and choices. It takes a long time to learn all that is open to you, whereas a 4E character chooses from a smaller set of options.
Pathfinder is literary in outlook, and strives for plausibility and depth. Monsters are placed with an ecology in mind, and the stories can incorporate ideas from a wider, open source mythos. It is also freer and less concerned with reinventing the game for commercial purposes.

This is how I see it. Anyone who has issues with what I just wrote, and feels aggrieved or wronged by my opinions, can email me at talhoyle@yahoo.com. I make no ad-hominem attacks here, and do not disparage or insult those who prefer fourth edition. This is the differences as I see them, and others may see things differently. They are free to write their take below, but I ask them not to attack or insult me. All views in this post are those of Taliesin Hoyle, and are not representative of Paizo.


Taliesin Hoyle wrote:


4E:
Rules make the world hard to visualise as a breathing, living entity.
The game worlds are made of small points of light, unaware of a larger context, which makes the game easier to pick up.

This is the core setting but its not particularly required. Wait for 4E Eberron to come out 'cause it won't be points of light. It'll be a world hooked together by fleets of airships and lightning rail lines that make travel to most civilized areas of the globe a matter of purchasing a ticket. It'll be a world were outposts use 'talking stones' like cell phones to communicate instantly with each other. In short it will be the near opposite of points of light - and it will still be 4E.

Taliesin Hoyle wrote:


Characters have limits on them that exist solely as a mechanical handicap for game balance, viz. only a second tier, level 10+ character can use a ring.

anyone can use a ring but their all very powerful magic items. You'd need to be 10th level to afford a ring. However should your DM decide to throw play balance to the wind and drop a ring in his 1st level dungeon the PCs could use or sell it.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Hexmage1077 wrote:


I've been wondering about this for a while: the Paizo staff has said before that one of the reasons they did not convert to 4E is because it would keep them from telling the kinds of stories they want to tell.

What exactly do they mean by that?

As mentioned above, I've posted here and there before on the topic. But the main problem is that there are countless changes to the flavor of the game hardwired into the rules themselves that, were we to do a 4th Edition Golarion, we'd either have to rewrite the rules anyway, or we'd have to rewrite Golarion, which isn't an attractive option given we're already a year and a half into building the world.

Also, since Golarion was built using the entire gamut of components from the game as it's stood over the past several decades (we've got druids and bards and demonic succubi and no dragonborn and old-school tieflings and lots of spells and gnome PCs and so on and so on), switching to 4E would have forced us to wait to use entire swaths of our world. Second Darkness wouldn't have worked in 4E because there are no erinyes devils or bards, both of which are KEY to the main villian. And had 4th edition dropped drow (they didn't, but we had no way to know at the time), we would have been stuck with an AP we couldn't use at all with Second Darkness (since we HAD to start working on it before we knew much about 4th edition anyway).

Now, the second point above will, in theory, go away as the years roll by and WotC eventually reintroduces the missing elements of the game back into 4th, but out of the gate where we are right now, 4th edition is simply an incomplete game for the purposes of doing adventures set in Golarion.

The first point above isn't something that waiting will solve.

Sticking with 3rd edition, quite simply, lets us keep telling stories set in the Golarion we want to tell stories about.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Taliesin Hoyle wrote:
said lots of stuff

Most of what Taliesin wrote is pretty spot on too, and a nicely more detailed view of the problems we would have faced if we'd gone with 4th edition.

(Personally, that 4th edition is more gamist and less of a simulation type game is the primary reason I prefer 3rd edition.)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Wait for 4E Eberron to come out 'cause it won't be points of light. It'll be a world hooked together by fleets of airships and lightning rail lines that make travel to most civilized areas of the globe a matter of purchasing a ticket. It'll be a world were outposts use 'talking stones' like cell phones to communicate instantly with each other. In short it will be the near opposite of points of light - and it will still be 4E.

We're a long way off from seeing Eberron 4E, and thus a long way off to see if the 4E version of Eberron is close enough to 3E to please fans of the setting, of course.

The frustrating thing for me, of course, is that if they CAN do a 4E Eberron without doing a huge world reset... that just sort of makes the "blowing up the Forgotten Realms" stunt all the more aggravating and disappointing to me.


Thanks for the clear answer!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:


The frustrating thing for me, of course, is that if they CAN do a 4E Eberron without doing a huge world reset... that just sort of makes the "blowing up the Forgotten Realms" stunt all the more aggravating and disappointing to me.

And From Posts I have seen... that is what is frustrating many Forgotten Realms fans to..

Contributor

James Jacobs wrote:
Second Darkness wouldn't have worked in 4E because there are no erinyes devils or bards, both of which are KEY to the main villain.

Curse of the Crimson Throne.


Ironically, I find it much easier to convert 1e/2e adventures to 4E than the equivalent 3.x.

As one person mentioned, "buffs" don't really exist in the 4E system per se but the same thing applies to 1e/2e.

Similarly, 3.x seems to assume roughly many pcs versus fewer monsters/NPCs which isn't the same in 4E (default in 4E is one pc versus one NPC) but again, this much more closely resembles 1e/2e basic combat assumption.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Second Darkness wouldn't have worked in 4E because there are no erinyes devils or bards, both of which are KEY to the main villian.

Not to mention that the GSL doesn't allow Drow.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

James Jacobs wrote:
And had 4th edition dropped drow (they didn't, but we had no way to know at the time), we would have been stuck with an AP we couldn't use at all with Second Darkness (since we HAD to start working on it before we knew much about 4th edition anyway).

They might not have dropped drow, but they did close them in the GSL - so the path would have been dead in the water as a GSL product.

Grand Lodge

...Krome: going 4e doesn't mean there are no barbarians / sorcerers / bards / gnomes etc. in the world; it does mean, for now, that it is difficult-to-impossible for player characters to be those things. That certainly makes for a huge pain in the ass for Paizo. It wouldn't have required remaking Golarion, but it would have meant having to go back and revisit a bunch of design decisions they've already made once.[/QUOTE wrote:

Well, there are no barbarians, druids, bards, sorcerers in the PHB, so I would have to guess they don't exist in the world until they magically appear due to a new supplement. Most players have the PHB and not the MM so most players can no longer play a gnome nor a half-orc.

So, for at least a year until PHB2 or later for PHB 10 appears those things do not exist.

Should Paizo have created classes and such for them it would likely be very short lived anyway. For example, if Paizo made barbarians, and then barbarians appear in the PHB2 (which I think they are supposed to), then Paizo would have to pulp all of their stock when PHB2 came out.

In fact anything at all that Paizo or anyone else, ever creates for 4E, the publisher has to hope and pray that WOTC does later use that class name, or spell name or whatever, because then they have to destroy their stock.

That makes telling a story very difficult when you can't create anything new for they story.

And by not having, for example, barbarians, Paizo would have had to rewrite descriptions for Golarion for most of the northern barbaric countries. In fact Paizo could never tell any Conan-like stories at all, nor even have a place set aside for it.

And imagine if Paizo had started the preproduction work on Second Darkness using Drow as the bad guys, just to find out they have to either rewrite the story completely, or scrap it and the money invested was a complete loss.

It makes no business sense at all to support 4E. Even more than story telling aspects, supporting 4E is a dumb idea.


James Jacobs wrote:
The frustrating thing for me, of course, is that if they CAN do a 4E Eberron without doing a huge world reset... that just sort of makes the "blowing up the Forgotten Realms" stunt all the more aggravating and disappointing to me.

I think an important reason is, that many of us allready have all the infos about the realms. Twice!

To buy it a third time, they have to show us something new.

My main problem is the lack of learning skills (17 skills and no skill points is a lack of skills to me). And also, when you read the rules, it totaly seperates you from the things they are meant to represent. Not a fault of the book, put the presentation greatly encourages you to see actions as applications of the rules, not rules as a way to represent the actions happening in the world.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Neithan wrote:


Not a fault of the book, put the presentation greatly encourages you to see actions as applications of the rules, not rules as a way to represent the actions happening in the world.

I have been reading the 4e book... and something has been bugging me I could not put my finger to... you just did!!!

Thanks... Now I understand why the book was putting me off...


Krome wrote:

Well simple examples would be there are no barbarians, bards, druid, monk, nor sorcerer.

There are no PC gnomes nor half-orcs.

No spells.

No time to master new rules for publication.

Horrible GSL making publishing under 4E all but impossible.

These are the ones I can see of the top of my head. The first three require the world they built to be remade.

Gnomes are playable out of back of the the Monster Manual. Have one in our group, works just fine.

As for the GSL, Goodman Games doesn't seem to be having trouble producing awesome 4E adventures. I've preordered all the DCC's that are available for preorder so far and am excited to be able to run them for my group.

Liberty's Edge

Another one of the biggest problems is (I believe) the GSL is terminable. So 6 years from now if/when 5th Edition is hitting the shelves, and that sucks even worse, there'd be no going back for Paizo they'd have to jump onto the 5th edition bandwagon. Or worse, 5E could have NO OGL/GSL type thing.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Dragnmoon wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


The frustrating thing for me, of course, is that if they CAN do a 4E Eberron without doing a huge world reset... that just sort of makes the "blowing up the Forgotten Realms" stunt all the more aggravating and disappointing to me.
And From Posts I have seen... that is what is frustrating many Forgotten Realms fans to..

Because the 4e's take on the shadow weave basically comes down to "this is how it's always worked" even if it doesn't work like that in 3e, and thus why it survived spell plague.

By that same logic, magic can be totally changed, and this the "this is how it's always worked" logic still applies and Mystra survives and spell plague never happens.

How do you explain power sources in the Realm? Simple the weave is the conduit to raw magic in the Realms right? So for 4e, while "Powers Sources" might be where the class gets it's power form, there's no reason those sources of power can't be powered by the weave.


Taliesin Hoyle wrote:

4E:

Rules make the world hard to visualise as a breathing, living entity.
The game worlds are made of small points of light, unaware of a larger context, which makes the game easier to pick up.
Creatures and characters follow different rules, and monsters statistics are solely there to illustrate the three things it can do in combat. There is no ecology, or need for one.
Characters have limits on them that exist solely as a mechanical handicap for game balance, viz. only a second tier, level 10+ character can use a ring.
4E limits choice to help new players learn the game. It is an attempt to recapture the success of the old red box days, when anyone could learn to play the game in an afternoon or so.
4E incorporates elements that make it more like a computer game, and less of a literary endeavor.

Pathfinder:
Pathfinder is developed to make widely divergent playstyles possible on one world, (and some planets) Realism is a focus, and the game is made for people who view story as primary, and rules as a malleable vehicle to help resolve arguments.
Golarion is a world that is linked together...

And my feelings also...


It's clear that Wizards shares Paizo's sentiments, else Faerun would not have had to undergo such a drastic revision to accommodate 4th Edition. D&D for Dummies (4th Edition) states things more clearly: all classes have "magic" in 4e and that's just not going to be true of Golarion or any other traditional D&D setting. The new implied setting of D&D is most certainly hardwired into the rules.


Sorry for derailing the thread, I'm killing my post so I don't drag anything further off topic. Sorry everyone.


The whole reason for separating the two into the Player's guide and Campaign guide WAS because of what you disliked KnightErrant.

Dark Archive

KnightErrantJR wrote:
Sorry for derailing the thread, I'm killing my post so I don't drag anything further off topic. Sorry everyone.

I empathized completely with your original post. I will follow your lead and refrain from commenting more than that so as not to derail the thread. I just wanted to let you know you weren't alone here in how you feel about those things.

Liberty's Edge

I increasingly dislike the "gamist" and "simulationist" distinction. Upon any reasonable examination it is quickly shown to be hollow, and with no consistency. There are strong gamist elements in 3.5 and any derivatives, and strong simulationist elements in 4E, despite claims on both sides otherwise. I would hope Paizo not adopt this as a talking point for Golarion and the PFRPG.

Overall, I think the differences are more perception and execution and legal than rules based.
I am sure Paizo could not do anywhere near what they want to do under the GSL. That should be enough of a deal killer right there.
Beyond that there is just a combination of how 4E plays and how 4E is perceived by the audience. Most of the "flaws" said of 4E are, I believe, more due to the marketing and portrayal by WotC, and less intrinsic in the rules. While that means they could be worked around, it does not change the more active flaws in the rules, the biggest to me being the utterly static combat potential across 30 levels. As with the skill challenges before rewriting, I believe that has strong negative probability consequences for the PCs, 1 round Orcus kills notwithstanding.

Dark Archive

The biggest problem for me would be the devils and demons. I know a lot of us take our abyss quite seriously! Now we have daemons too!!! I'm so happy that some people still respect the nine layers :)


Samuel Weiss wrote:
...I believe that has strong negative probability consequences for the PCs, 1 round Orcus kills notwithstanding.

The one round Orcus kill has been erratta'd out of existence. Cascade of Blows now does a max of 5 hits and whether or not you choose to use rerolls.

I general here I agree with you however. 4E characters are generally weaker then 3.5 characters, especially PRPG characters, they are significantly poorer and they advance in levels slower. It'd take a pretty significant reimagining of Pathfinder to take into account weaker characters with less disposable income and magic items that go up levels at a slower rate. That said its by no means impossible - in fact I get the impression that the PRPG rules will be adding variants that would allow for less magic and slower advancement.

I sort of agree with you in the lethality department. In some ways 4E characters are likely to be more in danger then 3.5 ones because 3.5 characters will hoard powerful, generally charged, magic in case of emergency. So when the crap hits the fan they can pull out all the stops and really lay the smack down. They just used up a fortune in irreplaceable (for their level) magic items but it'll probably save their lives. 4E characters mostly can't do that because they have few magic items and even fewer 'charged' items since charged items are now quite rare outside of potions. They just don't normally have reasonable access to stuff that will get them out of these kinds of tight jams so if the DM is on a hot streak they are in big trouble.

That said 3.5 characters can die at the drop of a hat. I pasted my Sorcerer Player on Monday with a Destruction Spell after first dropping her to 0 strength with Blasphemy. In my experience if the PCs see the danger they generally avoid it but its pretty easy to kill them before they ever get a chance to react. On the most basic level targeting save or die effects at the class that has the weakest saving throw versus that save or die effect is often a pretty effective tactic. Especially if you can manage to do this on round one of an ambush.

Liberty's Edge

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
The one round Orcus kill has been erratta'd out of existence. Cascade of Blows now does a max of 5 hits and whether or not you choose to use rerolls.

That was meant as a cynical sideswipe. I have had near similar silliness in 3.5 without errata to make it impossible, and using relatively basic characters.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
I general here I agree with you however. 4E characters are generally weaker then 3.5 characters, especially PRPG characters, they are significantly poorer and they advance in levels slower. It'd take a pretty significant reimagining of Pathfinder to take into account weaker characters with less disposable income and magic items that go up levels at a slower rate. That said its by no means impossible - in fact I get the impression that the PRPG rules will be adding variants that would allow for less magic and slower advancement.

That is one of the things I disagree about.

I do not believe the advancement is that hardwired in as to preclude the same kind of adventuring and rate of advancement.
I do not think the general magic item availability is a problem, except for consumables as you note later.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
I sort of agree with you in the lethality department. In some ways 4E characters are likely to be more in danger then 3.5 ones because 3.5 characters will hoard powerful, generally charged, magic in case of emergency. So when the crap hits the fan they can pull out all the stops and really lay the smack down. They just used up a fortune in irreplaceable (for their level) magic items but it'll probably save their lives. 4E characters mostly can't do that because they have few magic items and even fewer 'charged' items since charged items are now quite rare outside of potions. They just don't normally have reasonable access to stuff that will get them out of these kinds of tight jams so if the DM is on a hot streak they are in big trouble.

THis is one of the few hardwired elements that would be an issue. I am not sure if the "no redefing terms" rule of the GSL would cover allowing extra uses of magic item daily powers or not. If so, then this would put a major crimp on things.

Likewise a problem would be having to design the dozens of powers that do not exist, such as raising undead. I think that would be more of an issue than trying to create a barbarian or bard class.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
That said 3.5 characters can die at the drop of a hat. I pasted my Sorcerer Player on Monday with a Destruction Spell after first dropping her to 0 strength with Blasphemy. In my experience if the PCs see the danger they generally avoid it but its pretty easy to kill them before they ever get a chance to react. On the most basic level targeting save or die effects at the class that has the weakest saving throw versus that save or die effect is often a pretty effective tactic. Especially if you can manage to do this on round one of an ambush.

To a degree, yes. Then again you can stack a ton of protections against this, and perhaps Pathfinder will deal with some of the worst cases.

For 4E I see it coming from another direction, as exemplified in the podcast "high" level playtest. In that the PCs were struggling to do enough damage to kill even one creature before being worn down to nothing. I think that as with the skill challenges, the same probability curve against the players will be active in such battles. To a great extent it is going to be the players needing 500 successes before the monsters get 800 successes, with the players having to roll against a higher target when monsters above their level appear in play.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
I general here I agree with you however. 4E characters are generally weaker then 3.5 characters, especially PRPG characters, they are significantly poorer and they advance in levels slower. It'd take a pretty significant reimagining of Pathfinder to take into account weaker characters with less disposable income and magic items that go up levels at a slower rate. That said its by no means impossible - in fact I get the impression that the PRPG rules will be adding variants that would allow for less magic and slower advancement.

4e characters are expected to advance 1 level every 10 encounters. 3.x 1 every 14. How the heck do 4e characters advance slower than 3e?

As for 4e being weaker, I absolutely disagree with you. My players did 4 encounters back to back against appropriate xp encounters without a break (extended rest). There's no way they could have done this in 3.x. At high levels, with wizards, sorcerers and druids then I can see your point, but that disparity was one of the things 4e was intended to resolve.

All that said, I fully intend to pick up the Golarion campaign guide and steal wholesale or in part from it for my 4e campaigns, and I'm fairly sure it shouldn't take that much development myself to do so. Some, absolutely, but then tinkering with a setting is one of the fun 'lonely' activities of the hobby.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

CPEvilref wrote:
As for 4e being weaker, I absolutely disagree with you. My players did 4 encounters back to back against appropriate xp encounters without a break (extended rest). There's no way they could have done this in 3.x. At high levels, with wizards, sorcerers and druids then I can see your point, but that disparity was one of the things 4e was intended to resolve.

I actually disagree with you here. In the 3.5 Savage Tide campaign I'm running, the party quite frequently takes on four or more encounters without taking a break. In fact, just yesterday we did several encounters in "Wells of Darkness" without the PCs taking a rest, and one of those encounters was a bit above their level even (the PCs engaged in the encounter but retreated to regroup and heal, but not to rest for 8 hours). I don't want to do any spoilers, but rest assured the party of four did indeed tackle multiple encounters without stopping to rest. It's all the style of play; you certainly CAN blow all of your powers in one encounter, but if the GM runs the game in a way that the PCs know that they can't just stop and rest after every encounter (which is what I do), the PCs don't have to do this. They utilize their abilities wisely, rely on scrolls and wands and potions, and help each other out. The 15-minute day has never been a problem in this campaign as a result; it's a false complaint, as far as I know, to level against 3rd edition.

Contributor

If Pathfinder were to go 4E, it would lose a lot of subscribers who don't enjoy the way 4E works. After attending the con yesterday, it's clear to me that it's more than just the vocal minority who aren't happy with 4th edition and won't be playing it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Darrin Drader wrote:
If Pathfinder were to go 4E, it would lose a lot of subscribers who don't enjoy the way 4E works. After attending the con yesterday, it's clear to me that it's more than just the vocal minority who aren't happy with 4th edition and won't be playing it.

What Convention?


James Jacobs wrote:


I actually disagree with you here. In the 3.5 Savage Tide campaign I'm running, the party quite frequently takes on four or more encounters without taking a break.

I should have clarified, this was at 1st level.

I think low-level 4e characters can handle more encounters, mid-level maybe a little more, and high level is a flip of the coin depending on the 3e party's number of casters and magical items. But it's also a player decision based on how they use their dailys (akin to casters blowing their big spells) and how comfortable they are continuing on without them.

I also don't agree with the idea that 3e forces the 15 minute work day as it didn't happen in my games either. However obviously it did happen in some campaigns so whether that's a rules or a player thing is open to question.


Darrin Drader wrote:
If Pathfinder were to go 4E, it would lose a lot of subscribers who don't enjoy the way 4E works. After attending the con yesterday, it's clear to me that it's more than just the vocal minority who aren't happy with 4th edition and won't be playing it.

I think you're right, and for the same reason as if Pathfinder converted to a Fantasy Hero magazine, or a Shadowrun magazine, or a...

My personal ideal would be an additional line from Paizo for 4e, but that's unlikely to happen (though Paizo freelancers can of course work on 4e books, and more power to them if they can get the work).

Above that, however, I think it would be good to hilight how convertable a Paizo module/encounter/setting is to 4e rather than suggest it's solely usable by 3.x/Pathfinder. There might have been a lot of active discouragement in different venues about the difficulty of converting from 3e to 4e but it's certainly not impossible. Classic Monsters revisited directly influenced a number of the monster races of my campaign, and by extension regions of the campaign as well.


CPEvilref wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
I general here I agree with you however. 4E characters are generally weaker then 3.5 characters, especially PRPG characters, they are significantly poorer and they advance in levels slower. It'd take a pretty significant reimagining of Pathfinder to take into account weaker characters with less disposable income and magic items that go up levels at a slower rate. That said its by no means impossible - in fact I get the impression that the PRPG rules will be adding variants that would allow for less magic and slower advancement.

4e characters are expected to advance 1 level every 10 encounters. 3.x 1 every 14. How the heck do 4e characters advance slower than 3e?

I agree thats what the book says but go and count how many separate encounters there are in Whispering Cairn. Your not going to find 26-27 separate encounters - I've not actually counted but I suspect that a fairly good guess is there are 12 encounters in that adventure and the PCs will be 3rd level at the end of everything. In other words what we are actually seeing in terms of going up levels in 3.5 is that its about 6 encounters a level. On the other hand I'm finding that WotCs statements of 10 encounters to level might be slightly conservative because whats being found in conversions of Whispering Cairn is that the PCs are not even 2nd when they finish off the last encounter.

The real reason we see this is that 3.5 characters are capable of beating encounters that are much higher then their level would suggest and if you take down a CR 8 creature with a 3rd or 4th level party you earn buckets of XP. In 4E you don't gain bonus Xp for beating higher level monsters - its a static system so the higher level monster is worth more but its not a variable number. This is most extreme in the case of an encounter where the PCs all fight a single very powerful enemy. A real staple of Paizo adventures. in 3.5 if you gang up on a single foe the single foe is a huge disadvantage. This means that a Paizo 3.x adventure often sees the players take down a single creature that might be 4 or even 5 levels higher then they are - and in turn they earn phenominal amounts of XP.

Lets take a look at a really hard Solo in 4E. I participated in this fight myself with 4 other players (5 players total). 1st level characters take on a Young White Dragon. Thats a level 3 Brute Solo. Now this was an absolutly desperate fight we just barely won. Healing totally tapped several players down - we had hoarded action points and all our daily's for this one fight - we almost could have not been more prepped and it was knife edge close. If the DM had just been a little luckier we would have lost. Total XP from this encounter, well a Young White Dragon is worth 750 XP - so we all got 150 XP from the fight.

CPEvilref wrote:


As for 4e being weaker, I absolutely disagree with you. My players did 4 encounters back to back against appropriate xp encounters without a break (extended rest). There's no way they could have done this in 3.x. At high levels, with wizards, sorcerers and druids then I can see your point, but that disparity was one of the things 4e was intended to resolve.
I'm more talking about higher levels and the meta game issues. Basically speaking the characters are somewhat on par until around 11th and then what 3.5 characters can do becomes clearly much more potent then what 4E characters can do. I agree that there are aspects of 4E that allow one to go through many encounters. Especially the continued earning of action points. In general an action point is probably more potent then a daily - being able to move again is just one of the most powerful things one can do in the game. Also once the Rings come into play they actually get better every time you earn a mile stone so your definitly driven to complete many encounters.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

James Jacobs wrote:
The 15-minute ... is a false complaint, as far as I know, to level against 3rd edition.

Thank you. I'm really sick of hearing about it. And from what I've seen, its still true. Once you're out of healing surges, once you're out of your daily powers and only left with your encounter/at will powers, why not rest and get it all back? They just changed it from A to B, but the model is still there.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
On the other hand I'm finding that WotCs statements of 10 encounters to level might be slightly conservative

Actually it's a liberal number. PCs in 4e can take on encounters higher than their level relatively easily. Add in Minor and Major Quest XP, and PCs advance pretty fast. After 6 encounters my first run of 4e, the characters got to 800 XP-- all without taking an extended rest. (You need 1000 XP to hit second level). Leveling is VERY fast in 4e.

Quote:
The real reason we see this is that 3.5 characters are capable of beating encounters that are much higher then their level

This has not been my experience with 3.5 at all. Then again I haven't played with groups consisting primarily of clerics, wizards, and druids, which I hear are uber-pwnage groups in 3.5 (a bad thing, imho).

Quote:
would suggest and if you take down a CR 8 creature with a 3rd or 4th level party you earn buckets of XP. In 4E you don't gain bonus Xp for beating higher level monsters - its a static system so the higher level monster is worth more but its not a variable number.

But the XP worth is actually appropriate to the challenge. 2nd level monsters are harder than 1st level monsters, but not doubly so. This actually makes it far easier to build encounters.

Quote:
This is most extreme in the case of an encounter where the PCs all fight a single very powerful enemy. A real staple of Paizo adventures. in 3.5 if you gang up on a single foe the single foe is a huge...

And? You can do this in 4E as well. Solo monsters or a monster of much higher level than the PCs. (Or, even, a Solo monster of higher level than the PCs.)


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The 15-minute ... is a false complaint, as far as I know, to level against 3rd edition.
Thank you. I'm really sick of hearing about it. And from what I've seen, its still true. Once you're out of healing surges, once you're out of your daily powers and only left with your encounter/at will powers, why not rest and get it all back? They just changed it from A to B, but the model is still there.

You'll definitly stop once your out of health. Thats when it really is time to call it a day. Otherwise you'd generally be adverse to stopping because you'd be giving up any earned action points.

I'd say on average the real reason is more in perception of power and a cost benefit analysis of the dangers of stopping.

In 3.5 if the spell casters are using their most powerful spells at all heavily then its time to stop. No player wants to walk into the next encounter with the Clerics and Mages short on their top tier spells. Most of the time its just not optimal play to be moving around with your clerics and mages not in top form. Your asking to get a party member killed in this circumstance. From a cost-benefit analysis there is a very strong incentive to call it a day and the DM is going to have to make it clear that the penalties for this behaviour are very significant.

In 4E your daily is pretty good - but its not twice as good as an encounter power. In fact at low levels they work something like 1d8+4 for an at will, 2d8+4 and something good like knocking an enemy prone and 3d8+4 and something good like knocking an enemy prone. In essence your daily is basically an encounter power that does maybe another 5 hps damage. Thats nice and all but its nothing to really write home about.

If the DMs adventure says something like:

"The orcs will be on alert if they have already been attacked and two sleeping Orcs will be up and armed".

Then if you do a quick analysis you should quickly come to realize that having the daily's is not powerful enough to make up for having to actually fight an extra 2 Orcs - and you also just lost any extra action points you had so far earned. Essentially the cost benefit analysis of leaving is - if the DMs adventure is even going to get just a little bit harder if the enemies are prepared for us after we leave and come back then we are making a sub optimal choice to leave.


squarecircle wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
On the other hand I'm finding that WotCs statements of 10 encounters to level might be slightly conservative

Actually it's a liberal number. PCs in 4e can take on encounters higher than their level relatively easily. Add in Minor and Major Quest XP, and PCs advance pretty fast. After 6 encounters my first run of 4e, the characters got to 800 XP-- all without taking an extended rest. (You need 1000 XP to hit second level). Leveling is VERY fast in 4e.

Well your players still need to kill a white dragon and do something else before they make 2nd.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
The real reason we see this is that 3.5 characters are capable of beating encounters that are much higher then their level
squarecircle wrote:
This has not been my experience with 3.5 at all. Then again I haven't played with groups consisting primarily of clerics, wizards, and druids, which I hear are uber-pwnage groups in 3.5 (a bad thing, imho).

I'll emphasize that I am talking about about Paizo adventures here. I'd say that taking down encounters with pretty impressive ELs is standard fair in a Paizo adventure.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
would suggest and if you take down a CR 8 creature with a 3rd or 4th level party you earn buckets of XP. In 4E you don't gain bonus Xp for beating higher level monsters - its a static system so the higher level monster is worth more but its not a variable number.
squarecircle wrote:
But the XP worth is actually appropriate to the challenge. 2nd level monsters are harder than 1st level monsters, but not doubly so. This actually makes it far easier to build encounters.

I am not arguing that it is 'appropreate' or not 'appropreate'. I am simply stating that an encounter type that is a staple of Paizo adventure - the pile on against the BBEG is worth a lot of XP in 3.5 and not worth very much at all for 4E characters.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
This is most extreme in the case of an encounter where the PCs all fight a single very powerful enemy. A real staple of Paizo adventures. in 3.5 if you gang up on a single foe the single foe is a huge...
squarecircle wrote:
And? You can do this in 4E as well. Solo monsters or a monster of much higher level than the PCs. (Or, even, a Solo monster of higher level than the PCs.)

You can do it in both but the difference in XP is night and day. If I throw five level 4 PCs versus a single CR 8 encounter in 3.5 each PC just earned them selves 960 XP.

If I throw five level 4 PCs versus a Level 8 Solo I kill half the players - but assuming I fudge like a mad then they just earned themselves 350 XP. Your getting almost 3 times as much XP for this encounter in 3.5 as you are in 4E.

I'm saying that this kind of an encounter is just not that uncommon in a Pazio adventure. In 4E I'm much less likely to even try it - a Solo a lot of levels above the PCs is way more dangerous in 4E, they are just not really vulnerable to pile ons, in fact their made to be able to operate in that sort of environment. However even if I did try it my players would not earn anything close to the same XP. Essentially those making the conversions of Paizo adventures are quickly having to come to grips with the fact that you just don't earn as much XP in 4E as you do in 3.5.


Darrin Drader wrote:
If Pathfinder were to go 4E, it would lose a lot of subscribers who don't enjoy the way 4E works. After attending the con yesterday, it's clear to me that it's more than just the vocal minority who aren't happy with 4th edition and won't be playing it.

It would also gain a (very likely larger) set of new subscribers who DO like the way 4th Edition works and are interested in what Paizo can bring to the game.

I would argue that the people attending RPG conventions tend towards the gaming-elitist. I have heard nothing but wonderful things from my players and the many others in my area. The gaming community, and the hobby in general, is not served well by maintaining the "change-is-bad-and-my-game-is-ruined" attitude that seems to be prevalent among a certain crowd of gamers.

Thankfully, as with the release of 3rd Edition, gamers do tend to come around once the knee-jerk reactions subside.


The cool thing about Paizo (and I'm not one of the regular fanboys) is, that they are one of those few smaller companies who do what they do, burcause they really like it, not because they want to get rich by it.
If they think it's more fun to create 3rd Ed. stuff, they can do it, even if it does not bring the most money for them.
Life isn't all about making as much money as posible.

As one of them said at one time: If they would do it for the money alone, they wouldn't make games but invest in oil companies. ;)


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


I'll emphasize that I am talking about about Paizo adventures here. I'd say that taking down encounters with pretty impressive ELs is standard fair in a Paizo adventure.

Fair enough. I haven't played Paizo adventures (yet), as I've said in another thread I've only recently heard about Paizo. I was actually looking for Pathfinder as I was very interested in it based on what I heard on the WotC boards.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

You can do it in both but the difference in XP is night and day. If I throw five level 4 PCs versus a single CR 8 encounter in 3.5 each PC just earned them selves 960 XP.

If I throw five level 4 PCs versus a Level 8 Solo I kill half the players - but assuming I fudge like a mad then they just earned themselves 350 XP. Your getting almost 3 times as much XP for this encounter in 3.5 as you are in 4E.

I'm saying that this kind of an encounter is just not that uncommon in a Pazio adventure. In 4E I'm much less likely to even try it - a Solo a lot of levels above the PCs is way more dangerous in 4E, they are just not really vulnerable to pile ons, in fact their made to be able to operate in that sort of environment. However even if I did try it my players would not earn anything close to the same XP. Essentially those making the conversions of Paizo adventures are quickly having to come to grips with the fact that you just don't earn as much XP in 4E as you do in 3.5.

Perhaps, but I don't know if that's a bad thing. I think XP is a lot more balanced out now and makes a lot more sense. Keep in mind also that 350 XP means more in 4e than it did in 3e.

Also remember that the mechanic for monster power is entirely different now. Though I don't think a level 8 solo would be suitable for level 4 characters, I don't think it would necessarily TPK them. The DMG suggests that a level 7 solo would be an appropriate "difficult" encounter for a group of 5 level 4 characters.

In general though, I do think leveling is much faster in 4e. In my own example, the characters were really close to leveling up after a single adventure that had no extended rest! Only two more encounters of their level or one encounter their level +4 would do it. Sounds tough to do in a single encounter but it's only a party of 2 characters, which means a couple elites their level would do it. xD


James Jacobs wrote:
Taliesin Hoyle wrote:
said lots of stuff

Most of what Taliesin wrote is pretty spot on too, and a nicely more detailed view of the problems we would have faced if we'd gone with 4th edition.

(Personally, that 4th edition is more gamist and less of a simulation type game is the primary reason I prefer 3rd edition.)

Actually, what Taliesin wrote is far from spot on and is indicative of the ridiculous misconceptions about 4E that are pervasive here.

• The rules do not "make the world harder to visualize as a breathing, living entity". Neithan stated this perfectly. "Not a fault of the book, put the presentation greatly encourages you to see actions as applications of the rules, not rules as a way to represent the actions happening in the world." This is true, and a likely reason that so many people see 4E as "gamist" and unfriendly to storytelling. I assure you that's not the case. I think 4E actually makes storytelling easier, because it allows me to focus my efforts on the story and not on the rules. The core 4E books do exactly what any RPG rules ought to. The take care of the math and accounting for you, so that you can focus your energy on the story. The rules have been simplified to minimize interruptions and keep the attention where it ought to be - on the PCs and they're interactions with the game world. For all that people keep calling 4E gamist, I notice myself consulting rulebooks during the game a lot less now than I did with 3E.
• The game worlds are whatever you want them to be. The default world is Points of Light. That has nothing to do with the rules themselves, and nothing says every world has to be that way.
• There is no monster ecology because there shouldn't be. I need the rules and mathematics for the monsters. The ecology and personality is the part I come up with myself.
• 4E characters have no more "mechanical handicaps" than in any other edition.
• 4E does not limit choice. In fact, it manages to allow more choices over a character's career than any other edition, yet it's simpler and easier at the same time. That's quite a feat of game design.
The real problem with 4E is that they did such a good job of simplifying and streamlining the rules, that the rules are completely divorced from the flavor. All of the classes are balanced in such a way that they feel different than their predecessors. The lines between classes have been blurred to the point that good role-playing is more important than ever to differentiate one character from the next. A player can no longer describe a character as a "rogue" and leave it at that. Skill, feat, and power choices are the difference between classes, not combat ability vs. skill points. The change is just too uncomfortable and unfamiliar to some people.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Scott Betts wrote:
It would also gain a (very likely larger) set of new subscribers who DO like the way 4th

Poll taken on Paizo's boards before PRPG was announced showed that if Paizo went 4E, they'd loose a minimum of 50% of their subscribers. Second largest group said they'd go whereever Paizo went and the 3rd largest group said they wanted to go 4E.

Their subscribers do not agree with your statement.


James Jacobs wrote:
The frustrating thing for me, of course, is that if they CAN do a 4E Eberron without doing a huge world reset... that just sort of makes the "blowing up the Forgotten Realms" stunt all the more aggravating and disappointing to me.

What's frustrating is the amount of misinformation that's rampant on the net about the 4E Realms. "Blowing up the Forgotten Realms" had far more to do with fixing a laundry list of problems within the setting than shoehorning it into the new system. The only major change needed for system compatibility was the way magic worked. It boggles my mind that some would assume WotC just steamrolled willy-nilly through the Realms just to update the magic system.

Rich Baker has specifically said that the main issue was the kitchen sink approach to the Realms in the recent past. Yes, people hated Mystra and her Chosen. But the real problem was that the Realms identity had become too diluted with things like Mulhorand (Ancient Egypt), Maztica (Ancient Central and South America), the umpteen billion gods that no one could keep track of, ect. The Realms were so cluttered that DMs were too intimidated to runs campaigns there. If DMs don’t run Realms campaigns then WotC doesn’t sell books. The Spellplague accomplished all of the design team's goals in one fell swoop. It also allowed them to leave iconic places and characters like Waterdeep, the Dalelands, Elminster and Drizzt relatively unchanged. Whether or not the overarching goal of bringing in new fans was achieved remains to be seen.


Sebastrd wrote:
"Not a fault of the book, put the presentation greatly encourages you to see actions as applications of the rules, not rules as a way to represent the actions happening in the world." This is true, and a likely reason that so many people see 4E as "gamist" and unfriendly to storytelling. I assure you that's not the case. I think 4E actually makes storytelling easier, because it allows me to focus my efforts on the story and not on the rules. The core 4E books do exactly what any RPG rules ought to. The take care of the math and accounting for you, so that you can focus your energy on the story. The rules have been simplified to minimize interruptions and keep the attention where it ought to be - on the PCs and they're interactions with the game world. For all that people keep calling 4E gamist, I notice myself consulting rulebooks during the game a lot less now than I did with 3E.

You're missing the issue that people have had with 4E. It's not about how many times I have to consult the rules, it's the way those rules encourage me towards a play style that is "gamist".

What I take that term to mean is that every action gets funneled into a set of rules that may or may not make sense in terms of keeping suspension of disbelief. I'm not saying that 3E isn't the same as this in some respects, but 4E codifies this thinking in very specific ways. Limiting characters to a simple menu of choices limits roleplaying and encourages players to think within the system. That's not a very cool way to play in my opinion.

The argument that 4E is an improvement in this regard has yet to be proven to me.


veector wrote:


What I take that term to mean is that every action gets funneled into a set of rules that may or may not make sense in terms of keeping suspension of disbelief. I'm not saying that 3E isn't the same as this in some respects, but 4E codifies this thinking in very specific ways. Limiting characters to a simple menu of choices limits roleplaying and encourages players to think within the system. That's not a very cool way to play in my opinion.

The argument that 4E is an improvement in this regard has yet to be proven to me.

I've got to say that I don't find this to be the case at all. 4e and 3e have the same limitations for roleplaying and creativity in combat (albeit 3e has more options for certain classes with spells), both allow the creative (I pull the rug from under his feet/throw caltrops on the floor etc.) as well as the purely mechanical (I attack).

I personally think that, in strict GNS terms which are at best guidelines rather than really accurate descriptions, 3e tries to be Sim-Gamist and 4e tries to be Gamist-Nar. Now, personally I think that simulationist and D&D have never gone well together because of things such as hit points, but I do understand where some people don't like 4e because it is more gamist in its powers. I strongly disagree that it forces characters actions or limits roleplaying.

1 to 50 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / What about Pathfinder is Incompatible with 4E? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.