|
I posted this in an ongoing thread, but thought it really deserved to be its own, separate thread ...
I have not played 4E, and in the interest of full disclosure, I have a pretty negative view of it based on what I have heard, read and experienced (note, of course, that I haven't actually sat down and played)
Having said that, I'm still really trying to have an open mind and I DEFINITELY DON'T want to get involved with the whole editions war, which I find to be very counter productive and divisive.
I have a question that hasn't specifically been asked, but seems like it HAS to be asked ... in fact, I really see it as perhaps THE critical, fundamental question:
Many people are comparing 4E to 3E, but I haven't seen anyone specifically compare experiences playing in a 4E game with playing in a Pathfinder (3.75 in other words) game. Given that the Pathfinder rules are striving to keep 3.5 BUT fix those things that need fixing (many of which have been listed so far by 4E fans as reasons why 4E is so much better) ... it seems like actual play experiences comparing how 4E plays VS how Pathfinder plays is pretty vital.
Let's face it. WOTC is not supporting 3.5 any more. So, really, we need to be comparing the two current D&D choices ... 4E and Pathfinder.
For example, 4E now has at will powers for spellcasters so they don't run out of cool things to do, but so does Pathfinder. So, it's not exactly fair or accurate to list this as a reason why 4E is superior to 3E. See what I mean?
I bring this up, personally, because I am playing using the Pathfinder rules and LOVING it!!!! What I need to know from those of you that have given both systems a reasonable chance is ... how do they compare?
I'm SPECIFICALLY looking for feedback from people who have played BOTH systems. Please ... no knee jerk opinions. I'm really looking for actual thoughts based on having tried both versions of D&D, as it were.
Thanks!!!
... trying to have an open mind and I DEFINITELY DON'T want to get involved with the whole editions war, which I find to be very counter productive and devisive. ...
Good luck with this endeavor. Seems a bit like dressing in a suit made of roast beef and trying to interview hungry wolves in their den, but you never know - maybe some good discussion will come of it.
|
|
... trying to have an open mind and I DEFINITELY DON'T want to get involved with the whole editions war, which I find to be very counter productive and divisive. ...Good luck with this endeavor. Seems a bit like dressing in a suit made of roast beef and trying to interview hungry wolves in their den, but you never know - maybe some good discussion will come of it.
Thanks - I understand your concern and I share it. I hope we can get some good feedback though, since I really think it's important ...
|
Chello!
Is there any reason, and I ask this in seriousness, that you are not considering other d20/ogl fantasy games like Conan or C&C?
Tony
And True20!
Which, honestly, would probably make this thread more appropriate for the Other RPGs, Gamer Connection or some other forum.
Putting it in the too-frequently contentious 4e forum doesn't seem like the best thing to do at the moment.
|
|
Good question ... they are all good systems in their own right, and certainly viable alternatives, but let's face facts ... 4E and Pathfinder RPG are the two main flavors of D&D out there.
Also, more to the point, since Pathfinder is specifically attempting to address many of the issues that people tend to cite as being wonky in 3.5, and these issues are also apparently addressed in 4E (although 4E has done so in a much more radical way, whereas Pathfinder has tried to remain more "true" to the spirit of 3.5) these two seem to most need the direct comparison.
At recent, small convention I played one Living Forgotten Realms (4e) game, one Pathfinder Chonicles game (still using straight 3.5 rules, not Pathfinder beta). I also GMed 3 LFR games.
I had more fun playing in the Pathfinder game than the LFR game, but I think that was mostly due to the player mix. I had the most fun GMing one of the LFR games, again mostly due to the players involved.
I have to say, I still consider myself a fan of 3rd edition, but actually going back and playing 3e after only 4 months of 4e was a bit of a shock. Now, keep in mind that since it was Pathfinder Chronicles, we were actually playing 3.5 and not 3.75, but here were the things that struck me about the experience:
- The 1.5 square diagonal movement. I was once so good at this that I could count out distances just be looking at the map. Now I had to be reminded of it, and when I was, it seemed unnecessarily baroque.
- First level characters seem kind of weak and ineffectual. And, as a corollary:
- The combats in the adventure were punishing. Our well-balanced team of 1st and 2nd level guys almost got TPKed by 3 hobgoblins and 8 goblins. And that wasn't even the "tough" encounter.
- And finally, still related, the point buy seems really stingy for how hard the campaign is. That's not coming from a 4e perspective, that's coming from several campaigns of 4d6*7, drop lowest.
- My initial idea was to make a sorcerer, but boy, like 3/4s of the first level spells in 3rd edition stink. Like I said, it's a tough campaign with lots of action, and I have choices like erase or hold portal?
- Many of 3rd edition's weird quirks in combat, that I used to ignore, really grated on me.
- Stuff like how nobody remembered what the exact modifiers for "shaken" were so we had to look them up.
- How when you run or charge, you have to check all the corners to make sure you're not clipping an obstacle or character.
- How when you get knocked unconscious, you drop your weapon, so even when the cleric heals you, you have to waste another turn standing up and getting yourself back together before you can rejoin the action.
- Funny little system-mastery things. The level 2 rogue had spent his money buying scrolls of cure light wounds, since he knew that a 1st level cleric wouldn't be able to keep up with the healing the adventure required. He couldn't afford a wand yet, and even potions were too expensive, so he bought scrolls, which saved our bacon. Nobody who's new to the game is going to think of that. They're just going to die until they see someone else doing it and learn.
- Natural healing is so stingy too! We had to rest, then wake up, have the cleric do some triage and make a bunch of cure light wounds rolls, then go back to sleep. That was pointless. (As an aside, I remember doing that in the old AD&D Pool of Radiance computer game and hating it then too. Literally 20 years later and I'm still doing it?!)
Anyhow, despite those hang-ups, mostly having to do with combat, the adventure was fun, and I'm looking to play again soon. I know that some of my issues, like healing and weak 1st level characters are being worked on in the Pathfinder Beta.
So really, I guess my conclusion is that I prefer 4e at the moment. But also, that no matter what system you pick, it is going to have silly things that drive you crazy. You may not even notice them until you stop playing and then come back later, but they are going to be there.
Good question ... they are all good systems in their own right, and certainly viable alternatives, but let's face facts ... 4E and Pathfinder RPG are the two main flavors of D&D out there.
Also, more to the point, since Pathfinder is specifically attempting to address many of the issues that people tend to cite as being wonky in 3.5, and these issues are also apparently addressed in 4E (although 4E has done so in a much more radical way, whereas Pathfinder has tried to remain more "true" to the spirit of 3.5) these two seem to most need the direct comparison.
As a long term 3.5 player I was among the first of a group of Roleplayers who read about Pathfinder and got the interest of my fellow players\DMs. Pathfinder does (generally) to me improve 3.5. Fighters are now more interesting to progress in, Rogues are not so set in stone as they advance, clerical abilities, barbarians and so on. However I see the same issue in Pathfinder that cannot be addressed as long as it stayed true to 3.5 spellcasting methods. Priests at about 7th level and upwards will rule melee combat after a couple of buffing spells. Mages will kill everything in sight or be stumped by very high SR scores.
I've played a few demonstration games in 4E but yet to have a proper long campaign and I see the roleplaying still inherant in and out of combat and the stopping of overwhelming abilities of Clerics and Mages.In short-Pathfinder....run the game, enjoy the game, but prepare for the same inbalance at mid levels.
4 Edition....get your head around the new system, inject same roleplaying as previous 3.5 and enjoy.
As a matter of interest I have also been running Conan RPG which was good but the Armour became unmanagable(modified and sorted) and True20 which is very adaptable and fun overall, more gritty as well.
I am currently running a 4E game on Monday, playing in one as a PbP, and participated in several RPGA events for the game.
I am also in a 3.5/Pathfinder game on Sunday afternoon (just recently converted)
I'm enjoying both systems but quickly realized that 4E is the game for me. Pathfinder does address some of the issues that 3.5 had but the differences aren't really seen all that much. They simplified the combat maneuvers but I still don't see anybody using them, as it's still smarter to just full attack every round. Also, while they did make the maneuvers simpler, they also made them harder to succeed in with the way CMB works. The defenses are so high against the maneuvers that everyone just full attacks every round, same as they did in 3.5.
Things of particular interest in PFRPG:
Things of interest in 4E:
In conclusion, after this monster post, both editions are fun. In my humble opinion, however, PFRPG does not fix the clunkiness of 3.5. It provides some fun, new options, which will instill new life into the system for awhile, but it does not really fix much of anything. 4E just seems like less work. I was really tired of my RPG's feeling like work.
I just started my own home-brew campaign using Pathfinder's stuff. As well, I run 4e when I can get people together on Saturdays. Having seen the differences between the the revision of 3.5 and 4e I can say that I enjoy both pretty equally. 4e has a different feel, it's more action oriented, but the fluff aspcet is a free style experience. For example, I don't have to find rules on playing an instrument well to appease a crowd and I don't need game mechanics to enhance my character's persona or backstory. For Pathfinder, I think it plays pretty much like 3.5 and it's something i'm very familiar with. Again, the difference being how game play differs. Does either edition give me a better feel for what a D&D game is? The answer is no. As long as you have good friends, dice (sometimes), snacks, and an imagination for fantasy any edition seems like D&D. While I do like most of Pathfinder's changes, there are some that have me scratching my head (Fly Skill???!) as well as small but important changes from 3.5 (spells mostly) that sorta put me off. As for 4e dislikes, the fact that you have to pay particular attention to what your class can do each round is sorta irritating (Paladin's Divine Challenge for example), and if you forget, well it could mean a party member's life.
In the end it's up to what you have fun playing and what you want to put your $$ into.
|
I tried to get a group together to run Pathfinder on the alternate weeks from my WFRP game. I could not find anyone interested in PFRPG. I now run 4e on alternate weeks. The main reason I was given - the classes in Pathfinder are too elaborate. The barbarian and the sorcerer in particular were truly vexing to some of my players. WFRP is our main event and 4e is our escapist game night. The more folks at our FLGS play 4e the more they like it. Heck - we used to run 6 tables of Living Greyhawk every month and now we can't muster a single table and Living Forgotten Realms is getting 12 tables a month and we are turning people away.
|
I'm SPECIFICALLY looking for feedback from people who have played BOTH systems. Please ... no knee jerk opinions. I'm really looking for actual thoughts based on having tried both versions of D&D, as it were.Thanks!!!
What are your questions?
I play in two 3.x campaigns (CSotIO and EtCR); one 4e campaign (default setting, was playing in two campaigns); one PRPG campaign since Alpha (CotCT AP); run my own 3.x campaign (Eberron); and have demo'd 4e.
|
|
Benimoto and TGZ101 seem to have my points pretty covered and smothered, but I'll throw in my two cents all the same.
I'm currently a PC in a Pathfinder RPG game, and a DM for a 4e Curse of the Crimson Throne game. My roommate's doing the exact opposite, so I'll see if he wants to weigh in as well.
So far, my somewhat nontraditional PFRPG cleric (Str 10! No armor!) hasn't contributed much in combat. The new uses for turn undead/channel energy are good, since I can provide modest healing to the whole group at 1st level, but my combat skills leave something to be desired (admittedly, my silly idea). Having a whopping two 1st-level spells per day is a considerable pain; at least one gets converted to a cure spell, and I can easily blow both in one fight and have to rely on the other PCs to handle the monsters from that encounter on. This is especially sad since the sorcerer gets an at-will acid attack that deals more than a magic missile, so he's ready to kick ass every encounter, all encounter long.
Barring that, the game is fun, and it's not like I've got nothing to do (there's always aiding in combat and such). 'Course, this is only with one game under our belt, so I'll have to see how further encounters go.
4e-wise, I'm having a blast. I'll try not to gush, but the system is so much simpler to run, from my experience. I keep monster stats and encounter info on a laptop at the table, which take very little time to copy into a Word document for that night's game, and my roommate makes cards for all of the player's powers, so picking up a book in-game is a rarity. There's some prep-work in making the system run smoothly, but with just those two steps combat time is cut dramatically.
As for the role-playing, I think that's up to groups to integrate. I've never really been a fan of too many rules for actual role-playing (extended and tense diplomatic moments being an occasional exception). I haven't fully gotten my head around the skill challenge systen, so I've mostly ignored it; it feels, to me, kinda clunky and artificial. I've been playing with some homebrew fixes, but that's a story for another thread. :)
Also, on a point Diffan brought up, I actually like not having hard-and-fast rules for things like Craft, Profession, and Perform. Letting the story flow as it will without having to worry if your character's ranks in Craft (blacksmith) accurately represent his prior history is quite liberating. In my coCT game, I've got a character playing one of the metal men of Numeria (filled in for now as a warforged fighter) who's trying to rebuild a broken plasma rifle he found. The current plan I've got is to provide him with pieces and let him build it in his downtime, then give him the fixed version when it is story appropriate. no Craft rolls needed.
Personally, i'm enjoying both games, and they're both fun to play. I might like 4e better, but that hardly means I won't jump into a Pathfinder game; the fun's in the friends and story, not in the rules.
Again, just my two cents.
Personally, i'm enjoying both games, and they're both fun to play. I might like 4e better, but that hardly means I won't jump into a Pathfinder game; the fun's in the friends and story, not in the rules.Ditto. That's one of the reason I never fully understood the so-called "edition" wars.
Generally I'd say Pathfinder is an improvement on 3.5 but still suffering from the same long term issues of 3.5 that is the Spellcasters overshadowing.
I won't stop playing 3.5 ed (using Pathfinder ) but I've got little inclination to DM games in Pathfinder.
The Edition wars are ridiclous, if people want to play 3rd edition I'd advise them to seriously look at Pathfinder or True20, either are good alternatives IMO.If they are wondering about 4th edition i'd say ignore the 'nay sayers' ingore the ' this is WOW or a computer game on tabletop' and look at the roleplaying possibilities.