My gaming group made the switch to 4E when it was released, and have been playing it ever since. Due to inconsistent availability of one particular player, we all agreed to start a side campaign to keep us busy on the "off" nights. I recently picked up Pathfinder, and managed to convince everyone to give it a shot. We've had a few sessions and things are moving along nicely.
I was curious to see - how many out there play both PF and 4E side by side? If so, have you run into any issues?
Thanks!
I would not be adversed to playing either, or both at the same time. The downside is there is no character generator I like at the moment for pathfinder, so I have been holding out in the bleachers.
Our group tends to jump around every few years in regards to gaming systems.
For a while I was running a 4E game on Wednesdays, 3.5 every other Saturday, and PRPG every other Sunday, until time constraits forced me to drop one (Sundays).
This was during the infancy of 4E and PRPG so the words "I like this better in the other game" came up pretty often. As to issues, I still have two players that play in both games, and rule mix-ups happen from time to time. Luckily (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), I'm a rules lawyer, so I' pretty quick to spot any discrepencies.
For a while after running 4e I was the most vocal about wanting to switch all my games to 4e. However, after a year or so, I've come to see some of the headaches in that system too (I traded easier prep for bogged down combat in paragon tier). So now I'm trying to appreciate each system for what it is.
So now I'm trying to appreciate each system for what it is.
As am I. I can say that initially I was very excited about 4e, but over the past two years (ish), that excitement has died off. In fact, I can say I'm not a big fan of it at this point, but several of the other members of my group are, and so I hang in there. One of them likes it so much that he won't consider playing PRPG (which isn't a big deal, he's the one who has spotty availability, so it works out well.)
What I've started to see is that my PRPG campaign has become the gritty, low magic campaign with lots of role playing. The 4e campaign (run by another DM) is the high-powered, uber magic, extremely combat heavy campaign (with not a lot of rp - we spend an insane amount of time in combat). I know that has a lot to do with DM style and all, but I think its a good thing. Sometimes you want your mindless summertime action flick, and sometimes you want something with a little more substance.
Appreciate the perspective.
|
I play in a PFRPG "Second Darkness" campaign, and will begin DMing a 4E "Curse of the Crimson Throne" campaign in about a week's time. As I've prepped, the biggest issued I've had has been the size and scope of encounter areas. I used markers to make scale-sized maps for the first three "CotCT" adventures when I DMed it earlier in PF Alpha/Beta, and am now a little worried that the tighter quarters will make 4E mobility-focused characters feel pinched. We'll see.
|
I would not be adversed to playing either, or both at the same time. The downside is there is no character generator I like at the moment for pathfinder, so I have been holding out in the bleachers.
What about PCGen? I know it has a bit of a learning curve, but it works good for generating characters.
|
|
What I've started to see is that my PRPG campaign has become the gritty, low magic campaign with lots of role playing. The 4e campaign (run by another DM) is the high-powered, uber magic, extremely combat heavy campaign (with not a lot of rp - we spend an insane amount of time in combat).
Now I'm curious, Reolstan. Is this evolution due partially to the systems, the DMs, the players, or a little of everything?
I play PF for my online PbPs (mainly because they are here) and 4e in RL sessions.
I have found that 4e is not great for PbP games. There's too many interrupt powers and other stuff that takes place outside of the initiative order. Around a table, it's very easy to handle that kind of stuff, but in an play-by-post, it really bogs down the game. 3.5/PF is still my game of choice for online play.
I've had the opposite finding. I've been loving 4E PbP. Yes, there are interrupt powers, but it's not that hard to deal with, at least from what I've seen as long as the players are checking boards regularly. Of course, I could be biased :)
Now I'm curious, Reolstan. Is this evolution due partially to the systems, the DMs, the players, or a little of everything?
Now that is a can of worms.
The simple answer? A little bit of everything.
Really, I don't know where to begin. So I *really* apologize if this turns into a long rambling rant.
The DM running the 4e campaign loves to do very long campaigns. Lots of magic, money, and fighting. Intricate plots that none of the players really understand, due in part to what I see as poor storytelling.
The player that is not part of the PRPG campaign I am running is a serious min/maxer. His character in 4e easily doubles the damage output of the other three. And he isn't a striker.
We never die. ever. Did I mention never?
We spend a lot of time in combat, as I have mentioned, and at least two of us are getting tired of being useless (more or less). The DM has responded to the powergamer by upping the challenges/hp/etc. Which in turn has caused the battles to take longer. Which eats into an already low amount of actual role playing.
I could go on, but I think those are the major points.
I am pretty sure that my PF story is magic-light/gritty/etc. is because I purposely made it the antithesis of the 4e campaign. I actively hand out RP xp. Last session went for 5 hours, with a whopping 1 hr of combat. The rest was all role play - and they loved it.
But I do think the system has something to do with reinforcing the setting. I thought at first that 4e was great because it helped even the playing field between all of the payers in the group. And it has. The campaign originally started in 3.5, and we converted. The disparity between myself and the powergamer is significantly less. I wouldn't want to go back if he were playing.
But I will say that I feel PF allows me to create my campaign's setting in a way that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. I think part of me would feel dirty if I claimed "magic is rare!" and then let a character use his "Flaming Smash of Destruction" daily power. In all honesty, I never even considered running my story in 4e.
Has my current experience jaded my view? You bet it has. Right now I feel like I'm playing Magic: the Gathering when we play 4e. And I don't blame the system.
I hope all of that made some sense.
I play both.
Since 4e 's inception:
I've ran two campaigns
Am playing in one.
---
Just recently got back into 3.x with Pathfinder. I am running Curse of the Crimson Throne on Thursday nights.
Now I'm curious, Reolstan. Is this evolution due partially to the systems, the DMs, the players, or a little of everything?Now that is a can of worms.
The simple answer? A little bit of everything.
** spoiler omitted **...
I'm tempted to attack everything you say just out of natural instinct but since your being extremely reasonable I guess I got not grounds and will be forced to hold my peace.
I am however curious about this broken build the min/maxer is using if for no other reason then so I can outlaw it if it ever comes up.
Can you give us the gist of what he is doing?
|
|
** spoiler omitted **...
I'm tempted to attack everything you say just out of natural instinct but since your being extremely reasonable I guess I got not grounds and will be forced to hold my peace.
Yup. He's just sharing his personal experience/viewpoint. I've had a similar epiphany of late regarding low power games/campaigns but it's more dealing with other systems than min-maxers and card games.
I'm tempted to attack everything you say just out of natural instinct but since your being extremely reasonable I guess I got not grounds and will be forced to hold my peace.
But isn't that what you're supposed to do on a forum? /laugh
My gaming group made the switch to 4E when it was released, and have been playing it ever since. Due to inconsistent availability of one particular player, we all agreed to start a side campaign to keep us busy on the "off" nights. I recently picked up Pathfinder, and managed to convince everyone to give it a shot. We've had a few sessions and things are moving along nicely.I was curious to see - how many out there play both PF and 4E side by side? If so, have you run into any issues?
Thanks!
We play both and our experience is very similar to yours. The fourth edition campaign is more high powered and combat focussed, the PF campaign more story based and gritty. Like you, I think it's more about the players in the two groups (some overlap, but not complete) rather than the system as such (although in our case the lack of 4th edition RP mechanics makes us at least focus purely on combat options when developing our characters - having pored over the character sheet choosing the best combat option without any "Should I be worse at fighting and better at social interaction?" choices to make causes us to forget about the other side of the character when playing).
We also have one over-shadowing character (although that sort of thing has never bothered us). At level two our barbarian had a possible maximum damage output of something like 70+ - far above what any of the others could manage.
We also have one over-shadowing character (although that sort of thing has never bothered us).
In general, I would have to agree with that. I have never minded being second-best or third-best or even absolutely terrible at combat - as long as I was playing a character that was a valuable part of the group dynamic.
At the local game store, I have been running Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition on Wednesdays and Pathfinder RPG on Saturdays. For the next few weeks I'm also running another Pathfinder RPG game on Tuesdays as well.
I've been quite lucky with my players. Everyone of my current players has been cool about it really. None of them seem to really have issues playing the two systems (as opposed to just one).
The biggest issue that have had. Reminding people that they do/don't need to make the confirmation roll to get a critical.
Although, another issue that occurred a few weeks after both games were active together was I found out that one of the players, up until that point, had not realized that he had been playing in two different systems. Which was somewhat entertaining. Of course, the rule that caused them to realize this was the rule for confirming critical hits.
As a player, I don't have an issue playing in either system. I'm involved in two PbP games that use the 3.5/PF ruleset, and I DM a PbP and a tabletop game using the 4e rules.
As a DM, however, I find 3.5/PF requires far too much prep work to create fun adventures, and I'm constantly annoyed by the balance issues present in the system. Even published adventures are not immune to the power creep of new books, or ultimate combo syndrome. As a player, those things don't bother me, but as a DM, it drives me crazy.
On top of that, the software tools that WotC has put out for 4e are top-notch, which makes adventure prep that much easier. In the last week, I devoted about 4 hours to writing an adventure for my campaign. I created or modified nearly 20 monsters and NPCs, wrote 9 encounters, with maps and terrain rules, and put it all into a nice, 17-page document. There's no way I could have completed the same task in the same amount of time in 3.5/PF. I can't see myself ever going back to 3.5/PF as a DM.
|
|
As a DM, however, I find 3.5/PF requires far too much prep work to create fun adventures, and I'm constantly annoyed by the balance issues present in the system.
I am interested to see what Paizo's Gamemaster book will offer in advice in terms of prep work. As for balance, again, very different games. I'm with you as a player: the flexibility of 3.x/PF can generate interesting creatures. From the GM's side, it is a pain, especially with min-maxers/powergamers: I'm still trying to figure out how to make combat "fun" for the roll-players and role-players in my games.
I was curious to see - how many out there play both PF and 4E side by side? If so, have you run into any issues? Thanks!
Am playing in a PFRPG and playing plus DMing 4E. Have found the following:-
PFRPG: Roleplay is there,but Combat is limited (Fighters Attacks, Priest Heals,Rogues backstab everything to destruction), skills use's are limited to the characters with lots of them. Underskilled characters usually sit back and eat popcorn when diverse skills are required. Spells become an increasing issue as the game gets into higher levels.
4E: Roleplay is there, Combat involves all characters, Skill challenges involve all characters.
In short, 4E can devolve into nothing but combat encounters because of the amount of options in combat encounters it tempting to do so. However with there are just as much involvement options for roleplay and more so as all characters have broader skills that can be brought into use.
I have found adjusting lesser creature HP's is a must however otherwise combats do take up too much time. Even turning them into two hit minions.
I'm not going to go into much detail on PFRPG in case of being accused at flaming.
Please don't misunderstand I have enjoyed some seriously good games in PFRPG but later levels do seem to become a problem and I'd never play a PF priest now.
As for experiences between the two games, they have been pretty much equal as far as game preparation, roleplaying opportunities, character usefulness in and out of combat, complexity (especially during combat) increasing much more during later levels, and fun.
I'm actually equally happy to play and run in either. The only reason that I think that I favor the Pathfinder game right now is due to the adventures I use, and the additional available time.
I do find at least from my experience, that playing 4E requires more imagination, or improvisation, because it is a basic (abstract) system compared to pathfinder, especially when you consider spells versus powers. When you have only so many powers, you have to justify what they are doing in relation to the character. For melee types this is easy, but previous edition spell casters experience heart burn.
When I played complex systems I would simplify over time and vice versa.
So the true experience of any game is the DM and players and interacting together. If you find you don't fit, then the system will do nothing.
I do find at least from my experience, that playing 4E requires more imagination, or improvisation, because it is a basic (abstract) system compared to pathfinder, especially when you consider spells versus powers. When you have only so many powers, you have to justify what they are doing in relation to the character.
Absolutely agree with this statement. This is especially true with Martial Powered characters.
For example the fighter power Cometfall Charge comes with a descriptor of the character leaping toward the target and letting the drop deal extra damage. One of my PC's has put colour into this by one time in a tight space with a creature blocking the path(albeit they were shorter than the other PC's) he asked if he could leap\somersault over the enemy and land behind them with this power. I allowed this because I loved his description but put in the requirement of a jump check. He did the jump check badly wounded the enemy and combat continued.
The Warlords inspirational word grant a 'sort of' healing effect. To me this doesn't mean the character heals as he would if blessed by the priests Healing word but is instead goaded inspired to shrug off his injuries (much like the barbarian in 3rd edition gets extra HP's). this is also true of second wind.
e.g Bruce Willis in Die Hard, he suffered huge periods of injuries whilst fighting thugs, criminals then takes a stock for a minute( using his second wind) then takes a short rest, grits his teeth and moves to attack another group of bad guys seemingly little inhibited by his wounds.
Wizards get it easy, they mumble some words, gesticulate and a blazing gout of flame springs from their fingers which are aiming at enemies.
Priests are a little different, with each priest really needing to colour their prayers effects to match the deity. A lance of faith cast by a priest of Mask may still count as radiant due to the fact it's holy but it'd probably be a dark blue or black beam. So priests need to re-write their descriptors and even prayer names.
|
So now I'm trying to appreciate each system for what it is.As am I. I can say that initially I was very excited about 4e, but over the past two years (ish), that excitement has died off. In fact, I can say I'm not a big fan of it at this point, but several of the other members of my group are, and so I hang in there. One of them likes it so much that he won't consider playing PRPG (which isn't a big deal, he's the one who has spotty availability, so it works out well.)
What I've started to see is that my PRPG campaign has become the gritty, low magic campaign with lots of role playing. The 4e campaign (run by another DM) is the high-powered, uber magic, extremely combat heavy campaign (with not a lot of rp - we spend an insane amount of time in combat). I know that has a lot to do with DM style and all, but I think its a good thing. Sometimes you want your mindless summertime action flick, and sometimes you want something with a little more substance.
Appreciate the perspective.
I've had a similar experience, although I was not really looking forward to 4E, the group I game with on Sunday nights was super excited about it. I went from "now I have to learn a new system blah blah" to this systems is pretty cool back to "this is a different system I'd just as soon use PRPG". But as long as new 4E splat books keep coming out I think the group will stay happy with 4E. The campaign itself is mostly combat focued but I think that has to do with the length of the combats, one tough combat and the session is over, two easy combats and maybe we get in some RP also.
My other game group is 80% super 4E haters, the campaign is low magic,
fairly heavy PC death rate, 50/50 rp vs combat
To sum up I have fun with both systems, the systems play differently and lend themselves to diiferent kinds of campaigns.
The only confusion between systems is when playing 4E I'll say "move my mini forward 20 feet" and nearly every time someone will say "how can you move at 20?", meaning 20 squares.
I'll agree with a lot of what has been said here:
4e has a lot going for it --> the ease of fiddling with the mechanics, the abstract nature of the powers allowing for more player input (HUGE HUGE HUGE fan of the Warlord's non-magical healing as it really shows the abstract nature of HP . . . Rub Some Dirt On It is a a great name for a power and Warlord essentially heals people by saying, "Buck up and don't be a . . ."
The one thing that got my characters a bit is that as 'freeing' as the abstract nature of the powers is, the concept of using them became a bit tired . . . to some degree they felt limited in their choices.
Were playing Pathfinder and having a good time (only two sessions in), but I haven't polled the characters yet.
ON the DM side the one thing I like, and always have, is that there is much more thought into the creation of the bad guys and encounters because you are forced to take your time a bit more . . .
I am kind of rambling, but am enjoying playing and DMing both editions.
|
the problems i have found with 4e is that their premade adventures are horrible, while pathfinder aps are the reason we got into pathfinder.
4e's premade stuff tend to railroad you, and limit things you can do. asnd they do it so often it seems intentional. this actually caused a fight. in the first one, there was a point where you encounter some guards. it actually says its impossible to bluff your way in if you don't have the right password that cant be found out. the rogue came up with a completly believable story and a VERY high bluff check. and we were told it didnt work. we argued for about a half hour.
none of us have the time to prepare stuff, so we have been sticking to premade stuff, and am enjoying pfrpg more.
the problems i have found with 4e is that their premade adventures are horrible, while pathfinder aps are the reason we got into pathfinder.
4e's premade stuff tend to railroad you, and limit things you can do. asnd they do it so often it seems intentional. this actually caused a fight. in the first one, there was a point where you encounter some guards. it actually says its impossible to bluff your way in if you don't have the right password that cant be found out. the rogue came up with a completly believable story and a VERY high bluff check. and we were told it didnt work. we argued for about a half hour.
none of us have the time to prepare stuff, so we have been sticking to premade stuff, and am enjoying pfrpg more.
Was the above example from a published adventure, or from an RPGA adventure?
the problems i have found with 4e is that their premade adventures are horrible, while pathfinder aps are the reason we got into pathfinder.
I think that has more to do with who made the adventure than which game it was made for.
If you are enjoying Pathfinder that is great, but if any other interest in trying out 4th edition comes up again I would suggest looking at an adventure from another company. Even if you pick up another work from the same company, it may have a different author that will fit better with your group.
I don't have much experience with 4th edition modules, but if I would hope that other posters here would be able to suggest a good adventure for your group if you asked.
Was the above example from a published adventure, or from an RPGA adventure?
That sounds a lot like a scene from Keep on the Shadowfell. When you first get to the second level, there are a few hobgoblin guards who won't let you pass without the right password.
I agree with the other posters who have mentioned that WotC's adventures leave a lot to be desired. I think this is primarily a function of the adventure-writing team and not the system. Paizo's adventures continue to be first-class, and many of them are very easy to convert to 4e
Was the above example from a published adventure, or from an RPGA adventure?That sounds a lot like a scene from Keep on the Shadowfell. When you first get to the second level, there are a few hobgoblin guards who won't let you pass without the right password.
If that's the case, I don't see that particular complaint as terribly legitimate. I agree that WotC adventures don't hold a candle to those produced by other companies that are more focused on adventure publishing (Paizo, for instance), but I don't think this is a good example of that.
First, the password can be found out. Defeating the goblin chief on the first level and then questioning him gets you the password.
Second, the adventure does explicitly say that bluff checks don't work. And really, if the guards are under threat of death to let no one through without the correct password, why would bluff checks work? A bluff check might get them to believe your story, sure, but that doesn't mean they're going to let you through without the password. This strikes me as completely reasonable, and the fact that the players spent a half hour of real time arguing otherwise is kind of odd.
Finally, this particular encounter has a cool tie-in with one of the interlude encounters; the PCs find a second, fake password on an NPC's body that exists as a way of warning the hobgoblins that she'd been killed when used.
4e's premade stuff tend to railroad you, and limit things you can do. asnd they do it so often it seems intentional. this actually caused a fight. in the first one, there was a point where you encounter some guards. it actually says its impossible to bluff your way in if you don't have the right password that cant be found out. the rogue came up with a completly believable story and a VERY high bluff check. and we were told it didnt work. we argued for about a half hour.
This is unfortunately true but for an experienced DM this shouldn't be a problem because even if the adventure says a bluff can't get you through, it's the DM's call.
There are certain circumstances where it is true that without the correct password the danger of letting someone in would be so severe that the NPC wouldn't accept a bluff.I do like much of the pathfinder material, it's very high quality and converting it is a worthy goal.