|
Pathfinder didn't introduce any suboptimal choices. In fact, it corrected many suboptimal options of 3.0/3.5. Your "easy" barbarians and sorcerers faced suboptimal chocies in 3.5, where they could pick Alertness or Skill Focus (craft:basketweaving) instead of Power Attack or Spell Focus.
But doesn't Pathfinder still retain a lot of these sub-optimal choices as well? If the OP's players really want a system where they don't have to worry about making sub-optimal choices then they may actually be better off with D&D 4e as apparently the designers went to great lengths to make it difficult to make a character who isn't effective.
But that assumes they and the OP would be happy learning a brand new system (but them they would have to learn PF, so some amount of learning is required either way). So 4e might not be a realistic option.
So, sorry guys but the argument "3.5 was easy and simple, PFRPG is too complicated" is kinda weak. And if somebody is a lazy player, he shouldn't be playing...
I must admit in most ways 3.5 is probably as complicated as PF, that is why I suggested the OP discuss with his group all the reasons they may not be happy with PF - 3.5 being easier may not be the only reason, or perhaps its more of a case of 3.5 being easier because they already know the system and PF is "harder" because they would have to learn all the differences.
And your players not willing to put in the effort to learn a new system when they are happy with 3.5 doesn't necessarily mean they are lazy, they may just have better things to do with their time. I know that was the situation with me and one of the main reasons why I prefer to stick with 3.5 even though objectively I think PF is a better system overall (at least from what I have been bothered to read and have found out in play).
And even if you consider it laziness I think a better phrase would be "And if somebody is too lazy to learn Pathfinder, he shouldn't be playing Pathfinder... " though even that I wouldn't necessarily agree with.
|
|
So, sorry guys but the argument "3.5 was easy and simple, PFRPG is too complicated" is kinda weak. And if somebody is a lazy player, he shouldn't be playing...Your last sentence is a rather hash comment.
It was harsh, but since it wasn't my point I'm not offended. My point was that Pathfinder has more options. Each class has more built-in directions and every character gets more feats. For those of us that prefer modular control over our characters, it's great. For those of us that love playing a character but find building a character intimidating or dull, more options means less time spent on the part of the game they love. Being called lazy or told how to build their character doesn't help.
I've also been thinking of doing a game set in the 1930s. In this case, I have a set of classes designed and balanced for that era, and the mystic class is a lot weaker in magic than even 3.5 classes. If I allowed Pathfinder clerics and wizards and sorcerers in that setting, it would destroy it. But I could use the Pathfinder rules with the classes defined for this setting, thereby gaining the advantages of both systems.
If you don't feel like working hard, we already run a Pulp game in my area and have customized the Spycraft 1.0 rules to suit the genre. I can get you the rules if you want them. We currently use a yahoo group to keep stuff (spadventures).
To support what you're saying, while there is the equivalent to the spellcasting classes in my pulp system, they are nerfed a bit to keep them in line. Spell casting in a non magic world is like a seeing person in the land of the blind.
|
Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?While I don't quite get the 'simplicity' thing, here is my answer (since you asked!):
1) What do you want to do? You need to have fun as well. Never ever run a game you're not all that interested in, regardless of what your players want.
2) And, since you asked: Go to 3.5. I, personally, consider it vastly superior to Pathfinder anyways. *ducks and runs* :D
I am kind of leaning towards 3.5 because we are playing Forgotten Realms and 3.5 means less conversion work for me.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I am kind of leaning towards 3.5 because we are playing Forgotten Realms and 3.5 means less conversion work for me.Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?While I don't quite get the 'simplicity' thing, here is my answer (since you asked!):
1) What do you want to do? You need to have fun as well. Never ever run a game you're not all that interested in, regardless of what your players want.
2) And, since you asked: Go to 3.5. I, personally, consider it vastly superior to Pathfinder anyways. *ducks and runs* :D
May I suggest a compromise?
What level are the characters? I was thinking if they're 1-3, have each player tell you how they see their character, and then build the next four or so levels for them along those themes. Meanwhile make sure to build NPCs with different skill/feat/class selections. That way thy can see the options first hand. When you hit the cap of 'fixed progression' ask 'em if they want to continue that route, or make some choices themselves.
You'll likely end up with a mix of people who want their characters mapped out, and others who are comfortable enough to 'freehand' it.
For me, it would also have the advantge to go NPC bad guy happy.
"What do you mean he bit me?"
"It's a rage power. Your build has moment of clarity at that level."
"Wow, can we tweak my build to get that next level?"
|
Ok, then offer to limit the options. All sorcerors are arcane. All paladins get a horse, druids get an animal companion, pick your favorite rogue talents and make those the only ones in a set progression. It would probably take an afternoon of work on your part to pick all those for the base classes. Do it and they dont have to worry anymore. They are in the same relative boat as 3.5 in terms of 'choices' and you have the added benefit of some of the pathfinder rules improvements.
I'll second this suggestion. Take a couple hours to come up with a couple of 'builds' for each of these classes.
Pre-select Rage powers for a greatweapon and a TWF barbarian. Make all the decisions for a ranged, TWF, greatweapon, and sword/board Paladin. Same for 2-4 Rogue concepts and pick a few interesting bloodlines and pre-pick the bonus feats they get from them.
Laying them all out tables in Open Office shouldn't take too long, then present them with their pick 'n choose menu.
Ok, then offer to limit the options. All sorcerors are arcane. All paladins get a horse, druids get an animal companion, pick your favorite rogue talents and make those the only ones in a set progression. It would probably take an afternoon of work on your part to pick all those for the base classes. Do it and they dont have to worry anymore. They are in the same relative boat as 3.5 in terms of 'choices' and you have the added benefit of some of the pathfinder rules improvements.
I really like this suggestion.
I feel the need to point out both that Pathfinder isn't a blank paper (you've got the options listed right there!) and that the experiment had nothing to do with overwhelming someone with options.
|
|
I like Pathfinder and I like 4e. Perhaps as suggested in this case 4e might appeal more? Choices, but not so many. PF I think tends to produce very unique interesting characters (unless people have been pawing over the optimisation threads, in which case CLONES - tisk ,tisk). 4e makes characters that are "sort of but not quite" the same. Leveling in 4e takes 2 mins, leveling in PF takes a little bit more thought.
Of course, the best solution is to play 2nd edition D&D - but no one ever listens to me.
Long live "Zeb",
S.
I like Pathfinder and I like 4e. Perhaps as suggested in this case 4e might appeal more? Choices, but not so many. PF I think tends to produce very unique interesting characters (unless people have been pawing over the optimisation threads, in which case CLONES - tisk ,tisk). 4e makes characters that are "sort of but not quite" the same. Leveling in 4e takes 2 mins, leveling in PF takes a little bit more thought.
Of course, the best solution is to play 2nd edition D&D - but no one ever listens to me.
Long live "Zeb",
S.
From my recent experience with 4th ed, I'm not convinced that its has less options and things to choose during character generation. It has more base classes. There are more powers to choose from at each level. I'm sure that once you know every power of every class; things run smooth. A class in Pathfinder RPG only takes two or three pages for most classes, from level 1 to 20.
|
|
Based on your playgroup, it sounds like 4.0 is MADE for them. It's a simplistic, accessable game designed to be simple and fast-paced. While there are options, there's no real right or wrong, and the difference between a min-maxed character and a not min-maxed character is very little. The game is designed with more-or-less the WOW mentality in mind; make it a game playable by all. Have them try it out, I love PFS and dislike 4th for the opposite reason, but if they are casual then play the game that caters more to them than 3.5 OR PFS.
|
|
The other thing I have been considering is using 3.5 and slipping some Pathfinder into it. Things like port the new fighter over, bump up everyone's hit die, that sort of thing.
3.75ing it is always an option.
Allow the players to play 3.5 classes, and run the game using 3.5 rules, and if one of them wants to do a PF Fighter or Monk instead of the 3.5 version, really, only a tiny tweak in skills and getting rid of CMB/CMD is required to 'step down' the PF classes to play alongside other 3.5 classes.
4e has WAY more options and fiddly bits then pathfinder.
4e is not the game for them.
If they really think Pathfinder and 3.x are too complicated, then you want to go into earlier editions. If they think Pathfinder is too complex but 3.5 isn't, they are trolling you.
late to the party but my 2 coppers regarding the OP...
Just before the PFRPG core rules were sent out I was playing 3.5 with some elements of PF mixed in (not many, but it worked great).
The most important PF rules I added to my 3.5 game were...
- New HD for classes (like D6 for wizards etc, helps low level survivability))
- CMB/CMD mechanic (much cleaner for the special maneuvers)
- Cleric channeling (self explanatory reasons :))
- Cantrip/Orisons usage for casters (to not limit them to wands when running on empty).
Personally, I never had a problem with 3.5, ymmv.
Pathfinder didn't introduce any suboptimal choices. In fact, it corrected many suboptimal options of 3.0/3.5. Your "easy" barbarians and sorcerers faced suboptimal chocies in 3.5, where they could pick Alertness or Skill Focus (craft:basketweaving) instead of Power Attack or Spell Focus.Hey, I saw on TV once where Dave the Barbarian defeated a horde of zombies using his awesome Macrame skills!
On a more serious note, in my own campaign, the Barbarians might consider Alertness to be a very useful feat to have, especially to find that fool who thinks he can hide in that bush of poison ivy. Enemies don't always have the courtesy to hang out in 10 x 10 foot corridors.
4e has WAY more options and fiddly bits then pathfinder.
4e is not the game for them.
Not if you use the 4e Character Builder. 5 minutes and you have your 1st level PC ready to go including everything you need to play the character rules-wise all printed out.
S.
If the players think that choosing a rage power every so often, or a bloodline once is too complex, how do you think they'll fare against powers? :p
|
|
4e has WAY more options and fiddly bits then pathfinder.
4e is not the game for them.
I'm curious how you came to this decision. I'm not going to call you wrong, try to start edition wars, or any of that unpleasant stuff, I'm just genuinely curious.
In my experience, 4th edition may have more decisions to be made from a purely numerical point of view, but almost all of those decisions are "Pick one of these handful of choices" and based on your character type they're practically chosen for you. A Two-Weapon Fighter build will have one or two powers at a given level that benefit him most, while the others will be better for different builds, for example.
4th Edition Certainly has more classes to choose from, but once you've picked a class, you have your choice of 2 paths (maybe more if you include the Powers series) and then all you do is pick 2 out of 5-7 at-will powers, an encounter, and a daily. Pick a few skills and a feat and you're DONE. The rest is just filling in numbers.
If you've done it more than 3 or 4 times, it takes me literally about 5 minutes to make all of the decisions for a 4th edition character, and maybe 10 more minutes to write out all the information.
EDIT: I presume your players don't ever play casters? Constantly having to choose which spells to learn, prepare, and cast seems like a lot more work than picking 4th edition powers once every level.
Personally I don't really see the additional options offered by the PFRPG as a problem. Just forget about sub-optimal and optimal. Make a character and handle your character sheet to DM for evaluation. A good DM will check what options you have at hand and see what you are interested in the most. Adding game elements that will allow you to shine is easy enough even for beginners.
Only tweaks for the Barbarian I'd make are these:
- Joining Low-light and Night Vision powers together and adding a line that says that the power actually increases the darkvision range by additional 60 ft if you already have it.
- Eliminating the Raging Climber, Leaper and Swimmer powers and instead of them I'd put something like Furious Effort which would allow you to start to rage upon failed swim/climb/athletics skill check with 1/2 class level bonus to it (it would consume 1 round of rage of course and if you didn't continue to rage afterwards it would make you fatigued). This would add up to the image of barbarian as a reckless lucky bastard capable of incredible physical feats.
4e has WAY more options and fiddly bits then pathfinder.
4e is not the game for them.
I'm curious how you came to this decision. I'm not going to call you wrong, try to start edition wars, or any of that unpleasant stuff, I'm just genuinely curious.
In my experience, 4th edition may have more decisions to be made from a purely numerical point of view, but almost all of those decisions are "Pick one of these handful of choices" and based on your character type they're practically chosen for you. A Two-Weapon Fighter build will have one or two powers at a given level that benefit him most, while the others will be better for different builds, for example.
4th Edition Certainly has more classes to choose from, but once you've picked a class, you have your choice of 2 paths (maybe more if you include the Powers series) and then all you do is pick 2 out of 5-7 at-will powers, an encounter, and a daily. Pick a few skills and a feat and you're DONE. The rest is just filling in numbers.
If you've done it more than 3 or 4 times, it takes me literally about 5 minutes to make all of the decisions for a 4th edition character, and maybe 10 more minutes to write out all the information.
EDIT: I presume your players don't ever play casters? Constantly having to choose which spells to learn, prepare, and cast seems like a lot more work than picking 4th edition powers once every level.
Again, I'm taking this from the point of view of a player that looks at the, like, ten bloodlines - which you choose once - and howls "SO COMPLEX...!"
If choosing one out of ten rage powers breaks your head, then having to choose one out of 5-10 powers every level will cause some cranial explosions.
|
|
4e has WAY more options and fiddly bits then pathfinder.
4e is not the game for them.
I think that is debateable.
In 4e going from 1st to 2nd level involves:
-Increase Hit Points
-Pick a Utility Power (picking 1 of 4 if using just the PHB)
-Pick a Feat (this could involve choosing a multiclass power, skill training, or something else)
-Increase your "half level" bonus on skills and attacks by 1 (as your new level is an even number)
Going from 2nd to 3rd involves:
-Increase Hit Points
-Pick an encounter attack power (picking 1 of 6)
In PF 1st to 2nd involves:
-Decide whether to multiclass or stick with current class
-Decide on extra HP or Skill Point if pursuing favoured class
-Increase Hit Points
-Allocate Skill Points
-Increase BAB on attacks and CMB
-Check and determine increases to Will, Fort and Reflex saves
-Choose two extra spells if a Bard or one if a Sorcerer (each choice from about a dozen)
-Update spell slots if a caster
Going from 2nd to 3rd involves:
-Decide whether to multiclass or stick with current class
-Decide on extra HP or Skill Point if pursuing favoured class
-Increase Hit Points
-Allocate Skill Points
-Possibly increase BAB on attacks and CMB
-Check and determine increases to Will, Fort and Reflex saves
Choose two extra spells if a Bard or one if a Sorcerer (each choice from about a dozen)
-Update spell slots if a caster
To be honest the worse bit of "choice overload" I found in 3.5 and PF is when playing a Wizard, or worse a Cleric, and you have to choose spells every day. Trawling through lists of spells was a nightmare, and that is why for an arcane caster I always played Sorcerers in 3.5.
I was playing a Cleric in PF and had started to put together a spell list cribsheet with tickboxes to indicate what I had prepared and what I had used (and what I had applied metamagic to) - I never finished putting it together as I dropped out of my Pathfinder group.
But in 4e the closest you get is the Wizard who has to choose between two Daily Spells per level (of daily spells), no where near as bad. And guess what? In 4e my first character was a Wizard having never had any interest in playing them in 3.5 or 4e.
I'd wager that most the things you put down under Pathfinder don't change.
I have yet to see a player that alternates between the skill point or the hit point for favored class. Same with skills - unless they're multiclassing, I've noticed players typically choose a few skills at the start and concentrate entirely on those.
Beyond that, the rest aren't really choices. UPdating saves? That's not a choice, that's you looking at a chart and then going "Ok, +1 here." That's it. Same with BAB. You aren't choosing anything.
Yes, casters in 3.x are more complex. But his players are specifically complaining that rage powers and bloodlines are what go too far for them. If they can't handle rage powers and bloodlines, there's no way they'll go for powers.
I think that is debateable.In 4e going from 1st to 2nd level involves:
-Increase Hit Points
-Pick a Utility Power (picking 1 of 4 if using just the PHB)
For the group in the thread, right here is where it becomes unbearably complicated for them.
If the players think that choosing a rage power every so often, or a bloodline once is too complex, how do you think they'll fare against powers? :p
Oftentimes, its not the fact that you have to chose one rage power/talent/bloodline that is that makes it 'hard', its the fact that ideally, in order to choose one, you need to know them all. Same goes with 4th ed, and no computer-assisted generator can help with this.
Personally, I agree with you: Pathfinder is overall a lot simpler than the bloated late era of 3.5. Only, the character creation requires the player to make more choices from the get go, with sets heavier on players that are new to the game or don't feel like they should know all the ins and outs of the book in order to make a viable character. I'm exaggerating here, but nevertheless, one of the main differences of Pathfinder vs 3.5 is the amount of new character options, especially at low levels. Ironically, the option of 'not having many options' has pretty much disappeared from 3.5.
That being said, the solution to that particular problem is relatively simple; make basic classes using a set progression of rage powers/rogue talents/sorcerer bloodlines using what is at hand in the Pathfinder RPG book as many have proposed earlier.
A pamphlet containing one version of every class could easily be created by the community; I actually invite the community most active members to come-up with a well-presented, basic version of the Pathfinder basic classes in a down-loadable format that everyone could use.
'findel
|
|
Same with skills - unless they're multiclassing, I've noticed players typically choose a few skills at the start and concentrate entirely on those.
With PF's +3 bonus as long as you have 1 rank in a class skill, it actually makes the choice between putting an extra point in an existing skill, or into a class skill you have no ranks in a very interesting choice.
Beyond that, the rest aren't really choices.
I was responding to the "fiddly bits" aspect of your assertion too. Also, if they have to spend less time "fiddling" they may be happier making choices over powers as they have more time to make them (and the number of options are much less than a caster choosing a spell in PF). So going from level 2 to 3, once I have done my extra hit points in 4e all I have to do is choose a power, whilst in PF I need to do all the extra stuff (BAB, Saves, Skill Points, spell slots, etc)
But his players are specifically complaining that rage powers and bloodlines are what go too far for them. If they can't handle rage powers and bloodlines, there's no way they'll go for powers.
I was responding to your generalised assertion that 4e is more fiddly and requires more choices than 3.5 or PF. But going back to the OP, maybe you're right, but I still think it might be a valid option for the OP to explore, especially as you can try 4e out for free using the quick start PDF from the WotC website.
Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?
I think as someone mentioned earlier, it is probably an issue of familiarity instead of simplicity. Though PF does appear to put a bunch of bells and whistles on some of their core classes, things that probably don't add a lot but are just extra info that a player feels they have to keep track of.
My advice, if you are really dedicated to PF, then you should tell your players that and let them know, if you are going to DM, this is the system you are going to use. If you are basically fine with either PF or 3.5, and most of the players want to play 3.5, then I would say it is probably better to play 3.5. If there are certain things that you absolutely have to have that are in PF (say skills), then port those over and tell the players again, if you are DM they have to put up with these.
What I would not do, is try to convince them to like PF. From my experience this has never really worked. Think of it this way, if someone says their favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate, how are you really going to convince them that strawberry is better? You can try to force someone to come up with objective reasons why they prefer what they prefer and then try to rip those reasons apart (as seen in this thread), but in the end that is just going to leave bad feelings. Basically you are trying to show that they are stupid for liking chocolate better than strawberry.
I might suggest that you also post a thread like this over on a more 3.5 friendly board (if you haven't already), something like Giant in the Playground Forums or somewhere and see how different the perspectives are. Not that they would be more "balanced" but they would probably give you a different view than one dedicated to PF.
You mean one of those boards where Frank Trollman and his bunch are active ? Within 5 seconds the thread will be full of "Pathfinder fails" posts. Very informative. :)
Well I probably wouldn't go to Frank's site if that is what you mean. But as I said, I wouldn't suggest that other sites are going to be more "balanced" merely skewed in other directions. It would probably give the OPer a different perspective than one found here (deep within the heart of PF-fandom).
Maybe they are just feeling nostalgic. I, too, feel like that sometimes. I miss rolling a d4 for my Wizard's hit points and a d12 for my Knight's hit points. I miss the Wizard without other class features than his spells, his familiar and a few bonus feat. I miss not having access to the spells of my opposition schools. I miss the spiked chain as a decent weapon. I miss the Bard that had to put skill ranks in Diplomacy (no longer needed with Versatile Performance). I miss races that didn't have any bonus on their mental ability scores (Int, Wis, Cha). I miss Clerics without two domain powers that can each be performed (3 + Wisdom modifiers) times per day. I miss seeing low-level Wizards using mundane weapons when they are out of spells and I miss save or die spells. :(
Despite all those things that I miss, I'm sticking with Pathfinder RPG because I like how Combat Maneuvres work, I like Cleric without Heavy Armor Proficiency, I like the Advanced and Giant simple templates, I like Rogues that are a little less feat starved (thanks to Rogue Talents), I like the new mechanic behind shape change and polymorph, I like the new Monk with his ki pool, I like not being called retarded because I want to play a half-elf (Pathfinder half-elf rocks!), I like being able to play a Fighter with a high Dexterity score without gimping myself, I like the Internal Alchemist (playing one right now in the Carrion Crown AP and I'm having a blast!), I like seeing the Ranger back among the strong "warrior" classes, I like the Enhancement School from the APG, I like some of the Archetypes and I like the new favorite class system. :)
Perhaps have pre-gens and run one shot adventures to give them a flavor of a few different classes. I know after a long week of work beating you up, all i want to do is crack open a beer, roll some dice, and kill stuff sometimes. If you have 4 players, crack out 8 pre-gens to let them have a choice. Then perhaps, they will pick up a few concepts that might entice them to put forth the effort.
You could pick some classes that might have features that some of your players like. Then they might stick with the cool class they found and want to learn more about it. Summoner might be a good example. Pet management might be hairy to handle, but fun to play.
I know some of my players use to be like this, and it drove me insane. 3 years I tried to change them and motivate them. /roll 1 on that skill check. I got new players, and the game is soaring like mad now. Good times!!!
Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?
Here's a novel idea: Too many choices? Make them stick the core rulebooks. 3.5 was not simple, and I question their reasons for wanting to switch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can now die happily, because I've finally heard everything. Also, holy thread necro, Batman!
@ David, if you're still around, please tell us what you decided and how your players handled it. Did you ever explain to them that "No, 3.5 really isn't simple..."? :)
Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?
For the folks that are overwhelmed, take some time and talk to them and find out specifically WHAT they are finding overwhelming. You can't make an informed decision unless you know what you're dealing with. Also don't make any decision until you've talked to your group all together. I wouldn't do it on a one to one basis. Make sure everyone knows where every one stands and has put in their 2 cents.
Wowsers! Didn't realize how much of a necro this thread was.
@Iron Stormhammer, with all of the other (more recent) threads floating around on this subject, why did you dig this up?