Vendimar |
Hello everyone, I’ll try and make this post short, as it’s late and I’m a little perplexed as to what to do. Having been a DM since the early days of 2nd edition AD&D through D&D 3.5, I stepped away from the game years ago and have made the decision to come back to tabletop role-playing. I’ve picked up the D&D 4th edition core books as well as some additional books thinking 4th edition will be a good chance to learn a new system and its D&D after all so it’s bound to be good… Maybe not so much?
In my premature spending spree, I’ve stumbled across Pathfinder and I’m wondering how big of a mistake did I make in buying into 4th edition? I normally run a serious game, with equal parts role-playing, combat, problem solving, and exploration. I’ve been reading and watching videos on 4th edition and for the most part it seems to have removed what core D&D truly was, is this true?
I was planning on beginning a 4th edition Eberron campaign on July 3rd with a new group, however now I’m beginning to wonder if I should send back these books and purchase Pathfinder instead? How is the campaign setting for Pathfinder, what would be a good comparison of it to a published setting from D&D if any?
Sorry for all the questions, I just wanted ask the community for their thoughts on what I should do based on my background and DM/Campaign style. I know this may not be an easy answer but any help would be great at this point.
Thank you all in advance,
-Vendimar
Me'mori |
There have been some good explanations made for the comparison between Pathfinder and 4th ed.
I am not the person to make that comparison.
Personally, I think of Pathfinder as it is commonly referred to as "3.75". I've never seen a company run things like paizo has.. What sold me for pathfinder was the amount of community input they looked for (and got), how much they listen (staff is on here regularly, commenting and contributing).
4th ed is something entirely different.. I think of it as a PnP form of WoW... which, having played for 5+ years, makes picking up that system superfluous. 4th ed is simplified, which is good for new gamers, but there's something about it that doesn't seem right, coming from 3.5 as I was. Also, what turned me off was how they ended 3.5: "The world blows up". *headshake* That turned me off to whatever the replacement product would have been.
I'm sure there'll be someone along that can explain it better, or link you to an explanation in an already-existing thread. I say "join us".. *grin* but I know I'm biased.
Grotnar |
If you could run the type of game you wanted to in 3.5, you can certainly run it in pathfinder. Pathfinder is mostly 3.5.
As far as 4th edition goes, it is different. It changes a lot of things, and kills some sacred cows. But it is still a fantasy role playing game about killing things and taking their stuff.
I think it depends on players and the gm, but I'm sure ya can tell the stories and play the games you want to play with either.
As far as the campaign setting goes, I like what I have seen. I don't have all the books. But seems to be a lil something for everyone. There is some Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, etc.
The only other thing to add is that Paizo puts out top notch supplements. If this is important to you, all the books are full color, high production value products. And yes, they are very open and interact with the fans daily on these message boards.
Again, I have nothing against 4th edition(I own the core books),and I wouldn't mind getting in a game. But if ya love 3.5, you should love Pathfinder. And I couldn't think of a better company to support it.
Anyway,
Good Gaming
Rev Rosey |
It's up to what you and your group will find most fun really - which is not a helpful answer.
As a fan of 4e, I'd dispute that it is a table version of WoW. It's proven a very robust story-telling tool for me. The mechanics are simple, certainly, but I don't find that a hindrance. The very simplicity of the mechanic makes building exceptions a great deal easier than it was under 3.anything. As a GM that means everything (combat, exploration, role-play, problem solving) can be built much, much faster and it's very simple to adapt on the fly.
I haven't played much Pathfinder since the Alpha/Beta stages, so I'm not in a position to offer a useful compare and contrast.
As far as the campaign settings go, I've been incorporating bits from pretty much any setting I like for a while now. I'm a shameless pillager.
Themetricsystem |
First let me start of by saying, HELLO & Welcome to the community.
1) I played in a couple demo games of 4th ed at a game store in East Lansing when it was being released. It was fun, as fun as a hack and slash RP experience can be really. They did combat well for 4th ed. They did this by cutting out pretty much everything else, or downplaying it to the point where it is a negligible. To this point Yes, it is true they killed the core of D&D for roleplaying, exploration and the like. I cannot make a better analogy than Me'Mori did about comparing it to WoW "Hammer, meet nail"
2) This is a gated yes. If you can get your money back for your 4th ed stuff, and your group will be happy playing PFRPG then by all means get your money back man. I assume you still have your 3.5 products for Ebberon right? I should shudder to think of throwing away perfectly good role-playing books. If you didn't AWESOME, pick up a pdf copy of the conversion guide from the website and get ready for one awesome adventure. I love Ebberon, I only wish I had a DM around here that would run it anymore, everyone seems more interested in FR, and PFC, not that that there is anything wrong with either but... man.
3) The main thing about PFRPG that really pulled me in was the streamlining of a lot of the hickups 3.X had. It sets a high standard of quality and balance right off the bat, instead of saying and not having to learn the specific rules from a half million different splat books. It makes lower levels feel much less powerless, and more exciting. This is amazing for pulling new players into roleplaying, which historically speaking I've had problems with in the past.
4) Off topic: Another issue I take with WotC and 4th Ed. is the way they produce their splat books now. They roll them out so INCREDIBLY fast and each of them is more *fluff* than the last. For instance the dragonborn got it's own splatbook. It was about as thick as my thumb is flat, and finding something other than flavortext was an adventure. They are trying to sell DnD like they do Magic The Gathering now, and that is ... I guess it is what it is.
Also July 3rd is my birthday, and coincidentally it will be the first time in almost a year that I will have the opportunity to DM myself. Happy birthday to ME!
Grotnar |
I don't think calling 4th edition table top WOW is completely fair. But the influences are obvious. The designers have said they took influence from video games. But calling it that and not backing it up can be kind of annoying. Calling it tabletop WOW seems to be an insult, and I don't see it that way.
There are a couple of things that people can point out that obviously seem to be influenced by MMORPGS. The big one are powers. All classes have a bunch of powers on different timers(sometimes called cooldowns). This is straight outta an MMORPG like WOW. The other one is the naming of character roles. This class is a tank, controller, striker, dps, etc. Not that roles haven't always been there, but they way they organize them is straight outta an MMORPG, WOW or something else.
All that said, I don't find it a negative. There is a reason WOW has like 10.5 million subs. And I can't blame WOTC for taking some cues from WOW.
So, yeah, I think 4th edition is a little bit WOW(this is not an insult), and a lot table top role playing game.
It really just matters who you are playing with, that makes the game.
Me'mori |
I don't think calling 4th edition table top WOW is completely fair.
All that said, I don't find it a negative. There is a reason WOW has like 10.5 million subs. And I can't blame WOTC for taking some cues from WOW.
Point, and true. Comparing it to WoW was the closest accurate analogy I had at the moment.
10.5? Huh.. I thought they were up to 20M by now. *shrug* ah well. I'd mention the games I'm waiting for, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
Aberzombie |
My two CPs:
First, as someone above said - WELCOME!
The only thing I can say about 4E is that I tried it once, and didn't care for it. You may feel differently, as many people do.
As for Pathfinder RPG - if you liked and are familiar with 3.5, then you should like the PF rules and have an easy time catching up with the changes.
As for the Pathfinder setting - I think it's a wonderfully creative world. In my opinion, you've got some of the best minds in gaming that developed this setting, and it shows. It's got elements of lots of different fantasy (and maybe even a bit of sci-fi), yet these parts all fit together pretty damn well. The Adventure Paths and modules have done a really good job of focusing on various parts of the setting.
As for Paizo - this company kicks ass. Not only do they produce great products, but their customer service is top notch (at least from my experience), and they have this awesome messageboard with some really great people.
So, I once again say - welcome! Whatever you decide, I hope you stick around. It's all about the fun anyway.
Brian Bachman |
We looked at both 4E and Pathfinder when they came out, and decided to go with PF. This is largely because, as old-time gamers who have played up through all the editions, we thought 4E was more of a departure from classic D&D than PF. Essentially, it is more of a brand new game system, and that wasn't what we were looking for.
That said, I know quite a few people who play 4E and seem to be having fun. I think, although the system seems to revolve heavily around just ushering the characters from one combat to another, it wouldn't be hard to reintroduce all the other stuff that makes D&D fun.
I also have to say that, reading the posts here, a lot of people seem to run their PF games as pretty much combat-dominated. So it's more a matter of group style rather than anything inherent in the systems.
DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |
Before thinking about purchasing Pathfinder, I would review its free online system reference document. That way you can see for yourself if it has the features you are looking for.
Based on your brief description, you sound like a similar GM to myself, and I vastly prefer Pathfinder. 4E has some good things going for it and it is relatively easy to learn, but I find it even much more focused on tactics and dungeon crawling than much else.
Another thing to consider: was it 3.5 in particular that made you leave the table? Why was that? Pathfinder is built on 3.5's "engine," as it were. It fixes, from my perspective, a lot of what was broken, but depending on what you wanted out of 3.5 and a revision to it, some have been disappointed with the direction Pathfinder took. If you liked the general structure of it, but wanted to see the races and classes tweaked for balance and some of the spells fixed, and the skill system easier and more flexible--Pathfinder is probably definitely for you. If you wanted a dramatic overhauling of the classes that they would be nearly unrecognizable compared to 3.5, you will be disappointed. If you ran mostly core with a few splats, it will be easy to convert. If you ran with every splat in existence and want to use them all in Pathfinder, you have a lot of conversion work cut out for you, and YMMV with how well some splat materials will balance with PFRPG. If you just hated everything about 3.5, hated the way classes and multiclasses worked, hated feats and skills--Pathfinder is not for you because it keeps that same general structure.
That said, things like this are fraught with bias, hence why I think you should review for yourself the rules before making a final decision.
brock |
Also July 3rd is my birthday, and coincidentally it will be the first time in almost a year that I will have the opportunity to DM myself. Happy birthday to ME!
Happy Birthday to us!
Back on topic.
Try some Pathfinder for free using the free Pathfinder Reference Document and the free module Master of the Fallen Fortress released for Free RPG day.
If you like it, stick around - we occasionally get cookies.
DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |
Try some Pathfinder for free using the free Pathfinder Reference Document
Well, I suppose anything worth saying is worth saying twice...
and the free module Master of the Fallen Fortress released for Free RPG day.
Note that "Master of the Fallen Fortress" is a preview for the Advanced Player's Guide, so the classes for the pre-gens there are NOT in the core rulebook.
It's still FREE--yay--but isn't actually a good introductory look at the core rules, and in fact assumes knowledge of the system and possession of the Bestiary to be able to use it. (At least, the print version does. Maybe the .pdf is more beefy.) ETA: Not to rain on your parade, man, it's just that I just read the thing, and I didn't want the OP confused by "Alchemist? Where's that in the PRD?"
DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |
DeathQuaker wrote:... many good things ...One of these days I'll learn the skills of thinking and reading before posting - but not today, and not at 28.7 degrees C in my office :(
Bleah, sorry, man. The weather around here has been pretty nasty too, though it errs toward the frigid in my office. (Laboratories on the same floor demand cool room temperature.)
You were trying to be helpful. This is a good thing. :)
DigitalMage |
Okay, first lets talk system. D&D 4e may initially seem like it is purely combat focused from a read of the books - this is because the PHB has a lot of powers that honestly are designed to be used in combat - not all, but even powers like Sleep etc are designed to have durations measured in rounds rather than minutes.
Having said that some powers work just as well out of combat (Invisibility can last indefinately), but more importantly all the other categories of "things" that 3.5 (and PF) has, 4e has too - Abilities, Skills, Feats, Equipment, Magic Items etc, add in Rituals for the more non-combat oriented 3.5 spells and I don't doubt that I could run a D&D game full of investigation and social roleplaying as well as I could in 3.5 or PF.
But 4e and 3.5 are different - luckily I like that difference and they do feel different enough to make me want to play both. PF is very close to 3.5 (but different enough that you would need to thoroughly read PF and note all the little changes) - for me its not different enough to make me want to play when I already have 3.5.
Which brings me on to another point, if you were happy with 3.5 and still have your books then maybe you don't need to go Pathfinder. Ask the players you propose to recruit whether they would like 3.5 or Pathfinder - a lot of people still play 3.5 rather than Pathfinder, some due to familiarity with the former, others because they don't like having to convert 3.5 material to PF, and others because they dislike some of the rules changes in PF.
So in summary, assess all your options - its not just PF vs 4e - and play what the majority want to play.
Okay, now for setting. I personally really like Eberron and it is one of the major reasons I could not be bothered with Pathfinder (I wouldn't want to convert material) and one of the reasons I pursued 4e (the Eberron books for 4e are nice).
Interestingly, the 4e Eberron Campaign Guide is largely fluff and so could prove and valuable resource even for a Pathfinder RPG based game - of course you will either need to convert 3.5 Eberron material or create it afresh in Pathfinder for yourself based on the 4e descriptions (depends on whether you are familiar with 3.5 Eberron).
Before I was convinced about 4e I still determined to buy the Eberron Campaign Guide for the setting info - so I could use it in a game using Legends of Anglerre (a FATE fantasy system).
As for the Pathfinder world of Golarion - it really depends on your tastes. It is a kitchen sink setting, but IMHO not in a good way, it feels to me like a hodge podge of different settings all plonked down together next to one another without any unifying theme or coherency. Its the same feeling I got from the 3.0 Forgotten Realms and why I prefer Eberron (which does have the unifying theme of the Last War).
Having said that if you find a piece of the Golarion setting you like (or rather one of the many mini settings) you can focus in on that for an entire campaign. For me that would be much better and circumvents the hodge-podge issue I have with it. I played in 2 books of the Rise of the Runelords adventure path before dropping out and the setting of Varisia was actually okay seen in isolation.
So, really check things out, try a few games of the different settings and systems if you want. Who knows maybe you would like to play in the Golarion setting using 4e; indeed there have been conversion threads on these forums for at least a couple of the Paizo Adventure Paths, which to me would imply you can run exactly the same type of story under 4e as you could under 3.5/PF.
Mok |
I’ve picked up the D&D 4th edition core books as well as some additional books thinking 4th edition will be a good chance to learn a new system and its D&D after all so it’s bound to be good… Maybe not so much?
Ultimately... YMMV. 4e takes the 3e ruleset, which was a mishmash of simulation and gamist design and pushes the structure far down the gamist side of things. You can still run a simulationist game, but the mechanics heavily lean into a gamist supported structure.
In my premature spending spree, I’ve stumbled across Pathfinder and I’m wondering how big of a mistake did I make in buying into 4th edition? I normally run a serious game, with equal parts role-playing, combat, problem solving, and exploration. I’ve been reading and watching videos on 4th edition and for the most part it seems to have removed what core D&D truly was, is this true?
It's one of perception and what people feel is the "core" for them. 4e is more similar to old school Basic D&D in that almost all of the rules are there for combat and there are few rules for anything else. So in that regard, many old timers have come to 4e and enjoyed it because outside of combat things can be very freeform. So in one way, the system is very flexible.
But, the system is also rigidly balanced and scaled. In terms of combat you are on a very narrow treadmill that is built to chug along and do its thing. The page 42 rule is fantastic in one way, giving a big umbrella mechanic for anything to happen in a game, but it is also painfully rigid because the system is encouraging a constantly symmetrical balanced challenge. There is very little asymmetry with the system.
For myself, I wouldn't be against running a game of 4e, because as a DM it is designed to be very easy to throw something together and run with it, or modify elements.
However, I'd never want to be a player in 4e. My wife and I tried it, but we found it FEELS TO US like just a big video game, with us pushing power buttons over and over again. Where page 42 is a friend to the DM, for the player it is annoying because, like the computer game Oblivion, no matter what you do the fancy stunt you'll do will mathematically be scaled to only do x amount of damage. For us, it feels like we are playing a computer game, where you press buttons, watch some animation, and know that the math behind the animation is scaled, rather than being a true "physics engine" in calculating effects.
I also really dislike how magic items are allotted and how you can "cash in" the magic essence of these items to get better magic items. It's this design feature that makes me feel like I'm a pigeon in a cage pecking on a button to get another pellet of food. Magic items are built in 4e are designed to be this constant trickle of rewards for players to keep them interested. The rules even advocate for players to give wish lists of items to the DM which... I don't know... that just ain't right! It's like asking for chocolate flavored crack cocaine, rather than just regular crack cocaine.
Now, Pathfinder does suffer from the magic item problem also, and it is still a highly gamist type of game system. However, the 3e game systems are more muddled and opaque, mixing a lot of gamist design with dollops of simulationist support. I like that fuzziness over 4e's transparent and symmetrical system.
I was planning on beginning a 4th edition Eberron campaign on July 3rd with a new group, however now I’m beginning to wonder if I should send back these books and purchase Pathfinder instead? How is the campaign setting for Pathfinder, what would be a good comparison of it to a published setting from D&D if any?
I'd just ask your players what they think and want out of a game and weigh that with your own desires. Pathfinder is more accurately D&D 3.6, then a true 3.75. The Star Wars Saga system is a far better representation of what a 3.75 system ought to look like (it's the best implementation I've seen of this whole design school). So in terms of having to adapt to Pathfinder from 3.5 things would be easy. You could even get all of the 3.5 Eberron material and just use that. The only real work that would be needed would be with the Artificer, which I'm sure at this point there are plenty of conversions on the net.
In terms of the Pathfinder campaign setting, it is a very much kitchen sink setting, with a lot of good writing. If you were to look at the Campaign Source Book you'd find dozens of separate areas of the world that cover a huge variety of themes. Any one of these themes could be a campaign unto itself. So in that regard the setting has plenty of material to find inspiration for, though the details are still kind of roughly sketched.
The Pathfinder setting however isn't really built around one specific kind of vision, unlike Eberron. What makes Eberron great is that it has an overarching vision of how a D&D type system can "make sense" whereas Pathfinder is more of an older style, like Living Greyhawk, where it tosses everything in and lets the GM decide what to do with it.
Sorry for all the questions, I just wanted ask the community for their thoughts on what I should do based on my background and DM/Campaign style. I know this may not be an easy answer but any help would be great at this point.
It is tough, because people have wildly different expectations and aesthetics about what they want out of a game. I find 4e largely an abomination of what I expect from D&D, but I recognize that others are having a lot of fun with it.
JimmyNids |
Welcome to the paizo crew.
You really can't compare 3.X with Pathfinder. Everyone is used to 3.5 so they end up liking Pathfinder for its similarities while being able to adapt to the subtle changes. 4e is a completely different game. The only resemblance is the names of races/classes/monsters/the game. The combat system ensures equality between classes in different respects. They purposefully try to eliminate optimization so as to keep the game balanced. As such, multiclassing ends up being a hindering feature while prestiging(via paragon and epic paths) is mandatory.
Pathfinder is similar however in that they compressed skills together and tend to focus on single base cladding rather than multi or prestige. Not to say its not possible but you get more benefit from taking a core class to 20 than in previous editions so multiclassing or prestige may be less desirable compared to base class 20 benefits.
Those are the main points I find different but there are plenty more. But still you should treat them as 2 different games
Vendimar |
Wow, thank you all for your warm welcomes, insightful comments, and suggestions. I’ve read as much as I can on Pathfinder, with the links suggested, and also spent a couple hours reading through the 4th edition D&D PHB early this morning. While I haven’t officially rolled any dice with the 4E rules, I can see the similarities to many video and computer games on the market, I’m not sure how I feel about that.
As for 3.5 D&D, I did own a large selection of books back before I hung up my dice bag but unfortunately I sold them shortly after I quit, this with the announcement that WotC would be releasing a 4th edition, so you could say that their announcement influenced me in a way to not want to have to invest in a new series of books.
One thing I have noticed and many of you also mentioned this in your replies, but Paizo seems to be heavily involved with their community and this is amazing thing, given that many companies simply push out products with no respect to their customers, betting on the loyal fans who will folk out cash for anything with a brand name on it. Hell, I was one of those people, thinking if it’s D&D then it has to be good.
Well you’ve given me good food for thought and I’m in the process of contacting my players to see what they think. Two of them come from a heavy 3.5 background and already asked in our initial meeting if I would ever consider going back to 3.5 if 4.0 didn’t work out. I asked if they had heard of Pathfinder and what their thoughts were on it.
As for my wife, who also plays D&D with me, she might be a harder sell as we just invested in a few hundred dollars in 4th edition books, and while I can return the majority of them for a refund, she may be a harder person to convince in looking into Pathfinder.
At any rate, I’m going to swing by the bookstore today and pickup a copy of the rule book. I’ll keep you all informed of where we end up at with the gaming group and with any luck, our experience with Pathfinder.
-Vendimar
Aberzombie |
One thing I have noticed and many of you also mentioned this in your replies, but Paizo seems to be heavily involved with their community and this is amazing thing, given that many companies simply push out products with no respect to their customers, betting on the loyal fans who will folk out cash for anything with a brand name on it. Hell, I was one of those people, thinking if it’s D&D then it has to be good.
-Vendimar
Yeah, Paizo is heavily involved with the community. They regularly respond to questions posted here on the boards, and are often visiting the chat room Lilith created. They've done really great with the playtesting. Some of them even accept our friend requests on Facebook.
In fact, I think there are some folks who started off here as just posting and visiting, and now they kind of work for Paizo (either as actual employees or freelancers).
Kolokotroni |
I've played both 4E and pathfinder. And while pathfinder is my game of choice, i have to say I enjoyed my 4E games for what they were, and my group hasnt set it aside completely.
The key difference to understand is their intent. 4E is first and foremost a game. It is designed from the perspective of making a good, balanced game. It is easier to dm, combat is more easily engaging and dynamic, and the game is incredibly balanced. Pathfinder is first and foremost a worldbuilding/describing tool. It is like previous editions more interested in making you FEEL like you are a monk/sorceror/whatever with the rules, and is a game second. 4E sacrificed (in my opinion) the cohesive set of world governing rules for the sake of game balance.
The big example for me was when i was looking at the rules for a succubus. Because of the way dominate person works, a succubus couldnt enthrall a commoner for any real length of time, let alone something with character levels. Now there is good reason for this in terms of balance, and players not getting screwed in a combat, but there is a loss of that cohesive world where things 'feel' like what they are.
Roleplaying, is not neccessarily styfled by the 4E rules, as at least in my opinion the rules themselves dont govern roleplay, you and your group do. Published adventures however are very combat focused. That much is absolutely true. I would say paizos AP's and modules are far more roleplay friendly then the modules i have seen for 4E. But if you run your own game, its just about you and your group and how you play it.
Brian Bachman |
As for my wife, who also plays D&D with me, she might be a harder sell as we just invested in a few hundred dollars in 4th edition books, and while I can return the majority of them for a refund, she may be a harder person to convince in looking into Pathfinder.
Bribe her. Works for me. Full-day spa treatment is a good option. Jewelry, flowers and chocolates are old stand-bys. Cooking a gourmet meal for her works great, or if you can't cook, taking her out to one. Sometimes just takes a backrub. :)
P.S. - Tommie, don't you dare forward this to Jan. If she knows my playbook, I'll have to come up with all-new stuff.
Uchawi |
The biggest difference beyond the power mechanic in 4E, are skills and spells. At the core, you fighter, rogue, cleric, etc. all have unique roles and special abilities, but you loose custimization of skills points (plus additional ones like professions, and crafting), and loose the variation of spells affects altogether in combat from 3.5. 4E has rituals, and it is easy to incorporate previous edition spells in some aspects using ritual mechanics, but its intention is to use spells (rituals) outside of combat. As to damage being brought in line, that is one of the criteria to balance.
But there is also expectations from a game, and if you like 3.5, then Pathfinder is intended to be a modified version (Paizo house rules).
The hard part with all the above, is finding a good game group. Because one thing 4E did with encounter night was encourage me to go out and play some, but with all the game shops I have visited, there is little to offer for any version of D&D, in regards to extended campaigns. So in that sense no game sysem will capture the same feel as my group of friends that still play, and we bounce all over with the systems we use.
I run games in 4e that have equal parts role-playing, combat, problem solving, and exploration. As that is based on the DM and players. You just have to know the mechanics to bring it together.
So whatever you decide, I wish you good luck, and have fun.
redcelt32 |
As for my wife, who also plays D&D with me, she might be a harder sell as we just invested in a few hundred dollars in 4th edition books, and while I can return the majority of them for a refund, she may be a harder person to convince in looking into Pathfinder.
While there is nothing like holding the dead tree version of a book in your hands, it may be a much easier sell if you tell her that Paizo offers the PDFs of each of the core books (Core Rulebook, Bestiary, and Game Mastery Guide) for $9.99 each. I know a lot of folks that bought the PDF of the Core Rulebook because it was so inexpensive, then were impressed enough with the rules (AND ART!) to buy the hardback version.
And also, welcome to the messageboards, its an amazing community :)
LazarX |
Wow, thank you all for your warm welcomes, insightful comments, and suggestions. I’ve read as much as I can on Pathfinder, with the links suggested, and also spent a couple hours reading through the 4th edition D&D PHB early this morning. While I haven’t officially rolled any dice with the 4E rules, I can see the similarities to many video and computer games on the market, I’m not sure how I feel about that.
Mind you, a lot of those video and computer games draw heavily from AD+D as well. As others have said, 4th edition probably of all the D+D games bears it's heaviest resemblence to Blue Book and 1st edition AD+D
Lazarus Yeithgox |
I consider 4th edition to be very much a MMTRPG (Massive Multiplayer Table-top Role-Playing Game). It is designed as a "game", as in you vs the encounters and story. The classes have all been homogenized, so, you just have 3 or so roles for the group (Striker, controller, etc.) and as long as you have someone to fill that role, it doesn't matter what class they are playing.
Looking at the powers, any power that could cause a rules question or confusion has been removed. Let's say I want to cast "Charm Person" a staple of D&D, and normally a 1st level spell. There is no equivalent power. There's stuff that causes you to move other characters, there's one that forces the monster to attack anyone who attacks you. But ultimately, there is nothing relating to making a monster "like" you, because like is subjective. All the base rules are designed for RAW, and instead of removing controversy by writing them better, the possible points of contention were simply gutted from the game.
I think this is best illustrated by 2 simple exercises. First, find a class specific power that is not combat related (not just non-combat). Next, locate Comprehend Languages and see what's needed to cast it.
This distinction makes 4th ed a radical change from even the Blue Book, because there's no real fluff or feel to any of it. It's more like a wargame that is starting to gain some role-playing elements.
Which is a shame, because the encounter powers and skill encounters were decent ideas. I always had a problem in my campaigns because when you only have 1 - 2 encounters per day (as you might when doing politics), it makes buff casters a lot more powerful, and making some things per encounter instead of per day makes some sense. Plus, you can technically add "Charm Person" back into the game as a ritual... (forcing a character to lug around a tome of Charm Person around.)
So, in my opinion, "4th ed is a good fantasy RPG, it's just not D&D."
(Sorry for the rant. and welcome to the boards.)
Epic Meepo RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32 |
Paizo offers the PDFs of each of the core books (Core Rulebook, Bestiary, and Game Mastery Guide) for $9.99 each.
Quick clarification for folks new to Pathfinder: The Gamemastery Guide is not a core book; it has optional rules and lots of good advise, but isn't required to run the game. The only books you need to play are the Core Rules and the Bestiary.
Bill Dunn |
So, in my opinion, "4th ed is a good fantasy RPG, it's just not D&D."
(Sorry for the rant. and welcome to the boards.)
That's largely my take on it too. There are things I don't like about 4e because they don't fit in with my experience with D&D whereas I might have been a bit more accepting of them in a completely different game.
Pathfinder, being substantially compatible with 3.5, also helps you extend the life of any 3.5 materials you do have, particularly the adventures. I've run stuff with very little conversion without a problem. I have to calculate the Combat Maneuver Defense, but that's pretty easy on the fly.
Pathfinder also has the advantage of having a very inexpensive rule book available on PDF. Check it out on the online store here. If you ever plan on keeping part (or all) of your gaming library on an iPad, for example, you'll have more luck with Pathfinder than 4e D&D.
Mikael Sebag RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
It's heartening to see a mature, frank, and thoughtfully-worded discussion on the respective merits of Pathfinder and 4E that hasn't turned into an edition war.
Personally, I've never found the rules for 3.5 to be too complex for new players to grasp, which in my opinion, weakens 4E's appeal as an introductory system for said new players. As everyone has already commented, however, each system has its own pros and cons, and your ultimate descision should be predicated on your personal taste for the rules of the chosen system, your needs as a GM for flexibility and detail, and the desires of your gaming group.
M P 433 |
A system is a system, but you'd be hard-pressed to find better talent at the creative end than with Paizo's writers. Books and modules are expensive for most folks nowadays, and my selling point has been that I'm getting a quality product. Dungeon Magazine (through 3rd edition) was sure evidence of that.
Otherwise, I played some D&D minis (enjoyed it), but saw 4th edition as merely extending roleplaying to my mini map.
Ice Titan |
The big example for me was when i was looking at the rules for a succubus. Because of the way dominate person works, a succubus couldnt enthrall a commoner for any real length of time, let alone something with character levels. Now there is good reason for this in terms of balance, and players not getting screwed in a combat, but there is a loss of that cohesive world where things 'feel' like what they are.
+1
I would like to play 4e, but DMing it is hard for me. It feels like nothing is really alive in the world and it makes me feel like the adventures I write are more along the lines of a hack-and-slash video game or an instanced dungeon than a living, breathing world with multiple possibilities.
That's just my take, anyways.
Jess Door |
I would also suggest you consider adventure support.
Do you plan to create a campaign from scratch? Do you plan to run premade adventures? Do you have old adventures you'd like to ressurrect? If you can, visit a gaming store and take a look at a Pathfinder Adventure path or module and a D&D 4E module. Which appeals to you more? If you want to run something you create yourself, this has less importance, but sometimes knowing the relative quality of pre-made adventures can be a big deal. I love running games, but don't have the time to create engaging games from the ground up. Using Pathfinder APs as a starting point and modifying the tale from there is just waht I need to run engaging games.
Jason S |
Rules: It's a matter of preference. I've played both games and both games have their good and bad points. 4E is actually a better game for people new to RPGs, PF has more options.
Gameplay: I don't think either game enhances or inhibits roleplay or interaction with the environment. Depends on the player. Simpler rules (less powers) in 4E seems to allow people to focus on roleplay in my experience, however the options (especially for casters) in PF enhance a completely different kind of roleplay and creativity, especially in terms of fantasy, investigation, and imagination.
Houserules: Both can be run with minimal houserules, however 4E seems to need more changes to the fundamentals (such as most DMs reduce monster HP by 50%) and DMs often wave their hands to finish combats.
Healing: I know some people don't like them, but I love healing surges. I love not having to depend on healers and I like it that clerics can spend their spells on other things without hurting the party. I like the "Holy Word" power and have houseruled this ability and healing surges into my PF game, and my players love it.
Campaign: The PF campaign (Golarion) world is exceptional. The Adventure Paths (which use the campaign world) are also great and are some of the best "modules" I've read.
If you can get your 4E money back, do that. If you can't, I'd play 4E and see how it goes. You will probably like it for levels 1-5. You will probably not like it for levels 5+ if you have anyone that likes to play casters. I have several issues with the system, but there are several great aspects as well. If your players are going to compare it to previous editions of D&D, they might not like it, they have to view it as a different game.
Having said that, I prefer a houseruled version of Pathfinder.
Zmar |
...
Okay, now for setting. I personally really like Eberron and it is one of the major reasons I could not be bothered with Pathfinder (I wouldn't want to convert material) and one of the reasons I pursued 4e (the Eberron books for 4e are nice).
Interestingly, the 4e Eberron Campaign Guide is largely fluff and so could prove and valuable resource even for a Pathfinder RPG based game - of course...
Nice? See the 3.5 Eberron and than talk about being nice. 4E update is fine, but it's far from the quality of the older books for me.
Errrm... welcome to the boards Vendimar. I don't have anything else to say that wasn't mentioned already :)
Ryzoken |
Welp, my 2 cents, being an owner of the 4e core set and a PF GM:
Each system has merits, but I found that 4e had significant drawbacks that I couldn't overlook. As a system, 4e is incredibly simplified, perhaps too much so. Multiclass characters were handled very poorly initially (this may have changed with splatbooks, I've seen references to Hybrid characters here and there) and not a great deal of attention was paid to out of combat abilities. Even the few powers that characters could do out of combat (Wizards with fly spells and the like) were daily powers, only usable once. It was said a great deal of this was done for balance reasons, but even with only the core books, infinite combos were available that disproved this assumption. One can only then conclude that either the assumption was false or that WotC is ineffective in proofing their books (the latter is more likely true, based on prior pattern)
Pathfinder inherited a number of 3.5's failings, but did make great strides toward repairing the CoDzilla vs Fighter schism. I can actually see myself playing a 20 level fighter in PF, something I couldn't see doing in 3.5. The same can be said of Sorcerer 20. They even adjusted the non-functioning polymorph school of spells, cleaning them up exceptionally well.
I'm well pleased with how Pathfinder has turned out thus far, a full 180 from how I feel about 4e. I think the OP should definitely give PF a try, even if it means returning his 4e merch (I wish I had returned mine!)
DigitalMage |
The rules even advocate for players to give wish lists of items to the DM which... I don't know... that just ain't right!
There is nothing to say that the GM is obliged to give the players everything they wish for! But in general I like the idea. Indeed I like players to tell me what sort of stuff they want to see in a campaign - what goals they want to achieve, what organisations they would like to try to join, what monsters they would like to face - it increases player buy-in to the game.
almost all of the rules are there for combat and there are few rules for anything else.
I am inferring that you feel Pathfinder has more rules for things other than combat. Aside from spells (which are covered by Rituals in 4e for me) what things do you think 4e is lacking that 3.5 / PF had.
I am genuinely curious as I am soon to be kicking off a 4e Eberron game, I gave the playes the choice whether they wanted to play 3.5 or 4e and they went for 4e. At present I don't see any major things I could have done in 3.5 that I won't be able to in 4e - but is there something I am missing?
The big example for me was when i was looking at the rules for a succubus. Because of the way dominate person works, a succubus couldnt enthrall a commoner for any real length of time, let alone something with character levels. Now there is good reason for this in terms of balance, and players not getting screwed in a combat, but there is a loss of that cohesive world where things 'feel' like what they are.
I think what 4e is perhaps expecting, though it doesn't necessarily make it totally clear, is that the monster stats are there for the powers and abilities that the PCs will face, if the GM wants a succubus to enthrall a peasant as part of the plot he should feel free to do that, however that Succubus won't be able to do that to the PCs, only perhaps dominate them for a few moments.
That to me is actually facilitating a more narrative approach - for me in a story the main protagonist rarely becomes as much of a victim to the foe's powers than some extra - often they will shrug off the effects after a few thrilling moments. Some games do this by making the PCs just different, e.g. Savage Worlds gives PCs the Wild Die and bennies to allow re-rolls etc, FATE provides Fate Points and Aspects to invoke. 4e however, simply stats things up as the PCs will face them, and allows GM fiat to allow NPCs to be affected differently.
4e DMG p188:
"Remember that villains can perform powerful rituals “off camera” to help drive your narrative."
tell her that Paizo offers the PDFs of each of the core books (Core Rulebook, Bestiary, and Game Mastery Guide) for $9.99 each.
Just be aware that I found the PDF slow to render on my Eee PC 901 and ended up finding it practically unusable at the game table and ended up buying a hardcopy of the PF rulebook to use instead.
So if you don't necessarily feel that the PDF will be useful away from the game table (game prep for example) you may want to at least buy just one PDF and see how that handles on whatever PC or laptop you use before buying any more.
Nice? See the 3.5 Eberron and than talk about being nice. 4E update is fine, but it's far from the quality of the older books for me.
I admit to not having read the 4e books cover to cover yet (mind you I have only read the 3.5 Campaign Setting cover to cover and only scanned some of the other titles too).
But the 4e books look a lot nicer (in fact all the 4e books look a lot nicer to me with clean clear layout). The maps are gorgeous and it seems the 4e Campaign Guide collates a lot of the 3.5 info that was spread scross numerous books. So I guess it seems nice in being a single setting book that looks gorgeous.
I gained my impression on the 4e Campaign Guide largely from this thread on RPG.net:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=489162
Face_P0lluti0n |
Technically, any RPG nowadays is a resolution mechanic with a different set of spot rules, character creation guidelines, and power level assumptions. If you're just looking at the skill systems, you're not going to feel much difference.
However, IMHO, the rituals were what un-sold me. In 3.X and PF, Minor Image does not cost hundreds of GP and ten minutes to cast. My Illusionist (Wizard) PC did things in PFRPG that would be totally possible in 3.X, but not in 4th Ed, because there's nothing in 4E that would allow him to create a combat-skipping Illusion with a standard action - which is exactly what my character did when he conjured phantom reinforcements and caused the entire enemy group to surrender during the first round of combat. I'd much rather have that for a "utility" power than a couple of free squares of movement or an extra healing surge.
Until I looked at rituals, I was willing to give 4E a chance, but when I found out that being a tricksy wizard was relegated to "cutscene powers" for the purpose of game balance, I quit.
My PFRPG Illusionist, on the other hand, had a ball as an Invisible Gaseous Form, spying upon his enemies.
However, I will love Eberron forever. Luckily, PFRPG is backwards-compatible with all of the 3.5 Eberron stuff. I'm expecting one of my players to come to the table with a Warforged Alchemist as soon as he has the APG in his hands.
Mok |
There is nothing to say that the GM is obliged to give the players everything they wish for! But in general I like the idea. Indeed I like players to tell me what sort of stuff they want to see in a campaign - what goals they want to achieve, what organisations they would like to try to join, what monsters they would like to face - it increases player buy-in to the game.
I'm all for player buy-in, but treasure wish lists just seems to cross a line that I can't stomach. For myself, treasure ought to be mysterious and filled with wonder, but if a player is expecting very specific made to order items, it loses all of that.
The magic item dependency in Pathfinder is well established, but in 4e the presentation just takes it to a bland corporatized logical conclusion. If all magic items are ultimately just consumables, to be quickly gained and discarded and reprocessed into bigger and better things, then everything loses any character or sense of history. It's possible for a GM to resist the 4e treadmill model, but your swimming against the current that the system is emphasizing.
If someone has grown up with modern computer and video games as their standard of fantasy, where it is expected that you receive consistent small rewards, like drips from medical bag, then I can see how the model is appealing, but for myself the archetype is Bilbo gaining Sting, the Ring and his coat of mithral, and that's it. Pathfinder does a terrible job of emulating the Hobbit's treasure pacing, but it's schitzo tool-kit model gives little eddies in the current for the GM to make it feel more like that.
I am inferring that you feel Pathfinder has more rules for things other than combat. Aside from spells (which are covered by Rituals in 4e for me) what things do you think 4e is lacking that 3.5 / PF had.
I am genuinely curious as I am soon to be kicking off a 4e Eberron game, I gave the playes the choice whether they wanted to play 3.5 or 4e and they went for 4e. At present I don't see any major things I could have done in 3.5 that I won't be able to in 4e - but is there something I am missing?
I guess I would echo similar things to what Face_P0lluti0n said. A big part of it is an issue of emphasis. There is very little support (as far as I know, I only have the core books) in 4e that allows for liberal use of powers and abilities outside of combat. Almost everything is being funneled into combat encounters and so if you want to run a game where people are primarily using their abilities to avoid combat, and succeed with mechanical effects then 4e isn't really the system to use.
It's not that Pathfinder is the ultimate system for outside of combat effects. I wouldn't want to use Pathfinder to try and emulate the kind of game that I could get from Vampire the Masquerade, but Pathfinder's fuzzy and somewhat muddy system that is a mix of simulationsim and gamism, gives enough wiggle room to jump into a much broader set of options than 4e.
4e does have rituals, but it I just don't find it satisfying. It's a one size fits all category that doesn't allow for interesting powers and abilities to get used in the roleplaying portion of a game. It's the aesthetics of the rules that I dislike the most (also the art, yuck!). I'm sure with so much material now released that there are more options in the game than when originally released, but overall the emphasis of the rules funnels you down a particular play experience that doesn't really interest me.
DigitalMage |
Technically, any RPG nowadays is a resolution mechanic with a different set of spot rules, character creation guidelines, and power level assumptions. If you're just looking at the skill systems, you're not going to feel much difference.
I am not quite sure what you mean here, could you elaborate?
There are definately systems out there that, by means other than the skill system, can emphasis and encourage non-combat play (social conflicts in Diaspora, investigation in Trail of Cthulhu etc).
If anything 4e's Skill Challenges provide a concrete structure for non-combat challenges like chases, prolonged negotiations, rescues, survival etc. Of course it is no problem to use Skill Challenges in 3.5 or PF either, indeed Unearthed Arcana for 3.5 had Skill Challenges under the guise of Complex Skill Checks (M&M 2nd ed called them Extended Tests).
However, IMHO, the rituals were what un-sold me. In 3.X and PF, Minor Image does not cost hundreds of GP and ten minutes to cast. [...] because there's nothing in 4E that would allow him to create a combat-skipping Illusion with a standard action
I guess I can understand this, and its something I will keep an eye out for.
I guess for some its a feature of 4e that such "combat-skipping" spells take more than a standard action - it gives the other players a chance to contribute to the encounter (e.g. defend the Wizard while he casts a ritual). Apparently the design goal of rituals was to always promotes Skills over Magic solutions (e.g. Knock and Detect Secret Doors making the Rogue redundent).
I will have to see how this plays out in my campaign.
However, I will love Eberron forever. Luckily, PFRPG is backwards-compatible with all of the 3.5 Eberron stuff.
Its largely backwards compatible, but for me I didn't want to have to do any conversion and fudging and so I would still use 3.5 or 4e for Eberron over PF as both of the former have explicit support for the setting.
Sometimes I wish Golarion grabbed me as a setting as much as Eberron did, as I would then probably be more enthused about the PF RPG (and still playing with my old group on a weekly basis). Alas, Eberron is what I like and as such it pretty much determines the system I use - though ironically I have considered converting Eberron to FATE; to me the effort to convert to that setting would be fairly easy and the pay offs worth it.
LazarX |
Welp, my 2 cents, being an owner of the 4e core set and a PF GM:
Each system has merits, but I found that 4e had significant drawbacks that I couldn't overlook. As a system, 4e is incredibly simplified, perhaps too much so. Multiclass characters were handled very poorly initially (this may have changed with splatbooks, I've seen references to Hybrid characters here and there) and not a great deal of attention was paid to out of combat abilities. Even the few powers that characters could do out of combat (Wizards with fly spells and the like) were daily powers, only usable once. It was said a great deal of this was done for balance reasons, but even with only the core books, infinite combos were available that disproved this assumption.
Actually it does balance things out between characters. Your wizards can't keep the party flying all day, your ability to skip encounters is going to be more dependent on situation and skill use. And it's very much like a more powerful version of say dragonquest and element masters type magic where it's done quick and for the moment. Separating most of out of combat magic to rituals leaves it very much in tune with novel style magic where casters are brought more down to earth.
Uchawi |
The biggest difference I have found between 3.5 and 4E is skill points and spells (as already stated), and in relation to long term affects. Rituals can fill the gap, as long as you can break your bias that 3.5 had everything right, but that is why everyone has a preference on mechanics.
The classes in 4E can still fly, become invis, charm, spy, etc. but the mechanics have changed, and you may have to use different mechanisms, whether it is a ritual, familiar, pet, alchemist item, martial practice, summoned creature, skill, class, or racial power. The durations have been decreased in combat, but that in turn makes combat more dynamic.
My 12th level character still finds value in lower level magic items, that he has used for a long time, so the whole cosumable culture of 4E is a myth. But the power system does extend to magic items, and you still have artifacts, wonderous items, item sets, boons, tatoos, shards, etc. but they are represented in different terms. Magic items also support permanent affects that are always on.
So if you prefer another version of D&D then have at it.
Ryzoken |
Actually it does balance things out between characters. Your wizards can't keep the party flying all day, your ability to skip encounters is going to be more dependent on situation and skill use. And it's very much like a more powerful version of say dragonquest and element masters type magic where it's done quick and for the moment. Separating most of out of combat magic to rituals leaves it very much in tune with novel style magic where casters are brought more down to earth.
While it is true that "casters" are brought more in line with "non casters", I defy the concept that things are balanced between characters due to the existence of infinite combos. Said infinite combos are not available to every class (in effect, in core these were restricted to strikers like the Ranger, IIRC) and thus one can make the argument that "non casters" were the broken element in comparison to "casters." Of course, maintaining the schism between casters and non casters in 4e is fairly pointless, as the only distinction there is whether you can access rituals, which are fairly useless.
But the balance issue is only one of 4e's problems. I also have problems with the attempt at extending encounters through HP Bloat, as well as the game being tooled around the players having a 16 or better in their primary stats. In point buy, it's difficult to get better than a 16, and that 16 only buys you 50% effectiveness at your given shtick. 50% fail rate means death to a 1st level PC.
As to novelization, you don't read the same books I do. The ones I read definitely underscore the relative power disparity between casters and non casters.
4e is a much more difficult game, without a great deal of the flavor found in 3.5 (or PF). I'd liken playing it to eating a leather sandwich, it's tough, bland, and in the end, you'd rather have had bologna.
Uchawi |
Explaining why one prefers one system over the other is just baloney in the end, because whether you are talking politics, religion, or preferred systems, etc. you are not going to convince everyone one way or the other.
I am sure I could come up with some food metaphors for what I dislike about 3.5, but why would I do so, if you like 3.5. We are both happy.
Shrug.
Zmar |
I admit to not having read the 4e books cover to cover yet (mind you I have only read the 3.5 Campaign Setting cover to cover and only scanned some of the other titles too).
But the 4e books look a lot nicer (in fact all the 4e books look a lot nicer to me with clean clear layout). The maps are gorgeous and it seems the 4e Campaign Guide collates a lot of the 3.5 info that was spread scross numerous books. So I guess it seems nice in being a single setting book that looks gorgeous.
I gained my impression on the 4e Campaign Guide largely from this thread on RPG.net:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=489162
Hehee... we'll probably never reach any aggreement on this matter, for I do prefer the graphic and layout of the original books. They look a bit like the Exalted with the comics-like beginning of each chapter and individual page graphics, while the 4E one is simply another 4E book in the line, not looking anything special. The organisations receiving more space and other stuff mentioned in the article is simply the result of the basic design difference. 3E Eberron book was from the start meant to contain all the informations for both players and DM to run the setting on the same page count with the other info planned for additinal books. 4E Eberron Compaign setting has similar page count, but player stuff (classes, races, feats, spells, PrCs) got moved to a book of it's own along with some player-friendly regional descriptions, hence the expanded faction info. 4E book is still highly recommendable, whic for me cna't be sad about the 4E Forgotten Realms for example. That is a different setting with some old names reused, but meh... nobody's perfect. I can still play both settings using the PF books and as far as the NPCs go I still make my own or use the old ones after some dirty conversion (at CR -1), because most of them are fairly low level or pick something else up from the MM for 4E games.
LazarX |
But the balance issue is only one of 4e's problems. I also have problems with the attempt at extending encounters through HP Bloat, as well as the game being tooled around the players having a 16 or better in their primary stats. In point buy, it's difficult to get better than a 16, and that 16 only buys you 50% effectiveness at your given shtick. 50% fail rate means death to a 1st level PC.
Since player survival at 1st level in my experience is far greater tha 50 percet, I suspect there might be a flaw with your math. Rituals are not useless, the cost of them however is that casters no longer have the option to play "God" with the battlefield and that noncasters don't become Dr.Who style companions when the game hits high levels. It also has made possible characters which were at best problematic in 3.x such as swordmages.
As far as flavor goes the flavor is there in the fluff text and in the variety of powers themselves.
Face_P0lluti0n |
Alas, Eberron is what I like and as such it pretty much determines the system I use - though ironically I have considered converting Eberron to FATE; to me the effort to convert to that setting would be fairly easy and the pay offs worth it.
Some days I think of just converting everything to FATE. The "Fantastic" part really is true. Legends of Anglerre makes me very happy.
I guess for some its a feature of 4e that such "combat-skipping" spells take more than a standard action - it gives the other players a chance to contribute to the encounter (e.g. defend the Wizard while he casts a ritual). Apparently the design goal of rituals was to always promotes Skills over Magic solutions (e.g. Knock and Detect Secret Doors making the Rogue redundent).
I will have to see how this plays out in my campaign.
The first time I heard about this sort of structure in 4E, I welcomed it, until I saw it having been taken too far. I like PFRPG's fixes to the spells that make skills obsolete, toning them down or limiting them such that it's good to have a spellcaster but better to have a Rogue. In addition, I just find that the noncombat "power lists", even factoring in rituals, are limited as compared to 3.5/PF's spell lists or Exalted's extensive social and utility charm choices.
In addition, I see very little difference between a lot of the classes within a power source. Rituals are based on broad skills - skills any character could pick up by just investing some feats into it. Out of combat, I see very little crunchy difference between a Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock - they all get the arcana skill, and so would all be casting the same Arcana rituals, with different fluff that the rules don't enforce. Same with classes that get the Religion or Nature skills, the two other major ritual categories.
Another issue is with the narrow nature of all of the base classes, an issue I have with late 3.5 as the "Complete" books all started to build up too many classes. I welcomed the emphasis on the core classes that PFRPG brought, because I feel that the core 11 are far more versatile than some of the gimmicky, one-trick-pony classes that came in late 3.5, and seem to be populating 4E.
I will also admit I'm in the Simulationist camp. I look at roleplaying systems and ask myself if that system could handle the simulated semi-reality any given weird campaign idea I throw at it. 3.5/PF could handle my all-intrigue, little-combat Eberron game, which from a gameplay perspective played out like a "Metal Gear Solid" type of game, with the PCs trying to find the best ways to make use of their skill and spell lists. The MVP of the PCs was an Assassin. Without the extensive spell, feat, and power lists of 3.5/PF, the labyrinthine puzzles of spell protections and the ingenious solutions my players came up with week after week would not have been possible.
I am sure I could come up with some food metaphors for what I dislike about 3.5, but why would I do so, if you like 3.5. We are both happy.
More converts to my way of doing things means more business for the publisher of my game of choice means more high-quality product for me to buy and more official support of the system.
In addition to the system issues, I also disagree incredibly strongly with WotC's policies and actions. Their (mis)treatment of PDF publishing, continual layoffs of D&D people, along with the constant errata that one would need an active subscription to D&D Insider (and a Windows PC in order to run Character Builder - not happening on my Ubuntu Linux PCs) in order to follow, lock me out even if I did have an interest in 4th edition as a system.
Tanis |
In addition to the system issues, I also disagree incredibly strongly with WotC's policies and actions. Their (mis)treatment of PDF publishing, continual layoffs of D&D people, along with the constant errata that one would need an active subscription to D&D Insider (and a Windows PC in order to run Character Builder - not happening on my Ubuntu Linux PCs) in order to follow, lock me out even if I did have an interest in 4th edition as a system.
Hear, Hear.